Women want to look up to a man. They do not want an equal or a playtime buddy. Feminists who claim otherwise are lying, not only to you and me, but, more importantly, to themselves.
In a recent post on the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, I discussed the inability of many modern men to become, well, men as a result of various sociological and economic factors and how the trend may provoke already-disturbed men to violence. One factor, among many, is the lackluster dating-scene that leaves too many men single, angry, and alone because the realistic nature of the dating world is communicated less and less often to young men today.
My arguments-against-feminism essay on the so-called Critiques of Feminism: Arguments Against Feminism Essay is a comprehensive take on the situation, so my point here is to emphasize that men need to understand what women actually want — which is different than what they say or even believe that they want. If you want to know what women in general — or even a specific woman — want, look at whom they choose to date (or with whom they choose to have sex), not what they say they want in a man. Women are more governed by their emotions than men, so the physical desires of their — well, you know — will usually overpower the logical thoughts of their brains, especially when they are younger and not thinking in the logical long-term.
The observation of a woman’s choices is revealing because women generally have more dating options than men. All girls, unless they are hideously ugly, are hit on at least several times a day. They can be selective. (To put it coarsely, a woman can get “laid” anytime she wants; a man has to work at it.) Men are limited to the women who have given a signal of reciprocal interest after the men have made the “first move.” Men are forced to be less selective — they must play the dating cards they are dealt, so to speak — unless they are models, millionaires, or someone with a good grasp of what is termed “Game.”
Now, take a look at the above picture of Ric Ocasek and Paulina Porizkova — it exemplifies what women truly want. He was a member of the 1980s band the Cars; she was a model who appeared in a music video of the band and later married him. Now, look at the body language — Porizkova, who is beautiful, is completely submissive to a man who, let’s be honest, is not. And she loves it (and adores him).
As Roissy notes in a different post:
Ric Ocasek is a super alpha. He has spread his seed far and wide, and enjoys the love of a beautiful woman. His fame, voice and catchy pop tunes whisked away his ugliness. No ugly woman with talent and fame can claim the same compensating appeal to men. Kathy Bates, a great actress with an ugly face and a fat body, once went on Letterman and lamented the trouble she had meeting men despite the advantages of her money and fame.
Next, look at this picture:
Look closely at the body language and facial expressions of the two couples in the foreground and background. Which woman likely loves her man more? The answer is obvious. Women, despite what feminist indoctrination would lead them to believe, subconsciously want to be submissive to a high-status male — they do not want men who are lapdogs and do things like rest their heads on a woman’s shoulder.
But this conclusion is not obvious to too many young men today who have been raised mainly by older women and the so-called greatest romantic-comedies and movies that lie stretching back to the 1980s. When men are raised by single women and female teachers as a result of both the “Divorce Generation” and the fear among men of working in education (when one false accusation of sexual impropriety can ruin their lives), they never learn what young women actually want. It comes down to a lack of good, male role-models.
Despite what films and older women may claim, young women — those at the peak of their dating market-value — generally ignore so-called nice guys who are polite, reserved, respectful, and overall “good friends.” John Cusack with a stereo outside of his ex-girlfriend’s window would actually get a restraining order rather than her affections. It is important to note the motivations of younger women because their actions — as those with the greatest amount of “currency” in the dating marketplace — demonstrate what women truly want when they have the greatest ability to obtain it. (See the principle of dating, women, and opportunity cost.)
Here is one story from Israel. I was hanging out with friends at a pub, and I made a bet with a friend on a Red Sox-Yankees game. I lost and was a little drunk, so when my friend took a photo to celebrate his victory (the Red Sox lost!), I flicked off the camera. When he tagged me in the photo on Facebook, I removed the tag because I was ashamed at my vulgar action. Later, a secular, twenty-something female acquaintance said, “Why did you remove the photo? You looked like a man for the first time.” (If I had known more Hebrew at the time, I would have questioned her on why she would have liked such an image and “man.” Still, I had already known the reason.)
Mothers in their thirties or forties teach their sons to be “nice guys” because that is what they now think is appealing — they have forgotten what younger girls actually find attractive. Moreover, those who are single mothers “forget” the types of personalities held by the attractive men with whom they slept in the first place. This is just one reason why sons need good, male role-models despite what the early-1990s sitcom “Murphy Brown” claimed (that being a single mother was “just another lifestyle choice”). Without men to teach boys how to be confident, upstanding men, the result will be either inner-city, ghetto, anti-female culture; a promiscuous “Guyland”; or a sea of men who wonder why they are stuck in the so-called “friend zone.”
The truth, for men, is that they should strive to be the men whom all girls want and whom all guys want to be. After all, listen to the screaming and yelling by young women that took place during Beatlemania (and which likely occurs now at concerts by Justin Bieber or whomever is popular today):
Why did these girls have such an insane reaction? Simple. They were sexually excited by the men who were the greatest so-called “alpha males” in the world. And there is little else more “alpha” then appearing on a spotlight-lit stage while being worshiped by countless women and respected by numerous men throughout the entire world. (The same principle is demonstrated, to a lesser extent, by the propensity of young women to want to date people like musicians.)
However, there are only so few musicians to go around. As I have observed among countless women in countless places in countless countries, girls will instead target bartenders who are wanted by other women at the bar; rich businessmen who flaunt their wealth; or confident “assholes” (pardon the language) who treat women like “crap” and thereby demonstrate their social superiority. (Though so-called angry men should understand that the definition of “nice guy” and “jerk” in the dating rules for men are more subtle than they think.)
It’s all about economics (at least in the beginning, when people decide who gets a “chance”). The entire dating-market is governed by one principle: men and women strive to obtain partners with as high a “market value” as possible. That is all. Full stop.
However, what is perceived as “valuable” is different for men and women. Men, for the most part, merely want a girl who is as physically attractive as possible. Women, like Porizkova above, want a guy with as much status as possible. And “status,” to women, is defined as being as high on the “totem pole” among males in the same peer-group as possible — or, in other words, the men whom all girls want and whom all guys want to be.
This is one reason why women want men who have “had” — or have the opportunity to “have” — myriad women while men want women with less sexual experience. Men who are successful with women are placed higher on the “totem pole” while no man wants a girl — at least for a long-term relationship — who has a history of being a “slut.” (See my post on promiscuous dating, hooking up, and female loyalty.)
It is also why those men who swat away the interest of girls paradoxically have more success — by not appearing “needy,” these men demonstrate their higher “value.” Moreover, since women are naturally more insecure than men, the guys who capitalize on that insecurity (by being coy, dismissive, or unresponsive) will benefit.
This attitude is exemplified in the Bible:
And to the woman He [God] said, “I will make most severe your pangs in childbearing; In pain shall you bear children. Your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3: 16) (emphasis added)
It does not matter whether one is Christian, Jewish, a follower of any other religion, or an atheist. The sacred texts of every religion often contain eternal truths about human nature — sometimes literal, sometimes metaphorical — that are also relevant in secular contexts. Even thousands of years ago, people recognized that women generally want to submit to men whom they view as superior. Fifty years of latter-wave feminism cannot change thousands of years of evolutionary psychology and societal indoctrination. It is the principle that women always want to “date up.”
In whatever context in which a man lives, the idea for men is the same: be as high on the “totem pole” among other men in one’s social circle as possible. If you are an Orthodox Jew studying in a Jerusalem yeshiva, learn more about the Torah than any other man. If you are a Boston musician, be a better musician than any other man among the competition. If you are a regular at a London pub, be more “dominant” in your personality at the bar than any other regular. Be confident, be authoritative over other men, and take no “crap” from either men or women. Imagine what it means to be a “man” — yes, in every stereotypical context — and be that. Do not chase women; make them come to you. If a woman says something to you that is patently absurd, do not yield and be polite to “make nice” — tell her that she is being a idiot.
Be the man whom all girls want and whom all guys want to be. How many young men today had a father, teacher, or authority figure tell them this advice?
At the risk of lessening my own authority, I will tell a short story about an ex-girlfriend of mine here in Israel. We had a fight — which, objectively speaking, was mainly her fault — and, in response, I called her and cried on the phone that I had felt so bad that I had made her feel so bad.
After my tears and anguished words, her immediate response was as simple as it was quick: “You sound horrible!” I had eliminated my authoritative status and become a sniveling, whiny man who had lacked confidence and assertiveness. Any sexual interest on her part had disappeared before I could finish the phone call. A few days later, she broke up with me. I should not have been surprised.
I had learned my lesson. It would have been far better to confront and tell her that she had been acting like a — well, the word is something I should not say on a professional blog. The principle is even more true here in Israel — where girls are generally tougher as a result of the political situation and hard society — but it is still relevant in the context of other, Western countries. Be a man. Always. Women will love you for it, even if their politically-correct sensibilities will not allow them to admit it. Look at the behavior of women, not their words.
Still, I do not like how Western, secular society operates. (I experimented with “Game” myself and found it distasteful.) But whether one assigns the reason to evolutionary psychology, God’s creation, or something else, the fact remains that this is how men and women generally behave in this societal context. One can hate the game, but the rules have always been set.
As such, my intention with these posts on dating and culture is simply to provide advice that will help men and women to form relationships, get married, and have children. After all, this is what will benefit any society through the decreasing of the number of old, bitter women and angry, single men like the shooter of Rep. Giffords.
Still, I need to add a caveat. The nature of marriage has alternated between the rational, logical needs of the mind and the irrational, emotional desires of the heart. Throughout history, every culture has prioritized one side at one time or another.
In that respect, the current dating culture of the modern, secular, Western world prioritizes the emotional over the logical. And that is the context in which I write these posts (even though I dislike and disagree with the premise and merely offer advice in that context).
As I wrote in a prior post on marriage quotes, marriage history, and marriage in India, there are two general approaches to finding a marriage partner:
- Head before heart: Running a household is akin to running a small business — every “manager” needs to be on the same page. Love and emotion cannot eliminate conflicts over concrete issues like money, children, religion, money, sex life, and jobs. The initial rush of emotion always dissipates over time and is (hopefully) replaced by a deeper, more-meaningful feeling anyway.
- Heart before head: No one wants to end up in a loveless, sexless marriage. Everyone wants the energetic connection to last forever. Two people can be compatible in every logical way, but sometimes the connection just never appears — imagine a marriage in which both people move to the “friend zone” at best. It is important that such a feeling is present before even considering marriage.
The secular West emphasizes the latter. People reduce the dating pool to those with whom they are emotionally and physically connected — and then they find one of them with whom it works rationally. And that is the context in which I offer my advice since most readers live in that paradigm.
However, after moving to Israel three years ago, I have seen the Orthodox Jewish dating-world in Jerusalem — in which people first eliminate the possibilities to those with whom it will work rationally in the long-term (say, religious similarities) and then see with whom there is an emotional and physical connection.
And I would posit that the paradigm works much better. It’s the principle termed “dating for marriage.” (Though one does not need to be a religious Jew to appreciate the principle.) But unless you are religious and/or dating explicitly for marriage, the principles herein are how Western society now operates. Unfortunately.
