Vox Day — a self-described Christian-libertarian blogger and WorldNetDaily columnist whose best writings like the return of the Great Depression are on economics — has founded an interesting blog with various contributors, Alpha Game, that purports to give men advice on dating successfully from the s0-called “Game” point of view in online dating-services, online-dating websites, and friend-finder dating.
In a recent post, he responds to a commenter who takes issue with his characterization of women as rarely knowing what they want and whose verbal statements should never be taken at face-value:
What could possibly be astonishing about treating women as if they have no clue what they want when they observably do not? Remember, we’re not talking about momentary desires here, but rather dreams, those life objectives that fundamentally reflect the deepest and most sincere aspects of the individual’s personality. If a grown man tells me that his dream is to be a NFL quarterback, I correctly conclude that he is deluded because it’s not possible for someone to start playing football post-college at such a high level. If a young man tells me that his dream is to be a nuclear physicist and a marine biologist, I correctly conclude that he doesn’t know what he wants because the two objectives are mutually exclusive. And if a man says he dreams of becoming a rock star but can’t sing and doesn’t bother learning to play an instrument, I correctly conclude he is not serious about it.
So, why would one reach conclusions that are any different when one hears women express dreams that are either a) impossible, b) mutually exclusive, or c) totally at variance with their present course of action? [The commenter] says that the female need to be a mother is in every woman’s DNA. I think she is correct, so what is a man to conclude when literally every woman his age tells him that she does not want to have children? He can either take them all at their word, which is what [she] is implying, or he can do as I advise and ignore what they say they want.
Women & Communication
As I have written in a prior post on whether game-dating can help men to pick-up girls, I understand the philosophy of “Game” but find it distasteful. While the underlying theory is accurate as far as understanding the nature of women and female attraction based on biology, sociology, and evolutionary psychology, the practitioners of “Game” use that knowledge to reach an immoral end — sleeping around and (usually) avoiding marriage for as long as possible. (Besides, the more that the strategy is popularized, the less effective it will become when women “wise up” to its tactics.)
Regardless, Day makes an interesting point regarding how women use language. Israeli cable-television here shows reruns of the NBC comedy “Scrubs,” and an episode I watched a few days ago epitomizes the point. J.D., a doctor at the fictional hospital, is good friends with Carla, a nurse there. One day, he overrules her on a medical procedure in a condescending manner. Later, J.D. apologizes, and Carla “accepts.” Later in the episode, she still harbors a grudge:
J.D.: But you just accepted my apology. You can’t take it back!
Carla: Have you ever spent time with a woman?
I remember the old line in stand-up comedy that my college friends and I used to quote: “it’s funny because it’s true.” In short, women are far more likely not to mean what they say. To put it more bluntly, women are often more likely to lie (under the literal definition) — if not to others, then at least to themselves (and usually without realizing that they are doing so). Now, before I receive the usual bombastic comments and e-mails, remember this line:
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they’ll kill you. — Oscar Wilde
(As a former journalist, I do not write humor — try to keep the death-threats at bay.) That quote is exactly why stand-up comedians can make the same comments about the genders as pundits, but the former receive laughter while the latter get condemnations. How many comedians devote entire routines to the tired bits of “Women are crazy!” or “Men are stupid!” and get roaring applause? But if political writers take the same premises and incorporate them into an analysis of a public-policy or cultural issue, then they are either women-haters or men-haters (respectively). Well, I will try to discuss this issue rationally.
In the example above from “Scrubs,” the nurse Carla had stated that she accepted J.D.‘s apology, but she had communicated — at least as she knows how — that she actually had not. Here’s the difference.
Article Pages: 1 2