Women full of blinders
January 21, 2014 § 88 Comments
I’ve been writing recently about the dangers of treating low-life sexual perverts as leaders of men. I’ve explained why modern men tend to think bad boys are cool, and I’ve proposed that women love bad boys because men love bad boys. This hypothesis either has or does not have merit as an objective explanation, and I laid it out this way in one of the comment threads:
Define “bad boy” = “men who make poor fathers”.
The conventional hypothesis (CH) is that women like “bad boys” because bad boys are more objectively masculine. This hypothesis, I suspect, gives the female lizard brain too much credit for objectivity. The female lizard brain is built to be shaped by male leadership, not to operate “on its own” outside of the context of male leadership. It also begs the question of what is “masculine” and fails to explain why women frequently go for the kind of bad boy Mark Richardson describes.
The Zippy hypothesis (ZH) is that men — who are not natural leaders simpliciter, but arrange themselves into hierarchies as both leaders and followers – determine the hierarchy. The female lizard brain keys in on this male hierarchy (the actual one, not the formal one, thus “cool” vs nerd-king) and is naturally attracted to the men that (other) men “love”, that is, submit to, admire, judge to be dominant and high value, think are “cool”, etc.
So women find themselves (unwittingly, really, since this is the lizard brain we are talking about) attracted to the men that other men love, fear, admire, etc. Women have some control over this just as men have some control over how they respond to a woman dressed like a slut; but at the visceral level there is an involuntariness to the way the flesh responds to temptation.
So the reason modern women find themselves (whether they like it or not) attracted to “bad boys” – defined, remember, as men who make poor fathers – is because modern men go for bad boys. And the reason modern men go for bad boys is because liberalism is pervasive, the hierarchy has been destroyed, the whole world is on fire with rebellion against nature and nature’s God, and the bad boy rebel has been elevated to the highest point in the de facto hierarchy – a hierarchy which is not allowed to exist but which persists despite its prohibition.
In a combox below Dalrock writes the following insight:
One of the problems with convincing women that cads/players are low value in an attempt to discourage her having sex with him is the woman’s ability to identify the cad/player prior to having sex with him. My wife encounters this when talking to young women; their definition of “player” is the beta guy who gives them the creeps by telling them how beautiful they are. I see this same pattern on Yahoo Answers. I strongly suspect this is related to the scientific research finding that ovulating women fool themselves into thinking cads would make great dads. Telling women cads are sexual losers plays right into their blind spot, because they already want to peg the sexual losers as the cads, freeing them to pursue “true love” with that really smooth and not at all caddish guy who makes her tingle.
This is certainly a problem when we are talking in general, abstract terms, because it applies to situations where the ‘filtering’ process is up to women. Women should make note of this inherent problem in their filters.
But when it comes to actual, specific cads that we know on-line or in person – men whose particular claim to ‘expertise’ is their notch-count of bar skanks – we either treat them with respect and deference qua cad, buying their books and giving them naming rights over masculinity (“Game”), or we state the truth plainly: that they are the bottom-feeding perverts of the sexual revolution, and men of good will owe them nothing.
This brings me to my final point, which is that a kind of stockholm syndrome seems prevalent among some men who came by the truth through reading online self-professed cads. That is all well and good, because God always brings forth good from the evil we do and experience. Some saints came by their sainthood through suffering terrible diseases.
But it is one thing to be grateful for one’s enlightenment however it came about, and it is another thing entirely to make a demi-god of syphilis.
 Here I do mean actually “begs the question,” not “raises the question”, which is what the phrase is frequently misused to mean.