The Game By Neil strauss

Vitaliorange · 06-12-2013 11:08PM

Candie wrote: »

Like almost everything, I expect the reasons for the crisis in masculine identity is multi-factorial. More men are being raised in female-headed single parent households which affects the role models available for men and boys, in two parent families the marriage is more partnership modelled than breadwinner/dependents, the concentration of male dominated work environments has remained roughly the same but with the industry focus changed (less construction but more programming etc), young men can't look to past generations on how to function within society because the make up of authority has changed to reflect a greater gender equality, and as such the old ways of bolstering male empowerment and confidence are defunct.

The single sex schools don't help, but they weren't quite the last straw in previous generations. These days some boys have no men at home, no contemporary females at school, and a large majority of men to look forward to working with. For a certain type of inadequate man, it's very easy to blame women for his lack of romantic success, or as obstacles to his professional success.

I knew an old man who reminisced about the times when being a man was just better than being any woman. We were talking about Indira Ghandi at the time.

I don't know what the answers are, but raising boys in a more gender equal world has got to deal with expectations versus abilities, as the old standards simply don't apply any more.

There were always a minority of men who were capable of seducing women at will and the rest were either ok or struggled badly.

To get good with women requires practice and ideally some good mentors to guide you who know what they are talking about.

Wibbs · 06-12-2013 11:09PM

I'd agree Candie. For me I think the lack of male role models in the form of dads is one issue(and a big one), but the lack of older men who aren't their dads as role models in their lives is maybe a bigger one. In nearly every society throughout history this has been a pretty constant thing for young men. Even the old style apprenticeship had much of this going on. Even stuff like joining the army/national service and the like was part of this. Today for many men they kinda grow themselves up and (yet again IMH) men are not as good at women at doing that. Yes you do get socially immature women, but not nearly to the degree you see in men. Women seem to be more adaptable/better, regardless of the female role model environment, though obviously it plays a part(eg women who give birth early are more likely to have daughters who do similar). For young men, in the absence of such extra male paternal role models they can often go two ways; look to slightly older peers that are seen as socially powerful and that leads to gang type behaviour, or back off, even opt out of social interaction altogether.

Karl Stein · 06-12-2013 11:11PM

1850 MANWHORE

Call me.

pharmaton · 06-12-2013 11:13PM

Candie wrote: »

Like almost everything, I expect the reasons for the crisis in masculine identity is multi-factorial. More men are being raised in female-headed single parent households which affects the role models available for men and boys, in two parent families the marriage is more partnership modelled than breadwinner/dependents, the concentration of male dominated work environments has remained roughly the same but with the industry focus changed (less construction but more programming etc), young men can't look to past generations on how to function within society because the make up of authority has changed to reflect a greater gender equality, and as such the old ways of bolstering male empowerment and confidence are defunct.

The single sex schools don't help, but they weren't quite the last straw in previous generations. These days some boys have no men at home, no contemporary females at school, and a large majority of men to look forward to working with. For a certain type of inadequate man, it's very easy to blame women for his lack of romantic success, or as obstacles to his professional success.

I knew an old man who reminisced about the times when being a man was just better than being any woman. We were talking about Indira Ghandi at the time.

I don't know what the answers are, but raising boys in a more gender equal world has got to deal with expectations versus abilities, as the old standards simply don't apply any more.

are you fcuking shítting me? No male role models?
The reason why some men are crap with women is because they have pretty much substituted real life interaction for virtual simulation. (and lots of free pron)

Femme_Fatale · 06-12-2013 11:14PM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

1850 MANWHORE

Call me.

You're in Cork aren't you? PM sent. :eek:

Karl Stein · 06-12-2013 11:16PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

You're in Cork aren't you? PM sent. :eek:

Lol, it's the big letters ain't it!? Gets the girlies all the time it do. :pac:

Vitaliorange · 06-12-2013 11:17PM

pharmaton wrote: »

are you fcuking shítting me? No male role models?
The reason why some men are crap with women is because they have pretty much substituted real life interaction for virtual simulation. (and lots of free pron)

Anxiety imo is the number one reason for men being crap with women. When you see a woman you want to approach and you are anxious of what she thinks divides your focus of attention.between the here and now and and worrying about what she thinks. The result of that is terrible vocal tonality, body language and a general lack of freedom of expression. These things repel women.

look how free of anxiety this guy is.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vuzOWmqGevw&feature=g-high-rec

Pug160 · 06-12-2013 11:18PM

Candie wrote: »

Like almost everything, I expect the reasons for the crisis in masculine identity is multi-factorial. More men are being raised in female-headed single parent households which affects the role models available for men and boys, in two parent families the marriage is more partnership modelled than breadwinner/dependents, the concentration of male dominated work environments has remained roughly the same but with the industry focus changed (less construction but more programming etc), young men can't look to past generations on how to function within society because the make up of authority has changed to reflect a greater gender equality, and as such the old ways of bolstering male empowerment and confidence are defunct.

The single sex schools don't help, but they weren't quite the last straw in previous generations. These days some boys have no men at home, no contemporary females at school, and a large majority of men to look forward to working with. For a certain type of inadequate man, it's very easy to blame women for his lack of romantic success, or as obstacles to his professional success.

I knew an old man who reminisced about the times when being a man was just better than being any woman. We were talking about Indira Ghandi at the time.

I don't know what the answers are, but raising boys in a more gender equal world has got to deal with expectations versus abilities, as the old standards simply don't apply any more.

I can see what you're trying to say but I don't really agree. Having two decent parents is probably the ideal scenario but it could be argued that bad fathers might be more detrimental. You can be brought up well and have a good childhood and you can be brought up badly. People focus far too much on labels. Your implication that equality has affected men seems to be agenda based because I can honestly see no proof that that is the main reason for the problems some males have. It's not a simple case of good guys do well and bad guys don't, it's much more complicated than that. Domestic violence is certainly not decreasing - in fact it may even be increasing. So this notion that we are becoming some sort of Darwinian society based on morals is deeply flawed. Certain types of chauvinists are having as much success as they've ever had.

As for blaming women, some do. But some blame their fathers, their childhood or even society.

pharmaton · 06-12-2013 11:21PM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Anxiety imo is the number one reason for men being crap with women. When you see a woman you want to approach and you are anxious of what she thinks divides your focus of attention.between the here and now and and worrying about what she thinks. The result of that is terrible vocal tonality, body language and a general lack of freedom of expression. These things repel women.

anxiety or lack of confidence? It's all about the confidence.

06-12-2013 11:22PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd agree Candie. For me I think the lack of male role models in the form of dads is one issue(and a big one), but the lack of older men who aren't their dads as role models in their lives is maybe a bigger one. In nearly every society throughout history this has been a pretty constant thing for young men. Even the old style apprenticeship had much of this going on. Even stuff like joining the army/national service and the like was part of this. Today for many men they kinda grow themselves up and (yet again IMH) men are not as good at women at doing that. Yes you do get socially immature women, but not nearly to the degree you see in men. Women seem to be more adaptable/better, regardless of the female role model environment, though obviously it plays a part(eg women who give birth early are more likely to have daughters who do similar). For young men, in the absence of such extra male paternal role models they can often go two ways; look to slightly older peers that are seen as socially powerful and that leads to gang type behaviour, or back off, even opt out of social interaction altogether.

It's also easier for a socially awkward woman to fly under the radar, and doubly so if she's pretty.

A shy, introverted woman is still going to be approached by men, and is more likely to have her faults overlooked provided she's not completely inept. A pretty girl can be as interesting as a brussels sprout, or as bitchy as a wasp, and there will be men willing to forgive it, but as women generally value social skills above looks, a man won't get past that barrier.

Sadly the likelihood of non related role models declines in inverse proportion to the perceived threat of paedophilia, something the church has much to answer for. For every one priest or scout leader or swim coach accused of inappropriate behaviour, there are dozens or more would-be youth workers who are put off any contact with young people for fear of being tarred with the same brush.

The media is much to blame for that particular moral panic.

Shout Dust · 06-12-2013 11:22PM

Just remember, this is Strauss and his crew
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h129/puapics/mystery03.jpg

06-12-2013 11:23PM

pharmaton wrote: »

are you fcuking shítting me? No male role models?
The reason why some men are crap with women is because they have pretty much substituted real life interaction for virtual simulation. (and lots of free pron)

Which hardly offers them a model of male behaviour.

Wibbs · 06-12-2013 11:27PM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

There were always a minority of men who were capable of seducing women at will and the rest were either ok or struggled badly.

Actually this can be seen in genetics. Modern human populations show that in the past it was a minority of men who left their genetic heritage down to today, whereas with women it was much less focused. And this goes deep, like tens of thousands of years deep. It seems that yes there were some males that were selected as winners and many males who were left out of the longterm genetic heritage.

This changed somewhat in modern times, or at least a few generations ago. In say the 1930's because men were more "in charge", an average man could grow up and expect that one day he would find a woman to marry, even if he was of (objectively speaking) "lesser stock", because as Candie points out it was better to be a man than any woman(at least in the cultural mind). Today those certainties are gone, along with jobs for life and marriages till death do us part with divorce and all that*. And men are less emotionally adaptable than women to such changes. So in one way, at least to some degree, we're more akin to those deep historical mechanisms where a smaller amount of men have the more access to women. Obviously as a very general thing.

*TBH if I was say an American man, I'd be incredibly wary of marriage and kids because of how the divorce vibe tends to work out. Too many men lose access to their kids and money and life after a "no fault" divorce in the US. The stats reflect this too. While we can often hear that divorce is hard on women, the fact is divorced men in the US have far higher bankruptcy rates and a threefold increase in suicide compared to married men(and single men fare better again), whereas for divorced women the suicide rate goes down or stays the same. Plus the vast majority of such divorces are filed by the women. If you're a rich man in such a society it's a no brainer. Like yachts or private planes it's better if you rent and don't buy, otherwise you're in for a big loss unless you have a cast iron prenup.

Not just in the US. I'm old enough to have seen male mates of mine be really buggered up by divorce proceedings. With a few notable and welcome exceptions among women I've known(Irish women IME are far less prickish in this respect), the man usually got his arse handed to him on a plate.

pharmaton · 06-12-2013 11:27PM

Candie wrote: »

Which hardly offers them a model of male behaviour.

I despair, I do. Fortunately I know a few kids who come from one parent families and they are the opposite of the picture you paint, in fact they tend to be more considerate and even gentlemanly when it comes to their gf's. They are more inclined to take on the male role that they never had as they don't want to be 'those' kind of men. They are a much better generation than their fathers and certainly not bereft of female attention because of it.

06-12-2013 11:30PM

pharmaton wrote: »

I despair, I do. Fortunately I know a few kids who come from one parent families and they are the opposite of the picture you paint, in fact they tend to be more considerate and even gentlemanly when it comes to their gf's. They are more inclined to take on the male role that they never had as they don't want to be 'those' kind of men.

Don't despair

I agree, the majority are fine as fine can be, and often exceed their peers in their interactions with the opposite gender because of a greater empathy engendered by greater exposure.

What I'm talking about above are the outliers, the minority who are more greatly affected by certain variables.

06-12-2013 11:35PM

Pug160 wrote: »

I can see what you're trying to say but I don't really agree. Having two decent parents is probably the ideal scenario but it could be argued that bad fathers might be more detrimental. You can be brought up well and have a good childhood and you can be brought up badly. People focus far too much on labels. Your implication that equality has affected men seems to be agenda based because I can honestly see no proof that that is the main reason for the problems some males have. It's not a simple case of good guys do well and bad guys don't, it's much more complicated than that. Domestic violence is certainly not decreasing - in fact it may even be increasing. So this notion that we are becoming some sort of Darwinian society based on morals is deeply flawed. Certain types of chauvinists are having as much success as they've ever had.

As for blaming women, some do. But some blame their fathers, their childhood or even society.

I have absolutely no idea how you came to most of your conclusions there, but I can assure you that the observation that male roles are changing and that it's hard for society to catch up when it comes to raising boys is not agenda based.

As for your Darwinian comment, I've no idea where you got the idea that was what I was saying.

pharmaton · 06-12-2013 11:39PM

Candie wrote: »

Don't despair

I agree, the majority are fine as fine can be, and often exceed their peers in their interactions with the opposite gender because of a greater empathy engendered by greater exposure.

What I'm talking about above are the outliers, the minority who are more greatly affected by certain variables.

In your 'multifactoral' reasons, you failed to highlight the issues contemporary men face having spent years confiding in the warmth of the internet. The social ramifications of having 24/7 access to all kinds of porn and the expectations and conditions it places on potential relationships. (and how they view women)
I think this is much greater factor than the lack of male role models as a by product of one parent families.

(I personally think one parent families are doing society a bit of a favour by realigning malignant gender perceptions that have perpetuated in Irish society for generations and are, thanks to the end of catholic reign, now obsolete.)

06-12-2013 11:42PM

pharmaton wrote: »

In your 'multifactoral' reasons, you failed to highlight the issues contemporary men face having spent years confiding in the warmth of the internet. The social ramifications of having 24/7 access to all kinds of porn and the expectations and conditions it places on potential relationships.
I think this is much greater factor than the lack of male role models as a by product of one parent families.

(I personally think one parent families are doing society a bit of a favour by realigning malignant gender perceptions that have perpetuated in Irish society for generations and are, thanks to the end of catholic reign, now obsolete.)

I think by the time they're confiding in the internet, they've already experienced some alienation to have sought that refuge.

I would hate anyone to think that I thought one parent families were doing a bad job; that's patently not the case, nor did I imply it was.

Pug160 · 06-12-2013 11:48PM

Candie wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea how you came to most of your conclusions there, but I can assure you that the observation that male roles are changing and that it's hard for society to catch up when it comes to raising boys is not agenda based.

As for your Darwinian comment, I've no idea where you got the idea that was what I was saying.

I'll reread it to make sure, but it sounded to me like you were implying that some men are struggling because of greater equality and that their loss of power has contributed to it (the struggle). It just sounded to me like something certain types of feminists say. This whole male entitlement rhetoric and the ''crybaby'' males. I do agree with your other post and some of the other things you have written.

Wibbs · 06-12-2013 11:50PM

Pug160 wrote: »

I can see what you're trying to say but I don't really agree. Having two decent parents is probably the ideal scenario but it could be argued that bad fathers might be more detrimental.

Oh most certainly, but again(jesus that's getting old

:)) IMHO a bad father can often be a better bet for a son(s) than an absent one.

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Anxiety imo is the number one reason for men being crap with women. When you see a woman you want to approach and you are anxious of what she thinks divides your focus of attention.between the here and now and and worrying about what she thinks. The result of that is terrible vocal tonality, body language and a general lack of freedom of expression. These things repel women.

Indeed, but why the anxiety? Where does that come from and why does it seem to be getting more prevalent? That's the nub of it. Growing up I knew guys like that, but I have to say knowing a few guys in their 20s I saw a lot less of it. Things seem to have gotten more black and white these days.

I got lucky in that way(and it was pure dumb luck TBH), yes I'd get the Fear(tm) in some encounters where I fancied someone in a big way, but in the back of my mind was usually the thought of "well so what if I screw up?" Plus I'll talk to the wall and like an audience so that helped. Fairly early on I also realised that women aren't rare. They're 50% of the people around. Even good looking isn't particularly rare. Put it another way the woman you are focused on and have the hots for is rarely, very rarely the best looking women in the pub/club/situation. And that's just going on looks. What else has she got? If it's just looks and eff all else then that shít gets old real quick. The "average" looking woman with brains and a personality is far more attractive than the "babe" with an echo between her ears, unless it's for a one night thing(and even then).

Candie wrote: »

It's also easier for a socially awkward woman to fly under the radar, and doubly so if she's pretty.

A shy, introverted woman is still going to be approached by men, and is more likely to have her faults overlooked provided she's not completely inept. A pretty girl can be as interesting as a brussels sprout, or as bitchy as a wasp, and there will be men willing to forgive it, but as women generally value social skills above looks, a man won't get past that barrier.

Very much so C. The dating/mating game is much more a sellers market as a general thing. Your very average woman is going to have way more men coming up to her than even an above average man will experience. And unless you're some rock star at his peak, few men will have the experience of such as a fairly pretty 20 year old woman in her local bar.

Sadly the likelihood of non related role models declines in inverse proportion to the perceived threat of paedophilia, something the church has much to answer for. For every one priest or scout leader or swim coach accused of inappropriate behaviour, there are dozens or more would-be youth workers who are put off any contact with young people for fear of being tarred with the same brush.

+1

The media is much to blame for that particular moral panic.

+1000.

Shout Dust wrote: »

Just remember, this is Strauss and his crew
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h129/puapics/mystery03.jpg

Yea, but you have to look at the American culture that gives rise to this. It's very much a sink or swim dealio. Especially for women who want a family. For example it's one of only 8 nations on earth that has no legally defined maternity leave. In such a society women have to be a lot more careful on who they decide to get off with. The average guy may not be enough to ensure some sort of safety net. The peacock, the outlier showing off how powerful he is makes one helluva attractive option so looking like a gobshíte may trigger such attraction. In Europe where we have far more of a social and financial safety net, that kinda thing would be laughed at. IMH one good reason for social protection in a society. In a free for all society more twats make the grade.

pharmaton · 06-12-2013 11:50PM

Candie wrote: »

I think by the time they're confiding in the internet, they've already experienced some alienation to have sought that refuge.

I would hate anyone to think that I thought one parent families were doing a bad job; that's patently not the case, nor did I imply it was.

I disagree, access to everything is available as soon as they have access to smartfones, which is as soon as they're old enough. Women are objects to them (this is what PUA teaches), nothing more and the difficulty communicating with them stems from the fact that they are unable to recognise the most basic fundamental human on the other end of their noses.

06-12-2013 11:51PM

Pug160 wrote: »

I'll reread it to make sure, but it sounded to me like you were implying that some men are struggling because of greater equality and that their loss of power has contributed to it (the struggle). It just sounded to me like something certain types of feminists say. This whole male entitlement rhetoric and the ''crybaby'' males. I do agree with your other post and some of the other things you have written.

Recognising how the goalposts have changed for men over the last decades, and the difficulties in adapting to changing roles, doesn't equate to disparaging them as crybabies.

Seriously, it's ridiculous to be accused of putting men down, even when you try to recognise the problems men and boys face growing up.

06-12-2013 11:52PM

pharmaton wrote: »

I disagree, access to everything is available as soon as they have access to smartfones, which is as soon as they're old enough. Women are objects to them (this is what PUA teaches), nothing more and the difficulty communicating with them stems from the fact that they are unable to recognise the most basic fundamental human on the other end of their noses.

You should read my first post on this thread.

pharmaton · 06-12-2013 11:54PM

Candie wrote: »

You should read my first post on this thread.

I read your first post and I agree with it. I don't however submit to your pseudo psychological theory which suggests the problem stems from one parent families. Because that's plainly uneducated horseshít.

Vitaliorange · 06-12-2013 11:57PM

pharmaton wrote: »

I disagree, access to everything is available as soon as they have access to smartfones, which is as soon as they're old enough. Women are objects to them (this is what PUA teaches), nothing more and the difficulty communicating with them stems from the fact that they are unable to recognise the most basic fundamental human on the other end of their noses.

Can you quote who teaches that women are "objects"?

It seems to be a huge generalisation about an entire industry.

pharmaton · 06-12-2013 11:58PM

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Can you quote who teaches that women are "objects"?

It seems to be a huge generalisation about an entire industry.

The clue is in the name. "A woman is not an object to be 'picked up'" - Einstein.

06-12-2013 11:59PM

pharmaton wrote: »

I read your first post and I agree with it. I don't however submit to your pseudo psychological theory which suggests the problem stems from one parent families. Because that's plainly uneducated horseshít.

You're entitled to disagree with me, but I have no idea why you feel the need to be aggressive or insulting. And you're confusing sociological with psychological.

I've engaged with you politely so far, but I'm not responding to you again.

pharmaton · 07-12-2013 12:04AM

Candie wrote: »

You're entitled to disagree with me, but I have no idea why you feel the need to be aggressive or insulting. And you're confusing sociological with psychological.

I've engaged with you politely so far, but I'm not responding to you again.

This is true, I doubt you're theories qualify as any kind of science. (oh hey I studied sociology too)
You're welcome to your opinion, just here to remind you that's all it is.

Wibbs · 07-12-2013 12:05AM

pharmaton wrote: »

I read your first post and I agree with it. I don't however submit to your pseudo psychological theory which suggests the problem stems from one parent families. Because that's plainly uneducated horseshít.

Actually it's not. Sons of single mothers are more likely to show up on societal radar in a bad way than sons of dual parentage families*. This is NOT a given. I can think of more than a few single mums who through their own force of will and general awesomeness have made bloody brilliant children into brilliant adults, but overall there does seem to be a bias, especially with sons(and daughters who are more likely to be single mums themselves).

*interestingly sons of widowed mothers often do better than the average. They mature earlier and their number is counted among quite a few high achievers. Some have even suggested that the best thing a father can do for his sons future success is to die when the sons are about 10-12.

pharmaton · 07-12-2013 12:07AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually it's not. Sons of single mothers are more likely to show up on societal radar in a bad way than sons of dual parentage families*. This is NOT a given. I can think of more than a few single mums who through their own force of will and general awesomeness have made bloody brilliant children into brilliant adults, but overall there does seem to be a bias, especially with sons(and daughters who are more likely to be single mums themselves).

*interestingly sons of widowed mothers often do better than the average. They mature earlier and their number is counted among quite a few high achievers. Some have even suggested that the best thing a father can do for his sons future success is to die when the sons are about 10-12.

you know the rules, stats Wibbs.
I personally know three men from one parent families, all of whom are in LTR and all under the age of 25. All have college education and all are working. (one is self employed in the IT industry and has four others working for him to boot)

(I don't have a son just in case you think I'm being biased)

The Game By Neil strauss

Comments