Counter-Currents
1,480 words
One of the main tenets of pick-up artistry (PUA) is that women are attracted to psychopathic traits and that men should therefore cultivate such traits in order to attract women. There is a kernel of truth to this claim. However, White Nationalist men looking for the future mother of their children should note that mindlessly emulating psychopaths is not an advisable strategy. High-quality white women do not find anti-social behavior appealing.
One of the most useful ways of classifying people is according to life history theory: the “live fast, die young” lifestyle characteristic of r-selected organisms versus the slow maturation, greater impulse control, and higher parental investment characteristic of K-selected organisms. Psychopaths fall squarely into the former category. They opt for short-term pleasures over delayed gratification and are more interested in having as much sex as possible than having families.
Overt displays of psychopathy convey dominance, which is attractive to women, but they also communicate to prospective mates that you have a fast life history strategy. Sociosexual women who are solely attracted to dominance will be indifferent to this, but most women, who are more K-selected on average (this is particularly true of high-quality white women), want to see that you also possess traits suited to fatherhood. These include mastery/competence, dependability, and empathy, the latter two of which are at odds with psychopathy.
In The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller makes the argument that moral virtues are attractive to both sexes and were sexually selected for. This is a far cry from the social Darwinist worldview prevalent in the manosphere, and far more convincing. There are two main reasons why virtues were selected for: First, self-sacrificial behavior toward genetic kin is worthwhile if the benefits to one’s kin exceed the costs to one’s own fitness, and second, virtues such as altruism and heroism are costly, hard-to-fake signals of status and competence. The fact that men tip better than women and donate more to charity is consistent with the hypothesis that generosity in men was selected for. Being stingy and self-centered will alienate most women.
Another factor is that women evolved to prefer men who aren’t going to kill them. Women value kindness in long-term mates. David Buss, also an evolutionary psychologist, noted in a large cross-cultural study on mate preferences that women place a high value on whether a man is “kind and understanding,” as this signals commitment to her and her offspring.
Miller’s thesis is particularly applicable to Europe, where there was a greater necessity for cooperation. Europeans have a lower incidence of psychopathy than Africans, Amerindians, and Middle Easterners, as James Dunphy pointed out in a recent article. The harsh northern climes in which white people evolved selected for pro-social traits, delayed gratification, and monogamy, all of which are positively correlated with a slow life history strategy and negatively correlated with psychopathy. Psychopathy can be regarded as an adaptation to low-trust, unstable environments. It is unsurprising that the PUA scene and the manosphere in general are unusually racially diverse compared to other dissident subcultures.
The fact that moral virtues were selected for does not contradict the finding that women are attracted to certain manifestations of psychopathy. According to one study, women are specifically attracted to the charisma and emotional detachment exhibited by many psychopaths; importantly, they are not attracted to criminality, impulsivity, anger, and anti-social behavior. Being suave and cocky is attractive because it signals high status and does not preclude the possibility that a man will be a good husband and father, while being anti-social and violent does. This is a crucial distinction that most men in the manosphere overlook.
You can buy Tito Perdue’s novel Cynosura here.
This article is not a blanket condemnation of “game,” which can be useful and incorporates important truths about female psychology. Projecting independence, confidence, and charisma, and being adept at banter are important regardless of the woman one is approaching. Rather, the point of this article is to caution men against indiscriminately modeling themselves after psychopaths if their aim is to seduce and marry a high-quality white woman (which should be one’s ultimate goal as a White Nationalist).
If you engage in anti-social, r-selected behaviors, you will attract unhealthy women who will be more likely to be promiscuous, mentally unstable, impulsive, and even psychopathic themselves (psychopaths are disproportionately attracted to other psychopaths). These women might be good material for a casual fling, but you wouldn’t want to be stuck with one. The fact that PUAs and manosphere types are likely to attract women of the “crazy ex-girlfriend” persuasion could explain why their views of women are overwhelmingly negative.
The myth that all white women are secretly attracted to non-white thugs, and that this is why they are inclined to support BLM and open borders, is prevalent in certain pockets of the Alt Right. This is only true of highly sociosexual women. For K-selected women, genetic similarity in mates is important because it leads to less discord in long-term relationships. I have not seen data on this, but I would predict that people who have interracial relationships (excluding dorky white men who have no other options these days) are more sociosexual and likelier to have a fast life history strategy on average.
A PUA might retort that women are still attracted to macho non-white thugs in short-term relational contexts and callously regard genetically similar long-term mates as mere fodder for “beta bucks.” However, women’s preferences for short-term mates are actually very similar to their preferences for long-term mates, which is a big hit to the dual-mating hypothesis propounded by the manosphere (h/t @datepsych). In general, women see short-term relationships as stepping-stones to long-term ones, or as a way of cultivating a “back-up” mate should their husband die. On average, women are oriented toward long-term relationships and are much less interested in casual sexual encounters than men, contra the “cock carousel” trope (which almost comes across as the fantasy of someone with a cuckold fetish). The dual-mating hypothesis is only “potentially applicable to a small subset of women.” In other words, the manosphere believes the sociosexual subset of the female population represents women as a whole, probably because these are the only women with whom they interact.
One common characteristic of both PUAs and psychopaths is their tendency to engage in ostentatious displays of wealth, much like rappers’ obsession with “bling.” Andrew Tate, for example, brags about his lavish lifestyle and his collection of luxury cars. Since women are attracted to wealth, PUAs reason that one should aggressively signal one’s “alpha male” status with luxury items. Indeed, wealth and status are attractive to women. However, making impulsive purchases and displaying a reckless attitude toward one’s finances is an r-selected behavior that will alienate most high-quality women, who want a man who is reliable and will expend his resources wisely. People high in self-control (i.e., intelligent, high-quality women) want mates who are also high in self-control.
Relatedly, the popular explanation for the ostentation of the “nouveau riche” versus the modesty of “old money” is that the latter behavior is a form of counter-signaling, which is not wrong per se, but I propose that life history theory provides a more comprehensive framework for understanding this divide. Contra the Left, families who prosper for centuries (excluding members of hereditary aristocracies) do so not because of “white privilege,” but primarily because they are predisposed toward unglamorous K-selected “beta male” behaviors like working hard, saving, and delaying gratification. (Will the great-great-great-grandchildren of famous rappers also be wealthy? Probably not.) Modesty is a by-product of these behaviors and functions as a way of signaling one’s reproductive strategy to potential mates.
In a recent video, Edward Dutton identifies Tate as a symptom of declining IQ and social trust. He likens him to the feudal warlords of sixteenth-century England, who commanded bands of loyal followers and employed Machiavellian tactics in their quest to gain power amid a climate characterized by instability and intrigue. (Dutton has written about this in his biography of his ancestor Piers Dutton.) Dutton predicts that as civilization continues to decline, more PUA gurus will emerge.
The most fundamental difference between White Nationalists and PUAs is that the former think hundreds of years ahead and want to create dynasties and institutions that will last for generations, while PUAs are products of a decaying society and want to exploit the rot of modernity for their own short-term gain. PUAs extol “patriarchy,” but the mating strategies they promote are inimical to the establishment of patriarchal family structures and contribute to the phenomenon of single motherhood. Their advice is geared toward fast life history strategists pursuing serial dalliances as opposed to men looking to form and maintain long-term relationships. If one is looking to start a family, one must adopt a modified strategy that involves signaling prosocial traits, stability, and self-control.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
54 comments
I used to believe all this manosphere nonsense myself. Some of the machinations are original, but most of it has turned out to be cringeworthy garbage. The problem with so many WN or ‘traditionalist’ critiques of the manosphere is the illusion of choice for men. We do not have a choice if a woman is into us. We have to take every opportunity. There are legions of young men, especially in the Alt-Right, who have never had any romance whatsoever and have no chance of it at this point, and the next quadrant has a paltry amount. Any discussion of ‘morality’ is a nonstarter because all that matters is passing on your genes like a baton to the next generation. Clearing the cultural hurdles of today to endure our descendants are alive tomorrow. It is women who choose. It has been like this for a century and it is getting worse as traditionalist inertia slows down. Birthrates are the greatest bellwether. All of this talk about premarital this or single-mom that are irrelevant when it comes down to it. The only thing that matters is procreation.
“The problem with so many WN or ‘traditionalist’ critiques of the manosphere is the illusion of choice for men. We do not have a choice if a woman is into us. We have to take every opportunity.”
Yup. In their blind stridency, they somehow found a way to take a problem (lack of access to women) and make it far worse. What was that old saying about how beggars can’t be choosers?
Both of these comments misrepresent my position. I am not encouraging men to set the bar absurdly high. If anything, following my advice will broaden their options instead of confining them to women who are unusually sociosexual. And finding a moderately bright woman who would be a decent mother is well within the capabilities of the average CC reader.
A young fool becomes an old fool
Alex Graham, would you please elaborate on what you think is a high-quality white woman?
If you read beyond the first paragraph, it is abundantly clear.
I did read the whole article which is why I asked for some elaboration on the description. Even though there is all manner of reference to women in general below are the only two references to ‘high-quality white women’.
High-quality white women do not find anti-social behavior appealing.
(this is particularly true of high-quality white women), want to see that you also possess traits suited to fatherhood. These include mastery/competence, dependability, and empathy
Is chief Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife Virginia a high-quality white woman?
Is dokter Jill Biden a high-quality white woman and is Melania Trump one?
Don’t overthink it. It’s just a synonym for “wife material.”
Good article. The PUA view of women is mostly cartoonish. An important thing to remember is women are not driven by sex, they are driven by relationships. Men are the opposite.
However, I think the r/K theory is overexaggerated by dissidents, same with the psychopathy theories that James Dunphy goes into. This stuff doesn’t really help White men who are struggling with dating. It often gets used as self-justification for some guys to just give up.
Ok, agree with all the article, but…..where are those “high quality white women”?
I think that the author 1) has more than 40, or even 50 years old, and 2) don’t have any real experience with white women below 38 years old. 99% of white women below 38 years old are simply too rotten to be saved. Their minds are simply beyond redemption.
Refute me, if you can.
Saying that 99% of white women are rotten and cannot be saved is tantamount to saying that the white race is slated for destruction. Not exactly morale-boosting, and it’s not true either.
I’m in my 20s and know several good white women. A lot of them don’t put themselves out there; you have to go out and look for them. I’ve met several in pro-life groups. Also, if a liberal woman likes you, she’ll be open to changing her opinions.
As a guy involved in the WN scene (for a long while), though being considered an outsider by many, I can unequivocally state that the White Race is FUBAR. As much as I want the WR to succeed, y’all are grasping at straws. It’s been over for nearly a century and any belief otherwise is wishful thinking. Currently, we’re just witnessing the result of its death.
Shut up
Greater Aryan insight has never been stated.
All women want alpha traits. All that matters is the degree of alpha they want. I promise that no woman wants to ‘settle’ for a dude who doesn’t get her wet and with whom sex is a chore just because he’s good father material. If you want a partnership that lasts, you had better be the dude whom she want’s to f**k and whom she’ll leave everything behind for first. Being Daddy can come later and quite honestly, in today’s world, women don’t really need a faithful, boring beta to rear their children or pay their bills. They can all have careers or social programs to meet their needs. And getting knocked up is no chore. Be the dude she wants to f**k or be left out of the gene pool.
Even if this is the state of play in the dating game in 2023, which I somewhat doubt, as long as you are working for the long-term survival of your own ethnos then you are not really being left out of the gene pool, however difficult it may be to live without a romantic partner.
At the end of the day you need actionable advice to meet women. If you don’t know the first thing about women then PUA is a good place to start.
PUA is a marketing technique. A company needs some marketing to attract customers. A good company also needs a good product. The problem with PUAs is that they focused on marketing a poor product. The best strategy is to spend most of your time on product development (looks, money, friends) and some time on marketing. But you can’t neglect the marketing. You need to know how to start conversations with women and how to act on a date. PUAs had good advice on that stuff and it’s a shame that you can’t find PUA material anymore.
And like any technique you can decide how to use it. You can use PUA to find your future wife. You can’t meet your future wife and start your traditional family if you don’t even know how to approach a woman and ask for her number.
Never denied any of that. Read the article
” PUAs had good advice on that stuff and it’s a shame that you can’t find PUA material anymore.”
Why not? Was it banned and removed from the internet?
They say ‘nazis’ are evil misogynists. Well it’s actually these ‘evil nazis’ who freed me from misogyny. Especially Herms Niel.
I have to work hard to meet the women that I like, and I have to say that while I understand your points, I did not find useful advice for me in this article. I do not view myself as fringe, I think that the majority of men are in my situation (more than 50%).
Please take this as a constructive feedback. I think that there is a huge potential here to help men looking to start a family with useful advice, but “just signal stability” or “just don’t be violent” is not enough.
I think that your concern that men might look up to PUA’s is not really justified, because those who do this are usually at the opposite end of psychopathy: they are so stable and non-violent that they are boring the crap out of anyone.
I also have to point out that the papers you refer to look very professional, but I checked and they are based on questionnaires. And I can tell you that much that what women actually want may differ significantly than what women say they want.
Thanks for the comment. My observation has also been that most men who look up to PUAs are far from psychopathic. That’s part of the problem, though, because they could be misled into sending the wrong signals to women who would otherwise like them.
“The myth that all white women are secretly attracted to non-white thugs, and that this is why they are inclined to support BLM and open borders”
Who suggested that ?
There is nothing inherently wrong with a testing ground for males to attempt to woo women. Win some. Lose some. I don’t see some moral catastrophe here. But like anything it has its limits.
Later there’s a time when people tend to grow up and think about settling down and getting more serious about who they are. There’s a self-correcting effect.
But we have to also be clear and say, even marriages that produce white children don’t always end well. You’ve reproduced which is good, but there’s isn’t a stable family environment anymore.
We are built with an idea of perfect romance and relationships and so on, but it’s sadly not always how things work out.
I notice the terms ‘psychopath’ and ‘psychopathic traits’ that have been used in a number of articles here… I understand the point being made, but I find them rather conspicuous in their use.
Outside of obvious stuff like race and serious antisocial behavior defects it feels like an attempt to map the world out, to label the ‘good’ bits and ‘bad’ bits, make it safe for oneself and others, perhaps give one’s own state and choices a pat on the back by reaching for studies and data and saying ‘look at this’ therefore…
It reads to me like these terms are being somewhat overused, or even subtly misused to construct something that favors the person wielding theme.
Seeking to apply character trait studies to one’s own life seems an odd pursuit especially as a generalized rule, and again outside of gross obvious stuff which doesn’t require a study, a recipe for spectacular silly failure as the rubber hits the road.
Also you can’t control for everything people are attracted to.
I’m all for people making personal choices about who they spend time with based on their instincts and prior experiences, and there are some real issues with a lot of white people today, I see it all the time and it concerns me a lot.
But there is a certain amount of risk we take when we get involved with someone else. Some of that risk we have to just accept. Trying to overly insulate oneself from this risk seems to be part of the problem and is unlikely to yield much of benefit.
As a woman up in age, who made most of the mistakes listed in this fine post, I sure wish I had read this sort of advice when younger. I first lived with a guy who couldn’t keep a job — his boss was always in the wrong — etc., and I learned, one by one who he was cheating with as well. He was a classic PUA. The second guy was a religious man, who I thought was quite nice, and I did marry him, and then he announced he wanted to be a missionary for our church, and I followed him sweetly and naively to a South American country to ‘help the poor’. He was a classic fanatic, and nearly got me killed, when police raided our small apartment to search for guns — which other missionary types were smuggling into the country (Chile). I then left him and Chile, and he divorced me, stating that I ‘really did not love Christ’! This is another type women absolutely have to avoid — don’t be one.
Others came and went in my life, but I never had children because I knew that they — the sorts of men I was still running around with — could not support children, and neither could I alone.
This post is massively important to all White Nationalists, because without men who are educated, and wanting to 1) get a steady job; 2) find a fine woman, as outlined above in the post; 3) get a home for her; 4) have some children, preferably about 3 to 5+; then White Nationalism will be worthless, because WE will no longer here.
Would you have acted upon this advice if you had read this article when you were in your sexual prime? I strongly doubt that the average woman in her peak years of fertility (18-22) would change her sexual selection behavior based upon reading a dry article. You have the benefit of hindsight and menopause.
Women of all qualities want to have sex with men who display “psychopathic” traits. Why do serial killers routinely receive a flood of love letters? Generally, women are not sexually attracted to “nice guys” who are empathetic and submissive. Women self-report that they find empathetic and submissive men more sexually attractive in questionnaires because they are pressured to do so for reasons of social desirability. If social “science” research reports that women are attracted to effeminate, empathetic men, then this will encourage men to further emasculate themselves: a key goal of our gynocentric elites. Women of all races prefer to have sex with men of all races who are Machiavellian, violent, and dominant in the socio-sexual hiearchy. Humans, including women, are primates after all, not angels. If women no longer have to rely on men for provision and protection, then they will select mates on another basis: immediate sexual attraction. We live in a largely novel sexual landscape where most men provide nothing to most women because the men are not sexually attractive to the women. Women will select them neither on the basis of protection and provision because the state will provide for womens’ needs and those of their children and protect them. Most women in the past had sex with men that they were not sexually attracted to because necessity forced them to do so. Many pregnancies were the result of war-time rape. Now, women can choose to have sex only with men that are sexually desirable. Women can easily use sexual aids to relieve their sexual urges and can receive companionship through same-sex relationships. Most men are worthless to them. These are not uplifting truths, but they are true nonetheless. Unfortunately, they are truths that the author of this article seeks to obfuscate for reasons that are unclear to me.
I don’t disagree with much of your assessment of the dating landscape here but the author’s contention that high quality (meaning low body count, feminine, fertile, smart, moral values) white women aren’t going to ever be into psychopathic guys. They may be attracted to them in the moment—much like men are attracted to strippers (the moral equivalent of a psycho) in the moment—but they’re able to think long term and avoid the trap. traditionally, the men in her family would weed out the dishonorable guys she brings home, but today that’s all but gone.
High quality men and women want a long term partner to have children with. Thus, these women do also want a man who is assertive and displays mastery, but also someone dependable and empathetic. In our decadent culture, the ratio of women that fall in this category is admittedly lower than ever before. But the answer is not for men to become more psychopathic and contort themselves in ways to attract socio-sexual women, essentially selling their soul. These women aren’t worth even sleeping with, let alone committing to. No— hold the line and be the best man you can be, and hopefully lead one of these women out of the degenerate lifestyle before she’s irreparabley damaged; obviously she’ll have to have good instincts to begin with. The answer is a return to tradition, not ‘enjoying the decline’ as was commonly said in TRP. Here at CC, we are concerned for the future of whites, for the bigger picture. Not merely sexual strategy for an individual guy. That evo psych shit misses the forest for the trees— we need healthy Eddie families, like we had in the past, not de-facto polygamy with the Tates of the world being idols.
God bless you. I agree.
Thanks for sharing your story Alex. A lot of people in “our” generation seem to have made similar mistakes. I think what we can do now is try to instruct those youngsters about our experiences and viewpoints.
I too got involved in a fundie “Christian” church when I was in grad school. They practiced what is known as “friendship evangelism”. Here a member would feign interests similar to yours and would become your best friend. For students, involved with studying, professional school, and not focused on making ANY friends this was extremely appealing. They’d then invite one to “open informal Bible studies” and before you knew it, you’d be part of a cult and making life decisions at a very critical point in one’s life.
One fiction story I like, that used to be listed on C-C, is: “From Her Eyes a Doctrine”, by Ash Donaldson, (now on Kindle). It portrays the future, when POCs rule the world, and goes into alternatives for traditional Christianity. It can be a bit too doctrinal at times but is a good read.
Wonderful article! Well written, informative, and about a topic that concerns many of us. I must confess to being intrigued by the ads from all these self-aggrandizing PickUp Artists (PUA’s).
Of course, there are other “operational aspects” which are not covered in this article, nor should they be as the object isn’t to write a book. These involve social skills, what sort of woman should I look for, where to find them, etc.
“Another factor is that women evolved to prefer men who aren’t going to kill them. Women value kindness in long-term mates.”
Alex Graham, please explain how hybristophilia, a well-documented pattern of women from all walks of life expressing their sexual attraction to imprisoned convicts, especially serial killers like Ted Bundy, accords with your statement above.
“Basically, [hybristophilia is] a sexual attraction to someone who’s committed some sort of outrageous and extraordinary crime,” says Jeffrey Ian Ross, PhD, criminologist and professor at the University of Baltimore. Think: mass murderers, sexual murderers, and cult leaders.”
“And while it’s [hybristophilia] not common within the general population, it’s a regular occurrence for male prisoners. “I can’t tell you how often I see this happen,” says Louis Schlesinger, PhD, professor of forensic psychology at the John Jay College Of Criminal Justice. “In nearly every penitentiary across the country you’ll find female employees, like lawyers, therapists, and guards, getting involved with inmates.” (Even Bundy was rumored to have started a relationship with one of his lawyers.)”
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a27397635/ted-bundy-hybristophilia-definition/
If you had read the article you would understand that there’s no contradiction here. Hybristophilia is concentrated among women with a fast life history strategy and is not common, as stated in the quote in your comment.
You are committing the “but I know a smart black person” fallacy.
Very hypocritical of you to say that sir, seeing as tou yourself have repeatedly commited the NAWALT Fallacy. “Not All Women Are Like That”. This, combined with your hostility toward all dissenting viewpoints and well-reasoned arguments from fellow WNs in these comments leads one to suspect you are either 1. Delusional, 2. A shill, or 3. A troll. Hard to tell which. This article has essentially covered no new ground that has not already been debated on for years now in the redpill/manosphere/pua/incel/tradcon community(ies). Essentially beating a dead horse.
The NAXALT fallacy involves ignoring the middle of the bell curve and fixating on exceptions. That’s not what I’ve done because K-selected women are the norm, not the exception. I shouldn’t have used the phrase “high-quality woman” at all because it obviously confused people. The traits of high-quality women are the same as the traits of the average woman, just intensified. I don’t think the article is beating a dead horse at all. I wrote it because I believe my argument is under-represented and I genuinely want to help guys succeed in relationships. I am not at all hostile to dissenting viewpoints,* only mildly peeved that the article was misinterpreted.
*The exception to this being the view (expressed in the comments here) that the white race is doomed to go extinct. That kind of talk is toxic.
My friend and colleague is from Missouri and knocked up a beaner maybe 5 years ago. Since he was mid 30s at the time he decided to marry her and settle down. They’ve had two kids, but he’s obviously miserable out in his working class Chicago suburb. Today he asked me if I wanted to go look at boobies at one of his local strip clubs. This is actually his primary form of escapism, and he knows I loathe dance halls. It’s worth noting, however, that his establishment is a mostly White crew.
(The poor guy simply wants to go home.)
“The myth that all white women are secretly attracted to non-white thugs”
Young women are among the most susceptible to hypnosis, suggesting they are more suggestible. When the entertainment industry makes blacks out to be cool, some of the most suggestible white women develop a thing for black guys. The pretty ones who fall prey to it could have cashed in on their looks with an ideal white guy but were too crazy. Later in life they probably regret their psychosis after being beat up by jealous black women and raising mulatto children as single mothers.
Another problem is that as you say women are hibernating. It’s not so much blacks getting with women as thin-air. Nothingness seems to be super attractive these days.
“women place a high value on whether a man is “kind and understanding,”
In addition to exhibiting kindness and understanding, it helps to be rich and not poor. For example, men from poor families are twice as likely to be single at 42 than men from rich families. It helps to have a good income when young. This way, when she asks what do you do for a living, she’ll rationalize you to be a good man rather than burst your bubble and make you into a nobody.
Collectively, men of the West are nicer to women than ever. They give them affirmative action. They give them the same pay in tech and blue collar jobs despite somtimes sparing them the tough duties. They have given them the product of countless centuries of technological advancements and iron-clad legal protections. In return, they get a Singles Epidemic. Maybe if men give women like 75% of the good jobs, college degrees, even more easy duties at work, and bestow upon them more technological advancements and stronger legal protections, maybe there’ll be fewer singles. Or maybe 90%?
I did not dispute the fact that women are attracted to wealth and status.
You insinuate in your last paragraph that it would follow from the article that women would be attracted to men who are “nice” to them by promoting them beyond their capabilities and forcing them to be breadwinners. You missed the point entirely. Women like when men are kind toward them because it signals that he will protect them. Affirmative action undermines this.
You want men to be nice to women interpersonally. I’m just pointing out that men have been doing it collectively harder than ever, and more men are single than ever. When men didn’t collectively spoil women with affirmative action, etc, they did better with them interpersonally.
Earning money and sharing it is a big part of being interpersonally nice with women. In fact, it might as well be the only thing. For example, according to one source:
“Among 25-34-year-old white men in the 2000 Census, for example, 34 percent of those in the bottom quarter of the income distribution are married, compared with 67 percent of those in the top quarter of the income distribution.”
I saw a statistic which I can’t find that shows married couples are even richer now than in 2000, but to say couples are richer is obfuscating it because only married men are richer. Single men, married women, and single women all earn about the same on average, but married men earn way more than the rest. In terms of keeping a marriage going, it looks like money is the main thing. This isn’t to say kindness doesn’t play a role too, but money seems to matter more.
Again you don’t seem to have fully grasped what I am saying. I stated in the article that men evolved to be generous precisely because it signals status and wealth. Kindness in itself is not attractive to women; the ability to provide and protect is, and both prosocial traits and wealth signal this. I didn’t emphasize the importance of wealth because it is already widely agreed upon.
Kind words are not always true, and true words are not always kind, but dark triad guys sometimes hit women with “love bombs” of kind words. Meanwhile, honest guys say true unkind things and may not seem as kind. Therefore, the appearance of kindness–be it on an individual or collective level– doesn’t necessarily signal low dark triad traits.
Most women seem to want kindness (or the appearance of it) and extroversion at all ages. When they’re younger, they want looks, dark triad traits, brawn, popularity, and boldness to a greater extent, and when they’re older, they want money to a greater extent. I think college guys should try hard to woo women (using PUA techniques if necessary) before they graduate college when women aren’t as interested in money. Meanwhile, they should study a field where white guys without connections are still allowed such as medicine (as in nursing) or tech. Those two fields are highly rated on Career Explorer and growing according to the BLS. Having used some PUA methods (if necessary) to get a girl in college, and having gotten on a career path which immediately makes him comfortably middle class out of school, a zoomer man can attract and retain a woman in our age when over half of zoomer men are single. I think most men can fit into either medicine or tech, and they shouldn’t worry so much about the career being the fit for them. Instead, they should make sure they get marketable skills in either medicine or tech. They should avoid finance and business because a lot of those jobs are being automated away, and they’re fraught with psychopathic people. Moreover, unless they’re psychopathic, conscientious, and extroverted, they shouldn’t try to be ultra rich entrepreneurs like Trump or Andrew Tate and instead they should strive to be just rich enough to be attractive to the average zoomer girl with an overpaid upper middle class Gen X dad. Instead of setting themselves apart with great wealth, they can do it with great covert activism and providing a stable home for many babies.
I just feel like if men don’t have the right goals, then they can be as slow life history as they please, and it won’t help them at all because they’ll be poor, working at Starbucks, and no matter how kind or K-selected they seem, women won’t care. They need to know explicitly what works and what doesn’t, not just for themselves but for the race.
You still don’t get it. Choosing a stable career path is part and parcel of having a slow life history strategy. Your example is nonsensical because a K-selected man would not become a Starbucks worker. I agree that acquiring marketable skills should be young men’s main focus. Bear in mind that the point of this article was not to give men general life advice; it was specifically to warn them against embracing the antisocial traits that manosphere gurus often celebrate.
Also, pointing out that psychopaths can don a charming demeanor in order to appeal to women misses the point. The very fact that they adopt this tactic in the first place shows that it’s more effective than signaling anti-social traits. But yes, women evolved to respond more to displays of generosity and heroism over superficial friendliness because the former are much harder to fake.
I cannot agree that PUA is about psychopathic traits, and I’m skeptical many guys truly adopted it other than fake cockiness. Most savvy women are aware of PUA tactics and will ridicule a guy caught ‘negging’, even scorning them on social media. The book, ‘The Game’, is an amusing timepiece of some of the most dated approaches once used by guys aspiring to be an extra for A Night At The Roxbury. When PUA is about learning to flirt and not getting lost in theory, it can be very helpful for guys (and women too, but they have a 1000 magazines for that).
I agree with a lot said above, but am weary of the dimestore psychology that sees psychopaths everywhere. These scales are ‘validated’ in prison populations, not the general population. Psychopaths are less ‘prevalent’ in the general population and the test will have less statistical ‘sensitivity’ (a massive topic you can reread in statistics 101). The short tempered guy who is aggressive about making money and supporting/defending his family will have psychopathic traits to someone misusing the Hare or other checklists.
When dating, both genders are putting on a big show in the beginning, akin to the Bird of Paradise’s dance. There’s a chunk of false charisma for both genders, yet broadly socially acceptable to all strata. Hence the advice to not take things too fast until the more genuine selves unveil themselves.
‘Emotional detachment’ can mean different things to different people. Both genders start off ‘playing it cool’ and not looking too enthusiastic. Looking needy and desperate is a giant turnoff to both sexes.
I wholly agree with the above tenets that women like competence (a good job), dependability and empathy. The ‘empathy’ part is a problem for the CC crowd as all these traits are not just defined by the woman, but also society at large. Women as a group do no like public shaming. So this identarian group ought choose its words carefully, many women of even centrist politics will deem you a heartless bastard lacking empathy (How can you not be for open borders, people are being persecuted everywhere!). And the way some of the comments are worded on this site needs some flossing. Around you everywhere are large swathes of women who say they will only date feminists and never Trump-ers, etc. As Churchill observed, we all get more conservative with age and this is true for the women as well, especially if they start to worry the local ethos may lead to them winding up a victim of crime.
Both genders may ‘say’ they want this or that trait, but then ultimately make choices with different priorities. We all know the woman who says she wants a ‘nice guy’ then goes with the pompous jerk. Guys do it too. “I want the whole package” but then simply chooses the most attractive girl he can get and ignores all other traits. It’s a competition.
Even leftist women proclaim they are open to this or that mate but generally choose likeness. Think of that famous case of the leftist white lesbian who sued a fertility clinic who accidentally used a black donor’s sperm for the conception. She wanted a baby that looked like her. She tried to back peddle and whitewash the story claiming she didn’t want a child to suffer racism… bull shit. I’d recommend the documentary, The Rise and Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch. The topic seems superficial but it gets at deeper issues of attraction, exclusion (even of average whites), veiled homoeroticism, and how big business got very sensitive about diversity, inclusion and equity (DIE).
Anyhow thanks for the article, it’s a good topic noting our declining birthrate.
I agree that PUA can be useful. I don’t think most manosphere types are clinical psychopaths, but they often glorify dark triad/antisocial traits. Manosphere gurus are fond of repeating the claim that all women are attracted to serial killers, etc.
As you said, only the crazies fall in love with the serial killers, not all women. And generally only the ‘famous’ killers. Your average murderer at the state prison doesn’t have a massive fanclub unless he has had a ton of documentaries and blogs written about him.
PUAs extol “patriarchy,” but the mating strategies they promote are inimical to the establishment of patriarchal family structures and contribute to the phenomenon of single motherhood.
Women are financially rewarded for being single mothers. Equitable distribution, child support and no-fault divorce have done more to promote single motherhood than PUAs.
Look at Kim Kardashian’s divorce. Even if she was poor, why would she need $200k a month to support her children? Judges often base wage garnishments on the ex husband’s income level when the divorce was filed. If that changes (e.g. if the husband gets laid off or takes a pay cut), he still owes child support at the amount decided on by the judge.
Why would a woman stick with a “good provider” when she’s provided for by the court system for ditching her husband?
Single motherhood is a product of the system of rewards and benefits offered to single moms. It’s not because a small group of online salesmen (who lie about their “lay counts”) are out there slaying pussy. (Does birth control exist in the author’s tradcon fantasy world? Pregnancies don’t happen on accident anymore. If they happen, it’s because the mother wanted it to happen because she benefits from it.)
I’m amazed that the author is in his 20s. Does he not realize that women provide for themselves, with the help of the government? Women are in a long-term relationship with the government, which provides them with Affirmative Action (white women are its greatest beneficiaries), anti-discrimination laws, assets and income for leaving their husbands. They don’t have to vet men for provider status anymore.
Reread the sentence. I said that the pump-and-dump lifestyle PUAs promote contributes to single motherhood and matriarchy, not that PUAs themselves are responsible for it. My assertion that life history is correlated with family structure is pretty uncontroversial. The higher incidence of single motherhood among blacks is primarily due to their r-selected profile. Being willing to settle down is a prerequisite for being a father and a patriarch.
I said that the pump-and-dump lifestyle PUAs promote contributes to single motherhood and matriarchy, not that PUAs themselves are responsible for it.
Who cares if they promote it? Guys who pump and dump women don’t need PUAs to teach them how to get laid.
The pump and dump lifestyle is risk-free from the woman’s pov because the state bears all of the consequences – the woman no longer has to worry about unwanted pregnancies and if she wants to keep the kid the courts can order paternity tests and wage garnishments. In some countries women get housing, daycare and supplemental income for having a kid out of wedlock. That’s why women sleep around. It’s not because PUAs “promote” sleeping around.
The higher incidence of single motherhood among blacks is primarily due to their r-selected profile. Being willing to settle down is a prerequisite for being a father and a patriarch.
Read “Losing Ground” by Charles Murray. Beginning in the 1960s, black women were paid by the government to have kids out of wedlock.
If the difference in single motherhood rates is due primarily to evolution, why is the white single motherhood rate today higher than the black single motherhood rate one year before the Great Society programs were enacted?
The stuff about settling down is straight out of a PragerU video. We’re not living in the 1950s anymore. Women have higher incomes than ever before and they don’t have to vet men for provider status, so they vet them for other qualities. That’s why there are so many hookups.
Given that prior to 1960 something more than 60% of negro children, as they were then known, were born in wedlock and many good Catholic whites had broods big enough for a soccer team I’m not sure how much the r-selection has to do with it. It seems more like societal factors including erosion of church authority and the co-option of the state as baby-Daddy of first resort, along with decades of relentless, full spectrum anti-family, anti-man and anti-white propaganda.
High quality white woman:
physically who looks like Natalie Portman or that chick who was dating Johnny dep. internally, needs a phd or md from a top 50 school, .1 percentile scores on a psychometrician approved test. If only law, then top five school. That’s the ones invited for interview. It would help if they came with some kind of little dowry too, as a pot sweetener.
Given Natalie Portman is an unhinged liberal and Amber Heard seems to be just unhinged may I suggest Grace Kelly. All-American girl marries her own true to life prince. She must have been the complete package.
Your chances of having a large family with these over-educated fantasy women are none too high unless you both become Mormons or Amish or the like.
Right, heard. I mean physical appearance, not crazy like that. I suppose any educated female will probably be liberal, but she could be trained if the raw material is good.
Looking for a high quality white woman? Get on a plane to an eastern european country and once you have her, stay there.
MORMONS – A group worth studying. Yes, they have some odd beliefs and practices. The Book of Mormon reads like sci fi in parts. But they have hung in there against the odds. An old Jewish professor of mine had a lot of respect for them and it was clear he saw in them a cliquishness and industriousness that was a bit kinship. The ‘beehive’ is a major symbol of them, busy bees working together. Should it be a surprise they are one the wealthiest religious groups?
For white people, they really outbreed other religious groups with an average of 3.4 kids. Going on a “mission” at the cusp of adulthood really emboldens their faith and dedication (at least among the ones I’ve known). One guy I knew used to attend a “Singles Ward” (possibly extant) – Unmarried members were specifically told to attend the designated area church for singles. While not for everyone, the Mormons do a lot of things very right and there is much to learn from them instead of another diatribe that the Jews control everything, Biden has dementia, and Black people have stolen all the white women. Oh yeah, Mormon demographics, look that up.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/
You make an important point and I think it should be discussed by WN.
I have an unusual perspective on this, but to be brief, the LDS ─ or the nickname “Mormons,” as they no longer like to be called because it obfuscates that the name “Jesus Christ” is found right in the formal name of their church ─ put great emphasis upon Families.
All tribes or races or civilizations are comprised of families. This is even stated directly by a certain painter and former soldier in Mein Kampf.
So there is no “ancient Chinese secret” here. Putting a big emphasis upon the Family is how you move Western Civilization into the future. At one time most Christian sects understood this; now it seems that only the LDS and the Amish do.
For most of their existence coming out of the American Protestant “Awakening” in the early 19th century, the Mormons or LDS (est. 1830) confined their missionary work to the Anglosphere. It is no surprise that one of the first foreign LDS temples is in New Zealand. My roommate at BYU was from NZ. I also graduated from State U. at a time when you did not have to lock your doors to keep quadruple slasher killers out.
In any case, even today the LDS are English in stock. If you look at an ethnic map of all 50 states, you will find that the only majority English states today are Utah, Idaho, and I think Maine. The rest are either Germans in the Midwest, “Amerimutts” plus Negroes in the South, and a dash of Spanish in the Southwest. The majority surname in all fifty states is “Smith” or some variation or Schmidt, except for the SW where it is now likely to be something like Garcia.
Unlike the Jews, the LDS are a proselyting people so they are not insular or inbred. They have historically tended to “gather” towards “Zion,” for them the so-called Mormon Corridor where I live (except for when I was in the Army in Georgia). One of my major differences with the LDS Church growing up is my lack of interest in sending missionaries out to the Globe. Plus, I could not see actually going on a Christian mission to some brown country as a teenager when I was really just an agnostic. I never got “disowned” by my parents and family ─ although sometimes it is hard to “escape” from your family and its origins, LOL. I’m proud of being White.
The LDS also do not fear technology. The Amish might be fine with their horses and buggies but they still have to find supplemental work in the factories or shops of the Gentiles ─ or as they would say, the “English” factories (like Walmart).
Btw, recently a podcaster on TRS just repeated that the Mormons call non-Mormons “Gentiles.” Well, that is widely stated ─ in my experience usually by Jewish professors ─ but it hasn’t really been true since the first Transcontinental Railroad was completed in Utah in 1869. or maybe since Utah and Idaho became states in 1890 and 1896 respectively.
In any case, that is an interesting and very excellent Pew Research Center link there.
I noticed the Pew evidence shows that in addition to having relatively large families, the LDS have extremely VERY LOW DIVORCE rates as well. I think this serves as a big gotcha for all those “Manosphere” spergs who think that modern “no-fault divorce” laws (and birth control pills) somehow hosed us, Davey.
(The above is a reference to a 1960s Christian children’s cartoon for fellow Boomers. The Holocaust Saint, SS-Obersturmführer Kurt Gerstein was an Evangelical Lutheran and prominent military sanitation engineer who once dreamed of becoming a medical missionary before the war, after which he gave his famous “statement” and hanged himself in French captivity shortly afterward ─ but I digress.)
My view is that no-fault divorce provides for an “out” without requiring that both parties try to turn the other into mortal enemies ─ or try to turn their children against them as well. (Your legal affairs may vary.)
Both of my parent’s parents were divorced and there was considerable bitterness, but it could have been much worse ─ and they are both still alive in Idaho and have been married now for over six decades. Divorce is not ideal but it does not have to be made into a nuclear option. Like 16th century Anglican theologians, the LDS don’t sweat about Divorce ─ yet they are the ones who intend that marriages last into the afterlife.
Three-quarters of my family are LDS, mostly devout. I am personally an atheist or agnostic, and even had the LDS Churchremove my name from their records about three decades ago just to make it official. I think that I have a unique perspective on this considering my LDS Pioneer ancestry, but like George Lincoln Rockwell, I am not actually anti-Christian.
My view is that Western Civilization and Culture is downstream from Race and is not about religious rites, scriptures, Christian Faith, or Zen Buddhism. Our politics should reflect that. However, if White people want to be Christians, like Rockwell said, I believe that they have the right to follow their consciences ─ and for as long as they want.
To me, all religions are based on Superstition and that is not something that I can understand. I have had many discussions with my Dad about this who is devout LDS and who retired as an aerospace and nuclear scientist who specialized in reliability engineering ─ the space shuttle, Three Mile Island, the odd DC-10 airliner crash, etc. How does one reconcile Faith and Science? Not with a horse and buggy and a cabin in the woods without a toilet, I can assure you.
Fun Fact: The Sci-Fi screenwriter for the original Battlestar Gallactica TV show in the 1970s was Glen A. Larson who was a Mormon, and some of his material sounded like LDS scriptures, LOL.
Mormon beliefs are not any more batshit crazy than any other Christian belief ─ Moses talking to a burning bush, or the much ballyhooed rite of eating (or pretending to eat) the flesh and blood of a slain God blessed by a pederast clergy to achieve eternal life, etc. (Bear with me here.) Or, Scriptures that are believed to be the “literal word” of God ─ this means that people like David Koresh or Michael A. Hoffman II can somehow parse the Talmudic truth right out of it. Right?
Anyway, my mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother were all born in Idaho. These are some of the Whitest communities on Earth. Yes, I do think this is a matter that should be discussed by White Nationalists, especially Christian racialists or instauration types.
I’m not a big fan of very huge families ─ meaning like nine kids ─ but larger sizes above three are not the end of the world for women either. Mormons believe in educating their women, and they don’t all seem to get tatted up and pierced and go to Uni and then become Lesbians or like neurotic man-hating Jewesses who want to marry Negroes, either. My Mom had five kids that lived, and all of my four sisters had at least three.
All White people came from somewhere. I found this photo on the Internet, not great quality. It is taken in Southern Idaho around 1900 of the Christian Era. Photographed is a simple LDS nuclear family whose converted ancestors hailed from farms and mines in England, Scotland, and Wales where they were no longer particularly welcome. Two children are not pictured because they haven’t been born yet. The girl in the white dress is my great-grandmother.
In those days, hordes of Injuns still came by wanting liquor and what anthropologists now call “cargo.” The parents’ fear was that when they were not looking, and the “Natives” were on the warpath, they would haul off with a White kid ─ but the numinous Natives usually left people alone if you just gave them some food to take away. The LDS did not usually have any firewater in the pantry, and they certainly did not cultivate smokables or weed ─ very in demand for consumption with certain browner races from what I understand.
🙂
Rockland, Idaho (circa 1900)
Are you sure this shouldn’t be titled, “PUA vs. White Nationalist ‘Male’ Perspectives on Mating?” There are no women here, because women don’t really care in general, and white women have been bred to be the antithesis of caring about family, culture, country, etc.
I have travelled the world, mostly to live as a man and have great women, something denied to this 6f.t 2, N. Italian-American guy in Anglo-lands. PUA is a way to dissolve all the inverse successful, 19th Century Chivalric male ethos. Women are repulsed by that. Just a few years ago, I turned down wealthy models in Asia and LATAM because I was worried about genetic posterity. Now, with my libido and body failing from stress, at-work employment and other B.S., it doesn’t look like I will procreate–however, given how difficult work is in my trapping profession, it’s unlikely I wouldn’t have been no-fault divorced raped by an American woman if I had never travelled and remained a sucker.
Another problem with this article is the Hobesian, upper-class based 18th Century tripe that class societies protect people from being raped and murdered. The truth is, before people lived in cities, they lived in tribes, where people lived communally and collectively, in order to pool very limited resources. Women were never evolved to desire daddy dearest, provider. They get excited by the warlord or the bad boy.
Saying that, dispropotional women obesity, and our chosen friends created this dystopic hell for us as a race war, instictive weapon of media to undermine us as a group. Even in other modern societies, e.g. E. Asia, women are feminine, want to be hot, though they are lazy to have kids.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment