- Pre-conquest a gal tells a guy I love you or even acts like she’s hot for him. It has two effects foreign to woman-think. She will be easier to conquer, and it’s an unearned gift, which men don’t appreciate. In effect, before he earns her according to her standards and expectations, admitting her love of him works against her interest. Actually, even his knowing he has a chance with her works to his advantage.
- Men tend to figure out women by her actions rather believing her words. Women pay more attention to words and tend to rely on them. She likes to spread her love directly, up close and personal. Men don’t appreciate her love that way; they prefer to see it more indirectly. He isn’t excited about her words but mostly her actions that he figures satisfies him.
- The most primal need of men is for a place to flop, eat, throw their things, do some R&R, and prepare to fight their dragons tomorrow. The woman who satisfies that need, her love is genuine and believable.
- A woman’s love spread indirectly registers with all men. For example, in public—but not during guy time—a woman in love stays close as if attached to her man, holds his arm or hand, and listens closely to what he’s saying. Other men see her doing that. They envy him and his respect grows among his competitors. Peers wish they had a woman like her; one who showed such respect for them. Given time and opportunity, however, they may also try to take her away from him.
- What love is to women, respect is to men. However, not exactly. Women give their love freely and openly. Men give respect to those who earn it and earned more indirectly than directly.
- A man enters marriage with several convictions. He doesn’t intend to fail. He will continue to keep himself satisfied with who he is, what he does, and with his marriage as a whole. IOW, he enters the marital home expecting to remain pretty close to the same guy as before. He will adjust as necessary to enable wife to govern the home and relationships within it. IOW, he expects her to run everything except those things for which he’s responsible; e.g., his car, job, and whatever else he chooses, perhaps yardwork etc.
- The most obvious form of a man’s love is his devotion to her, to repeatedly pleasing her for the purpose of pleasing them both. If she finds herself in that condition, she should upgrade his worth to her.
A lot of repetition exists in this summarizing series. I do it on purpose to reinforce the importance to those women who hope to understand better the male nature.
- Women live according to what their men say and want, except as the smarter woman conditions her man to help fulfill her hopes and dreams. She hears and heeds him in the short term, but she’s focused on the future. He finds her attractive, pursues, and wins her love, but he bypasses the thought that she has unfulfilled hopes and dreams that originate in childhood. She’s free to work on it secretly.
- Ever present in background during pursuit, he continually seeks to bed her. She refuses and even rejects the concept without destroying his hope. Her love of him is neither admirable, nor a virtue, nor important to him except as it facilitates conquest. She does best to keep her developing love to herself. Save it until he earns it.
- He keeps pursuing and learning about qualities that he admires. Until much later rather than sooner, he finds himself devoted to her such that he realizes she’s more important to him as partner than sex target. He recognizes that he truly loves her when he chooses the latter of these consequences: He’s satisfied with his present life and how he lives, but he expects to be more satisfied living with her, and it prompts his proposal.
- Men pursue what’s hard to conquer; they seek to achieve and invest themselves in time, effort, and money to the extent she’s worthy of conquest. Men don’t love as women love. Neither do men recognize and appreciate how women love and expect to be loved in return. A woman expresses her love and appreciates herself for doing it. Her man may or may not derive pleasure or compliment from what she says. If she says it, he takes it more as deserved than admired, and he is that much nearer to conquest. If she doesn’t share her love, it’s not her loss but her gain. He has less knowledge of her to work with, which means he has to work harder to win her.
- Modern women have long forgotten the need for religious and moral imperatives to keep men user friendly to women. Both porn and the pursuit of pleasure being the result of a man’s initiatives, they provide the easiest satisfaction about who he is, what he does, and who he does it with. Also, he finds it easy to love ever-greater pleasure, and he seeks an endless path to it. He has little or no need for a woman except for short range involvement.
- A man’s love of a woman begins with his pleasing her while she remains relatively quiet about who she is and what she does. She focuses on listening and encourages him to talk about himself, which begins to earn his respect. Thus, she puts him in the seller role. She makes him work to figure out what she can mean to him. He has to earn her by investing and selling himself while she fills role of buyer. Of course, it takes a lot of time, patience, and self-respect for her, but it’s the kind of behavior that starts a man’s love to develop and grow.
- A husband’s present life depends on many things other than his wife’s love. His interests are bundled together such that wife never views them completely until they’ve been married for decades. Even then, she’s probably detected them more indirectly than directly. His interests are those things that make him satisfied with who he is, what he does, and who he does it with. After marriage, the main ingredients are his satisfaction with her, what she does, and living with her.
- If she loves him without his need of it, he can use it to facilitate conquest. If she yields sex early, he can dump her. He doesn’t bond with sex, and if it takes a while to conquer, he figures out before she yields just how she will end up afterward: keeper, booty, or dumpee depending on how much of himself he invests in her and how satisfying will be his continuing effort to associate with her.
- A man seeks to marry a virtuous woman, and a woman’s virtues are whatever qualities she has that earn a man’s admiration. He has little interest in what others call her virtues, unless everybody calls her beautiful. Figuring that it will take time, he delivers a concentrated effort aimed at capturing her for himself. As he uncovers new virtues, he gives up chasing sex with her and determines that she’s more valuable to him than sex with her. It may take awhile, but he likely proposes when he’s convinced living with her will be more satisfying that how he now lives.
- By chasing a man, she fails to earn his respect, which is the essential and primary foundation of a man’s love. She’s interested in sharing her love, finds a man, and showers him with all the love she has. She’s surprised to find that he’s turned off; he was the pursuer but her love isn’t attractive or appealing with her in chase mode. So, he conquers and dumps her, or so he quickly plans.
- Men are notorious for proclaiming their love to facilitate conquest. Women are burdened to discriminate between a man’s words and actions, because he wants to keep his intentions to himself. She’s the last to know of his thinking about their future together—whether she’s a keeper, booty, or disposable—and she discovers it only if she yields. Neither complimentary nor in her interest to find out so late, it’s the male nature in action.
- Before conquest, a man’s conscience can’t be counted on to protect a woman’s interest. Only his actions reveal his true interest in protecting hers.
- Men are hunter conquerors, unconquered women their prey. Two conquerors face off. He for sex without obligation; it’s instinctive from birth. She for obligation without yielding sexually; it’s intuitive from how she’s raised. The first to conquer wins dominion over their future life together. If he marries without conquest, his respect for her is so high that he has no trouble allowing her dominion over home life and relationship. He can be satisfied living with her.
- A man pursues an unconquered woman in whom he invests much of his time, effort, and money but fails to bed her. She just won’t yield except on her terms. Men don’t often abandon good investments. She treats him as her leader and he expects his woman to love him. Her displays of love confirm his role as leader but she still competes to delay conquest. He looks for weaknesses that will produce conquest, but he keeps uncovering qualities that he can admire, her virtues. His present life grows more promising by her virtues. If she continues to refuse to yield, he figures it will take more effort, and so he tries harder. He aims more deliberately at capturing her for himself, and he continues to fail at conquest. Eventually he gives up chasing sex with her and determines that she’s more valuable to him than sex with her. It takes a while, but he proposes after he becomes convinced that he can be more satisfied with himself living with her rather than how he currently lives.
- She will lose her man with fault-finding and blame. Couples don’t breakup from the big emotional connections, such as weakening of love, respect, and suitability. They break up from lack of continuing mutual likeability and his satisfaction with himself. Adjustments are usually easier than separation. Couples break up primarily because of the accumulation of little irritants, annoyances, criticisms, expressions of anger, complaints stirred by frustration, emotional outbursts, blame, lack of forgetfulness about misbehavior, physical attractiveness made slovenly by insufficient personal care, and other negatives. All of which accumulates in the male mind as contrary to her words of love, on which she relies to uplift their relationship. IOW, her frequent negative actions outweigh her wordy alibis and loving affection, attention, and appreciation, which comes occasionally among the daily tirade of negative conclusions about her man.
I’ve not heard about these radical men for too long. Anyone have news?
I repeat the posting of article 2203. Eric wrote it to inform us of some fallout of Feminism made radioactive by men set on revenge. I share it with readers to remind all of us that the subjugation of women started earlier and conditions will be worse before better.
—2203 by Eric— an insider/outsider view of how radical men view the female nature as corrupt from birth.
Roosters, Gamecocks, and Capons
‘He rules the roost, she rules the rooster’. So it has been throughout history. Radical Feminism, encouraged by the Political Left, imposed a new paradigm which excluded the rooster. But the male gender did not disappear; however types of males who were once on the fringes rose to prominence.
Now a rooster follows the male nature; defending and providing for his roost, while performing other necessary work. But reactions to Feminism gave us the Manosphere which produces the Gamecock, a rooster who is bred for fighting and competition; and the Capon, a neutered rooster whose only purpose is to be eaten. The Manosphere—which once stood for the rights of men and the dignity of women—has fallen under the misogynist trends of these two types. The Gamecock is represented by the Game movement; the Capon from the so-called Men’s Human Rights Movement; both of which deny male/female compatibility, and both of which accept the terms laid down by the feminists as cultural norms. There is considerable homoeroticism latent in both movements, especially among the MHRM.
Both generally hold a form of gender supremacy, but it is the Game Philosophy which has the most pernicious effects on gender relations (the MHRM is essentially the mirror image of male feminism, which produces Capons as well, though of a different sort).
Not only does Game teach men how to disqualify themselves as suitable husbands/fathers, the male behavior it promotes reinforces the same negative stereotypes of men promoted by the Feminists. Why it is also dangerous is because, like feminism, it employs sexuality as a weapon.
Thus, the Gamecock, true to his namesake, treats gender relations as a war—not the healthy spirit of conquest which is part of the male nature—but indiscriminate conquest for its own sake. The Game blogs are replete with ‘relationship advice’ that sounds like psychological warfare. And to underscore the tendency, they despise all men outside of their movement as inferiors. But stripped of their neologisms, pseudo-scientific rhetoric, and general pompousness, one sees a common thread running through all their writings: a genuine hatred for women in general. This, in spite of their obsession with sex, is deeply apparent. By extension, of course, the Gamecocks feel nothing but utter contempt for traditional masculinity. In fact, being referred to as a white knight or being accused of behaving with chivalry is considered an insult among their ranks—they laugh at men who respect or value women, because (to their minds), the female nature is inherently corrupt.
By inherently corrupt, the Gamecocks do not mean the corrupted attitudes of modern women miseducated and disinformed by Feminist culture—what they mean, and explicitly state, is that to be born female is equivalent to being born with a corrupted nature. By their logic, it follows that men are completely justified in controlling that nature, either through force and fear because the corrupted feminine nature will not respond to goodness.
CSW [chaste single women] can avoid entanglements with the Gamecock by being, well CSW. The Gamecock’s only relationship goals are sex and control and he has no power over women who value themselves and their sexuality. Foiled in his attempts at manipulation, the Gamecock falls away and focuses his efforts on easier targets. Since he has no capacity to sustain a relationship, he typically has no desire to continue pursuit of anyone who doesn’t feed his narcissism.
The one type of Gamecock who does pose a danger to women is the one who wraps Game in a cloak of Christianity. The Churchian Gamer—and there are many of them—pose a threat because Christian women may be duped by the pretended Biblical sanction to the Gamecock message. Perverting such concepts as female submission, women as the weaker vessel, the husband as head of the household, &c the Churchian Gamecocks coax otherwise well-meaning women into the Game stratagems.
I use the term ‘Churchian’ because it must be understood that the religion of these men and their camarilla of disciples is Game and not Christianity. It actually resembles, in its teachings, contortions of Scripture most closely resembling the Gnostics. A good way for Christian women to avoid the Churchian Gamecock is to note the absence of a central Christian tenet: any discussion of Love. One can literally search in vain on Churchian Game blogs to find this word even mentioned. If a man talks endlessly about women’s Christian duties of things like submission and obedience, without mentioning either love or reciprocal male obligations, chances are he’s been influenced by Churchian Game.
By all means, stay CSW, if you deserve a rooster instead of a Gamecock or a Capon!
Separately, Eric adds some history to it.
“I actually coined the ‘Gamecock’ term back in my Manosphere days, and opponents of Game still use it. It used to be that the Manosphere had an element of bloggers who were trying to fix the relations between men and women. There still are a few, but they are a minority.
“I thought the ‘Capon’ term fit for male feminists and their counterparts in the MHRM. The MHRM used to be A Voice For Men but they’ve largely veered into accepting feminism as the norm, but want feminist social/legal standards to equate to men: ‘Equal Injustice for All’ as their opponents aptly describe their position. It’s essentially male feminism that supposedly wants men to be equal feminists, unlike the traditional male feminists.
“Capons are more common in Europe, but it is a neutered rooster (it’s meat is considered a delicacy, they taste somewhat like pheasant LOL). So I thought it was an apt description of these types, since they behave like eunuchs, the same way that Gamers behave like gamecocks.”
I welcome all updates to help understand if these Manosphere nuts are still around and promoting the further subjugation of females. I know the Game is still working as vague and unavailable, men acting hard to get.
And again, if he’s listening, thanks to Eric for his commendable work back in May 2015.
Thank you for the loyal support recently to expand readership. The number of viewers is up 10 percent and I’m grateful. Your efforts are resoundingly applauded.
As to the expansion efforts several of you suggested, my hands are tied by poor health and withdrawn PC guru. I’m working on it though.