Since I and the rest of the Mid-Atlantic region is snowed in, and completely derailed very important business I had planned for today, I reckon I’ll be posting a bit over the next few days.

This early morning topic will focus on a theme that’s been discussed elsewhere-why Women frequent Game-related forums and online venues.

Although of course, different Women will have different reasons, motivations and drives as to why they find themselves in a ostensibly Male-dominated environment, I do think a string of common themes becomes apparent:

1. Because a lot of Women are taken aback that a system of picking them up *works*

2. Because they want to know why they keep choosing the same kinds of guys over and over and over, though they will never openly admit it

3. because they’re attracted to some of the guys in said forums, though, again, they’ll never openly admit it

There are other reasons, of course, and for Women like say, Ms. Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart.com, frequenting Game forums and venues helps hone her antennae so to speak, as she blogs to assist young ladies in today’s dating scene. And there are other Women, like for example frequent commenters Meep and Black & German, who enjoy discussing Male-Female relationships, sociosexual dynamics, and may even be interested in learning more about Male “wiring” and by extension how their own hubbies tick, to improve their own marriages.

But for the most part, the above three points you will find, will lie behind most of the ladies who are “regulars” of the Game online scene.

One thing I’ve found particularly interesting is the idea voiced by quite a few Women, that Game would “never work on me!”. Even without any knowledge or experience with Game, recent events that shall not be directly referred to clearly debunks such a notion. In fact, and those who study Game knows this more than anyone, those who shout the loudest about being “immune” to Game are almost to a Woman, the easiest to fall.

Yes, all things in the Game toolbox won’t work with all Women, all the time. And yes, all guys won’t be able to pull off or execute Game flawlessly. But the simple truth is, that for most Women, most of the time, it has been shown that most of Game’s most bedrock, fundamental principles, do indeed work. Social Proof, Preselection, Peacocking, Negs, and so on, are age old concepts that have always been with us. All Game has done is “distilled” this information, formed into a systematic, compact body of knowledge that can be implemented by almost any Man who wishes to do so. And it is that knowledge, that concerns quite a few Women, most. It does because for one thing, it kinda blows the covers off notions that they’re special or outliers-the reality of Game, would suggest otherwise. And second, if just about any guy can learn Game, how is she to know who’s on the up and up, and who isn’t?

Well, she can’t-or at the very least, it will be very hard to do. Just like a Man has a hard way of knowing if the Hottie he’s checking out at the club is indeed a Devil Worshipper, LOL. Based on what he can see, the way she’s gussied herself up, and barring him being clairvoyant, he can’t know. He just kinda has to wing it. The difference between guys and gals, for the most part, is that the former accepts that there are a certain set of things Women can do to get his attention and he isn’t at all averse to this; with the ladies, its a bit unsettling, at least for some.

Because Women by and large are indirect beings, it is very hard for them to come to grips with things, especially when it comes to themselves. Many Women who find themselves in Game forums and the like, are very turned on by what they read about, and sometimes by the posters themselves. But because of their own hangups, there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance on this front. At any rate, very few Women will just come out and admit that when a Man runs tight Game she gets really turned on by that. Just like very few Women will step to a guy that she likes.

Observing Women as I have over the years and even more recently, I’ve found that what they fight the most against is where their real issues, fears and challenges are, as well as what excites them most. Game is one of those things.

And after all the sound and fury, the reason why they are here, is because it works.

Holla back

The Obsidian

The following was a kind of experiment in whether I could pull together some of the more sharper minds of the Manosphere, to see what they saw coming down the pike in the coming decade. The rest is self-explanatory from here. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts! This thing is always fun.

20 Questions & Issues For The Virtual Roundtable

OK Fellas, here we go:

There’s been a lot said about what we can expect in the coming year and decade, and if you’re anything like me-and I suspect you all are-you’re thinking it’s all BULLSHIT. Much of what passes for “analysis” more often than not is little more than the blatherings and yammerings-on, of talking heads and pundits who live lives far removed from the Common Man and life on the ground. I got tired of all the usual crap, and decided that I could do a better job of presenting the issues than all of the Chattering Classes combined. Moreover, I don’t need their permission or approval, since the Internet affords me the chance and opportunity to be heard worldwide, from a smartphone. Many of you think as I do, and hence we’re all gathered today.

So, you Gentlemen-Chuck Ross; Welmer; The Fifth Horseman; Dragnet; Advocatus Diaboli; Ferdinand Bardamu, and Novaseeker-Men from all walks of life-are to me, a key source of information, insight and wisdom, and in many ways, outclass the talking heads who do little more than provide background noise while we click away on our keyboards for our respective blogging venues. We have among us, myself included, a lawyer, an online magazine owner, a futurist, an astrologer, a “big pharma” type, a financial services guy; Men who are both single and married or divorced; and our ages run the gamut from the 20s to well beyond the 40s. I think we have a good bit to say about what lay in store for us all.

So, here’s my questions:

1. Looking ahead for 2010-and the decade as well-how do you see the national economy? Will the stimulus package(s) work, and why/why not? Will the coming decade portend yet another round of convulsing recessions, and if so, when? How long will they last? And what sectors of economy (those that are left standing at present) can we expect to get hit?

2. Speaking of areas of the economy, what will be the “growth sectors” in the coming decade? What areas will we see a shrinking or contraction of? Will either hold post-2020? If so/not, why?

3. Over the past decade or so-from 2000 to present, we’ve seen two “bubbles” bursting-the socalled “tech” bubble, and the more recent banking/subprime mortage bubble. Te former wasn’t as bad, some econ-type say, because it was largely an “insider baseball” kind of game; the only people truly effected, were the “players” themselves. Not so with the latter, and I need no reiterate here. My question to you Gents, is what is the next “bubble” to burst, when can we expect it to go down, assuming it does happen over the course of the current decade, and what will be the overall net impact?

4. Much has been said about the Walls St/Main St dichotomy; for the former, despite heavy losses and taxpayer funded bailouts, life has largely been good there, wit top dogs and fat cats at major American banks getting hefty year end bonuses, while Main St suffers a slow and undignified death. Many have observed that the chasm between haves and have nots continues to widen; worse, that the channels, or access, to upward mobility lessen with each passing year. What are your thoughts on all of this in coming decade? Will this trend reverse itself, ease somewhat, or will it continue unabated, a kind of 21st century Dickensian nightmare?

5. All of you are quite familiar with what some has referred to as the Mancession-what I want to ask you all is simply this: how long will it continue, what will be the likely impact and fallout, short term (this year) and long term (over the course of the decade), and where will the Men hit by it go from here? What do you see it most likely to happen?

6. Continuing on from the preceeding question, not only is little if anything is said about the Mancession on ANY MSM channel, network, website or blog, but the same can be said for the inevitable social upheaval it brings in its wake. However, many of you have spoken on this to one degree or another, in particular you Welmer; your work at The Spearhead online Men’s magazine is exemplary in that regard. My question to you all is, what are, and will be, the social ramifications for the literal flip-flopping of labor power here, from a majority Male workforce, to a majority Female one? How will this effect us, and in what ways will we see this over the coming decade? Does anyone see anything manifesting itself on the horizon, this year?

7. Again, in keeping with the theme of the previous two questions, we’ve all seen and heard of Tiger Woods’ travails; more recently, Obama Administration member Mr. Peter Orszag has come into the spotlight for his own questionable deeds of a personal nature. Clearly, both stories says something about us as Americans, and shakes to the core everything we profess to believe: Love, Marriage, Sex, Ethics, and so much more. With all that in mind, what will the coming decade bring along these lines-more instances of Woods and Orszag-like scandals of heretofore “squeaky” clean imaged Men? What does this mean for social institutions like Marriage?

8. As you all know, I am an African American, and as such, I have a keen interest in issues that effects them a bit more than everyone else. When it comes to Men overall, one is hardpressed to think up a subset that has been hardest hit than Black Males. I need not revisit the stats, you all know them. With a Black President in office for the first time in American history, do any of you see President Obama actually doing anything to address the many problems that besiege Black Men particularly, and ironically enough are now starting to plague the wider and Whiter American community, and if so/not, why? Do you see, or don’t see, any significant action or initiatives, taking place on this front in this decade?

9. Dovetailing the above and previous questions, what are your thoughts for the future of American education? I mean both in the primary and secondary levels? Some have openly begun to question the realworld utility of expensive and questionable college degrees out on the open job market; others have suggested that the elites have successfully duped everyone else into thinking that they cannot succeed without having gone into mountains of debt and obtaining a degree; and still others argue that colleges and universities act as de facto IQ certification courses, in an era where jobs cannot test for IQ outright. Personally, I am of the view that American higher education is not only vastly overrated, but that it actually does more harm than good in many cases. But that’s just me. What do you is likely to happen in the coming decade on this score? Feel free to elaborate.

10. Much of our discussions revolve around Women; last year, Maria Shriver released her much lauded “A Woman’s Nation” report. Given what it says, and your own thoughts on the matter, how will Women fare in this decade? What are the upsides, and downsides, and when do you see each manifesting itself? Again, feel free to elaborate.

11. Given the ever-quickening pace and accessibility of technology, what do you see on the horizon as the next big or even “micro” trends over the next decade? What will be the next “big thing” for the masses? What major pharma or tech-related innovations, discoveries and the like, that’s next to come to market, this year and in the coming decade? How will all of this change the way in which we as humans, as Americans, relate to each other?

12. A tremendous deal has been said about Game over the past few years, and some have suggested that it has gone “viral” or mainstream. That begs the question-will Game ever become a dominant force on the present/modern day American social and dating scene, and if so/not, why? What *is* the Future, of Game, say, circa 2020? How will Women “adapt”-can they? How will Game “evolve”? Will it still be relevant, ten years from now? How? In which way(s)? Feel free to elaborate. Given the current economic climate, and what is likely to happen over the course of the decade, how will this, and/or Game, impact the American dating/mating scene? Again, feel free to elaborate.

13. On to the world stage. Let’s begin with the recent “underwear bomber” scare a few weeks back. It appears clear now that we’re no closer to getting a handle on Al Qaeda than we were nearly a decade ago, with Sep 11, 2001. What do you perceive as President Obama’s next move(s) will be on this front, will heads roll in the wake of the current fiasco, and how will all of this effect American lives? Can we install an “El Al” type scheme? If so/not, why? Do you see another major terrorist attack on US soil, and if so, when? Can Al Qaeda be defeated, and if so/not, why? Where do you see the War On Terror moving to next-Somalia, or some other African country? Yemen? Where?

14. What are your thoughts of Obama’s plans for Afghanistan, and will they work? If so/not, why? What can it mean for the larger region-Iran, India, Pakistan? What about Iraq?

15. Assuming Obama runs for reelection, do you foresee him being reelected, or losing to a challenger? Who do you think that challenger will be? Will a Woman be elected by or before 2020? Who? Also, from your vantage point now, in Jan 2010, what will be Obama’s legacy? How will he be viewed by future historians? Will he be assassinated, and if so, when?

16. Many have suggested that the “emerging” world economies/powers, like China, India, South Korea and Brazil, will overtake the United States in this century. 100 years is a bit far off for my radar and tastes, so let’s just focus on the next ten years. What do you make of all the punditry surrounding these countries? Will they in fact become major players on the world stage by or before 2020, and if so/not, why? Personally, I see many social, political, economic and even environmental problems for all these countries, though to varying degrees depending on the particular country involved. But I put this question to all of you, my friends. Additionally, what do you see ahead for the African continent-what countries look to be up and coming stars on the horizon, and which ones are likely to fall over into the abyss in the coming decade? What role Africa, as a whole, play in the coming decade, and what role, is any, will the aforementioned “emerging powers”, and/or the USA, play in it? What say you?

17. Speaking of the environment, what are your views of Global Warming/Climate Change? Will this have particular impact for our nation in the coming decade, and if so, how?

18. Many of you here are at the least familiar with “HBD”, or Human Bio Diversity, if not out and out supporters of that view. What do you see as the future of said views, over the course of the coming decade? Do you see any evidence from where you sit in Jan 2010, of it becoming more mainstream, or the reverse? Some have suggested that it is the last remaining taboo of the Scientific World. Others have stated that it is little more than a 21st century of pseudo-scientific, racist-informed drivel, akin to Phrenology. Will Eugenics ever make a comeback to respectability since Hitler and Nazi Germany? What are your personal views of the matter? Feel free to elaborate.

19. This question follows the last, in that it has to do with a particular focus of the HBD crowd-IQ. For them, it is the most consistent and reliable indicator and predictor of life measures and outcomes across the human spectrum, from national GDP to personal conscientiousness. Many pundits, like the New York Times Tom Friedman, have made clear that the 21st century belongs to those who have the brainpower to take full advantage of all its wonderous possibilities. Personally, I think IQ is overrated, but I wanted to get the view of Men I consider much smarter than myself, LOL. What do you think? Is there one way to measure IQ, or many?

20. And finally, the last question-the last ten years has been dubbed “The Lost Decade”. Personally, I would largely agree with that moniker-but I think it will not be the only one. It is my view, based on my astrological researches, that the current decade will not be looked back upon favorably either. But how do you think this decade will be remembered?

Gentlemen, I thank you all for your time in answering these questions! I should like to check back in on these from time to time, to see who got things right, and who got them wrong. Thanks for sharing!

*Welmer, please send these questions to Novaseeker; I don’t have his email address, and please have him contact me via email. Thanks!

The Obsidian

Commenter Freakshow tossed this link into the Weekly Standard thread, and after reading the article, from the New York Times (Jamila), I could resist post it up for incisive discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html

Now, please note that it shoots all kinds of holes in the arguments Jamila’s been making in as many days. We’ll get to said arguments over the course of the ensuing discussion.

Also, please notice yet again the slant, tenor and tone of the discussion: ITS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE WOMEN. Never once do they seriously examine WHY so many Men and boys are dropping out of school. Now, I’m not the conspiracy theorist sort, but I say, that this lack of analysis is no accident. It is verboten to suggest that there are real differences between boys and girls, Men and Women, and that what motivates one tends to turn the other off. And, as a result of decades of thoroughly feminizing the campus, Men are beginning to vote with heir feet.

Which explains why indeed, more and more Men are dropping out. As we’ve been saying here and elsewhere, since Day One.

Please look at the dates of both this article, and the Weekly Standard-and please understand, that this ain’t a partisan issue.

Again, Kangol tip to The Fifth Horseman. Please read his Misandry Bubble article over at The Futurist? You’ll be glad when you did:

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

OK, people-and most especially Jamila-let’s roll…

The Obsidian

I don’t normally post more than once in a 24 hour period, but frequent reader and commenter Meep gave me a heads up on the upcoming Weekly Standard piece on Game and some of its most notable names:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/new-dating-game

Folks, everything you wanna know about today’s dating scene in early 21st century America is in this article. Please check it out, and by all means, do holla back with your comments.

A few quick observations before I turn it loose:

1. Lady Raine and Denise Romano have utterly failed to “shut Roissy down”. That the Man is quoted, at length, in one of America’s most prestigious political magazines, drives the final nail in the coffin of these two “ladies” jihad.

2. That what Roissy, Devlin and others have said about the essence of Feminism is indeed true-that it isn’t about “evolving”, but indeed *regressing*-to a lower form of being. It may not be politically correct to say, but it’s true-like Camille Paglia said, if we had to depend on Women to build civilization, we’d all still be living in grass huts. For the good of society, there simply has to be limits put on female sexuality. Otherwise, you get Black America writ large. Among other things. I’m just saying.

3. Far from exhortations of Romano and Raine trying to argue that poor young Women don’t know any better, Tucker Max proves every day and every night that these young hotties-the future business, economica and political leaders of America, mind you-definitely DO know what they’re doing, and have no qualms about it. It is for this reason alone that their efforts to shut Game down will end in a hilarious failure.

4. That The Weekly Standard-a stodgy, seersucker suit wearing Rightwing mag that covers insider baseball politics in the Nation’s Capital, has as its feature story a *12 page click* piece on GAME, really says it all-Game has indeed gone mainstream, and its very existence as an evolutionary adaptation to the Sexual Revolution of the 60s and 70s, that threatens to destabilize the entire country, should say to the few remaining naysayers, that we’ve got serious concerns that must be addressed.

And finally,

5. That if things are going to change, Women will be the ones leading the charge. They always have, and always will, set the tone in the sexual marketplace. So long as knuckleheads like Tucker Max has a steady stream of vaj to swim in, guys will ape Tucker Max. So long as Women think they can do their thing when young without consequence with the guys they want, the PUA business will thrive. And so long as this state of affairs continues, where the most acute losers will be the majority of Beta Males, we can reliably expect to see more Chos, more Sodninis, and more Hasans. To say nothing of a veritable army of terrorist recruits, spurred on by their permanent case of Blue Balls.

Of course, unbeknownst to most, the biggest Losers will be Women, not Men. In Nature, Women are the most vulnerable species-Men can manage to survive in the rough. And when guys aren’t getting any, they really don’t have any reason to give a f*ck. Hence one reason, albeit not a publicly spoken about one, of why violence against Women is so very high in urban America, for example. When most guys have a Woman and she’s breaking him off proper on the regular, violent crime overall declines. Don’t believe me? Take a look at where sexual access to Females in one form or another is highest, and where it’s lowest, and compare and contrast.

This is a powerful, powerful read, y’all-and I must tip my Kangol to my Man, The Fifth Horseman, who’s recent “Misandry Bubble” really nails it-expect to see many more mainstream media outlets speak on it, in one way or another.

OK-the floor is open!

The Obsidian

This is the question that has most been on my mind ever since Barack Obama himself first decided to run for President back in what, 2007? And its been like a nonstop Haterationfest since.

People familiar with this corner of the Internet know well what I mean-the Roissysphere, OneSTDV, Half Sigma, Steve Sailer, basically White Guys whose politics are center-Right, just don’t dislike the First Lady, they *loathe* the Woman to such a degree that it makes one wonder…why?

Like other pet interests many in the combined Game/HBDsphere that are advanced in the name of the “good of society”, the anti-Michelle Obama attitude on the part of these dudes is, some say, a “pushback” against the Liberal Media/Chattering Classes and their edict that Obama is beautiful-these stalwart, stout Men of Honor and Character, are here to say, NO, she’s NOT!

Uh huh.

Then, there are those who consider themselves taking a more principled stance, by opposing the First Lady on the grounds that she’s a vengeful, anti-American (read, anti-WHITE) Sista, who’s angry that she couldn’t cut it in the world of high academia and juris prudence and had to be an Affirmative Action recipient. Moreover, some of these guys say, she’s gotten over on the taxpayers, by taking a cushy makework job at the U of Chicago’s hospital, making well over 300K/year. Nice work if you can get it. Jealous much?

But while all of these reasons seem on their face “legitimate” I suppose, something else is going on here. I mean, to elicit such vitriol on the part of these guys…there’s more to the story than they’re letting on.

Is it Racism? Anything’s possible, but I’m not sure that’s it.

Sexism? Don’t know about that either, at least not entirely.

So, what is it? Why are these guys rabid at the very mention of the name Michelle Obama?

Personally, I think there are a few reasons. One, because she represents, rightly or not, the kind of stereotypical Black Woman that rubs these guys the wrong way-shes dark, tall, aggressive seeming, who was able to make significantly more money than most of these guys the old fashioned way-through The Hook Up. Of course, White guys had been doing this for centuries in the USA, but it wasn’t supposed to Darkies, and especially one like Michelle Obama, who had the gall to say during the campaign, that it was the first time in her life that she felt proud to be an American. Of course, the comment was said within context of the fact that her hubbie was the first serious Black candidate vying for the Office, and she had every right to be proud of that. How anyone could take what she said as anathema to all that America stands for, is interesting to me.

But I also think Obama elicits sexual angst on the part of many of her White Male detractors in this corner of the Web as well, though they’ll never, ever admit it. As last year’s NYT story on Michelle Obama’s family tree clearly proves, she, like virtually all native born African Americans, have White ancestry…White MALE ancestry…and it was not at all uncommon for a White Man to find his way between the thighs of Black Women who looked a whole lot more like Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey well before she lost the weight, than Gabrielle Union or Halle Berry. Indeed, the latter two Women, got their looks as a direct result of such “miscegenation”.

I think all of the “pushback” against Michelle Obama is really a kind of cover for a lot of sexual anxiety on the part of many White Men, especially in a corner of the Internet where sexual themes and issues are already fraught with difficulty-afterall, it is well documented that high IQs, which these Men laud above all other measures of human potential and endeavor, have been seen to correlate with lowered testosterone, inability to empathize with others, and to correctly read social cues. When one thinks about it, it is completely understandable to see how Obama the First Lady-darkskinned, assertive, tall in stature-could make these guys very, deeply, uncomfortable in ways that Eleanor Roosevelt or Hillary Clinton never could, even though both these former First Ladies had far and away more pull and influence on their hubbies administrations, and led powerful lives after they left 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

But, I’d like to get you, my dear readers, take on this:

Why do White Men Hate Michelle Obama?

What, say you?

Holla back

The Obsidian

Since Jamila’s been our special guest over the past few days and has inspired the past few posts, I trust she’ll be pleased that she has inspired yet a new one.

In the Black community, it is very common to hear the complaint on the part of highly educated Sistas, that they can’t find any Men “on their level”, which is taken to mean, similar or more formal education, income and status. Moreover, the biggest complaint these Sistas have and make, is that far too many Men simply cannot handle their fierce indepence, sparkling intellect and are too insecure for their own good.

So, after giving this a bit of thought and observation, I thought to post a simple question to such ladies (Jamila, etc et al):

If you’re so strong, independent and smart, why not focus on more passive Men? Wouldn’t that create a lot less friction in your life, and be a more mutually beneficial relationship experience for both parties involved?

For example, everyone knows David Alexander. He’s as genteel and agreeable as they come. Surely, strong, fiercely independent Sistas like Jamila could hookup with guys like him, right? Passive guys like him would love to have such a leader in Women like Jamila.

So, why don’t we see more such Sistas getting with such guys?

It seems to me that in order to be successful in getting what you want, you have to go to places where the kinds of people you’re interested in are. If indeed you’re a rare find, then corresponding mate material will also be rare to find, and you accept this going in. If indeed you are more independent and aggressive, then it only makes sense, for the sake of balance, to find a mate who is more passive. And so on. The big problem I see a lot of Sistas having is they don’t seem to understand basic Economics. You have to go to markets that want what you have to offer, and/or you have to tailor your “product” o meet the desires and demands of the current marketplace you’re in. Otherwise, your product winds up remaining on the shelf. Indefinitely.

While Women like to take pride in the fact that their sex is the one who calls the shots as to which Man “gets lucky” they continue to bear out the old Game maxim that they don’t want to take the corresponding responsibility for making sure they attract the right kind of mates from which to choose from. This is especially true for Black Women, who use the dearth of “eligible” Black Men as a crutch as to why they refuse to take any personal responsibility for their lives. Sure, to say that there is a shortage of the kind of Black Me Sistas want, is a given. But that doesn’t mean that Sistas can’t find suitable mates and by extension, have good relationships. Afterall, the very same uneducated, insecure Black Men these Sistas like to bemoan and excoriate, they all seem to do just fine finding mates of their own. Leaving these ostensibly sharp, on the ball Sistas…alone.

So, I thought that since, if you’re like me and are a bit snowed in, that I’d toss this question out on the table.

Comments?

Holla back

The Obsidian

Since Jamila kind of “dared” me to make a post out of this, I decided to meet her challenge. We will now discuss if this matter is indeed of more import to Women than to Men, and what that can mean as we wander into the second decade of the 21st Century.

Yesterday I referenced Roissy’s giving his take on two recent articles that have appeared in the MSM on Women’s prospects for getting married in our times; I’ll link the articles below:

http://www.slate.com/id/2243179/

Here’s what Roissy had to say about the matter:

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/one-key-to-marital-success-have-fewer-options/

OK – Here’s my take on it.

Please notice that both articles, and many others of late, are all written either by and almost certainly FOR Women – which I really don’t have a problem with in an of itself, but it does point to one undeniable fact -

Women are far and away more interested in relationships, than are Men, on average and in aggregate.

Now, my question to you is – am I and Roissy for that matter, right or wrong, and why?

Please know that I am not interested in your being a statistical outlier. We are discussing what the underlying purpose of these articles means, who wrote them and what audience they’re aiming for. I am warning everyone right now – grossly off-topic comments will be deleted.

OK, so let’s have at it…

The Obsidian

Recently Roissy gave his take on a spate of articles making the rounds of the nation’s leading papers and sites about the chances are for today’s Women getting and staying married; here’s the link to get his spin:

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/one-key-to-marital-success-have-fewer-options/#comment-154747

In the ensuing comments, commenter Jamilla says the following:

“

As a black woman who has had most of her experience with black men I can say that I have definitely had to play down my intelligence for the average black man that I’ve been involved with.

When I was in college the black men were obviously a different group of black men as far as intelligence, ambition, and–dare I say it?–morals and values from Joe Shmoe-black guy walking the streets. There the black men preferred intellectual women.

Now that I’m not in the insulated world of academia anymore I’ve had black men get extremely angry with me to the point of telling me to “kick rocks” and get lost after I disagreed with them regarding politics or economics.

White educated men tend to marry educated white women. So from my experience and what the statistics say about who marrys whom I have to believe that there will have to be fair amount of “dumbing down” for the average educated woman to get along with a man who doesn’t have as much education as her.

*Note: education does not equal intelligence and/or a knowledge about politics, history, economics, etc., but for the sake of keeping this post simply I didn’t distinguish between the two.*”

StrikeForce responds:

“

Jamila,
As a black man who has had the experience of debating with a black woman with a higher education degree over political policy or other matter of import, I can tell you that they seem to only really be focused on how that decision effects them as a woman. Also I notice an overbearing urge to upstage and dominate me as a man to prove that they can hold their own against me. Black men have it hard enough as it is from society to prove themselves equally qualified for positions in the workplace, and other parts of society. What black man wants to deal with that ish from a black woman.

I think what you mean to say is that you can’t seem to understand why your phone doesn’t ring after trying to upstage these men

Obsidian has an excellent post on this very subject. I strongly suggest that should go over there and check it out. I think you might learn something.”

Jamilla’s retort?

“

strikeforcemorituri,

Please spare me the “I’m a black man and I have it SOOOOOO hard in society” spiel.”

I dont know whether or not the overbearing urge to upstage that you say you get from these women is really occurring or if its only in you mind, I suspect the latter. Did these attempt to speak louder than you? Did they attempt to embarrass you in front of people?

Or did they just refuse to agree and in your mind a woman that won’t agree after you’ve expressed your far superior male intelligence along with buttressing your arguments with “its a hard world out here for a black man, ” is overbearing?

However I do understand your point that many black men have fragile egos. After spending the day being dominated by the white man he should atleast be able to dominate the black woman. Makes perfect sense to me.”

And so, since my name came up, I decided to contribute the following, addressed to Jamilla:

“Jamilla, SFM,
Since my name came up in the comments, I thought to join in.

I can’t speak for SFM Jamilla, but for me, the issue isn’t agreement, but rather factfinding and clarity on where and my interlocuter, in this case a college educated Black Woman may disagree. In fact, I’ve found that if anything, it’s the exact opposite of what you suggest, that it’s the Sista who’s trying to get me to agree with her point of view. This makes sense, since it’s a fact that Women as a rule don’t like dissention or being a raised nail, hence one major reason why Black girls go farther than boys in school. I was kicked out of class continually for refusing to play along to get along, and for calling my WHITE teachers pathetically incompetent in their inability to hold my attention and make the realworld case for my needing to learn the ruminations of long dead White Men, and how that directly appiled to my world as a Black Man. And since I’ve had considerable experience in both the Blue Collar and college campus worlds, I can say without reservation that most college educated Black Women couldn’t hold a candle to me when it comes to political debate on the issues. In fact, most have never studied a Logic 101 course, to say nothing of debate, and most suck at rhetoric, both in terms of formulate a convincing argument and the ability to deliver it in oral form. What they often do, is use their credentials as a foil for their subjective poilitical views, which is fine, but then if we’re going to have a pissing contest about such things, SHOW ME YOUR DATA, I’ll show you mine, and then we can determine where the rubber hits the road. What a lot of Sistas in this cohort get it twisted is that what either of us knows or doesn’t about Churchill, Reagan, Burke or Cicero has ZERO to do with what goes on under the covers at night.

Having said all that, yes, there are some Black Men who are indeed intimidated by “strong” Black Women. However, based on again, my direct experience in these matters, it’s alot more overblown than it is currently presented.

In any event, I too have been aware of the articles that are at the heart of this post and am very familiar with Coontz’s work as I have read her book on marriage and other matters. By the way Jamilla, fun question, have you read Coontz’s book? What about Hacker’s Mismatch? Or Tiger’s The Decline of Males? Or the book, Promises I Can Keep? They all directly speak to the issues we are examining, and I can promise you, I can find more Ivy League educated Black Women who haven’t even heard of the aforementioned books let alone their authors, than you can who have read them. To say nothing of the Federalist Papers, The Prince , Plato’s Republic or Churchill’s memoirs, just to name a scant few.

So…you were saying?

The Obsidian”

Because this is a forum that is much more amenable to discussing the Black dynamics of the initial topics broached over at Roissy’s, I thought to take the liberty of bringing said portions of that dialogue over here, so we can properly hash it out. Clearly, Jamilla feels strongly about this issue, and so do I and StrikeForce.

Come, let’s sit upon the ground and sort it all out…

Holla back

The Obsidian

PS: The post of mine that StrikeForce was referring to was:

http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/something-really-new-debunking-the-myths-as-to-why-successful-black-women-cant-find-a-mate/

When the Moon passes thru the Zodiac Sign of Libra, all things amorous is in the air, particularly when Valentine’s Day is a little more than a week away* and the Moon herself is making her way to aspecting Venus, the planet of love, sex and Game itself. It is for this reason that I wasn’t surprised in the least when I was alerted by one of my readers about the “war” going on between RooshV-a venerable Gamesman and notable authority on the Crimson Arts; and Anoukange, a local Washington DC blogger in her own right. By now, I’m fairly sure you’ve heard about it, and so I won’t bother posting up the links. Besides, my point goes to something else that, insofar as I know, hasn’t been discussed to any degree in Game-related circles, and which has been long overdue.

From what I gather, Roosh and Anoukange met at a club or lounge, he spit his Game, it was effective and they’re off to the races. Things got pretty heated pretty quickly, and, as such things often do, they fizzled out just as quickly. Along the way, Anoukange “caught feelings” as we say in the hood, and apparently, Roosh didn’t see eye to eye on the matter; this led the lady to “feel some kind of way”.

Hence, yet another confirmation of the wisdom of the ages: Hell hath no fury, like a Woman scorned.

At some point it seems, Anoukange discovered that the Man she’d been keeping company with was RooshV the Game blogger, which, given the series and nature of the events that transpired between them, only added to her discontent. Again, the details, from both sides of the fence, are readily available via a quick Google search. I leave it to my readers to come to their own conclusions.

But I will say this: dating and mating in the Internet Age can be a MFer if you’re not careful. It is not that hard to ferret out information on someone, as the recent “Lady Raine/Roissy Wars” clearly shows-and if feelings are hurt, time invested, messages are misconstrued, it can lead to headaches at the least, and very serious consequences at the worst. Public voices like RooshV, have even more reason to be circumspect with what they do, because whether they like it or not, and I include myself in this cohort, we indeed standard bearers and leaders in this community. What we say has impact; people read us and often respect us; and many will follow our lead.

It appears clear to me that Ms. Anoukange was both deeply hurt, but more to the point, she appears that she is clearly pained in a way that may require counsel beyond that of a good friend and a glass of zinfandel. Reading her email to Roosh that he posted on his website, with the term “sand nigger” in the subject title (its my understanding that Roosh is of, I think, Persian background?), and the long stream of comments that followed, speak both to anger but also to deep emotional problems that need to be addressed. I am hopeful that she does this, for her own sake and happiness in the future.

As for Roosh, I am hopeful that he has learned something most profound from this experience-that not only is Game powerful, but so too is the Internet. And like it or not, because he’s one of the Big Dawgs, he now has to exercise a degree of circumspection that he may not have had to consider in the days when he was just another face in the crowd. As one who has always been a close watcher of both the seen and Unseen, I do not think it is a coincidence that Roissy would be in the crosshairs, and now Roosh, although for slightly different reasons. Game has indeed gone mainstream, and those of us who have any say so simply must do a better job of policing ourselves. One of the most fundamental rules of Game is the importance of Target selection, and for my money, it’s not just because of what is noted in most Game books. In my personal experience and observation of others-like Roosh-it can make you or break you, literally.

So, as I signoff for the evening, I’ll impart a few quick pearls of wisdom in these matters:

1. Never deal with a Woman who you cannot see as the mother of your child. In fact, this is why I am NOT a fan of the “Same Night Lay” and so forth, because there’s really no way you can get to know someone well enough to determine if she’s got problems in the span of an hour or two. Yes, this will mean that your “notch rate” will take a hit, but you’re much less likely to experience what Roosh did as well. The last time I ran up on such a situation myself, was about a decade ago. And thank God, I learned from the experience.

2. ALWAYS be a Gentleman-we don’t kiss and tell, we don’t speak badly of the ladies in our lives, and we always acquit ourselves well when among them. Far from such notions being viewed as “Beta” or weak, it is indeed a true strength, and I’ve written about this elsewhere (Nice Guys Can Finish First, If They Have Game). When you treat a Woman with basic dignity and respect, it is highly unlikely that she’ll go after you, and if she does, everyone can easily see, that she is an A1 Headcase.

3. When you step outside your door, hit the club, bar, lounge, etc, with the intention of using your Game skills, you are not only representing the Game itself, but by extension, you are representing ALL OF US. What you do or say, can and will be taken to represent Game as a whole-Denise Romano & Co are living proof of this. And while some may dismiss her and others’ efforts to “curb” Game at the least, I see the big picture-either we make an effort to police ourselves, or eventually, someone who doesn’t share our concerns, can and most likely will.

Respect the Game, and as The Stapleton Singers said, Respect Yourself.

Catch ya on the Blackhand side…

The Obsidian

This is a topic that I’ve been meaning to get to for some time now, but, in that I’ve also received a goodly amount of letters from ladies wanting a bit of my worldly wisdom on affairs of the heart, this is a post they can make use of as well.

Among the complaints of detractors of Game, is that it is too narrowly focused on the niteclub scene and on the younger set of folks-early to mid 20s-and it is for this reason that it’s not “really” effective. Well, let me address both:

They’re right. And they’re wrong.

They’re right in that Game was indeed focused on these factors, but they’re wrong to think that it cannot “work” outside of said environment or outside said demographic. In that Game is inherently a social pursuit, it can theoretically “work” anywhere; and in that Game has to do with understanding what makes Woman tick sexual-socially, it can theoretically “work” on just about any Woman, regardless of age.

More to the point, I have studied these matters. The Haters, have not.

Although one of my key maxims is that wherever Male and Female are, there too, is Game, I also realize the simple fact that everyone ain’t cut out to rip it up at the club, or may not be interested in a teeny bopper. So this post will focus on a very crucial element of your Game, which actually goes beyond than mere Target Selection:

But about the varying locales in which you’ll have more success in bagging said Target in the first place, over others.

This is so very important, and it’s nothing wrong with admitting that you do better in some environments than others. In fact, it is a Wise Man indeed, that knows his limitations, and instead plays to his strengths, rather than running around acting a fool. If the club environment isn’t for you, DON’T GO TO CLUBS. Go to environments that give you a higher chance of giving you the results you seek.

Smaller venues are always better than bigger ones. Why? Because it gives you a better chance to stand out, that’s why. Futhermore, it also gives you a higher “hit rate” because chances are that you’ll already know at least one person at said venue previously; they can act as your social proof, and assist you in winning the rest of the crowd over to your side.

This principle can be extended to cities. There’s a reason why New York and Los Angeles suck for both sexes, insofar as dating are concerned. They’re both too big. And unless you have big, over the top personalities, that don’t mind pretty much ad hoc random hookups with little chance of anything permanent, neither city is for you. Now, I’ve dated a number of gals from the Big Apple-but here’s the thing. I either met them outside of NYC to begin with, or failing that, I met them at a smaller gathering where I was already “pre-approved”. Picking up gals on the fly in NYC is notoriously difficult for a whole host of reasons. Personally, I don’t even bother.

Game is a lot like hunting, and I firmly believe that if a guy has never hunted before, he’s likely to have a tougher time of understanding Game itself. Hunters by and large, don’t chase gazelles and does across the landscape. They carefully study their prey, learn its habits and comings and goings; they learn the lay of the land. Then, they post up, put out the bait-and wait. Patience is a big part of hunting, and I think the same is true for Game as well. This is why I strongly disagree with the idea of “speed seduction”, because when you really think about it, the term is an oxymoron. In Seduction, speed kills. If a quick lay is what you’re looking for, I’d suggest a Whore. If you’re looking for something more than that, I’d suggest learning how to run Solid Game.

Anyway, yea, Game is a lot like hunting. I’m something of the latter myself. And that experience has given me a keen understanding of what undergirds Game. Lots of guys take no time to learn their surroundings, the nature of the Women their going after, etc. Don’t make a PhD’s thesis out of it, just merely take some time to know where you’re going and who you’re dealing with. Doing so will immediately up your chances of success.

This goes even for a single city. There are better places and venues and by extension, Women for you in said city, than in other parts. Again, know your speed. Hit up those places or venues that are more likely to give you the success you seek. Makes no sense at all trying to chase down a gazelle.

And now, for the Ladies reading along…

It occurs to me that Women overall, aren’t a terribly introspective lot, at least not in their prime attractiveness years, 20 to 30. After that, I’ve found that they tend to be a bit more sober in these areas, but only because Necessity is the Mother of Invention-they HAVE to be, due to declining age and attractiveness. And because so much of a Woman, particularly one that is deemed hot, or even nicely attractive, is on “autopilot” in those years, it’s gonna be very tough to talk some sense into her during that time. Usually I’ve found, its the not so hot or homely gals who tend to take to this kind of advice during those years. Other than that, it’s the gals who are a bit longer in the tooth.

So I suspect that I’m speaking to one of the aforementioned groups, and hopefully, this will work for you.

Like I said above, the first thing you gotta understand is your location. Where are you, what kind of guys are you looking for, what kind of guys are in your same location, and what are the chances of you landing the guy you actually want? These I’ve found are some very difficult questions for a lot of Women to honestly answer, because they tend to be a lot more pipedream-influenced than are most guys. For example, let’s say you’re in NYC, and your goal is to nab a hotshot on Wall Street-uh, unless you’re a stompdown hottie, good luck with that. And even then it may not be enough. You’re aiming for the top of the stack, guys who by definition have more options than a little bit, and with some 8 million people in the Big Apple, you can best believe you are by no means the only one, even if you are a stompdown hottie. What makes you so special and different that he’s gonna want to get with and settle down with YOU?

So, unless you’re built like that to play in the big leagues, you’re better off going to a smaller venue, in this case, a smaller city or town. They’re be fewer guys overall, but also less competition too. And the guys that are there won’t be NYC bigshots. You’ll have a better chance of landing a guy for the longhaul than if you did your thing in NYC. Unless again, you’re cool with just casual dating, that sort of thing. If that’s the case, by all means, knock yourself out.

OK, that’s it.

Now adjourn your big city pipedreamin’ arses…

The Obsidian