Never Give Rhetorical Ground

Female subversion is instinctual and relentless

One of the things that separates high-status men (Alpha, Bravo, Sigma) from low-status men (Delta, Gamma, Omega) is that high-status men instinctually grasp the importance of maintaining frame. And while Game-aware low-status men usually understand how frame can be lost to a direct assault on it, they are usually unaware of how it is more often systematically eroded by passive-aggressive attempts to undermine it.

Since women prefer to avoid direct rhetorical conflict with high-status men who are not hesitant to deal with them in the same way they deal with men who challenge them, a common female tactic is to attempt to weaken, subvert, and redirect the message being sent by the high-status man by appealing to reason, sympathy, bonhomie, and other virtues that have absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the message. This is usually the result of the woman’s solipsism being offended in some way by the message, which is why it is so common here to see women attempting to change the subject and redirect it away from anything that makes her feel bad.

Most men fall immediately for female attempts to redirect the discourse.

Here is an actual example of an attempt at female subversion in response to a post on my personal blog, which I originally followed up here in a post entitled Recognize the Dichotomy.

Can we not take this to the easy route of “women bad?” Frankly men have also been quite damaged as well and are totally unprepared to be the men a traditional minded woman would want them to be. Maybe if we thought of this as more about the influences (ers) and how to mitigate them. Technology and how it changed the idea of work and how it is done is a third party in this ongoing growth and change of humanity and it hasn’t even entered the conversation.

Note that there was no statement of “woman bad”. What there was were factual statements of the intrinsic contradiction between collective male preferences and collective female preferences, the necessity of one or the other having societal priority, and the inevitable outcomes of the two options. However, because the woman actually shared my perspective that the outcome of a societal priority on female preferences is undesirable, she translated that into “the easy route of ‘woman bad’” which triggered her solipsism into a desire to subvert the discourse into a useless mutual condemnation of technology and social media influencers that would avoid making her feel bad about the direction of society.

Being a high-status man, I naturally did not permit her to subvert the discourse, by addressing her attempt to do so in a direct manner.

No. That’s stupid and you are attempting to avoid the necessary actions. In fact, your words are classic cuckservatism, intended to prevent people from seeing the truth and acting on it. The logic is clear: either male preferences or female preferences must have priority. There is no middle ground. Anything and everything you do will either support one or the other. If it’s necessary for everyone to say “women bad” in order to stop prioritizing female preferences, then you should absolutely support that. Win the battle, don’t worry about how it is fought.

This led to a partial retreat and the inevitable resort to Churchianity that Christian women usually attempt when a man fails to respond to their appeal to “I’m just a girl, don’t make me feel bad.” This is as opposed to the attack on the man’s sexual appeal to which their secular sisters usually utilize.

Is it really that black and white? Yes, women and men are very different with very opposite motivations, needs and desires. However we do not live separate lives that come together for copulation only. Is life better when rational men are in charge? Yes!! However, we as women have a place in God’s creation and a purpose too. On a longer timeline we are relearning how God wanted us to be with each other. How do we replicate God’s creation in humanity.

Absolutely. Have you not been paying attention for the last sixty years? What women want is ready access to anti-conception technologies, abortion on demand, and equitable representation in all occupations, professions, and industries they deem desirable. And those desires are not compatible with any society that wishes to survive or even maintain its current technological level.

We are definitely talking past each other. I will admit I brought in a topic that wasn’t within the parameters of post. How do we get back to the garden in this fallen world was my thoughts, but that is not the topic of the day.

No, we are not. You are literally part of the problem. I’ve dealt with men and women like you for decades. It’s no different than the conservatives who always fire right. You simply don’t want the problem to be addressed in any way that makes you feel bad. We don’t '“get back to the garden”. Period. Don’t worry about getting back to the garden. Worry about keeping indoor plumbing. That just MIGHT be possible, if we’re very lucky.

Another woman, seeing that the first woman’s attempt to subvert the discourse was failing, chimed in to bolster it, with a similarly nonsensical appeal to Churchian logic.

Looking ahead to what the peace could look like is important bc I want my kids to be helping build that world, and “woman bad” isn’t part of that peace bc it denies Creation.

“Looking ahead to what the peace could look like” is not important at all. What’s important is to get out of the way and support the “extremists” who will do and say the necessary things that you won’t. That’s total gibberish. Women absolutely, 100 percent, ARE bad. Women are sinful, fallen, evil creatures. Men are too, but that’s irrelevant. The fact that 4+1 is also equal to 5 is totally irrelevant with regards to the fact that 2+3=5. Furthermore, “women bad” is rhetoric… and it’s rhetoric that isn’t even being used, it’s rhetoric that someone is afraid MIGHT be used. The entire topic is retarded.

Now, keep in mind that these two women were not feminist advocates of societal destruction. These were good Christian women who share genuine concerns for the way society is clearly headed, but so great is their solipsism that they would rather endorse total societal destruction for themselves and their children than accept an observable and logically-correct truth that happens to make them feel bad about themselves.

Always ignore the blandishments. Keep your eyes fixed on the truth and the Truth.

Which is why it is absolutely vital for low-status men to learn that their burning need to accommodate female feelings is severely detrimental, not only to their own status and the way others regard them, but to the very civilization in which they dwell.