Shriek, Then Run

Female rhetoric runs a standard script

As you probably noticed yesterday, several drive-by female readers were severely triggered by the post observing that intelligence is not an attractor. The first question this raises is why the post was triggering for them.

The reason, of course, is the only thing that triggers the solipsistic: they believed it made them look unattractive and low-status. A woman’s status among women is heavily determined by the status of the men with whom she is involved. So, if her man’s only notable attribute is his intelligence, the designation of that attribute as a non-attractor has devastating implications for her view of herself, and worse, the view of other women about herself.

Women only care about men’s opinions insofar as whether the man finds her attractive or not, they’re mostly engaged in the eternal competition of the female social deathmatch. So, it’s extremely upsetting to them when a high-status man provides her competitors with a means of removing one of her primary rationalizations for self-valuation.

Sure, my husband may have been a shy, broke guy who never had many women interested in him, but I am so special and smart that I recognized what all those women didn’t because I was attracted to his intelligence! He wasn’t the low Delta they all assumed, he was a Secret Smart Alpha and that makes me the Most Beautiful Princess! Our story is a high-status love story for the ages!

It’s absurd, but this is the way women actually spin their narratives to make themselves the Mary Sue of their own story. Gammas have nothing on the female capacity for spinning their own delusions. Notice that while her position was obviously incorrect, she was more or less rational right up until the moment I pointed out that she and her husband were a “low-status couple”.

It would appear someone violated her self-image.

There are few worse things you can do to a woman than punch through her Mary Sue narrative and inflict objective reality upon her. Since most women have zero ability to think original thoughts, their reactions when triggered inevitably follow the same script; they produce angry, incoherent, verbal walls of text that are meant to punch through what they believe to be your Gary Stu narrative, without making any attempt whatsoever to ascertain whether it is even remotely related to you.

First is the attempt to assert superior status:

You don't have the first clue how to BE the man a good woman would want to build a life with, but are too blinded by your own "brilliance" to admit it. I dated men like you and spit you out cold. And spouting your opinion about someone you literally know nothing about betrays the truth about your reality - you lonely, bitter, quasi-intellectual jerk.

Well! I don’t know about you, but I know I’m duly impressed and chastened. Next comes the defensive attempt to deny the obvious. What’s particularly amusing about her projection is that no assumptions were made about her at all, it was just a logical analysis of the purported facts that she shared without anyone requesting them, or apparently, remembering that she had done so.

"Assumptions"? Like his that we were "low status"? That my husband is/was a loser? Not having a clue who we are? Does working hard make one "low status"? What does that even mean in your tiny, sad little worlds? My husband has a beautiful, (by most men's standards) wife who adores him - what the hell do you have?

Beautiful? Really? She’s not ugly, and she was probably a 6 or so in her prime, but she’s fat and she’s old. It wasn’t an assumption, it was the only possible conclusion based on the information provided. Here’s a hint, ladies: if you want to try to spin a self-serving narrative in public, maybe don’t attach your pictures to it. Anyhow, next comes the attempt to justify her own assumptions:

Is he NOT alone? Is he NOT profiting from feeding nonsense to guys like him? Does he NOT present a facade of "I'm so smart, I outwit women in conversations and make them believe I am interesting, or make them believe that THEY are"? Kinda the 4D chess-gamer guy? Did I get something wrong? But truly, I do not care what you, or he, thinks.

Sure you don’t. And now we’re back to trying to re-erect the Beautiful Princess narrative.

I was not and have never been a "6" - and I chose a man of character; of intelligence; of honesty; chivalrous; of integrity; humility; good health and sound mind and body; motivated by success but not obsessed with it. We struggled; but we had each other. I broke every stupid cliche he points out as what women are after, and your argument is that my values and lived reality are embarrassing? Or that I should be embarrassed by my life and choices? Really - who should be embarrassed? It ain't me. But you keep being you. I'm sure that will work out fine. As long as you have the internet, a good gaming PC, and a bag of Cheetos.

It’s rather amusing, but for all that women claim to be repelled by men who are highly successful with women, their attempts to emotionally harm men are INVARIABLY focused on a man’s inability to score with women. They go right to what they imagine to be the “incel” killshot every time; even Mick Jagger and Brad Pitt have probably been told some variant of that at one point or another. Provoke a woman, any woman, to anger and she will immediately start attacking what she imagines is your status narrative, which, of course, tells you precisely where her emotional vulnerabilities are.

If you noticed, I never bothered defending myself or correcting any of the wildly inaccurate rhetorical flourishes from her or anyone else. Because it’s just rhetoric, and there is no informational content in rhetoric. It’s just empty words intended to emotionally manipulate the individual addressed, and in these contexts, to administer emotional pain.

But even if it is someone close to you who is launching an emotional assault on you for some reason, and not an ignorant stranger on the Internet, it’s really not that difficult to calmly observe the attempt to inflict emotional pain instead of registering it and responding emotionally in similarly-thoughtless kind.

Okay, so they’re actually angry enough to attempt to intentionally hurt me. That’s good to know; file that away for future reference. Now, shall I talk them down or shall I wind them up further?

It will probably surprise precisely no one to know that the lady in question has blocked me from her substack, almost certainly to prevent me from having access to additional data that would further puncture her narrative. Shriek, then run. Not that I would, in fact, I very much appreciate her willingness to provide such a stellar example of female rhetoric in action.