Is Dear Abby Another Sign That Game Has Gone Mainstream?

Yesterday, the University of Man had this post discussing mainstream sources accepting basic tenets of Game. And today, I just stumbled upon a very unlikely one: Dear Abby.

I’ve come to expect the newspaper advice columnists Dear Abby, Annie’s Mailbox, Dear Prudence, etc. as bastions of feminist thought. There are countless examples of them shaming men and chastising them for refusing to “man up”. For example, there’s this recent Annie’s Mailbox column discussed by The Angry Dad where the response insists a dad get checked for ADD because he doesn’t want to work two jobs so his wife can stay at home with their baby. Or this post from Roosh describing a Dear Prudence letter that suggested a man go to counseling for wanting daily sex from his wife.

However, I found one of today’s Dear Abby letters rather interesting. First, here’s the letter (I’ve bolded a few relevant parts):

DEAR ABBY: My friends and I are women in our late 40s and early 50s. Some of us are married, some are single. Individually or as a group we have taken classes, volunteered, gone on cruises, gone to clubs and bars — you name it.

We have noticed that nearly everyone at these activities is either female or with a female as part of a couple. There are loads of single middle-aged women out there joining things and having fun, but there seem to be almost no single middle-aged men. Friends in various parts of the country report the same thing.

Where do the single men go? They rarely go out alone or with a male buddy. Our running joke is they’re all home watching bad cable TV. Middle-aged guys must be there somewhere, but where? You’d think that if they wanted to meet women, they’d go where women are, but we rarely see them. Can you solve this mystery for us? — WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T, NORTHERN WYOMING

When I first read this, I laughed at the middle-aged women not understanding the concept that men, no matter what age they are, don’t want middle-aged women, so it’s no surprise that the woman who wrote the letter can’t find them and rarely see them. I was expecting Abby to have a whole response shaming these men, calling them emotionally immature or somesuch for not wanting to settle for these old hags, and I even began planning today’s blog post as a response to it. But then her response completely surprised me:

DEAR WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T: Part of your problem may be that most of the males in your age group are already married. I don’t recommend looking for eligible men in clubs and bars because the ones who go there are usually looking for younger women

She just flat out tells the truth about male nature to these women, that most men are seeking younger women. No shaming, no chastising. Just flat out stating an objective fact, like saying the sky is blue. She just tells these women that for men who do want to meet women, they ARE going where women are. Where the young women are, that is.

There’s really nothing to respond to in this Dear Abby column. The rest of her response that I didn’t post is completely reasonable advice for a single, middle-aged woman looking to meet a man. I just wanted to write my own post about it because I was so surprised that such a mainstream column as Dear Abby would accept and state as fact the truth that men want younger women.

If basic tenets of Game are becoming this mainstream, maybe the Manosphere is winning after all.

You Breed ‘Em, You Feed ‘Em

I hate children. Or at least other people’s children. I suppose I would love my own, if I had any (at least none I know about), and I plan on keeping it that way. Whether it’s a crying baby on an airplane, parents shitting all over my NewsFeed with inane pictures of their shitty kids, or the little bastards hogging the playground equipment when I’m drunk, I just thoroughly despise those little drains on society’s resources.

But what I absolutely hate the most is being forced to support other people’s kids with my tax dollars, along with their parents who find it acceptable to indiscriminately pump out their little bastard spawn and collect their welfare checks and other government assistance. Here’s one such story that caught my attention:

I firmly believe that if you can’t support your own children, you shouldn’t have them. And if you ignore that and have them anyway, then I don’t care if they’re starving and have nowhere to live. I, and the rest of society, should not be responsible for your mistake. I know the bleeding heart liberals will chime in with something like, “but why should the innocent children suffer?!” To which I respond, because I want their parents’ useless genes weeded out of the gene pool, and because maybe the parents should’ve thought about what kind of life they’d be providing for those children before they pawned them off on the welfare state.

Did the system fail her?

Did you catch this anchor’s question right at the beginning of the video? This is the kind of mentality I’m up against. No, the system didn’t fail her. SHE failed the children when she spread her legs, got knocked up, and didn’t abort FIFTEEN times. Seriously, I have no sympathy for this “mother” or her 15 bastard spawn.

Somebody needs to pay for all my children… Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay.

Yes, how about you hold yourself accountable and pay for your own damn children. Or your three baby daddies. Society doesn’t owe you a damn thing, especially for your irresponsible procreation. And especially not me or my tax dollars.

It’s this kind of bullshit that lets single mothers run rampant through our society without any consequences. They’re free to get knocked up by the deadbeat badboys that make their vaginas tingle without having to bear any of the burden. It’s time we end this for the future good of society.

A society with a system like this in place is doomed to failure. It’s not a sustainable model. Because you know who builds the bulk of society? Beta provider males. The ones who work hard, long hours in factories or offices to make an honest living and provide for their families. The geeks who develop the software and hardware that went into developing your iPhones and big screen TVs. The nerdy engineers who design the buildings, roads, and bridges you use everyday.

And what do they get for all this work? Long periods of celibacy before finally settling with an aging, 30-something used up wife who pumps out 0-3 kids for him before divorcing him because she got “bored” and taking half his hard-earned income and rarely letting him see those kids. How long before this beta male wises up and learns his hard work is also going to support a dysfunctional society that supports and tolerates women cavorting about with pump-and-dumping cads who show no signs of commitment? As it is, women have no incentive to find a good, honest, stable provider when they know the government will just foot the bill for any “accidents” that happen when they spread for the smooth talking player.

I’m not criticizing just the women, here, either. There’s also this recent story making its way through the headlines:

And you thought Octomom had her hands full—a Tennessee man who has fathered 30 children is asking the courts for a break on child support.

Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville has children with 11 different women, reports WREG-TV.

The state already takes half his paycheck and divides it up, which doesn’t amount to much when Hatchett is making only minimum wage. Some of the moms receive as little as $1.49 a month. The oldest child is 14 years old.

Hatchett explains how he reached such a critical mass: He had four kids in the same year. Twice.

Back in 2009 when Hatchett was in court to answer charges that many of the mothers were not receiving child support, he had 21 children. At the time, he said he was not going to father any more kids, but he ended up having nine more in the past three years.

The state cannot order Hatchett to stop making babies. He hasn’t broken any laws, according to the report.

This guy is just as bad as his 11 baby mammas. In fact, I find this guy so reprehensible that I support the state garnishing his wages for child support. This goes far beyond the normal cases of beta males being divorce raped, or even a player being forced to pay hefty child support for a one night accident that the girl won’t abort. By the time you’ve fathered 30 kids, you damn well know it’s no longer just an accident.

And we all know none of those 30 kids will grow up to be the next Einstein, Shakespeare, or Mozart. We all know they’re going to grow up to be 30 more deadbeat drains on society’s resources who perpetuate the same cycle. Though this is one prediction where I wouldn’t mind being wrong.

I swear, sometimes I wish there were IQ requirements before people were allowed to procreate. But the first, minimal thing we can do is to STOP REWARDING THIS BEHAVIOR. Most of us agree and argue that government should stay out of people’s private sex lives, and I’m taking that further to argue that government should stay out of the failed aftermath, too. Without this safety net in place, most girls would never allow themselves to be impregnated by these idiot losers. And that means the gene pool would be a much nicer place to swim.

The government should stop providing incentives for careless people to have kids when they can’t afford them. And if that means having a few babies starve to death for the greater good, so be it.

No, There Definitely Is Something Wrong With You

For my second blog post on here, I was planning on discussing more about my life story and how I got into the Game. But then I decided, to hell with that. I’m just going to jump headfirst into the Manosphere with a fan-favorite topic: bashing feminism.

This recent post on Jezebel titled “For Chrissakes, There Is Nothing Wrong With You: A Dating Manifesto” attracted my attention, as it’s just dying for a response. It’s another one of those feel-good pieces of nonsense proclaiming how all women are beautiful in their own way. I hate to break it to you, ladies, but not all of you are pretty. In fact, many of you are just plain ugly, and the chances of that are higher if you’re one of the fat feminist land-whales who regularly reads Jezebel.

The whole article reads like a butthurt woman who has failed to attract a quality man and is now desperately rationalizing her failure by seeking the support and comfort of other butthurt women who have failed to attract a man. She just can’t grasp the fact that men are primarily attracted to a woman’s looks, and her hamster is desperately spinning to find some other explanation. More than that, she is trying to find a way to excuse herself from having to improve her looks, or really anything about her, to attract a man. Sorry, but arguments that fall under the category of “there’s nothing wrong with me, there’s something wrong with everyone else!” just don’t work.

The simple truth is that if you can’t attract a mate, from a biological and evolutionary standpoint, there is something wrong with you. The entire evolutionary process is dependent upon finding a member of the opposite sex with which to mate, and if you can’t make yourself attractive enough to find a quality mate, you are failing in what evolution is pushing you to do. I freely admit that in my former beta days when I couldn’t attract a girl to save my life, there was indeed something wrong with me. So I set about identifying what I was doing wrong and improving that aspect of my life by learning Game. Why can’t women just freely admit the same? If men aren’t finding you attractive, perhaps you should think about finding a way to improve your looks. If I tried to make the same argument, that women should love me and be begging to sex me up just for being the charmless, needy beta that I was, I would be laughed off the Internet.

But I digress. Let’s go through this article so that I may point and laugh at all that is wrong with it. My comments are in bold.

As modern ladies of marrying age (read: used-up thirty-somethings who have ridden the cock carousel and are now desperately looking for a guy to settle down with before they get much older and hit the wall completely), our trusty inadequacy paradigm has always gone something like this: “I’m too fat for the men I like (What men is that, dear? All the alpha males who make your vagina tingle but won’t have anything to do with you because you’ve allowed yourself to bloat up?).” “I’m too ugly to get married (Yeah, you probably are).” “I’m too old to find a guy (Don’t worry, I’m sure one of those poor betas you friend-zoned a few years ago will still desperately take you now that no other man with options will).”

And that’s just the first sentence. Let’s continue.

So couldn’t we just call bullshit on this entire idea and be, I don’t know, people? People who don’t exist “for” men? (No. As I explained earlier, women exist for men just as much as men exist for women. That’s just how life and biology works. Deal with it.)

We have to quit defining ourselves solely in relation to dudes. Like, “I am not me—I am some imaginary man’s imaginary perfect 10, plus 50 extra pounds, minus a 20-inch waist, plus a threatening commitment to feminism, minus any desire to pretend to care about bike polo! That’s me!” No, that’s not you. That is a weird monster you made up to torture yourself. (Or maybe it is you, and your hamster is spinning to convince yourself it’s not. If a man made the corresponding argument, “I am not me–I am some imaginary woman’s imaginary perfect 10, plus 50 times needier, minus any confidence, plus a threatening addiction to World of Warcraft, minus any desire to hold a steady job!”, you’d call him a creepy loser.)

Any man who is a person wants to be with a woman who is a person (An ATTRACTIVE person). Attraction isn’t intellectual, it’s involuntary—and if men really only wanted to squirt their penises inside of silent supermodels (they do), then regular people would be extinct. But look to your left. Look to your right. Regular people in the house! (So by your “logic”, you’d be happy being with just a regular man, then? Also, men really, really, really just want to have sex. The hotter the woman, they more they want to have sex with her. But most men aren’t capable of attracting silent supermodels, so they settle for whatever woman consents to letting them put their penises inside her. Unfortunately, most of the time they’re settling for quality similar to your regular, bloated ass. I would bet my life savings that if they actually had the chance to leave your “regular” self for a supermodel, you should consider your ass dumped.)

Fundamentally, men are attracted to the exact same thing in women as women are in men (No, they are not. Men are primarily attracted to looks. Everything else is a far distant second place): Confidence. Self-assuredness. Agency. Knowing who you are. (I don’t give a shit about any of this in a girl if she isn’t pretty. Also, this contradicts the idea of attraction not being intellectual you were saying just a moment ago.) But it gets sticky, because confidence is also the opposite of helplessness, and a lot of men (insecure men) (I noticed your cheap shot at attempting to emasculate the men who disagree with you. It won’t work on me.) need women to be helpless, because helpless people aren’t in charge. (If I have to choose between a girl who’s helpless and your cuntish feminist attitude, I’m choosing helpless. But men don’t want helpless chicks. Men want pretty women who are sweet, pleasant, and feminine. Though I can see how you’d confuse that with being helpless.) And people in charge want to stay in charge. And the people in charge are men. (Thank the Lord Almighty!) (To be clear, I’m talking in broad, sloppy, systemic generalities here—not saying your dad is secretly trafficking lady-slaves from Belarus or something (If my dad was doing that, I’d buy him a beer and give him a high-five). You know what I mean.)

All the faux-evolutionary excuses people give for modern beauty ideals (gigantic boobs means more milk for cave-babies! A tiny waist means a bigger uterus!) are garbage. (They’re beauty ideals because those things make most men’s dicks hard. I really don’t care what the evolutionary reasons are. Gigantic boobs and tiny waists make my dick hard. The opposite of small boobs and a large waist does not. That’s all the reason I need.)

Here is what I will cop to in terms of our primordial human standards of beauty. To bag an early-man, you probably needed:
1. Most of your limbs.
2. Minimal open sores.
3. A baseline level of health and robustness to be able to care for a child and/or defend it from lions. (Yeah, but I don’t think feminism and female obesity was quite as rampant in prehistoric times as it is now. Hence, a far larger percentage of women would be deemed bangable by that fact alone.)

We, as women, go our whole lives believing this lie that all we have to do is to stop being too fat and too flat-chested and too bitchy and too uptight, and then the perfect dude will finally love us forever. (Um, yes, pretty much.) But chasing that stupid phantom doesn’t make us necessary—it makes us disposable. It makes us powerless. Because we’re not people anymore, we’re holes. Miserable, back-stabbing holes. (Golly gee-whiz, what man wouldn’t want to stick around and commit to you with your obviously pleasant disposition?)

There’s this dumb, deathless stereotype that women only chase men who don’t need them (read: rationalizing the womanly desire for aloof alpha males)—but, um, that’s because everyone wants someone who doesn’t need them. Everyone wants someone who doesn’t need anyone! (Alpha males don’t. That’s partly why they’re attractive.) The only people who actually should be helpless are babies, and who wants to fuck a baby? Not me! (Pro tip: If you just yelled “Meeeeee!” and high-fived yourself, call the cops.) (This whole thing is starting to read as angry and incoherent.)

But what’s needier than turning your life into one endless Sally Jesse Raphael makeover episode?  What’s more helpless than carving yourself out of some dude’s janky old rib? (Trying to desperately convince the Internet that you don’t need to be attractive to get a man interested in you?) That is the opposite of finding an actual person who might actually love you. So stop it. You are not “too” anything for anyone. Be a person. Hang out with people. Do what you want and you’ll get what you want. (Not necessarily. Ladies, if you eat a tub of ice cream every night, you might be doing what you want, but you certainly won’t get the man that you want.) Giving up on other people’s expectations isn’t settling (So can I give up on women’s expectations that I be confident and hold a decent job and still have them find me attractive?)—it’s demanding what you fucking deserve. (You don’t deserve anything if you’re not going to put in the work to achieve it.)

Working to make yourself attractive to the opposite sex isn’t needy. There is no shame in women conforming to the standards desired by men of being pretty, sweet, and feminine. Competing with others for mating privileges is a normal, natural part of life. Evolution makes competition necessary. Attracting a man is why feminine women wear makeup and stay thin. Attracting a woman is why men do, well, pretty much anything. But being attractive takes work. Ladies, no matter how much you rant on the Internet, you’re never going to attract a quality man if you lay around staying all fat and frumpy and feeling entitled to have an attractive man interested in you without you needing to do anything.

If you’re not going to put in the effort required to attract a quality man, that’s fine. Nobody’s forcing you to. But then don’t bitterly complain when no man finds you attractive.