Indicators of Contempt (IOCs)

Are you aware of how others view your status?

Readership: All; Men;
Theme: Risk Assessment
Author’s Note: This post expands an earlier comment.
Length: 1,400 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes

What is Contempt?

Researcher Dr. John Gottman came up with what he called The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, indicators concerning the downfall of the health, vitality, and longevity of LTRs and marriages.

  1. Contempt
  2. Criticism
  3. Defensiveness
  4. Stonewalling (e.g. the silent treatment)

According to Gottman, Contempt is by far the most corrosive and dangerous. In fact, his conclusions from four decades of research show that the contempt of a wife for her husband is the most critical marker for gauging the health of a marriage, and it is the number one predictor of divorce! Thus, it is imperative for men to learn how to read this emotion in the women in their lives.

Contempt is a Biological Indicator of Hierarchy

Feeling contempt asserts power or status. The basic notion of contempt is: “I’m better than you and you are lesser than me.” It’s widely believed that the function of contempt is to signal a feeling of superiority, of not needing to accommodate or engage, and to assert emotional distance, independence, power, or status [Ekman].

People in “subordinate” positions feel contempt towards those who have a higher social, political, or legal ranking. Some examples include the contempt teenagers may feel towards adults, workers for their bosses, prisoners for their guards, and wives for their husbands.

While this kind of “upward contempt” is more common, the reverse is also true in which someone with a higher ranking feels contempt towards those with a lower ranking.

Those who are uncertain about their status may be more likely to manifest contempt to assert their superiority over others.

The correlation of contempt, one of the seven basic emotions common to human beings all over the world, with status, indicates that social hierarchy is inherently biological, and not a social construct.

Case Study — Implicit Predetermined Rebellious Disagreement

Anonymous detected contempt from his ex expressed in one simple word. He writes,

“I can write a book on the rebelliousness of my late wife. Here is just one example:

My wife pulled her car in front of the garage. I walked over, opened the passenger door and asked her to pull behind the other car on the far side of the driveway. She asked, “Why?”

“I replied, “Because that is my wish.”

She quipped, “You’re an a$$hole.”

Her questioning “Why?” is a manifestation of her desire to control and is a form of contempt. Her questioning why is an attempt to decline her simple submission by placing me in a position to explain my straightforward request, and essentially shift the decision (whether to move the car) to her. If I were to respond with a reason, it would imply that it is now her decision whether to move the car. This is not to say that she wouldn’t do as I had asked, however that is not the point. The point is her attempt to change the dynamic between us; to put her in control.”

Σ Frame Maxim 28 (Jack): Don’t admit her argument. Do not argue with the help. Seek her submission, not her agreement.

Detecting Contempt

While contempt is a standalone emotion, it is often accompanied by anger, usually in a mild form such as annoyance. It is also accompanied by a feeling of power and superiority which may be a pleasurable experience for some people, whereas for others it can feel embarrassing and/or shameful.

The expression of contempt can occur with or without a hint of a smile or angry expression.

The key difference between resentment, anger and contempt stems from how a person perceives the status of the “offender”. Resentment is directed at people with perceived higher status; anger is directed at people with perceived equal status; contempt is directed at people with perceived lower status [Hay].

The difference between contempt and hate is that hate is an evaluation that someone is evil or dangerous, whereas contempt judges someone to be inferior.

The difference between contempt and disgust is that disgust is aroused by objects that are aversive to the senses (taste, smell, sight, sound, touch), and one doesn’t necessarily feel superior to the person/thing that disgusts them [Ekman].

The most common trigger for contempt is when one perceives that an immoral action has been done by a person or group of people to whom one feels superior.

Contempt is also felt to a lesser degree when someone fails to meet one’s standards. Thus, it is natural for an alpha widow to feel contempt for a man she settled for, as he can never compare to her earlier lovers. It is also natural for the man she settled for to feel contempt for her because of her past sexual history and her inability or refusal to pair bond.

So when a woman feels contempt for a man, she’s revealing several vituperative attitudes.

  • “I’m better than you” or “I can do better than you” or “I’ve had better than you.”
  • “I’m uncertain about the hierarchical structure of this relationship.”
  • “I have a higher status than you.”
  • “I’m morally superior to you.”

As you can see, for any of these stances, Heart Trust and Humility is out of the picture, so her submission and respect to him is out of the question.

Hiding behind that cute smirk is a world of pain waiting for you.

Indicators of Contempt

The woman’s lack of respect for a man is commonly cited in the Christian Manosphere as a common problem in relationships. But contempt goes far beyond a lack of respect. Contempt is expressly anti-respect because it denigrates one in authority. That’s why it’s so destructive.

Contempt goes under men’s radar for a long time, partly because women are skilled in keeping it toned down in order to stay relevant and advance their own purposes. But to the trained observer, it can be detected in certain Indicators of Contempt (IOC).

Here’s a list of the 30 most common IOCs.

  1. A heavy, intense gaze
  2. An assertive, upright, militaryesque posture
  3. Asymmetrical facial expressions, especially a raised upper lip on one side, the tightening of one cheek, or one raised eyebrow.
  4. Avoiding or refusing to engage in honest open conversation.
  5. Biting sarcasm
  6. Edgy-ness
  7. Fostering an ill will
  8. Heavy sighing
  9. Huffing
  10. Intentional avoidance of direct eye contact
  11. Looking down the nose or over eyeglasses
  12. Maintaining an “I’m right and you’re wrong” mentality.
  13. Mocking expressions, e.g. amazement, surprise, taunting, sticking out the tongue, etc.
  14. Objectifying the man’s unique or abnormal traits in a condescending manner.
  15. Passive-aggressiveness
  16. Physical avoidance; pulling away from physical contact or withdrawing from physical proximity.
  17. Puffing up the chest
  18. Pursed lips
  19. Raised or furrowed brow with an uninterested or degrading demeanor
  20. Random accusations
  21. Rolling the eyes
  22. Scorn
  23. Shame tactics
  24. Sharp dismissive statements like, “yeah, right…”“whatever…”, or “OK, I’m done here”.
  25. Smug or disapproving vocalized sounds or tone of voice.
  26. Squinted eyes
  27. Sudden deft actions (like slamming a door or throwing a book on a table carelessly).
  28. Tedious impatience
  29. Verbal insults
  30. Wrinkled nose

Men find these IOCs annoying but they don’t really recognize this arrogant lack of humility and trust as the latent rebellion that it is. Neither do they realize that the relationship is on thin ice.

Snapshots of Contemptuous Microexpressions

Our study of the indicators of contempt would not be complete without a collage of microexpressions of contempt.

Of particular note, contempt is the only emotion with a unilateral facial expression, meaning that the expression is not symmetrical. However, contempt can be expressed without a unilateral expression.

These are indicative of a Proverbs 21:9;19 woman, and you will suffer if you are in a relationship with one.

For single men, if you see any of these recur during dating you can either try to fix it or end it, but the reality is the amount of effort required to readjust her attitude is not worth it when you can put the same effort into looking for a decent woman who respects you and offers IOIs.

For married men who see these indicators, you can either step up your Game by an order of magnitude or else prepare for the worst!

Sources

  1. The Gottman Institute: The Four Horsemen: Contempt (2013-05-13)
  2. Jeff Hay Counseling: Spousal Resentment Meter
  3. Paul Ekman Group: What is Contempt?

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Attitude, Authenticity, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Female Power, Holding Frame, Indicators of Contempt, Models of Failure, Personal Presentation, Psychology, Respect, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to Indicators of Contempt (IOCs)

  1. lastholdout says:

    Below is a link to a clip from the movie, The Second Time Around. The clip exhibits the disrespect and contempt of a woman toward her husband. A lot of IOCs . . .

    With All Thy Mind: Dissection of a Conversation (mp4 video; Length: 5:26)

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      In the video lastholdout shared, what is really remarkable is how common this kind of interaction is. It’s so common that it’s hard to pick up the nuances, partly because it’s wearisome. The first time we watch it, we’re not much aware of all the IOCs, but later when they’re spelled out, it really hits home how nasty the wife is.

      Another thing that is remarkable is how well the husband keeps his cool in the face of a hospitalized mother and a contentious wife. It’s hard to figure out what he’s doing wrong until you realize that he should not be so tolerant of his wife’s attitude. Once you pick up on this, then you can see how he’s letting the nasty wife dominate the whole situation with her anger.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Another thing is how “normal” all this is. Women are so accustomed to acting like this, and we men are so accustomed to seeing this, that we don’t think anything of it.

        I saw all the women and girls in my family act like this all the time to their men. I saw my mother do this to my dad all the time. I saw aunties do this to their husbands. I saw my sisters do it to me and to their boyfriends and their male friends. I saw my grandmothers do it to everyone.

        And men just put up with it.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Scott says:

        Eyerolling and all the rest of it is considered normal because men are stupid children who need to be trained to not have big heads. A man standing up for himself is an out of control, conceited, narcissistic abuser who needs to be put in his place.

        (Usual caveat: Unless she thinks he is hot.)

        Several generations have been taught this. It’s not going to be easy to make that ratchet go backwards.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Elspeth says:

        That video is pretty shocking (just took the time to watch it). I literally could not imagine getting past the first disrespectful tone or gesture without the whole conversation stopping right in its tracks: “Who do you think you’re speaking to like that?” would have been asked 10 seconds in.

        I recall a couple of years ago when Hearthie wrote a post and in the comments she mentioned that when she disrespects her husband, she is immediately and unpleasantly corrected. I related to her words and understood where she was coming from. She was commending, not denigrating her husband. However, the overall reaction was howls of abuse, or a horrible husband, bad marriage, etc, even on another discussion site where she never even mentioned it. It was not received in the spirit with which it was offered.

        Thanks, lastholdout. I’d never seen something like that so spelled out before. I plan to share it broadly.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I literally could not imagine getting past the first disrespectful tone or gesture without the whole cpnversation stopping right in its tracks: “Who do you think you’re speaking to like that?” would have been asked 10 seconds in.

        And this is one place where your experience is much different from most men.

        Most men calling out a woman for doing what that actress did would be threatened with divorce inside of 10 seconds. She’d say, “Harrumph, I can talk to you any d@mn way I want. I’m frazzled, I’m exasperated, I’m frustrated, and you just have to deal with it. Say one more word, complain again, and I’ll go see a lawyer tomorrow and take your @ss to the cleaners. GOT IT??”

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth

        You just don’t even know. The way that actress acted during that scene is incredibly common. Women act like this at their husbands all the time. I’ve seen it. Everywhere. Pre Red Pill, Mrs. deti did this to me. All the time. In public. In front of other people.

        Women think absolutely nothing of doing this to every man in their lives. They do this to their husbands, their fathers, their sons, their uncles, their extended family, men they go to church with, even their pastors.

        Everyone but their bosses. Everyone but men they work for. Everyone but men who sign their paychecks.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        “And this is one place where your experience is much different from most men.”

        Yes, this is the case. Saying the words, “Who do you think you are talking to?” is what the Duluth model calls “male privilege” because it appeals to a hierarchy where the husband is not to be talked to like that. It is absolutely forbidden, by law, in fact.

        You could use it as evidence that you are being abused, because you are afraid to speak to your husband any way you like.

        The “correct” way, in the current system, to not be talked to that way is to say,

        “Dear. I feel that we may not be compatible as a couple because your communication style does not work with mine. I think we should consider couples counseling so we can learn to understand each others’ love languages better. If that doesn’t work, we may look at a trial separation, and maybe divorce.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        “Dear. I feel that we may not be compatible as a couple because your communication style does not work with mine. I think we should consider couples counseling so we can learn to understand each others’ love languages better. If that doesn’t work, we may look at a trial separation, and maybe divorce.”

        At first glance, this seems like a pansy @ss response, but if the man is serious, then this is actually soft dread game which ups the ante and forces her to make a decision for better or for worse. So maybe this is not a bad approach after all. The thing is, counseling is femcentric and Duluth-centric and will make things worse by encouraging the wife’s bad behaviors. Also, most men would never get the idea to speak with their wives this way. Even those few who might give this kind of response would never back it up with real action, which would make the situation much worse because it would reveal that his pansy @ss is not really in charge.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Husbands, to the contrary, have an array of rules about communication that they are bound by, and may not step too far out of bounds.

        Like

      • lastholdout says:

        After 25 years when I finally woke up from my Blue Pill stupidity, I had a long conversation with my wife about how she talked to me and responded to me, setting it in the context of my headship and the reverence she is required to have. Thereafter, when she would talk to me disrespectfully, I would tell her, “Don’t talk to me like that, I am your husband.” In the end, after 33 years, it didn’t make a difference. It was ingrained in her with all the support of the churchians and the culture.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “In the end, after 33 years, it didn’t make a difference.”

        Your wife left you after 33 years? No one is safe then…

        My wife’s sister and her husband are getting divorced. They’re currently separated and living apart and planning to divorce. She left him after 29 years of marriage; 35 years together. He’s 64. She’ll turn 61 in a couple of months. There were a lot of reasons I won’t go into here, and yeah, my brother in law instigated a lot of it. The point is they aren’t working it out, and they’re headed that way. And I am paying very, very close attention to Mrs. deti’s responses and reactions to it all.

        The only wrinkle there is that she was their breadwinner. My state has indefinite maintenance for marriages over 20 years old. So he will be entitled to alimony from her for the rest of her working life, and half her pension. My suspicion is that the only reason she has not filed yet is because he’s got her over a barrel finance-wise. He’s entitled to alimony and half the pension. Entitled. Not even a bargaining chip. He has no incentive to negotiate them away. He WILL get those things by operation of law.

        Interesting times we live in.

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        I am not above making mistakes, or getting annoyed or any of that stuff. I have occasions when I feel as if I am not being heard. And yet, I never roll my eyes. I don’t glare at my husband.

        You can learn how to say what you need to say and be heard without disrespect. I do take the deep breaths (yeah, so I can be sure not to be ruled by my momentary emotions), then I look into my husband’s eyes, and start off with, “Babe…this is what I’m saying…”

        Simple. Easy. Far more effective.

        For the record, I took a poll of 10 women once and none had ever heard of Duluth. I’d never heard of it until the sphere.

        The idea that a man’s vocalization of his perspective is legally abusive still floors me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “The idea that a man’s vocalization of his perspective as legally abusive still floors me.”

        That’s not what that man is doing. He’s not vocalizing his perspective. He’s issuing a command. “Do not speak to me that way.” He’s laying down a boundary. “You will not speak to me that way.”

        Elspeth, in almost all other marriages, men are not “allowed” to issue commands or set down boundaries. Women can say whatever they want to their husbands. Women can speak to their husbands any way they wish. Women can tell their husbands what to do; but when men tell their wives what to do, that’s abuse and aggression and criminal behavior.

        Most of us in the sphere grew up seeing this and having this done to us. I did. I saw my mom do this to my dad all the time. My grandmothers did it to everyone.

        The message was very clear:

        “I get to do and say whatever I want, or I will not have sex with you.

        “I get to do and say whatever I want, and if you disagree, you’re a monstrous sexist ogre who needs to die in a fire.

        “I get to do and say whatever I want, because I am the woman and I am a better human being than you are and I know better than you do and you’re just a stupid man who doesn’t care.

        Liked by 3 people

      • lastholdout says:

        “Your wife left you after 33 years?”

        No, she passed away last year. For better or for worse, I stayed.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Sorry to hear that she has passed, and that you had a difficult marriage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        It’s interesting to me how often you hear the “I never heard of the Duluth model until I came here” comment.

        It doesn’t really matter. The Duluth model is way of explaining domestic violence that comes from the academic world. It hit the scene in the early 80s, and was part of a much larger project to do more than just write articles for other academics to read and huff about.

        By the time I got to graduate school in 2004, the model had its tentacles in ALL 50 states’ systems for regulating intimate partner violence. It includes books, workbooks, handouts, guidance for law enforcement personnel, and in most states its precepts are the law, whether people know about it or not. The manualized protocols are REQUIRED to meet the provisions of one’s probation when one is convicted. (Basically, we have re-education camps to teach men to stop being this way — I taught in one for 3 years.) It is designed that way on purpose. The whole point is to take a man totally off guard when he is arrested for something he thought was just normal husband and wife stuff.

        There is no state you can move to in the US and get out from under the shadow it casts over your marriage. You may be able to fly under the radar for a while, but eventually, someone will get wind of the fact that you are submissive to your husband, and this makes you a victim. It’s a “free” country, as long as you don’t do marriage that way.

        Duluth subscribes to a 100% social learning model which ascribes ALL violence in relationships to patriarchy, male privilege, religion, and power and control dynamics in a system that supposedly perpetuates itself generation after generation in order to keep women scared and men in control. The patriarchy, then is a infinitely present windmill that they must tilt toward to smash it. Never mind the fact that they (and their philosophy) have controlled the narrative for my entire life, and at least a generation before that.

        It does not allow for ANY OTHER explanations of the variance in relationships. Men bad, women good (or victims). That is it. It is a perfect companion to what is already taught in schools, shown on sitcoms, TV commercials, etc.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        “It’s interesting to me how often you hear the “I never heard of the Duluth model until I came here” comment.”

        Yeah. If it’s encoded in law in all 50 states, then it really should be something everyone is well aware of. But instead, it’s like a secret behind a covert agenda. Why??? I would guess that it’s because if this were common knowledge, there would immediately arise a social movement to repeal such laws.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        “There is no state you can move to in the US and get out from under the shadow it casts over your marriage. You may be able to fly under the radar for a while, but eventually, someone will get wind of the fact that you are submissive to your husband, and this makes you a victim.”

        Wow! Contrast this with the wisdom of Augustine, circa 400 AD:

        “This is the origin of domestic peace, or the well-ordered concord of those in the family who rule and those who obey. For they who care for the rest rule, — the husband the wife, the parents the children, the masters the servants; and they who are cared for obey, — the women their husbands, the children their parents, the servants their masters.”

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Remember Home Improvement, or Everybody Loves Raymond? TV comedies played IOCs for laughs to entire families for decades, packaged as “wholesome” entertainment.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Elspeth,

        “I feel as if I am not being heard.”

        I hate that phrase with a passion. What it actually means is “you’re disobeying me”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Joe2 says:

        “Another thing that is remarkable is how well the husband keeps his cool in the face of a hospitalized mother and a contentious wife. It’s hard to figure out what he’s doing wrong until you realize that he should not be so tolerant of his wife’s attitude.”

        The husband comes across as being an obtuse person and not as someone who keeps his cool. He seems to be unaware of the stress his wife is experiencing at the hospital (he never expresses any concern about his wife’s well being), as well as the difficulties she experienced taking care of her mother at home.

        What he’s doing wrong started at home well before the mother was hospitalized and then continued at the hospital. He should have assessed the situation at home and, had he done so, he would have learned that his wife was at the breaking point taking care of her mother and other arrangements needed to be made. He didn’t do that, which led to the wife saying that “you’re not listening to me” at the hospital.

        Finally, he should have said that he’ll speak with the doctors about the “two days” and not just accept and act on what his wife told him. She may be incorrect, doesn’t mention anything about a discharge plan, and assumes the mother will return home. Thus, it should be his responsibility and not his wife’s burden to deal with the hospital.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Joe2,

        Points taken.

        It doesn’t give the wife a right to be a b!tch about it. You better believe that if a man had spoken to her this way, she would have been all up in his face about it. “How DARE you speak to me this way! You don’t GET to talk to ME like that, you disrespectful piece of sh!t! Who the F do you think you are, rolling your eyes at me and raising your voice? Calm the F down, or it’s NO SEX FOR YOU and I’m going to see a lawyer tomorrow!”

        I’m telling you, wives do this to husbands all the time. I see it all the time. And about far, far less stressful things than this.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Joe2,

        ” He seems to be unaware of the stress his wife is experiencing at the hospital (he never expresses any concern about his wife’s well being), as well as the difficulties she experienced taking care of her mother at home.”

        I’m calling BS on this. Hubby is offering solutions that would alleviate some of the wife’s stress and she still treats him poorly. Until the injury her mother was living with them, not under the wife’s care. What the wife in all her solipsism misses is that her husband has his mother in law under his roof, which effects him too, and yet all she sees is the world through how she feels about the situation.

        This is telling of a wife who embodies Proverbs 21. Her husband graciously allows his MIL into his home and his self entitled wife never even thinks about the sacrifices this means for him. deti is right that the wife in the clip represents that vast majority of women today regarding how they treat their husbands.

        I will agree that the husband is unaware. He’s unaware that how his wife is addressing him is entirely inappropriate. And I’ll also agree that it started long ago in his home when he tolerated her attitude and now it just seems normal to him to take it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I have one last thought on the husband. If you replace him with another man who has come to be with the wife and she treated this other man the way she treated her husband, you’d rightfully recoil at her behavior. That is all you have to know about her interaction with her husband and what she thinks about him. Men who tolerate bad behavior from their wives, perpetuate the bad behavior and allow it to fester and grow like a disease.

        It reminds me of a story SFC Ton told over at Spawny’s about a year ago. He had given his time to help a buddy move and arrived a little later than expected. The buddy’s wife started in on Ton about whatever ungrateful for the help, self-absorbed feelings she was having at the time. Ton turned to his buddy and said, “Fix your b!tch”, and then left. While most men do not need to embody Ton’s particular flair with the English language, all men need the same steel backbone when it comes to enforcing boundaries. If you don’t you become the schlep of a husband in the video.

        Like

    • Scott says:

      I usually just walk out when things get like that. I simply don’t respond when talked to like that.

      About an hour later we have a civil conversation.

      Liked by 4 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        I learned this dynamic too late. After my ex and I weren’t living together any longer, I finally realized that I didn’t have to talk to her. Sometimes she would call and start haranguing me and I would ask if she just called to yell at me, or if she had a problem for which she needed my input. If she continued to shout, I would just hang up on her.

        It didn’t take long before she stopped calling me to express her displeasure in a loud and vociferous manner.

        Like

  2. thedeti says:

    Others:

    — Tongue clicking or tsk-tsking.
    — Scoffing interjections (the quick “heh” or “pfffff”).
    — Interrupting, overtalking
    — Glaring, icy staring

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      Man, I hate the interrupting! Especially when they ask you one question, you’re in the middle of answering it, and they ask you another, unrelated question, or accuse you of not answering the question you’re in the middle of answering. That makes my blood boil.

      Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        My blood pressure went up reading your comment. Interrupting is also an arguing tactic that is often employed just to evoke emotion.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “Man, I hate the interrupting! […] That makes my blood boil.”

        “Interrupting is also an arguing tactic that is often employed just to evoke emotion.”

        The whole point of interrupting and many other tactics (from the woman’s perspective) is NOT to communicate using empathy, facts, and logic to eventually arrive at an agreement. No, that is how men think. The point is to get a rise out of you and roll you off balance. A man will never make any progress in a relationship with a woman until he understands this. The reason why you don’t admit her argument is because it’s all a sh!t test with no solution.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        The point of interrupting and overtalking is to send the following message:

        I don’t care what you’re saying; it’s unimportant to me. All that matters is what I think, want, and need. I’m not here for you. You’re here for me. Now shut up and address what I want/need/think. What you want/need/think is of no consequence and not worthy of addressing. I don’t care about your opinions. I don’t respect you.

        Interrupting and overtalking is extremely disrespectful. It is intended to be.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jack, deti, RPA, & Scott,

        Yeah, I wish I’d learned that lesson 30 years ago. Women use disrespectful behavior to get men angry on purpose. When the man gets angry and raises his voice, then she can play the victim, turn on the water works, and manipulate/guilt him into doing what she wants.

        Ask me how I learned that lesson.

        You can probably summarize that with “women fight dirty”. I’d appreciate it if Scott would write a post on that, because I have a hard time articulating the process, and I need to teach my boys.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “Ask me how I learned that lesson.”

        The long, drawn out hard way, just like the rest of us here did.

        “You can probably summarize that with “women fight dirty“. I’d appreciate it if Scott would write a post on that, because I have a hard time articulating the process, and I need to teach my boys.”

        My experience with Mrs. Apostle is that she fought to consolidate power, due to emotional reactions, not to solve issues. Arguments were about how she felt about something and wanting her own way. When she thought she was right, it was with an air of moral superiority. That sense of moral superiority meant her cause was just and any means was justified to reach the sacrosanct and holy end she had in mind. In her mind, she did not fight dirty because the ends justified the means and often this meant coming up with things to say for the express purpose of getting an emotional reaction from me. I know this because she told me.

        Women are similar to politicians in the following regard. Their actions and arguments seem confusing and illogical when viewed as good faith efforts to solve problems. They make much more sense from the viewpoint of preserving or consolidating power.

        I’d also be interested in Scott’s take on why women fight “dirty”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        What does that mean, “women fight dirty”?

        That’s not a passive aggressive dig. I think I know ( and I’ve heard my husband tell other men that women will try to “hit them where it hurts”), but his assertion is that women are only able to fight dirty if men fall for it.

        So I’m just wondering if what you mean by “fight dirty” is similar to what he says.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Dirty fighting is generally considered to be from this list of tactics:

        — Accusations of cheating
        — Attacking the persons most vulnerable insecurities
        — Blaming the other for your own internal processes (i.e. “You MADE me mad!”)
        — Bringing up previous unresolved issues
        — Comparing to past lovers
        — Crying (manipulative crying)
        — Escalating (rage levels of anger when the initial problem is not that big)
        — Gaslighting (making the person question their own sanity or rationality)
        — Globalizing (e.g. “This [problem] means our whole relationship is a sham!”)
        — Invalidating the other persons experience or feelings
        — Not staying on the subject
        — Playing the victim
        — Threatening to leave or divorce
        — The silent treatment
        — Using absolutes like “You always…” and “You never…”
        — Withholding affection/Sex

        All of the above is designed to regain control of the entire process and make the other person disengage.

        Liked by 4 people

      • elspeth says:

        Thanks, Scott. 😊

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Elspeth

        “What does that mean; “women fight dirty”?”

        Generally, it means that women don’t argue to resolve problems. They argue to “win”. “Winning” means getting her way. And she will do, or (more likely) say anything to get her way.

        If you go into an argument to resolve a problem, you can’t lose. Even if you “lose” the argument, the problem is resolved, and you both win. Women don’t do that.

        Let’s see if this analogy helps. A husband goes out into the world wearing an emotional suit of armor called stoicism. Like Marcus Aurelius, he tells himself, “The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly”, but none of that bothers him, because he’s armored himself against it. Consequently, few people can hurt him. But, his wife — because she’s his wife — knows the exact location of every gap in his armor, and when she wants to get her way, she knows just where to stick the knife, and twist it.

        Women will do that to “win” an argument, and it often “works” (she gets her way), but in reality both spouses lose, because the relationship is damaged, sometimes permanently.

        The husband, on the other hand, can never fight dirty in return, because that’s mean, and abusive, and it makes girls cry.

        Have you ever heard a woman say that her husband became “distant”, or “emotionally unavailable”? That probably means she’s twisted the knife one too many times, and he responded by armoring himself against her.

        Love and intimacy require vulnerability, but you can’t be vulnerable with a person who takes advantage of your vulnerability to cause pain. Women absolutely love doing that to their men.

        Fighting dirty is one of the many ways that foolish women tear down their households with their own hands.

        Liked by 4 people

      • lastholdout says:

        “Love and intimacy require vulnerability, but you can’t be vulnerable with a person who takes advantage of your vulnerability to cause pain. Women absolutely love doing that to their men.”

        Oscar is SPOT ON. Based on my experience, what I’ve read in forums and blogs, and contrary to popular belief, men are the real romantics and are the ones willing to put their hearts on the line. Women can be as cruel and brutal as any man by withholding vulnerability and intimacy. The Eve nature is so prevalent (exhibiting in a variety of ways) and has been vehemently denied by our culture. It takes either a great amount of experience on the wrong end or deep study to see it.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. thedeti says:

    More IOCs:

    — Closing the eyes for a few seconds with a deep, controlled breath in and out. This is done in a deliberate effort to avoid doing any of the above things on Jack’s list, so that she can say to you that she DID NOT do any of those things.
    — Bringing up past “offenses” and long ago discussions of the same. “OK, but remember that time you did/said X?” “Well, OK, let’s talk about that time you did/said Y.” These might be less due to contempt, and more due to unforgiveness.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Anonymous says:

      I can believe I missed this post from two months ago. So much juicy material. And yeah, that video – I’ve seen that identical routine from my wives, girlfriends, mom, sister, et al.

      As to past offenses – it’s a source of amazement how a woman can forget so many events, names, places, occurrences, yet can remember with laser-perfect detail about the time you pissed her off eight years ago, to the point of remembering what shirt you wore that day.

      Liked by 2 people

      • farmlegend says:

        It was “I can’t believe”…

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Well, sometimes when they claim they can’t remember, they’re lying. Years ago, mine refused to go back to a church (the only traditional mass available to us) because she said a woman in the nursery was rude to her. Then a couple years later when our attendance had lapsed, she complained that I’m not leading by taking the kids to church. I reminded her I tried and that she refused because of her stated reason. “I don’t remember that.” She never remembers when details show truth is on my side.

        She never denies what I recall because she knows I am very ethical and do not lie and that I have very clear episodic memory.

        Like

  4. Joe2 says:

    Years ago, I experienced #13 in a relationship regarding a simple request. I asked her to take the main road around the city rather than the shortcut through the inner city (which was dangerous for several reasons) to get to where we were meeting. When she arrived, I learned she took the shortcut, expressed surprise at my request and thought I was being silly. At that point I knew the relationship wasn’t going anywhere.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Scott says:

    A lot of what I have “learned” from the manosphere over the 11 years since I found it (I was on deployment when I came across Dalrock in 2011) was stuff that I kind of already knew from experience but was driven from me by Blue Pill conditioning.

    But one axiom that has really helped me to be way less rattled by the weird things women do is to remember that all of their behavior can be filtered and contextualized if you remind yourself:

    “This is fear driven”

    Ask yourself, “What is the base-level primal female fear that is biting at her heels right now?”

    Most of the time, they don’t possess the insight (because of a lack of introspection driven into them by parenting) to come right out and say, “I am sh!t testing you to see if you can handle the heat of this situation”, so you have to just short-circuit all that by going stone cold and unflinching.

    If (your fear of what she is going to do) > (her fear of being married to a weakling), then you lose every time.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Scott says:

      One trait that I have always had, manosphere or not, is the ability to just disengage when I don’t like the way the conversation is going.

      Drives the other person crazy. They think I am a psychopath or some kind of unfeeling robot. I just stop hearing the words coming from the other person until they start speaking rationally again. I don’t respond, don’t fight back, nothing. Totally deadpan and empty look.

      It sends the message, “As soon as you are ready to speak to me like an adult, I will switch back on.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        After I’ve been properly called out (so I can’t claim I have no idea what I did), that’s common. And yes, it stings very badly.

        Soon enough, we learn and figure out what is acceptable and what is not.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “One trait that I have always had, manosphere or not, is the ability to just disengage when I don’t like the way the conversation is going.

        Drives the other person crazy. They think I am a psychopath or some kind of unfeeling robot. I just stop hearing the words coming from the other person until they start speaking rationally again. I don’t respond, don’t fight back, nothing. Totally deadpan and empty look.

        It sends the message, “As soon as you are ready to speak to me like an adult, I will switch back on.”

        Yeah. In situations like this, talking it over doesn’t help, so you have to resort to nonverbal communication to make the boundaries clear. I learned this during the first couple years of my second marriage. Whenever she was having an insatiable fit of anger and was being verbally abusive, and sometimes physically abusive, I would tell her, “I’m not going to talk with you when you’re in this kind of mood. We’ll talk later after you’ve regained your composure.” Then I would walk out the door. I’d go work in the office, or visit a friend, or just take a long bicycle ride around the lake. By the time I came back, she was more in the mood to be civil. I learned Married Dread Game the hard way.

        Her behavior continued, but with an exponentially decreasing frequency. Later on we were able to talk about this dynamic. She said it “broke her heart” not to have anyone to yell and scream at. I told her, “Well, if it’s really that important to you, then you’ll have to do that with your sister or your mother, because you’re not doing that with me! I will not tolerate it!

        Like

    • lastholdout says:

      “This is fear driven”

      This is a great point. I saw it in my wife daily. She was driven by fear in many things. The woman in the video was driven by fear — concerned about herself and how she was going to take care of her mother.

      “If (your fear of what she is going to do) > (her fear of being married to a weakling), then you lose every time.”

      You can stand strong and immovable in the face of a woman giving you a sh!t test, but if she has root issues that manifest in BPD traits, all the frame in the world will not bring her to self-reflection, let alone repentance and sanctification.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        Right, it is the part of game that proponents of it have a blind spot about.

        It is exhausting to think about having to constantly keep your game foot on the pedal, pushed to the floor forever, with no guarantee that permanent change will ever occur.

        Like having a perpetual 5 year old to take care of, you must work so hard to contain THEIR emotional regulation, when it is hard enough to regulate your own in this stressful life.

        Find someone who can reflect, sit back, contemplate, own their internal processes. Someone who has calmness that surrounds them at all times. They do NOT HAVE TO BE PERFECT. Just a little bit introspective and gracious.

        This places most women who are ANYWHERE on the hot-crazy matrix out of bounds if you are following along at home.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        It was HIS mother, I think. That’s why she wasn’t even willing to hear him suggest that with some tweaks, they could continue to care for her within their home.

        This was bad on multiple levels.

        Like

      • lastholdout says:

        “It is exhausting to think about having to constantly keep your game foot on the pedal, pushed to the floor forever, with no guarantee that permanent change will ever occur.

        Like having a perpetual 5 year old to take care of, you must work so hard to contain THEIR emotional regulation, when it is hard enough to regulate your own in this stressful life.”

        Unless you’ve lived with this, you cannot understand. And this is part of the problem with church leaders. They either don’t have the experience or they deny it.

        “Just a little bit introspective and gracious.”

        Exactly!

        Liked by 2 people

  6. thedeti says:

    Here’s another couple of things women do.

    — Shaking the head from side to side, usually with eyes closed and head downcast as if to express disbelief, disdain, or disgust
    — Facepalming
    — The “b!tch, please” look.

    I can’t find it now, but actress Regina King has the “b!tch, please” look down pat. She did it perfectly in Jerry Maguire.

    Like

    • feeriker says:

      “Here’s another couple of things women do.”

      — Shaking the head from side to side, usually with eyes closed and head downcast as if to express disbelief, disdain, or disgust
      — Facepalming
      — The “b!tch, please” look.

      Next time she behaves this way, tell her to start kicking the walls and throwing things around the room. Tell her that if she’s going to behave like a toddler, she needs to go all the way with it.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. anonymous_ng says:

    It can be useful to watch videos of interpersonal conflicts and interactions with the sound off at first. It helps the mind to focus on the non-verbals.

    Liked by 1 person

    • MLT says:

      Since I am deaf, deaf people are skilled at focusing on non-verbals because they cannot hear the tones of voices. Hard of hearing people may have some ability to hear and have a hard time hearing the said tones of voices. American Sign Language (ASL) includes non-verbals in place of tones of voices. I am not a fan of movies and since I am a Christian for about three decades, the content of movies and TV programs leaves a lot to be desired. Two movies that involve ASL that I know of are Children of a Lesser God (1986) and CODA (2021). The latter’s title is the abbreviation for Children of Deaf Adults. You could watch either film or both to get an idea of how deaf people use non-verbals with one another. Of course, YouTube may be another option to watch videos that involve ASL. Any questions, please?

      Liked by 1 person

  8. cameron232 says:

    I saw a fair amount of contempt, or at least a lack of respect towards my dad. From sis not mom.

    For example, “You’re the reason we have to live like this”, i.e. he didn’t make enough money. “I’m on birth control because I don’t need a child”, referring to him being a “child”.

    My wife has said flat out that she would slap a daughter in the face for speaking that way.

    My wife calls me “sir” on a fairly regular basis. I never asked her to. She has called me “lord” a few times but that was kind of an over-the-top joke — being playful.

    Women want to look up to their man — I don’t know why some of them can’t bring themselves to do it. I guess too many failed sh_t tests?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Scott says:

    “She said it “broke her heart” not to have anyone to yell and scream at.”

    CLASSIC borderline trait (and sentiment). It is amazing she admitted it, because most never will.

    This is a person for whom a life of calm, rational discussion, resolving conflict lovingly and empathically is BORING. Sitting in the calmness between two people with no drama is almost frightening and means something is wrong with the relationship. They must stir the pot to feel normal.

    They mistake that drama for something like “depth” or “real.”

    Like

    • Scott says:

      The problem now is that borderline or sub-threshold (borderline-y traits but not meeting the full criteria) has reached epidemic proportions in modern woman so it is difficult to call it a “disorder.” This is a drawback of how the DSM works, because it requires a normative sample of the population to NOT be like that. (The criteria sets for ALL disorders have deviation-from-the-norm language in them.) At this point, a healthy, relatable person with good boundaries is actually the exception to the rule.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        The woman in the video, for example.

        If you showed that video to 100 women in America, 90 of them would see nothing wrong with the way she is talking to her husband. And that has NOTHING to do with “submission” or the Bible or whatever. It’s just common decency to be gracious to your partner, who has come to the hospital in love, to gather round the issue and solve it.

        Take the religious beliefs out of if for a second and imagine two humans of any sex interacting that way. It is a bizarre interaction with one person trying to solve the problem by offering ideas, suggestions, empathy while the other one shoots everything said down with insults and just plain meanness.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        IYO, why are women so crazy/neurotic/whatever? Evolutionary psychology? So many horrible things happened to them. Husband and children killed by invaders, then they’re whisked away to their new life. Had to produce some strong psychological traits. Disgust at weakness.

        We men… they just killed us. It was die or don’t die. Pretty simple.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        And a standard-issue modern marriage counselor would conclude that they are having problems “communicating” as evidenced by her comment that he is “not listening.”

        No one is having trouble communicating in that video. (If anyone is, it’s her). He is offering help, support, and ways that they can get through it.

        “You’re just not listening to me” is code for “I have a covert agenda, for which I have no ability (or intention) to describe to you and you are dumb for not picking up on it and reading my mind.”

        This “listening” stuff is getting so old. It implies that there is a subtext that the man is too retarded to understand because the wife is so brilliant and sophisticated and talking on a level he can’t possibly understand.

        When the more likely answer is that it is she who cannot describe what she wants because what she wants is not reasonable or even well-formed in her own mind. It’s a copout to stop trying to explain herself.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        Cameron,

        I attempted to write a series of guest posts at Cail Corishev way back in 2013 about this.

        But the short answer is, our entire civilization is basically one big borderline personality incubator.

        It’s amazing any American girls grow up to be psychologically healthy, relatively free of personality pathology.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “IYO, why are women so crazy/neurotic/whatever? Evolutionary psychology?”

        — Feminism.
        — Living in a First World country.
        — Indulging, coddling, and pampering women.
        — Sandbagging, hamstringing, and hindering men.
        — Allowing women to get away with doing and saying whatever they want, when, where, how, and to whom they want.
        — Putting ever tighter regulations and restrictions on what men can do and say, when, where, how, and to whom they say and do it.
        — Elevating and pedestalizing women.
        — Denigrating and demonizing men.
        — The societal attitude that whatever women want is good, right, noble, pure, and beneficial; while whatever men want is bad, wrong, craven, corrupt, and detrimental.

        Scott talking about the pathology of the borderline personality is interesting. I have a lot of experience with borderlines. The number one diagnostic criteria is emotional instability and a near-complete inability to regulate one’s own emotions. These cause significant life problems like can’t ever complete anything, can’t get a job, can’t keep a job, concentration/cognitive problems, financial problems, substance abuse, and disrupted personal relationships, especially relationships with the opposite sex.

        The hallmark of a borderline personality is that she vomitpukes her emotions all over anyone in her vicinity, and then demands that others do/say things to make her feel better.

        What’s happened in today’s society is the normalization of borderline personality disorder through the removal of societal consequences for exhibiting these kinds of behaviors. What’s happened is that society has been forced to accommodate borderlines by excusing their conduct and penalizing others for putting negative consequences on them. “You can’t fire her for that. It’s a disorder.” “You can’t divorce me! I’m SICK!” “You can’t break up with me just because I blew up a few times. It’s just how I am.”

        We’ve always had borderlines. The way we dealt with them in the past was that men either stayed away from them, or they learned the hard way to self-regulate emotionally. My mother never learned how. Other women in my family have had to do very, very hard work to learn to emotionally self-regulate.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        I’ve heard it said that the autistic/Asperger’s male is the “extreme male brain”.

        Then the borderline personality is the “extreme female brain.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        “What’s happened in today’s society is the normalization of borderline personality disorder through the removal of societal consequences for exhibiting these kinds of behaviors. What’s happened is that society has been forced to accommodate borderlines by excusing their conduct and penalizing others for putting negative consequences on them. “You can’t fire her for that. It’s a disorder.” “You can’t divorce me! I’m SICK!” “You can’t break up with me just because I blew up a few times. It’s just how I am.”

        Since you are a lawyer, you may be encouraged to know that from a forensic perspective the bulwark against this happening is still holding in the statutes.

        Personality disorders are considered character defects and cannot be used as an affirmative defense or mitigating factor in criminal cases. Only psychotic and bipolar processes, and pervasive developmental/intellectual disabilities reach that threshold. PTSD (specifically dissociative features, “flashbacks” for laypeople) is creeping into the case law though.

        The main feature of all of these personality disorders is actually that they are egosyntonic. The person does not acknowledge that they are a problem. It’s borrowed from the Freudian notion that external behaviors are either congruent or incongruent with the needs and appetite of the ego. People like this have completely reconciled all those lost jobs, wrecked relationships and so on with their subconscious drives and therefore CAN’T engage with the problem on anything more than a superficial level because to do so would cause so much damage to the defenses they have constructed around their deepest pathologies.

        As you point out, our “society” is now a perfect storm for driving this into people’s personality pathology with elegant efficiency. But women get the brunt of it, as they are told from birth that just showing up with a vagina makes them wonderful, flawless creatures who we are all lucky to have around.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        A couple other things you will notice about a borderline right away is that because they have problems with boundaries, they are incapable of feeling their own feelings without dragging everyone them into the same affective-emotive hell.

        Basically, this is a chaotic attachment problem (happens in developmental years). They have a really hard time seeing the bright line of distinction between where “I” end and “you” begin. This is cute at first, and it makes the sex super awesome too. But man, if she is feeling like crap, and you aren’t–watch out! “You will be MADE to feel like crap because you and I are one. How can you possibly be in a good mood, when I am in a bad one? How dare you?” I call this “forced empathy.”

        Also, as I have mentioned in my series of videos on the topic, the abandonment stuff will make you want to set yourself on fire to escape the crazy twisted (non) logic that is used to make you feel like you somehow “triggered my abandonment issues!”

        You don’t have to own that crap. But like I said, once you have crazy monkey sex with a borderline, its hard to see your way out of it.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Without getting too much into the legal nuances, the cluster B personality disorders are not affirmative defenses because they don’t cause insanity. At criminal law, “insanity” means “inability to distinguish reality from not-reality or right from wrong to such an extent that he cannot conform his conduct to the law.” Cluster B’s can still tell right from wrong, they know what’s real and what’s not. (It’s just that they don’t care, and they can manipulate their way out of a lot of legal scrapes. But that’s a different story.)

        But, yes, borderline personality (emotional instability, inability to emotionally self regulate, emotional dysregulation) has become socially normalized to varying degrees. The woman in the video from the movie has some mild to moderate emotional dysregulation. This is, I’d venture, currently, a “socially acceptable” amount of dysregulation. This has become completely normalized in 21st century America.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Yes, the M’Naghten standard does not allow for personality disorders for exactly that reason (four elements of insanity). I cite it all the time in my reports.

        And indeed, the woman in the video is basically expressing herself in the normative way by today’s rules.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        One can be severely mentally ill and still be “sane” at the criminal law.

        Like

    • cameron232 says:

      In technical terminology: “She’s a loon.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “She said it “broke her heart” not to have anyone to yell and scream at.”

      “CLASSIC borderline trait (and sentiment). It is amazing she admitted it, because most never will.”

      The first year into my marriage, I did A Study of Borderline Personality Disorder, and I got the idea that she was borderline-ish. I’ve talked with her about this. Depending on which behaviors I point out, sometimes she is receptive of this idea, and other times she is dismissive. These days, she is a lot better.

      Like

  10. Scott says:

    If it was a truly “egalitarian” ecosystem, you would hear men, about 1/2 the time exclaiming, “you’re just not listening to me!” which would be hilarious.

    This is because when men feel they are not getting their point across, they look INWARD to their own failings and try to re-phrase until they are able to effectively explain themselves. They do not blame the other person for not “getting it.” This manipulation tactic is a privilege only afforded to women.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “If it was a truly “egalitarian” ecosystem, you would hear men, about 1/2 the time exclaiming “you’re just not listening to me!” which would be hilarious.”

      From experience, when it feels like a woman is being dismissive of your thoughts, that is she is not contemplating what you are saying, she’s got her own agenda and it does not matter what you say. If you call her on this behavior she will tell you that you are guilty of doing exactly what she is doing.

      Like

    • Oscar says:

      “This is because when men feel they are not getting their point across, they look INWARD to their own failings and try to re-phrase until they are able to effectively explain themselves.”

      Yeah, but when you’ve rephrased five times, and she still doesn’t get it, and you know you’re talking to a reasonably intelligent person, it’s reasonable to say, “you’re not listening”.

      I’ve asked my wife, and women I dated, to rephrase what I said. Invariably, they come up with some nonsense that bears no resemblance to anything that entered my mind, or came out of my mouth. At that point, I just say, “you’re not listening”, and walk away, because they’re trying to read my mind, not listen to my words.

      By the way, women aren’t the only ones that do that. I’ve had multiple instances on this blog where a man tries to read my mind instead of reading my words.

      Here’s a hint, people. You suck at reading minds.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        “I’ve asked my wife, and women I dated, to rephrase what I said. Invariably, they come up with some nonsense that bears no resemblance to anything that entered my mind, or came out of my mouth. At that point, I just say, “you’re not listening”, and walk away, because they’re trying to read my mind, not listen to my words.”

        I love this because it so accurately describes my experience with this. There is so much subtext and hostility read into the things we say when the plain understanding of the words is sufficient.

        “Well I guess I am just the stupid A-hole then…”

        “Um, no. That’s not what I said at all.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Here’s something I learned about women in my late teens / early 20s, but knowing it has done me exactly zero good.

        Women tend to speak in hints and innuendo. Men tend to speak directly. Because women tend to speak in hints and innuendo, they tend to assume men also speak in hints and innuendo, so they’re always looking for some hidden meaning behind what men say. That hidden meaning doesn’t exist, so women drive themselves crazy trying to find something that doesn’t exist (and they always assume the worst), and drive their men crazy with false, negative inferences, mind reading, and projection.

        Men, on the other hand, tend to assume women speak directly, so they tend to take women at their word, which also rarely works.

        If anyone can explain how to un-f__k that short circuit, I’d be much obliged, because it’s baffled me for nearly 30 years now.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        I always appreciate your honesty Oscar. Truly. You don’t give cover to anyone, male or female, and its admirable.

        I admit that I tend to do that; try to read my husband’s mind. I’m especially prone to it when I am tired or feeling stress, or pressured to get something done. That’s actually the worst time to try and have certain conversations.

        Usually, I tell myself, “Don’t speak until you’ve thought it through.” If what I say doesn’t make sense (and usually I can figure that out on my own without him pointing it out), that’s one less misunderstanding. The interesting thing is that a few of my girlfriends find it rather oppressive that I feel compelled to think before I speak in certain situations.

        The accepted “wisdom” is that if a woman can’t just be emotional, no matter what that looks like, then she is being oppressed or subjugated. They feel that we should be able to just say whatever, and any lack of freedom I feel to do that is bad. The funny thing is that the ones closest to me often talk about how much they admire watching the way I love him and he loves me and how we seem to always be enjoying each other. They know that this is a major relationship win, but they chalk it up to “Els is just a special breed.” Nag. Els just learned how to not be in a constant tug of war with someone stronger than she is, LOL.

        It’s not as if there isn’t a free flow of communication. There most certainly is a free flow of communication. I don’t feel compelled to withhold thoughts or feelings (or even strong emotions). It’s simply a matter of the feelings indicating what needs to be addressed rather than excusing disrespectful behavior.

        Our culture has no space for authenticity that is wrapped in self-control.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Thanks, Elspeth. That’s a very high compliment.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      In fact, you could argue that exclaiming in that exasperated, frustrated tone, “you just aren’t listening to me”, is a form of gaslighting, because it makes the man question himself, and whether or not he is being unreasonable, obtuse or crazy.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Lastmod says:

    I was listening to my co-workers (men) at lunch talking about the horrible things their wives, daughters, and nieces do….. and they just accept this as normal. Accepting a situation in which over 50% of his wages are given to the ex-wife and even an ex-girlfriend he made a baby with… and they’re STILL going out and trying to get dates, meet “the one”, date, have sex……..

    Back in the PUA days of the Manosphere, some men were telling younger men that this is the way to do things, and here is ten tons… twenty tons of nonsense you will have to put up with. They were telling men if they don’t like it then they should get some porn or go to Vegas… This is why you have to “vett” properly, and even if you do…. and all this happens, then those men would still tell you it’s your fault.

    Basically, they’re putting up with all of this just for some sex… How is that rational? How is that logical? It isn’t.

    Men are effing stupid. I’ve heard it said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over. The standards appear to change, but not really. One week, it’s all about sex, and the next week they’re on to a new topic… But these men still base their worth on the sex act… and the church is no better.

    Like

  12. elspeth says:

    “And that has NOTHING to do with “submission” or the Bible or whatever. It’s just common decency to be gracious to your partner, who has come to the hospital in love, to gather round the issue and solve it.”

    Agree 100%. But common decency is in such short supply (even among Christians) that we’re left with imploring women by appealing to their faith in Someone to whom they feel real and ultimate accountability.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      “…we’re left with imploring women by appealing to their faith in Someone to whom they feel real and ultimate accountability.

      When what women should be doing is finding men and conforming themselves and their communication styles to their men; or getting in line with what their men want.

      It’s because women think they are “equals” to their men. It’s because women don’t want to be wives; they want to be “partners”. It’s because women don’t trust men, don’t know men, don’t understand men, don’t know what men want, and don’t even care to know. They just demand that the attractive men have fun sex with them; and the rest of the men shut up, wife them up, pay their bills, and deal with their sh!t.

      Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “It’s because women think they are “equals” to their men. It’s because women don’t want to be wives; they want to be “partners”. It’s because women don’t trust men, don’t know men, don’t understand men, don’t know what men want, and don’t even care to know. They just demand that the attractive men have fun sex with them; and the rest of the men shut up, wife them up, pay their bills, and deal with their sh!t.”

        That’s what it has become in a nutshell. They have little, if any, understanding of the Biblical model of male headship and female submission to the male role (of course most men don’t either, but that’s another post). Even Christian women don’t for the most part.

        Furthermore, our society’s earlier attempts (pre-1960s) to build society around something resembling the Biblical model, however imperfect the attempt and the model was, now is seen as some sort of archaic, straight jacket women were virtually enslaved in back-in-the-day. How many times have we heard something from the fairer sex like, “What??? You’re wanting us to be like Fifties housewives again, barefoot and pregnant with no education, just serving at your whim? Forget it you misogynist!” No, that’s not what we’re talking about or after. We’re after something that has work-ability, that produces good relationships and strong families.

        We’re trying to get you to see beyond your feminist brainwashing. It’s not working for you, us or society; and furthermore, we’ve been reading that you ladies by-and-large are MISERABLE with the results, the actual outcomes it’s been producing for several decades now. Wine and cats is more than just a funny meme floating around out there, it’s a real thing. I heard just the other day for the first time in our history, childless women over 30 now outnumber those that have children. It’s also been no secret that we have the largest singles population over 30 too. Just a couple of the fruits of your poisonous feminist views about men and relationships.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Women should be applying their faith in God which should then automatically lead them to submit to their husbands. But today’s church tells them specifically NOT to submit to their husbands – the men they picked.

      Liked by 3 people

  13. thedeti says:

    I found Scott’s posts at Cail Corishev about Borderline Personality Disorder.

    Cail Corishev: Is BPD just women with too much freedom? (2013-2-25)

    See comments here.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. feeriker says:

    “But the short answer is, our entire civilization is basically one big borderline personality incubator.”

    THIS.

    The question is, how much longer can it continue before the plague reaches peak destructiveness?

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      Well, that depends. Our civilization is being kept afloat by its wealth. People can tolerate a lot when they’re well fed, warm, and comfortable. Unfortunately, a lot of our civilization’s wealth is fake. It’s being kept afloat by debt, and one big reason that debt bubble hasn’t popped is that the U.S. Dollar is the world’s reserve currency, and one big reason for that is that the Gulf Arab states agreed to accept only U.S. Dollars for oil, in exchange for military protection from you and me (literally you and me).

      All of a sudden, the House of Saud is considering accepting Yuan for oil. I’m no expert in international finance, but I have a feeling that would result in at least a severe recession in the USA, if not an outright depression.

      Cold, hungry people have little tolerance for anything that doesn’t help them fill their bellies, and crazy doesn’t pay the bills.

      Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        Yes, your assessment is absolutely correct. I’ve always believed that, as horrible an experience as a great economic implosion would be to live through, the silver lining is that it would at least cure the adultolescence/rectal-cranial inversion that afflicts so much of the population.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Yeah. What you and I consider normal, healthy people put up with a lot of crap, because they’re nice. They won’t be so nice when they’re cold and hungry.

        Imagine if all ten of my kids come back home, some with spouses and children in tow, and I have to figure out a way to feed all of them. If you’re the kind of neighbor who’ll trade milk for eggs, we can be friends. I’ll keep an eye on your house, if you’ll keep an eye on mine. But, the kind of person who takes and takes and never gives will be out of luck.

        Some of them will die because they raged out at the wrong lady with a male relative or friend in earshot. Some will become menaces, and hopefully be hunted down. Some will learn to regulate their behavior, at least enough to be useful enough, or likeable enough, to be accepted.

        I think a lot of people today ignore the value of being useful and/or likeable. They can do that because the abundance we live in keeps them afloat artificially. Scarcity and want bring all of that into sharp focus.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        This morning, like every Friday, I got together with some men for coffee, Bible reading, prayer, and fellowship. My closest friend here in Missouri is a farmer (he raises crops and pigs), so the conversation often turns to the subject of dominion, as in Genesis 1 and 2.

        Today, my farmer friend said of the Medieval European peasantry, “they owned nothing”, meaning that even their houses were owned by their noble lord.

        That made me think of the World Economic Forum’s video that stated that by 2030, “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” The WEF took the video off their site, because it got too much backlash (they said the quiet part out loud), but you can still find copies of it online.

        Surviving Tomorrow: “You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy” Is Just Feudalism 2.0 (2021-10-28)

        “[By 2030] all products will have become services. “I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes. Shopping is a distant memory in the city of 2030, whose inhabitants have cracked clean energy and borrow what they need on demand. It sounds utopian, until she mentions that her every move is tracked and outside the city live swathes of discontents, the ultimate depiction of a society split in two.”

        The WEF wants to turn us into something even worse than serfs, because serfs at least owned their clothes. A person who owns nothing is a lot easier to control, because the person who owns nothing is 100% dependent on the person who owns the stuff they need to survive.

        Obviously, none of this could happen with an economically, politically, militarily strong USA in existence. That’s why, when you look at everything (with a few exceptions) our politicians have done over the last 50+ years through the lens of deliberately weakening the USA, it all suddenly makes sense.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. feeriker says:

    “We’ve always had borderlines. The way we dealt with them in the past was that men either stayed away from them, or they learned the hard way to self-regulate emotionally. My mother never learned how. Other women in my family have had to do very, very hard work to learn to emotionally self-regulate.”

    In saner times past, MEN regulated women’s emotions, often in ways that today would be considered “controlling,” or “abusive.” But it’s now considered “controlling” or “abusive” to regulate ANYONE’S behavior other than men’s behavior. That’s the agenda necessary for destroying civilization.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. locustsplease says:

    I see the Duluth model being talked about. My father was a cop and when I divorced he sided with my ex, no questions asked. Didn’t need to hear my story, and threatened me personally. Him and his wife also helped her try to get a protection order against me. I swear I had done nothing wrong, nothing that would make any family member think I was a threat to her.

    What is bizarre is that his training never stopped. He is a truly brainwashed beta feminist slave %100. I have had conversations with him since and you can see the trigger where if he sees the truth he blanks out and the conversation is over then. It’s “I heard a man insult a woman. I must use my leverage against this man.”

    Three times he came to my house to kick me out when I was with my ex. I’ll never forget the look in his eyes — like a zombie. Then after we were divorced, I didn’t talk to him for years, and then he came to my new house what seems like to apologize. But after I answered the door, it’s riddles.

    “When are you going to become reasonable?”
    “Reasonable about what? I’m sitting at home alone?”
    “She’s the mother of your child.”
    “Yeah, and she won custody after tens of thousands of dollars lost. Now I’m paying her 2k/month, all the money the court ordered. WTF are you at my house for?”
    “She’s a good person.”
    “OK, now leave. GTF out of here. You just came here to tell me she’s a good person? I’m barely making bills… You and her are rich! I can’t even take a leave!!!”

    Then 5 years after the divorce my ex left town with his wife and sister and drank alcohol. And while it’s super top secret — not for losers like me to know — the dirt was so bad that they regretted everything and have personally apologized.

    And that’s what it will take in a domestic violence situation to convince the cop that you’re not to blame. You will have to be his only son with his only grandchild, and with no criminal record… and his wife goes on vacation with her and gets so out of control that she comes back and tells him they made a mistake.

    Soooo… you are definitely guilty when they get the 911 phone call and there is no investigation going on. And that’s a lot of contempt!

    Like

  17. lastholdout says:

    One more thought on the video. The movie director must have a good understanding of these dynamics to be able to have that actress play out the details of the role so well. So somebody’s paying attention.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      As an amateur actor, one adage I have learned is that “acting is doing”.

      This is the Method of “Method acting”. You become the character. You, the actor, actually internally experience the emotions the character experiences.

      My guess is that this is why most women can display borderline personality so well. Most women actually internally show and experience these kinds of emotional responses in their real lives.

      Like

  18. Joe2 says:

    @RPA,

    “What the wife in all her solipsism misses is that her husband has his mother in law under his roof, which effects him too, and yet all she sees is the world through how she feels about the situation.”

    No. The wife does not imply the current situation affects only her. The wife is well aware that having her mother living with them affects her husband, too. She states, “You know how stressful it is having her living with us already…”, and then she goes on to explain how the level of attention or care will now dramatically increase.

    She didn’t state that it was stressful only to her. That additional attention or care will fall on both of them, but she is unable to provide anything additional. She is doing all she can now. The husband’s response about moving the mother and getting a nurse misses the point. The mother will require 24 / 7 attention (until she fully recovers) which means a full time live in nurse, which is not practicable, as well as access to other health professionals which monitor her progress. All of this will cause additional stress.

    The husband’s course of action will result in having two persons in the hospital; his mother in law and his wife who will have a breakdown.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      Joe2,
      It is apparent to me that the wife is only making a difficult situation much worse, and that she is the one who will have to adjust, as hard as that might be — for all of them.

      So what do you think the husband should have done differently?

      Euthanize the mother and kick the wife out on the street. That would eliminate ALL the stress! [sarcasm]

      Like

      • lastholdout says:

        Am I missing something, or is Joe2 simply attempting to re-frame. He’s creating a straw-man. He’s making up any backstory to fit his frame of reference. The point is how she is responding in THAT situation. Her passive-aggression and anger needs to be brought under control, regardless of backstory. It would not be tolerated if the roles were reversed.

        Like

  19. feeriker says:

    “Obviously, none of this could happen with an economically, politically, militarily strong USA in existence. That’s why, when you look at everything (with a few exceptions) our politicians have done over the last 50+ years through the lens of deliberately weakening the USA, it all suddenly makes sense.”

    Indeed, it’s so obvious now that I cannot imagine how it’s possible that any adult of even moderate intelligence doesn’t see it, let alone rise up in resistance to it.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      Speaking of the WEF, I think Kalus Scwab is evidence that God has a sense of humor. Imagine God saying to the angels, “Check this out! I’m going to make this evil guy look, sound, and even have a name like a Bond villain!”

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        Yeah. Unfortunately, it appears that trying powerful Germans for Crimes Against Humanity is something the civilized world decided to stop doing after Nuremberg. Otherwise Klaus would by now be spending the rest of his miserable existence in a 6×6×6 cell, or would be feeding worms.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        You just cannot make this stuff up.

        Like

  20. Pingback: Word from the Dark Side – CIA spooks, suspect scientific studies, sassy spouses and stock market stress-busters | SovietMen

  21. Oscar says:

    Sort of On-Topic:

    Theodore Beale (pseudonym, Vox Day) posted the following on Gab.

    “The future belongs to those who show up for it. Stop whining. Start fighting by getting married, having children, and planting the acorns of the trees in whose shade your grandchildren will play.

    Yes, there are risks. You might get your heart broken. You might lose half your toys. So what? Action requires risk and risk is inherent to life.”

    On the one hand, Ted’s right. (I’m not going to call the man by his pseudonym, since his read name has been public for years.) The future does, in fact, belong to those who show up. Action does, in fact, require risk. And, risk is, in fact, inherent to life. As far as that goes, all is good.

    The problem lies in the following:

    “Yes, there are risks. You might get your heart broken. You might lose half your toys. So what?”

    Men don’t just “lose half [their] toys” when their wives choose to detonate their families. Men can, often do lose their resources, the wealth they’ve spent decades building, their careers, their children, their sanity, their freedom, and even their lives. Ted admits that risks exist, then trivializes the risks, thereby demonstrating contempt and a complete lack of empathy for men on the losing end of those risks, and the men who contemplate the risks soberly, and choose to opt out.

    Ted has a long history of contempt towards such men, which Dalrock documented in his post, No Respect (2017-12-14).

    I’m obviously no MGTOW. I’m a big proponent of marriage, and have argued against the black pill for years over at Dalrock’s. But, I also commanded American Soldiers in combat, and worked in the oil field, which are full of inherent risk. Consequently, I understand that it’s unconscionable to tell a man to take a risk without explaining the risk to him accurately, and teaching him how to mitigate, and/or reduce the risk.

    Ted did none of that. He told men to take an enormous risk, then trivialized it. That would be like me telling one of my Soldiers, “See that IED over there? Go detonate it. Sure, you might twist an ankle while you’re walking up to it, or singe your pretty little uniform if it detonates prematurely, but hey, no risk no reward, amirite?”

    Ted’s done a lot of good, and Dalrock also documented much of it.

    But, when it comes to the risks inherent to marriage in 21st Century America, Ted’s no better than the average TradCon, churchian preacher.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      It’s now posted on his blog.

      Vox Popoli: Triggering the Irrelevant (2022-3-20)

      Like

      • feeriker says:

        I sometimes think that Teddy reaches points where he doesn’t believe people are paying sufficient attention to him (narcissists get this way sometimes) and thus throws scraps out to bait the wildlife into a feeding frenzy. I’m honestly not even sure that we can believe his claim of “cowards and incels” getting upset over his screed, since he no longer allows comments on his blog (and I’ll be damned if I’m going to put money in his pocket by subscribing to Socialgalactic to find out). For all we know, nobody either read or reacted to his bait.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. redpillboomer says:

    “Ted did none of that. He told men to take an enormous risk, then trivialized it.”

    It’s amazing how men can do this in light of what’s been transpiring in our culture relative to marriage the past couple of decades plus, i.e. the divorce rate and the impact upon so many men. I don’t ascribe to ‘black pill’ thinking when it comes to marriage, i.e. “They’re all doomed to ending up in divorce!”; however, for men today to go into marriage with no real awareness of the risks, it’s unconscionable for other men not to attempt to at least make them aware of things like the family courts and their bias against men. And guys like this who make light of it, are doing men a great disservice, bordering on evil, because THEY don’t have to pay the costs of the man’s marriage ending up in a ‘hell on earth’ situation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      Teddy Beale masquerades as a Christian, but if you have followed both his current events blog and his science fiction output, you’ll pretty quickly come to the conclusion that’s it’s all just a front. The center of Teddy Beale’s universe is Teddy Beale, not Jesus Christ.

      Like

  23. Pingback: The Status Signaling Narrative | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: Determination and Detachment | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: What Ted got right | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s