How, then, does this arise, in a culture where men being dominant and controlling is frowned upon and seen as misogynistic? Are claims that men need to be dominant mythical, or is the myth in the desire for equality? How is it possible to be dominant when the laws are stacked against a man and the woman can leave him whenever she wants?
This is a complex issue, and there are many explanations for the questions I just raised, but suffice it to say that in many relationships where women are genuinely happy, the man is the dominant partner, whether the woman admits it or not. But how is that possible? Women say they don't want to be controlled-- they want to be equal, or even in the lead.
What if the truth was that women don't want to be controlled, but they want to be dominated? There is a subtlety here that is missed on many men, especially those who are trying to recover from being overly submissive pushovers.
Men who have never intrinsically known how to be dominant tend to try and control things in a way that comes off as insecure, instead of self-assured. They have a tendency to desperately try and contain things, or police women's behavior, and that doesn't come off as attractive. In fact, it comes off as petty, try-hard, and what women would call creepy.
The basic problem is that in actively trying to restrain women from doing something, you turn them off. If you tell them to their face to not do something that they want to do, they'll treat you with contempt and ignore you at best. This is especially true when it comes to behaviors that are female-group-approved, whether harmful or not.
Women tend to think in groups. It's a totally different psychology from that of most men, who tend to arrive at conclusions independently, and maybe with a little input here and there from others. With women, the consensus of the group is everything, and there is little deviation. Women will submit themselves to group reasoning, even when the results are personally harmful to them. For instance, they will tend to remain in unproductive, unfulfilling relationships if the group mandates that they must be in that relationship due to the man being "approved" by the group.
Some people call this form of groupthink the sisterhoood, and with good reason. Woe betide the man who crosses the female sisterhood-- he will be treated mercilessly and all manner of false, unfair rumors about him will spread through the grapevine.
So when you criticize a woman for acting promiscuously, or drinking too much, or partying too much, and scorn her for it, you tend to get marked as someone who is trying to inhibit her freedom, or interfere with her fun. This gets you cast onto the junk heap of men, where you might as well not have any genitalia at all because you're blacklisted as someone who won't get laid, ever. I use the example of the girl who parties too much because I have real-world experience with it, but it applies to any female neurosis that is nurtured by this society, be it the defense of bizarre and crazy laws, consistently putting out to the wrong men, waiting till infertility to have children, etc.
The reason why this criticism is rejected it because it is seen as an attempt to control female behavior, which women intrinsically don't like. They don't like being told they can't do this, can't do that, etc. To be sure, nobody likes being told that they can't do something they like doing, or should put a damper on it, but with women this is extreme. They will not - I repeat - will not listen to a man who tells them that they can't do something, or need to reign in their behavior. Their detesting of such suggestions is part natural and part cultural -- a culture that says they can do anything and doesn't put brakes on their behavior, especially when said behavior is harmful to men.
So we can see clearly that women don't like being controlled. How, then, is it possible to get them to listen to anything? With all the freedoms and liberties they have, they can just tell guys to piss right off (though they rarely respond with such intensity, the message being sent is identical).
You now understand what is unattractive to women and what is guaranteed to NOT change their behavior. They hate being told what to do and will have none of it - call it a mixture of innate and cultural female belligerence. But they can be told what to do, and they can be told to rein in their behavior. They can become normal, sane, and acceptable people. How?
By being exposed to dominant personality traits in men. These traits are less controlling, as they are charming. Male politicians have used this charm to swoon armies of female voters to their side. Of course, on the face of it, being charming doesn't sound like it is enough to convince a woman to change her mind. And it isn't. But it'll get your foot in many doors, doors that would otherwise be completely shut.
Women are by nature, emotional creatures. This is not to say that men aren't, but women are on a whole different level. The whole sisterhood thing is based on a bonding of female emotions, a subtle communication collective living in a drugged-out haze of oxytocin. It's the way women have bonded, communicated, and protected themselves since the caveman days, and penetrating it the right way is the key to getting women to side with you, both in the ideological sphere and the sexual sphere. If you align the female grapevine in your favor, you will have done something great in their eyes, and you will be loved, no matter what you do or have done. In fact, there are many examples of men committing horrific acts who are feverishly defended by women whose sisterhood grapevine they successfully penetrated.
As you can see, this is potentially dangerous, and can be used for nefarious means, which many manipulative, evil men have done in the past. But many good men have used it to their advantage as well, as it opens up access to previously inaccessible women. This gaming of the sisterhood grapevine probably goes all the way back to the stone age itself.
As I mentioned, it's not enough to be charming. What else do you have to do? Well, the most effective strategy is to combine the charm with something logical, ideally something that panders to a female prejudice of some sort. I've read about one Men's Rights Activist who is using this technique to convince women to accept mandatory paternity testing. Many women are viscerally opposed to this, because they see (or instinctively feel) it as decreasing the amount of power a woman has regarding what man she chooses to sire her child. Of course, in a logical, ethical sense, this is bankrupt, as the married father should always be the biological father. Historically, however, women have gotten away with using one man for money, and getting what they see as more desirable genes for their progeny from the men who stimulate them most during their ovulation cycle (read: not the tamed, domesticated husband). Any attempt to sell women on mandatory paternity testing based on logic and ethics will fall flat, because women don't reason that way. Of course, some women will see through it and side with you, but not enough to have en-masse backing. Most women will see it as an attempt to control the excesses of their behavior and thus will resist it and vote against any change in the desired direction.
So what this MRA does is soothes the women, like a modern sort of Shaman. He treats them with good stories, and then launches into a polemic, throwing men under the bus mercilessly, condemning the epidemic of deadbeat dads who abandon the mothers of their children. He then says that the only way to combat this is to instate mandatory paternity testing so that these men can't run away from responsibility. This whips the crowd of women up into a frenzy, and makes them fanatical supporters of mandatory paternity testing.
Of course, the truth is different. In most cases, the man is the one who is cuckolded by a woman who decided to get better genes elsewhere. But this MRA is selling what are really men's issues to women as women's issues to get women to support them and vote for them. Thanks to feminism, the sisterhood grapevine is sinisterly aligned against men, but as this MRA shows, it can be penetrated with the right mixture of charm and logic to get women to work for you instead of against you.
Is it weird? Yes. Is it unfair? Who knows, it's the way nature is set up. If you want to get women on your side, you have to feed their prejudices in a way that works for you. Merely telling them what to do is seen as controlling and undesirable. Truth be told, women love being played around with like this. It's part of their being. And they hate men who can't do this to them.
This is why you see lots of men who are very unhappy with the cards that life has dealt them in places like the Love-shy.com forum. By and large, these men have great difficulties even getting women to go out on dates with them. This is in no doubt caused in part by an inability to behave in a dominant manner. Also, a lot of the legitimate criticism of female behavior seen on the forum is attacked by multitudes of outsiders as misogynistic and narrow minded. Why is this? Well, many of the attackers are men who are white knighting, who follow a different (but similar in some ways) psychology to women. But there are several women who have condemned it, and almost all of the female members have spoken against it in some way or another. A major reason why is - you guessed it - because these out-in-the-open, direct, logical criticisms of female behavior are seen as controlling, and not dominant. The other reason is of course the feminist control of the zeitgeist, but that's a topic for another post.
For those who want to become dominant but have difficulties doing so, I don't have a simple solution. In fact, I'm going to elaborate on what causes these difficulties in my next post, to try and flesh out what needs to be done if your personal psychology is game-naive and needs to be revamped. Personally, I tend to be the one whose buttons are pressed, instead of the one doing the pressing. This needs to change if I want to stop being walked all over and taken advantage of. And I am sure there are many Gen Y men who share my predicament.
So, in conclusion...
- Women HATE being told that they need to rein in their behavior, or that they can't do something. They especially despise non-dominant men who try to control their behavior.
- Women LOVE being told that they can do anything, and that they don't need to answer to anybody. They love men who play to their prejudices-- a loophole that can be used to get them to do your bidding.
- Men who can convert their controlling behavior into dominant behavior stand to gain largely in the interpersonal and sexual arena.
- Figuring out a way to turn an insecure, controlling personality into a dominant personality is of key importance.