MMX2010

Were you there when he told her?

Is he interested in anyone else?

How old are you? How old is he? And how long have you been dating?

Someone has to be guilty, because women constantly worry about both whether they'll secure the commitment of "a good man" AND whether the man they're currently dating is "good enough". This constant double-worry creates psychological annoyance, which is only combatable through "explanations". So society is guilty, because women have decreed it. And individual men are guilty, because women have decreed it. And sons must serve their mothers, because women have decreed it. The sabbatical you speak of can break you away from the "Individual Guilt" that a specific woman imposes upon you during the relationship. But it can't necessarily break you away from the "Collective Guilt" that all women impose upon all men. Stefan has said that "Sin is basically stealing your self-esteem and then selling it back to you for money." To mother a male child is that, to the twentieth power.

Nothing could be more unique that a ripped UFC warrior preaching peaceful parenting and the NAP. There's also no contradiction between those ideas, so go for it, Jake.

You're asking me so many ultra-literal, small-focused questions that you're missing the bigger picture. Re-read your "She wants to feel your shiva!" summary. The most erotic moment for a woman is feeling that you are Shiva, the divine masculine: imperturbable, totally loving, fully present, and all-pervading. She cannot move you, because you already are what you are, with or without her. She cannot scare you away, because you already penetrate her in fearless love, pervading her heart and body. She cannot distract you, because your one-pointed commitment to truth will not bend to her wiles. Feeling this hugeness of love and freedom in you, she can trust you, utterly, and surrender her testing in celebration of love. Until she wants to feel you as Shiva again. And then the testing will begin anewanew. In fact, it is precisely when you are most Shiva-like that she will most test you. Perhaps you have been working toward some financial goal, and finally you have succeeded. After months or years of effort, you have creatively earned a large amount of money. You feel happy, full, and successful. You feel great. You come home to your woman and want to share the news with her. "I just made a million dollars today." "That's nice." "That's nice!!?? You know how hard I've been working for this." "I know. It feels like I haven't seen you in months. Did you remember to pick up the milk on the way home?" "Oh, sorry" I forgot. But who cares? We could buy a dairy farm now?" "I asked you to pick up the milk three times this morning, and I put a note on your briefcase. How could you forget?" "I said I'm sorry. Look, I'll go get the damn milk..." Why is she being this way? Because she simply wants to deflate your success? No. She is challenging you because your success doesn't mean **** to her, unless you are free and loving. And if you are free and loving, nothing she says can collapse you. She wants to feel you are uncollapsable, so she pokes you in your weak spot. Of course she knows how much this moment of success means to you. This is precisely why she is negating it. Not because she wants to hurt you. But because she wants to feel Shiva. She wants to feel your strength. She wants to feel that your happiness is not dependent on her response, nor on you making a million dollars. She wants to feel you are a superior man." Of course the answer is agree and amplify, ignore the test, and change the topic! Grab her in your arms, pin her to the couch and say: "You want cream, I will get you some cream." ----------------------- Notice how the entire focus is: "She wants. She needs. She wants. She needs." And notice, also, how the entire solution is: "He understands, and he gives." But nothing in Deida's advice implies that sometimes a woman doesn't deserve to get exactly what she wants, nor that sometimes a good man refuses to give a woman exactly what she wants, nor that sometimes a woman's character becomes stronger by depriving her of what she wants. (The latter omission is hilarious, because every woman in every society loudly admits that a man's character is built by restricting / controlling his wants - so why isn't a woman's character sufficiently strengthened in this way?) ------------------ Notice also how "basic sexual jealousy" is never submitted as a plausible mechanism for her testing. Deida describes her shit testing in noble spiritual terms, "You are the divine masculine: imperturbable, totally loving, fully present, and all-pervading. Your success doesn't mean **** to her, unless you are free and loving. And if you are free and loving, nothing she says can collapse you. She wants to feel you are uncollapsable, so she pokes you in your weak spot. Of course she knows how much this moment of success means to you. This is precisely why she is negating it. Not because she wants to hurt you. But because she wants to feel Shiva. She wants to feel your strength. She wants to feel that your happiness is not dependent on her response, nor on you making a million dollars. She wants to feel you are a superior man." But I can easily describe her shit-testing in sexual jealousy terms. "The more successful you become, the more likely other women will flirt with you. So she shit-tests you, simply to determine whether you'll move towards her or away from her. Moving towards her makes her feel better, and examples of this include laughing her shit test away and having sex with her immediately. But moving away from her makes her feel bad, and examples of this include pointing out that a less jealous woman would celebrate his success, leaving her silently to celebrate your success with your much more appreciative male friends, and/or leaving her silently to have a romantic candlelight dinner with a more appreciative female companion." My sexual jealousy explanation has the benefit of being completely devoid of Mystical Spiritual Language, which (I think) makes it the more-likely-to-be-true explanation. But the most important thing is that you don't see either: (1) Deida's complete inability to apply disclaimers and limitations to female wants. (2) Deida's complete inability to advise men to deny women's wants, (not even occasionally, let alone as a regular pattern). (3) Deida's inability to justify why a woman needs all of this satisfaction, nor separate Women Who Deserve It from Women Who Don't. He simply implies through consistent omission that a superior man must give everything, all of the time, to whomever he commits to, without asking "Is this arrangement satisfying to me?" And the only solution you proposed was, "Well, if he gets unhappy, he can just leave!" - which omits the possibilities of: (1) Maybe he can point out how unappreciative she is, and hope she'll become a better, stronger, less needy woman OR (2) Maybe he can point out the ways in which society encourages women to become ultra needy and exploitive. OR (3) Maybe he can marry a woman from a much more female-limiting society.

*delete*

When a man imbibes the notion that he must grow, because he's imperfect - while also imbibing the notion that her growth is optional / unnecessary - that contrast eventually makes him feel cheated. It's an insoluble dilemma when people accuse men (and me) of "finding the negative" when he points out that women don't want to self-improve without also accusing women of "finding the negative" when they expect men to self-improve. And also when a man "goes his own way" by dumping a specific woman, only to find that women are socially-conditioned to repeat the same mistakes as the first woman he dumped.

I remember that book: it was key in my decision to start a relationship with the older woman I almost married. The insidious weakness of the book, (which may not be apparent to you), is the contrast between the bevy of self-improvement advice it gives men and the utter lack of self-improvement expectations it advises men to expect from women. Following that book will, indeed, allow a man to grow and grow and grow. But by NOT expecting women to grow in accordance with, and in response to, his own growth - the book sub-consciously causes men to accept that, "I must grow, because I'm not perfect. But she mustn't grow, because she is perfect." This insidious weakness also traps a man with this insoluble dilemma: "If I stop growing, will she get mad at me and insist I keep growing? But if I continue to grow, while she doesn't, will she get mad because she'll expect me to want a better woman than her? Am I doomed for stopping growth AND for continuing to grow?"

I can flush out the most disturbing of those implications. We're both familiar with MGTOW philosophy, and its relevant core tenet is that feminism both severely over-estimates female-oppression and severely under-estimates male oppression. The two facts I mentioned earlier about the extraordinary social investment to raise women's self-esteem and the maximum prevalence of mood disorders in women are collateral findings of that core MGTOW tenet. The most disturbing implication is that, "A woman who is equal to you in every way is inferior to you - period." This is because you became who you are despite the gender-specific attacks against you, while she became who she was while being bolstered with, "You go girl!" affirmations and the soft bigotry of low expectations. And so, for a woman to be equal to a man, she must be superior to him at one valuable thing. (Ideally, blatantly superior without using that superiority against him.)

I'm going to argue that a man's desire for a hot woman is not nearly as shallow as you (and Stef) make it out to be. First: Roosh is a thirty-something, highly-popular Manosphere author who travels the world, bangs attractive chicks from foreign countries, and writes advice books outlining his experiences. The RooshVForum is a masculine safe space, (women, homosexuals, and transgenders are discouraged from posting), populated by men who (ostensibly) are devoted to learning "Game" - the series of psychological tricks and body language techniques designed to sleep with as many women as possible, with the quickest possible wait times from first meeting. Roosh proposed a thought-experiment, wherein each man is forced to reproduce with either a highly attractive 90 IQ woman, or a highly unattractive 135 IQ woman. The reproductive act would involve no sexual intercourse, but the man and woman would share custody of the child - whose sex would be unknown. Many men put a lot of depth in their answers, leading to justifications that one wouldn't expect. (For example, some men posited that the attractive woman is much more used to getting beneficial treatment from men, which makes her a more pleasant, less contentious wife - and that this, in turn, automatically makes her a better mother.) This depth of consideration indicates that "merely wanting a hot woman" is not nearly as shallow as you make it out to be. http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-43533.html?highlight=who+would+you+rather+reproduce+with ------------------------------ Second: Many articles (some scientific) also tackle the question of whether Conservative women are more attractive than Liberal women. (I think the answer is Yes, but it's a complex question. And some of the articles have such a condescending tone that readers will either enjoy or loathe.) http://www.livescience.com/23998-physical-beauty-conformity.html This article explains one experiment, and concludes, "But the women rated as more physically attractive by their peers were more likely to endorse values like conformity and tradition rather than values like self-direction and universalism, which is linked to tolerance and a concern for others, the researchers said. "Thus, whereas people hold the 'what is beautiful is good' stereotype, our findings suggest that the beautiful strive for conformity rather than independence and for self-promotion rather than tolerance," wrote the authors, led by Lihi Segal-Caspi of the Open University." The author of the article is Megan Gannon, and here's her twitter page so you can see what she looks like: https://twitter.com/meganigannon She is of less-than-average physical appearance, and probably above-average in IQ. And I couldn't help but notice that she uses the words "conformity, tradition, and self-promotion" to insult highly attractive women, while I would replace those words with "ease-of-being around successful males, alignment with the philosophical values of successful males, and aggressive flirtation designed to acquire the affections of successful males". She also uses "independence and tolerance" to describe the purported values of less attractive women, but I'd replace those words with "ill-at-ease around males, reluctance to accept the values of males, and an intense focus on political questions that undermine male authority". I don't know whether "Liberal women are liberals, because they're ugly." is a valid thing to say. But I do know that the depth of consideration in both instances is enough to prove that men wanting hot women aren't automatically shallow, because the value of a woman's hotness is a complex question.

Agree with you. Used properly, though, those words help a man determine for himself his expectations and "personal guilt management" in a relationship. Beta is Beta, because it voluntarily accepts undeserved guilt for female and/or societal transgressions against him.

The Rational Male blog is, in my opinion, the best resource on the definitions of Alpha and Beta. http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/02/beta-game/ http://therationalmale.com/tag/alpha-male/ http://therationalmale.com/category/alpha/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TheRawness blog contains the best selection of posts warning you about pitfalls in your transitions from Alpha to Beta. http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-1/ (The most important warning is the question, "Are you transitioning from Beta to Alpha in order to get girls, or in order to be happier with who you are as a man?") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Cernovich of Danger and Play has a series of posts about alpha male posture exercises...... http://www.dangerandplay.com/2014/06/18/alpha-male-posture-exercises/ ......as well as Testosterone Replacement Therapy, including how to self-diagnose a low testosterone level and how to self-medicate if you have low testosterone. http://www.dangerandplay.com/2013/11/12/testosterone-replacement-therapy-trt/ TRT, for the men who have needed it and executed it, is a godsend. Once I get my finances in order, I'll order the blood test and then self-medicate if necessary.

There are two lines in the Bad Lip Reading video of The Walking Dead. Carl Grimes: You can't just torch a windmill, dude! Herschel Green: Yes I can. Later, tater. Just replace Carl's line with the pope's admonishment.

Few things make me as happy as when Rollo's latest post matches exactly a question I was asking, or deals directly with what another man is going through. http://therationalmale.com/2015/01/13/acing-the-test/ The key question in her test is, "Do you care how my behavior affects you because you think I'm special OR do you care how my behavior affects you because you don't think I'm special?" The more you let every woman's behavior confuse and annoy you, the less reliable any woman believes you to be. It may be weird for me to ask you, "Would you lend $100,000 to a complete stranger?", because I'm comparing the potential loss of six figures to the potential flustering at the whims of an attractive woman you'll probably never see again. But the weirdness applies masculine logic to a feminine, emotional situation - and the man who gets women understands that getting flustered at how an attractive woman you've just met is treating you is fundamentally equivalent to loaning a stranger six figures.

I can ask you two crucial questions that get to the bottom of your (and my) beliefs about women. (1) In the past, do you think women were sweet, kind, and easily led by men because women have a sweet, kind, easily-led nature OR because women's very survival depended on their acting sweetly and kindly? (2) What percentage of women in your dating age range - (mine is 18 through 33) - do you consider would be good mothers according to FDR standards? That means no BS standards like, "She did the best she could with the knowledge that she had." - but instead, "She maximizes the study of child psychology and peaceful parenting, to the point where any reasonable man would feel confident than any child she has, with any man she chooses, will experience a peaceful, joyous upbringing." The second question is super important, because if you severely over-estimate the percentage of fit mothers, then you'll be imparting an undeserved sense of respectability and honor onto women-in-general, which will in turn lead you to develop an undeserved sense of duty and self-sacrifice onto yourself and every other man. (This is because all of the protections that women expect from men, such as extreme honesty towards her even though she's a stranger and "Don't have sex with me, unless you're sure I'm a legitimately special woman.", are null and void if she either never has children or never develops her personality sufficiently to become a good mother. Worse, if she spends her youthful years engaging in promiscuous behavior, only to suddenly "acquire a sense of duty towards her future children" in her early thirties, she is both ultimately responsible for her promiscuous behavior AND is likely to pass on the damage of that behavior onto her children. To declare otherwise implies that youthful women are so weak in the brain, soul, and emotions that they need literally every man to look out for her future interests - and the word for that perspective is called "Patriarchy".) I won't answer the second question for you (or any man), but the higher the number you choose, the more you'll feel personally responsible for the negative experiences of women-in-general. And it's up to you to either: (1) support the number you select with scientific evidence, or (2) significantly decrease the number you select to align it with the scientific evidence you find.

If you browse the last two pages of Rainbow Jamz's topic, "How are piercings, tattoos, heavy makeup....?", you'll find a brief history of my long-term affair with an engaged woman. (She wasn't engaged when I met her, but she became engaged to as time passed.) The topic can be found under "General Messages", page one, about 75% of the way down. You will also read a brief synopsis of a marriage between a man who could be a great musician and a heavily tattoo'ed woman. He used to be my best friend, but no longer. Interestingly, I just learned yesterday that he hasn't been able to work a single day in over a month after I moved out, because he developed anxiety attacks. When I first met him, (long before he even knew his future wife), the idea of him developing crippling anxiety attacks would've been laughably impossible. But he doesn't realize that those crippling anxiety attacks are exactly what his wife feels about her own life, day in and day out - so he has literally (in my opinion) developed the same mental illness that his wife suffers from, in order to better empathize with who she is and hopefully heal her pain. I would almost never commit to any woman with mental illness, but if I did, I'd produce a tacit understanding which states, "You're mentally ill; I'm not. So in all conflicts you do what I want, not what you want. If you resist, there's the door." He, (and possibly you, and possibly the majority of people in this forum), thinks that my Frame is cruel and heartless. But by following my Frame, I'm never going to develop the same mental illnesses that a woman feels, just so I can better relate with her. That level of self-sacrifice, strictly meant to turn a woman into a dull/normal functioning human being, is revolting. ------------- I've never spoken about the older woman whom I was seriously considering marrying. That was my best relationship, but it came when I didn't fully grasp the reality of Rollo Tomassi's perspective - (nor Heartiste's perspective, especially on Dread. Just google "heartiste dread"). I think I made two mistakes in that relationship, although I'm not sure about one of them. The mistake I'm dead certain about is that I expected a level of self-confidence, self-startership, and ability to confidently voice her displeasures. If you have solid experience with women, and if you met her when I knew her, you'd pour a drink on my head while saying, "Dude?! You really expected THAT WOMAN to have confidence, self-startership, and the ability to directly voice her grievances?!" And I'd pour my own drink on my own goddamn head, while saying, "Shadddup...." The other mistake is under-estimating the value of dull/normal functional. She wasn't a great woman, but she was a good one. She was completely lacking that "chip on her shoulder" that so many women possess. And she wasn't exceptionally smart, but she could (for the most part) follow on what I was saying. I do, at times, miss her warmth - even if I do think that her warmth is a product of being sheltered, rather than of bravely facing the world (and its horrors) and staunchly choosing to be warm despite of this. But, on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with preferring an exceptional woman to a dull / normal one. And if a man is brave enough to face being alone for the rest of his life in pursuit of an exceptional woman, then more power to him. Right? ------------------------ Right now, my plan is to put myself through Roosh's "Bang" program, Krauser's "Day Game" program, Mike Cernovich's alpha body postures (and perhaps Testosterone Replacement Therapy). From there, my goal is to "spin plates", meaning that I see multiple women at a time, never promising exclusivity to any of them. I posit as fact, (and feel free to argue against it, if you disagree), that women are at their absolutely best relationship behavior in the first one through six months of it. During this time, women are both riding the exceptionally high emotional wave of "having found this great guy" and are deeply insecure that you'll stop seeing them. So the sex they provide is more passionate, and their devotion to being happy - (i.e. - not complaining, and not expecting you to solve their problems) - is maximized. However, once that time passes, and once she is more secure that you won't leave, then the sex she provides is provisional to your doing certain tasks, and her devotion to being happy drops significantly. "Plate spinning" takes the above fact and pushes it to its logical conclusion - that maximum relationship happiness (from a MALE perspective) is accomplished by seeing multiple women at once, and repeatedly riding the emotional wave of the first one through six months. If a woman presses for "commitment", she must either: (1) surrender her freedoms in exchange for following your leadership, or (2) refuse to do so, in which case she gets dumped.

In a seemingly unrelated incident, "ShirtGate" happened when scientist Matthew Taylor wore a shirt depicting cartoon drawings of women in BDSM gear while being interviewed for landing a small space craft on a comet. A feminist named Rose Evelith insinuated that his shirt was largely responsible for the relative lack of women in scientific fields. (The headline that most exemplifies their complain read: I Don't Care That You Landed A Spacecraft On A Comet: Your Shirt Is Sexist And Ostracizing.) Many women criticized Rose Evelith's message. Foremost among them was Ana Kasparian, (the same one whom Stefan made fun of about three months ago), who said, "If a shirt was powerful enough to make you give up your pursuit of a job in a science field, then you weren't cut out to be a scientist." My reaction to your argument is similar to Ana's reaction to Rose's. If you declare that society's ridicule and stigmas are sufficient enough to drive the suicide rate to over twenty-times the average, then I retort that perhaps transgender people aren't fit enough to educate everyone else about their plight. Blacks in America during Martin Luther King's era faced far worse ridicule and stigma, but King reacted by protesting against the powerful institutions that created and supported those stigmas: the government and the police. Alcorn's suicide just strikes me as, "I want to accomplish what King did, but I don't want to do the work that King did." That's extraordinarily weak, especially in this society that praises individual hard work for politically correct causes. And I've no respect for anyone who refuses to make something of themselves.

For my own amusement, I googled "David Cameron" and "je suis Charlie". The first google link was entitled, "David Cameron defends Charlie Hebdo's right to publish new prophet Mohammed cartoon". So in less than 24 hours, he first yelled "Free Speech!", and then yelled, "No free speech! It's threatening!"

It's not only technically possible, but it also happens often enough that one can compare the happiness levels in those relationships to that of other relationships. Generally speaking, those women-take-charge relationships are much less happier, mostly because the woman doesn't actually enjoy being the emotional rock and because the man sub-consciously senses this and is constantly jealously looking out for more stable males who'll poach his wife. It's not "If the other sex can provide it, it no longer counts." It's, "If the other sex is providing it at a level less than what you can provide, then it no longer counts." A woman's pleasantness counts if it's equally pleasant as mine. But it counts only in the, "Well, at least you're not diminishing my level of pleasantness with your lack of pleasantness." frame. So being equally pleasant to me is Zero Value, which is only beneficial compared to the large amount of Negative Value women who exist. A woman's pleasantness counts if it's significantly more pleasant as mine. And it counts in the genuinely appreciative, "I'm glad she's more pleasant than me, because it helps me learn how to cultivate my own pleasantness. Of, if it doesn't help me learn to do so, it gives me access to a level of pleasantness than I cannot provide for on my own." It's notable that few, if any, women think in these terms. "Wait. I have to provide him with something valuable that he, himself, doesn't possess, so that he'll actually appreciate me!?!?" is a revelation to the majority of women. Instead, most women assume that they're automatically providing value to the relationship, (because modern society has inflated their self-esteem to very high levels). And once they assume they're providing high value, they then attempt to extort as many resources as possible from men. (In other words, the easiest way for women to "get what they want" from a relationship is to get the man to agree with her assumption that she's providing value. Once a man agrees with that assumption, he'll then agree with all of her demands. But if a man questions that assumption, she immediately dumps him, and finds another man who agrees with that assumption.) It's both a double-edged sword and it's an amusing look into the causes of my condescension towards women. I don't know how much you read the Manosphere, but: (1) Rollo Tomassi is a psychology major who blogs about relationships. (2) Roosh is a 30-something, independently wealthy world-traveler, who blogs about his experiences in foreign countries and advises men how to both make money and bang women. (3) Roissy and Krauser are self-made men who've slept with hundreds (if not thousands) of women, and blog / sell books about banging women. (4) Mike Cernovich and Victor Pride are self-made success stories who blog about mindset and self-improvement. (5) Aaron Clarey, a.k.a. Captain Capitalism, is a forty-something self-made success story who gives no-B.S. economic advice to men, especially Millennials. These men don't agree on everything, but they firmly agree that a man MUST self-improve. And their self-improvement advice, particularly on the psychology of relationships and the relationship expectations one acquired during childhood, is top-notch, scientifically-supported gold. So men in large numbers are embracing self-improvement, which is really humbly embracing the "I am the cause of my own problems." and "It doesn't matter that society has fucked me over royally, because I'm responsible for fixing the damage." paradigms. The amusing thing is that there is no corresponding movement for female self-improvement. If anything, there's a very strong movement for anti self-improvement among females. The fat-acceptance movement is comprised of women who get enraged when asked, "Have you dated any obese men lately?" The tattoo-acceptance movement is mostly comprised of women. And the constant accusations of "Misogyny!" are both never balanced out by accusations of misandry and are almost-always in response to suggestions that women self-improve. And MMX2010 said unto modern males, "Let there be condescension!", and there was condescension. And MMX2010 saw that it was sometimes warm, sometimes angry. So he divided the warm, amused condescension from the cold, bitter condescension. And he called the warm condescension "healthy", and the cold condescension "poison". Then he shook his head at the White Knights who altogether rejected the need for condescension. This condescension is necessary to prevent a man from accepting a woman's default assumption that she's providing value, and therefore empowers a man to question the nature and degree of the value that any woman provides.

My answer to this dating question is controversial, but I can back it up. First of all, remember that my answers change significantly if I decide I want to have children. Secondly, the following two items are facts: (1) During the past sixty years or so, both government and media have spent so much money raising the self-esteem of women that the current generation of women (aged 20-45) are the second-most coddled, pampered, and entitled women in human history. Their daughters will be the most. (2) During the past thirty years or so, the prevalence of mental disorders among women aged 20-45, (such as depression, manic-depression, BPD, personality disorders, attachment disorders, NPD, and so on), has never been higher. Everyone reacts to these two facts differently. Some dismiss the second fact as being caused by pharmaceutical companies advertising drugs like Prozac and Abilify. Some dismiss both facts as being coincidental. But I think the first fact actually causes the second fact. In other words, depression in women has maximized BECAUSE women's freedom and expectations to make something of themselves, (i.e. without men), have also maximized. Give a woman freedom to succeed "without a man", and she inevitably experiences great anxiety that she'll never find "a good man". Give a woman freedom to express herself, and she'll inevitably complain about smaller and smaller problems, in an attempt to find a man to solve those problems for her. Give a woman freedom to vote, and she'll inevitably vote in larger and larger government to counteract her anxiety that she'll never find a loving, stable man to provide for her into her old age. Because of this, I experience condescension whenever I'm in a woman's presence. When I'm not at peace, because I haven't fully embraced women's nature, my condescension is cold and/or angry. But when I am at peace, because I've fully embraced women's nature and can laugh at it, my condescension is warm. It is entirely too much to expect a woman to realize that the condescension I feel is deserved. That realization requires strength of character and independence of thought that would make women's current level of depression impossible. So I think less than 5% of women can accept, if not embrace, my condescension towards them. The rest will either respond warmly to my condescension, provided it is warm. Or they'll reject it and try to "make something of themselves" without my influence. My response to this is, "Good luck. But please see the two facts which began this post." To respond warmly to my condescension is to sub-consciously acknowledge that her decisions and her thought-processes aren't leading to her own happiness, so she needs outside, objective input from a trusting male partner to help her achieve happiness. She accepts that she needs to change some of her thoughts and actions but she neither knows how....nor which ones. As a man, it's my job to provide objective input as to which ones...and how. In response to my input, a woman either changes immediately (good thing) or blatantly refuses (bad thing, and grounds for dumping), or refuses but eventually gives in (sort of good, but too much of that is grounds for dumping). And as her changes take effective root, she becomes happier and hopefully grateful for my input. (If she's foolish enough to think that she would've implemented those changes without my input, she's dumped.) Thus, the only virtue woman provide is pleasantness and happiness. And the irony that we've expected so much more from women, but can't reasonably expect them to be any more than "pleasant" and "happy" is enough to make a man become extremely condescending. Just make sure your condescension is warm and humorous, because cold and angry condescension doesn't benefit anyone.

Be very careful if you press a parent to expose that they've never struggled to accomplish anything important. You'll be showing a narcissist clear evidence of their narcissism, and that never goes well. Also, remember that your videos are meant to focus parents on the job of parenting. But narcissistic parents only want to discuss parenting in terms of how they feel about their own parenting, and they literally expect everyone to praise their "superior parenting". So every focusing-attempt on the job of parenting will provoke resistance (if not outright rage).

^^^^^ Not an argument. From the same article, "Heyer’s blog cites a national survey of more than 6,500 transgenders that asked the question, “Have you tried to commit suicide?” Forty-one percent answered, “Yes.” That’s astonishingly more than the national average of less than 2 percent. Virtually all people who attempt suicide are suffering from some form of mental disorder or depression. So it should seem clear that blaming society for that depression will not address the dysphoria and depression an individual feels." Short summary: The national average of suicide attempts is less than 2 percent, and the mental health community (as well as common sense) accepts, "Those who attempt suicide are suffering from some form of mental illness." The national average of suicide attempts among transgenders is 41 percent, so the mental health community (as well as common sense) should also accept that, "Those who are transgender are suffering from some sort of mental illness."

Have you ever asked these parents whether they-themselves have accomplished something amazing through struggle? (For example, the Pick-Up Artist, Krauser, describes how he approached 500 women, unsuccessfully, before he figured out how to pick up women. And another PUA, Roosh, insists that a man must perform a minimum of 100 approaches as part of his own program.) If you press hard enough, you'll almost certainly reveal that the parent has no experience with determined effort through tedium, and is passing on this non-experience to their children. Naturally, I don't know whether pressing a parent like this is a "good idea", in terms of getting them to hire you - but I'm wondering whether you've pressed this way.

Me, too. I think 90% of parents would. Maybe more.