In every large-scale military conflict, there is the macro war and the micro war. While the macro war fought strategically by the generals has a great influence on the micro war fought tactically by the individual soldiers, the two wars are nevertheless distinct from one another and must be contemplated separately. In this second column in the series related to the war against men, I am focused solely on the micro war that is fought in the houses, classrooms, churches and nightclubs of America.
In the prelude to a battle, the local commander always considers four things. His resources, the enemy’s resources, the lay of the land and the objective. Now, every male individual’s objective will naturally be different: One man may hope to meet a large number of attractive women, another man might wish to marry a specific woman and a third might wish to escape a hellish marriage without spending the rest of his life in court-dictated financial servitude. But regardless of the objective, the same general rules about the lay of the land and the relative-value table will apply.
It is generally understood that in conventional warfare, a three-to-one advantage is required for the attacker to be able to expect success in assaulting a defensive position. In like manner, a two-point difference in the level of attractiveness generally dictates which of the two parties is in control of the situation, or, in the terminology of the statistics-oriented Casanovas who have brought Billy Beane’s “moneyball” approach to the world of intersexual interaction, possesses “Hand.”
This isn’t difficult to understand. Every man knows that an average-looking guy is going to have a harder time attracting the attention of a pretty woman than a handsome one. This is no mystery. But what many men wrongly believe is that women have the same fatalistic attitude that men do with regard to their pursuit of the relatively more attractive. This difference in behavior is due to two reasons: female hypergamy and male dualism.
Hypergamy means women are not oriented toward pursuing one man (monogamous) as most men believe, but are rather oriented toward pursuing the man of the highest perceived value. Whereas the male perspective tends to be absolute – the difference between an 8 and a 10 is largely irrelevant to the man whose minimum standard is a 7 – the female perspective tends to be much more relative and situational. Dualism means that male interest in women is divided between their pursuit of short-term sex and their goal of long-term marriage. A man’s standard with regard to the former is usually rather lower than with regards to the latter. It also involves other factors than mere physical appearance.
The combination of hypergamy and dualism creates a situation where less attractive women have not only the possibility of attracting the short-term interest of more attractive men, but the strong inclination to focus their attention on those men even though they cannot reasonably expect those men to maintain a similar interest in them. This is what has created what the Centers for Disease Control reported as the statistically unbalanced situation where 10.4 percent of men have had three or more female partners in the previous 12 months versus the 79 percent of men who have had one or less. It is this reality which is at least partially responsible for creating the video-game-playing, commitment-phobic man-boy phenomenon of which so many women’s magazines have begun to complain.
Now, it is unrealistic to believe that women are going to cease being attracted to the most-desirable men or that those alpha males are going to stop using less attractive women for their short-term personal gratification. But this doesn’t mean that the average man has no choice but to significantly lower his standards or wait until a woman’s sexual history reduces her relative attractiveness (see “The hierarchy of female attractiveness” if you’re interested) so that she can no longer continue to ride the alpha merry-go-round and she is finally open to settling down with a nice, stable provider in her mid-to-late 30s.
The answer, for the individual male, goes by the name of Game, and it is essentially a guide to simulating alpha behavior for the majority of men who are non-alphas. Although developed by pick-up artists with a focus on plowing through scores of women like a Panzer division through 1940s France, it is arguably even more useful for the man who wishes to find a good, attractive woman and provide her with what she most desires, which is marriage to a man she perceives to be of high value.
Five axioms of Game
1) There are plenty of girls on the girl tree.
2) Do not mistake physical beauty for positive character.
3) Always err on the side of too much boldness.
4) Never show fear, doubt, insecurity or indecision.
5) Remember that a woman’s words are not meant to be taken at face value.
There are many, many more such maxims developed by the Game theoreticians, but applying just these five will help any man elevate the female perception of his value. Of course, none of this takes into account the inherent risks of marrying an American woman today given the current Marriage 2.0 structure, but that is a matter for another column. And remember, if love is a battlefield, only a foolish man destined for defeat would enter it unarmed.