The “Manslater” and “game”

The “Manslater”:

This is quite well done, but the joke is old. The point, of course, is that men don’t understand it when women communicate obliquely. The joke is mostly on men, but of course “it takes two to tango (badly)” and it would also be good if women could be more direct.

It occurred to me, having watched this, that it is a very similar idea to one of the tenets of what is known in the Manosphere as “game”. That is, that a man should watch a woman’s actions, not listen to her words. This has often been expressed, but the latest set of words I saw were these, in a comment on a recent post at “Alpha Game“:

“game … probably the most important lesson … don’t listen to what women say, watch what they do.”

It is mainstream knowledge – as the above humorous video shows – that women often do not say what they mean. All “game” does is take this well-known fact and extend it to situations in which women misrepresent what they really find attractive in men, or say one thing and do another in intimate situations. (I have known a woman to rant about how she will never go to the gym again, as she is leaving for the gym).

The video does touch on the “friendzone” concept, which is one “game” idea which has started to enter the mainstream.


9 responses to this post.

  1. I thought that article (that you commented on FB on) had some useful things to say about this. FWIW we do it to women too. The consequences for speaking our minds to anyone are high – only a few women are ballsy enough to carry it off. And we are in awe of them.


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on November 30, 2015 at 8:49 pm

      I am not quite sure which article you mean.


      • Hm. You commented on it, I think it was thoughtcatalog? Quite long, about dating from a woman’s point of view.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on November 30, 2015 at 10:07 pm

        Do you mean this one?

        Yes, I though it was quite interesting, but I had some doubts about it.

        I would have been more convinced if there had been at least one woman involved in composing it. And I really thought Tucker Max was a peculiar choice to co-author such a piece.

        I would love to get a guest post from a woman on some of these topics – or even do an email interview with a woman. There are some questions I would love to get straight answers to. I did interview PhD Bimbo and wrote about her, but she is hardly typical of women (this article has had a prodigious number of views):

        I think you may be saying that women have to prevaricate because it can be dangerous for them not to. I certainly get that women have to “manage” men and their expectations and at times practice some deceptions and deflections. Some of this is no doubt learned behaviour; some is perhaps inherent in the sex.

        I suppose what I was trying to say in this blog post arose out of a feeling that – yes, men are dumb, ha, ha … but it would be nice if women were a little less cryptic in their communication style … at least with men they know and can presumably trust. And, the other side of the coin is that it makes men wonder if they should ever take women seriously. Which ties in with the “game” ideas about ignoring what women say and watching what they do – in contexts that go beyond the ordinary banter of a stable relationship. That is, in “dating”.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on November 30, 2015 at 10:33 pm

        And yes, now I see that you meant that women are indirect in communicating with other women.

        Some of this ties in with old ideas (back to Schopenhauer) that women have had to be masters of deception and prevarication because of a lack of strength and general vulnerability. Which ties in with one of the insights in the Tucker Max Thought Catalog article – that women are attracted to a sex which can be downright physically dangerous.

        Although, this then raises the question of why women often communicate only indirectly with other women. Perhaps this is because of the need for a woman to maintain reputation and friends (Tucker Max touched on this in relation to the damage men can do a woman’s social reputation.)

        I remember reading a Christian book on marriage that advised husbands that their wives would practice deceptions because they feel they have to. It seemed an odd remark to me, at the time at least.

        The general tendency to camouflage and deception, whether inherent in women or not, is one reason why I don’t – as I said recently – see a problem with women using makeup (or whatever it takes) to create a particular impression.

        There is a general tendency among women to make themselves less noticeably challenging in public (in the extreme, by wearing things like chadors). They are like cats. Good at not being noticed, until they want to be. I have seen it suggested that even wearing makeup is a way to cover and conceal one’s identity while in public.

        But, as I say, so much of this is speculation. Until women choose to be frank, we have to just guess.

      • Why doesn’t WP let me know about your replies? :p

        Happy to be interviewed – you know where to find me. Although (TBH!) it is sometimes hard to figure out the truth even in your own head.

        Consider the works of Jane Austen, and all the tea parties where the women are having polite conversations with other women that they consider their enemies. Communication is carried in subtext, not in outright words. Why? Because words can be used as evidence, but there’s nothing you can say if it’s all subtext, even if the communication is crystal clear. (In fact, one of the ways to “lose” such a conversation is to lose your cool enough to make any of the communication explicit enough for a man to catch. Not a denigration on men! It makes a male the authority, the referee if you will). Let’s call this Poison Tea.

        If you’re not explicit – someday you can at least face-ally with this woman. And circumstance might FORCE you to ally with her, might indeed be forcing you to be allies right now. (Remember Elinor ended up as a sister-in-law to that horrid woman to whom her husband was once engaged – the politesse employed no doubt kept the illusion of peace, very useful if you’re going to be at the same Christmas celebrations for the next three decades).

        Women’s strength is in network-webs of relationship. Outright enmity cuts the web.

        Much poison tea is about power jockeying. I mean, you don’t expect us to just say, “I’m prettier than you, I’m more accomplished than you, and I’m connected to a better man than yours.” Guys do this too, you call it AMOG.

        So you get this pounded in your head from day one and you honestly forget that men don’t communicate like this, and you communicate your desires to your man in subtext (but very loudly in subtext) and he doesn’t get them… well, with women that’s a polite way to say, “no”. So, then you’re hearing, “No” from your man – of course the poor man has no idea you were asking a question in the first place. And you get grouchy. Which is unfair.

        Really, the women who are willing to blaze through and speak their minds? We are in awe. YOU love them, you men – so do we. And we hate them because you love them. They’re cheating, but how glorious! These tend to be women who say they can’t stand other women, fwiw.

        Not letting poison tea take over the world is one of the more excellent reasons why we need to have men and women converse on a regular basis. Reality check, aisle five!

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on December 6, 2015 at 11:18 pm

        Hearthie, that is actually pretty illuminating.

        I like to put things in the context of what early humans were doing. And I can easily imagine women sitting around with their children, in a sort of prehistoric sewing circle, conversing in the subtleties you mention. And forming and reforming alliances.

        (I am married to a woman who tends to be pretty blunt, but certainly the stereotype in the above video, of the women speaking in hints, is familiar enough.)

        Perhaps it is tied in with the fact that women often like blunt speech from men, maybe because it is the reverse of the feminine style. (One thinks of a scene in an Austen-type novel in which a young man says something outrageous and all the ladies blush and titter.)

        On the positive side, perhaps that is why sometimes women seem to have an almost supernatural ability to pick up on a man’s preferences, even from hints. On a good day, you make some idle comment and you later find that your wife has gone off and done something to attend to it.

        Anyway, rather than my writing an essay here, I shall contact you. You may have noticed that “Lexie” has been interviewed here and her comments have formed a couple of posts. Maybe I could ask you similar questions to those I asked Lexie.

        I know Lexie slightly and I suspect she is something of a “man’s woman” as they say. The kind of woman you mention. A bit more forthright than the average woman. But, if you do choose to answer some questions, do so in your own way of course.

        (I think there is a way in which you can get WordPress to inform you of comments on a particular post.)

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on December 7, 2015 at 1:13 am

        I forgot to add that it was the genius of Austen that she was able to convey these subtleties to both women and men readers.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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

%d bloggers like this: