Memes About the 50's - Cultural Programming

There is a particularly pervasive trope that is often bandied about the blogosphere...it is a straw man argument, and frankly, I'm tired of it.

This is the meme that many Men are pining for the 1950's. That we think the 50's were utopia, and if only we could 'go back' to that era, everything would be just fine.

Conversely, we have the other side of the coin - that the 1950's were utterly horrible for women, and that it's because the 50's were so horrible that the 60's sexual and cultural revolution was inevitable because of just how bad the 50's were.

Both of these caricature descriptions of that decade are shibboleths that need to be put to rest once and for all.

What the 50's were, was the last hurrah of a pro-family, pro-monogamy, pro-American ideal message transmitted via mass media culture.

The Father role was not undermined in sitcoms...it was upheld and revered. You had a show entitled "Father Knows Best."

The role of housewife was not demeaned, and chaste, virtuous motherhood was the primary female role model.

Children were portrayed as respectful of their elders and well behaved.

This cultural programming did not create a perfect society. Indeed, perfect society is a pipe dream that will never be possible. Ever.

But the mass media culture of the 50's served one very important function: it reinforced the norms and values of an orderly society in which people clearly understood the roles and expectations they were to aspire to when they reached adulthood. It channeled both male and female sexuality into the society building, civilization affirming, nuclear family. It portrayed Patriarchy as benevolent and ideal...an institution to aspire to.

Most shows of the era did in fact follow the general principle that Father does indeed know best. It did not undermine or seek to overthrow the importance and necessity of the role of Dad in the family.

If a show where to be made with that same title by today's Hollywood Babylon, it would most likely be about a pedophile priest defiling young boys with an incessant laugh track and glowing reviews.

Other than that, you'd be hard pressed to find a competent, sage, still married and admirable Father character in the mass media culture today. No, now it's all about girl power, career women, super-mom's with bumbling idiot husbands and fathers who need to be set straight by all the females in their lives...from their prepubescent daughters to their old ladies, representations of family men in today's modern day culture now basically has devolved into "Father Doesn't Know Shit."

Contrast that with today's mass media cultural programming... I guess it's stupid for people who actually value Fatherhood and the institution of the Patriarchal family and the civilized society it engendered to wish we could turn the clock back to that era, eh? Better to "keep it real" and revel in the pervasive depictions of broken families, familial dysfunction, emasculated fathers dominated by super-women, and career women having it all.

Does art imitate life...or life imitate art?


Or does the so-called "art" of our cultural mass media, actually program life?

A Game Theory Classic: "What is a Shit Test?"

It was the initial discovery of a now defunct blog called "The Reality Method" that was my first "red pill" with regards to Game. I have no idea who that blogger was, but I read his entire blog and archives back in 2007 when I first discovered it. He had one post that was the ultimate eye opener for me, entitled "What is a Shit Test?"

Reading and understanding that post was THE paradigm shift in my understanding of female hypergamy, DHV, AMOG, and all of the other theories and jargon one encounters when they first discover "Game" on the internet.

While The Reality Method is long gone (not even google cache has it), I saved a few of his postings that were pivotal in helping me gain an understanding of "Game."

Here's what I saved from that classic post: "What is a Shit Test?"

“Passing Shit Tests – the Formulas that works 100% of the time:


As it turns out, there are a couple of ways you can pass a shit test, strike through the Gordian knot / slip between the horns of the dilemma.

1. Ignore it

Pretend you didn’t hear. Laugh it off or just pay attention to something else for a second. Let it roll off your back like water on a duck. This sounds easy, but to do it fully 100%, you have to really be totally nonreactive – I’m talking about down to the level of unconscious pupil dilation here. Otherwise she thinks you’re just avoiding answering – which is better than answering, but is still not going to make her very attracted to you.By ignoring it totally, though, you are saying in effect, “I won’t be tested. I totally refuse.” Which is dominant, but still a very blatant cop-out. Which is why I’ll only use this method as an absolute last resort, if I really am caught off-guard and blindsided by some test.

2. Agree and Amplify

If a girl says “I’m fat,” then “Yes, you’re HYOOOOOGE.” Or “It’s just more cushin’ for the pushin’.” Agree and Amplify; show her you’re not afraid to piss her off, but do it in a playful way. Don’t INSULT her; poke fun at her (gently). The worst you’ll get is a swat on the arm and that is proof that she is more attracted, not less.

Some people might also call this a “reframe”; a term which I believe is probably borrowed from political discourse terminology. You’ve taken her frame (the shit test) and turned it into something entirely different and non-threatening.

For instance, if she says, “You’re a tough guy, aren’t you?” You might say, “Yeah, so what is it you like about tough guys anyway?” Deliberately mis-interpreting her question as adoration, not a shit-test.

Reframing / Agreeing and Amplifying is powerful. It’s my preferred method of answering shit tests. It demonstrates that not only are you not needy / logical, but neither are you willing to fall into her trap and try to lie to her face.

Being able to sidestep the shit test is one of the most important aspects of interacting with women. Without this knowledge, you will get shot down / disqualified 95% of the time by truly “hot” women automatically, without them even thinking about it. I’ve written a lot lately about more “advanced” topics like bisexual girlfriends and threesomes, but I really think this post, and getting this one area handled, is responsible for guys getting into better interactions, more quickly, than all the advanced sex-theory I will *ever* write.

Ultimately, we should be glad for shit tests. They help ensure that every woman we met hasn’t already been plowed up one side and down the other by 15,000 other random guys.”

With more and more people discovering these concepts every day, I sometimes forget that I have been reading and internalizing the concepts of game for over 4 years now, and there are plenty of newcomers that still struggle with the concepts. Many men are angry when they discover the definition of a shit test. Many deny that it is an intrinsic part of a woman's psycho-sexual makeup...that "real Women" don't shit test. They couldn't be more wrong.

The Shit Test is how women screen the worthiness of potential mates. It is hard-wired in their psyche, in exactly the same way the male's primary means of screening potential mates is based on his visual assessment of her genetic suitability.

Getting angry at the female instinct to shit test is the equivalent to getting angry at the sun for rising in the East. It is an intrinsic part of woman-hood.

Susan Walsh pulls up an excellent example demonstrating this from her own past in a post she submitted to VD's Alpha Game as well as posting it at HUS.

It is a personal account of a boyfriend she had when she was 14 years old. Despite his good looks and her initial crush on him, he "beta-ized" rather quickly and killed her attraction for him. Without even conscious realization, Susan recalls giving him a shit test that he failed spectacularly. Despite her conscious desire to not be cruel to her boyfriend, she literally could not help her feelings of disgust and contempt when he failed her shit test.

There was a lot of anger and contempt expressed by commenters on Susan's post. These upset men fail to grasp the concept that his was not Susan's fault. It was not some great moral failings of a cruel 14 year old girl blithely dumping a boyfriend who was in mourning. The failure from her story comes from a society and culture that brainwashed her doomed ex-boyfriend into believing that showing his vulnerable side and communicating his fears and sorrows to her, and doing whatever ridiculous notion she requested was the key to attaining a lasting romantic and loving connection with her.

People seem to forget a basic fact of life for both males and females alike: attraction is not a choice. When you fail a woman's shit test, she cannot help the unattractiveness cue this gives her...anymore than a man who recoils in disgust at the thought of sexy time with an obese Wal-Martian.

Let's Just Be Friends With "Nice" Guys

Susan Walsh thought she would do a quick throwaway posting of an xkcd cartoon about a "Nice Guy" trying to gain a relationship by befriending a woman (rather than directly attempting to seduce her), and was surprised at the amount of debate and discussion it generated in the commentary.

The first amusing thing, is Susan's initial reaction to the cartoon:

The scary thing is, this guy’s reasoning makes perfect sense to me! It seems like such a good strategy! Aarrggh, why do chicks dig jerks?

Chicks don't dig jerks. They dig Alpha psyco-sexual and social dominance. Many "jerks" have those Alpha qualities...but not all men with those qualities are "jerks." Women will put up with an Alpha's jerk behavior in the same way men will put up with a bitchy, shallow woman -- if she's hot enough.

As far as strategies go....from the male perspective, it is not a good strategy at all. I think Susan deems it so, because she thinks "nice" guys are desirable. She's mistaking alpha guys who are nice (which probably describes her husband), for the fearful, passive-aggressive, effeminate strategy of the "nice guy" in the comic.

Note the "nice" guys rationale in his thinking:

See, I don't want to consider that you might not be attracted to me. I'm scared of rejection, so I've decided relationships should grow smoothly out of friendships."

Scared of her rejection? That automatically shows you that he's already put her up on a pedestal. He also lets fear dictate his decision making...which shows that he's letting his emotions dictate his behavior. That is not masculine behavior at all.

When you have problems, I'll be there for you, night after night. Selflessly.

"Selflessly?" This guy is playing the emotional tampon for her in the hopes of gaining access to her without her clothes on. That's what you call "selfless?" This is an example of the the male rationalization hamster getting warmed up for a run on the wheel.

I'll tear down the jerks you date, and wait for you to realize how good I am for you.

That's as passive-aggressive as you can get. Is this "nice?"

Maybe to a woman that's "nice," since female social interaction usually involves a level of fake niceties when confronted with female rivals. For women, that's par for the course. For men, that's effeminate and cowardly.

Before I knew better, I used to have female friends who would come to me and complain about the "jerks" they were dating (and no, I was not being their friend because I was hoping to hook up...these are friends who I know after having been married. I'll get to this idea of "real" opposite gender friendship in a future post.) I used to commiserate, offer condolences and play at being "understanding."

Not after having taken the red pill.

For the past several years, whenever a female friend started complaining to me about her boyfriend, I put the responsibility squarely on her shoulders.

"You picked him as your boyfriend. If he's that terrible, than why are you still with him? No one's forcing you to stay with him."

Needless to say, I no longer have female friends who complain about their men to me. Good.

Back to the "nice guy":

"You won't want to hurt my feelings, and I won't ever force the issue."

If she is aware of your physical attraction for her, and she persists in her friendship with you, rubbing your face in her dating escapades with "jerks," she is using you for attention...but the fact that she doesn't want to hurt your feelings means she feels sorry for you. She pities you. If you understand what hypergamy means, where do you think that puts you on her attractiveness scale?

But the more likely scenario is that she is utterly clueless about your attraction to her. She is taking your platonic behavior at face value and unawares of your ulterior motives.

"Bit by bit, I'll make you depend on me."

As her emotional tampon. Her BFF...not her lover.

"You'll think about how long it would take to build this kind of connection again."

With another friend.

And in a moment of weakness...and lonlieness...you'll give in.

So ladies, explain to me how that is in any way "nice?"

"It'll feel comfortable and natural. You'll quietly try to revise your definition of love and try to be happy. And sometimes you will be."

It will feel comfortable and natural for "nice guy" because he's finally realized his goal. She, on the other hand, will be engaging her rationalization hamster to try and deal with the fact that she was "tricked" into bed by her "friend" in a moment of emotional distress and weakness. That hamster can only run for so long before it gets tired.

Girl: "I'm going to date this jerk."
"Nice" Guy: "But he doesn't respect you!"

But "jerk" makes her 'gina tingle. Nice guy doesn't. He never did.

He was her emotional tampon.

Like all tampons, he only got into her vajayjay when she was bleeding...but as soon as the bleeding stopped, he got discarded.