Meghan Murphy called attention to this Twitter thread by a female lawyer describing the recent end of her relationship, an exit that was prompted by an “out of the blue” remark by the guy who said he found it “intimidating” that she thinks “so much.” We don’t have his side of the story, and can only analyze what we’ve been told by this woman. According to her, he told her he was “depressed because he feels like less of a man around me,” and she says she was “dumbfounded and blindsided by this confession” from a guy she had just recently moved in with and had agreed to marry. Should we accept this story at face value?

Something seems off here and, as I say, we don’t have his side of the story, so we don’t know what other factors may have been involved. If we accept the story as told, this successful man — “well respected and accomplished in his field” — nonetheless felt diminished by his fiancée’s career, despite the fact that his income and assets were significantly greater than hers. As she says, this “makes no logical sense.” He knew she was a lawyer when he asked her to move in with him, but after a month, declares “out of the blue” that he’s “intimidated” because she thinks too much? He’s “depressed” and “feels like less of a man”?

If taken at face value, what does this story tell us? Well, guys, when women say they want you to “share your feelings”? Don’t believe it.

All that stuff you read about how women want men who are “sensitive” and “vulnerable”? This is a gigantic load of crap. Don’t fall for it.

Maybe what happened here is that this guy had been reading a bunch of “male feminist” baloney (e.g., Professor Michael Kimmel) which gave him the idea that he should share his genuine emotions, innermost thoughts, and deep-seated insecurities. Oops — male feminism fails again!

Women don’t like “emotionally sensitive” men, at least not in the sense that a man gains any advantage in a relationship by sharing his doubts and insecurities. Women interpret male emotionalism as weakness; they value men who are stable, calm and resourceful. Being “vulnerable” with a woman is guaranteed to inspire her contempt. When a woman says she wants men to be “sensitive,” what she means is she wants you to be sensitive to her emotions. She doesn’t give a damn about your feelings.

However, that’s just one interpretation, based on a face-value assumption that the guy was sincere. But I agree with her, that the guy’s remark “makes no logical sense” and therefore suspect that it cannot be taken at face value. This could very well be some kind of tactic, straight out of the “Red Pill” handbook of the “manosphere.” The big clue here is that she had no clue anything was wrong in the relationship. From her perspective, everything was fine — she was in love, they were going to get married, they had moved in together — and she was “thinking all is great and loving life” before he hit her with this “bombshell.”

Shit test — Often unconscious (and sometimes conscious) tests that women throw at men in order to quickly determine their social status. . . . A shit test is when a woman gives a guy a hard time, usually for the purpose of seeing how he will react. Because women (especially attractive women) are hit on all the time, they have developed behaviors that quickly disqualify potential suitors that are not of a high enough value for her. The shit test is one way to do this.

When guys turn the tables, the “shit test” becomes the tactic known as “negging,” a putdown that serves to signal outcome independence. The “game” tactics of pickup artists (PUAs) in seeking the “score” can be generalized into an overall “Red Pill” strategy in dealing with women, and shouldn’t we expect that the guy in this Twitter tale would be familiar with these ideas? He’s successful, with a high income and significant assets, “well respected and accomplished in his field,” and he was well on his way to closing the deal with this female lawyer. You’re telling me a guy like that doesn’t know anything about PUA “game”?

Consider this scenario: The guy’s a success, owns his own home, now he’s looking for “wife material.” Finds this female lawyer, probably in her late 20s (about to “hit the wall”) and considers her a suitable candidate. He says the “M-word” (marriage) and she’s dreaming of happily ever after.

At last my love has come along.

My lonely days are over,

And life is like a song.

He invites her to move in with him — a “wife material” audition, as it were. But he doesn’t tell her this, see? As far as she knows, he’s 100% committed to the deal, and she can start planning the wedding. In fact, however, the offer of marriage was conditional, and here’s how it goes: The guy doesn’t make any demands or set any rules, but rather lets her do whatever makes her happy, which is why she’s “thinking all is great.”

Ah, but she’s failing the audition and doesn’t realize it.

We don’t know what she was doing wrong, but evidently — if this interpretation is correct — the guy had invited her to move in so that he could conduct close observation, to see what she’s really like, her day-to-day habits, to evaluate her qualifications as a wife. He’s almost certainly had previous live-in girlfriends, and has an idea of what he wants (and doesn’t want), and this lawyer chick isn’t making the grade.

OK, so how does he get out of this trap? “Shit test.”

He throws this line on her — “You think too much. It intimidates me. I feel depressed, like less of a man.” — knowing full well that this “bombshell” from “out of the blue” is going to wreck her mind.

A successful guy like this can’t be totally clueless, can he? It “makes no logical sense” that he would feel so “intimidated” by her, but it does make sense that, if he wanted to give her an excuse to leave, this would do the trick. Hey, he’s got assets to protect, right? If it’s not going to work out, the “Red Pill” thing to do is find a way to end it quick, before she can make any claim on those assets. So he hits her with this weird “confession” right before he’s due to leave on a business trip (probably not a coincidence), and it’s like a “fork” move in chess: Either she collapses in abject, apologetic groveling (“I’ll do anything for you! I’ll quit my job! I love you so much!”) or else she can walk away.

Either way, he’s a winner.

If she stays, she’ll be staying on his terms — he’s established outcome independence — but if she goes, it’s no loss to him. He’s still got his successful career, his own home and other assets, and there’s plenty of fish in the sea. But if he’d let her stay without passing the test, he could eventually expect to find himself in a divorce court, with an ex-wife lawyer trying to take every cent he had. It is this threat, implicit in the modern idea of marriage, which every man must guard against in considering whether a woman is “wife material.”

Do I know that this is what he was thinking? No, as I say, we only have her side of the story, and have no idea whether this guy was sincere in saying he felt “intimidated” by his lawyer-fiancée’s career. Whatever the case may be, however, he really lost nothing when she left, and has every reason to congratulate himself on dodging a bullet. Better to have her walk out before the wedding than to be crushed in a divorce.

Whatever your interpretation of this story is, at least it’s instructive as a surefire tactic to get rid of a woman: “You intimidate me!”

Let the “Red Pill” guys take note.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!







Share this: Share

Twitter

Facebook



Reddit



Comments