Category Archives: The Empty Halls of University of Man

Revenge of the Cliterati: Episode 1

Originally posted June 14, 2012 at 5:00 AM as a gift to you from Professor Mentu

 

The following is an actual conversation pulled from Facebook which occurred after a chick friend of mine posted this UMan article. I’ve deleted most of the OP’s comments, because they were primarily in support of UMan; not necessarily the post itself, but rather my right to have an opinion in general. The other 6 Hamster’s comments are unedited, except where personal information had to be removed.

Due to the seemingly unending inane banter, I’m going to post this long-ass exchange in a series of episodes. I could barely read through all of it, and I don’t want to subject you to too much chick bullshit. As further episodes are published, you can click on the “Cliterati” tag at the bottom of the article to catch up on past posts if you’d like.

But this is Episode 1, so by way of introduction:

We all know that most women can’t smell past their own cunt, so it should come as no surprise that this sample Cliterati delegation internalized a post written to beta males during UMan’s Shame the Beta Month. They clearly cannot discern the difference between my love for sluts, and my warning to men who would lower themselves by committing to sluts.

I love sex. I love sluts. I fully support women allowing me to use their bodies as my own semi-private playground, and I love them even more when they go on Facebook and defend my right to do so.

Thanks, ladies! Men like me count on you to be there to give up the free booty. Without your eager willingness to slut it up – and your amazing ability to justify it – guys like me would have to offer love and commitment to get laid. But I understand your position on defending sluttery, because if men had to commit to get laid, your used up hit-the-wall-10-years-ago ass would never get any play.

Anyhoo, on to the main attraction.

Hamster 1: Wow… that judgmental piece of bullshit makes me very sad… for lots of reasons and on lots of levels. And that is really ALL I have to say on it.

Score! Shaming language before the end of the first sentence of the first response. And as you might expect, that’s far from “ALL” she has to say about it.

Hamster 1: He’s not someone from the gene pool I’d choose to father my child, let’s just say that.

Well, that sucks. I’ve been hoping for a chunky middleaged hag to sponsor.

Hamster 2: Okay, so that’s kind of a harsh opinion and a bit offended for having being called a whore, but okay, I don’t even know the guy. Seems naive to me that there’s a direct correlation between having more than one sexual partner in a lifetime and the ability to be a good mother. I think most of us can tell a woman who is of good character and one that isn’t, and sleeping with multiple people is low on the list that proves poor character.

Classic gender projection. Sleeping with more than one partner doesn’t make a man less likely to be a good father in a woman’s eyes, so she assumes men feel the same way about women. But that’s beside the point, because that’s not what I said in the article. I simply pointed out the type of role model a man would want for his daughter.

Hamster 3: How does he know how many men she has slept with?

I don’t, nor do I care, as long as you open those legs for me. Again, I was warning men not to marry a tramp. No reason to get upset about this, unless you’re a tramp.

Hamster 4: Couldn’t even get through the whole thing because it’s so ridiculous. Bored the hell out of me.

You didn’t read it? That’s ok. I’m sure a smart gal like you still has an opinion though. Please continue.

Hamster 2: Very true, and I know he’s not mine [type of guy] Thanks for sharing, it is interesting to hear what’s on other peoples’ minds.

Hamster 4: No – it didn’t even hit a nerve with me…..BECAUSE I found what he was saying to be nonsense…and yes, ridiculous.

Ridiculous? You said you didn’t read it. Isn’t that kind of like me calling you a slut without really knowing you? Meh. I guess sometimes we can just tell.

Hamster 4: Not my kind of guy either ~ so I’m not even concerned.

Hamster 5: I am just curious as to who was his intended audience….Or does he just send this to his friends?

OP: It’s a blog he writes. Lots of interesting stuff on it. http://theuniversityofman.com

Hamster 4: Never said there aren’t guys that think this way……in the 1950s. lol I’m sure there are plenty who think or talk this way…and they’re not my type. I don’t have harsh standards for men. And I don’t think they’re all bad or undeserving or douchebags, assholes, users, “man-whores”, etc. Not even close.

She’s right. Men did think like that in the 1950’s, and they paid dearly for it by being subjected to loving, faithful wives, good kids, very low divorce rate, etc. The women paid for it too, by not having the “strength” to go into a public forum as a middle aged single shrew and defend all the cock she’d hosted. And the children… oh those poor children who had to come home every day to a two-parent home. Sounds awful.

Hamster 4: No – I just think people married for MUCH different reasons back then. We don’t NEED to get married now. I could be married if I wanted to be. No problem. But I’m only getting married to the “Right” guy for me ~ not out of security. It was different back then.

Want to know what love sounds like? Listen to my grandmother talk about my grandfather who she’s been mourning for over 30 years. Fuck you and your “need” talk. You could be married if you wanted to? So you’re either fucking men below your rank, or you can’t keep the ones you’re really in to after they bust a nut in you for a few months. Either way, you’re a low-quality woman. (Note: The men below her rank probably follow her around pussy-begging, which makes her grossly overestimate her desirability. The guys she’s really wanting won’t commit to her; otherwise, she’d be married.)

Hamster 2: I agree with [Hamster 4], and men growing up now will be used to women having a lot of choices, as opposed to in the 50′s where women had very few choices in life and very few choices in available men–I don’t believe there was a lot of ‘circular dating’ going on.

Slutting it up = choices. Killing babies = choices. The church being forced to pay for thier birth control = choices. Women have such pretty words for the destructive properties of their womb.

Hamster 4: Right ~ bc back then, what made a guy “right” for a woman was if he could take care of her financially ~ protect & provide. I’m GLAD to see women wanting more than that in a relationship! Women DO have choices now….&, personally, I believe this is now the time when men need to step it up & be a modern MAN….a loving man who is capable of a loving relationship. More men are even better father’s these days….more involved with their kids, etc. And some women never get married, who cares?!?! It’s certainly not the end all, be all. People get married…and divorce a lot. Why is that considering “Winning the race?” It’s not in my book. As for nursing homes ~ hell…..women have been left alone in old age for a loonnnng time as many men die well before women.

Translation: We need more kitchen bitches to man up, marry whores, and look after the children. Of course, this isn’t the type of men she’s fucking, or she’d be married – so there’s a certain type of man whose bad behavior she keeps rewarding with vag. What type of man could that be? Oh yeah. Guys like me (20 years older – give me some credit).

Hamster 4: That’s wonderful about your mom & dad, [OP]. There are always exceptions~ back then & now, too. But mannnnnnnnny people back then had rltnshps I wouldn’t want.

I guess she prefers the kind of relationship she has now. I’m guessing she’s single, and throwing casual booty to a guy who “just isn’t ready for a relationship right now.” Christ, I love using that line. Works like a charm on women who only think they have choices.

Hamster 2: That’s so sweet that your parents worked out and her priority as a woman at that era was as [other Hamster] said. She obviously had good sense and intution when it came to your father!

OP’s mother was a virgin when she married her father, yet she still had the skills and intuition to choose a good man. How is this possible? I thought women didn’t have any options back then? I thought women needed to slut it up with lotsa cocka to gain the skills needed to identify a good man? The modern woman memo I recieved said that at an average of 6 inches, women needed at least 17 feet of veiny rod to find a good fit.

Well, that’s all I can stand to read for now. Episode 2 will be coming your way whenever I get around to it.

Hundred Words of Hate: Vol. 2

Originally posted June 13, 2012 at 6:00 PM as a gift to you from Professor Mentu

 

To the unbelievably committed douchbags who stand around with a Bluetooth earpiece looking and sounding like a retard who is cell-yelling at the wind, I fucking hate you. You are not cool; you are not modern; you are a fucking waste of space who freaks people out by walking around talking to himself like an escaped mental patient. If you’re not driving or if you can’t produce written documentation showing you’ve recently been elected Earth’s Ambassador to the Planet Khitomer for a peace conference, lower your voice a few decibels and pick up your phone like the rest of us.

The University of Man: Your home for academic game and life theory.

Originally posted June 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM as a gift to you from Professor Mentu

 

Whilst sitting on yet another endless conference call that produced nothing more than another meeting, I ran across this post [editor: link was dead] over at VK’s Empire of Dirt. Like any good article, it gave me pause and forced me to think about the mission of UMan.

Here’s a snippet:

“I look around at other blogs as I often do, as someone who’s been around blogging for a little bit and find that there are a lot of these “Academic” toned game blogs. A lot of these new blogs that do nothing but spout game/life theory. You read one post and it’s throwing statistical data at you, this scientific research, the latest census data, someone kid’s 8th grade paper all wrapped together to draw a conclusion to support a theory. Shit’s like reading a fucking college thesis at best at worst it’s an AIDS quilt of ideas. Now don’t get me wrong anyone has the right to write about whatever they want that’s fine. But two things new guys and rookies (the group I worry about the most) to game should know when it comes to these blogs. 1. Theory never takes the place of credentials and 2. Theory does not get you laid.”

First of all, UMan is but a blip on the manoshpere’s radar screen, so I have no idea who VK had in mind when he wrote this. I’ll start with the part I agree with: Theory is no substitute for credentials; it’s the application of theory through practice that yields results. I also agree that theory alone will not get a man laid.

However, I do have some thoughts that part ways with the overall tone of VKs article.

The strength of the Manosphere is in the diversity of its message. Some blogs hone in on introducing men to the red pill, others are an outlet for the absolutely necessary (though painful to watch) outpouring of beta rage, and others focus on lifestyle and building masculine frame. In addition to that, some offer Game 101, some offer hard-core PUA tips and field reports, and some are simply written by guys who just do whatever the hell they want (I’m looking at you, Danny).

When weak men publicly identify their weaknesses, strong men their strengths, and everyone else finds a niche, the Manosphere readers benefit from being exposed to the author’s honest introspection. You don’t go to a general practice physician to have a cancerous tumor removed, you don’t go to an Ophthalmologist when you have a cochlear infection, you don’t read UMan when you want to learn how to bang girls in Denmark, and you don’t read PUA field reports when you want to learn how to deal with the righteous anger inside you after the veil of betatude has been torn asunder by red pill enlightenment.

But you still need access to general practice physicians, surgeons, lifestyle blogs, beta rehab blogs, Game 101 blogs, and hard core PUA blogs. They’re all necessary, they all have beneficiaries, and they all serve a purpose.

I am greatly invested in UMan, and Ashur and I work very hard to deliver the best content possible. However, it would be disingenuous of me to claim that a steady diet of UMan writings would deliver a well-balanced meal of masculine nutrition. VKs admonishment of “academic toned game blogs” is equally disinginenuous. He would have done well to encourage men to seek diversity and embrace the full spectrum of the Manosphere. The problem is not “specialist blogs”, the problem is that many men suffer from manosfear, and that fear of failure – or the fear of being judged – keeps them from progressing to the next level. Manosfear men often stagnate where the message is most comfortable for them, leaving them stuck on game blogs only, theory blogs only, beta rage blogs only, etc.

My advice is to read a wide variety of blogs, because without research, there can be no discovery. Discovery leads to developing theories, theories lead to practice, practice leads to success, and success leads to confidence in the bedroom and in the boardroom.

Every man reading this article right now lives somewhere along the path between beta and Alpha, and like all of us, they struggle to maintain their masculine frame at times. But wherever you are, wherever you’ve been, and wherever you’re going; we’re  glad you’re here. With any luck, someday the courses at UMan will seem elementary to you, and you’ll be too busy conquering your corner of the universe to spend much time here – or over at a PUA blog reading field reports for that matter.

We’re still a new blog, and as such, we’re still finding our voice. But if we’re doing it right, UMan is well on its way to becoming totally irrelevant to you. And that’s a good thing. In theory…

Self-Made Man

Originally posted June 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM as a gift to you from Professor Ashur

 

During a recent conversation with a female friend, the topic of her parents’ marriage came up, along with her father’s professional success. This got me thinking about the issue of relationship investment on the part of men and women. I asked if it was her opinion that her father owed a substantial part of his career success to her mother. She agreed that it was a factor.

Her father married young to a woman unspoiled by feminism; one interested in being a wife and mother, and fully committed to the idea of marriage. Marriage 1.0, of course. With the support and help of a wife, her father was able to focus his attention on being the family’s provider.

And because of that, he owes his wife much in return. When a young woman invests her youth, beauty, affection and labor in a relationship, it is only fair that she expect the dividend of loyalty and provision in return. This is why men who left their wives in previous generations were regarded as scoundrels; they would rob a woman of her youth, then trade her in as their own market value rose over time – as a man’s usually does.

In exchange for her sexual fidelity, he returned resource fidelity. This was the social contract.

Feminism and the sexual revolution removed the social contract with the now well-known results: Alpha males and their soft harem of willing women have become the sole dating market participants, leaving everyone else sidelined until they decide to move into the marriage market. This is where beta males are at long last permitted to pay full price for used merchandise.

It’s important to understand that most college women are not consciously strategizing the concept of “screw alpha, marry beta”; marrying a beta is plan b, or c, or d. The beta is her safety net, like the Community College they know will admit them no matter what. They’re still too young and gullible to realize that the college alpha pounding them is statistically not likely to marry them, since there’s a limited supply of alphas compared to the number of women willing to permit a test drive of their vajayjay.

Nonetheless, when they finally hop off the carousel (or get flung off due to the centrifugal force of their biological clock and waning attractiveness) their expectations are hardly reduced. They expect the previously ignored beta males to have filled the intervening years industriously applying themselves to the job of becoming a good wage earner, with an interesting life; without any of their assistance or affection, of course.

This means that in this era, the young beta male is truly a self-made man. Despite last month’s shaming of, and derision toward beta behavior, credit must still be given to those men who still manage to achieve success in a world far more hostile to them than it was to their fathers. The young alpha male gets his regular (over) dose of vitamin-girl at the expense of the malnourished beta, who has to get by on willpower and character alone. That’s not to say that the alpha receives much help from the modern woman, but the beta male truly goes it alone. Only after he achieves success will he have access to the former party girls who have dismounted from the carousel and expect a full harvest to be waiting for them in the beta’s field.

This self-made man is not about to casually hand over the fruit of a lifetime of effort to some woman who invested her youth and beauty elsewhere. It would be unfair to me, and unfair to her. She must be allowed to finish her run with the bulls, and finish the course she set out for herself.

————————————————–

Note: While writing this post, I found this over at Badger’s, which touches on the same idea. I especially liked his reference to the Little Red Hen story.

Gimme That Old Time Girligion!

Originally Posted June 11, 2012 at 5:00 AM as a gift to you from Professor Mentu

In my post on game for Christian men, I linked to Dalrock’s five articles in his Reframing Christian Marriage series at the bottom of the page. (The guy just keeps knocking it out of the park.)

I’m not a bit bashful about blatantly ripping off a damn good idea when I see it, so I decided to ride on Dalrock’s coattails and write a series on Reframing Traditional Marriage.

Two Sundays ago when high winds forced the runways at the San Francisco airport to close – leaving me holed up at a Starbucks at the terminal – I decided to open my laptop and let the brilliance flow from my brain through my fingers and on to the screen for your benefit.

Only that’s not quite what happened.

I fully intended to rip off Dalrock’s idea, but I was going to make the series my own. Try as I may, it didn’t happen. What did happen though is that two paragraphs in to my failed attempt, I noticed something: Even without having Dalrock’s writings immediately in front of me, I was basically rewriting his posts with only a few minor changes:

I had changed “God” to “Woman.”

I had changed “Church” to “Friends.”

I had changed “Bible” to “RedBook.”

I had changed “Translation” to “Hamster.”

That’s when it hit me. For the vast majority of women, Churchianity is not the harnessing of a supernatural force that strips away layers of secular thought and societal programming as they’d like you to believe; it actually complicates those things by adding yet another layer to the hopelessly conflicted doglegged path of female cognition. That’s why I couldn’t retool Dalrock’s articles for secular use; the thought process is the same. Christians deal with the same crap the rest of us deal with from women, only their women have the added layer of religion to deal with. Modern Churchianity is not an asset, it’s a liability.

You may want to rethink your strategy if you’re one of those guys who goes to church to find a nice girl.

Remember back in the 90’s when Gillette kept coming out with new razors that one-upped the model before it by adding an additional blade for a smoother shave? That’s kind of what Churchianity does for women’s hamsters; it one-ups the secular model by adding an additional “blade” for a smoother rationalization.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2FAP8o5ZEo0

 

I’m not done yet. Non-Christian men who date non-Christian women would still be well advised to read all five of Dalrock’s articles, because non-Christian women rationalize and reframe marriage the exact same way Christian women do.

How so? I’m glad you asked. Consider the definition of faith from the bible:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

~ Jesus or Moses or someone. I can’t remember.

Who has the market cornered on finding actual substance in things they only hope for? Who routinely finds evidence where nothing can be seen?

Every woman you’ve ever encountered. It’s called being Girligious.

She hopes she’s a unique little snowflake, so she finds substance in her tragically ordinary and woefully predictable life. The traits that would allow her to be an excellent wife have yet to be seen, but that doesn’t stop her from trying to submit evidence to the contrary so you’ll take that leap of faith designed to land you at the altar.

Non-Christian women are their own God, and they have unshakeable faith in themselves. That’s why feminists are so devout: The power of their faith in themselves gives them substantive evidence and irrefutable proof that they are righteous in their ways. They proselytize aggressively, and their converts are betas who lap up feminist communion like a neutered French Poodle who shits where he’s told and cuddles on command.

Take a look at all the manosphere writings that reference the bible as the basis of an argument, and notice how fast the comments section of those articles degrade into a zillion different interpretations of the same damn bible verse. You can’t change a Christian’s mind on anything when they have their own interpretation of truth backing them up; you can’t change a secular woman’s Girligious approach to marriage for the same reason.

Fortunately for Dalrock, he has a rule book written thousands of years ago to use in his battle against modern unorthodox marital doctrine. Non-Christians among us are not so lucky, because we are left to interpret and navigate a woman’s Girligious views on the spot, never knowing which Hamster God’s altar of emotion happens to be reciving her sacrifice of logic at the time. Then we stand around and shake our heads as we watch our beta brethren get burned at the stake for accidentally violating the feminist doctrine they gleefully supported but never fully understood until the flames started glowing bright. It’s sad how most betas can’t see the light until their wife strikes a match.

I can’t speak for Christian marriage, but I firmly believe there is no evidence of an attempt at reframing traditional marriage – but that’s only because it has already been reframed. Today’s man has three options: He must worship at the altar of vagina and surrender his soul to the Hamster Gods in exchange for the honor of constantly working to ensure marital bliss, or ignore the tenets of Girligion and be forever banished to the torments of marital hell and it’s demons of divorce, or be the heretic who finds comfort in other manly pursuits while having fun jumping from bed to bed in relationship PUrgAtory.

For those of you who are still bound and determined to deny the power of Girligion and engage in a reframed version of traditional marriage, I suggest you join the MRA crowd’s band of not-so-merry men and help them launch the 10th Crusade before you walk down the aisle.

While you’re out stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime, I’ll be busy banging the girl you’re fighting for.

Let me know how it goes.

Man on the Moon: UMan Membership Drive

Originally Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:00 AM as a gift to you from Professor Mentu

In 1962, President Kennedy visited the NASA space center and noticed a janitor sweeping long after his duty hours were over. Kennedy walked over to the man and asked “What are you doing?”

The janitor said, “I’m helping put a man on the moon, Mr. President.”

As a new blog, The University of Man is like the janitor of the manosphere. It’s only been in the past two months that we’ve managed to average a little over 2,000 hits per day – a far cry from the traffic earned by astronauts like the late great Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide, Heartiste, Dalrock, Roosh and others.
But that’s not the point. Our goal at UMan is to reach out to as many men as humanly possible, even if all we’re doing is strumming different chords to the same old manosphere tune. We add our voice to the choir in the hopes of reaching men who for whatever reason may prefer our arrangement of the pro-masculine symphony. In short, we want to help put a man on the moon.

This month, I’m reaching out to all of you and asking you to do the same. We just wrapped up Shame the Beta Month, so now I want to invite you to join me in a real-life Save the Beta Month.

Do you have it in you to be a red pill evangelist? You may not be a manosphere writer with years of experience who reaches 20,000+ men per day, but surely you can reach one. Are you capable of reaching out to a friend who needs to hear the message, and helping him realize his full potential?

If you’d like to help put a man on the moon so to speak, email him this link, and ask him to take a read. Help us get the word out about UMan, and further the red pill gospel.

If you think UMan sucks dirty fat chick asshole and you only read us to get your blood pressure up, go fuck yourself, then forward someone a link to your favorite manosphere blog. Either way, let’s spread the word.

[Pro tip: If your friends are total manginas, you may want to start a separate email account without your real name to send the link.] 

[Pro tip 2: Think long and hard before you forward this link to anyone you work with. There could be serious ramifications. If you decide to forward it to coworkers, do not use your work email address to do so, and do not forward it to their work email.]

[Pro tip 3: Earn 1,000 additional man points by forwarding this link to a chick.]

Ashur and I thank you in advance for your help.

-Mentu

Do You Have to Bang 20 Women to Recognize The One?

Originally posted on June 8, 2012 at 12:00 AM as a gift to you from Professor Mentu

 

While lurking in the shadows of the Chateau, I came across a comment on this post that caught my attention.

…Be natural, work on your inner self constantly, pursue any woman you fancy, and when your notch count eventually gets high enough — Roosh says at least 20 (he’s right; that’s when a light bulb went on for me) — then the right lass is able to appear. She’ll feel utterly different from the previous 19.

The last sentence “She’ll feel utterly different from the previous 19” is what I want to focus on for a bit. No commenter hate here, by the way.

Can one argue that you must know the good before you can appreciate the bad? Can one assert that without varied experiences with a large number of partners – in this case, 20 – one cannot truly know what they want in a long-term partner?  Can one make the case that without a high number of bangs, the finer attributes of a quality partner cannot be recognized or valued?

One can indeed, if one is a chick.

This “I need a lot of sexual experience with multiple partners before I can recognize ‘the one’” idea is nothing but a moistened hamster turd women use as war paint in their fight against chastity.

What if on your road to 20, number 3 was the right woman? Do you have to make it to 20 bangs first, then go back to #3 and hope she’s not seeing someone? Or do you press on hoping that somewhere between bangs 21 and 25 another “the one” appears so you can get married and start a family at a decent age before you end up dropping Jr. off at his first day of college when you’re a 68 years old?

Yes, there is logic in the argument that you can’t fully appreciate a Cadillac until you’ve driven a Moped on a cross country trip, but the same can be said for fully appreciating a rusty 1972 Ford Pinto. If a man has to experience the Moped in order to appreciate the Ford Pinto, and then notch up to 20 to recognize and appreciate how different a Cadillac is, then why not notch up to 1,000 so you can recognize and appreciate how different the space shuttle makes you feel?

Because a high notch count creates a different you – not a different her. All women are Mopeds, Pintos, Cadillacs, and Space Shuttles at times depending on how well you bring out the good and suppress the bad.

I agree that a man can reach a point of diminishing returns after he bangs enough women; that’s why sometimes we simply do it for the notch. But a state of diminishing returns (regarding the bang to knowledge gained ratio) does not mean that you’ve learn to recognize a “good” woman; it simply means that you’ve learned to enjoy the good in all women while effectively managing the bad in all women. Once you get to this place and meet hottie #20, settling in with her for the long-term is a much more rewarding experience than it would have been with the same girl 19 bangs ago.

When you become proficient in picking up women, when you master relationship game and learn to pass shit tests with flying colors, when you manage her emotions effectively and maintain masculine frame – then turn around and credit her for being “different” – you’re shortchanging yourself. Bang #20 isn’t a better woman than bang #1; the man who banged girl #20 is a better man than the noob who banged #1.

I agree with the commenter and with Roosh that 20 bangs is about right, but the purpose of those bangs (besides the obvious) is to bang enough women to rid yourself of feminist programming, eschew beta rage, build up a permanent immunity to oneitis, and recognize that while all women come from different places and follow different paths, they’re all heading for the same destination.

She may walk a slightly different path, but she’s heading for the same destination as the rest of them. This post was brought to you by the letters A, W, A, L, and T, and by the number 20. The University of Man is filmed before a live studio audience.

When Girls Hamsterbate

Originally posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:20 AM as a gift to you from Professor Ashur

 

As discussed previously on this blog, women often need the tension of emotional combat with a man. This is a woman’s Xbox. Getting together with other women and talking about “relationships” is their online multiplayer game, their guild. To many of these women, drama is to be savored, not solved. (For a more elaborate discussion about this phenomenon, check out this post at therawness.)

For a simpler working man’s practical explanation, we can say that often your conflict is her resolution. You may see the spaces between conflicts as the peaceful default state. She may see them as simply the pauses between serial hits from the drama crackpipe.

Whether a girl is playing relationship Xbox with her man, or the guild version with her girlfriends, she needs engagement and reaction from others to make the process fulfilling. Without it, she spins into overdrive.

In the interest of providing a convenient term for this process, I offer the following addition to the UofMan lexicon:

——————————————————————-

Hamsterbate (v):

An act of auto-neuroticism, which occurs when a female is unable to find or attract a male with which to engage in social intercourse, the purpose of which is to provide release of her cognitive dissonance over some issue. With no outlet for this tension, she is forced to play both sides of the argument with her rationalization hamster. It gets the hamster spun, so to speak, but is not as satisfying as engaging the hamster in a battle with a male mind. Sometimes she will get so frustrated that she will call up one of her beta orbiters and aim her hamster at him. This is called getting a man-job. After a time, the beta males wise up and stop cooperating, and its back to flying solo for princess.

——————————————————————-

For further study, see also CalvinBall.

Lord of the Rings: Fake it so you don’t have to make it.

Originally Posted on June 6, 2012 at 3:12 AM as a gift to you from Professor Mentu

“Yeah, I’m at that strange age now where I have to lie and say I’m divorced so women will think I’m at least somewhat capable of commitment.”

~ Jamie Kaler (Actor/Comedian)

The photo on your left is an actual picture of the wedding ring I wear to job interviews and initial client meetings. It sits right there on my TV stand next to my AT&T U-Verse box, ready and waiting to fulfill its purpose: To help me not look like a “loser” who “shirks responsibility.”

It’s the best $350.00 investment I’ve ever made.

I picked this trick up about three years ago from one of my fag friends who told me he never went to a job interview without one. I told him “No offense, man. You know I love you like a brother, but I don’t think a ring will fool anybody. You’re once, twice, three times a lady-man.”

He responded “It doesn’t matter. They just need to see the ring.”

“Even if they can still tell you’re a total homo?”

“Better to hire a committed fag than a single breeder. Hiring managers just want to know that you can take orders and be a team player, and that you’re saddled with enough family commitment that you can’t just pack up and go. The ring symbolizes that.”

“How long have you been in Human Resources?”

“Over 11 years now. Trust me, Mentu. Buy yourself a goddamn ring.”

So I did.

The ring is part 1 of my two-part arsenal against single man discrimination (early 30’s single women are scoffed at too, but then are offered pity and protection). Part two is basically what the comedian said: I have a fake divorce story to tell.

This charade can be as tricky as it is effective gentlemen, so let me share with you some do’s and don’ts that will come in handy – especially when you have to explain the ring and tell your divorce story at the same time.

Do:

1. Buy a ring and wear it to important interviews and initial meetings.

2. Roll it across the parking lot a few times so it looks well worn.

3. Come up with a plausible story about your fake divorce.

Don’t:

1. Don’t wear the ring more than once within any group. You want them to “think” you’re married, not “know” because you wear the ring all the time.

2. Don’t do something stupid like wear it all day or while driving and get yourself a finger indentation or a tan line. That shit will kill your game faster than all hell.

3. Don’t ever criticize your fake ex wife. Ever. A simple, “Oh, she was great. We just got married too young during our second year of college, and well, you know, we grew up and grew apart. She’s a great woman though.” will work just fine.

4. Don’t make it seem like you’re still in contact with your ex – keeping in touch with ex flames is a privilege reserved only for the wimminzes (in feminist theory, anyway).  After you deliver the frame in #3, immediately follow it up with “I haven’t seen or heard from her in years.” then start a new topic like she’s never on your mind.

5. Don’t give details. If someone starts questioning you, simply say “That was ages ago. Kind of like another life, really. I don’t remember much of it.”

6. Don’t get nervous when someone says “I thought you were married? Didn’t you have a wedding ring on when we first met?” This is normal and is to be expected. Simply say “Oh that? Yeah, that was my grandfather’s ring. I wear it for good luck when I have an important meeting. It wasn’t his wedding ring though – and it’s definitely not mine.”

For you younger cats out there who don’t have to explain yourself, get ready to be faced with single man discrimination right around your mid 30’s. Feminist society can’t force you to marry, but they can (and will) judge you and deliver real-world consequences for not “manning up.” After you get the job or pick up the account, fuck em’.

This tip could help you at work, and the “benevolent divorce” story can help a 30 or 40-something year old confirmed bachelor tag some decent ass if she’s in commitment mode and is assessing your willingness to commit before dropping her panties.

I realize this approach will not appeal to all, and I can already hear the “Fuck you, that’s not Alpha!” comments coming. But for those who don’t mind greasing the wheels a little to add an extra zero to your annual pay rate, I think this is some solid advice.