Do women really want to defeat men?

We think we want to defeat men, because that’s what we’ve been taught, yet we’re miserable when we succeed. This is why we go for “alphas” and end up with jerks. THEY DISPLAY POWER. In jerks, that power is a false front; they don’t dominate, they domineer. Because that’s all they’ve got. We’re looking for strong benevolent domination (a man who will sacrifice to preserve and protect what he possesses) and at first glance domination and domineering look similar. We see a power display and it blows our circuits. We tolerate any degradation for it, deluding ourselves and hoping that it might be the real deal. We’d rather die than admit that we need to be “owned,” because that’s not permitted by feminism, but we can’t stop ourselves from trawling for domineering assholes and hoping to pick up a “real man” among them. Our need for a dominant mate runs far deeper than cultural norms and social engineering.

Feminism, combined with the low-risk lifestyle afforded by surplus resources, has neutered men and taught them to be weak. In this environment women CAN “defeat” men, and we’re taught that we are supposed to, so we do. We consciously devote ourselves to dominating men, yet on a visceral level we despise men who can be dominated. Since the option of acting like real women is socially unacceptable, we try to achieve satisfaction by being the best damn non-women we can be. It never occurs to most of us that we’d be happy if we turned our backs on society and lived as we were designed to. We just keep forging ahead in the wrong direction—the hamster on speed. Women are frequently domineering (we rarely have what it takes to dominate much of anything) but this is almost always a matter of shit testing. Again, we can’t admit this, so we say we’re just acting like strong modern women, but what would really satisfy us (unbeknownst to us) is a man who can override our attempts at dominance, and dominate US.

And what “real man” has the opportunity to display his masculinity in the modern world? There are no dragons to slay, and sensible men don’t waste their energy posturing. Deeply “male” prowess has become recreational (except in the acquisition of money.) Hunting, fighting and competition are leisure activities, and we deride them as frivolous. The exception here is among military, cops and firefighters. Women absolutely drool over professional he-men because like assholes, those men act powerful. We fall for false (or real) displays of power EVERY TIME, because we need powerful men. PUAs know this and use it to their advantage, easily dazzling us. We’re stupid that way. The fact that we chase posturing pricks is all the proof you need that we’re lying through our teeth when we say we want “subservient” men. What we really want is strong men who have the courage to whip out their dicks and show us they’ve got what it takes to keep us safe. Honorable men who actually do have “what it takes” usually obey the rules though, so they hesitate and lose out. “Bad boys” never hesitate; they don’t care about having what it takes because they have no desire to protect or preserve anything but themselves. They just want to get laid. They don’t even have to me misogynistic; they want what they want and we’re giving it away. No harm, no foul.

“Whipping it out” is the only time-tested way to win a woman’s devotion. And yes, we are as capable of devotion as men are. That devotion will last a lifetime if the man is genuinely dominant, not just domineering. Social engineering cannot override biology.

We want the fairy tale; we were raised to believe we deserve it. We need strong men. We are unhappy with men we perceive as weak. We beat them down and discard them. If we wanted weak men, we’d keep them once we had them under our thumbs. Instead we dump them to chase “strong” men. We’ve been demanding more power for decades, yet the more power we get the unhappier we become. And since we Grrrlz can’t possibly be mistaken, we blame men.

When the feminists decided that “equality” wasn’t enough, they needed ways to control men; one of their tools was to demand that men stop acting powerful. Men, long in the habit of accommodating female foolishness, acquiesced. Most men didn’t see the long term harm in it, and “it’s barbaric,” or “it’s no longer necessary because we’re so civilized,” sounded rational. Because of this, displays of genuine masculine power are rare. Since women are desperate for powerful, high status men, we’ll take anything that remotely resembles male power, even when we know it’s probably fake. We’re drawn to it instinctively. This is why Game works consistently. Game is a display of power, whether that power is real or fake. It’s a useful tool that good men dropped when they were ordered to, figuring they could rely on their “goodness” to attract women. Assholes didn’t drop it, and for the most part, they’re the only ones still using it. And they’re getting the women.

Men have three choices: continue on as victims, go their own way until society implodes, or manipulate individual women, one on one, into embracing our natural role and rejecting our indoctrination. That last one is difficult and uncommon, but it’s possible, for a man who wants a family. Men, women and children, like dogs, can usually be trained. Ask any happily married man who uses Game to keep his wife in line, er, happy.


Taken In Hand Tour start | next



Feminism was originally about choices, about celebrating the diversity among women, about allowing us to choose our own paths and not having society dictate them to us. Great plan! I'm all for it.

But for some reason, society is never satisfied with going half way. We have to go overboard. The pendulum has to swing all the way in the opposite direction.

So now instead of society telling us that we HAVE to stay bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen, it tells us there is something wrong with us if we WANT to stay home and take care of children. Instead of telling us we HAVE to listen to and obey our husbands, it tells us there is something wrong with us if we WANT to.

Nothing has really changed. Society is still dictating to us as women how we have to behave. It's just a different set of rules to live by now. That is not what my mother fought for. She fought for the right to make her own choices and not have society dictate them for her.

That's the problem with feminism in my opinion. The idea was a great one but the execution of it... Not so much. We aren't any more free to be ourselves in society now then we were in the 50's.

Women's choices

Choices for most people in past times were limited, for men and women. To hear modern feminists talk, you'd think all men in the past were having a wonderful time, while women were all having a horrible time.

Most people, male and female, had no choice but to work extremely hard, and had little opportunity to get any kind of an education. Women who were able to stay in their own homes often regarded themselves as fortunate. Many were toiling away on farms or in factories, or working in someone else's house as a servant (over a million women worked in domestic service in the UK a hundred years ago).

And not that much has changed. Most of the women I know who work do so because they need to earn a living rather than from 'choice'.


Question on terminology

What does PUA stand for? And what exactly is "Game" in the way you used it? I'm not up on my terminology and I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you before I comment on the rest of your post (other than the feminism part I already commented on). :)

PUA and Game

PUA—pickup artistry—do a search for it and start reading

Pickup Artist

PUA terminology list

PUA Lingo—Game

The Game by Neill Strauss

Examples of PUA Game -

Gunwitch's guide to picking up women

Tony's layguide

Venusianarts (Mystery) guide to pickup artistry

Manwhore on dominance and leading in natural game pickup

Sasha Daygame

PUA Game video

The Fingerman Method

Game in marriage? No idea but could be these links have some material on that

Avoiding the fate of the AMC (search for "bullet points" on the page for a list of how to use game in marriage)

Authentic Man Program

Married Man Sex Life

Game for marriage

Ethical Pickup Artistry

I get it now

I get what you're talking about now. My middle son was all into this at one time. He watched the show that was on TV with Mystery (I think that was his name) and read a bunch of books about it. He even use to do the whole "Peacocking" thing. It always struck me as funny. None of that would have ever worked on me.

Gosh, I'm really out of the loop. I had no idea this whole concept had become that popular. I thought it was just something a few young males were doing.

The pick-up game

The whole pick-up game is as old as mankind, it just has a new name now. The only difference is that now some guys are making a lot of money off the gullibility of other guys. Thousand of simple suckers believe that by internalizing the PUA books they will become Casanova. Of course there are men who have many women run after them. They're usually very good-looking, rich etc. and don't need these books anyway. There are women like that too.

All in all these books/websites have a priceless entertainment value. There are corresponding books for women too. Equally awful. "Why Men Love Bitches" comes to mind.

These manuals may help people to find someone to screw (pardon my French), but mostly they are designed to teach people how to screw each other over.

Jessica Rabbit

Game and PUAs

Jessica, go read

All three are married (happily) and all three understand the dynamics of male dominance. Be warned though, some of their commenters are very bitter, and despise women.

Funny you should use the term, "as old as mankind." Genuine male dominance is "as old as mankind," but these days it's practically illegal. The Game Gurus are teaching men how to rediscover their natural dominance. Some use it to rack up notches on the bedpost; some use it to keep their wives from becoming bored by their overly accommodating husbands.

In a country with a nearly 50% divorce rate, where most divorces are initiated by women, I have NEVER met a wife of a dominant (not domineering) man, who is no longer "in love" with him.

No problem

Suz, I don't have a problem with male dominance at all. I've posted a few comments on this site that make that blatantly clear. I just don't like "players", or worse "playas" (male or female). Guys like that read websites that try to teach them how to be "da man". PUA either are, or more likely just try to be, bad boys. And bad boys are just that, boys. Not men. It's easy to read advice like that and follow it, it doesn't make a male a man though.

What I find mostly annoying about these sites/books is the language they use. Anybody who is over 18 and talks about "game" needs a reality check. This is frat boy talk. I have looked at some of these sites and didn't like what I saw.

As I said there are corresponding books for women. Equally awful. "Why Men Love Bitches", "The Rules" and all the "Sex in the City" advice. Their angle is a bit different (they talk more about relationships than pick-ups), but their point is the the one I already mentioned: How can I screw people over and make a fool of them?

In my opinion all these books have a damaging influence on male-female relations, because they just teach people how to be engaged in a perpetual game of one-upmanship.

This website does not do this. If it did, I wouldn't read it.

I do agree with most of your original post. I just don't see the PUA angle.

J. Rabbit


I agree with you about the sleaze that many of these writers are trying to sell. What annoys me is that because of them the essence of Game, which is masculinity, gets dismissed. The principles of Game apply across the board, to nearly all men.

I think Game can and should be used is long term relationships, to appease the hypergamous instincts of the female.

Re: Game gurus teaching dominance

I disagree a little bit about the Game Gurus. I think they are trying to teach men how to pretend to be dominant so they can "get the girl" or in the case of a married man "keep things exciting." I just don't think ALL men are naturally dominant. Just as I don't believe all women are naturally submissive.

In my opinion men fall into 3 categories where dominance is concerned.

1. High-dominance men. These guys just naturally take charge. Most of these guys couldn't keep their dominance hidden even if they wanted to. It's just such a strong part of who they are. Even when trying to act in "socially acceptable" ways, their dominance just seems to come through anyway.

2. Medium-dominance man. This is where the majority of men fall. These are the guys who want to be in charge of some things but not everything. They are content sharing power with their partner to varying degrees. How much they want to be in control differs from man to man depending on where he is in the spectrum.

In my opinion, the ones closer to the high-dominance range can quite easily learn to take charge. But for those in the middle or closer to the low-dominance range, the only think the Game gurus can do is teach then how to pretend for a while.

3. The low-dominance men. The Game Gurus can teach them how to pretend to be dominant for a little while, maybe long enough to pick up some girl for a one night stand or if they're married to have a fun night of role play. But they can't sustain it because it really isn't who they are at the core of their being.

Game Gurus

Yes and no, MeadowAngel. They're teaching dominant behavior. Sleazy, irresponsible men use that knowledge for short term gain. However, good men can also use that knowledge to simply get noticed, and then to keep their women from noticing other dominant men. Not only that, I mentioned that naturally masculine behaviors (dominance included) are strongly discouraged in modern society. Whatever a man's natural level of dominance is, it probably appears lower than it really is because he is probably suppressing it. All his life he's been hearing that women want "nice" or "sensitive" guys. Boys don't learn to develop their natural masculinity and dominance—they're not living up to their potential. Game helps them make up an UNNATURAL deficit of masculinity. It isn't fake if the masculinity it expresses is real. I find it sickening that genuinely good men must turn to sleazebags to learn how to behave like men—but nobody else is teaching them.

Re: Game Gurus

I mostly agree with this statement, "whatever a man's natural level of dominance, it probably appears lower than it actually is because he is probably supressing it." I think that is probably very true for MOST men.

I just don't think it applies to ALL men. I disagree that all men are naturally dominant. And i definitly don't agree with linking masculinity with dominance. Some men are not dominant at all naturally. They aren't surpressing their natural dominance to be more socially acceptable. They really don't want to be in charge.

I don't think this makes them less masculine. It just makes them less dominant. *shrugs* Just my opinion.

Game is not ALL pretending

The belief that a man cannot grow in dominance is faulty. Men can grow in benevolent dominance and studying Game reveals the needed concepts. Then men try Game and see what works. (None of us were competent in math or reading skills until we were taught and practiced the skills.)

Inner Game is the confidence that becomes an integral part of a man, and outward Game is all the behaviors he can exhibit (either contrived or sincere).

Whenever some new skill is learned, it requires doing it amid discomfort (pretending) until it eventually feels natural (mastery of the skill). All men have greater dominance within them, which can be developed to varying degrees. Much of masculine dominance has been trained and tamed out of men. So there is an unlearning that must happen before a man can fully realize his competence and become confident in his ability to lead a woman.

Game merely teaches a man new skills and taking the “red pill” enables him to see and unlearn the falsehoods which he previously believed.

Learning to take charge

I agree that it's not true men can't learn to take charge. I don't know enough about Game to know what it offers but I do know my brother has learned to take charge in his marraige and he and his wife as a lot happier now.

What's the red pill?

Red Pill

Google and article called "The Misandry Bubble." It IS the Red Pill. It's scary reading, but every word is true.

The Misandry Bubble

I finially got a chance to read that and... Gosh, I don't even know where to start. I could write a novel here dissecting it and still barely scratch the surface. But instead, I'll settle for just giving my basic overall impressions.

There is SOME truth in there but not all of his "historical facts" are correct. And many of the facts that are correct have been twisted to prove a point. And oh my gosh, he comes across bitter. There is definitely a "women are the root of all evil" undertone to his writing.

Seems like feminists are the reason for all the ills of the world. According to the writer, we are directly responsible for the economic decline, stagnant wages, rising health care costs, crumbling infrastructure, and rising crime. Really? All of that? Wow, Superman doesn't have anything on us! :P


I too have for the first time ever looked at some of the websites mentioned in this thread, especially the Misandry Bubble, and absolutely agree with MeadowAngel.

The author of this article definitively has some problems. I personally think too that feminism has long gone too far. The original goals were good, a long time ago, but feminism now is really just a dirty word.

That being said, the Misandry Bubble rubbed me the wrong way. There were definitively points I agree with, quite a few, but the problem is that for the author ideology trumps everything else. He is the flip side of the militant feminist. Everything bad that's ever happened is women's fault, just as for militant feminists everything bad that's ever happened is men's fault. It just doesn't work that way.

What does not fit into the world view of ideologists is simply ignored. "It's my way or the high-way" and "One size fits all" does not cut it.

The author of the Misandry Bubble article probably has had many bad experiences in his life. I do feel sorry for that, but he is not the only one.

What many people nowadays who have become bitter with the state of affairs, both men and women, ignore is self-responsibility. People who blame other people for every bad thing that's happened to them never really take a close look at themselves and ask "what have I myself done wrong?". It's easier to blame others.

So, to sum it up, the author of that article mostly points a finger without offering a solution. And frankly I don't like that. I thought about writing an extremely lengthy piece arguing a few points he made, but there is no point in arguing with an ideologist (of whatever creed and persuasion). It never leads anywhere. Their mind is made up and nothing is going to change it. The only thing one can do is ignore them and go on living your own life.

The point of The Misandry

The point of The Misandry Bubble is that feminism went from demanding equality to demanding inequality. It's simply not sustainable, socially or economically. TFH doesn't blame feminism for everything that's wrong with the west; he points out that feminism aggravates what's wrong. Feminism doesn't just value women, it devalues men. It's very much like socialism; it requires productive people to subsidize those who are non-productive BY CHOICE (not by happenstance.) It also promotes enmity between the sexes. There will be a well justified backlash long before there is any semblance of balance. Yes, there's plenty of bitterness among MRAs. It's a natural reaction to systematic oppression. If you doubt that the oppression is systematic, do some research and see how the "soft laws" (family courts, VAWA, no-fault divorce, affirmative action, etc.) have been used to punish millions of innocent men. For the past 50 years, feminism has rewarded irresponsible and amoral behavior in women. It's no coincidence that this country is falling apart under the influence of two generations of fatherless children. Look to the urban black population; that's where the rest of the country is heading.

I feel sorry for all of the moral, responsible young women who are going to end up alone because young men are finally figuring out that marriage is too risky for moral, responsible men. The smart ones are opting out, in greater and greater numbers.


I'm not sure if we'll ever do balance and equality well. For some strange reason this appears to be impossible. Over and over throughout history, we have elevated one group above another. There is a pattern here.

Let me start with men and women. For many years, men were viewed as having more value. They had all the rights and women were basically second class citizens. You can see many examples of this by looking at the TV shows of that time. Most of the women on those shows were portrayed as bumbling idiots that were always getting in trouble and needing a man to bail them out. One of the most popular shows had a man who just about every week threatened to punch his wife in the face and no one blinked an eye (one of these days, Alice, pow right to the moon). In fact, most people laughed.

Then women got tired of being second class citizens and demanded equal rights. But instead of being given EQUAL value, they were elevated to a higher position. It became politically incorrect to portray women as bumbling idiots on TV. But it became okay to portray men that way. Everything flip flopped but there still isn't equality or balance. The only change is which gender is elevated.

Something similar happened with race. And now, it's in the process of happening with sexual preference.

What is so difficult about treating everyone fairly regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference? Why can't the same rules and benefits apply to everyone? Why does one group have to have a higher value than another or receive special benefits?

I don't get it. It should be such a simple thing and yet society can't seem to do it. We just don't seem to be happy unless there is a "special group." As long as this pattern continues there will always be gender/ racial wars as one side or the other fights for an equality that never seems to truly happen.

Bumbling Idiots

One point many people seem to overlook when discussing 'bumbling idiots' on TV shows is that the 'bumbling idiot' is usually the star. For instance, Lucille Ball was the star of I Love Lucy, which was massively popular in its day.

There aren't many good sitcoms nowadays which revolve around a female star, because all the best 'bumbling idiot' roles are taken by men. Not necessarily a sign of female advancement. Rather that men are getting most of the best comedy roles.


Irresponsible and Amoral Behavior?

What irresponsible and amoral behavior in women has feminism rewarded? And how are innocent men being punished by the things you mentioned (especially, no fault divorces)?

I truly don't understand what you mean by that. Can you please explain it to me? I love hearing (reading :p) and trying to understand other people's thoughts and opinions. :)


Browse through Dalrock's site. I've learned so much from him and his commenters in just the last few months. I also post about some gender issues on my blog. The worst result of American divorce law is children growing up in broken homes, without the stabilizing influence of men.

One size does NOT fit all

Suz, Thank you for the invitation to read your blog. I enjoyed what I was able to read. I've been struggling with a stomach flu the past week so I wasn't able to read it all. But I bookmarked it so I can read more later. :)

I can't say I agreed with everything you've said (posted there or here) but that's okay. The world would be a boring place if everyone had the same ideas and opinions.

That's one of the things I really like about this site. Taken In Hand and its readers know that one size does not fit all.

I saw that some of the readers of this article (the copy posted on your blog) think some of the women over here are feminists posing as submissive women but I think maybe that's just because they don't understand us.

We aren't really posing as anything. Not feminists, not submissive, nothing. We're just being ourselves... Complicated and unique women who aren't easily defined. We aren't trying to call ourselves anything or define ourselves in any way. And the overview of this site actually suggests that Taken In Hand wives if anything tend not to think of themselves as submissive, though they definitely prefer their husband to be the one in charge.

We're all different. Just because we are all in a Taken in Hand relationship where the man is the head of the household, doesn't make us all "submissive". Some of us are and some of us aren't. Just as some of us are feminists and don't see that as being in conflict with a Taken in Hand relationship. And some of us aren't.

And that's okay. We can all be different. There's no "one true way" here. That's what I love about this site.

Before I found this site, I participated in some other groups/ sites that really were all about female submission. But they kind of had a "one size fits all" attitude and well, frankly... that one size didn't really fit me. :P There was definitely a feeling that if you didn't act a certain way or weren't "submissive" enough, you weren't the "real thing."

That's why I was so happy to find this site. No one tries to tell each other how to act or how their relationship should be. Each of us are in (or want to be in) a Taken in Hand relationship but the people on this site recognize that all relationships and people are different and that one size does NOT fit all. What works in one relationship might not work in another.

We can all agree to disagree on this subject (or any topic on this site) and not only respect the other's opinion but celebrate the differences. That's what sets this site apart from so many of the others and makes it so special.


Sorry about the rambling in my previous post. My husband jokes around and says I have "Edith Bunker Syndrome." I tend to ramble and say the same thing over and over in different ways. I always deny it but shhh... Just between us, it might be a little bit true. :)

I usually read over my posts before I submit them and edit out the repeats but I was in a rush earlier. Sorry about that.

Did I mention how much I love this site? Only about 5 times in my previous post? Is that all? Well, just in case anyone missed it... I really love this site. :P

Women love to be lovingly controlled

Suz wrote:

I have NEVER met a wife of a dominant (not domineering) man, who is no longer "in love" with him.

Me neither. Would you mind saying more about how men can use Game to optimise their marriage? I had a look at one of the links Purvis gave, Avoiding the fate of the AMC, and it wasn't that persuasive. My impression is that the author of that article is in a bad marriage and is stressed by that, and what he suggests is a rather unhealthy reaction to his stressful marriage.

Taken In Hand marriages are not stressful, either for the husband or the wife, and I'm not sure that (for example) negging is good for a marriage (unless the spouse on the receiving end is both more attractive or otherwise higher value, or perhaps feels higher value than the other person even if most would not agree). Would love to hear more.

The Boss

Yes, I think you're right about negging. In marriage it is best presented as gentle teasing—"Aw Honey, don't take yourself so seriously..."

I read a few men's sites and I get a fairly broad perspective. Dalrock is my favorite. His articles tend to be somewhat political, but his commenters are amazingly intelligent. Yes, some of them are raving woman-haters, but actually those are the easiest to debate because their anger makes them less rational. The comment discussions on his blog go on for days, and you see a LOT of practical insights.

My second favorite is MarriedManSexLife. Athol's language is pretty graphic, and some might find it offensive, but he really delves into the science and biology of attraction AND stable relationships. Buy his book! If you don't want to pay for a paper copy and you don't have an e-reader, go to Amazon and download their free "kindle" for your PC. Some insightful commenters there as well.

Another marriage-oriented site is The Red Pill Room, by "Ian Ironwood," a very good writer. (Apparently, he also writes erotica...)

Some sites that don't focus much on marriage and LTR's:

Chateau Heartise. Again, lots of science, sociology and politics. Like MMSL, Heartise offers plenty of specific techniques.

The Spearhead. The primary focus here is men's rights, but again, there's a lot of attention paid to science.

From these sites, you can follow links to others, or ask commenters to make recommendations. IMO, every man who wants to live in peace with a woman, should read Dalrock and MMSL. Nearly ALL women get really, really defensive over some of the "ugly" truths about essential feminine traits, but I haven't found ONE who can rationally deny those truths.


I agree with The Boss too. I don't see how negging could be good for a marriage or any relationship.

Truthfully, I'm not really sure why it even works for picking up a girl for a one night stand. I'm interested in a strong dominant man that makes me feel special not someone who acts like a jerk and puts me down.

It must work for some women, though, or they wouldn't keep doing it. I just don't get it personally.


You're right on all counts. Men have different levels of dominance; women value less dominant men, but most women aren't sexually attracted to them. We're designed to be attracted to the guys with the "best" DNA, the man most likely to provide lots of food for our children, and the man best able to protect our children. Without these instincts our species wouldn't survive.

And oddly enough, negging really does work, simply because it implies dominance. I know it seems counterintuitive, yet most women respond. I think the message it sends is, "I'm not a guy who will put up with your shit tests." Women don't hear that much from men who want sex. Usually guys on the make are all too willing to negotiate and even grovel, which gives power to the woman. Negging implies a man has the strength to resist becoming p-whipped. Considering the power of the male sex drive, that's some serious self discipline.

If negging is done right (with subtlety) it raises the man's status without lowering the woman's, and women naturally seek out men of higher status—that's hypergamy and it's real. We may not "like" a guy who establishes his status as higher than ours, but we are likely to be sexually attracted to him. Again, it implies a greater ability to provide for our children. If our charm can't overcome his strength, maybe the "big bad world" can't either. That's a man who can effectively compete for resources.

Frankly I think negging is a recent invention and a product of feminism and social welfare programs. Until this past half century, negging would have been unnecessary; it was presumed by everybody that the male would be more dominant than the female. All the proof anybody needed was the poverty suffered by women who lacked the protection of men. As a society we now have a huge surplus of survival resources, and this means individual women don't need to depend on individual men. This is a very new phenomenon in human history and out brains haven't evolved to match it.

Our subconscious instincts still influence us even though we don't seem to "need" them. I think it's not a coincidence that the number of people suffering from anxiety and depression has grown to huge proportions in the last fifty years. We can have everything we "need" and want, but we can get it in ways that exclude our instincts. I suspect our brains know this is unnatural, and that leaves us anxious and emotionally vulnerable—we feel purposeless because like children, we enjoy far more resources than we "earn."

Why Men Love Bitches

Jessica, just for the record, I disagree with you about the Sherry Argov book Why Men Love Bitches.

I hate the title, obviously, since being a bitch is likely to be a suboptimal approach if you want a happy marriage.

However, the book is not actually about how to be a bitch, I think it is a book about how not to put unpleasant heavy pressure on a man you are merely dating—the kind of heavy pressure and expectations that would make any sane person want to run away. Women do this all the time! It is not their intention to do it, but their behaviour does have that effect.

Sherry Argov's book seems to me to be aimed at women who expect too much from men they are dating, or try too hard, who inadvertently put off-putting pressure men they are dating, or are too submissive in their approach and end up being used and hurt by men they are dating.

To progress from dating to a relationship and thence to marriage, the interactions need to be balanced. Some women throw themselves body and soul into a man they have only just started dating. They spend hours getting ready, or they spend hours cooking a perfect meal for the man, or they try too hard to please their date, imagining that he could be The One. Meanwhile, the man just wanted a date or two, and he has no idea if he wants any more than that yet, and the way the woman is behaving unnerves him and puts him off her even if he might well have fallen for her given half a chance.

In my opinion, Why Men Love Bitches is actually quite a good book, especially for nice women who try too hard, because it helps them to keep things in perspective a bit more, and it helps them to stop inadvertently (psychologically) coercing the men they date, so that they don't make the men want to run away like their standard approach does. It is not about being a bitch, it is that if you are a woman and you are just starting to date someone and he is not head over heels in love with you yet, you need to chill out and avoid hearing wedding bells—and avoid any whiff of any behaviour that might make the man think you have wedding bells in mind.

It is a while since I read the book, but as I recall, the vast majority of the advice given is all about how to chill out and get to know the person before you start thinking about sending out wedding invitations. This is very good advice. Many women get far too serious about a man far too soon, and the effect is to make him run away, because he himself is (understandably!) not hearing wedding bells on the first date. He needs pressure-free time to know if he wants to have a relationship with you.

The trouble with all the trying too hard stuff is that it never gives the man a chance to find out if he might want a relationship with the woman, because her approach is saying to the man that she is of such low value that she needs to bend over backwards to please him to make it worth his while to date her. No matter how nice the man is, that is psychologically very off-putting. Who wants someone unworthy or desperate? It is not attractive.

Chilling out as the author advises takes the pressure off the man you are dating and thus minimises the chance that he will be scared away by what might seem to him like your stalkery behaviour.

Her suggested approach is also good for women whose self-esteem is a bit on the low side. Such women make the mistake of valuing themselves too low relative to any man they are dating, and again, these women tend to put men off because they (unconsciously, inexplicitly) communicate their low self-esteem to men they are dating, making them seem less valuable than they are, to the men. Just as is true with men, sometimes behaving as if you are more confident, helps you become more confident.

Her approach is particularly important for submissive women whose eyes tell any man they are dating that there is nothing they wouldn't do for him (even though they have only just met him). These women tend to attract men who have zero interest in a relationship but are happy to dominate them into bed before going onto the next girl. If you are a submissive woman who wants to get married and who doesn't want to have a large number of one-night stands en route to finding the person you will marry, try not to broadcast your submissiveness so much, follow Pat Allen's advice (see Getting to "I Do"), and try following Sherry Argov's advice too. This will help you avoid all those one-night stands you don't want. (If you like one-night stands, don't care if you never get married, and you don't mind attracting players, go for it and have fun, obviously!)

If you are not a woman given to trying too hard, or premature exclusivity, or falling for men too soon, etc., this is definitely not a good book for you to read. Instead, you might benefit from reading The Surrendered Wife, by Laura Doyle, and Getting to "I Do".


Can a man really become dominant or manly by reading the advice of Neil Strauss or any advice book? I doubt it...

Re: Hmmmmm

Stephen sez "Can a man really become dominant or manly by reading the advice of Neil Strauss or any advice book? I doubt it..."

Sorry, never heard of Neil Strauss, but I agree on your take of MOST books, but not all. Most books are filled with pat advice that seems right but this advice is directed to the General Public and tends to lose its flavor among the Devoted.

Genuine devotion to a relationship REQUIRES a certain methodology AND a devotion TO that methodology. Bear in mind that NO such system will develop in a vacuum. I truly believe that is NOT possible. BUT, a viable system CAN be sourced from an outside resource that MAY be related to the relationship you wish.

To those who may be curious, I invite you to read The Married Man Sex Life Primer 2011, by Athol Kay, one who seems NOT to be rooted in ANY methodology other than the pure sensual dominance over his wife.

I GUARANTEE this book will enhance what love-lay may exist between you and your wife. I kid you not, extensive work is involved if your relationship needs improvement, but I believe you must try ALL suggested maneuvers to make a go of it. Make note that the author guarantees nothing, and personally, I GUARANTEE that MOST of your efforts will FAIL.****BUT****, SOME will succeed to the viability of the failure of your marriage, and THIS will bypass the impending failure.

I truly thought I would DUMP my GF because she CHOSE not to please me. Truth follows that the blame I placed on her fired three fingers back at me. Well, at about 3:00 am this morning, I received a tongue-lashing from her about my lack of contribution to the relationship. She was ANGRY, but surprisingly self-controlled. She wanted what we had, which I had dismissed as nothing since I felt nothing.

Even though my actions openly wooed her, my attitude was closed to anything that would open a good relationship.

Many of you are quite aware of my negative postings concerning my present and previous relationships and my wish to divorce myself from any one of them.

Yet, one seems to prevail. This seems to be another complaint against my GF, even though she has no control over it. Perhaps, covertly, this may be a complaint against MYSELF against all, because of my past expreriences. After all, I have noticed that my leniencies seem to have expired with no hope of any revival.

In ANY relationship, ATTITUDE is MOST essential. If the attitude is negative, the relationship will be negative. My GF has suffered from my negative attitude toward her, developed from previous negative attitudes.

Many of you are aware of the fact that I have attributed the blame of the failure of this relationship to her, shielding my blame.

Mick McCleod


An insecure or effeminate man sure can't, and those are the men Jessica Rabbit described to a "T". A relatively confident man, however, can can use the advice to cultivate and develop his own NATURAL potential for dominance. Heaven knows society at large doesn't encourage the development of male dominance. Check out The Married Man Sex Life. Athol uses layman's terms and clear examples to explain the science of attraction. Most women are naturally attracted to dominant men, for reasons that promote the survival of the species. Real life dominance isn't about Superman protecting Lois Lane, it's about Clark Kent protecting Lois, while wearing street clothes instead of a superhero costume.

Right on, Suz!

Right on, Suz. I hear ya!


I don't know any women who claim they want to defeat men in any grand way. I don't think women or men are quite as stupid as this negging/shit testing article suggests. And I see genuine displays of male power in their bodies.

My friends don't prefer bad boys. Their boyfriends seem like the kind of guys they will someday marry. They value independence and think getting married young is weird, but of course they want relationships. My husband is the only man I've ever had sex with and for me sex is important and serious, but my friends view sex differently, and I don't look down on them for it.

Isn't negging just teasing? Most boys and men know girls and women like teasing. And for that matter, isn't shit testing just teasing? And if it is teasing, I don't see what's wrong with it.

The US government is not overly eager to care for children. When my dad died, my mom had five daughters to raise on her own. The government gave us peanut butter, cereal, and lots and lots of humiliation. I don't think she was stressed by getting more than she earned or rewarded for her carelessness.



I'm very sorry you lost your father when you were so young. Your mother's single motherhood wasn't a result of her carelessness. It's families like yours for which government assistance should be primarily reserved.

You are very fortunate if you don't know many women who feel entitled to dominate their men—"Lead me, but lead me how and where I tell you."

Yes, negging is essentially teasing, but shit testing IS NOT. It's politely known as "fitness testing," and it's a matter of seeing how far you can push your man. Making unreasonable demands, even small ones, to see if a man can be manipulated. A dominant man ignores shit tests, "giving" on his terms, not upon demand. A submissive man gives his woman anything she wants. This may offend you, but it's undeniable: It's like a spoiled child seeing how far he can "push the limits" with his parents. Shit testing is a subtle way to challenge a man's boundaries.


Negging is insulting/ cutting the woman down (only a little but still) in order for the man to "raise his value." That's why I have a problem with it. I don't believe in cutting someone else down to make yourself look better. And I don't see how it could be helpful in a relationship.

Hope that explains a little better. :)

"Defeat" as an Exaggeration of Testing

"I don't know any women who claim they want to defeat men in any grand way. I don't think women or men are quite as stupid as this negging/shit testing article suggests."

Without any snark, and I say this with a ruefule smile thinking about the women I've dated...this is because you haven't been dating women for the last 30 years. How would you know if women were behaving like this? As a woman, you're not going to be on the receiving end of of such behaviour. (Again, I don't intend that as a smartass comment—but as observation).

Not to say it's impossible to observe by other women, but that if you haven't been really looking and paying attention, it may not be apparent. But as a guy dating those women, the pattern is very clear.

Part of the problem is you won't hear a woman say she wants to defeat a man, but her behaviour will demonstrate it's in her head, below conscious recognition. I believe the far-pendulum-swing of feminism (as opposed to a healthy "women have choices" ) has certainly been teaching this to women—only one woman I've dated in my life hasn't demonstrated this behavior to some degree (I'm mid-forties).

I see this kind of behavior being an exaggeration of a woman testing a man to see that he has the strength to be her leader. If she can defeat him, how can he possibly be strong enough to lead/protect her?

As for negging/shit testing...yes, it works. Very well. I first observed it as a teenager (80's) and was surprised to see it "documented" by PUA types recently. In the PUA world, negging is used to generate interest and establish dominance—the man is essentially showing the "hot chick" that (unlike all the wimps buying her drinks), he's not blown away by her supposed hotness, that he knows he can get such women all the time. Combined with subtle compliments it generates tension and curiosity ("this guy is different than the rest").

I think that negging in the PUA world is an exaggeration of the playful teasing/jibes of normal/healthy dating/relationships. In my experience, women really respond to such "teasing" when done the right way (just like on the playground! lol).

If my husband ignored me . . .

I would repeat my unreasonable demand more clearly in his ear.
Instead of ignoring me, he explains why I can't have what I want which is usually news to me since I'm always optimistic about how much money is in our checking and how much time we have before we need to be somewhere else. If I push then, he reprimands. And if I push then, he spanks.

My husband's teasing is one of my favorite things. And that he finds me funny is, I think, one of my chief charms for him.

Nevertheless, we are feminist socialists. Children of irresponsible or incapable or unlucky people need peanut butter and cereal too.


Being ignored

My husband doesn't ignore me when I ask for something either, even if it does seem unreasonable to him. He explains why I can't have it (usually due to money).

He might wear the pants in our relationship and have the final say but it's still a PARTNERSHIP. I'm a full partner with a full voice in decisions. He has way too much respect for me to just ignore me or completely disregard my opinion.

Only an idiot ignores an

Only an idiot ignores an intelligent woman. Hopefully you knew he wasn't an idiot by the time you married him.

The ideal marriage is a partnership where the husband has, say...51-60 percent "ownership." Just enough above half to have the final say, but he recognizes his wife's worth. After all, what kind of man wants a useless woman who needs to be micromanaged?


Feminism by my definition is the belief that men and women should be treated equally legally and socially. This is a very common belief, and there are many stupid and mean people who share it just as there are many stupid and mean people who share any common belief. Feminism is not incompatible with a man's dominance in marriage.

I am concerned by the imprisonment of men (and boys!) for misreading a woman, but the context is not so much feminism as the excessive sentencing and imprisonment of people for all kinds of stupid mistakes in the US.

I started to read The Misandry Bubble, but my husband looked at the screen and shut the computer off.



Suz, I do agree that feminism demands inequality nowadays and that a lot is wrong with it. Still, The Misandry Bubble's author makes claims he cannot remotely support. For example he states:

"All of us have been taught how women have supposedly been oppressed throughout human existence, and that this was pervasive, systematic, and endorsed by ordinary men who presumably had it much better than women. In reality, this narrative is entirely fabricated."

No, really no. It is not entirely fabricated. On a very simple level you could say that most men (obviously not all) always had choices, women did not. Even rich and high-born ones.

I agree many laws nowadays favour women to a ridiculous degree, but I do take exception at one thing you say:

"For the past 50 years, feminism has rewarded irresponsible and amoral behavior in women. It's no coincidence that this country is falling apart under the influence of two generations of fatherless children. "

It's simply too easy to put the responsibility for decency and morality (whatever these words mean anyway) on women's shoulders. Men could always behave irresponsibly and get away with it. E.g. a man could divorce a wife who cheated on him, this was most certainly not the case the other way around. This is a two way street.

In my opinion, this kind of reasoning is typical of the Religious Right who have a very simplistic view of everything. (BTW, I am not American, but used to live there). Every time I hear the Religious Right talk I am just stunned, but not in a good way.

So, all in all the web has made it extremely easy for everybody to air their grievances, but neither (left nor right) seem to be able to offer any solutions.

Jessica Rabbit

The religious right defends

The religious right defends feminism, because Christianity in America has become feminized. The church won't criticize frivolous divorce, or non-marital promiscuity.

One of the myths promoted by feminism

"...On a very simple level you could say that most men (obviously not all) always had choices, women did not. Even rich and high-born ones."

Of course women had choices. The problem was that (like most men) their choices weren't always pleasant. Unless she was imprisoned until death, any mentally competent and able bodied woman had the same choices men did—to accept their societal (and biological) role in exchange for society's protection of them and their children, or to forgo that protection and attempt to feed and shelter themselves on their own. Sadly, plenty of women, like plenty of men, weren't even offered the choice of societal protection. That was not a function of gender though. It was a function of wealth and power. The only ways in which women were discriminated against were in the rights to vote, to be educated, and to own property. (And the right to abortion, a right that was rarely questioned before the 19th century. But that's not a topic for this forum.) Those problems were solved a long time ago, so why are feminists still claiming to be oppressed "victims" of patriarchy? So they can have discriminatory rules like affirmative action, that's why. What's the result of affirmative action? It is millions of women (minorities too) getting paid to do jobs for which they are not qualified. It was supposed to allow QUALIFIED women to get those jobs, but that's not how it worked out. The most vocal feminists demanded that the standards for qualification be lowered or eliminated, so unqualified women could be hired.

Women have never been oppressed by Western patriarchy. They have been protected by it, to a greater degree than men.

There's more truth in The Misandry Bubble than you think.

Off-topic posts

This discussion is veering off-topic. Please take care that your post is on-topic for this site, which is about Taken In Hand relationships, not feminism or sex war politics. There is no sex war or spouses standing on their rights in a Taken In Hand relationship, because those things tend to end marriages not help them.

Very thought-provoking piece

Hiya Suz,

Many aspects of your article put me in mind of my stepmother, who deeply and vehemently resents masculinity, in any traditional form, whatsoever, while actively promoting this women-dominating-men phenomenon that you write about. She wanted a man she could defeat, and so she married my dad, who is happy to roll over for her at every opportunity.

But, like you wrote above, she is utterly miserable—to deal with, anyway. She's demanding and manipulating and if she doesn't get her way, she nukes anyone within earshot. I'm not qualified to judge whether or not she is a happy person, but I can't imagine anyone behaving this way if they are. My father married her when I was 12, or so, and since then she has tried to impress upon me how important it is for women to defeat men as much as possible. But she could just as easily have tried to teach me to defeat everyone as much as possible.

She will not speak to my husband, because the last time he spoke to her, was when she was angry with me. I was in tears, trying to keep my composure as she was screeching at me, when my husband walked into the room, took the phone from me and said in an even voice into it, "Why is my wife crying?" She hung up on him.

My father told me later on that she wouldn't speak to Drew because she fears men. Maybe that should've been obvious to me many years ago, but I guess I was spending too much brainpower trying to think of ways to avoid her like the plague.

As I stated above, I am not qualified to judge whether her problem is that she secretly hates weak-willed men (I should mention, here, that I've never considered my dad one of those types), and that's really why she's hell-on-wheels, or whether the issue is something else. Just wanted to let you know that you wrote a very thought-provoking article—in case you couldn't tell! ; )


Hogwash and Poppycock

Dear Suz,

The blanket statements and ridiculous right-wing generalizations of your post make pretty much any valid point you have to make null and void.

Who are, exactly, all these alleged "feminists" who want to "emasculate" men? I am a feminist, I am the mother to a boy, I am in a Taken In Hand relationship. I work in a company in senior management, and I have approx 50 men under me whom I nurture, support, teach and train. And let me be perfectly clear: I have NO desire to emasculate anyone.

"When the feminists decided that “equality” wasn’t enough, they needed ways to control men; one of their tools was to demand that men stop acting powerful."

Again with "the feminists" as if women who believe in human equality and dignity are all the same. And, the "demands" you speak of (that men stop acting powerful?)—well, most of us would like men not to rape women, nor abuse women, nor bully women. Insecure men sometimes do these things. A truly powerful man doesn't—but some men do.

We "feminists" also want to be rewarded for the work we do on an equal basis. Since we are required by our modern economy to work (and frankly, most of us always were)—we want access to jobs that match our skills. Now, thanks to "the feminists" we do.

Overall, this posting is hateful towards women, and incredibly disrespectful to men. It is intellectual vacuous, and based on unsubstantiated balderdash.

I am a feminist. I support men. I support my fellow women. And, my husband is my head of the household, because honestly—he's the better person for that job.

Not in the least

Kirikat, first let me say that I am not exactly conservative though not an out and out liberal. Especially not the uber-politically correct liberal that is so prevalent today.
And I must say I agree with many things Suz says in her original post. In fact it was right on target and not "hateful" at all. (As mentioned I disagree with the generalizations that seem to me far too right-wing.)
Also, I don't like calling a post "intellectual vacuous, and based on unsubstantiated balderdash" just because you do not agree. That is simply childish.

There are many reasons why I (and many other women nowadays) do not consider myself a feminist. Because feminism has long, very long now, stopped to be about equal rights under the law, it is now about superior rights.

Western women now have become the most privileged, the most cosseted and indulged "species" in the history of humanity. Yet they now live their lives with the unquestioning belief that they are members of an oppressed class of victims who have had to struggle heroically for liberation against a society cruelly organized by men for the benefit of men. For the most part feminism now is a selfish, conceited, man-despising and predatory 'have-it-all' feminism.

Yes, there are other feminists and hopefully you are one of them.
But feminism now without a doubt favours women. Especially when it comes to alimony, child support, divorce laws. Also many European countries now have affirmative action for women to get into high managerial positions. That's simply pathetic in the year 2012.

"We "feminists" also want to be rewarded for the work we do on an equal basis."
Please, not the old wage gap chestnut. If a man and a woman work in the same company doing the same job with the same hours put it while also having the same work experience, they do get paid exactly the same.
People who claim there is a wage gap forget that women typically choose different jobs, do less hours, take more holiday time, do less overtime, take more sick-days.

There is a nice article in the WSJ about the wage gap. Read it.

"most of us would like men not to rape women, nor abuse women, nor bully women. Insecure men sometimes do these things."
Indeed. So do insecure women. Their way of abuse may differ from a man's (less physical), but it's equally damaging.

Jessica Rabbit


Thank you, Jessica. Your reply was much more gentle than mine would have been. Incidentally, this post was originally part of a comment thread on another blog. It was a response to a man who said, "Women want to defeat men." My point was that if that were true, we'd all be happy with our men once we had them under our control. But the opposite is true, because find ourselves despising men who give us everything we demand. Very few women really want to dominate men, yet modern feminism tells us we should. Those of us who want to relate with men in accordance with our biological nature, are shamed for not living up to our potential. Go anywhere on the web and eavesdrop on stay-at-home-mom fights. Feminism hates equality, and it really hates women who think for themselves.

Postmodern Pleasures

Our sexual desires on this site are quirky, and we might want to beware of making political decisions based on them. I have a grand old time listening to my husband talk sexist with the other men in his department (all feminists of course) about the women faculty. There are a lot of jokes about women artists. But this is just talk. I can laugh along because I know I have never been a victim of sexism in my entire life. My grandmother can't say that, and in the more backwards states, at least in the movies (since we're using movies and television as evidence of real life attitudes), sexism, racism, and homophobia remain prevalent.