Office Game: Dominant & Dynamic Kino For Power & Position

[While my personal life continues to explode in an unruly way, I decided to post a few of my almost-done posts in hibernation.  I've gotten a lot of questions about Office Game, thanks to the Formal Friday's and Female Social Network posts, so I thought it might be cool to discuss the role of Kino in Office Game.  I've got a couple of these, which hopefully will see me through to when I can write again.]

 Dominant . . . and Dynamic

We've discussed body language in terms of straight-up Single Game, Married Game and even alluded to it in some Office Game posts.  But a recent discussion has convinced me that there are some areas that could use more explanation, particularly about the role of kino in your Alpha Presentation in the office.

In any Game situation, you want to be a dominant figure – you want to be the Alpha.  But some who are still struggling with losing the last shreds of their Betatude don’t understand that how they physically present themselves provides HUGE contextual communication that women – and other men – simply can’t ignore.  And largely they are unaware of it.

When you are attempting to assert your Alpha Presentation in the office, paying close attention to attire (see: Formal Fridays) and social distance is important.  But ignoring some key elements of kino can take your spiffy powerpoint and your shiny suit and make you look like a slob.  When you are competing in an office situation (and you are, even if you don’t know it yet) with a number of women, then your physical presentation makes all the difference.  

There are two key points to keep in mind when dealing with your body language: you want to dominate, but you also want to be perceived as dynamic.  That is, when you enter a room you want to do so with unassailable Alpha-like authority . . . but you also want to me as dynamic and charming and inviting to your co-workers as possible.  Dominant authority without dynamic charm is boorish.  Dynamic charm without dominant authority is obsequious.  Neither one is a path to social and professional success.

When dealing in the modern corporate environment in which your female co-workers are clearly your valued colleagues as well as competitors, there are elements of this kinesthetic approach that give you natural social advantages just by being male.  Make good use of them.

Some of these we've covered.  Taking up maximum space, for instance, physically dominating the sphere around you is an excellent way to up your Alpha.  This is usually easier for us than women because we are generally larger and taller.  When you make gestures, do so in a broad way so that your gesticulations invade the personal space of those around you.  That’s a dominant move.  

More, a recent Harvard-Columbia psych study examining the role of two key hormones (testosterone and cortisol – cortisol is the “stress” hormone) demonstrated that people who held an expansive, open posture for two minutes had naturally higher testosterone levels from baseline, while people who held a tight, conservative, closely-bound posture, their cortisol levels (think of it as the “Beta Hormone”) were measurably higher.  Kino has more to do with your Office Game than you think.

Walk the Walk

When walking, for instance, doing so with the assumption that people will get out of your way is recommended – you’re important, you’ve got important places to go, and people should just naturally recognize that (and once you start doing this, some will).  You might be wrong, which will give you an opportunity to exhibit authoritative patience (a dominant stance), but that expectation will color how you walk . . . and what people subconsciously think about you and how you walk.

As a dude, this is a huge advantage.  For one thing, we don’t wear heels or nylons (at work, anyway – I don’t judge) which allows our stride to be longer and more decisive.  When a woman strides that way, she takes the risk of looking overly masculine and evaporates whatever perceptual advantage her confident stride might give her.  And when a woman expects people to get out of her way, she looks entitled and pushy, not authoritative. 

A simple way to undermine a female competitor’s position is to point out her gait or pushiness to her female co-workers (her male co-workers don’t care) or inferiors.  The fact that such an observation has been made by you, a mere male, will confirm every catty suspicion in that woman’s mind, and before the end of the day everyone will remember her as “that pushy woman”.  “Pushy” is not authoritative – it’s boorish.

Get With The Group . . . The Right Way

When you join a pre-established group of co-workers, don’t hover anxiously around the fringes – if you want to participate, gently shoulder your way in or say something witty and charming that convinces the group to part naturally and invite you in.  Glide in effortlessly, if possible, possibly by taking the elbow of your closest friend in the group and gently turning him to make room.

When speaking to a group, keep your head perfectly still while you talk.  Excess movements make you look indecisive and flighty – another natural advantage for dudes, in consideration of how many women feel compelled to flit their heads around like birds to see if everyone is paying attention to them. 

Speak slowly, deliberately, and in complete sentences.  It makes you seem thoughtful, while female co-workers have a habit of interrupting themselves, using inappropriate slang (or even baby talk – I’ve seen it), and getting off topic.  Don’t attempt to make yourself look smart by using long sentences – Alphas tend to use short, concise, complete sentences with a clear beginning and end . . . and don’t explain themselves unless asked.  This lends an air of personal authority that no mere title can provide.

Apropos to that, when you are speaking to someone, maintaining a nearly-threatening level of direct eye-contact increases your importance in their mind . . . while you acting disinterested and distracted while your competitors speak shows you have more important things to do (as should everyone else, than to listen to that idiot blather on . . . are we done here yet?).  Look around.  Check out that rack.  Scratch that itch.  You know you wanna.

Further, you don’t want to react to what your competitors have said – acting bored and distracted says more.  If you allow your reactions to her to be perceived, then her importance to you is also established by the casual observer.  Ignoring her or patiently enduring her while she speaks establishes your dominance over her.  Interrupting to make an important point or ask a question are ways of establishing dominance over a competitor.  Take a half-step forward when you do, as the physical movement attracts attention.

But don’t anxiously scan everyone’s face for signs of approval after you’ve spoken.  Alphas don’t give a shit what other people think . . . so obviously checking for reactions is not Alpha.

Taking a dominant position in an office or a meeting is a risk – but men excel at taking risks.  It’s a sign of a testosterone-heavy natural leader.  Women are far less likely to take risks, which often keeps their professional ambitions in check artificially.  Floating a couple of trial ideas you know won’t work, but are risky and demonstrably creative, for example, is a great way to establish your authority and willingness to take risks. 

The danger here is that when you present Alpha in the office, you run the risk of attracting social ire from those who feel you are inflating your status above its actual place.  Only the CEO can get away with acting like a CEO.  When you try to act like a CEO, you’re really acting like a douche bag. 

This risk is a lot less for men than it is women.  When a man makes an ambitious, risky move in his career, one that could conceivably elevate his status accordingly, then the irrationally overconfident demeanor is seen as daring and confident by outside observers.  The same emotions expressed by a female competitor are usually seen as her “getting big for her britches”, followed by sadly shaken heads.

Sure, it’s unfair – but it’s a competition.  Boobs are unfair, too, but we have to contend with those.  Women in general are promoted for their achievements.  Men in general are promoted for their potential.  Recognizing (casually) that your female competitor may have bitten off more than she can chew to the right set of ears is an ideal way of undermining everyone’s perceptions of her.  “Big for her britches” implies that she does, indeed, have limits to her capacity . . . while you do not.  That will also set the stage for her first few (inevitable) stumbles, and magnify everyone’s confidence in her ability.

For dudes, being underestimated is usually a good thing – we’re competitors.  We want to be underestimated.

For women, however, being underestimated means that they are also under-appreciated, that they aren’t getting enough attention, so they loathe being under-estimated.  When someone expresses doubt in a dude’s progress, it often makes him redouble his efforts and look forward to his day of vindication.  When someone expresses doubt in a woman’s progress, it doesn’t take long to get back to her . . . and the result can be devastating.  Women seem far more likely to let others’ perceptions color the choices they make. 

Your Face Is The Place

Don’t smile so much.  So many management books and seminars drill the importance of smiling in your work interactions, but don’t, not unless you have a genuine reason.  Betas smile because they are submissive.  Alphas smile because they are – rarely – amused.  When you speak, speak calmly and in short sentences, but smiling means you obviously DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON since this is business and business is serious.  A smile is a sign of appeasement, not amusement.  It’s a visual ass-kissing of the Alpha member of the group.

Which might as well be you.

 Just like in regular Game, in Office Game eye-contact is key.  If your boss is speaking, listen thoughtfully, especially if other people are watching.  When it’s time for questions, ask one that you know that your boss knows the answer to, and hold eye contact while you do it . . . and then look away.  If you lock eyes with a female competitor, DO NOT DROP YOUR GAZE.  Most women are more intimidated by being stared-down than they’re willing to admit, and when it happens unexpectedly it can be unnerving.  If she persists, slowly shift your gaze about one inch below her eyes . . . it makes you look more intimidating for no reason she can consciously see.

When Going Beta Is Alpha

So just when do you play dominant?  Not all the time – remember, you aren’t a CEO.  The two areas in which you want to focus your dominant presentation are when you need to strongly re-enforce your own status in the group, and when there is a power or position available that you covet.  If someone challenges your ability to do your job, you go dominant to re-establish your place.  If there is a higher position available, then making a dominant presentation is the easiest way to secure it over competitors.

So when is it actually a dominantmove to play submissive?  This is a lesson most women don’t understand, and they botch it repeatedly because of this lack of understanding.  The “Fun, Fearless Female” of Cosmo fable often losesstatus and position because of their ovaries-to-the-wall attitude and inability to demonstrate the appropriate level of submission to a superior.  I once watched a woman talk her boss out of promoting her by assuming too familiar an attitude – being “just girls” doesn’t work well in a $15 million company.  And when this same woman treated a senior male VP like an equal, even to the point of correcting him about something unimportant – the consequences were staggering.

When speaking to or presenting to a superior, adopting an air of submissive respect is appropriate.  With men, treating them with respect and deference from a position of strength gains you respect and admiration in return.  With women, cordial and charming work best . . . but cordial and charming from a strong but submissive position.  When speaking with a male superior, you should leave him with the feeling that he has a potential follower.  When speaking with a female superior, you should leave her with the feeling that she has a potential ally . . . against the other women under her command.

Done properly, and you make your submission into a dominant act by enriching and ennobling your superior with your respect, deference, charm and strength.  Done poorly, and you look like an obsequious asshole. 

Many women have a really, really hard time with this – either because they are unable to distinguish themselves appropriately to demonstrate their strength to their superior, or because they shy away from self-promotion.  They sell themselves short or they go crazily out on a limb.  They advance themselves too boldly and look “pushy” or Too many of them just don’t understand: the key to a successful corporate submission is control.

The fact that men and women are perceived differently in the business world is pretty well understood.  While feminist decry this and attempt – in vain – to “smash the patriarchal system” that binds them to such horrors, dudes can exploit this for their personal and professional benefit.  

Read more »

Is It Really A Win When The Other Team Doesn't Show?

Two other manosphere pieces converged with something I'm currently writing for the book, and at the risk of blowing some of the freshness out of it I thought I'd chime in.

Specifically, Badger's excellent Educated Women's Contempt For Men, in which he follows the feminist attempt to mainstream the war on masculinity and how it's not exactly working out the way they expected, and Dalrock's How The Destruction of Marriage Is Strangling The Feminist Welfare State, in which he examines the demographic fallout from the smoking crater feminism created at the center of the social state.

Why are these two articles particularly interesting, when taken together?  Well, part of it is the third blogger Dalrock riffs on, The Social Pathologist, when he quotes this:

The social, sexual and economic liberation of women in the latter half of the 20th Century has meant that for the first time women were able to compete with men in society without restriction. The result has been spectacular if not particularly beneficial to the happiness of women. Whilst not all degrees are created equal (men still overwhelming dominate the "hard" fields of knowledge) the fact that there are now more degree credentialed women than men is simply astonishing. As income is broadly correlated with economic well being,  its safe to assume that women have been able to achieve a economic parity with men. The manosphere may not like this result but the fact is that women have been able to effectively compete with men when the shackles of social convention have been removed.

Emphasis mine.  I reprint the quote because it underscores my point (and the point I'm currently trying to make in the book): that women cannot declare this a true "victory" of feminism over the patriarchy, or even women over men, or even realistically as "economic parity", because while the fact is that women have been strongly incentivized toward college both culturally and bureaucratically with four decades of feminist affirmative-action and aggressive anti-male policies. The "shackles of social convention" have been transformed into the "shackles of anti-male sentiment", and the "level playing field" is a sham, as Dalrock points out:

Feminism didn’t demolish a barrier between two seas and let the water levels adjust;  it is a massive pumping operation.  Turn off the pumps even for a little bit and reality will come flooding back.

That is, the economic system that allows women economic advantage (industrialism and post-industrialism -- which was, coincidentally, invented and developed by men) exists in a network of social governance and a vast government bureaucracy (also, invented and developed by men) in which the taxpayer (heretofore majority male) provides social and economic support for the impoverished, particularly single mothers and their children (mostly female, of course) while artificially fiddling with the "rules of the game" to favor one particular side while punishing the other side.

That's the "level playing field" that they are "winning" on.








So what happens when one team just fails to show up?  Is that still a "win"?

One thing that the smug little "end o' men" articles we've been seeing so many of lately love talking about is how the fact that more women having advanced degrees than men means that women have finally "out-competed" men in the workplace.  Now that they have declared where they are "the top" of the social and economic structure men created and developed, they are quick to dismiss the men who can't seem to compete successfully on the "level playing field" as losers or worse.  Badger amply demonstrates the dripping contempt that educated women feel about their male professional peers, much less their mates and males in general.  

Only, is it fair to judge the "success" of women competing in the workplace when the dis-incentives provided to their male peers are so severe as to discourage competition?

One point I'm making in my book is that the "success" of women in advancing careers has to be seen in the context in which men who would ordinarily have been competing for those positions have effectively "dropped out".  They didn't get on the bus to begin with.  The women "won" by default, because the best possible person for the job never interviewed for it in the first place.  

Feminists will bridle at the suggestion, but it's true.  MGTOW didn't precisely begin with Freedom Twenty Five; men have been walking away from societally-prescribed ambitions for almost two decades now, in the face of penalties and disincentives relating to their unfortunate ownership of a penis.  

There's a case I cite in the book, anecdotal, of course (I also make the point that you can't hang a metric on the lack of someone's ambition, which is pesky from a statistical perspective) of my neighbor, Sid.  Sid was a business-school graduate and an RN, and had spent ten years and a marriage climbing the ruthless corporate ladder of the American pharmaceutical industry.  He was good at what he did, and consistently out-performed his peers, male and female, and seemed to have a lock on a solid middle-management position with stock options and bells and whistles, every MBA's dream.  His last year was his most productive, and he logged millions of dollars worth of business for his company (now bought out by an even bigger company -- Sid would have been loaded).  

But when Sid looked at the competition he faced, he realized he was doomed.  Women were getting special seminars on leadership, mentoring opportunities, and other career-advancing perks.  Sid was getting assigned diversity training courses and being set up to fail by being assigned a "mentor" who had a pronounced dislike of men and especially manly men like Sid, who refused to kiss her ass just the way she wanted.  He was boxed in: he couldn't proceed further in the company without getting this woman's approval, and he couldn't get this woman's approval while still maintaining his Y chromosome. 

So Sid . . . dropped out.

He "Went His Own Way" long before it was called that.  Sid turned his back on his advanced degree and his education, his ex-wife and his expensive car, and Sid found a third-shift job working in a county hospital ER that paid him just enough to survive comfortably upon.  He turned his back on a decade of learning one of the most intricate businesses and regulatory systems ever invented, on the lucrative prospects that could have made him a millionaire, and he walked away.  The "level playing field" contains a fifteen-yard penalty for having a penis, so Sid walked away from it and accepted -- for now -- a far lower status job in return for personal happiness and fulfillment.  He didn't drop out because he couldn't hack it, he dropped out because the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.  

Now, someone got that next management spot Sid walked away from.  Sid could have had it, had he stayed on and fought for it.  Did the person who get it (it was, indeed, a woman) get it because she was the best qualified for the job?  Or did she get it because she was the most qualified candidate (under the adjusted rules) who was willing to show up and interview?  Did she get that office and that name plate and the parking space and the "Director" title because she was superlative?  Or did she get it because the other team just didn't get off the bus?

It's been over a decade since Sid dropped out -- close to two, actually.  But in the early 1990s, when feminism was throwing its weight around with reckless abandon, it knocked a lot of highly talented men out of the way in its quest for a "level playing field" that ensured no real competition.  Feminism's attempt at "fairness" in the corporate world became a hymn to mediocrity as the men who would have competed against them decided to resign the game rather than subject themselves to unfairness, emasculation, and professional humiliation in the name of "equality".  

Sid wasn't the only one who left back then -- as feminist-inspired corporate cultures sought to punish men and traditionally masculine endeavors, plenty of dudes dropped out and pursued other interests.  Sid enjoyed the fast pace of a late-night Emergency Room to the prison of an office, and so his vast talents and knowledge about the business end of the pharmaceutical industry never got put back on the table.  The women at Sid's company who survived their flight might gloat at their "victory", their high earning potential, their wealth and power.  But they'll never be "the best" because Sid didn't come back and give them real competition.  

Sid was smart, educated, and very astute -- you don't follow nursing school with an MBA and land a high five figure entry-level job by being cute -- and he was smart and astute enough to know that his career options in a corporate world where Personnel regulations overcome fair competition is a losing proposition.  No future in it.  Why bother?

This isn't just a few isolated losers, disheartened by competition in general and angry at their loss of "male privilege  -- this is a talented group of men who have no real social or financial incentives to pursue the societal roles that feminism desires for them.   The female insurance executive may very well be there because she worked hard, did her job, and made money for the company.  But she may also be there because the dude who would have been even better in her position decided that being an insurance executive really just didn't sound like a lot of fun, after his divorce, so why stuff his wife's alimony check with extra dough when he can take a job at half the pay that can support a lifestyle that suddenly doesn't include fancy suits and shoes designed to impress female insurance executives?

In a way, I almost feel sorry for these feminist "winners".  What they have won is what men in their positions have earned in the past, earned in earnest competition against the best their industry had to offer.  If you were the top salesman in your district, you knew that it was because all the other sharks weren't quite as hungry as you.  Now if you're the top salesman in your district, you have to wonder if it's because you really are the best . . . or if the competition just decided to forfeit because there were five-foot breakers at the beach that day?

I'm not just blowing smoke rings here.  I used to work in the personnel industry (bargain-basement headhunter and temporary placement), and I still keep in touch with some of my old colleagues.  One of whom just had a boy graduate from a decent college . . . and demonstrate not a lick of ambition, despite a lifetime of being primed for it.  Meanwhile, his younger sister (who was always a little slower academically than he was) was already lining up summer internships a year in advance.  My former colleague was despairing about his utter lack of ambition and angrily confronted her son when he revealed he hadn't even bothered to apply to graduate schools this summer.  

He gave a litany of damned good reasons why pursuing his chosen professional career path (including a graduate degree and another four years of student loans) was a losing proposition for him.  Why kill yourself to get to the top of your class when your female colleagues are just going to cut your knees out from under you with affirmative action and such?  So he can find a good ex-wife who can bleed him dry and not let him see his kids someday?  

At 22, this young man is jaded and bitter and unambitious . . . and there's not a damn thing my friend can say to him to dissuade him from a life spent working part time and playing Disc Golf professionally (slightly more lucrative than playing WoW professionally) and NOT preparing for a life as a husband and father . . . because she knows everything he is complaining about is exactly true.  She can't deny it.  She's in Personnel, where the rules that punish male performance and push female mediocrity are forged.  She's pushed underqualified female candidates in with overqualified male candidates into interviews herself -- and was fiercely proud of it . . . when her son wasn't involved.

But her son is absolutely right.  There's just no good future in it for men.  "Climbing the corporate ladder of success" only makes sense if there's a reward at the top, not a punishing ex-wife, a battleaxe of a feminist boss above you and a constantly-eroding sense of your own masculinity.  Better to throw little plastic discs around and enjoy life for a decade or so in the beer-soaked bosom of the Puerarchy, than subject yourself to that kind of punishment.

Is it a "waste" of good masculine intellectual capital?  That depends on whom you ask.  To women, of course, these men are "losers" because they have withdrawn from the competition they cannot win.  They have made the conscious effort to make themselves the men they want to be, not the men women want to be, and feminists in particular can't allow that to have positive social standing.  

But there is a silver lining to this, for dudes.  As more and more women assume the tax burden required to fund a female-oriented husband-replacing welfare state, their sensitivity to the unfairness of such things will rise.  What happens when the 40 year old spinster has to write a tax check in the thousands before trudging her way to the office, no hope for romance or reproduction in sight, while watching the 20 year old single mom down the street take her three kids to the park through the window?  What happens when men drop out to the point where it is busy, single female workers who are left holding the bulk of the welfare bag . . . while being denied the benefits of romance and motherhood that they are subsidizing in their sisters?

Had Sid stayed in his career-track, he could be senior management by now making in the high 6 or low 7 figures -- your Viagra dollar at work.  He didn't.  He makes just over fifty grand as the senior nurse on shift at his hospital, and spends the weekends he doesn't work hunting, fishing, or (if his neighbors don't shoot him first) zipping around the neighborhood at 4:00 am blasting Skynnard from the radio of his vintage 1974 VW microbus.  Instead of paying tens of thousands in taxes, he gets a refund.  Instead of working for his ex-wife, he works for himself.  Instead of spending thousands and thousands a year on new suits and shirts and ties, he spends a couple of hundred on scrubs he wears both on and off the job.  

Meanwhile, the woman who got the job he could have had, he tells me, is getting her second divorce, is being sued by a competitor for unfair practices, and is miserable with her "success".  

That's what happens when the other team just doesn't show, ladies.  You end up holding a trophy devoid of meaning.  A forfeit isn't a real win, no matter how you rationalize it.

Read more »

Office Game: A Primer (Part 1)

Vox Day had an post on Business Game, and that inspired someone to write me an email with a question, which inspired this (series of) post(s).  The basic question is, "Can you and should you use the Game techniques you learn as a mating strategy to forward your career in a female-dominated industry?

The answer is yes.  Let me tell you how. 

Mrs. Ironwood works in a heavily female-dominated field.  Most of her colleagues are female, skewing heavily toward older women on their second or third careers.  That means that most of the offices she’s worked in have been overwhelmingly female, with just a smattering of males.  It’s also a profession which attracts its fair share of lambdas, so the few straight dudes who work in that field are swimming in a sea of estrogen.

So this is the worst place possible to practice Game, right?  A sexual harassment suit waiting to happen?  And endless horizon of diversity-training classes ahead of you?  Or is it merely a place for white knights and manginas to overdose on Blue Pills until they hit menopause?

In fact, a female-heavy environment such as a female-dominated workplace is often an outstanding opportunity to practice Game . . . with a few caveats.  And the first one is going to be confusing.

You don’t practice Game at work with the intent to seduce anyone.

Allow me to explain, Gentlemen.  As I've discussed in detail elsewhere, women who associate together form the Female Social Matrix, regardless of what the context might be.  The FSMsurrounds us all, even at work.  So using Game to seduce someone at work has the strong possibility of entangling you in a Machiavellian maelstrom of competing loyalties and petty infighting of titanic proportions – hence the should-be-a-Game-law rule “don’t shit where you eat”. 

But that doesn’t mean you can’t practice your Game there, and – and this is important – actually use Game to improve your work performance and social dynamic.  Game is, after all, designed to influence social dynamics, and in the service-oriented economy we live in, social dynamics are key to any serious professional ambitions.  Therefore, utilizing Game to further your career goals isn't just not “unfair”, it is in your best interests to do so.  Because despite what they say (remember the difference between what women say and what they do) they do NOT have your best interests in mind.  You are there as a useful tool or an obstacle to them, and adopting any other posture in return is career suicide.

If Game is used to counter the typical female traits of Solipsism, Rationalization, and Entitlement (and the Shit Tests that arise from all three) in dating and romance, there is no reason why you should not also exploit the power Game gives you to challenge and manage the females at your workplace.  And while these suggestions won’t all fit into every workplace, you’ll get the gist of it quickly enough.

The Blue Pill Office Strategy:

The problem is, most dudes take a brow-beaten approach to an all-female office.  They’ve been so poisoned by feminist ideology that even if they reject it, it colors their perspective in unhealthy ways.  For instance, a fairly dominant single dude who is used to hooking up four or five times a week might see the sea of cubicles, feel the estrogen in the air, and resign himself to a kind of bitter quiet lest he rouse the wrath of the Personnel Gods.  One careless remark, and he’s toast and he knows it.  And he always seems to make that remark in front of the exact wrong person.

She might not even report it, but she will talk about it – he knows it, too.  And he knows he has trouble coming.  At that point he uses the ideology of feminism as such a profound negative that he becomes embittered, and gains a rep in the Matrix as an angry, sexist introvert that bears watching.  He reacts in turn to the Consensus formed against him and merely confirms their assessment by his sarcastic and biting response.  This leads to the Matrix marginalizing him for his “unproductive” attitude, and his work performance suffers even if his work product remains good.  But because he responded churlishly, they treated him collectively like a disapproving mother, the go-to attitude for the Matrix in that situation.

The result?  He gets passed over for promotion because he’s not diverse enough.  He starts slinking around the edges of the office, effectively socially ostracized, his continuing displays of petulant behavior and petty feuding making him appear less manly in the eyes of just about everyone there.  His co-workers are de facto opponents and competitors who just happen to have boobs.  They also resent his attitude and are immediately wary of his presence in their midst.  Before long he’ll either get labeled “creepy” or “angry”, and either way he’s not getting promoted.

Sound familiar to a few of you?  How many dudes have screwed up their jobs because they went to work every morning prepared for battle, playing a perpetual game of quoting employee handbook regulations and puerile mocking?  At that point you couldn’t hit on anyone at work if you tried – the Matrix has formed such a strong consensus against you that any woman who dares to break it risks losing position.  Your only options are to sit tight and hope the company lays off  half of your department, or to pretend to be a white knight mangina in order to weasel your way back into their good graces.  Sucks to be you, dude.

That is, pre-Game.

The Red Pill Strategy

Consider again what Game is: a social strategy.  One designed ultimately to get you laid early and often, but the basis of Game is to manipulate social situations to your advantage through use of a knowledge of human psychology . . . specifically human sexual psychology.

So can you apply human sexual psychology at work and have it affect your job performance without getting your penis directly involved?

Oh, mais ouis!

 The basics of Game presentation apply to work situations just as they do in mating situations.  While feminism has trained you to treat your female co-workers like fellow comrades who just happen to have boobs, and not women whose boobs you can’t stop thinking about, that’s a Shit Test. If you play along, you’ve lost. As you attempt to suppress your strong feelings on the matter, grit your teeth and soldier on with the burden of daily emasculation on your shoulders, your attitude craps out. 

So back that shit up and re-frame.  Forget that your female co-workers are co-workers, for a moment, and approach them as you would women in a bar – by controlling the frame, first and foremost.  Every interaction with your female colleagues should be pro-active and on your terms, ideally.  When you go to a meeting, don’t just zone out – have your own private agenda in hand, and pursue it respectfully but aggressively.  When you go see your boss about something, always have something else that you want to discuss above and beyond whatever it is she wants to discuss. Always control the frame.

By controlling the frame, you control the conversation: “I understand you’re busy, but I just wanted to know if you were leaning more toward Barbara or me to head up the new office?” (where Barbara is a total idiot).  Or if you've been called to account for someone else’s screw-up, present the entire thing as if you’re thrilled that someone is at last getting to the bottom of this.

Next, dress the part.  If you’re the only dude in an office full of women, don’t slob out because you know you aren't going to get laid, so why put in the effort?  By taking care with your appearance and clothing, you distract women from far more weighty concerns about business.  I once wore a beautiful bright yellow silk tie, hand-painted, to an important presentation where I was pitching some pretty impressive bullshit to a panel of middle-aged female executives.  My (female) boss had me dress appropriately, and even selected my tie.  She wasn't an idiot – she knew how women’s minds work.

Because I had on expensive shoes (bought second-hand from a shoe repairman), a tailored suit, and had that glorious tie on, during the meeting their eyes and attention were on my threads, not on the crap I was piling up on paper.  Afterward the each asked more questions about the tie than they did about the presentation – and yes, we got the contract.  Not because of the yellow tie, but the tie gave them something to both focus on and admire, which kept them from looking at our figures too closely.  A panel of dudes would have completely ignored what I was wearing.

Next, remember the fundamental Red Pill truths: Never trust what a woman says, trust what she does. 

That may seem difficult in a workplace setting, because it’s entangled in all sorts of protocols and regulations governing behavior.  If you have a female boss in particular, however, this is a vital thing.  You can try to do the letter of what she says she wants and still fail, in her mind.  You have to do what she actually wants, even if she doesn’t know what she wants. 

This implies communicating with her (or any other woman) on two different channels.  The officialoffice communication channel, and the emotional channel.  When working in an office full of women, how they’re feeling is as important as what they are saying.  This is important to you not because you need to emasculate yourself and play the Matrix games, but because knowledge is power, and knowing who is feeling bitchy that day can be as important as not getting a memo.

In fact, the more you recognize the Matrix games and how to avoid them, and the more you Game the women therein, the more personal power you will accrue in the office regardless of the number of women working there.  That’s essential.  I’ll explain why in a moment.  Until then, just . . . be dominant.

Wait!  You can’t be the dominant male at work in an office full of women, can you?  Not without being the boss?

(To Be Continued . . . )

Read more »

Movie Review- Valentine's Day

Release Date: February 12, 2010
Studio: New Line Cinema (Warner Bros. Pictures)
Director: Garry Marshall
Screenwriter: Katherine Fugate
Starring: Jessica Alba, Kathy Bates, Jessica Biel, Bradley Cooper, Eric Dane, Patrick Dempsey, Hector Elizondo, Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Topher Grace, Anne Hathaway, Ashton Kutcher, Queen Latifah, Taylor Lautner, George Lopez, Shirley MacLaine, Emma Roberts, Julia Roberts, Taylor Swift
Genre: Comedy, Romance
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for some sexual material and brief partial nudity)
Official Website: ValentinesDaymovie.com
Review: 3/10 rating | 5/10 rating


Story: While Valentine's Day is allegedly the busiest time of the year for the delivery of mushy messages and corny love trinkets all around town, the same should never be the case in a movie. Hyperactively busy in the extreme while negotiating endless crisscross plot lines between way too cute celeb cameos that include geriatric infidelity and worse, Garry Marshall's Valentine's Day is skits-ophrenic moviemaking when less would have indeed been much more.

In other words, where does one begin. It's Valentine's Day morning in LA, and shy guy florist deliveryman Reed (Ashton Kutcher) wakes up extra early to propose marriage to ambivalent girlfriend Morley (Jessica Alba), who seems to more attached to her cellphone. Literally. Which means that Reed has to figure out just how to pry her fingers loose from the notoriously addictive gadget, in order to find that spare finger for his engagement ring.

While on another side of town, anxious television news anchor Kelvin (Jamie Foxx) has just been demoted to puff piece patrol to sniff out human interest holiday stories, while the weathergirl taps dances away to stimulate the sagging ratings. And which Kelvin needs to wrap up, before jogging over to a press conference at which a famous athlete will announce he's gay.

Elsewhere, giddy grade school teacher Julia (Jennifer Garner) who is otherwise fairly luckless in romance, daydreams between classroom lessons about her current surprise requited crush on a possibly too good to be true affectionate physician. This while a more sensible and stern army captain (Julia Roberts) shares a philosophical plane ride with a mysterious stranger. Who will actually get to have the last word eventually in wrapping up this overly crowded scenario, that seems less like a smoothly paced script than a rush hour traffic jam on the LA freeway.

But there's more. Also getting in on the act for some dubious comic relief, is Jessica Biel as a thoroughly unconvincing sad sack who can't get a date. As a frantic Anne Hathaway appears to be revisiting her persecuted workplace drudge in The Devil Wears Prada, with Queen Latifah seemingly preempting Meryl Streep this time around, doing The Devil Wears Plus Size Prada.

And while Hathaway moonlights on the sly during work hours as a phone sex operator to make ends meet and pay for her health insurance and outstanding student loan, her dirty talk conversations are so lame PG, that the actual phone sex industry may end up losing business. Though Queen Latifah's boss from hell secretive impulse to move in and take over Hathaway's seductive operation with virtual bullwhip in hand, couldn't be funnier and saves this collaborative mayhem from looming movie overkill.

Read more »