FuzzieWuzzie stated on the last thread,
Boys enter puberty swimming in hormones and having two pair of left feet. From my parents, nothing. No advice, no sympathy, just blank stares.
It’s like nature got us all dressed up for a party with no place to go.
FuzzieWuzzie is in his fifties. I have heard many similar stories from men of that age. What happened?
The short answer is that the world changed around them, and the parents did not realize it. What had worked before – that is, for a man to develop his position in the world to signal that he might be a good provider, to be nice and dependable, etc. was no longer effective. In the era when young women needed to find a provider, then this simple (but not at all effortless) approach was golden.
I am not so sure that I blame the parents of the time. The people who really are to blame are those who changed the world, and more importantly, obfuscated the impact of those changes (media, I am looking at you). Basically women were free to select for tingles or whatever else tickled their fancy. Furthermore, they wanted the provider types to stay the way they are. This were for two reasons for this it would seem,
“I think women lie to men about what really turns women on, perhaps because they are doing what Steve Moxon has written about. They are “policing the hierarchy”. They don’t want ordinary men to know, because knowledge is power. They would prefer that only elite men know these things and preferably that they know them intuitively. If every clueless guy is told the truth, it means that a man has been helped, who in the eyes of many women does not deserve to know. Women just expect men to know without being told.”
This is still going on today. Recently Ian Ironwood deconstructed Amanda Marcotte,
That’s why Marcotte and feminists HATE it: Game works.
It works so well and so predictably that even formerly low-status dudes are picking it up and getting laid. And that’s upsetting to feminists.
Marcotte makes the common mistake of projection, here, by not understanding that, to men, SEX IS A PRIMARY MOTIVATOR. Sex is important to men in ways that it is not important to women.
Being a “better man” who doesn’t get laid as much just doesn’t jive with the common perceptions of masculinity anywhere outside of the celibate branches of the Catholic Church.
The basis of Marcotte’s argument is that we evil PUAs of the Manosphere will convince you that girls really don’t like “nice guys”, based on nothing more than careful observation and evidence. That’s because feminism’s essential hypergamous strategy involves sidelining “nice guys” during a woman’s peak reproductive years until said woman has an “epiphany” about her exploding sexuality, a couple of tattoos, and a whole lot of regrets. THEN she needs a “nice guy” who finally thinks he’s getting his turn, when in fact he’s getting the lean leftovers from someone else’s party.
This is the famed “Alpha Fux/Beta Bux” strategy underlying Hypergamy (above). After insisting that women don’t follow this strategy in listicle #2,Marcotte turns around and encourages men to actively conform to the “Beta Bux” side of the equation . . . not because feminism wants there to be a lot of nice guys around to be nice to women and buy them things (although that certainly SEEMS to be her message) but because feminism doesn’t want every dude in the world to start suddenly ACTING like a “bad boy”, because then they can’t tell who the real bad boys are and who are the dudes who just learned decent Game.
That’s a serious problem for women in general, I won’t deny – when you can’t tell the good providers from the bad providers, the good physical specimens from the bad physical specimens, it’s really hard to make a decent mating selection about the father of your children.
2. General Exploitation.
Somebody is needed to make civilization work with little fuss. These are the provider types. Furthermore it is good to know that there will be one there if one needs such a fella to marry. And finally, to provide fun dates as described in the Ian Ironwood post,
In this directive, Marcotte attempts to be the fish giving advice to the fisherman, but what she’s actually doing is Beta-shaming and attempting (a bit desperately) to convince Betas that they just need to “be themselves”. “Real” confidence (and Marcotte is some sort of expert, apparently) is elusive to the poor AFCs struggling with women, so instead of trying they should just be the bumbling walking wallets she expects them to be happy playing, and be self-deprecating about their “flaws” to boot.
Rarely have I seen such a blatant attempt to force clueless Betas back in their box. The shaming, the pre-rejection, the purposeful undermining of key issues like Abundance Mentality, Male Self-Worth, and Masculine Sexuality is textbook FI/feminism wish fulfillment in the dating realm. It’s purpose IS NOT TO HELP MEN HAVE BETTER DATES. The purpose is pretty clearly to MAKE MEN BETTER DATES FOR WOMEN.
So we can see that it seemingly is in women’s best interests to hide the new situation. Of course, this would be only in their interests in the short term. And it really isn’t in their best interests at all even then, though they can’t see it.
P.S. After searching to the ends of the earth, I found a picture of FuzzieWuzzie. Double click on him to see him in all of his glory.