I had a very interesting coaching call yesterday, in which one of the topics was shaming behavior. Of course, I won’t discuss specifics in public. Instead, I want to draw your attention to the general case, which is that a deranged woman could shame you for absolutely every choice you make. It does not matter what it is as she could easily interpret it so that your behavior is shameful to her. In essence, it is yet another application of the female double bind.
Let’s say you focus on your studies and don’t bother with women. Because you did not find any of the women in your social circle attractive, you prefer not to date anyone and the thought of having sex with any of the women in their late 20s or early 30s who proposition you because they realize that you might make good money soon causes you to inwardly throw up. So, little Jake does not want to date because he has more important things to do in life. What’s wrong with that? That’s easy. He’s obviously a loser for not getting a date.
Jack’s fellow student Joe isn’t so strong-willed and ends up seeing some woman he doesn’t feel attracted to. It’s what a man has to do, his father urges him. His mother likewise thinks he should find a “good girl”. Jake is a bit stingy, though. Because he isn’t a woman, he has a hard time getting scholarships. He also does not like to take out too much in student loans as he is aware that he is supposed to pay the money back eventually. Consequently, money is a bit tight. What’s the problem now? That’s easy. Obviously, Joe clearly does not care for the woman he is dating. Otherwise, he would spend more money on her.
Jerome, though, goes full cuck and thinks that you only live once. He also thinks that the Six he’s dating is the best thing since sliced bread, so he spends a lot of his disposable income on her. Worse, when his fatty of a girlfriend demands that he gets a better car, he takes out a loan. Perfect, right? But not only does Jerome wreck his finances for years if not decades, the demands of his spoilt girlfriend know no bounds. She says jump, he asks, “How high?” What’s the problem with Jerome? Obviously, he cares “too much” and tries too hard to please.
Let’s ignore the financial aspect and instead talk about looks. Chad is in his 50s and dates a hot 25-year-old. Obviously, he is shallow and superficial. He clearly is unable to handle a strong independent woman his age. Yet, would he date someone older, then others could complain about something else. There is just not way to win this.
It gets worse, though. Chad likely has to work for a living. If he finds a job he really likes and pays decently well, but not as well as some others, an entitled woman could say he is a loser for underachieving. There are bonus points to be had if that comes out of the mouth of a secretary who barely made it through her degree in Sociology. Yet, if Chad instead went for a job that maximizes his earning potential, which likely includes working long hours and travelling, then he can’t have his priorities straight as he valuing economic success more than a relationship. If he really cared for his girl, he would not work so hard.
Some people think you are a loser if you work. Amusingly, this includes welfare recipients as well as the independently wealthy. The welfare crowd might accuse someone trying to improve his lot in life of thinking that he is “better than them.” Among the wealthy, not living off investments could be seen as dirty. But let’s say you’re Joe Shmoe III and heir to a billion-dollar estate. You run one of the family companies, but of course women could now whine that you “didn’t build it yourself”. If you built it yourself, then it’s obviously due to your family’s money and influence. Yet, if you are Joe Shmoe the startup millionaire from a more humble background who defied the odds and built a company based on luck and hustle, then you are a “nouveau riche” and thus filthy scum in the eyes of some women who hail from old money. This is by no means a new phenomenon. You’ll find Latin texts where the author mocks the “homines novi” because they weren’t born rich.
Those were all illustrations that demonstrate the underlying principle: If someone wants to shame you for X, they can do so right away, but if you do the opposite of X, they only have to move the goal post and find something else to shame you for. You can’t win this game. Quite frankly, all of this is downright ludicrous. The only way to win that kind of game is by not playing it. This means that if you are tempted to get defensive because someone tries to question some of your perfectly rational life decisions, you are much better off just tuning them out.