Sometimes, I meet a guy who is seemingly doing quite well with women. You look at him and you conclude that there is no way that this dude does not get laid. Yet, there is the phenomenon of the “chadcel”, to borrow a term AlekNovy introduced on this blog, i.e. good-looking guys who could get a lot of women but don’t because they mess things up. Most often, it’s a failure to sexually escalate.
I thought about how to convey this problem to guys who suffer from it and noticed that it is actually quite easy. All I needed to experience is having a bad manager. I get the impression that a sizeable chunk of my readers works in a STEM field. In those, there is an enormous push to “diversify” the workforce, which means hiring more women and minorities. Oh, wait, the latter isn’t quite right. I should have written “non-Asian minorities”. Behind closed doors, you may even get people to admit that they have to lower their standards to increase their imposed hiring standards.
Yet, the problem in STEM fields is that you need to have some quantifiable and objectve knowledge. If you lack that, you will not be effective at your job. Some companies, as they are apparently legally barred from firing women and non-Asian minorities, try to solve this problem by, for instance, promoting those people to middle management, give them a b.s. job like “Scrum Master”, or look for some semi-technical role like “something with product.” Now imagine the joy of having a manager who is relatively clueless about the work you do. Of course, you can’t expect them to know about your work in detail, but they should have sufficient technical background that they could, in fact, do your work if they only had more time. (On a side note, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m trying to dunk on women and non-Asian minorities; I’ve met my fair share of rather clueless men in such jobs as well; in at least one case I suspected that the male such rewarded was the gay lover of someone further up in the hierarchy).
The role of a manager is, partly, to give direction to their reports. This is by necessity as you can’t effectively communicate directly to every employee in the company from the top down. You need someone in the middle to filter information. Also, by being somewhere in the middle, those people, ideally, should gain a broader overview of what goes on beyond their team. Thus, they can shape and guide the work their reports do. Yet, if you have a clueless manager, you may end up in a really bad spot. Imagine being led by a guy who is so weak-willed that he decides on what the team focus on based on who is able to convince him. You can then have smooth talkers tank the projects of your team. Sure, those ideas may “sound good” but if they are crap, you may cause massive damage. In such a situation, some career coaches talk about “managing your manager”. In the end, it’s probably better you look for a new team because that kind of guy won’t be able to evaluate your performance properly. I’ve seen some praising literally every single team member including the laziest, most incompetent ones. It is incredibly frustrating to have to deal with such a situation.
The connection with dating is now rather easy to make. It is a biological fact that men have more testosterone than women. Men explore, research, pioneer much more than women and not because of the b.s. concept of the “patriarchy”. It’s due to testosterone, which is probably a reason why soy is pushed so much in society. Our leaders are simply afraid of masculinity. Women are normally not afraid of masculinity. Quite the contrary is the case. They look up to leaders, and being a leader means that she can observe testosterone in action. If you achieve success in more or less anything, you’ll most likely have (some) women chase after you, in particular if you are successful in a money-making endeavor. In contrast, guys typically couldn’t care less about the level of success of a woman or her leadership ability. If anything, I suspect that it would generally be viewed as negative.
Put yourself in the shoes of your typical woman who wants to look up to a guy: She want to feel protected and she also wants to feel that the guy knows what he wants, and pursues it. This also includes her. Yet, instead of such a prime-alpha Chad, she is on a date with a “chadcel” who can’t escalate. She may drop hints, even touch the guy innocuously, but nothing seems to trigger a strong reaction in him. This is not at all what she wants. Do you think she would feel safe and protected in the presence of a passive guy who essentially lets life happen to him? Absolutely not. She’ll grow rather frustrated, which is one reason why many a supposedly great first dates don’t lead to anything. The woman has simply grown tired of the guy’s passivity. Instead, she wants to get swept off her feet (and ravaged in the bedroom).
This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.