How Women’s Behavior Will Change with the 2010s-2020s Culture Shift | Girls Chase

How Women’s Behavior Will Change with the 2010s-2020s Culture Shift

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a GirlsChase.com subscriber? Log in here.

d1

women behavior shift
The women of the 1910s and 1920s had a lot more in common with the women of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s than you might suspect.

I’m usually anathema to making predictions, since these so often turn out wrong. However, the pendulum seems to be swinging in earnest, so at this point I think I am more pointing out a shift that’s already started and probably isn’t able to be derailed. So let’s get to it.

From 2015 into 2016, we in the West experienced what a lot of writers on the Internet have dubbed ‘peak SJW’. Victim mentality hit its shrillest levels, the concept of certain groups as ‘privileged’ and thus ‘the enemy’ reached boiling point, and efforts to censor, outlaw, or subjugate target groups hit their apogee.

This phenomenon, of ‘peak SJW’ (Social Justice Warrior), followed the trend all movements follow in the ‘boiling point’ period. That is, they rise to a fevered pitch, then one of two things happen:

  1. They use this momentum to topple over and completely crush their enemies, or

  2. They spin themselves out against an indomitable foe, run out of gas, and enter decline

Movements work the same as tests or challenges in this regard. So long as the movement is able to gain concessions from its adversaries, it becomes more and more powerful. But as the movement begins to run into walls, or see its efforts backfire, it begins to lose steam. It loses, and the negative momentum of being on the losing side piles up. A reverse winner effect takes hold within the movement.

Why the Social Justice movement was ultimately unsuccessful in crushing its opponents in the West is beyond the scope of this article. However, I will note that successful Social Justice movements at other points in history that eventually achieved more or less full suppression of their enemies have been more careful to incorporate majority groups in their ranks, rather than target said majority groups as the object of their offense.

That aside, the point of this article is to give you a few predictions about how to expect women’s behavior to shift over the next couple of years.

Chase AmanteAbout the Author: Chase Amante

Chase woke up one day in 2004 tired of being alone. So, he set to work and read every book he could find, studied every teacher he could meet, and talked to every girl he could talk to to figure out dating. After four years, scads of lays, and many great girlfriends (plus plenty of failures along the way), he launched this website. He will teach you everything he knows about girls in one single program in his One Date System.

GET CHASE’S ONE DATE SYSTEM

Comments

Alexander Abraham's picture

Not going to lie, I would love for that to happen. Finding it difficult to fight the increasing bitterness that's creeping up on me.

But what makes you say that women will change more into feminine women? Is it because of the increasing worry of an economical collapse? That probably will happen within the next decade, so says other people anyways. Better to believe them and prepare in my mind lol.

Also, does this mean that in times of great economical success we should just accept that women will be more like men? In your opinion, is this something that we should just expect to happen? Society starts to do a little better and women just up and become men?

Jimbo's picture

Yeah I wish you expanded a little more on what makes you think the pendulum is about to swing back again. Most women can make a living by themselves nowadays, females make a majority of college students, even a slight majority of the workforce, single motherhood isn't as stigmatized, and the crime rate is the lowest it has been since the 1950s. Women tend to find a Ward Cleaver sexy when they lack security (physical, financial, etc.) But despite the doom and gloom rhetoric, life is comparatively pretty secure in 21st-Century America and West in general (comparatively with previous eras that is).

Now what I think could make the average woman become more passive, girly, and so on, would be for her man/men to simply demand it, for them to put their foot down. Most men are just not demanding certain behaviors from their women, not grabbing them by the hand and leading them in relationships and elsewhere, not telling them to wear this and do that, and not putting them in their place when they try to domesticate them or become the alphas in their lives. I think if the men started doing more of that, the women will simply go back to their traditional second rank in society. And men will go back to doing most of the decision-making, providing and whatnot.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Alexander & Jimbo-

There seem to be a few factors that influence behavioral sexual dimorphism:

  • Economics (worse economics = more behavioral dimorphism)
  • Safety (less safety = more behavioral dimorphism)
  • Sex ratios (fewer men = more behavioral dimorphism)
  • Male tolerance (less tolerant men = more behavioral dimorphism)

So for the absolute most feminine women, you'd look for a society with terrible economics, that's extremely unsafe, with far more women than men, and extremely dominant/intolerant men.

We've had the opposite of this for a few decades in the West: great economics, extremely safe, even sex ratios (even slightly skewed towards more men), and extremely tolerant/docile/non-dominant men. The result is you get wild, uppity, androgynous women (or at least, women are more this way on average. There's always a range in every society; the range is just shifted more toward the androgynous range in a society like this).

Right now what we're seeing in the West is declining economics for the middle and lower classes; perceptions of significantly less safe countries, particularly in Western Europe (imported violence courtesy the migrant crisis); and less tolerant / more 'woken up' men. In real terms, the economy is not great, but it isn't bad, and it may even be set for improvement in the near term. Safety is a problem, but not that huge of a problem. And the men aren't nearly as hardcore as they are in a lot of other parts of the world. But the most important thing influencing behavior is not reality, but perception, and the perception in the West right now - the zeitgeist - is of a civilization fighting its own decline, with injured economies, waves of dangerous invaders, and men grabbing their balls and refusing to be shut down. Doesn't matter how true (or how blown out of proportion) these things are; what matters is how people feel. That's what influences behavior.

At some point, we'll move back to a totally safe society again, where the economics are on the steady upswing across all social classes, and men slip back into apathetic tolerance again. At that point, women will start walking all over men and both sexes will trend toward androgyny. But right now the trend is pretty clearly toward dimorphism.

Also, does this mean that in times of great economical success we should just accept that women will be more like men? In your opinion, is this something that we should just expect to happen? Society starts to do a little better and women just up and become men?

Depends on all the factors together. In the 1950s, for instance, we saw incredible economies and lots of safety, but also extreme sexual dimorphism, because sex ratios were horribly imbalanced (due to lots of missing men, courtesy World War II) and men were fairly dominant / intolerant. So it will rely on what factors are in what states, and how far into the extremes of whatever states they're in they are.

Now what I think could make the average woman become more passive, girly, and so on, would be for her man/men to simply demand it, for them to put their foot down. Most men are just not demanding certain behaviors from their women, not grabbing them by the hand and leading them in relationships and elsewhere, not telling them to wear this and do that, and not putting them in their place when they try to domesticate them or become the alphas in their lives. I think if the men started doing more of that, the women will simply go back to their traditional second rank in society. And men will go back to doing most of the decision-making, providing and whatnot.

Absolutely.

You need other factors in conjunction with this. If the economics are great, safety is near absolute, and men are in abundance, women have the option to just ditch any guy who is too demanding (and doesn't otherwise far outclass the other men available to these women) and find a more compliant man. Conditions like this can shape male behavior and make men less likely to put their feet down and be more tolerant (because they don't want to be ditched).

However, once some of the conditions start to tilt things more in men's favor, as men begin to put their feet down more, women are forced to compete with one another on femininity, which leads to a feminity arms race. So you get these kinds of sexual behavior arms races. The third wave feminism and social justice warrior arms races were women competing with each other to be more androgynous, because it was all about signaling independence (with, certainly, plenty of pockets remaining where women continued to compete on femininity). Now that the zeitgeist is changing, what women compete to signal changes too (though again, there will always be holdout pockets, this time of women who refuse to compete on femininity and insist on competing on independence/androgyny).

Chase

Alexander Abraham's picture

Thanks for the in-depth reply!

That's interesting, but definitely makes sense if you think about it.

However, even with the coming economical crises (any thoughts on when this might occur?) there will still be the problem of even number of men and compliant men.

Though I can see where you're coming from with thinking the economical situation of the country could change women, I'm still skeptical if men are becoming more like men.

Whenever I look around and interact with people I simply don't see it. Now, maybe it's because of the circles that I interact with people in and you're in different areas. That could be it.

But I drive Lyft for part time and I just don't see the general change happening. I'm also helping my cousin in his real estate business and get to interact with people from time to time there as well.

Then my cousin has remarked that men are still spineless as a whole, and he's a social butterfly. Well over 1K friends on FB and etc. He's also into the game stuff and been at it far longer than I have. Probably about as long as you have, Chase. Though he doesn't come close to having your teaching ability and doesn't push himself as far or as hard as you have, game wise. But the point is, he does know what he's talking about and it seems to mimic my own thoughts.

Lastly though, I do see the possibility of men becoming more like men when shit hits the economical fan. If society starts to collapse it very well could wake up the majority of men, simply because of necessity. If that were to happen then I could definitely see men being forced to 'man up' for lack of a better phrase. Then when they start to get their own victories under their belt they get a huge surge in testosterone and then demand that women act more like women. Is this your thinking as well?

But there is something else that I have noticed. I chalked it up to my becoming more attractive and being in a bigger area, but I have noticed that where I am now women are nicer on average. Though because I have made quite a number of recent changes, including where I live, I can't say for sure if it's a change on a macro or micro level.

But damn I hope you're right. I think I'll trust your judgement here, and if we're both wrong then hope for a placebo effect :)

As always, thanks for your work you put on here, Chase! I appreciate it and I'm sure a lot of others do as well

-Alexander

Jimbo's picture

You pretty summed it up. Thanks for the response!

thunder's picture

Hi Chase, thanks for putting up quality pieces consistently and encouraging your team to do so. Been an on-and-off reader for quite a while now and I really appreciate the thoughtful advice.

This article however, left me a little scared. As a minority man, I've had my limited success so far by being 'manly'. In a liberal, college-centered city, many men are victims of feminism and with little effort, I've managed to do ok(the true competition however are frat boys and athletes and I've been unable to come close, but that's a different story).

With more and more white (and black) men -- who're perceived manlier than South Asians -- seeing the light, I'm only afraid that my tenet of entirely standing out to be attractive (did it all my life, even back in my old country -- i have so many esoteric hobbies, it's not even funny lol) will no longer assist me.

If you choose to reply to this comment, please let a young brown man know what you think his future will be like in the States.

I don't intend to race troll or sound like a whine. Apologies if I come across that way.

Thank you, Chase, not only for this but for the massive change you've helped me bring on in my life.

Jimbo's picture

Forget frat boys and athletes. They operate on different territories. Unless you become one of them, you'll never be able to be as fun and exciting as the formers, as alluringly strong and athletic as the latters, or as high-status as either of them.

But there's more than one way to push a girl's turn-on buttons.

One of the best shots at consistently getting laid in college for guys who aren't as manly is for them to play music. There was this guy who usually played guitar on the lawn. He was really mild-mannered in an almost stoned hippie fashion. But there were always a bunch of girls around him listening to him play and sing, and always one grabbing or two his arm.

Raj's picture

Hey thunder I totally agree with you I am also south Asian (Indian male), I am short and have a smaller build in General but that doesn't stop me from becoming better with women which I am doing. I would also like to know if meṅ are becoming manlier how would we increase ourselves to deal with the competition of this increasingly manly men. How can we distinguish ourselves?

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Thunder & Raj-

Some great advice from Jimbo here.

Also, remember we're talking social change, and that takes time. You're not going to wake up tomorrow and every guy is a dominant male. Much of these changes won't be in full effect until Generation Z (I assume) start to come of age.

Average minority men from un-sexy minorities tend to be at a disadvantage, especially as societies close themselves off and become less open. But exceptional minority men have huge advantages, even in closed societies. I've seen it myself multiple places throughout the world. Average guys of some minorities cannot get anywhere with girls of this country or that country, but then comes along a guy of the same minority with pristine fundamentals, a gregarious social presence, great social dominance, and a clear idea about what he wants with girls, and he just cleans up while all the other majority guys there look on and wonder how a guy from his background can succeed.

At this point, you've got a head start over most men in the dating market, who are only starting to wake up to a lot of this. But even when guys are a lot more awake, they're not all going to be naturals. Most will just be somewhat better with girls... they won't be Gods of Pickup.

If you level up your fundamentals and put in the work, you'll be the exceptional minority guy who cleans up. My advice ends up being the same to everyone, whether minority or majority: get your fundamentals tight and get your game tight, and you'll outclass almost every other guy in your dating market.

One other point of advice I'd have for minority guys is keep an eye on the political climate as well, and adjust. In all societies, minorities tend toward liberal parties (which advocate change - tends to favor minorities), while majorities tend toward conservative ones (which advocate preservation of the status quo - tends to favor majorities). Until recently, the left and right sides have had very little difference in the West, but this is changing right now, rapidly. Doesn't mean you need to switch sides if you're on one side and want women on the other side, but you will need to be careful about what views you're espousing - there's a pretty big ideological paradigm shift happening in Western society right now. Many of my non-white friends are completely oblivious to it, and when I talk with them they freely spout liberal/left talking points without seemingly being aware how blatantly they 'out' themselves. As far as I can tell, they've mostly been living in bubbles for too long and don't realize differing views are gaining a great deal of traction, especially among Western whites (but not exclusively; also among a number of Western minorities, too, though the percentages are a lot lower).

Chase

thunder's picture

Thanks for taking the time to provide your insight, Chase.

I'm definitely gonna continue upping my fundamentals. Building muscle is #1. Not only do they make you look much better, but they also help dispel the Indian stereotype of 'scrawny nerd'.

I do have to work on social skills and charm. I've always been the brooding introvert who somehow managed to attract attention. Never did the 'dirty work' of talking to people myself. But in a massive state school, where nobody gives a toss about me, I suppose it's time I get in the trenches.

Will definitely keep politics in mind. I live in the South. Liberal city, but the coolest kids are all conservative. I'm not a Democrat myself, but I do understand that being a minority prompts society to paint me a certain color.

Thanks again, Chase, for the cogent advice.

Jimbo,

Funny you mention guitar, I just got one a few weeks ago! You're right, I can't wage a war in their turf and expect to come out victorious. Like Chase said, I'll end up focusing on fundamentals and practising my guitar. An instrument can be very therapeutic, and learning and advancing a new skill always brings satisfaction.

Thanks for taking the time out to give me some pointers and encouragement. Much appreciated, man.

Raj,

I feel you brother. While being Indian isn't the same as being a grotesque sea creature, it sometimes comes pretty close, ha. Jokes apart, I share your sentiment. I suppose the only way forward is to work at ourselves. No point ruminating over what we can't control. You're below average in height, I have an Indian accent -- these are things we have to live with (although you could wear pumps and I could try and pick up an American accent).

But the deeper the pit, the more amazed people are when you manage to crawl out of it (at least I hope so lol). So let's keep going.

Raj's picture

@thunder of course man I wont let Indianess or height hold me back for sure let's keep moving forward, and I really hope about that pit thing lol,
Thanks Chase and everyone else for you extremely helpful and amazing advice

Jimbo's picture

You're welcome man. Though my main point was not that use that guitar of yours in a therapeutic way, but more like to attract chicks. It's attractive because, like it or hate it, a guy who plays music (well) is automatically cool. And what guys find cool chicks find sexy, almost carbon-copy.

If you wanna truly make a killing, I'd suggest you add some artist-friendly peacocking to your style, like a feather, longer hair, rings, shit like that, gives you an aura of mystery. And what you wanna do is, you take a female friend of yours, "Hey you wanna hear me play that song?" and then you have her sit on the lawn and play, and what this does is attract other girls like moths to a flame, especially if you play and sing really well.

You'll be the sex of college in no time. Thanks to whom? To your guitar, skills, Girls Chase, and Jimbo. Seriously I really wanna hear about the results (= lays) so I hope you'll post them here if you do it, don't wuss out. "Jimbo you're an outstanding individual" + a thank you will be enough for me.

Bon courage!

24kMagick's picture

Indian myself, I've done well in the USA over the past few years. I find that while I can get open minded girls, I can also get some close minded girls who might not go interracial with other minority groups but make an exception for me. I definitely feel like I have more of a range of women I can get with compared to my friends of other minority groups, some girls are going to be closed off to you regardless. Definitely haven't felt like being Indian is some sort of a massive disadvantage tbh.

As for trends, I doubt they matter that much. The average Indian guy is going to struggle in the USA despite the trends, the culture itself produces a lot of awkward and undesirable men who are terrible with women. I suspect it is mainly because of Indian parenting which produces nervous kids who have been pussy whipped, those guys are fucked regardless of social trends.

Now you can break from that and do well, it takes years to do so, but the truth is that it has nothing to do with trends and a lot to do with Indian guys themselves. Some have a lot of potential but Indian parenting is a major obstacle in regards to doing well with women.

Mr.Rob's picture

Great article here Chase. I'd be interested as to how you have studied these trends to come to this prediction. I've dug a bit into researching women's rights and from what I've seen it seems to be a pendulum albeit an upward trend as you noted that inevitably occurs when societies become more and more industrialized, safe, and autonomous.

Don't know if you're answering comments these days but I'd be curious to know how you're going about your research for the history on this as I believe you seem to have a knack of finding the right research at the right time.

Do you think this pendulum will swing all the way back to the degree of dimorphism as seen in the 30's-40's and prior in the 18th and 19th century?

Thanks for the posts on feminism. Interesting phenomena at play here in the west right now.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Rob-

A few tomes I'd recommend to start out with:

  • The Lessons of History, by Will and Ariel Durant
  • Parallel Lives of the Greeks and Romans, by Plutarch
  • The Analects, by Confucius (the David R. Schiller translation in particular)
  • The Fate of Empires, by Sir John Glubb

All are just fantastic reads. Maybe start with Glubb, then Durant, for the easiest entries. Glubb is short, and Durant is not too long either.

Of particular interest are snippets about, say, ancient Greek men complaining about women running around behaving like men, having casual sex, and acting like they do not need men; or women in the 10th Century Islamic Caliphate campaigning for (and succeeding at) being allowed to occupy almost all jobs men could, including taking over quite a lot of university positions.

I did a lot of heavy research for a book I was writing a few years back on socio-sexual history of America, from colonial times to present day. A lot of that was reading through old letters, newspaper articles from the 1800s, etc. I have a long list of sources for that book, if I ever get around to finishing it. But at least lower class women in the 1910s were about as free in discussing hooking up with guys as women today are, and lower class women tended to set the tone for what trends middle and upper class women would adopt at that time (as they still seem to often do today).

Farther back, Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales talk about sex quite freely and openly in that time and place (late 1300s England), with one of the stories revolving around a woman who constantly trawls for sex and looks for ways to use it to get what she wants. Of course there were periods of time both before and after Chaucer's day when the pendulum swung the other way and women were daintier.

The unfortuante thing is that you're really reading between the lines as you go through a lot of this stuff. No one comes out and says, "England in 1390 was way more liberal and open sexually than England in 1460. Though by 1510 England was just as wild and crazy again as it was back in 1390." You end up having to deduce a lot of this stuff yourself from stories and fragmentary reports that capture some manner of the spirit of the time (and hope they're accurate / representative reports).

Do you think this pendulum will swing all the way back to the degree of dimorphism as seen in the 30's-40's and prior in the 18th and 19th century?

Barring any major world wars or economic collapses, I doubt we'll reach 40s/50s/60s levels. Purely because the late 40s through early 60s featured a generation missing many of its men, and sex ratio's a major trump card on sexual behavior.

We have a very balanced sex ratio right now, and I don't see any impending large die-offs of men that might change that. Though I think some of the other conditions at play will causes the sexes to diverge for a while right now.

Chase

Bolt's picture

Decent article Chase but I'd have to push back on you on a couple things. First, the Social Justice Warriors are still in full effect, in America we just elected one as President. President Trump has tried to sue The Onion, a satire website, just for making a silly article about him. He also attempted to sue Bill Maher over some joke about him being the son of an orangutan, he has so many lawsuits it's ridiculous. 49% of Iowa Christians want to ban Islam, there trying to "crush their enemies" not with logic, reasoning, and discourse but through banning and censorship. 57% of Republicans want to dismantle the Constitution and make Christianity the national religion. Then you have many college campuses with their micro aggression and trying to silence all potentially offensive language. One other thing to push back on is the concept of certain groups as ‘privileged’ and thus ‘the enemy’. I don't believe the West looks at "privileged" people as the enemy, privilege in itself is amoral. It is the state of America becoming an oligarchy/plutocracy/kleptocracy like nation, supported by Princeton and Harvard research, and the general corruption of money in politics which Donald Trump touched on (with the drain the swamp message) even though he ironically has elected many in his circle who are swamp monsters. Anyways, thanks for the article Chase, thought provoking and interesting as always.

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Bolt-

Defined that loosely, a large number of people are SJWs, at all times and historical epochs!

I understand your point though. The pendulum swings both ways. You're either pushing your position or you're on the backpeddle.

I only use 'social justice warrior' here in its most commonly accepted definition, of someone who champions:

  • Equal outcomes for disparate efforts
  • Difference blindness ("We are all the same/interchangeable")
  • Socialism, communism, and/or one-world globalism

The SJW-like behavior you're seeing from SJW opponents is to be expected; it's a backlash, and you'd call its movement 'reactionary'. You cannot win against unreasonable opponents by being reasonable yourself, so the unfortunate effect of one side becoming unreasonable in a national dialogue is that the other becomes unreasonable to stop losing against it (emotion trumps logic). Then the first side, in reaction to this, becomes more unreasonable still. Then the second side becomes more unreasonable. And so on and so forth until one of the side wins, and a new definition of 'reasonable' takes hold over the populace. At that point, national views homogenize, and the society becomes much more reasonable (for a while).

Chase

Abonder's picture

Lets talk about the elephant in the room, generally speaking it is white western women who have become entitled due to poor competition from other women. Women in foreign countries don't have the privilege of acting like bitches because the competition is tough there, guys have access to a lot of fit and good looking women. Just look at a country like the Czech Republic or Japan where there are fit and attractive women walking around everywhere.

Now compare that to the USA where outside of some areas, most women are obese and just flat out ugly.

I saw in my time in Georgia (the state not the country) where most women were obese, had terrible attitudes, you had a lot of rugged women from lower class areas, and it was tough to find a fit women with decent looks. The few fit women with decent looks that did exist acted like absolute queens and treated most men like trash, because they could get away with it.

As soon as I went to Miami, I was dealing with nicer women because the competition was intense for men. You had a lot of beautiful women walking around to where a guy could easily hop from one girl to the next because he had options, this made women think twice before acting out of line.

It is really all it comes down to, in cities where there are a lot of ugly women and a lot of well off men, this sort of stuff will be at its worse (ie: San Francisco).

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Abonder-

Yes, obesity's definitely a problem. Women are somewhat more likely to be fat / obese than men are, and even if the rates were perfectly even, looks matter a lot more on women than they do on men. So the effect is to force more men to compete for fewer (attractive) women.

To a certain degree, men's standards adapt. When I was in college and after, I dated and slept with girls who were mostly pretty thin by American standards. Once I started to spend a lot of time outside the States though, I could look at pictures of old flames and be like, "Geez, I'd never date her now, she's fat." If I showed a picture to American guys still living in America and told them this though, they'd invariably reply with, "Dude, are you crazy? That girl is NOT fat! Excuse me if I don't like girls who are anorexic!"

It seems like a lot of the time, the facially unattractive girls work harder to offset their not-so-good looks with good bodies, so you get facially pretty girls with chunkier bodies, and facially unattractive girls with slimmer ones. A lot of men in America end up having to decide whether they prefer a pretty face or a hot body.

I suspect America's biggest problem is over-medication of young children (antibiotics before 12 months, and especially before 6 months, wipe out a lot of gut fauna that protect against obesity later in life) coupled with too much fast food (gut fauna change based on diet; someone who eats too much fast food and never eats vegetables can lose a lot of fauna necessary to properly digest vegetables, which probably contributes to vegetables becoming unpalatable to those people) and too large portions (people tend to eat everything on their plates). Doesn't seem to be sedentary lifestyles, since East Asians in general are probably more sedentary than Americans and do not have this problem. As Americans and Western Europeans medicate young children less andfast food becomes increasingly declassé, the obesity epidemic should subside.

Meanwhile, as forces build on women to be more feminine, I expect you'll see more women start to drop dress sizes States-side. They likely won't match EE or East Asia any time soon, but I think healthy body types will make a comeback over the next decade or so.

Chase

Antoniel's picture

Your a f**king Genius !!!!
Not just a genius, a fucking genius

Need I say more

Someguy's picture

Hello Chase,

what you write rings true. I guess it`s good to understand these trends early. Thank you for sharing.

It seems like the people with the highest sexual market value - which correlates with a certain age range - in the end have the last word about how to frame the situation on the sexual marketplace. Older people on the other hand have momentum and habit on their side for a while.

As a teen there comes a tipping point where you become more and more sexually attractive compared to older people. Old people have got experience in certain styles and habits on their side though. This produces incentive for attractive youngsters to reframe the world in a way that lessons the accumulated advantages of the old, levels the playing field and allows them to highlight the advantages of youth, like fast adoptability and high energy.

Take mans wardrobe for example. There have been styles that got more and more elaborate, to the point that youths refused to compete at sophisticatedness and instead highlighted different values with different correlating dresses.

Nowerdays most of the guys in their 50ies upwards are not too trained in classic styles. Thus there is a chance for youths to reconquer patterns that have always fitted the human stature quite well. And the cycle repeats.

Sadly understanding these things has a tast of already being on the verge of decline. To a degree where at some point we become so physically old, that we will have to begin to use our smarts to cater to the younger more desireable ones or decide to "age gracefully", hold overcome frames and act like we would not not want top notch pussy anymore. :-)

Life is so annoying. Not understanding it hurts. Understanding it hurts too. Could you write something funny? :-)

Cheers, and best regards

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Someguy-

Good observations here.

Yes, that's the natural tension between young and old. Success in the old ways vs. breaking tradition and being irreverent. You'll also notice different girls prefer different things. Some girls really like the young, irreverent guy. Some girls prefer the mature, experienced guy. Assuming both guys are attractive in their own ways, of course. Goes for all age groups, too - some 18-year-olds prefer the young, irreverent guy, just like some 38-year-olds do too. Meanwhile, some 18-year-olds prefer the older, attractive grizzled guy.

As for aging gracefully, understanding hurting, and something funny, well... Guess you could always trot out some of the old fashions from bygone eras, and really show the younger generation how to rock the flower-patterned disco shirt (or perhaps a 1910s bowler hat). Nothing better than a middle-aged hipster, right? ;)

Chase

Truth's picture

Chase why do you tip toe the political party line in your articles that deal with sexism? It’s like you’ve worked so hard at learning to understand women that you literally think like a woman in every situation that relates to them, beyond the point of getting sex and relationships. So basically you think it’s victim mentality to call a spade a spade like president trump does by pointing out where certain women need to correct their attitudes,values,and behaviors. President trump is a perfect example of someone who breaks the so called “victim mentality rules” espoused on girls chase and succeeds in spite of them in business and with women,even more then you.

Now, im not arguing for people to have real victim mentality, Im arguing,that the definition of victim mentality on girls chase has it only half right. This is why I only agree with about 80 percent of what is written on this site.Some of the mentalities on here either don’t show the whole picture or are full of half truths, However, I must give credit where credit is due,because there are only a handful of websites on the internet that share the same approval percentage in my book.

We don’t need to become masochists to purge ourselves of victim mentality (for those who haven’t already or never had it to begin with),we don’t have to think entirely like women to succeed with women,in fact i think there are benefits to not seeing women’s point of view all the time,or even most of the time.Iv’e proven this fact to myself,and ive seen other examples of it from people i know,and from historical and public figures.Im not cynical, im very warm with women as long as they act in the way i think a woman should act. However,I have a very low tolerence for women who don’t act feminine.

Ricardus seemed to do a better job of being a strait shooter in his articles. But then you have your strengths as well,so props.

I understand this site is about self improvement for men,so i wouldn’t expect an article series about how men are victims ,but i do expect editorial integrity, and articles that speak the truth.

Making excuses for women’s behavior,is what has allowed this cultural code of female masculinity to exist in the first place. So stop writing off womens behavior as silly and cute when they act without grace and femininity,and stop accusing men of being weak for standing up for masculinity and traditional gender roles.Only then will girls chase be 100 percent authentic and truthful.

If it wasn’t for the manosphere,we might be stuck with hillary clinton as our president and the culture of the west going in the same direction it was going in for decades.

Yes men should be strong leaders,yes men should have to work hard at becoming an attractive version of themselves,but beyond that,they do not need to become unreactive or even unemotional ,once again trump is a great example here.

This is the first article youv’e written that i can remember that is actually critical of women(so now that the culture is starting to change, all of a sudden your articles that deal with this issue are becoming more truthful? lol) . However you criticize women of the west like a politician does, your careful to not put to much blame on women and instead claim this is a historically cultural pattern which repeats itself. Well if that is the case ,why have non western countries not had this pattern?

Regardless if you respond to this or not, I want other girls chase readers to know that you can challenge the status quo and still succeed,and that you don't have to subscribe to every mentality on girls chase to succeed with women(it's really the foundational stuff that matters).

Author
Chase Amante's picture

Truth-

So basically you think it’s victim mentality to call a spade a spade like president trump does by pointing out where certain women need to correct their attitudes,values,and behaviors.

That is not remotely what victim mentality is, nor is it ever how I defined it.

What Trump does is not victim mentality, because he's built a platform for himself, or leverages one, where he can effect real outcomes by complaining about things. This is not victim mentality, it's sound strategy. If you read my articles, I'm sure you notice I take my critics to task as well (and always have). The moment you let critics define you to the viewership, you lose.

What I urge men against is impotent victim raging into the void. Primal screams about how women don't treat you right is not effective at doing anything other than perhaps making you temporarily feel better (usually not even that). Unless you're going to get onto a news show and lecture women from a position of strength and authority that they need to change, it's ineffectual and counterproductive.

(and by that note, how many times have you seen Donald Trump on TV lecturing women that it's time for them to stop being so masculine, give up their careers, and get back in the kitchen? And saying, "I'm sure he holds these views," or "He talks about grabbing the pussy in private" doesn't count; we're talking about public-facing positions here)

we don’t have to think entirely like women to succeed with women,in fact i think there are benefits to not seeing women’s point of view all the time,or even most of the time.Iv’e proven this fact to myself,and ive seen other examples of it from people i know,and from historical and public figures.Im not cynical, im very warm with women as long as they act in the way i think a woman should act. However,I have a very low tolerence for women who don’t act feminine.

Sure, absolutely. Women's minds are bags of cats. I'm the best guy I know at knowing what women are thinking, and I'm only right some portion of the time there. Even women don't know what other women are thinking most of the time.

While it's certainly possible to build an effective approach to women around a purely mechanistic, unempathetic viewpoint, it's more challenging for most guys. There are a lot of men to whom I could say, "Just do X and Y and Z, and you'll get laid tons," and that's enough for them, but those were never my target demographic with my writing. Most of the guys who that kind of instruction is enough for don't need a site like this, or only enjoy it as occasional recreational reading. The kind of guys who are regular readers here tend to want to know the 'why's.

You can argue the merits of 'why'. Drivers, for instance (from Social Styles), tend not to care about them or want to know about them, since they feel they waste time. "Just give me the what, don't waste my time or confuse me with the whys!" Other styles struggle to get started without the whys though, and don't start doing well until they figure out the whys on their own through epiphanies and realizations (assuming the whys aren't given them).

Making excuses for women’s behavior,is what has allowed this cultural code of female masculinity to exist in the first place. So stop writing off womens behavior as silly and cute when they act without grace and femininity,and stop accusing men of being weak for standing up for masculinity and traditional gender roles.Only then will girls chase be 100 percent authentic and truthful.

I specifically do not take sides in cyclical cultural battles.

Feel free to be a gender warrior all you want. As I've noted in the past, gender warriors have their role and serve their purpose. But I'm neither going to lead a movement or be a knight or a pawn within it, re-fighting a war that's been fought off-and-on for at least 100,000 years.

Men will never 'win' this war. Women will never totally submit. Men win for a while, then women win for a while, then men win for a while, then women win for a while.

Masculinity in men is on the rise right now. Femininity in women is on the rise right now. It's right. You know it to be right. It is the zeitgeist.

40 or 50 years hence, sensitivity in men will be on the rise. Independence in women will be on the rise. It's right. Men then will know it to be right. It will be the zeitgeist.

Another 40 or 50 years after this, masculinity in men will be on the rise once more. Feminiity in women will be on the rise once more. It's right. Men then will know it to be right. It will be the zeitgeist.

Were I a culture warrior, I'd pick a side and fight it out. But this is not my battle.

(if I was actually going to fight in the culture wars, I'd go be on talk shows and get into confrontational interviews, like a Milo Yiannopoulos - anything else is half-assing it, in my opinion... at least for someone in my position. But I'm not fighting in the culture wars)

Yes men should be strong leaders,yes men should have to work hard at becoming an attractive version of themselves,but beyond that,they do not need to become unreactive or even unemotional ,once again trump is a great example here.

You seem to be taking something that works for you and one-size-fits-all'ing it.

Trust me, I've coached legions of men, and there are very few men able to make the "angry and emotive with women during a pickup" thing work well. Particularly at the beginning. Most guys who get moody, pissy, or complain-y around women during pickups get ditched unceremoniously. There are very few guys who can make it work.

If you're skeptical, I invite you to take up coaching - look for young guys in need of training. See if you can train them to call out women on their behavior in the midst of pickups. It can be done, I know guys who do it and I do it myself, but I've yet to meet someone who can effectively teach it to inexperienced guys who are not comfortable with women.

If you figure out a way though, I'd love to hear it - it'd be a spectacular skill to teach.

This is the first article youv’e written that i can remember that is actually critical of women(so now that the culture is starting to change, all of a sudden your articles that deal with this issue are becoming more truthful? lol) . However you criticize women of the west like a politician does, your careful to not put to much blame on women and instead claim this is a historically cultural pattern which repeats itself. Well if that is the case ,why have non western countries not had this pattern?

In what way was this article critical of women, politician-like or otherwise?

The only things I can see here you're interpreting that way are either that I point out women's use of contemptuous facial expressions (which is ugly no matter who uses it), or women being more androgynous now and less feminine.

Which, I mean... is that a critique? Just seems like a statement of fact today.

The point of this site is not to be a manosphere cultural critique site. There are thousands of those. And frankly, I'm not engrained enough in the culture to critique it. I'm the last one to know anything about popular culture.

The point of this site is to function as a how-to. I leave the battle cries to others. There are always more battles to be fought, more foes to vanquish, more social policing to do.

I'm the most dogged guy there is if there's a fight to be fought. But I need to be convinced it's worth my specific, particular time and attention first. And I'm just not convinced Battle of the Sexes #57193824, Early 21st Century Edition, is.

Regardless if you respond to this or not, I want other girls chase readers to know that you can challenge the status quo and still succeed,and that you don't have to subscribe to every mentality on girls chase to succeed with women(it's really the foundational stuff that matters).

Now that I can endorse.

And if only I could get some of the newer guys to take the material here as guideposts, rather than as orthodoxy...

Chase

Jack's picture

There does appear to be a trend over the last few years regarding femininity/masculinity, but it probably will continue beyond 2020.

Even in Sumeria over 5000 years ago it looks like on the ME tablet of civilization there was topics that were allowed in society such as, Sexual Intercourse, Prostitution, Eunuch/Androgyne, Power. This is also when marriage as a Legal Contract is said to have begun, and women had no say in who "bought" them for marriage but they could divorce.

Greece and Rome are cited in their roles in Western Societies. In ancient Greece women were married around age 13 (puberty), males who survived military battles could marry in their late 20s, prostitution was accepted, there was widespread homo and a huge culture of pederasty (man/boy), women were often not allowed on the streets alone and often stayed in the house. Aristotle was wrong about semen. In the Roman Empire prostitution was accepted, and for marriage guys who did not die in the many military battles it was the Father who told his son who he would marry (usually for political alliances) and that for the son "wasn't masculine being controlled by his father."

Possibly around 30 percent of Vikings (either didn't have sex or didn't get married).

Until after the 1700s Enlightenment era most people did not have relationships/get married "for love." Before then it was utilitarian for the society over the individual (such as, procreating more guys for the military or farming).

The main point is that for thousands of years (maybe for almost the entire history of humanity) most male/female relationships/marriages were ARRANGED (often involving a dowry/buying a woman). There wasn't a large amount of guys doing "Pick Up."

Governments have often tried to "legislate morality" such as, in England the Old Poor laws (that in an era without effective contraception were really about the economics of children born without fathers and to financially support the children the burden fell on the society). Even in the Prohibition era such as, the 1920 Mann Act that included legislating "pre-marital and extra-marital sex" because he thought women should stay in the home. Especially in the 1950's the guys not killed in the wars were basically forced by societal expectations to go to church, get married, and be a husband provider. I do not want to get married and be a PROVIDER, so I'm glad I don't live in that era.

Even if some talk about "morals/beliefs," it's economics and technology that influences society more. Women being able to drive the invention of cars, work so that if they had a child they could support the child, the 1930s beginning to improve latex condoms, and the 1960s birth control pill, and without those technological improvements there probably wouldn't be "Pick Up" like we can now. A point is that it will probably be further technological innovations that continue to change society more than beliefs (such as, the Gates Foundation research into improving condoms, possible contraception and medical advancements).

If more guys became much more masculine/if more had "real" Alpha behavior, then would that lead to more competition and more conflict, then more restrictive laws from dystopian governments as more men are put in the beta trap of prisons?

It's funny that Venus Figurines from around 20,000 years ago, and the Venus of Hohle Fels from around 40,000 years ago appear to depict women who are obese. There probably is more attractive men and women in 2017 than there was say 65,000 years ago (for instance, who couldn't bathe unless they got in a cold river, etc).

I see and meet a lot a feminine girls. I don't define feminine as cooking/cleaning/wife. I define feminine as a female being sexual with a male. Women are feminine with males like me, and guys who read GirlsChase. Yeah, being hateful and angry are not good vibes for "Pick Up," as those vibes are not attractive/seductive.

J's picture

Yep, definitely moving to Europe, fuck American women.

Harlan's picture

Hypergamy is more, not less likely, if you follow data rather than evopsych pseudoscience and cultural stereotypes. Even with economic downturn, females have higher rates of education and rates of new business ownership than men - pointing to greater self sufficiency even in the downturn. Women also own a majority of assets in the US according to a recent FT.com study. Further, a worsening economy means more women who would be stay at home mothers or looking for their MRS (and thus play in more traditional gender roles) enter the workforce and compete directly for jobs with men. Given that women are worse negotiators than men, they are actually preferred as corporate employees over men - which is why white women have benefitted from affirmative action more than anyone else. This would suggest worsening prospects for men who expect sex just for showing up (your core audience). You usually have decent insights, but your characterization of "traditional" non-western female behaviors makes it pretty clear you haven't spent much time at all in many parts of the world.

Female contemptuousness in the face of pathetic male pickup attempts has been fairly common in most places across the world for quite some time (yes, including east Asia...this whole submissive Asian thing is just masturbatory Weatern fantasy) outside of countries where female sexual behavior is violently policed (like Saudi Arabia). If you really want women who are cagey and demure in public like Saudi Arabia, then you're calling for men to be more physically threatening to women in order to force compliance - whether that's your actual intention or not. That's not masculine - it's the epitome of insecure masculinity. Real men don't give a shit about the dating rules hypergamous women make, because those rules are specifically meant to filter out pretenders. And honestly, if you're a dude that's in his own head and think that emotionally abusive PUA tricks are a good way to get laid, and your ego is too fragile to hear the brutal truth that your whole life is weak and you need to step the fuck up as a man...maybe contempt from females is the only wakeup call that can possibly get through to you. You're not owed success in life, why do women owe you respect that you haven't earned through actual accomplishment or even just carrying yourself like an actual man?

Let me put it in another way: these same women who are contemptuous of unmasculine guys are still cagey and demure for men who they find attractive. This new political environment, with overt corporate control, values the average woman over the average man. Especially as birthrates fall (much of Northern Europe is already below replacement), the social and economic value of a woman will rise relative to a man. Men need to adjust to this new reality - become an actual leader (and not just pickup tricks from manosphere) or entrepreneur or get left behind. The blue collar dude no longer has any social or economic value in a corporate world of automation and robotics. And women don't give a shit about the social or sexual expectations of the low value dudes this article is targeted towards.

Jimbo's picture

Even with economic downturn, females have higher rates of education and rates of new business ownership than men - pointing to greater self sufficiency. (...) This would suggest worsening prospects for men who expect sex just for showing up (your core audience).

Actually no. Women who are economically self-sufficient care less about a man's economic success unless they're in a rush to get married. A lot of well-to-do women date men who have nothing going for them simply because they give them masculine companionship, good sex, and some excitement in their lives, or sometimes simply because he looks hot.

Basically you're tying a man's romantic/sexual success to financial/career success in times of female empowerment and that's not true at all. I don't know where you get that. PUAs do fare well in these times, whether broke or with fat pockets. And not just in the 21st Century; Canasova's main romantic interests when he bummed around Europe were well-to-do women. This also includes pick-up abroad. Every guy who's been to Asia says getting with Asian chicks is fairly easy, and that includes guys who aren't 'players'.

Finally the jobs automation will destroy first will be mainly white-collar, middle-class jobs (not all of them) like auditor, accountant, etc. Most gray and blue collar jobs will still survive for many other decades.

Michael Boggs's picture

Hey Chase,
Ive seen you write articles about talking about social justice around women, and how you can stand your ground and not agree with them.

Wanted to comment this since tensions have ratcheted up higher than ever since when you even posted this.

I live in LA now and can tell you I just cant see this happening if i tell girls I dont agree with BLM or progressives about Trump, or aspects of the Me too movement, or God forbid i wanted to enjoy the fourth of July this year. Im pretty young, in my 20s so we all should take that as a grain of salt. But I dont see talking sense into these types of women either, and im very hard core rational.

I remember you making the post about the thanksgiving dinner, but im afraid you just cant talk sense into people who now have so viscerally emotionally galvanized towards these subjects, at least where im from.

Do i have to just change the subject?

Thanks,
Mike

Add new comment

The Latest from GirlsChase.com