My European Trip, Part 8: The Rearden in Action
I’ve been talking about dealing with passive-aggressive people, or as I’ll call them from this point forward, Passive Aggressors, and the technique I’ve been working on to deal with them called The Rearden, based on the character Hank Rearden from the Ayn Rand novel Atlas Shrugged.
In this installment I described the dilemma in detail. I also described how Europe was filled with intellectual men who were very skilled at this type of subtly acidic interaction.
In this next installment, I described the excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, a scene of Hank Rearden’s trial, that inspired me to come up with The Rearden, my strategy for dealing with Passive-Aggressors. If you haven’t done so already, I suggest you click the link and read the excerpt of the Trial of Hank Rearden for yourself.
This is how The Rearden works.
Passive Aggressors have a weakness that you can exploit. They desperately want to engage in confrontation for whatever reason. Maybe they feel powerless in general and have typically felt this way since adolescence and winning conflicts are a major ego boost for them. Maybe they are trapped in middle management hell. Maybe they have unresolved issues about something, and you remind them of those unresolved issues. In some form you are the embodiment of whatever it is they have issues with, be it because of your race, your culture, your personality, your archetype (maybe you remind them of the big jocks that pushed them around in high school, the cool guy that got all the girls they couldn’t, the hot chick that never gave them a time of day growing up, the optimist they always envied, the smart guy who always did better in school). For some reason, they have a need for conflict and victory in general, and something about you in particular especially triggers that need for victory.
But on the flipside, they are deathly afraid of conflict, specifically the risk of losing because losing a conflict would just reinforce their unresolved issues and sense of powerlessness. They will only do open conflict if they feel 100% sure they can win it. Open conflict, where both sides know they are in a conflict and go head to head openly, is high risk. It leads to a definitive winner and a definitive loser. It is the sign of a mature man to not only be willing to risk losing, but also, if he does indeed lose, to lose gracefully (this is a big reason why sports are considered to build character, and also why so many beta males resent athletes). Since they are immature men, they do not know how to lose gracefully without having their whole ego and self-worth shattered by the loss.
Also, an open conflict, whether you win or lose, often gives you closure. That’s why you often see two guys get into a fight or an argument or a competition, have it out, and regardless of who wins or loses they can squash the beef and put it behind them afterwards and move on. And even become friends. Meanwhile women and especially teenage girls, because fighting or having an all-out throwdown with a woman is unladylike, spend a lot of time with doing passive-aggressive and catty conflict with each other below the surface, using cutting remarks, double entendres, reading between the lines, subtle social cues, cheap shots, etc. (think of the popular girl and Queen Bee conflicts you see in high schools). Because these conflicts are never open, they never get a definite winner or loser, just a vague sense of getting over on someone or a vague sense of having lost. This lack of open conflict and closure is why women often hold grudges so much longer than men. Since male Passive Aggressors approach conflict like teenage women, they too never have a definite winner or loser, never experience conflict closure, and thus are never satisfied, which is why ignoring them doesn’t work as far as making them stop. The beta bully never stops because he never really feels the satisfaction and closure that can only be attained from earning a solid win. They keep laying on the sarcastic and snarky cheap shots in hopes of scratching that itch to dominate and win, but the irony is that the weak, ambiguous nature of the “wins” one receives from such beta male behavior are too weak to ever successfully scratch that itch, so it never ends no matter how you try to ignore it and hope it will pass.
As an analogy, think of it like the guy who tries to get girls by being a “nice guy” rather than just putting his balls on the line and asking a girl out. He does this because he’s afraid of rejection, so using a “nice guy” approach gives him the psychological satisfaction of saying he’s actually in the game, but the inconclusive nature and mixed signals that come from never clearly scoring with the women nor clearly getting rejected by the woman keeps him in a “friend zone” that never offers any resolution. This lack of resolution keeps him sticking to his ineffective strategy and tolerating this friend zone placement for an uncomfortably long time, whereas if he just put his balls on the line he’d risk more anguish in the short run but at least he would get immediate closure by scoring or getting rejected right away.
Likewise, Passive Aggressors fear open conflict for the same reason Nice Guys fear approaching a woman honestly about their sexual interest: their fear of losing (and thereby losing face) outweighs their nagging desire to win. This is the weakness the Rearden exploits.
This is the same mentality that can be seen in the looters in Atlas Shrugged. They want to be powerful and rich and have the status and profits of a Hank Rearden, but they would never take the risks of losing by openly competing in the harsh, brutal free market that Rearden embraces because the fear of trying and losing is stronger in them than the desire to win. The sight of Rearden’s success infuriates them because he gets the gratification of being a winner, which they never experience, and he gets it through prevailing in open competition, which just reminds them of how much they’re afraid to (or lack the skill to) openly compete themselves. They want all the glory with none of the risk of losing, and since that’s not possible they resent everyone who does succeed by risking loss. Using the Nice Guy as an example again, you often see him bashing the “player” who is successful with women, calling him an asshole or acting like he is using some trickery or exploiting the poor women he sleeps with, because to admit that the player won fair and square is to admit that they, the Nice Guys, lost fair and square either through lack of courage or skill, which just hurts their self-image even more.
So what’s the solution of these ambitious cowards? They disdain that which they are afraid to do, and use subtle smokescreens to demonize and humiliate those who are willing and capable of doing it. The looters going against Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged make being an unrepentant, free-market capitalist into something to be ashamed of, into something evil, , much like the Nice Guy portrays the act of being a ladies’ man, someone who is open and unrepentant about what he wants from women and is proud of achieving it, an evil exploiter of innocent women. Similarly, the intellectual Passive Aggressor creates an environment where being in open conflict or punching a guy in the face for being a dick is shameful, evil and barbaric while sarcasm and snarkiness are the most admirable, mature way to engage in conflict. This intellectual smokescreen that disguises the true nature of the conflict is what I call The Reframing Area.
So here’s how the Rearden works:
First, do not get mad or show any negative emotion as long as you are in the Reframing Area of the conflict. This is important. If you react negatively and strongly, the person will backtrack or smirk and keep picking the scab. They may deny they were being dickish, accuse you of being too sensitive, keep “innocently” repeating the annoying behavior or even escalating it, and/or keep doing whatever it takes to keep you on the defensive while pretending to be taking the high road. They may feel a victory in getting you upset or losing your cool. Throughout the whole interaction, maintain the bemused demeanor of a much older brother dealing with an annoying little sister or a wise teacher dealing with a bratty first grader. Don’t get outright condescending, but give off the air that this whole thing is beneath you but just this once you’ll humor the situation and play along to teach the child a lesson for its own good. Once you force the Passive Aggressor into open aggression, you no longer have to follow this rule and can get as openly angry or hostile as you feel is necessary. This air is only necessary for so long as the conflict is in the conflict is not clear yet and the Passive Aggressor still has plausible deniability regarding his intentions to insult you.
Second, exercise the Three Strikes rule. The three strikes rule simply means don’t let more than three comments go by without checking the offender. You can check the offender as soon as one strike if you want, but you definitely don’t want to let it go as far as four strikes.
Third, don’t let the true nature of the conflict be disguised. Force them out of the Reframing Area. Make them be frank about what they mean. As long as you let the nature of the conflict be defined by them, they will have the upper hand. Every chance you get, you must force them to be frank about what they are trying to say. Remember, they dread open conflict. If they didn’t, their default mode of dealing with conflict wouldn’t be passive aggression to begin with. Your goal is to force them to explicitly say in a frank manner whatever it was they were trying to say passive aggressively, to make them openly commit to the insult. This puts them in a tenuous position.
If they openly commit to the insult and their intent to insult gets put out in the open, you now have grounds to retaliate and escalate without fear of looking like you are overreacting. If they unambiguously commit to the insult now you can get mad or show negative emotion. Their main weapon is the vagueness of the insults and the conflict, and if you take that cover away from them and lay they conflict bare, they now feel unprotected and exposed. They can now lose the conflict, and in turn, lose face.
They may be caught off-guard, backtrack, and try to catch you off-guard later by returning to the behavior again later in the conversation. One tactic they may use is to be extra-charming and friendly in order to disarm you first so that they can catch you off-guard with the verbal cheap shot later. This works both to get your defenses down and also to make you doubt your instincts by giving you mixed signals. After all, if the Passive Aggressor was just being so nice and charming to you, you may think that maybe you are just imagining the perceived insult. Do not be fooled. If the Passive Aggressor tries to go back to the sarcastic and snarky stealth insults after a period of good behavior, go right back to exposing the true nature of his statement no matter how nice he was to you previously.
Fourth, don’t let the Passive Aggressor off the hook. Passive Aggressors need your help in maintaining the illusion of civility surrounding their behavior. This can be shown in the Trial of Hank Rearden from Atlas Shrugged. Remember the scene I described in my last installment, and pay special attention to the parts I put in bold:
“It is completely irregular,” said the second judge. “The law requires you submit to a plea in your own defence. Your only alternative is to state for the record that you throw yourself upon the mercy of the court.”
“I do not.”
“But you have to.”
“Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?”
“Yes.”
“I volunteer nothing.”
“But the law demands that the defendant’s side be represented on the record.”
“Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?”
“Well, no – yes – that is, to complete the form.”
“I will not help you.”
The third and youngest judge, who had acted as prosecutor snapped impatiently, “This is ridiculous and unfair! Do you want to let it look as if a man of your prominence had been railroaded without a -” He cut himself off short. Somebody at the back of the courtroom emitted a long whistle.
“I want,” said Rearden gravely, “to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it – I will not help you.”
“But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself – and it is you who are rejecting it.”
“I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognised. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice.”
Like Rearden, don’t help them reframe sarcastic snarkiness as a legitimate or harmlessly benign way of communication. Don’t validate it as such by responding back with more sarcastic snarkiness. Let the nature of the statements appear exactly for what they are. Do not help them pretend that it’s just harmless conversation. Do not help them preserve an appearance of innocent jesting. Do not help them pretend that no malice is meant or no chronic toxicity exists in the Passive Aggressor when it is apparent to anyone who is intellectually honest that that is not the case.
Another way Passive Aggressors get themselves off the hook is by surrounding themselves with a social circle of enablers, people who either validate their behavior by escalating it with their own passive aggression or by never calling them out on their bullshit. Be prepared for these people in a group. The Passive Aggressor is counting on and expecting the need of other people to be polite or the tendency of other people to believe the best in others or doubt their instincts to get them off the hook. They are expecting you to think you may be overreacting. They are counting on other people to change the topic to safer areas out of discomfort when things get awkward. Basically, they expect to be “bailed out” and usually surround themselves with people who they can count on to bail them out of hairy situations, usually by engaging in the same behavior, excusing their behavior as harmless or by changing the subject for them in sticky spots.
For example if the Passive Aggressor makes a backhanded compliment toward you with a smirk like “That’s pretty good, I suppose, all things considering…” and you catch them off-guard by saying politely and without any apprehension “I’m sorry, what exactly do you mean by all things considering? I don’t quite understand. I’ve always sucked at reading between the lines.” The Passive Aggressor may respond with something like “Well, you know…I’m just saying, all things considering.” And you respond politely, “No, honestly, I don’t know. Come on, just spit it out. Are you trying to say x, y and z?”
At this point, one of the enablers may jump in and try to defuse with something irrelevant like “Isn’t this guacamole great? I love it!” Turn and respond and say something like “Yeah, it sure is.” After addressing the attempted bailout, simply turn back to the Passive Aggressor and pick up right where you left off without a hint of malice: “So as I was saying, were you trying to say x, y and z? I just want to be clear.”
Fifth, force the Passive Aggressor to either back down or escalate the conflict to open, naked aggression. The point of not letting the Passive-Aggressor off the hook in the previous step is to force him into one of these two scenarios. You must force him into one of these two choices or it’s all for naught. The point of forcing him into one of these choices is that no matter which one he chooses, he loses. If he backs down and pretends he didn’t mean anything bad by it when at this point to everyone watching it becomes apparent that he actually did, he reveals himself as a petty coward, someone who can dish it out when he thinks its a safe target but crumbles when he gets called on his bullshit. He ends up realizing his worst fear, he loses face. You must realize that usually whenever your instincts are telling you disrespect is occurring, you are not alone and other people vaguely sense it too. Once you hit the Passive Aggressor with the Rearden, any lingering doubts they had will disappear and they will realize you are on the right side of the conflict. This is why the crowd in the Trial of Hank Rearden scene ended up laughing at the judges by the end of the scene, even if they weren’t necessarily on the side of Hank Rearden initially.
And if they aren’t on your side when the dust clears, then fuck ‘em, you don’t need enablers like that as friends. When you get the Passive Aggressor to back down, if he does so by trying to backtrack with a long-winded, disingenuous explanation of what he supposedly really meant, let him talk and talk. Don’t cut him off. Let him embarrass and bury himself with the obvious backing down. The longer he talks and tries to explain it away, the more obvious, cowardly and dishonest and petty he makes himself look. At this point if he’s smart he’ll probably be too self-conscious to try it again and the rest of the conversation should go smoothly. After that, do your best never to hang out socially with that toxic person again.
If you get the Passive Aggressor to go to the other route and escalate the conflict (which is rare because if they were comfortable with this option they would not be Passive Aggressors to begin with) then you are perfectly justified in insulting them back, laying a verbal smackdown on them, punching them in the face, or whatever you want without looking like you are overreacting to harmless behavior. At this point, you can resort to whatever your preferred method of dealing with open conflict is.
If you do get them to openly cop to trying to insult you, you now have the added option of shaming them to the group for their bitchiness and their sneaky attempts to conceal it. You can laugh and say “Oh, so that’s what you meant? I wasn’t sure, I don’t speak passive-aggressive. I’m old school, I was raised to think type of shit was only okay for my sisters.” with a wink and a smile. You can even go for the shame nuclear option with this line: Shake your head and smile slightly like you are dealing with an annoying little sister or a petulant child and slowly state “If you’re going to be a dog, be a rottweiller. If you’re going to be a bitch, wear a skirt.” This may be overkill, but if you really want to devastate, add the following two sentences to the nuclear option: “But no matter what, don’t be a weasel. No one respects a weasel.” But that’s just cruel.
Keep in mind, if this does not shut the Passive Aggressor down and he’s still trying to save face by yapping back and forth after you expose and embarrass them with the Rearden, you have to either beat their ass or laugh at them and leave. Sticking around to keep trading barbs after you succeed with the Rearden just starts looking bitchy and catty and is an easy way to turn your victory into a loss and place yourself on the Passive Aggressors level. Either say you are not going to sit around and bicker like a woman, and invite him to fight. If the Passive Aggressor tries to use this as proof that you are barbaric or put you down for choosing this option, just say “Spoken like a true coward. I expected no less.” And walk away. If you do end up fighting, make sure you fucking win. If there’s any doubt, don’t go that route. If you choose the route of leaving, simply get up and say “I don’t know when you threw in the towel and gave up on living life as a man, but I do know bitchassness is contagious. I’m out.”
Now I’m going to illustrate how I used the Rearden in Europe during my vacation with a few examples.
Recommended Reading:
(10 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
T– excellent as always. Living in Japan I deal with passive-aggressiveness a lot because the people here are absolutely terrified of open confrontation. This is reflected as you mentioned when guys are running their version of “game” — they viciously cockblock, will tell on you to a girl you’re seeing, and think that the friend approach is the best, even though it usually turns into getting drunk, making a move, and blaming the alcohol if it doesn’t work. I’ve found that when dealing with passive-aggressors on a day to day basis, forcing a confrontation is the best way to stop behavior on a long term basis. Otherwise it will continue indefinitely. A lot of Japanese passive-aggressiveness is openly rude, but still errs on the side of plausible deniability. When I’m faced with it I will stop the conversation and say something to the affect of, “Waaait a minute, tell me exactly what you mean by that, maybe I’m losing something in the translation”. The result is either a dick-tuck or finger pointing to some outside source of their frustration. The Japanese obsession with face-saving kind’ve works to counterbalance the behavior — I always give them an out, they always take it, and harmony is restored. It’s nutty. But rarely will they escalate it, though it’s been known to happen, and only under certain conditions, i,e. when it’s socially acceptable to escalate, like if you’re talking to someone younger than you or someone “bullyable” by social standards.
person who uses passive aggressiveness = the player haters of the black community?
One could argue that I’m one of those passive aggressive losers that you mention in the article. Of course, when you’re a powerless beta, it’s consideraly easier to attack in this manner than to be direct and get your ass handed to you like a loser. If one feels that the costs of losing are too high, then you’ll simply avoid engaging in activities where nothing but a 100% victory is guaranteed.
also why so many beta males resent athletes
I used to hate them because they were so popular, but as one grows older, I don’t see the reason to hate on them. They’re good at what they do and people respect them for it, and it’s simply how society works out, and there isn’t much that I can do about it.
Besides, I suspect many beta males hate athletes because a sizable number of beta males suck at sports with the exception of playing EA Sports versions on XBOX 360. Hell, gym class was terrible for me because I was the worst athelete with no coordination or atheletic skills at all. If there was a way to opt-out of gym class, I probably would have taken it to spare myself from public embarassment and shame.
Also, an open conflict, whether you win or lose, often gives you closure.
One would suspect that the desire to win would suppress any closure if one loses. In other words, your loss turns into a quest for revenge until you can finally beat the shit out of the guy who beat you.
by being a ?nice guy? rather than just putting his balls on the line and asking a girl out
I stopped playing the loser nice guy because it really doesn’t lead to anything, and most nice guys are admittedly losers who aren’t really nice. Interestingly, most of my female friends are somewhat aware of my fetishes and porn collection which has the great effect of ensuring them that I’ll never bang them.
I suspect some men are simply frightened as the prospect of being told no, and some just don’t want to hear it because it will crush their fragile emotions. In my case, I’ve essentially made a calculation in determining the chance of a female saying yes, and it probably makes far more sense for *me* to not bother asking a girl out than to waste my time in asking her out and either dealing with the short-term no or long-term no after one or two dates. Besides, there’s always that lingering fear that she’ll make fun of me in public for asking her out, as what happened back in middle school when some girl found out that I liked her, and nearly everybody in the class made fun of me for having an interest in a popular girl.
Absolutely brilliant. I’m going to bookmark this one.
On point again T.
I have used the Reardon to great effect. I find, when you confront them in that very casual manner, but really pushing the point, watching them backtrack and eat their words is kind of hysterical and they end up looking a complete egit. It’s all very satisfying really!
Great post (I’m a lurker here that started reading your blog at the time of that post about Rocky). Do you advise the same thing for online discussions? The difference may be that if you’re online the passive-agressive dude is more likely to go for the open insult, if pushed, since it will not cost him a punch in the face – and then what? Ignore? Insult him back? I normally try to ignore, but there are things that shouldn’t be ignored, I think.
Actually being nice is okay, I think. But when we say “nice guy”, we generally mean someone who acts like a doormat. I’m in favor of being nice/kind.
Saying that it wastes your time to hit on a girl sounds like a cop-out. Sitting around at the bar, what else are you going to do? Some nights I go to the bar and refuse to leave until at least five women blow me off or throw their drink in my face. Convince yourself that getting shut down is better than doing nothing. (For instance, you often get a good story out of being blown off.)
And with whom are you hanging out that having fetishes and porn is turning them off? You can’t lay your bondage gear out out on the dinner table during the first date but more often than not, the girl has some kinky ideas of her own and she’s just waiting for a guy to make her feel that it’s alright to unleash. (Or leash!) Sounds like these girls are 20-year-olds. That God gave the hottest body to the girls right when they’re at their peak of being fucked-up in the head is a cruel joke.
1) The start of the post reminded me of the final showdown in the movie “8 mile”. Rabbit (Eminem) raps first and, in short, admits to being white trash and poor and not rich and spoiled like his opponent. He upped the trash-talking game into something more real and his opponent backed down when it got so direct.
2) I play cards. The passive aggressive that you mentioned reminds me of a passive poker player, the kind that makes small jabs to win small pots. In poker, however, the peer pressure is opposite. You are encouraged to confront by guys calling you a pussy. Only the fear of losing money holds you back. Being passive in poker widely recognized as a losing strategy.
3) There are so many people in the world. Unless this beta bozo is between me and the hottest-chick/best-job/etc for miles, I’ll always just walk away. There are so many people in the world that it’s easier to just switch to quality.
Awesome analysis, keep ‘em coming!
Hi! I’m a woman who’s been subbed to your site for a good while. I always get something out of your posts, and I love the analysis of passive aggressors in this series. I was married to one for a while — I recognize the patterns and I was nodding along with your analysis of the motivations.
Where it fell apart for me was that the worst thing you could think of to put these guys in their place was that they were… like a woman. It isn’t terribly surprising given the rest of your articles, but honestly? No woman I care to spend time with does shit like this outside of high school. It’s not a function of gender, but of maturity — and thank god most women, hell, most people grow out of it. Me, I was never very good at passive aggression and game-playing to begin with so I got savaged by it all through school, which just served to make me more about open conflict than I was to begin with.
So, in my opinion, we’re not talking about operating on a scale from “man” to “bitch” here. We’re talking about a scale from “decent” to “asshole.” Asshole is gender-neutral.
Though if I use the line about rottweillers on my landlord, my god, it’ll be funny if I’m in a dress that day.
Nora,
I don’t liken this behavior to all women. As often as I could, I tried to make clear that I specifically liken it to teenage girls or bitches. A mature, adult woman is usually beyond this type of behavior. That being said, even as mature adults, women are more likely to engage in passive aggression than men, although that is changing very much these days, especially among men in big destination cities.
In fact, I have to say, I’m starting to notice an interesting counter-trend, something that I’ve noticed to recently to do a post on yet. In this post-feminist world where gender roles are all confused and it’s become more acceptable for a man to act in traditionally feminine ways, I find that more and more adult women are becoming less and less passive aggressive and more direct in their conflict. They’re also having much less tolerance for passive aggression in others as well. I think it’s from so many of them having to deal with passive aggressive male partners; I think it forces them to adopt more male qualities in their social interactions to compensate. I’ve noticed many of my female friends complaining about their passive aggressive men, and one even lamented to me that she feels like she’s dating an irrational and touchy woman and resents that he’s “stolen” that role from her, as now she has to step up and be the rational, direct communicator in the relationship.
Oh, and ironically Nora, the “Rottweiller” line? I learned it from a woman who used it on ME. When it comes from a woman, it just makes it that much more devastating.
Oh, I think you’re right about the shift. In my own life, I tried to be okay with being the leader all the time, but in the end it led to me divorcing the spineless man — whose spinelessness also ruined our intimate life — and marrying a very alpha male. The best kind, IMHO, who is so comfortable in his power that he doesn’t think twice about sharing it. There’s no shortage.
Of course, in the West our “traditional” roles are recent and evolving. In other regions, as you’ve noticed yourself, there’s a different set of traditionally male roles. I’m guessing the passive aggression you ran into isn’t just about globally “feminized” interactions; rather, those men were acting exactly like men act in those countries. The first poster talks about Japan and that’s another great example outside of Europe. Those men are acting in a perfectly acceptable, in fact manly way for their culture. It’s a clash, and it’s effectively managed with careful responses like the three-strikes rule and the clarification requests like you’ve analyzed. But it is not necessarily because they are changing like North America may be changing — it’s their normal.
Passive agressive guys on home soil are more likely to fit your analysis to a tee, methinks.
HA! That’s great. I will have to practise my delivery.
Another random thought — I realize now, after this comment and going over the post again, that there really can be differentiation between a bitch and a woman. I wonder if that level of delicacy is regional? In my life, it’s always been a global term — a bitch isn’t a particular set of personal characteristics, it is just a negative way to refer to Woman, period. (I’m Canadian for the record)
“Dick tuck”
I love it.
I don’t even know where to start with this, DA.
Thanks, buddy.
It’s especially good if you just let them keep talking as they try to backtrack and do nothing to bail them out. The longer they talk and try to backtrack, the dumber they look.
Alexandre, I’d need specifics, but mostly I would just say something like “Again with the stealth insults? Grow a pair, man.” If they blow up in response, because as you pointed out it’s easier to get tough online, I’d just say “Wait…you’re still here? I’m done with you. Like I’m really going to argue on the internet with a stranger.” Dismissiveness works best online I think.
Oh yeah, to me a bitch is not synonymous with a woman. In fact, some of the biggest bitches I meet lately are men.
Yeah, I’m actually going to make a post about that interaction sometime soon. It was a great learning experience.
at what point is it acceptable to deliver a slap to the face?
But when we say ?nice guy?, we generally mean someone who acts like a doormat. I?m in favor of being nice/kind.
There’s a tendency to believe that being the doormat constitutes being nice because you’re simply going along with the wishes of what the other person wants. By going along with their wishes, you’re supposed to be making them happy, yet somehow in the real world this doesn’t work out.
Saying that it wastes your time to hit on a girl sounds like a cop-out. Sitting around at the bar, what else are you going to do?
For somebody like myself who never goes to bars, it makes very little sense to go to bar and ask out women who will say no for numerous, but never explained reasons when I can go out and have fun doing activities that interest me. Even if a girl says yes, it will for all intents and purposes turn into a no into the long-term.
And with whom are you hanging out that having fetishes and porn is turning them off?
Well, the women weren’t attracted to me in the first place, but the porn certainly solidifies my status. My fetishes are for women with acrylic nails, high heels shoes, lots of makeup and other cosmetics, and slutty clothes. In other words, I want a real life version of a porn star, and for all intents and purposes, my acrylic nail fetish leaves paints the picture of a bizarre little man.
How about just calling them a monster instead of a bitch. To me calling someone a bitch means you’re frustrated at them but can’t trace it; you mutter it under your breath. A monster, on the other hand, is someone you KNOW (I can’t figure out italics) wants to hurt you. They want to hurt you and in plain sight and walk off scott free. That is wrong and, well, monsterous. Anyone who does that repeatedly is a monster as far as I care.
Or you could call them social retards…as in, wow were you trying to compliment me? You know that was increadably rude, are you a social retard? Really sometimes people are just trained to be snarky, they don’t think they are doing anything wrong. That makes them a retard.
I know that monster or retard probably seem over emotional, but if you explain to them how they’ve acted and show that they are one or the other it makes more sense.
Also i tend to think of assholes as man who pisses me off. That is bad because it shows that the person has effected me. If I insult someone I want them to know they’ve done something to deserve it.
In short: Bitch is a bad insult. It shows frustration and confusion. Monster or social retard is good because a passive agressive person is either stupid or rude.
An excellent post.
My usual tactic for dealing with these types is different but uses the same basic concept of giving the intellctual a choice of either open conflict or retreat. What I do is smile and say something blatantly more extreme than what I’m being accused of, such as “I don’t support democracy” or, for a non-political example, “I hate artists who aren’t interested in money”. That confuses the opponent and renders many of his prepared sarcastic lines unusable, plus sometimes it will force things out into the open. Usually it just makes people stop talking to me and go away instead, though. The Rearden is probably better at producing a more satisfying conclusion.
[...] a girl. Two videobloggers try to create an online culture of citizenship. T. aka Ricky Raw explains the Rearden in action. Ross Douthat briefly considers haters. From the left, so does James Kirchick. A few years ago, Todd [...]
I would not say that Betas hate Athletes. More like the lower guys. Athletes don’t bother with or acknowledge the existence of beta ordinary guys. It’s the guys lower on the status pole, that pick fights with the new guy, or nerd, that end up making fights.
I honestly can’t say I’ve run into the Passive Aggressive types very often. Shrug. I guess I run in different circles. When I do run into them (rarely) I just ignore them.
Whiskey, I never said the Betas hate athletes because athletes beat on them or pick fights with them. They hate athletes for what they represent. They may enjoy watching organized sports to experience glory vicariously and risk-free through their team when they win and tear down a famous athlete and experience schadenfreude when he loses, but the actual values of athletics and jock culture they don’t respect. Often when they do get immersed into sports, they enjoy it in a totally nerdy way, like hours of Sportscenter followed by online fantasy team building. They often consider college athletes to be spoiled meatheads that don’t deserve the big scholarships that they feel the smart kids should be getting. Or they think that pro athletes don’t deserve those big salaries they get for “just throwing a ball around” when teachers get paid so little. They may not feel that sports provide some great leadership and teamwork values in kids. Or they may feel that most organized sports is homoerotic, alpha male chest-thumping that they think is beneath them, yet they may also envy the people who participate in it and get the glory from it.
I wasn’t saying that the reasons the beta male hates the jock is because he picks fights with him. In fact, the phenomenon you point out of the beta being beneath the jock’s notice can be added as one of the reasons a beta may hate the athlete: for reminding him of his insignificance.
Mr. Rawness,
RIGHT ON!!! You made my week with this post. This is exactly the perfect strategy. I am with you all the way. Two comments:
1. As mentioned earlier, the hardest part is being prepared for this kind of attack, realizing somebody will try this crap on a regular basis. Like many men, I don’t sit back and admire my status, so I tend to be shocked when the beta males attack me. Once it happened often enough, though, I developed a response similar to yours. It works!
2. You mention that sports can teach boys to compete forthrightly and endure losing with grace. Be grateful you did not grow up in Texas and play under the same coaches I did. They taught us no such things; exactly the opposite! Our coaches treated an 8th Grade football game as Armageddon. When we lost, they expected us to be shamed for life. This attitude is a recipe for failure, especially in warfare and the nastier aspects of civilian life.
You are right that high school jocks inspire envy; I envied them the girl attention they got. Their star status did not last, however. The jocks I grew up with didn’t even marry the cheerleaders they dated in school. Nor did they stay in shape. Most of them looked like Jabba the Hutt by age 30. Some succeeded in romance, business, etc., but they did so by competing strategically [as you do], and not by playing as we were taught. My experience: In adult life, sports are completely irrelevant to success in any area. [Yes, I know, .00002% make a short career in sports, but I'm talking about the rest of us.]
If we do want to teach young people to play the game of life well, I humbly suggest we give them assignments that have real-world value, like debate, research, building a fence, marketing a product, or seducing a classmate. That would have prepared me to get what I want from life.
Again, wonderful work. You are my hero.
Fantastic analysis. I must say that I usually get by PA’s going the “show no emotions” route, and it’s never failed me. I’m going to try this 3-strikes, Rearden thing though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ff46b58Hk
the rearden!