Year 2005. I am waiting at a law firm for my appointment. Two women talking at the office next door, one is the lawyer, the other the client. Their door is almost open. They can’t see me but I hear everything they say.
Long story short, a guy had been hired by a company but he quit the job to go work with the competition and the first employer wanted to get back at him. This is the most meaningful part of their conversation,
Client: I want you to sue him for breach of contract
Female Lawyer: Won’t work, he quit before he signed
Client: I know, I just want him to run out of money & suffer. Just find a way…
The client was an older lady in her early sixties and her words stuck in my mind, like an ear worm:
“I know it does not make sense I just want him to run out of money and suffer”
My lawyer arrived and interrupted my listening but even later that day I kept thinking about those words the older woman said, the same night I wrote that sentence on a piece of paper and took a good long look at its sheer cynicism.Then the translation hit me,
ORIGINAL: “I know it does not make sense I just want him to run out of money and suffer”
TRANSLATION: “Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right”
I tried other translations but I kept coming back to the first one
“Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right”
I then started to imagine the woman at the law firm with those words inside, idea “bubbles” coming from her head when she was silent (or about to give a nonsensical answer). I applied the same “bubbles” idea to unscrupulous divorced wives in family courts then to feminists then to demagogues. It was a near perfect match every time.
When it comes to feminists, it’s not what they say that counts, it’s what they do–and their actions are perfectly expressed by the words,
Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right”
The reality is that I didn’t know the guy they wanted to sue and I shouldn’t have cared – after all, law bends to the one that has the most money. But her words kept bothering me, for no apparent reason. It was like a tiny tic-tac sized pill-idea that had gone into my mind that kept growing and bothering me until it exploded into frustration. Then I had to sit down to reason over it. Why did it work like that? Why did I have to sit down and reason something so visceral?
Some toxic people are very talented at crafting those little tic-tac bits of psychological poison. In an odd way, when I listened to those women’s conversation, I became that old lady’s forever-unknown poison collateral. Unfortunately, toxic women like her exist everywhere. Even more unfortunate are those who befriend or marry them along with their daily poison.
Here’s another perfect example of that kind of daily poison: a rich guy in his 60’s who was at a cocktail party (at his house) was talking about his collection of sports cars to his friends and his (very) hot twenty-something wife, whom he’d had had an argument with earlier that day. He was eagerly talking about his passion for his cars, and when the hot wife got fed up with the car talk and she just “casually” said the following before going for a drink, “before I met you, all my boyfriends had trucks.”
…before I met you, all my boyfriends had trucks.
Let that sink in…
That sentence is a carefully crafted, deliberately poisonous tic-tac sized idea intentionally designed to look innocent, but will do enormous delayed damage. Why would she say that? Why did she make that far-fetched comment when they were talking about sports cars? What did the past boyfriends have to do with it (if anything at all)? You can read too much or too little into it, but my belief is that cars are a metaphor for sexual performance for some people, especially power/status-hungry people – in which case she told her husband (in front of his friends) the following;
ORIGINAL“…before I met you, all my boyfriends had trucks”
TRANSLATION: My past boyfriends fucked better than you.
In case the husband had reacted she could have easily said “But, baby, it was just a comment…” which means she could have used that form of plausible deniability but the poisonous meanings of the tiny sentence were clearly deliberate and multi-layered.
Add to that she was smoking hot, the guy was in his 60s and not very good-looking, but rich. Imagine the nightmare of living with someone who is actively using psychological warfare against you day in and day out. Imagine having to gulp down 20 or more of those venomous tic-tacs every week. That has to wear you down. It is psychological warfare in its pure form of deliberate, concise, pre-planned attrition.
The Male Lego Mind
Like many men, as a child I loved Legos, and that possibly led to math and logic, then what I do today for a living. Most likely I am one of millions men with those neurological male traits; seeking logic in things, even if it looks like a waste of time, including feminism. Very often, we males (and a few odd women) want to find out how things work even if it seems a waste of time. Perhaps for those reasons it was important for me to understand why, for no apparent reason, this sentence had bothered me:
“Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right”
The statement above is in itself an unreasonable position. Why? Because you are openly disrespecting the rules and on top of that you are cynically imposing your ego as a false justification; it means it’s not about logic, it means you just “want to be right.” Be it for a males or females, for yourself or others, saying you want to cheat because your ego says so is morally irrational. The short answer is that the sentence bothered me because trying to rationalize something morally unreasonable is 50% of the headache.
So what is the other 50%?
That is the “tic-tac” effect, which is a term from a comedian suggested to me by Dean Esmay. In a nutshell it describes how some toxic women, during arguments, have mastered the art of inserting a tiny “tic-tac-sized” idea into a male’s mind to foster psychological warfare. I suggest watching the video while remembering the few (or many) toxic women you’ve had in your life. That, and the male reaction he illustrates, is exactly what makes it worth watching. Even if you don’t like this particular performer, watch it, and see how much of yourself you see in it, along with what you remember of interpersonal verbal conflicts you’ve been involved in that you’ve lost and never understood why you lost.
Cures for a Poison
We already know the problem – the poisonous tic-tac ideas crafted by feminists in their little Candy Factories of Doom – but what is the cure or the prevention? What are the choices for us men to react to verbally poisonous women who spew hateful misandrist garbage? Possibly, it boils down to 3 choices
- Play it macho and help her damage you
- Try to prove her wrong logically
- Give her RED tic-tacs
1. Play “Macho”
How do we men defend ourselves against those poisonous tic-tacs given to us by hateful feminists? Well, Warren Farrell put it best:
“The weakness of men is the facade of strength; the strength of women is the facade of weakness.” –The Myth of Male Power
The men who are unfortunate enough to try to reason with misandrists, or worse, choose a toxic sociopath as a partner, never see her as flawed. On the contrary, a man will sometimes excuse every fault and defect he sees in a woman. To him she is not poisonous at all. He will defend her and play macho every time she attacks him. We have all been there. The more you play it tough, the more you’re drinking the poison and declaring victory.
“Ha! I eat those tic-tacs with every meal…I am a tough dude!”
Sure, “every meal,” – that constitutes the undetected problem. It’s not “a little poison” once a year, no, it is a continuous daily supply of venom. And you’re bragging about it. The more you play macho, the more you are placing yourself at the mercy of a sociopath, and the more you place yourself at her mercy, the more long-term damage you will accrue.
How many weeks or years are we talking about?
How how much daily colorful shaming can a macho take?
How much anger and stress can that macho version of you take?
The more you take the macho stance, the more vulnerable you become in the long-term, and the more background (personal/emotional/financial) info you give to her in those seemingly quiet moments of reconciliation–and the more tic-tacs she is actively making in the background of her mind for you to swallow any time you eventually disagree again. The more often you just absorb the poison, the worse it gets, and either you do what she wants you to do and you lose and feel frustrated and ashamed, or if it’s a personal relationship the more you’re likely to pay the ultimate price: break-up/divorce. Yes, she will turn the relationship into a hostage situation and charge you all costs and penalties as ransom, all for a dead hostage.
Sure, a “macho” go will always say he is “invulnerable,” which only proves Warren Farrell’s logic,
“A man’s biggest vulnerability is the illusion of his absolute strength”
Truth is, she will get you by attrition. Logic does not matter, morals do not matter, what she wants is to be right or, in other words;
“Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right”
2. Try to Prove Her Wrong
How many times have you asked yourself in the middle of an argument “Why does she keep coming back to the same point!?” Then you calm down, try to explain very patiently to her the reasons, and then… she goes back to square one. Then you explain again, and take more time to explain even more patiently and then… she goes back to square one. Over and over again like a relentless mindless machine. You can spend days or weeks explaining with the best logic you are able to express and she will do the same thing over and over. Guess what? Often times you are just frustrated, sick and tired and you just end up doing what she wanted. But, why?
Because her point, from the beginning, was to “be right,” not to reason with you. She got you by attrition.
Logically she will not win every time and in those cases when you explain the reasons to her and there are people present she will have to “agree.” Of course, “agreeing” means she will be busy in the back of her mind making a new batch of extra poisonous tic-tacs for you, always with a smile. Or, in other words.
“Rules don’t apply to me, I just want to be right”
That means you may have won in front of people but she will keep the grudge and put you in her to-do list. Later on, she will get you by attrition – just wait, she will eventually get to it. It is sad but true, our usual male way of reasoning problems does not count, all that counts is her “being right.”
Even worse, when it comes to your partner, often times you are cornered because they threaten you with break-ups, divorce and debt – again, the relationship becomes a hostage/bargaining chip. Your only real choice is to get out with as much of your dignity as you can, and never go back.
But, at least when it comes to debating feminists, there are other choices–such as “RED tic-tacs.”
3. Giving Them RED Tic-tacs
“I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them”
― Adlai E. Stevenson II
This isn’t relationship advice. Playing the game this way in a relationship will make you a psychopath. But if you’re out in the world trying to reason with misandrists, you are almost certainly dealing with people regularly who are dealing in this same sort of psychological warfare.
So let’s get this out-of-the-way: we don’t offer bargains. This is about telling the truth about them to FTSU. Also, let’s say it openly, RED tic-tacs: let’s call it Really Effective Directness. RED tic-tacs are designed after the model of poisonous tic-tacs used by feminists. Why? Because we have to learn to think like the enemy and use their weapons against them. RED tic-tacs also have a delayed effect, and will sooner or later explode into the feminists’ emotions. With a monumental difference; RED tic-tacs are based on truth, not lies, honesty not threats, legitimate questions not illegitimate ones.
Ingredients for a Poison tic-tac:
- hypocritically correct
- seeks concealment
As a result we have a poisonous tic-tac that
- Is indirect
- Relies on demagogy/ emotions
- Relies on lies
- Services the speaker’s ego and narcissism
- Relies on implications and unreasonable quetions
- Allows the use of libel
- Is hypocritically correct through PC-ness
- Seeks concealment of its lies
Ingredients for a RED* tic-tac:
- universal human values
- brutally honest
- seeks exposure
As a result we have a RED* tic-tac that
- Is direct
- Relies on reasoning
- Relies on truth
- Services universal human values
- Relies on statements or reasonable questions
- Only allows the use of facts
- Its purpose is to be brutally honest
- Seeks exposure of its own facts and the opposition’s lies
RED tic-tacs are much harder to craft, because you have to research and think before crafting them, but since they tend to be short and brutally honest you just save a lot of time otherwise wasted in political correctness babble.
I could give you flowcharts, theory, and formulas, but all that is boring. Nothing is better than a real-life example from a truthful, talented and unapologetic speaker. And I will give you a practical, real-world example.
Here is the setting; after a comedy show has ended, people are having drinks and relaxing, and the leading comedian is friendly and talks to some of the audience members. Then a feminist approaches the comedian and tries to engage him with 3-4 poison tic-tacs about some jokes he made in his act. This is all on video. Notice the camera is rolling and people are having drinks while listening. Have popcorn? Here we go:
Feminist: “You know? I don’t like the way you talk about women. You do comedy but I do a lot of sex talk and I work mostly with tragedy, you may laugh but you aren’t gonna get any material from me tonight. I do make fun of clownish dumb men… HEY LOOK AT ME IN THE EYES WHEN I AM TALKING TO YOU!”
Male comedian: OH YEAH? I was thinking, stop the intimidation techniques, I am allowed to think, you cannot control me. –Raises voice considerably– DON’T TRY TO GO AROUND CONTROLLING PEOPLE, YOU ARE AN OUT OF SHAPE OLDER WOMAN AND YOU WANT TO CONTROL PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU ARE AN UNHAPPY PERSON. DON’T TRY TO TELL ADULTS WHAT TO DO, THAT IS NOT HOW YOU COMMUNICATE WITH ADULTS. YOU WANT TO CONTROL PEOPLE, THAT IS WHY YOU WERE TELLING ME TO LOOK AT YOU IN THE EYE, BECAUSE YOU ARE INSECURE. YOU ARE INSECURE BECAUSE THE FIRST THING YOU DO WHEN YOU COME AND TALK TO ME IS TALK ABOUT YOUR ACT, YOU YOU YOU AND YOU. HOW ABOUT TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE LIKE HUMAN BEINGS. HAVE YOU TRIED THAT?
Feminist: Hey please lower your voice, you don’t know m..
Male Comedian: I DON’T NEED TO KNOW YOU! YOU NEED TO HEAR THE TRUTH ABOUT YOURSELF! Besides, I already got material out of you.
That male comedian used a barrage of RED tic-tacs in pure direct language. Zero politeness by using the facts he saw about that feminist. What did she do in response? She tried to conceal the fact she was being exposed (she even threatened him physically, but that backfired even worse. Plus, when a hypocrite tells you to “keep it quiet” you know you are hitting where it hurts.
The comedian didn’t need to lie, or be polite. He was just brutally honest and exposed her and her actions while she desperately sought concealment. The best thing is that it all was captured on video–and that is the trick, because that night, that insecure feminist went home with several RED tic-tacs bouncing inside her head, and you know the next morning she saw herself in the mirror and remembered the comedian’s hurtful, truthful words over and over – and is possibly still reflecting on them to this day.
Then she probably found out about the 2.1 million views her impulsive babble got:
That is a lot of delayed emotional explosions inside her head. (By the way, this is a good time to remember the ABR rule–always be recording.)
When you are engaging most feminists, you are in many ways getting heckled by her. Therefore it is your responsibility to respond with brutal honesty, intelligence, zero politeness and complete self-restraint like said comedian. Always record your exchanges, and if you lose the exchange, watch it to learn until her babble does not upset you (yes it is possible but not easy). If you won, watch it to learn – chances are you still made mistakes, nobody is perfect.
Be as Cool as a Tall Glass of Icy Water
Even the most effective weapon is useless if the user has no training. If you plan on making RED tic-tacs you have to learn how to deliver them, otherwise you will fail. Again, If you cannot control your emotions, you will fail at delivering RED tic-tacs.
Delivery is key, and in this case we also happen to take cues from the enemy. How? Well, the delivery of the RED tic-tacs is the polar opposite of the delivery used by feminists. Let’s compare:
Verbal delivery of a feminist using poison tic-tacs
- Emotion driven
- Relies on shaming tactics
- Ready to get offended/plays victim/emotionally explode
- Will constantly use mockery
Verbal delivery of an MRA using RED tic-tacs
- Reason driven
- Relies on factual delivery and exposure of lies
- Remains cool/stoic
- Will only use pithy humor to highlight the opposition’s stupidity (used very sparsely)
I will give you a shining practical example of the use of self-restraint via Marc Rudov the man just ignores whatever feminist noise is thrown at him and just powers through. Nothing sticks to the guy (he seems to be made of teflon, graphene or both). In many of Rudov’s interviews and debates feminists constantly mock him and bombard with shaming tactics, such as in this video. Yet, he just powers through, either showing an inexpressive face or giant grin when he proves the competition wrong.
A side note, Marc Rudov’s many appearances on FOX news are “fenced” debates with chosen FOX female anchors, which only affirms the rigged nature of the discussion, yet he does get away with making a few of them almost fly into a rage while he remains stoically calm. It is a complete contrast to see Marc as cool as a tall glass of icy water while the female anchor becomes a cute boiling pot of failed poison tic-tacs.
Rudov and Rogan are two of the best examples of counter-heckling feminists with RED tic-tacs (Rudov changed his tune in recent years from MRA to more “branding-consultant,” but his book on women is still full of quotable knowledge. Like all books, just take what is useful.)
Important note: your impulsiveness will be your defeat
There is no need to sugar coat it:
Do not lie to yourself. If you are impulsive, you will fail. If you cannot control your emotions, you will fail at making and/or delivering RED tic-tacs.
Why? Because getting upset easily is a detrimental trait. It is an enormous obstacle. If you are serious about learning how to make and deliver RED tic-tacs you have to learn how to be less passionate, to be ahead of the game, to avoid falling for the trap of attempted provocation, attempts to get under your skin.
Self restraint pays off. Look at what happened to “Big Red”: she had zero self-restraint while the guys who spoke to her were as cool as a tall glass of icy water.
What would have happened if one of them had yelled at her impulsively? That would have been an authentic, long-term damaging setback for the Men’s Rights Movement, but these men managed to masterfully restrain their emotions.
Make no mistake, it is likely they were upset in the inside, but that is exactly the point of self-restraint and stoicism: you are the boss, not other people, not your body, not your emotions, but you; your mind is the only boss.
The point of all this is simple: those who argue with feminists need to understand the enemy and how the enemy thinks. If you aren’t studying how they work and creating a counterstrategy, you are setting yourself up not to just lose, but to feel terrible about yourself afterwards.
Whereas if you fight effectively, you have turned the tables.
When you realize the opponent isn’t in it for the honest desire to reach mutual understanding and truth and fairness and only wants to cause harm and humiliation, you must either not engage at all, or engage in a way that lets you turn the tables completely.
The choice, as always, is yours.