Status and being successful it's an illusion, so what really makes a man valuable

[jhonny9546]

Hi there! I'm pretty sure You see this all around you: women gravitate towards men with solid careers, who work in companies, or hold executive or managerial positions. But, are women attracted to men who work in executive or managerial positions, or is there something more to it?

A man's "job position" only gives the illusion that he is "capable." Working in a "large, structured company" or having a "solid career" gives the illusion that this is a man with goals and things to do in life.
Let's get to the deeper point: women are attracted to men who give the impression of having goals, and above all, that they manage to add something extra every day.
Like climbing the stairs, never stopping, but even taking just one step a day, will give the impression of progress.

That said, if you're a man, and were once a boy (like me), you understand that you shouldn't focus on external things and external validation, but on internal things and internal validation. Do you see the failure now? Joining a company and moving from secretary to manager to executive will give you and others the impression that you're progressing toward something. But this is only at work. This is not your life..

A real man, however, wants to do something like this in his life. That's where the real difference lies.
Women don't want a manager or an executive, but a man who knows how to change every day, who knows how to set daily goals, who doesn't take long to get back up when he falls.

I can assure you that there are many men who have made the right impression (they are CEOs, executives, and managers) and yet they are not Men of value, with objectives and goals, things to do in life. They are just in this "validation loop", they've money, they've circles, but they're still struggling setting goals: work =/ life

This is my perspective and feeling as a man.
I'd love to hear from the women on this forum, what they can tell us about it. If you know any of them, you could tag them.

Please add your relevant thoughts

 

[BackInTheGame78]

This sounds like a bunch of word diarrhea with no meaning to it to be honest.

 

[plumber]

can you simplify the question /

 

[BeExcellent]

Word diarrhea indeed. CEOs are high value people. The men are high value men. You don't become a top executive without either starting your own business and building it into something substantial or alternatively learning the skillset required to run someone else's business.

CEOs make bank because so few people in the workforce have the required skillset. The skillset requires a level of people skils and social understanding far beyond what the OP realizes and such positions demand results or you are gone.

The OP demonstrates pretty clearly that OP has absolutely no clue what he is talking about, and does not have any understanding about successful people or the mindset required to be a top exec. I know many. None have problems with women. The ones I know are either married or are rich playboys precisely because they have the soft skills for either.

This idea that CEOs are somehow successful in business but doofuses with women is cope, cope and more cope. Yes some of those dudes exist, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

This idea that CEOs are somehow successful in business but doofuses with women is cope, cope and more cope.

I would disagree.

The skills to build and run a successful business are completely different than the social skills needed to generate attraction in high quality women.

Certainly they interact, and a guy can augment his average social skills with his socio-economic status and do well.

But one set of skills can absolutely exist (on both sides) without the existence of the other. I don't think these are outlier cases.

For many successful business people, or many guys that are financially successful, take them out of their element, around people they don't know, and they'll be indistinguishable from dudes with no game.

Contrarily, plenty of guys who are near broke do very well with women.

 

[BeExcellent]

I would disagree.

The skills to build and run a successful business are completely different than the social skills needed to generate attraction in high quality women.

Certainly they interact, and a guy can augment his average social skills with his socio-economic status and do well.

But one set of skills can absolutely exist (on both sides) without the existence of the other. I don't think these are outlier cases.

For many successful business people, or many guys that are financially successful, take them out of their element, around people they don't know, and they'll be indistinguishable from dudes with no game.

Contrarily, plenty of guys who are near broke do very well with women.

I agree only to a point on the woman thing. Men who have that level of success must have soft skills to get there. This translates to having soft skills with women.

A man who is that successful is going to have the ability to interact with women unless he is in the socially awkward minority. Country clubs are populated with socially adroit successful people. A weird bachelor type is unusual in that environment (for example)....

I disagree with the premise that CEOs are somehow posers and illusions. That is uninformed cope put out there by someone who has no idea about that world. That view is pretty unintelligent actually. Nobody is going to hire & pay serious money to an "illusion," and if it does happen, they do not last long because the role requires a specific skillset.

But men who are inept with women and yet very successful are in the minority for that subset of individuals (successful people), and I've been around that world all my life.

So the level of uninformed presumption in the OP was pretty jaw dropping to me.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Country clubs are populated with socially adroit successful people. A weird bachelor type is unusual in that environment (for example)....

Country clubs are sorting mechanisms for people that are both financially astute and socially adroit.

Not all successful business people join country clubs and run in circles with people to join country clubs.

Plenty of guys who make a lot of money are absolutely clueless about women.

Men who have that level of success must have soft skills to get there. This translates to having soft skills with women.

Very much disagree. It can translate but it often doesn't.

But men who are inept with women and yet very successful are in the minority for that subset of individuals (successful people), and I've been around that world all my life.

That's your experience, which is not an objective experience. You are both socially adept and financially astute, so those are the kind of people you hang around.

This isn't different structurally from a guy who absolutely sucks with women who thinks, based on his subjective experience, that all women are mean, disloyal, disrespectful, etc.

 

[BeExcellent]

Country clubs are sorting mechanisms for people that are both financially astute and socially adroit.

Not all successful business people join country clubs and run in circles with people to join country clubs.

Plenty of guys who make a lot of money are absolutely clueless about women.



Very much disagree. It can translate but it often doesn't.



That's your experience, which is not an objective experience. You are both socially adept and financially astute, so those are the kind of people you hang around.

This isn't different structurally from a guy who absolutely sucks with women who thinks, based on his subjective experience, that all women are mean, disloyal, disrespectful, etc.

Understood. You and I disagree on the prevalence of successful men who are terrible with women. My stance is that they are in the minority.

I also hold the view that unsuccessful men who are great with women are also in the minority.

And I have experience far beyond a country club setting. I know lots of people who are members, and have all my life, so yes I've been around it. I actually have never been a member of one for several reasons, A. I think its a waste of money, B. I'm not serious enough a golfer to rationalize the high cost, and C. I don't need the social connections, which some people do join for, and D. It wasn't something my immediate family valued or found worth the cost.

My real beef is with OP essentially saying professionals in the C suite are posers and illusions, which simply displays his faulty belief system (not reality) and ignorance.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Understood. You and I disagree on the prevalence of successful men who are terrible with women. My stance is that they are in the minority.

I also hold the view that unsuccessful men who are great with women are also in the minority.

I believe my point wasn't that there was a large percentage or even a certain percentage of successful men that were "terrible" with women, (or the converse) rather that business success and social success, particularly with women, aren't as correlated as people imagine.

I also believe that the more wealthy or financially successful a man is, the more than can compensate for average level social skills. Wealth has its own halo effect.

I would also contend that non-wealthy (not unsuccessful) men that do well with women are absolutely not the exception to the rule.

We that live down here among the riff raff have plenty of first hand evidence of dudes who absolutely clean up socially but are more or less inept financially.

My real beef is with OP essentially saying professionals in the C suite are posers and illusions, which simply displays his faulty belief system (not reality) and ignorance.

I don't think that was the point he was making.

I can assure you that there are many men who have made the right impression (they are CEOs, executives, and managers) and yet they are not Men of value, with objectives and goals, things to do in life. They are just in this "validation loop", they've money, they've circles, but they're still struggling setting goals: work =/ life

I think he's saying (correct me I'm wrong @jhonny9546 ) that getting to the executive level doesn't guarantee success with women.

I don't think he's saying that professionals in the C suite are posers and illusions.

 

[jhonny9546]

You don't become a top executive without either starting your own business and building it into something substantial or alternatively learning the skillset required to run someone else's business.

This is what confuses women. And it always has: if they see a man in a high social position, they'll never question how he got there. Instead, any ability will be labeled as positive (Halo effect).
They'll later discover he was a narcissistic psychopath, but it will take time.

My real beef is with OP essentially saying professionals in the C suite are posers and illusions, which simply displays his faulty belief system (not reality) and ignorance.

We may live in really different worlds, but it's explained here https://www.sosuave.net/forum/threads/meritocracy-fairy-tale.285497/

 

[BeExcellent]

A person with experience is never at the mercy of a person with a theory.

Give that a think.

 

[jhonny9546]

I mean, this applies to men here too... doesn't "fake it until you make it" make you insecure?

Anyone in these high-ranking positions, whether a manager, director, CEO, or executive, has to behave like a sucker. They can't be themselves, because they have to be slick, they have to "get people on their side," and therefore they have to influence and manipulate the room, or even workplaces, to achieve their goals.
It seems like a mockery that these men are then called "high-level," when in fact they're working as a team and fooling each other, just to get results. Expecially corporate environments are like this!
This isn't manly behavior, and in fact, you'll find real men engaged in odd jobs like craftsman, builder, laborer, and not in these jobs that require the skills of "persuading people."


What we can say is that in today's world, women find these men compelling and valuable. They take them on rollercoaster rides much more than others, and they manage to increase their perceived value in the eyes of others exponentially.
They are not at all comparable to real, mature men.
These men are the ones who make a fuss, or are always the loudest men in the room.
They're the ones who will point the blame, or who will continue working on projects, even things they don't agree with, and they'll do it, rather than walk away, like a real man would.

Give women justifications like titles, status, job position, a nice house and car, or a well-dressed man, and then the halo effect will do the work. Of course, women don't know how to distinguish between a man of real and perceived value.
They will do so later, when they begin to see certain signs in their relationship with him, give that be in a workplace or at home, he being their HB. And then, women will stay for what he has to offer.

I really wish someone would tell me otherwise, but this is what worked.

 

[oOh Nasty]

Hello there OP.

Once again, you have not failed us in providing out-of-touch conclusions that have come out of your ass. Like BeExcellent said...you are nothing but a pile of theories (and about 97% of them have missed the mark) with almost no real world experience.

Is this forum an experiment to you? Your understanding of things has not gotten better since you've started here.

Let me tell you what's wrong with you. You keep conflating "manipulation" and "machiavellianism" to being highly attractive to women. Of course, there are parts of the dark triad personality that women will find attractive. But you keep coming to the same exact point in almost all of your threads. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that the manipulative man is attractive to women because he is manipulative?

Were you burned in the past and ignored by women you liked, while those same women went for these CEO/manipulative types? Do you find yourself to be a good-hearted person while all of these CEOs are not? Do you perhaps want women to value and admire you for having a "good heart" and "integrity," having honorable intentions, and for not saying **** behind anyone's back? Yet...they still go for the CEO who does the opposite.

Women don't want a manager or an executive, but a man who knows how to change every day, who knows how to set daily goals, who doesn't take long to get back up when he falls.

^ Here's an example of how you jump to dumb conclusions. An executive/CEO can't be BOTH? So you're saying that managers/CEOs/executives don't "change every day / set goals / bounce back up?"

If what you're trying to say is that it isn't the "status" part of managers/CEOs that women like, but rather the inherent characteristics of the man, then can you find it fathomable that perhaps it is those characteristics that got him into a high position in the first place?

 

[plumber]

I mean, this applies to men here too... doesn't "fake it until you make it" make you insecure?

Anyone in these high-ranking positions, whether a manager, director, CEO, or executive, has to behave like a sucker. They can't be themselves, because they have to be slick, they have to "get people on their side," and therefore they have to influence and manipulate the room, or even workplaces, to achieve their goals.
It seems like a mockery that these men are then called "high-level," when in fact they're working as a team and fooling each other, just to get results. Expecially corporate environments are like this!
This isn't manly behavior, and in fact, you'll find real men engaged in odd jobs like craftsman, builder, laborer, and not in these jobs that require the skills of "persuading people."


What we can say is that in today's world, women find these men compelling and valuable. They take them on rollercoaster rides much more than others, and they manage to increase their perceived value in the eyes of others exponentially.
They are not at all comparable to real, mature men.
These men are the ones who make a fuss, or are always the loudest men in the room.
They're the ones who will point the blame, or who will continue working on projects, even things they don't agree with, and they'll do it, rather than walk away, like a real man would.

Give women justifications like titles, status, job position, a nice house and car, or a well-dressed man, and then the halo effect will do the work. Of course, women don't know how to distinguish between a man of real and perceived value.
They will do so later, when they begin to see certain signs in their relationship with him, give that be in a workplace or at home, he being their HB. And then, women will stay for what he has to offer.

I really wish someone would tell me otherwise, but this is what worked.

you do understand it sounds like. next step is to accept it. after acceptance, decide what you want.

 

[Manure Spherian]

shouldn't focus on external things and external validation

Then go live in the woods and see how it feels.

“We should only get internal valuation” is a cope meme.

And for most men, “confidence” is something that flows through them from others, not from them.

Also if this meme were true, men would be satisfied screwing hookers.

Applied to child raising it would be neglectful.