“Practical Female Psychology for the Practical Man” is a dating and relationship book for men in which the authors explain the psychology of women in dating and relationships from a “manosphere” point of view.
Summary
About The Authors:
The three authors write with pen names or first names only.
Joseph has read heavily on seduction since his breakup, and, as he said, he took several David DeAngelo seminars
🙋🏼♂️ Lucio’s note: DeAngelo was a forerunner the PUA movement, although I found his products like “Sexual Communication” and “Advanced Dating Techniques” lackluster at best.
Franco seems to be working as a psychiatrist and dating and relationship coach.
🙋🏼♂️ Lucio’s note: His blogs are interesting, with several gold nuggets, although with some common limitations of similar authors, including room for improvement in science, accuracy, and logic. Some ethical red flags as well, with an only partially accurate post vaunting the psychopath’s approach to dating
Joseph W. South has little reliable information online
🙋🏼♂️ Lucio’s note: looking at his Facebook and Twitter (later suspended), he seems politically alt-right leaning, including some tweets of dubious scientific depth.
Guy breathes out smoke to ‘prove’ masks ‘don’t work’
He wrote for Girlschase, for which we reviewed “How to Make Girls Chase” and “One Date“.
#1. Women Are Manipulators
The authors say that women are manipulators by nature.
Manipulation is not always necessarily bad, though, and the authors say that manipulation can sometimes also support the relationship or the child’s welfare.
But some other times it will undercut the man, and to avoid being taken advantage of (and to avoid having her attraction tank), he must stop all harmful manipulation attempts.
The authors quote Games People Play, but go much further than that to list and explain the following games women play:
- Double bind
- Bait and switch
- Ambush
- Jealousy
- Rich descriptions (this one made little sense to me)
- Pouting and whining
For practical examples, read:
And, most of all:
Lucio’s note: it’s life that promotes manipulation, not ‘womanhood’
They’re probably right, but I’d contend that it’s life that inherently develops manipulation as one of the many forms of control.
Any form of life that better controls the environment beats those that don’t. Men may use more direct and forceful approaches compared to women, but effective male manipulators still beat (and out-reproduced) those the poor ones.
#2. Screen For Sex Drive & Self-Esteem
The authors categorize women depending on their sexual drive (high or low) and self-esteem (high or low).
I very much enjoyed the difference, but the self-esteem part seemed like a huge misnomer.
The authors are not really describing self-esteem but end up describing much broader qualitative categories such as “low-quality women” and “high-quality women“.
3. Female Logic Is Schizophrenic
The authors say that at its core, female logic is schizophrenic.
Women with high sex drive present more female logic than women with low sex drive, and men should not try to repress the female nonsense because they would end up thwarting their very feminine nature.
Example:
The authors describe an example of Franco’s wife jumping from one topic to another, forgetting about their movie date, and accusing him of enjoying being away from home.
Franco does not contradict her like most men would have done. And he doesn’t even remind her of the movie date they had planned.
Instead, he goes along with her, and, as he notes, he missed a lot of movies like that.
Lucio’s Note: Not a good idea to adapt to craziness
I disagreed with the example.
Most men would indeed do much better in relationships if they understood female psychology, that’s true. But going along with her nonsense means falling into her frame. You relinquish power.
Better: let her conform to you.
Relinquishing leadership and letting her back out of jointly taken decisions is weak.
Also, read:
#4. Women Divide Men Into Providers & Lovers
The authors revisit a very popular topic in the dating literature: the difference between providers and lovers.
They say:
in their hearts chicks love to love bad boys, but in their heads they know that nice guys make much better husbands.
This Female Basic Conflict is a schizophrenic duality between a woman’s need for survival, on the one hand, and her need to express her own sexuality, on the other.
This creates a psychological condition whereby a woman’s sexuality is necessarily ambivalent and conflicted.
The authors say that most women will manipulate men to become providers, which I also found quite true.
Also, read:
In spite of one of the authors writing on Girlschase, I agreed that it’s nonsense to tell men it’s best to never pay for the date.
Indeed, I often got laid after having paid for a couple of drinks and I never noticed a major difference in results between paying and not paying. So I never much believed in that.
However, the authors also say that it must be congruent with who you are and what you believe.
You must not change your rules and “buckle under pressure” to pay or you will look like a chump. And I also agree with that.
#5. The 7 Female Archetypes
The authors also list and describe 7 different female archetypes who, they say, are on top of the archetypes Robert Greene lists in “The Art of Seduction“.
Their archetypes mix sex drive with self-esteem and add on top:
- Good girls (more concerned about society’s approval)
- Materialistas (care more about material possessions)
- Adventuress (thrill seeker)
All women have some materialista in them, and all of them will try to extract something from men.
So don’t get angry when she shit-tests you and asks you to buy a drink.
I also wholeheartedly agree with the authors when they say that it’s a good sign to have some materialista in them because it means they care about getting the best deal they can get (so stop complaining about female hypergamy).
To learn more about materialistas also read:
Real-Life Applications
- Switch from feminine to masculine
“Practical Female Psychology” has some solid content.
This is one of them with which I wholeheartedly agree (minus the schizophrenic part because there is nothing schizophrenic about it):
Therefore, to increase sexual and emotional arousal within a woman you will need to learn to shift between two identities in an almost schizophrenic manner.
At times you will want to talk to women in a very masculine way: directly, succinctly and logically. At other times, you will want to you talk to women in the same manner that a female friend might do.
Lucio’s Insights & Criticism
I enjoyed reading “Practical Female Psychology” and I can also recommend it (as long as you keep your critical thinking hat on).
But I also deeply disagreed with the following:
#1. Made-Up Evolutionary Biology
I’m a huge fan of evolutionary psychology and it explains much of human behavior.
But there is a lot of made-up evolutionary psychology in manosphere corners.
These authors remind me of psychologist Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking Fast and Slow, who said:
The more I listen to evolutionary psychologists, the less I believe in evolutionary psychology
I’m afraid that “Practical Female Psychology” is like that, at times.
#2. Misunderstands The Madonna-Whore Dichotomy
Despite the author talking a lot about evolutionary psychology, they still failed to properly understnad the evolutionary basis of the madonna-whore dichotomy.
First, they fail to consider that the Madonna-whore dichotomy might make sense from a male perspective because it’s a great strategy to impregnate the easier women and marry the more faithful ones.
And no, if you think ‘all women are the same’, that’s empirically wrong.
If the authors themselves admit that women differ in sex drive and the likelihood of cheating and sleeping around, then the Madonna-whore complex serves an important male need (a point that Robert Wright also makes in “The Moral Animal“).
Also, read:
#3. Some Misunderstanding of Dating Economics
The authors write:
Basically, when a female has agreed to be in an isolated venue with a man, she has decided (at least subconsciously) that the male in question is superior in terms of genetic fitness, in comparison to all the other males in her proximity.
That’s not really true: men and women pick partners also based on what they feel is their own sexual market value and how closely they think they match.
If that weren’t the case, average and lower sexual market value folks would never pair up with anyone.
Also, read:
#4. Relationships and Seduction Are Not the Same
The authors write:
In a relationship, you are picking up the same woman, over and over and over again.
I believe the dynamics of seduction and relationships are very different.
Also, read:
#5. Generalizations
The authors write:
men who become physically unfit in relationships learn very quickly that many women have no compunction against kicking a man while he is down.
As David says, she needs to feel that he is the same strong bastard she was initially attracted to, even when he is sick-in-bed with the flu.
Albeit this might be true in quite a few cases, it’s dangerous to generalize like that and it provides fertile ground for the rampant misogynism that is common in red pill communities.
That being said, “Practical Female Psychology” is not a misogynistic book and the authors espouse a much healthier mindset.
They say:
Our belief is that it’s never appropriate for a man to expect altruism from a woman, only to appreciate a woman’s altruism when she provides it
#5.2. Sweeping Generalizations With Little Nuance (or Science)
“Practical Female Psychology” quotes several sources, but many are pop-psychology and it ultimately lacks scientific backing and, in my experience, also real-life nuance.
For example, they mention “The Female Brain” to say that:
Though females may train themselves to act like men, in reality they have a very deep biological urge to be talkative
“Deep biological urge” to be talkative?
That, plus referencing sources like “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” didn’t help the authors win score extra authority points.
Also, this idea that “women are natural manipulators” as if men weren’t, is misleading.
Also, read:
#6. Some Weak Advice For Men
And I found some typical “alpha male caricature” stuff that ends up being more harmful than helpful.
Here is one example:
Wife: Let’s go out to eat
Man: I like the way you think. Grab your coat and keys, you’re driving.
Wife: Where are we going?
Man: (Spins her around) We’ll know when we get there!
The authors say that men should learn that statements such as “let’s go out to eat” are tantamount to “I’m bored, entertain me”.
Which, sometimes… could be true.
And it might even be true that women are on average more childish than men.
But generalizing to all or even most situations is the fruit of the toxic masculinity mindset which wants to see women as “silly and cute” and who are not worthwhile partners for a more serious discussion.
Of course, there are times when women love being treated as silly and cute.
But likely not in a matter-of-fact conversation about where to go for dinner (especially if she’s driving, doh!).
That’s silly of him, not of her.
Furthermore, if she “wanted to be entertained” and he’s going out to eat just to “make her play”, that’s really low-quality of him.
In the example above he is fully buying into her frame and relinquishing all his needs. A busy man shouldn’t have too much time for playing around.
Learn more about what a real alpha male looks like:
PROS
- Some good psychology wisdom
Although I heavily criticized “Practical Female Psychology” for its pop psychology and made-up facts, I also have to praise it for the many pearls of wisdom it presents.
I even took something away from our products here which is the greatest compliment I can make to the authors.
For example:
Many pathological male reactions that can be observed within couple relationships are in fact a desperate defense mechanism, employed by men who have no skills with women.
This stuff is true, but it’s not what you will find in research, studies, or more scientific books like the ones from John Gottman.
- Some humorous lines
There were a few lines that really got me laughing.
For example:
Female Integrity To many men, the very notion of female integrity is an oxymoron of the highest caliber. Right up there with “military intelligence.”
Review
Practical Female Psychology is an interesting book with unique takes you won’t find in any other relationship books. Some of these takes are valid and deep, while others are more questionable.
It reminded me a bit of “The Rational Male” and of Red Pill philosophy.
And by that, I mean that it has some top-notch, very insightful content, mixed with some nonsense, generalization, and unfounded personal conjectures that scream “bro-science / pop psychology“.
To recognize which is which you need some good personal experience with women and a good understanding of psychology.
This review of “Practical Female Psychology” will help you separate the wheat from the chaff so that you can safely read the full book and get the most out of it.
Also, read:
