How to Win Friends And Influence People.
It’s what you want, right?
To be able to effortlessly inspire confidence and attraction, to make friends quickly and easily, and be seen as important.
In my next series of posts, I am going to be breaking down the core messages of Dale Carnegie’s seminal book, How to Win Friends and Influence People. Many accomplished people, both in the manosphere and out, have recommended this book and it is my pleasure to tell you it is well worth the read.
I highly recommend you pick up this book, since you’ll read the paper version 10.7% faster than online, but considering you’re using a laptop or mobile to read this, I’ll offer the online version as well. (It’s free.)
I’ll be updating more soon, starting with the three fundamental techniques in handling people.
When I was a kid, I used to read voraciously. Mostly teen adult books, mind you, but fiction that definitely helped keep my spelling and understanding of English among the best in my class. As a teen, and like many other people, I slowly lost interest as reading became assigned solely to school materials and proofreading assessments, and television and the internet took it’s place as the main source of entertainment.
When I began to look on the internet for answers to my problems regarding relationships, I didn’t realise that the subsequent avalanche of articles, novels and informative books about to be levelled my way would help me become a better man. How could I? This was stuff outside of the television, old and new wisdom reimagined and repackaged for the new generations. From solvemygirlproblems.com to The Rational Male to the rest of the manosphere and back again, I found all of the information I had always touched on in experience but never fully understood. The only catch? I had to start using my brain again and actually read and apply it, instead of watching a short how to Youtube video.
Over the course of over a year now, I have read and digested nearly every Rational Male article I could find as well as Shark’s seminal posts on Game and the Red Pill. Throughout these posts, I have found many references and recommendations for source material to read to better understand the concepts presented. I was encouraged to critically reflect on what I read, see the research linking it, and decide for myself. I began reading additional books, skimmed over case studies looking for evidence of bias or influence, and devoured any information I could find on intergender dynamics. I had unleashed my inner bookworm, and he was starving.
That being said, I still have a long way to go in fitness, understanding the world around me and myself, and most certainly Game.
So with that in mind, I have compiled a series of books in different genres that I intend to read over the course of the next year or so, depending on how fast I finish them. I’m going to try and take a page from Danger And Play’s Don’t Waste Your Twenties;
“In the meantime, make use of your 20′s. Your brains are fast. You won’t realize how fast until they slow down.
Even if your job is demanding, you should be finishing two books each month. Although non-fiction is superior to fiction, reading something is better than nothing. Do not let the best be the enemy of the good.” ~ Danger And Play
The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi (Always good to refresh)
30 second Psychology by Christian Jarrett
Why Men Need Sex and Women Need Love by Allan and Barbara Pease
The Way Of Men by Jack Donovan
The Gentleman’s Guide to Picking Up Women by Ian Ironwood
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker
What every BODY is saying by Joe Navarro and Marvin Karlins
How To Make Small Talk by Mark Yuhas
The James Bond Cold Reading (Speed Learning) by Julian Moore
The Man Plan by James Kerley
Super Memory by Shakuntala Devi
10 STEPS TO BREAKING INTO ACTING by Matt Newton
Acting by Irwin Ossa
Neurobics Create your Own Brain Training Program
Think Smart Act Smart by D Bridger and C D Lewis
150 Things Every Man Should Know by Gareth May
The Art of War by Sun Tzu
Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
The Genesis Enigma by Andrew Parker
Philosophy in Minutes by Marcus Weeks
What does it All Mean? by Thomas Nagel
The Art of Happiness by the Dalai Lama (Not Buddhist, but it helps to get a different perspective.)
Widening the Circle of Love by the Dalai Lama
How to Live Forever and 34 Other Really Interesting Uses of Science by Alok Jha
Science 1001 by Paul Parsons
The Novice by Trudi Canavan
The Eye of the World (The Wheel of Time) by Robert Jordan
Small Shen by Kylie Chan
Vampire’s Blood by Darren Shan
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson
Galileo’s Dream by Kim Stanley Robinson
Enthralled by Marr and Armstrong
Control Point by Myke Cole
Little Vampire Women by Louisa May Alcott and Lynn Messina
Galaxy Battle League Part One by Tim O’Bree
Persuasion by Jane Austen
The Inferno by Dan Brown
The Professor by Charlotte Bronte
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay
Needless to say, there are some you will recognize and some you will not. I picked up a lot of these through booksales where they caught my eye, but a few were specifically suggested by popular Manosphere authors, so I’ll probably be knocking those off the list soon.
Depending on how they read, I’ll upload a review once I’ve finished a book. Hopefully that will mean more regular updates for you guys.
The Anita Sarkeesian Debacle
When it comes to a crowd funding project, there are always going to be risks. Costs trickle down, and sometimes projects get abandoned. Other times, the ultimate results of that crowd funding are disappointing considering the amount of money that people put into a project going in. One example of such a response to disappointment in terms of bang for your buck is the Anita Sarkeesian case, where after generating almost $160, 000 in donations (mostly in response to the backlash against her videos about the lack of strong women being portrayed in video games, a realm inherently dominated by men) she has released thus far five videos, apparently hired a producer and assistant, and improved her lighting and camera set.
Here are screenshots from her old series (non-funded) to the new series;
So it’s fair to say she has spent some effort and money on better equipment for her show. That said, her overall performance hasn’t impressed me that much. Anyone who knows me knows I’m on the close side of the Red Pill, but even listening to her videos, it doesn’t seem like that much has really been improved aside from the lighting and camera quality, along with some quality editing that wouldn’t take much more than a dedicated editor with some minimal skills at adobe premiere or another eight hundred dollar program. Taking into account the assistant and producer, which could account for a considerable sum, there is an understandable and healthy curiosity as to what exactly the money has been spent on in terms of improving the series.
Here’s a link to the first of her video essays on the portrayal of women in video games;
Overall, it’s a little less than what you’d expect in terms of a $160, 000 dollar budget. However, Fruzsina Eördögh of readwrite.com, offers something between a defense in terms of the harsh criticism and trolling Anita received after proposing her series (which lead to it’s story becoming infamous and enabled a greater portion of the population to donate) and a request to Anita to explain how she spent this exorbitant amount of money, considering her goal budget was only a meager $6, 000 dollars. Obviously the project has been updated since then, and Fruzsina even goes to lengths to describe that she is interested in what Anita is trying to do, but points out that it would serve her, and her fans, best to learn how much a project like this takes to get off the ground for those willing or wanting to try it themselves.
What happened to the rest of the $160,000?
Answering this question would certainly knock down the only legitimate point made by Sarkeesian’s online stalkers. Much more important, though, a good financial breakdown of Sarkeesian’s Kickstarter project would also help women video bloggers, who struggle with sexism every day on YouTube, better understand the financial costs of creating a successful video series. (Actually, it would be helpful for anybody dreaming of a career on YouTube). ~ Fruzsina Eördögh, readwrite.org
Setting aside the questions surrounding her funding, what she’s essentially giving out is her opinion on games. Which would seem fair, aside from the fact that for the scope of her video’s fundraising she seems to just name tropes in video games and explore how unfair they are to women.
Thunderfoot, an anti-feminist Youtuber produced a detailed response to Anita’s article;
In it he criticizes;
- The emphasis Anita has placed on the sheer level of research put into her series; (as much as I’ve seen I’m with him on this one, with one blogger alleging that she has simply copied “Let’s Play” footage in place of actually playing the games herself.)
- The hypocritical examples she uses; (referencing a Double Dragon Neon game as objectifying women and making them appear as “weak, ineffective and ultimately incapable” helpless objects, when the actual game itself shows the damsel in distress power-punch the 10 foot tall villain in the crotch after his long fall at the end of the credits, clearly knocking him out for the count.)
- The tropes she invokes also appear to go against common human affection; while she tries to paint the trope of the heroes going off to save their loved ones (i.e. Damsel in Distress) as a horribly misogynistic tool of the patrichary, he hilariously gives several examples detailing the trope as a manifestation of actually giving a damn about your loved ones.
Ultimately he remarks that the basic aims of these games were designed not to keep feminists happy, or to subjugate women, but to make it fun for guys, the majority demographic, to play, enjoy and buy. (According to Entertainment Software Association’s survey in 2013, even now 55% of gamers are men; a clear majority, let alone back in the first days of the Gameboy in 1989 when only 3% of gamers were women. At that time, why would developers bother catering to such a niche crowd, when it was so much easier to cater to the tastes of the 97% of men who were supplying the majority of their income? )
I’m of the opinion most of the money was donated sympathetically for the death threats and abuse she received over her plans, which obviously begs the question; should Anita Sarkeesian show how she spent this money? Andres Alvarez visits this in his article A Misunderstanding on Anita Sarkeesians Kickstarter.
Aside from an aversion to a great series, his claim makes enough sense; the whole aim of the Kickstarter project is to provide people looking to fundraise money for their private projects. And the whole purpose of the kickstarter page is just that; to convince others to donate to help make it a reality, or to purchase a “reward” and in doing so help them make their project a reality. The people who donated weren’t investors, and so aren’t necessarily entitled to a detailed report of how she spent that money.
However, it would be honest.
Considering that it’s very possible a large sum of her proceeds came from people who wanted her to go ahead with her idea and make it a reality, it would be a decent thing to do for people looking to fund their Youtube projects; after all, Freddie Wong, who raised over $600, 000 for his Youtube project, Video Game High School, was praised for his comprehensive infographic detailing how the impressive funds were managed in making his video series, which seems to have a surprisingly high production value.
Here he gives a basic outline of where the project’s funds went, split between various areas like kickstarter reward fulfillments, production equipment, crew, post production, stunts and location fees.
Is Anita obligated to provide a basic list illustrating where exactly the money has been spent? No, but at the same time, if she wanted to take the major argument her detractors have against her, it would be quite simple if she has nothing to hide.
All said and done, she does deserve some credit for at least putting her money where her mouth is and outlining a possible video game based on the “strong woman ideal” she is trying to encourage amongst gamers. (Although technically she’s reinforcing the monarchy by destroying the council and, assumedly, resuming absolute leadership over her lands.)
Next article we’ll be looking at the Lex Project Controversy and what you can do to get the most bang for your buck from a crowdfunded project like Kickstarter or Indiegogo.
Before we begin, I’d like to ask you a question; have you ever had a conversation with a girl over text that went something like this?
(Yes, it’s a link to a reasonably large image. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.)
Are you back? Good. For those of you unable to scroll through the image, it’s a humorous compilation of what a rejection looks like. Not the brutal, flat out rejection, which however damaging to a man’s ego forces him to adjust and improve his Game, and saves him valuable time; no, this time of rejection is far more common and insidious.
For as far as I’m aware, the best term for this type of rejection would be called “stringing along”, or Passive Rejection. For some, it’s a way to ease themselves out of an awkward conversation with a male suitor, but for others it’s a manipulative tool, designed not only to spare themselves the guilt or other feelings associated with turning someone down, but to keep them in a kind of locked stasis, a kind of negative zone where the woman is not offering the man anything of value (aside from periodic conversation and a vague promise of something more) while still being able to call upon his attention (and possibly resources).
This is also commonly referred to in the Manosphere as a Beta Orbiter; for an attractive woman, a Beta Orbiter is what an attractive woman is to a Playboy; they fulfill their sexual strategy to it’s utmost degree.
Women’s ovulatory cycle motivates for the sexual optimization of the Alpha, as well as the provisioning security / parental investment optimization that (usually, not exclusively) the Beta represents. ~Madonnas and Whores
The criterion for short term coupling are much easier to demand when a woman is in her peak fertility phase of life and thus places these prerequisites above what she would find more desirable for a long-term pairing. The extrinsic male-characteristic prerequisites for short-term sexual strategy (hot, quick Alpha sex) preempts the long-term qualifications for as long as she’s sexually viable enough to attract men.
Beta Orbiters generally follow the assumption that if they wait, if they “hang on” long enough, that the women they find attractive will realise how much effort he puts into being their friend and realise him as a worthy sexual partner. This false notion is enforced and perpetuated by a lot of the media; movies and TV shows will unashamedly show the dorky guy winning over his dream girl because he simply stuck around long enough and adorned her with attention.
Before the Red Pill I used to wonder aloud how unfair it was that I- a “Nice Guy™” was being looked over by women, and then I was consoled with one incredible, slightly off sentence.
“Don’t worry, later on in life you’ll have plenty of girls coming after you.”
Even before then I’d hated the idea of settling, but that one sentence sparked something in me; something snapped, and I realised the world they were painting in my head as pleasant and hopeful was actually serving what Rollo Tomassi describes as the Feminine Imperative. I didn’t like the idea of women, having had their fun in their 20’s and 30’s, and then finally deciding to settle for me. In a way this little social engineering was one of the first glitches in the Matrix for me, a sign that something wasn’t right. It would be roughly a year from that point that I would read and discover The Game, and a year and a half from when I would discover The Rational Male.
The Red Pill
But this isn’t a rant against women. In fact, as far as the Red Pill goes, it’s actually in the interest of women as well. It gives them men who are men, self reliant and positively masculine. That is something which this world (especially the overly feminised western world) desperately needs. The Red Pill has two main effects; the realisation of the realities of the world (mostly in a male/female dating sense) and the focus on self improvement in order to achieve success in dating and other areas of life.
The world we grow up in today is increasingly feminised, and while I’m all for equal human rights, what the feminist movement has evolved into has effectively become what George Orwells described as “Newspeak”, as described by Raywolf; “A word that appears to have one meaning (with a positive connotation) but in fact carries a negative and socially harmful—even controlling content to it, whilst having nothing to do with what the average person might actually glean from the term on face value.”
Many people, men and women, are tempted to identify as “feminist” because they assume that the word stands for what feminism says it stands for in a modern, idealistically utopian society. That everyone is and should be treated as an equal. This kind of feel good blanket statement looks like a good moral strategy on paper, but what many fail to realise is that a large core of feminists actually seek to overpower men in a gender war, rather than ensure equality.
In response to this, Joshua Kennon wrote an article about the incident in which he implored that “The way these protestors are behaving is exactly the opposite of how you should strive to live your life. If someone wants to promote an idea, you don’t block the doors and keep people out (doing so only indicates you fear what they say). Instead, you throw open the doors, turn on the spotlights, turn up the microphone, and then invite the informed to debate, discuss, evaluate, weigh, measure, and work out whether there is truth in the idea.”
For the record, while I like the idea of complete and utter equality, I think what it tends to forget is that all too often feminist equality forgets, disregards or completely ignores reasonable sexual dimorphism or, in cases like the one above, common sense. If it were a group of MRAs protesting a feminist lecture, this may have proceeded into a drastically different scenario. If we’re going to call on this banner of equality, let us call ourselves Egalitarians instead; it’s a pure, simple, underused term that has no trace of gender (like the feminine in feminism, or man of manosphere) so the radicals on both sides can relax.
In the face of all of these opposing forces, how do we identify the proper way to value ourselves? In terms of the Beta Orbiter, what I learned from the Red Pill was that I also had a hand in how I was perceived by women, and had to make a commitment to improving myself in order to change it; I forced myself to engage more socially with others, dress better, understand the opposite sex and reaped the benefits. The rule here is that we have to recognize that our choices impact us and what we can expect from other people.
In terms of Passive Rejection, the appropriate thing to do is to understand that the Let’s Just Be Friends response women take to a suitor is a rejection, to not take it personally, and finally strive to improve yourself and move on.
As for the Red Pill and the response to feminism as a modern, progressive society’s “default”, I suggest using the term Egalitarian for it’s genderless, true equality, and not the false connotations of feminism as a strive to complete equality. Value yourself, and as I find in this day and age of the incompetent, beer guzzling mother coddled dads and men we are shown on a daily basis through media, it is essential to add that you must respect yourself as a Man. Masculinity is all too often depicted as either incompetent or violent and aggressive, and while it has some elements of these (Men are more likely to be an idiot or a genius, and that testosterone, the main Masculine hormone, fuels aggression, but also competitiveness and pro-social behaviours.) you should not allow this social conditioning to remove or degrade your natural masculinity.
In my next posts, I’ll be talking more about self improvement, the language of PUA and the Red Pill, and other male/female relations dynamics.
In the meantime, stay classy.
It’s important to look back on the year you’ve just had. If you can do so with no regrets, you are living life to the fullest. If you do have regrets, it’s a great learning experience. As Confucius says,
” By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” ~Confucius
In this respect, we should aim to be noble as we end one year and begin the next.
When I was a boy, my father brought myself and my younger brother out to the small veranda out on the second storey. There was barely space enough for the three of us, but he wanted to make a point. At the time you could see the New Year’s Eve fireworks from the Brisbane city River from our house, and as they took to the sky and exploded, he said to us;
“Close your eyes. Reflect on the year you have had. Think about everything, everything you’ve done and wanted to do, and what you want to achieve. Don’t hold onto regrets, and embrace the New Year.”
My father is a stoic man, who doesn’t speak without something important to say so I took those words to heart (though after 10 or so years the exact wording escapes me, that was the gist of it). America may have one day to go before they countdown to the New Year, but in Australia it’s Crunch Time. I write this blogpost as a way both for myself to reflect and to allow you, the reader, to reflect with me.
What year have you had?
This year has been eventful. I swallowed the Red Pill. Roosh correctly predicted that this year ‘the manosphere goes viral’. The ABC 20/20 debacle proved the media is biased. However you view it, Tuthmosis’ ‘24 signs she’s a slut‘ and ‘5 reasons to date a girl with an eating disorder‘ put Return of Kings on the map (and for many feminists, the butcher’s block) with these articles. ‘Fat shaming week happened’. I have my disagreements with ROK on certain subjects, but I see enough focus on Positive Masculinity that makes viewing the site worth it. I discovered Rollo Tomassi’s the Rational Male. I read the Game.
And that’s just the Manosphere-related stuff.
Miley Cyrus wrecked her career. Kanye almost decided not to go for a pre-nup, despite what he would tell you in his best song ‘Gold Digger.’ And a whole bunch of other stuff that no-one outside the celebrity world really cares about. Oh, and the Doctor regenerated.
For myself, it’s been a year of coming into awareness and understanding. I went from PUA literature like The Game to it’s more powerful incarnation the Red Pill. And I’ve suddenly become aware of all the small things I was doing wrong (and right) and made the decision to fix these.
I imagine your year has been quite eventful as well.
What did you achieve?
Overall, I dress better. People now compliment me on my dress sense, and I’ve had a few less fashion conscious friends ask me for help. I’m much more direct and social, and I’ve learned the benefits to getting everything I want. I’ve established a reputation among my university friends, and I’ve started a blog.
What do you want to achieve?
I want to improve myself. ‘Socially‘, ‘Physically,‘ and ‘Mentally‘. There’s no excuse, particularly as ‘MIT puts all of their course materials up for free on their website.‘ I’m also getting myself more into my film aspirations, with four independent short films under my belt I’m moving onwards and upwards from here.
I’ve got regrets. I think that it’s very hard to live in a way for a year where you don’t regret at least one thing that you did. That’s just the price of hindsight. But as many approaches that I’ve messed up, as many dumb things I’ve said, or bad jokes made; I’ve learned from it all. And in saying that, I think I can honestly admit my mistakes, and learn from them.
In summing, I’d like to borrow a quote from John Barrowman;
“Yet if I was asked to do this again – in fact, if I was ever asked to repeat any of my experiences – I’d have to say, fuck it, bring them on. I’ve no regrets.
This is what it means to be alive.”
Close your eyes. Reach in deep. Think about the year you’ve had, your triumphs, your fumbles, your realisations. Empty yourself of regret. Make a new promise to yourself, one to be a better you. Ask yourself these questions, once a year, every year, and honestly apply yourself throughout the year, to be better than you were before.
Be a better you.
“We all change. When you think about it, we’re all different people all through our lives.
And that’s OK, that’s good, as long as you keep moving, as long as you remember all the people that you used to be. I will not forget one line of this, not one day, I swear. I will always remember when the Doctor was me.” ~Matt Smith’s last words as the Doctor.
Carrie is the story a lot of horror fans are already familiar with. A suppressed young girl develops telekinetic powers and, through continuous verbal, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and causes a disaster which is described in the world it takes place in as “worse than the assassination of John F. Kennedy.” Carrie originally started off as a thriller book by Stephen King, before following into several movie adaptations, but it is the 2013 adaptation which has the most interesting reflections on the role of masculine figures within the story.
Now, a disclaimer; I am aware that Carrie was not made as a masculine-social commentary, but what I have seen in my time post-Red Pill is that the movie portrays disturbing trends in how we commonly see males in today’s society. Much of the movie focuses on Carrie’s puberty and coming into herself (the constant display of blood as well as the telekinesis being another potential metaphor) and this gives the movie a decidedly feminine perspective. Which is fine, so long as my readers differentiate between my use of the feminine (the perspective and traits associated with women) and feminist (a social ideology which, to my definition, is not about equality; that’s called egalitarianism).
Carrie’s first view of a male figure comes in when we see Carrie being brought to the Principal to discuss the other girls throwing tampons at her in the wake of her first period, which her fundamentalist Christian mother neglected to tell her anything about; (I’d like to note that it is interesting how perceptions have changed; in 1974 when King first published his book, he emphasized the fact that Carrie’s mother had split away from mainstream Christianity and founded her own religion, whereas in 2013 a increasingly secularized audience is prone to just taking that the mother has just gone overboard. There seems to be a lack of definition or, potentially, an assumed understanding of the difference between a regular Christian and a fundamentalist.)
In this scene, the principal is portrayed as well-meaning, but uncomfortable and awkward in addressing the matter as he is incapable of speaking bluntly about natural facts of the female body, going so far as to search for a word for tampons before finally calling them “…things.” This is our stock-standard definition of a beta; he’s not so far gone as to be completely dependent on women, but from the exchange he has with the female P.E. teacher and Carrie’s surrogate parental figure it’s pretty obvious who has the power in the professional relationship. His bumbling attitude aside, he actually goes so far as to give complete control for judgement and punishment to the P.E. teacher, partly due to her experience as a female and witness to the situation and largely because he is out of his depth. It’s understandable to choose your words in talking about such topic in a professional position at a school, but being incapable of dealing with female students as a principal is pretty telling.
Our next two masculine characters come in the form of doting boyfriend Tommy and badboy Billy. Tommy’s girlfriend, Sue, feels guilty about her involvement in Carrie’s bullying and decides to covertly set her up with her boyfriend. (Again, the 1974 version is different; she actually befriends Carrie first, and the inclusion of social media causes me to wonder how much this has affected our ability to make friends.) Tommy is handsome and a football star, but he’s as Beta as the sky is blue. He has no say for himself in his life, and the verbal exchange where we see Tommy switch his allegiance between the P.E. teacher and his girlfriend says it all for him. He’ll go with the current, and follow the strong willed.
Billy, on the other hand, is a characterised depiction of the male capacity for destruction.
To quote Ian Ironwood from redpillroom;
“Besides our capacity for enduring hard labor, the male ability and willingness to risk his life in the conduct of violence has been valued and despised since the Neolithic.”
We see this embodied in Billy from the get go. He has admittedly Alpha traits (and remember, Alpha, much like success, is not necessarily subject to moral alignments.) and the adoration of his hypergamic girlfriend. (Who constantly battles between accepting his behaviour and questioning-but never rejecting– it. This seems to give her some ease of mind knowing that overtly, he is doing wrong while she is just covertly encouraging it.) He’s not admirable in the sense that his actions are good, but he is notably the closest thing to an Alpha in the story.
Again, this isn’t a story based on males, and for the story to occur properly it actually needs the males to be weak or flawed-or both. Who could say how the movie would have turned out differently if the principal had taken some initiative and another course of action? Or possibly gotten Carrie counselling? What if Tommy had told Carrie that Sue was trying to make up for her misdeeds, and encouraged a friendship? What if Billy wasn’t bat-shit insane?
The only other strong male character in this story is Chris’s (the main antagonist’s) father, who immediately sets his presence from the get-go. The suit, hard-cut attitude and matter-of-fact statements all envision some high paying corporate man, a possible don draper at the business, but this masculine character’s flaw is his “initial” daddy’s little girl attitude, which he promptly shirks once he learns his daughter may have made an incriminating video of her bullying. The principal, who is still portrayed as unassertive and awkward, suddenly puts his hand forward demandingly under the blanket of the father’s insistence she hand it over. Even the P.E. teacher, the strong, maternal figure in this movie, stands behind the father instead of alongside the principal, and calls out her opinions from behind him, which eventually prompt the demand for the phone to be checked. This has a interesting reflection on male-female dominant forms of communication (overt and covert, respectively) and unfortunately, this is the last we see of any good parenting throughout the movie.
In closing, while Carrie focuses on the original themes of the first (blood and puberty moreso than the religious undertones) it nonetheless demonstrates a sincere lack of any positive masculine characters. Hopefully this won’t always be the case in future film reviews.
As always, thanks for listening.