The female chameleon is a behaviour which most people can recognize when it’s pointed out. But because it preserves a state of deniability in the player – definite identification is a challenging pursuit.
The chameleon wears her point-of-view as a costume. The behaviour is most often seen in celebrities as many public figures use a created persona as part of their marketing and it is widely accepted with minimal criticism. What a Katy Perry or a Beyonce Knowles really thinks is of barely trivial concern. But the beliefs these public personalities portray might change from one marketing move to the next.
In the average woman, the same chameleon behaviour is common. Ideology and philosophy is adopted and discarded as a matter of personal advantage and convenience. In the world of non-celebrity, the prevalence of this inconsistent female behaviour presents a real problem to anyone dealing with women.
But are these women solely to blame? The female chameleon could not exist without the participation of men, particularly those playing the role of white knight. Men who practice chivalry enable the shape shifter. Perhaps it is you fine fellows who are the problem.
Now, “fine fellows” is not slang for “dirtbags,” or “manginas,” or other male-focused insults.
The men who enable women’s avoidance of accountability are, in almost all cases, doing what they think is the right thing. Protect the women, attack the bad men, and hopefully, gain a sliver of positive identity for being the obedient protectors of the feminine caste.
Many men completely buy into the claim of a centuries-deep conspiracy of male domination over women. There is a powerful motivation to conform to this mythology, because men still gain their positive public identities from female approval and patriarchy is not just the female propaganda, it’s their religion.
These men are the rescuers of female sociopaths, and the avengers of offended female dignity. They are also the ones who will attack other men who have removed themselves from female control. These white knights identify themselves as uniquely “good” men. They are the reasonable ones.
And if we are not aware of the chameleon, we risk becoming another one of those poor dumb bastards too.
In the world of women, deniability is a developed skill. Faked innocence and pretend ignorance of the outcomes of actions are standard practice.
Most men still live without an understanding of the feminine world of constructed reality, and reject the concept of the chameleon. Some will pretend incomprehension. Some will denounce this thesis of plausible deniability as a half-cooked conspiracy. Those who point it out will be labeled misogynists.
All such arguments are merely avoidance of an uncomfortable truth: For most women, plausible deniability is a commodity. In fact, a major fraction of otherwise baffling behavior becomes clear when we see that deniability is pursued for it’s own sake.
Standard expectations in romantic relationships show some of the most naked examples of chameleon behavior. A casual survey of female targeted relationship advice shows an array of manipulation tactics.
Don’t be yourself, put on an act. Use deception.
Force him to take the initiative, this allows you to avoid any responsibility. Don’t talk to a man first.
Invest less than he does in all social transactions. Hold power over him. Rarely return his calls.
Be the gatekeeper of communications, keep unilateral power in all contacts. Always end phone calls first.
Force him to elevate you over himself in social transactions. Don’t accept social engagements from him without days of advance planning.
These few items of advice are borrowed from a book called The Rules. This is a twenty year old dating advice book which still informs most of modern romance ideology. Women’s magazines continue re-packaging the same tactics, and women cheerfully use these tools, confident that they are correct to do so.
The Rules reflects the current view that, for women, non-accountability, subterfuge, coercion, and control in relationships is appropriate. This public view of one-sided power is widely accepted, and rarely recognized or publicly identified as dysfunctional.
Men are not socialized to recognize abuse against themselves as real, or even possible.
Let’s be clear. The advice given in almost all women’s literature about how to manage relationships with men is advice about how to practice coercion and control. It is abuse. Women who use these tactics would be called abusers by any objective standard except that it is practiced from behind this curtain of plausible deniability.
Women are weak. Women are oppressed. Women are victims, even when committing violent crimes. Women are always the victims. The abuse excuse is just another disguise for the female chameleon.
The cult of feminism demonstrates an escalating practice of the behavior we call the chameleon. Activist feminists attack due process, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the normal repugnance normal felt towards murder. When challenged, feminists direct attention away from the real world, and to the dictionary. See? It says right here in the EOD that feminism is all about equality. Pay no attention to the campus lynch mob, or the murder-advocating feminist law professor.
This is the chameleon and the endless pursuit of plausible deniability.
For men, awareness and a tool kit to recognize the chameleon is becoming a matter of survival. That toolkit will protect you from financial fraud, incarceration, and potentially fatal violence.
But there is no single test, nor any set of tests, capable of detecting and avoiding the grift of a female chameleon. The reason being that any such published list of criteria will be adopted as a part of chameleon behavior.
In fact, many men have published suggestions for women, to make them non-toxic, viable partners for relationships or long term commitment. And as a result, a wave of women who are “not like that” are manifesting in the blogging spaces of the wider manosphere. Just by pure coincidence, these women self describe with a list of qualities perfectly matching what men have said their perfect ideal of an atypical not-like-that women woman would be.
And I don’t entirely blame such men, but I do fault them for their failure to grasp the shape-changing game.
How do you tell the grifters from women who are “not like that”?
How do you tell a patch of bare ground from a buried land mine. Simple. You walk across it, and if you’ve still got your leg afterward, it was probably safe. Or don’t walk on it. Gambling with dismemberment is not a good risk management strategy.
But if you’ve been burned or betrayed or abused by women, you should just keep trying. No matter how many malicious opportunists there are, there are also some women who are not like that. Does this sound familiar? Get out there and play soccer in that minefield, because some of that ground doesn’t have land mines under it. Don’t be a quitter, keep trying.
And gentlemen, if you fall prey to the advice that not all women are like that, and keep trying, you might just be a useful simp. Maybe the purpose of your life is to be a warning to others.
Men are opting out, and women are beginning to notice.
The element of our culture now facing men is one of abuse. “Rape culture, all men are rapists, patriarchy, evil men, teach boys not to be rapist monsters,” despite that they’re not rapists, nor are they monsters.
And we wrap that abuse in a phoney veneer of protection for the delicate and helpless ladies. Fragile females victimized by everything from friendly greetings to how a guy sits on public transit.
The result is a rapid decline in dating, talking to women, marriage, or pursuit of the wealth necessary to interest women who still control the social narrative. Women define “good” men as “the one who wants to pay for all my shiny bullshit.”
It is not a coincidence that the terms “starter husband” and “man desert” rose into popular use one after the other. Contrary to public messaging, men are not completely stupid.
But in response to the growing howls of frustration and outrage from women and their enablers, some men propose modes of behavior which will render women non-toxic to men.
One error behind such suggestions is that what is sometimes called “men on strike” is actually a strike. The idea that men opting out is part of a negotiation. Some stupid few might be belligerently holding out for better terms of servitude but, for most, the man strike is no strike at all. It is a diaspora.
MGTOW is not a movement of reformers, it is men’s unapologetic abandonment of male destructive norms.
But the advice offered by some men to women plays directly to the female behavior termed the chameleon. Women will present as whatever provides them social advantage. Many women have no ideology, no compass, and no firm beliefs, except for whatever gives them the most advantage at that moment.
Who can tell if this is most women, or some small few, or all women? The chameleon is so effective nobody can tell adaptive camouflage from what it imitates.
And those guys posting public advice to women, telling them what men would stop avoiding or shunning need to stop. Advising women that X, Y, and Z behaviours will get them back in men’s favour is simply announcing: Hey, professional grifter! Over here! Here’s how to scam these guys back into being in your bullseye again.
You’re just giving your predators a new mask to wear.