The Honor System

“An unfamiliar feeling for one of you, but a horribly familiar feeling for the other.”

The concept of Honor that men began has been made to serve a feminine purpose. I have no doubt that the principle of honor dates back from as long ago as we can track human civilization, but like so many other social foundation Men have instituted, the feminine will covertly position them to their own purpose.

In the introduction to the Art of Seduction author Robert Greene explains why there was an original need for seduction to be developed into an art. For this we can look back to ancient civilizations where women were essentially a commodity. They had no OVERT external power to control their fates, but they excelled (and still do) at COVERT psychological internal power, and this of course finds a parallel in men and women’s preferred communication methods. The feminine’s primary agency has always been sexuality and manipulating influence by its means.

Much in the same way that each gender communicates, so too is their method of interacting within their own gender. As Men we’re respected when we keep our word, sacrifice ourselves for a worthy cause (even to the point of disposability), solve problems rationally, our word is our bond, and a whole host of other qualifiers that make us respectable and worthy of integrity. We must be OVERT and above board; and when we encounter a man who is COVERT in his dealings we call him ‘shifty’ and think him untrustworthy. Even for the most noble of purposes, practicing the art of misdirection is not something men are respected for – at least not publicly.

It’s just this overt masculine interactive nature that women are only too ready to exploit. In combination with their sexual agency and influence they use this overt male social interactive dynamic to position themselves in places where they can use indirect power. Cleopatra was an excellent example of this – sending armies to war by appealing to powerful men’s pride and honor, while reserving her sexuality as a reward. Virtually every Feminine Social Convention is rooted in appealing to, or attacking male social institutions – a dedication to an idealistic sense of honor being chief among them. The obvious example is of course “shaming” and the “do-the-right-thing” social contract.

In fact to be a “Man” has become synonymous with living up to a feminine imperative that’s cleverly disguised as masculine Honor. It’s not that women created Honor, but rather that they’ve recreated it to serve their purpose. In the Biblical Ten Commandments we’re told not to commit adultery – don’t sleep with another man’s wife – which probably wasn’t too hard to abide by when polygamy was the norm. In fact multiple wives was a sign of affluence, it used to be the conspicuous consumption of the epoch. Why then is polygamy a social perversion now? What changes occurred that made polygamy honorable (even enviable) into a very evil taboo?

Along with language and culture, social conditions evolve. What we think of as Honorable today are the result of centuries molding. It’s very easy to romanticize about times when Honor among Men reigned supreme, and then lament the sad state of society today in comparison, but doing so is a fools errand. Honor in and of itself is, and should be, a foundation for Men, but it’s only useful when we understand it in the perspective of how it can be used against us.

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

In contemporary society we have a very different understanding of what Honor was, or was intended to be initially. One of the psychological undercurrents I see in most AFCs is a strong, self-righteous dedication to a very distorted conviction of Honor. A main tenet being an unearned, default respect for women; essentially an unearned Honor placed on a woman for no other reason than she’s female. We learn this (usually) from the time we’re children, “never hit a girl”. Naturally, this has only been ferociously encouraged by the feminine since Victorian times because it served a latent purpose right up until on demand (feminine exclusive) birth control was offered, and then prompted the sexual revolution.

Today, we still have women using the anachronism that is male Honor in a manner that serves their interests, but it’s contrasted with a sexually emphasized opportunism. A Man’s responsibility should be “Honoring” her as ‘the fairer sex’ while recognizing her ‘independence’. The AFC gobbles this stuff up and in an effort to better identify himself with her ideals he begins to convince himself that he’s unique in that he better exemplifies this false-virtue, this feminine defined sense of Honor than “other guys”.


44 responses to “The Honor System

  • Issac Jordan

    Fantastic post, Rollo.

    As much as I enjoy Roissy/Roosh, I’m beginning to enjoy your blog even more. IMO the psychological insights and conceptual explanations of societal trends and practices can contribute just as much to a full understanding of women as Game and its related tactics.

    Growing up, my father would constantly reprimand me for not “respecting” my sister (i.e. not holding the door for her, not letting her take the first slice of pizza, arguing with her, etc.). I remember being so frustrated at his inability to explain WHY she deserved such treatment; it just so happened that she was a girl, so she was given priority, regardless of other factors.

    This cognitive dissonance continued throughout my life, and has only recently dissipated with my discovery of the Manosphere and related writings. Now the frustration comes from knowing the truth while everyone else continues to swim in a sea of lies.

  • Strip8Tom

    Rollo, do you think that honor has a genetic component, or is learned or socialized into men?

    It seems to me that honor may be a very recently developed “virtue”. I don’t imagine 20,000 years ago how being “honorable” would help a mans mating prospects. The concept was certainly around by the time of ancient Rome and Greece though, look at how warriers were held in high honor.

    Perhaps religion was the main thing pushing honor. Or Alpha males pushing it onto Beta males in attempt to control them.

  • just visiting

    I suspect that honor is a warrior social code that extended out to society. Politeness was extended by the end of a sword. An armed society was a polite society. Even a hand shake in this day in age has its roots in it.

    Chivalry is hard to fathom now because we don’t really understand the subtext. It was practiced by powerful and dangerous men. Take away the edge of danger, and we lose something in translation. It also was not extended to all women. There was a social contract aspect to it.

  • Y

    I imagine honor has its roots in reciprocity which is very ancient in human species.

    It’s the ability to step outside yourself and see things from someone else’s perspective and act in a way that benefits both parties. It allowed humans to share and trade resources.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I think honor is really an aggrandized and romanticized notion of what was really a pretty simple concept – mutual cooperation. I think honor began when our species moved beyond exclusively throwing rocks at each other and discovered that 5 or 6 guys with sharp sticks could pull down a wooly mammoth working in unison and they all ate much better than fucking around with small game in the forest by themselves.

    Rudimentary Honor requires the mutual faith to comply with an agreement to have my back if I have yours. If one or two of those 6 hunters bolts on you, that’s probably going to be your ass. Men as a species have the capacity to be both pack hunters and lone predators and scavengers, so a social convention had to be established in order to more efficiently consign Men to cooperate to achieve mutually beneficial goals.

    But as I said, that’s all based on the faith that a Man will do what he says he will, so a mystical accountability element had to be associated with that in order to make men fear breaking their honored agreement. Thus we get the fear of retribution in an afterlife, or ghost returning to haunt the dishonorable living.

    Now add comparatively powerless women into the mix, and weaker beta “tribesmen” looking for an angle to exploit what really amounts to a superstitious social contract and you can begin to see how Honor gets played against the Men who created and benefitted from it.

  • A Recovering Frustrated Chump

    This is a truly great post. As a lifelong but now recovering AFC, I find that this post perfectly captures the situation that I find myself in.

    I keep hearing about how western society is still very male-dominated and patriarchal, yet I feel powerless as a man — particularly in my own LTR.

    You hit it on the nose with the statement “The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.”

    The double-standards and grossly uneven expectations are really starting to piss me off. When I was drinking the Kool-Aid, I had a vague sense that something wasn’t right, but I just brushed it aside and kept on being an oblivious white knight.

    We’ve all heard the oft-repeated take on double standards that “a man is being assertive; a woman is being bitchy” or “a sexually-experienced man is a stud; a sexually-experienced woman is a slut” and the like. This is typically used as support for the idea that society is still very male-dominated. What about the other side? There are many behaviors which, when displayed by a woman, will be seen as “empowering.” When those same behaviors are displayed by a man, they will be called “oppressive,” “controlling,” “bullying,” or a variety of other such terms. So she is “empowered” but I’m an “asshole.” Great.

    This is the first time in my adult life that I don’t feel embarassed or ashamed to be a man. I can’t pinpoint exactly where that feeling came from, but I always felt that it was important to show that “I’m not like other guys” and that I was unendingly patient and compassionate. I’d always felt some obligation to apologize for the terrible behavior that some men have directed at some women. Somehow, I carried the responsibility to help make up for millenia of oppressing women.

    So yeah, I’m expected as a man to be patient and compassionate and noble, putting my own needs aside when they conflict with hers. I’m expected to be proactive and responsible and do everything that I’m supposed to do — and do it “right” (which of course is defined by her and its definition changes seemingly randomly). I’m expected to do all of those little things that make her feel special (opening the car door, flowers “just because,” foot rubs, etc).

    But don’t I dare expect a single thing from her AS A WOMAN, because that is patriarchal and oppressive. And forget about daring to have any expectations at all about having sex, as I need to respect her wants and desires. Sex isn’t very important to her as a woman right now, so it shouldn’t be very important to me as a man.

    It would be “oppressive” for me to take advantage of any inborn advantages that I have as a man, such as physical strength or size, but any inborn advantages that a woman has are fair game to be used indiscriminately. Greater mastery of language can be used on a daily basis to run circles around me by twisting my words and re-defining the terms of the discussion, while simply standing up and puffing out my chest and firmly saying (but not shouting) “enough!” makes me a bully who is unfairly using my size to intimidate her.

    Now that my eyes have been opened to the reality of the situation, I keep finding more and more ways in which I am expected to suppress aspects of my masculinity when it suits her, yet express many of those same aspects in different situations when she wants me to. I’m supposed to take charge of some things but not others or else I’m being controlling — good luck knowning which one is which. I’m supposed to be confident, assertive, and responsible enough to get things done without being asked to. I’m supposed to be dominant in the bedroom on those rare occasions that she’s in the mood, but behave asexually the rest of the time. It’s enough to drive a man completely insane, trapped forever in a state of confusing an chasing an ever-moving target.

    I’ve been reading this stuff for a few months now and gradually re-building myself from the ground up. I’ve recently come across this blog, and I think that it’s now my favorite. This is the first post I’ve read that inspired me to write something, so forgive my meandering. I only wish that I’d learned this 5 or 6 years ago. Better late than never.

  • donlak

    Honor is and was essentially keeping a promise. The honorable thing to do in order to gain praise and respect, ie a strong warriors honor is to fight for his country, not because his country is great, (he may become a soldier to do that) but because he promised it. Upholding commitments is honorable. It’s also dishonorable to beat on a frail old man or a smaller man, child or woman, if you. are stronger than them or significantly larger. There’s no honor in that, honor is the masculanized virtue. Both are the same. Girls lose there virtue, the deal is broke, and you no longer need to produce honor, at least to a non virtuous girl. To other men, there still is honor, to a degree.

    No honor amongst theives derived from the fact that thievery rejected the rules of society. Once the agreement has been nullified, honor is not required or is a fools errand.

    The problem men have with feminism (that aren’t beta’s) is that they don’t want to act honorable to a non virtous woman, because there is no agreement on these matters. Woman have betrayed virtue so being honorable is like an honorable thief in a group heist – he’s going to lose, there’s no pay off.

    great post Rollo

  • MacAgent

    another fantastic post Rollo. Really enjoyable reading this week.

    (you can see it in her eyes at 1:05)

  • Good Luck Chuck

    The church, the state, and women are all out to control and channel masculine energy as a means to their own ends. There is no big conspiracy- it’s just that it is so easy to dupe men into doing your bidding with the prospect of sex that all of these groups would be stupid not to take advantage of it.

    Want to be successful with women? All you have to do is co-opt their game. Turn shit around on them. Seduction is ALL about displaying higher relative value, and the best way to display value is to demonstrate to women (with your ACTIONS) that you don’t buy into any of their bullshit.

  • Deep Dish

    Do you mean 1:15?

  • houseofjacques

    It is so easy to dupe me.
    Sadly, it is so true.

  • theprivateman

    A man’s word is his bond.

    It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.

  • Odds

    Only a fool would split in that game. I would be fine leaving without any money, considering it was all a gift in the first place.

    The man should have read one of Aesops fables:

    The Scorpion and the Frog

    A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
    scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
    frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion
    says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”

    The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
    the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
    paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
    but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”

    Replies the scorpion: “Its my nature…”

  • Average Joe

    Imagine those were two men playing that game.

    Rollo, would you assert that the one who lost the money in this case is Beta, as he showed too much Honor, exposed his emotions and was too honest?

    Does that mean that the winner who “stole” the money would be Alpha, by your definition? Or someone who will ultimately get his due via thousand tiny cuts, as his heavy conscience weighs on him every time he spends the money portion that he “stole” on the gameshow?

    In my opinion, living with honor is Alpha. No attachment to outcome (not even money itself as per this gameshow) while standing strong on your belief system. Awareness that you live in a world full of schemers and liars, knowing their playbook but refusing to compromise your integrity.

    Knowing a woman’s biological propensities and her sexual selection playbook is indeed Alpha, however lying to her or misleading her to “score” and win the game is weak, Beta behavior.

    With honestly and masculine confidence showing her a good time by systematically tapping various well-known female attraction triggers and charismatically neutralizing her shit-tests. That is Alpha.

    Your thoughts, is this woman’s behavior “Alpha” if done by a man? Or only something a simpering, whiny and weak Beta male would attempt?

  • Humanism, Behaviorism and the Amorality of Game «

    [...] things fit into their perspective, it’s something more than that. For men with some sense of honor or duty there also comes with it a need to enforce a perception of morality. Understanding the evo-psych [...]

  • Free Lunch «

    [...] into a form of masculine control while still an being a required masculine obligation. It’s a Catch 22 – screwed if you do, screwed if you don’t, and there are two conflicting perspectives for [...]

  • Man’s Last Stand «

    [...] are also cleverly making plays to a shame based  Male Catch 22 – Man Up or Shut Up dynamic. As in the Dodge Charger ad, men are uniquely EXPECTED to suffer through a lifetime of [...]

  • K_C

    I’m with you Recovering. I could have written your exact comment myself without hardly changing a thing. Now, to just continue to enlist more men and get them to have the same revelation…

  • aeroster

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2087585/Cruise-ship-Costa-Concordia-sinking-Whatever-happened-women-children-first.html

    i wonder why the one who wrote the above article doesnt find it disgraceful that a higher percent of rescued are women compared to children.lumping women with children is a joke,n if women had any pride they’d feel disgraced to be labelled so,as this shows they can enevre grow up n shouldnt be given adult rights n power.feminists who want to argue for women participation in major societal developments should take note their kind has to give up kiddy protection,n not hog both sides of benefits in a shameless way

  • aeroster

    chivalry is a concept of medieval times,n it doesnt even mean just giving way to women.besides,its a thing of knights,NOT all common men.the way people wana impose this on others is just ludicrous.feminists go about condemning victorian standards for women,yet why dont they admit chivalry is an equally outdated standard which has no place in today’s world?or that,at least,it needs be redefined to suit today’s times n roles people play?
    hence for such various reasons,i dont believe a word women rights groups say anymore.if i were president i’l shut them down.only human,children rights n animal rights groups should exist.even when they claim their proposals imply fairness towards men too,they are still more biased towards their own gender

  • aeroster

    refering to the aforementioned article,its utterly idiotic that more women rescued means chivalry,more men rescued means disgraceful.that your definition of equality,u fecking women right groups??if uve no respect for men,dont expect the men to respect u either.respect has always been a mutual thing.if u women can claim superiority,so can the men,n there will never be a resolution

  • aeroster

    telling children boys never to hit a girl is just encouraging weaker boys to be bullied.why,does a girl have the right to be weak n protected,but a boy doesnt have a righht to fall under that category?just the same as drafting n exclusion of women from caning.
    the way women behave n dress these days,especially the latter,what with all the junk fashion,especially jorts,i find women are so NOT the fairer gender anymore.

  • aeroster

    and do they tell strong girls never to hit a boy,just for fairness sake?

  • aeroster

    especially rotten are those parasite people who attempt to ride the feminism wave n condemn anyone saying anything negative concerning any groups of women,justified though what they say are.no matter how u explain urself to such parasites,they will accuse u of sexism,even though its their own personal attacks which are the real shameless sexist comments.just search up nusfp,about this scum called blueballs.he/she is a dramaqueen n a downright fibber to the core.

  • unscathed

    Hear, Hear! Sir.

    I was unplugged in January, New years day to be exact. I’m still struggling with the harsh reality of the way things really are. The greatest thing I have learned to begin doing is living for myself, and to also become more selfish.

  • The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill «

    [...] the reactionary tact of the feminine imperative; appeal to the deeply conditioned moral, ethical, honorable, virtuous ideals engrammatically planted in men by a fem-centric society, while redefining the [...]

  • Respect «

    [...] women in other countries are ‘less powerful’ due to weak men preferring them. So the Catch 22 becomes a guy being dominant enough to master her as being the abuser, and the one pointing out her [...]

  • tom smyth (@tomt45)

    looks like over analyzed paranoia

  • Year One «

    [...] The Honor System [...]

  • Boys will be Boys «

    [...] Men push past pain for good reason – it is the key to growth into a healthy maturity. Men push past pain, not just a social expectation from other men, but because of the same expectations from women. It’s by necessity, not social pressure.Very few men fail to recognize their own pain, but a feminine mindset determined to vilify masculinity would rather we believe that not expressing that pain is always a net negative. The irony this mindset is oblivious of is that at the first mention of a man’s pain, at the first expression of his own self-concern he is accused of bitterness. “You must’ve been really burned to think what you think.” This is the root of the Male Catch 22. [...]

  • Sanitizing the Imperative «

    [...] The Feminine Imperative can’t be held responsible for men’s social ineptitudes so the Male Catch 22 is effected – as a man you’re a whiney beta if you complain, but you’re less than a [...]

  • The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300 «

    [...] Imperative has made in making appeals to anachronistic idealisms like chivalry and honor in The Honor System. I then revisited this in a bit more detail after the Concordia shipwreck with the women and [...]

  • Anonymous

    Regarding the video in the article above: never trust a woman.

    According to how old he looks he should have known by now.

  • The Evolution of Game |

    [...] forerunners was the obvious choice for the feminine imperative. The feminine standard appeal to the Masculine Catch 22 was the first recourse: any man who desired to learn Game was less than a man for that desire, but [...]

  • Remove the Man |

    [...] explained this previously as the Male Catch 22, but it’s important to understand that this Catch isn’t some unfortunate byproduct of [...]

  • Tom

    The Scorpion and the Frog

    Replies the scorpion: “Its my nature…”

    I’ve used this story many times to convey the true nature of things, usually to women and usually regarding my sexuality. I demand certain behavior. A relationships works best with me if the woman WANTS to give that behavior. It also works if the woman doesn’t mind behaving the way I want her to. But if she hates it, or it’s too difficult for her, I do not fight, argue or bargain. I surrender by letting her go. Once you let them go, they no longer have to do ANYTHING for you. They find someone else; you find someone else. Problem solved.

  • cyfox

    Is this contradictory to conclusions here? http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~mrigdon/genderdiff_Rigdon.pdf “The Role of Expectations and Gender in Altruism”

  • Suck It Up |

    […] The bigger picture in this Jezebel exchange is really about one of the most basic and useful social conventions ever devised by the Feminine Imperative – The Male Catch 22: […]

  • Liosis

    I think most woman find chivalry creepy actually

  • El Sistema De Honor | Bar de la Esquina

    […] Artículo de Rollo Tomassi, The Rational Male […]

  • THE STAR….. | In The Association of Chronos

    […] Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22 […]

  • Equalism and Masculinity |

    […] as beatific a feminized model of masculinity as it needs to serve its purpose. With the aid of the Male Catch 22, blurring and distorting masculinity, raising and conditioning men to accept ambiguity and doubt […]

  • Égalité et Masculinité | Libres Pensées

    […] masculin féminisée et béatifique prêt a servir toutes ses volontés. Avec l’aide du Catch-22 Masculin, brouiller et déformer la masculinité, éduquer et conditionner les hommes à accepter […]

  • bo jangles

    If you actually meet indians from tribes or even cultures strongly based in indian customs youll find that lying is common and expected and not really punished. you can have someone tell you a bald faced lie with no shame or selfconsciousness(something like red is blue). i think the truth is a modern invention..probably going along with farming. but even in the greeks i remember odyseus telling a fine spun lie to a disguised athena and her admiring his craftiness. american truthfulness is a rare beast.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,956 other followers

%d bloggers like this: