Shouting in the Wilderness

Hat tip to reader BoxerRearZenith for bringing this to my attention:

Rollo, I’ve been a reading your blog since it’s inception. I love how eloquently everything is written and presented; therefore, I’d like your written opinion on this following Youtube video, if possible. It’s from ESPN First Take that was shown yesterday and Stephen A Smith was discussing Red Pill rhetoric (Being Anti-Oprah, lol) on a national platform. It was based off Chad Johnson and his wife Evelyn Lozada. And I had this similar discussion with friends who are also fans of this show and they couldn’t understand Stephen A’s point; even though, he illustrated and demonstrated his points so well. I tried to explain his position and why he went off but I got berated so I let it go. Is there anywhere to simplify his point of view to where my guy friends would somewhat understand? Btw, these are blue pill guys trying to figure why women are the way they are. Basically trying to find the red pill but not knowing to look for it if that makes any sense.

I’ve used the end summation of Stephen A Smith’s opinion here just for brevity’s sake, but if you have 15 minutes the entire clip is well worth watching, I’ll start by saying that it’s good to see even a marginally red-pill aware Man make a statement like this. We’re told all the time how football is really the last refuge for masculinity, but I’ve never agreed with this, and Smith’s bold and confrontational words here illustrate exactly how deep fem-centrism has saturated into even the most male of arenas. Smith is attempting to provide just a marginal consideration for a male perspective here and the reactions by Skip and his female co-host Cari Champion are an excellent example of how efficiently the feminine imperative shuts down that perspective. While Smith is obviously agitated and raises his voice, not once is he fumbling for words, nor does he slip and use expletives. He knows his perspective, has done his due diligence and is ready to express it.

And express it he does, but like most Men making public declarations attempting to bring awareness to fem-centrism, Skip and Cari, both obvious Fem-Matrix plug-ins, look at Smith as if he were speaking a foreign language. They can’t believe what’s coming out of his mouth. So saturated into our social fabric is feminine primacy that the thought of expressing a male-centric consideration, even as measured as Smith’s, is alien to those steeped in it.

Even Smith is guilty of this conditioning in his feeling it necessary to constantly footnote his perspective by repeating that he’s not endorsing violence against women. He has to do this because, like any other Man attempting to vocally expose fem-centrism, he’s learned that the first, reflexive response plugins will acuse him of is misogyny. So he must preface his words repeatedly or be dismissed as an evil patriarch. This constant qualification is necessary because the first resource of fem-centrism is to associate any perspective counter to the feminine imperative, no matter how remote, as an act of violence against women itself. Even women expressing a male perspective critical of fem-centrism are subjected to this association.

White Knights of the Feminine Imperative

For all of Smith’s intensity his message is entirely lost on an avowed white knight like Skip Bayless. Skip’s reaction is that of a well conditioned male in the feminine Matrix. As I wrote in Enter White Knight:

Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ‘changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical observations of how women ‘are’, etc. – understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster. That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism.

If you watch the full clip, Skip’s calling Chad Johnson to the carpet about his domestic violence and impending divorce is exactly what I’ve come to expect from white knight Beta Game. Skip’s provocation of Chad isn’t about his desire to ‘get to the bottom of things’, but rather to establish himself as a champion of the feminine imperative – and by association make himself more attractive to women by being the tough male advocate for women everywhere. Guys like Skip look for opportunities to appear like upstanding responsible Alpha men by scolding true Alphas like Chad in as public a way as possible. Essentially they use the same shaming tools of the feminine imperative in an effort to better align and identify themselves with the women they subliminally hope to impress – and yes, even the married ones.

A beta game response is what I’d expect from this mentality, but I think what red pill viewers of this clip need to understand is the subconscious fluidity with which this reflex occurs. Chad was ready to lay Skip Bayless out on the studio floor, but this doesn’t even occur to Skip until after he’s embroiled in the confrontation. White knights seldom realize the real danger they put themselves in until that white knightery backfires on them; that’s how internalized the mentality is, it overrides a capacity to see danger cues.

Redirect

Cari Champion’s reaction is also a predictable, feminine-centric response. Where Skip will fall back on the convenient excuse of wanting to ‘get to the bottom of things’ Cari will do what most women will – presume that any man declaring a male-centric counterargument to the feminine ‘has issues’ with women. He’s “expressing a lot of anger” about women, even when the issue isn’t about women, but the societal circumstances of men. Then, as is the standard feminine reflex, Cari makes attempts to reframe Smith’s point to be individually specific to women. Smith makes a good effort of not allowing this reframe, but notice that in order for him to stay on point he must once again reiterate that ‘he’d never harm a woman’ just so he can get back to it.

Recently there’s been some great discussion over at Sunshine Mary’s blog regarding the validity of the feminine imperative as a concept in and of itself. Unfortunately it’s easier to show examples of the feminine imperative than it is to definitively describe it. I think Smith’s efforts here are an attempt to make plugged-in people understand just what the feminine Matrix is. But no one can tell you what the Matrix is when you’re in the Matrix. So when you see the lone man shouting truths in the wilderness, it isn’t what he’s saying that’s important, but who is listening.

To answer Boxer’s question, I’m not sure there is a way to simplify Smith’s message. Your friends aren’t going to understand it because they have no frame of reference to relate his message to. Everything is fem-centrism for plugins, and the feminine imperative already has long established social contingencies (like the one’s observed in this clip) to dissuade any real awareness of it. I have no doubt that Smith’s inbox was filled with the hatred of countless plugged in men and women arguing for him to seek therapy for his misogyny – which ironically was exactly the point he was trying to make. One of the most effective social conventions the feminine imperative ever established was disqualifying those critical of it from ever having credibility about it.

Unfortunately Boxer, your friends, like most men, will have to learn from harsh experience to ever be open to seeing the feminine imperative as Smith does.


94 responses to “Shouting in the Wilderness

  • Mike C

    Recently there’s been some great discussion over atSunshine Mary’s blog regarding the validity of the feminine imperative as a concept in and of itself. Unfortunately it’s easier to show examples of the feminine imperative than it is to definitively describe it.

    I agree. It is much easier to provide specific, concrete examples than provide an easily understood generalized definition. Recently, in a discussion over at HUS, I used the example of “age-appropriate” dating as an example of the feminine imperative in that women past The Wall have a vested interest in shaming the 35-year old man who dates a 23 year old instead of a 35-year old.

    There was a discussion over at Dalrock on his “KGB secret” post where I think both he and Leap of Beta had good generalized definitions they provided in the comments. Essentially, the definition was the feminine imperative is the set of social norms, expectations, morals, behaviors suited to fit female interests with zero consideration of male interests or preferences. I think that summarizes it quite well.

    Interestingly, when I mentioned the term feminine imperative in my comment at HUS, Susan reacted as if I had unleashed the hounds of hell. I’ll note that she castigated and berated Ted D recently when he used the term in a comment. In her response to me, she questioned the very legitimacy of the term, and asked me to provide some example of its use in academia as if that means anything, and then accused me that my MO is trying to start “gender wars”. It is all very interesting. I haven’t watched the Stephen A Smith video yet, but the pushback will be hard if you even attempt to shine a spotlight on the simple fact of the existence of the feminine imperative let alone argue what is right or wrong. You are a “BAD MAN” simply for pointing to the sun and saying “look it is yellow”. The epithets come forth immediately….adversarial, hostile, misogynistic….you name it…they get unleashed for merely highlighting factual reality.

    I really have no idea how many blue pill men even have the capacity to change their views or perspective, but I think what many fear the most is the simple fact of someone realizing they are in fact plugged into the Matrix.

  • taterearl

    Stephen A was a newspaper journalist…and perhaps he was actually objective when covering sports athletes and their downfalls when it came to affairs and divorces.

    He may have stumbled onto the red pill like many other men did…by seeing reality for what it is.

  • theprivateman

    The feminine imperative is so pervasive it’s like trying to point out the nitrogen in air. Sunshine Mary is actually trying to figure it out but as the beneficiary of the feminine imperative her own mind will resist understanding.

  • Mike C

    I’d also point out that I think solipsism and the feminine imperative are intertwined in a very important way. Because of solipsism, the majority of women are probably incapable of even considering that their own interests are not identical to the interests of men. They simply assume and project that their interests and motivations are shared by all including most men. Any man speaking up differently is viewed like some sort of alien which from the description sounds like the treatment Stephen A Smith got.

  • Alex

    Long time reader, first time commenter here. I had almost this exact conversation with a semi-plugged in but on his way to being unplugged friend recently. I was explaining that you cannot bring up any sort of red pill angle to analyzing male female relations without inevitably incurring the misogyny accusation, and I was more or less getting my point across. The resistance I got was the classic “you have issues” with women response.

    That’s what Rolo is talking about right there. Any objective criticism of the feminine imperative, and boom your a misogynist. Men have been so conditioned to feel shame for all of the past oppression that we ourselves didn’t have anything to do with that we have willingly given up the right to speak up for ourselves and are harshly rebuked when we attempt to.

    All the while women speak out of both sides of their mouths, professing to be ready to reward a man for certain behavior and then failing to do so and rewarding the opposite. The only issue I have with women is how immutably full of shit they are. But its not their fault. Bio-mechanics are a bitch aren’t they.

  • sunshinemary

    Is fem-centrism the same thing as the feminine imperative?

    Rollo wrote:

    One of the most effective social conventions the feminine imperative ever established was disqualifying those critical of it from ever having credibility about it.

    It is a brilliant strategy, really, because it eliminates the need to refute the criticism. Criticism becomes impossible.

    theprivateman wrote:

    Sunshine Mary is actually trying to figure it out but as the beneficiary of the feminine imperative her own mind will resist understanding.

    Yes, that is so. In thinking through what I have been reading from Rollo’s posts and the conversation on my site regarding the feminine imperative, I had some desperately uncomfortable moments of introspection. It was highly unpleasant to make an honest assessment of some of my underlying motivations and intentions. I decided I will continue to think about it but only one day per week.

    Thank you for linking to my somewhat confused essay, Rollo.

  • Dillon

    Smith: “We’re not always wrong ! We’re wrong most of the time but we’re not always wrong!!” lol Wrong answer.

    Debating, arguing, engaging, explaining or trying to correct the “Matrix” is firmly blue pill because this is what they want you to do so they can better understand your position so you can either be bought into the fold or be further marginalized.

    Also you are just showing your cards which makes it easier to manipulate you. Women do that by pretending to agree with you.

  • taterearl

    Watching the full interview Smith alludes to the actions that occur before the actual event of physical violence or an affair being placed partly on what the woman does. Skip looks at him like he’s speaking a foreign language…thinking “pure moral women would never do anything like that”.

    That’s what never gets brought up…did she withhold sex unreasonably so he went out and got it somewhere else? Did she nag or put him down to death and he couldn’t take it anymore? Did she smack him around or throw things at him? What am I saying…pure moral women would never entertain those thoughts.

  • NeotheLeo

    I saw that live yesterday, and almost fell out of my chair while eating lunch. It was great to finally hear someone speak up against the female imperative national TV and I think we should all email him and applaud his efforts, because you know his inbox is filled with emails bashing him and the opposite perspective. I normally am not even a fan of his, but he scored MAJOR points with me, by professionally arguing a man’s perspective the best he could on national tv.

  • Phinn

    The first example of the Feminine Imperative that I would point to is the idea that male monogamy is always good and wonderful — that men cannot be complete, happy and fulfilled without finding and developing a committed LTR or marriage. It’s the subject of every romantic comedy ever made, and the premise of the romance genre altogether.

    The truth is that women need committed men, but men do not need to give that commitment. They may choose to, but they do not need it.

    Another prime example (which is an extension of the first, really) would be the idea of no-fault divorce, which is completely pro-female. The idea here is that women can unilaterally walk away from a marriage at any time, and still be entitled to half the assets plus financial support. This rule is premised on the idea that the wife has “given up” valuable career time in order to be a wife and mother, and the promise of marriage is what induced her to do so, and that ending the marriage means that she is entitled to some compensation for her sacrifice. It accounts for none of the sacrifices that men make in order to be married — all of the extra pussy they could have had, not to mention the man has poured virtually all of his income into a household that is being ended against his will. No one in the thrall of the Feminine Imperative even considers what men sacrifice in order to be married, or think it to be worth anything, or believe it even exists. Marriage is just what normal men do, because (as stated above), they (presumably) need a wife to be happy.

    That said, I am unclear about the contents of that ESPN video — what was the journalist saying when he referred to men he has known “who have taken a position because they had to, who would be vilified if they didn’t …”? What “position” is he talking about? What is he talking about, in concrete terms?

    More importantly, why is he tiptoeing around it with vague euphemisms? (To avoid the wrath of the Feminine Imperative, I would guess.)

  • taterearl

    “who have taken a position because they had to, who would be vilified if they didn’t …”

    I’m guessing if the athletes themselves mentioned what their females did to them and take some victimhood status…that wouldn’t look good to a pro teams that they are on or are trying to get on. So they have to “man up” and accept the blame while the lady gets off scott free.

    After all pro teams are subjected to the female imperitive too.

  • driveallnight

    It would’ve been better if Smith hadn’t raised his voice. The medium always impacts the message to some degree, and shouting opens the door to the “he’s angry at women / he hates women” bs that blue-pillers use to shut down the discussion when presented with facts contradictive to the matrix.

  • Kuraje

    @sunshinemary

    “Yes, that is so. In thinking through what I have been reading from Rollo’s posts and the conversation on my site regarding the feminine imperative, I had some desperately uncomfortable moments of introspection. It was highly unpleasant to make an honest assessment of some of my underlying motivations and intentions. I decided I will continue to think about it but only one day per week.”

    Those desperately uncomfortable moments of introspection may be your conscious awareness of your unconscious ego defenses fighting in real-time. Ego no likey that too much. This often occurs when confronted with deeply unsettling truths. While many simply react unconsciously, those interspersed moments of full consciousness are extremely helpful clues into figuring out what makes you tick. Is it purely psychological or biological? Most likely a mix of the two.

    I’ve experienced the same while reading The Rawness’ Reader Letter Series. Highly recommended. Link to part 5 since it links to the previous for those inclined:
    http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-5/

    To borrow from Eckhart Tolle’s verbiage, the false self (ego / thinking mind) is extremely adept at perpetuating it’s own existence. To do this, it requires the true self (observing mind) to stay unconscious. In short, no observing ego.

    From Wiki:

    “The observing ego is that part of the self that has no affects, engages in no actions, and makes no decisions. It functions in conflict-free states to merely witness what it sees. It is like a camera that records without judgment. It is never weighing any thought, gesture or action on the scale of right and wrong, sane or insane, good or bad. It is a psychic entity that is intact and separate from what is taking place before it.”

    A person’s personal power stems from their ability to utilize greater parts of the observing ego. Stephen Covey speaks of this in the 8th Habit as the space between stimulus and response. That space is choice.

    By continuing to ask the questions you do, you exercise that ability to choose. Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now is an entire book dedicated to exercising that ability. It may prove useful.

    In an effort to not judge what wells up from the thinking mind as you continue to write about the world through the looking glass would be to repeat a simple question in response to your observations:

    “Isn’t that interesting?” – Jim Rohn

  • BobSutan

    This really reminds me of GWW’s video on Hypoagency:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE

    Basically the world revolves around women and damn you if you don’t serve them in some form or another. Guys that have the balls to break free and “unplug” get vilified and told there’s something wrong with them. Just look at Hanna Rosin’s “End of Men” and “Peter Pan” articles. She just doesn’t get it that men playing video games and taking part of hookup culture is just the male equivalent of what women did in the 70s: we’re rejecting traditional gender roles of provider and protector of women. It doesn’t serve us anymore the way it did since the dawn of civilization now that feminism has removed the reward system that was in place for generations. In other words betas don’t have easy access to women/sex so they’re saying “fuck this shit” and looking elsewhere for happiness. And half the ones who do manage to land a woman end up divorced.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Is fem-centrism the same thing as the feminine imperative?

    I separate those terms because, in my own usage, fem-centrism is the social extension of the feminine imperative. Fem-centrism is evident in how society automatically defers to the feminine imperative. This can range from how laws are rationalized and instituted to how men should be mindful of their words in the company of women (and feminized men).

  • The Shocker

    well it’s just a bad time to plant your flag

    cheating? visceral reaction

    domestic abuse? Come on.

    if you get paid to be a public figure like tiger or aggressively chase it like ocho then yea you don’t get to do controversial things. i love cocaine you don’t see me writing about how lindsay lohan lives in an unjust world

    game = winning, gf finds out you’re cheating = bad game, results in media shitstorm and losing your job = very bad game

  • Wudang

    Speaking of the matrix I have been having some success breaking people out if it lately. During the last few weeks I have managed to persuade my father of the MRA perspective. He got it very quickly and is now going to read Warren Farells the myth of male power. He also got presented with a very one sided view of domestic violence in a volunteer organisation he is involved in and asked me to send him links to studies that show the real data. I`ve gotten even further with my mother who has managed to digest not only the MRA perspective but almost the entire red pill. She has an unusally male logical brain though so she was far easier than average. I`ve successfuly been giving a buddy a lot of evopsych wisdom about his failing relationship. He bought it instantly. I haven`t really given him the red pill about dominance and what he should be doing yet because I want his relationship to fail as he deserves a fresh start with someone who is not such a bitch. I`ve also had plenty of success with a female friend but she was easy as she is naturally very submissive and read pill and actually was the one who got me to see the first parts of it when she told me years ago she wanted a man that could lead her.

    With most other people I know I haven`t dared go very far in my arguments as I believe they would close down completely. But I feed them small doses of vague red pill that has some resonance in perspectives that do exist in poppular culture and some basic and moderate MRA perspectives. With most of my buddies I am just sitting on the fence waiting for their relationships to break or enter a crisis big enough for them to open up to new ideas before I move in.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @MikeC, I just read through Aunt Giggles fit with Ted. She has trouble with the term ‘feminine imperative’ because it’s not some officially sanctioned diagnostic term used by “professional” authorities she respects.

    I should add here that neither did she accept the term ‘Hypergamy’ or even ‘Solipsism’ as it specifically refers to women until very recently. Given time I’m sure she’ll fancifully argue that the ‘feminine imperative’ was a term she coined herself. Only she’ll redefine it to fit her own narrative as she did with her “acceptance” of feminine solipsism.

  • YOHAMI

    This will hit mainstream and become mainstream. Just a matter of time, and it wont take that long.

  • YOHAMI

    The guy in the video is apologetic and is visible afraid to say what’s on his mind. He gets angry and frustrated but he doesnt spill it. Which is used against him. But that will change when more men cross that line.

  • driveallnight

    Of course Giggles want to quibble over terminology. What better way to muddy the waters and distract? It’s either that or actually build a cogent argument addressing the issue in question…..

  • Team-Red

    I attempted to enlighten a few male colleagues with red pill knowledge regarding the female imperative and they mostly looked at me like I was crazy, so I immediately stopped. These guys are the type that would spend three months salary on an engagement ring. Three months of labor for a small shiny stone.

    “The alien man waved his arms up and down and noticed that he couldn’t wave in the right language so he stopped.” ~Henry Rollins

    I hope your book sales rival that of fifty shades when it comes out Rollo. It would be great to see it on the NY Times best seller list, then see it sit up there for a decade.

  • Hero

    When trying to give the red pill to men, one of the angles I start with is the fact that relationships are essentially the sole domain of women. And I ask them if they’ve ever seen a show on tv where the man was encouraged to analyze and change their relationship.

    I point out that women are actively encouraged to analyze and change their relationships from a very early age. And that adult women essentially receive 100% support on relationship issues while men are left to twist out in the wind.

  • Days of Broken Arrows

    My guess is the other guys all agreed with Steven’s points. But they did so when the cameras were off and when a woman was not around.

    I’ve seen this happen. If you want to discuss red pill stuff, you need to do it in private and only with other men. This is the main reason these thoughts have spread like wildfire on the Internet, where we can be anonymous — and IMO why Google and company are trying to remove anonymity from the Internet.

  • Mike C

    @MikeC, I just read through Aunt Giggles fit with Ted. She has trouble with the term ‘feminine imperative’ because it’s not some officially sanctioned diagnostic term used by “professional” authorities she respects.

    Right…that is her go to move…to ask you to cite some “authority” figure as a basis for the knowledge or concept. One wonders how human knowledge would have progressed hundreds or thousands of years ago when you didn’t have “official” institutes granting some people designations like a sociology PhD.

    I should add here that neither did she accept the term ‘Hypergamy’ or even ‘Solipsism’ as it specifically refers to women until very recently. Given time I’m sure she’ll fancifully argue that the ‘feminine imperative’ was a term she coined herself. Only she’ll redefine it to fit her own narrative as she did with her “acceptance” of feminine solipsism.

    FWIW, I’m the one who got that whole ball rolling on Solipsism. She pushed back hard, and I pushed back harder and then the rest of the blogs jumped in with great essays and examples (you had already written about it but Vox Day and Ian Ironwood had two takedown blog posts). The logic and examples literally were so massive only an idiot could continue to argue otherwise. At that point she sort of halfway capitulated, admitting to the concept but definitely trying to reshape it and rebrand it in the most positive light possible.

  • Leap of a Beta

    Broken Arrows,
    Maybe. Hard to say. I’ve personally never experienced men that were willing to back down from blue pill ideas whether there were women there or not. The media and TV can easily play into your guess, of not wanting to say it to the masses.

    A question to people here.
    From experience, what is the best way to keep frame when you are discussing red pill ideas with a group that is mixed amounts of blue pill dependency? I personally have found that the kinds of minds that have those blue pill dependencies ignore any rational thoughts, discussions, or facts through using humor and personal attacks to deflect the situation. So far the only response I’ve found the effectively works in this situation is more humor, to elevate the weapon they’re using. It’s like arguing with these otherwise rational men becomes arguing with a chick. Anger to them is scary. Passion scary. Humor and emotions are king.

    Because to me, it looks like in this video and through my experiences, the angry man loses the frame. He has to get defensive due to the personal attacks. Then the moment he goes on the defensive he’s done, it’s game over man. Humor and a calm condescension to deflect the personal attack by the blue pill, then keep steam rolling with unassailable facts and reason. The problem is if you’re not funny, or the other person is funnier or has a quicker wit, you lose no matter how smart you are.

    Or is there another way I’m missing?

  • Leap of a Beta

    @ Mike C
    “She pushed back hard, and I pushed back harder and then the rest of the blogs jumped in with great essays and examples (you had already written about it but Vox Day and Ian Ironwood had two takedown blog posts). The logic and examples literally were so massive only an idiot could continue to argue otherwise. At that point she sort of halfway capitulated, admitting to the concept but definitely trying to reshape it and rebrand it in the most positive light possible.”

    From what I can tell, that’s been the case with her on every single term and even individual issues like divorce that spawned the event she termed ‘Dalrock Gate’. She adamantly refuses to acknowledge anything until outside pressure forces her to. She’ll then do a post, re-write the whole thing using her own ‘research’ by mis-representing studies or finding studies that were simply poorly conducted (I’ve read some of her source materials before I stopped frequenting, they’re atrocious), and then she says all is fine. Nothing new to look at here, because Susan was ‘obviously right all along’.

    Then she never mentions it again and deletes any comments that will bring it up as being antagonistic and trying to start a flame war, no matter how relevant.

  • Hero

    @Leap of a Beta
    “Or is there another way I’m missing?”

    State your opinion and stand strong in it. You don’t have to use humor to make it more palatable.

    The best frame is one that is unapologetic. Get it clear in your head how you feel and simply state it. Women react very favorably to this frame. Men, on the other hand, might still be argumentative.

    Let others feel uncomfortable. You don’t have to feel uncomfortable for them. You don’t have to downplay your ideas.

  • immoralgables

    I think this is huge. Rollos ideas have def hit a certain segment of the male population. First you see it drip like it did in this interview and it will occur sporadically from there.

    @BobSutan. Hella insightful comment that blew my mind when I read it.

  • Martel

    Leap of Beta: I’ve found that simply speaking with authority works wonders. Keeping your own temper while standing your ground will invariably make others loose their tempers, but that’s their problem. Truth is on your side.

    And how’s this for the feminine imperative:

    http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/12/air-force-health-welfare-insepctions2-120512

    Key quote:

    “In my view, all this stuff is connected. If we’re going to get serious about things like sexual assault, we have to get serious about an environment that could lead to sexual harassment. In some ways this stuff can all be linked,’ Welsh said Dec. 4. ‘I’m not saying every case is linked, but it could be linked, and why would we want to tolerate there even being a chance of that?’

  • Days of Broken Arrows

    It bothers me a bit that people even engage anymore at HUS. I did for a bit, but it became to seem like Aunt Giggles was simply hoarding info in hopes of a potential book deal (i.e. “The Manosphere According to Me”). The idea of a woman making off with big bucks on the backs of ideas men have pioneered is something of a metaphor for our times, sad to say.

  • Leap of a Beta

    @ Day of Broken Arrows
    Eh, to each their own. I was pissed at the time when Susan banned me, but now I’m grateful. Freed up all that time to read more masculine ideas around the ‘Sphere, spend more time at the gym, or read a book. All better than reading HUS and wading through the comments. It was also a good early sign that I was avoiding backing down from my thoughts and views – easier and earlier developed online, but now I’m able to carry it offline too.

    I’ll definitely start having to add more authority and awkward silence to those offline discussions though.

    For those men that do still slog through HUS though….. I can only wish you the best of luck in changing minds.

  • Wilf

    @Martel Absolute hilarity. Better get rid of all of those titty calendars so that everyone feels safer.

  • Days of Broken Arrows

    To get back on topic, it’s hard to argue red pill ideas since basic facts about the world are now considered taboo.

    If you mention, for example, that everything in someone’s house, including the house itself, was conceived, built, and delivered by a man — as was the whole society — that’s “sexist.”

    Since reality itself has become “sexist” no wonder men are confused. They’ve been taught that red was blue since day one, and when you point out reality, they go berserk.

    As for women, don’t expect logic when arguing. I recently pointed out a problem a woman had (something she requested I do) and she started going on about how I should never criticize her because that’s not “loving her unconditionally.” Huh?

    Anyway, womanizers as cool as Ben Franklin and ol’ Tommy Jefferson had better minds than we’ll ever have and they considered women children. It’s a shame their lessers made laws that proclaimed women “adults.” This is the misconception that got us to where we are today. Think like Ben Franks and you’ll be in good shape.

  • Ace Haley

    Damn I have to admire the guy for that. He may be annoying but he’s right on.

  • Newly Aloof

    The best way to answer Boxer’s question is to tell him to forward the url to Heartiste’s “Relationship Game Week: Mike from Hawaii” post. It’s the bridge article that crushed through my knee-jerk reaction to “asshole game shit” I’d read. The real life examples of before-and-after-game interactions with female partners allowed me to see that game was more than PUA stuff and that I could actually use it in relationships and work.

    I can provide a link, but a google search will get you there.

  • Ceniek

    > …Sunshine Mary’s blog…

    I’ve read article.
    Did you guys notice that even feminine imperative is MEN’S fault ?

    “If women don’t realize what they are doing, it is because men have pedestalized us and told us how good we are and we have believed it.”

    OMG !!!

  • Adam

    The feminine imperative is the blue pill.

  • Djeed

    Is it really necessary to unplug all guys? I would like to enjoy having most of the feminine attention for me ;)

  • Rooster

    I’m with Djeed, if a blue pill guy asks me for advice I will freely give it. Otherwise I don’t go out of my way to unplug the ‘legions of the blue’. I quite enjoy walking through most social situations and seeing everything for what it is.
    It’s as if X-ray specs were a reality. Would you offer every person you met a chance to try the X-ray specs or would you spend most of the time wearing them yourself, with a look similar to that of ‘amused mastery’?

  • nek

    I’m still confused as to where the “more to the story” aspect of this is. To me, Chad’s girl found his condom, it starts a fight, it got out of hand. What’s more to the story? (Unless Stephen A. knows more than we do). It seems like a pretty rational cause–>effect. Is he implying that maybe she hit him first?

    I understand the idea that you typically don’t get to hear the “why” behind acts men commit, but here it doesn’t seem to be that. If someone could help me out with my understanding i’d appreciate it.

  • Mark Minter

    Rollo,

    Here is a famous quote from Salman Rushdie. It is about Mohammed.

    “What kind of idea are you?

    Are you the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive;

    or are you the cussed, bloody-minded, ramrod-backed type of damn fool notion that would rather break than sway with the breeze? – The kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of hundred, be smashed to bits;

    but, the hundredth time,

    will change the world.”

    OK. Steven A brought up something Red Pillish on ESPN.

    And Jezebel acknowledged the “Manosphere” as damaged men instructing other damaged men on how to be damaged, yesterday. Not great pub, but still pub.

    The headline “Oh god, please don’t let white male victimhood grow into the next big political movement”.

    So in it, they said “What started out as few whiners now has grown into a huge movement on the internet.

    So, me, I know what kind of idea you are. Yeah baby. The 100th one that Rushdie mentions.

    A hundred years from now, when men come together to discuss ideas and what ideas where seminal, that changed things,

    Your name will be mentioned.

  • Mark Minter

    Oh yeah,

    Here is link to Hugo Schmegma, on Jizbowl.

    “Thanks. Five Ways Guys Are Fighting Sexism”

    http://jezebel.com/5966294/thanks-guys-five-ways-men-are-fighting-sexism?post=54970019

    Beta game as it’s best.

    I called him a pussy and called him out. I dared the girls on Jezebel to push him out into ring for a debate.

    I said he won’t come because he is a pussy that makes his living sucking at their titty.

  • WilliamMunny

    Mark M. – I just read your reply to Hugo Schmegma on Jezebel. Great post. I’m looking forward to the coming storm.

  • Buncy The Frog (@BuncyTheFrog)

    Mike C,

    “I really have no idea how many blue pill men even have the capacity to change their views or perspective”

    The more I learn about the red pill world, the more I realize that feminism is so much like a religion. I think our best bet to help people remove themselves from the matrix is to educate them on the ideology that helped us get here in the first place, much like Atheists often say that their best deconversion tool is the bible itself.

    Throughout my life, I’ve been a pretty feminist guy. I haven’t been a white knight, but I’ve had my self-congratulating thoughts and opinions on how women deserve to be equals to men. The problem is that when I started actually learning about feminism and interacting with feminists, I was startled so many times.

    Patriarchy theory, for instance, was nearly incomprehensible to me, especially because when I knew that I’m not a misogynist that tries to keep women down, it must be a cabal of powerful men doing it. But that sent off alarms when it seemed like that was too much like the Illuminati or something similar. It left me confused; I think I eventually settled on the unconscious gender roles definition that many people use, though to this day its exact definition or usefulness is still unclear to me.

    Many of these experiences stacked one on top of another, and then it only took me randomly stumbling onto a MR video to finally give that slight nudge it took to have all those experiences crash down around me and it let me start to think clearly.

    Really, encouraging people to interact with feminist theory is a good tool. Clearly it’s a slightly dangerous tactic, since people are obviously taken in by it.

  • BC

    The best way to illustrate the feminine imperative is to flip the script. Take an ‘incident’ (the lesser known, the better) and flip the genders. Reverse everything. Then watch how the feminine imperative deniers react to the gender-reversed incident, and contrast it to how they react to a similar non-reversed incident. If there is any difference at all in interpretation, sympathies, speculations, blame-laying, accusations, and so on, then a bias exists, and given that the bias will be overwhelmingly in favor of the female as opposed to the male, the feminine imperative can be shown to exist.

    Anyone who cannot see/understand/admit this is either a liar or corrupt (e.g., vested interests) beyond help and not worth further effort. But that is not the point of the exercise. The point is to give a real life example of the feminine imperative to observers who may be more on the fence or at least amenable to opening their eyes. And the best part is that the stronger the bias (unequal reaction) shown, and the more vehemently the person protests and denies that they are biased, the clearer the feminine imperative becomes to observers.

  • PermanentGuest

    “It would’ve been better if Smith hadn’t raised his voice.”

    That’s how he talks. Ironically, he was even more soft spoken then usual.

    Yes, he tiptoed around the main point. First, he would lose his job if he said what he wanted to, making his point lose credibility in the process. Second, he couldn’t out these athletes’ details to make it specific. It’s clear he has seen reality, whereas skip hasn’t, or is in denial.

  • proxy

    I can’t get over how he pronounces ‘sword’. He’s been doing the w for a long time that he even tries to use it on other words, see 0:34 seconds.

  • PermanentGuest

    And to sum up the point for the reader: men are held to a higher standard of scrutiny when it comes to wrongdoing. Women here have equal opportunity, but not equal accountability.

  • Djeed

    Actually, don’t you think that when most men start daygaming, the girls will be even more compelled to devote to fem-centrism? They will realize they start to get attention from males even on the street. What will be the next step for men to learn then?

  • Speaker

    I’ve had some success in explaining my red pill worldview recently. Often in conversations about relationships and gender I get called out to clarify since my viewpoint seems foreign to the group I’m speaking to. What I do is that I tell them to consider the old expression by a GM CEO* “What is good for GM is good for America”, and then I explain the fallacies of that statement (that there is no evidence for the case, in reality it can be either good or bad, there is no real connection here etc). And people agree. Then I tell them that today, the prevailing view of society is that “What is good for women is good for the world” and that this view is equally wrong as the one of the GM CEO.
    The response of the people to this very passive challenge to their worldview has been generally positive.

    *I know that this exact quote is a urban myth and his real statement was more nuanced but most people don’t.

  • Jack

    Maybe one day we can get someone talking about how it’s women who initiate 80+% of all divorces.

    A man can dream…..

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Search Dalrock’s blog. He’s written volumes about it.

  • HumanEvolution

    Dear rollo,

    I have stumbled upon your blog and found out many things about inherent female Biological Imperative.

    I would to explain about my Curiosity towards Gender relations.

    After studying Otto Weininger i have understood some thing-Nature had created More Masculine females for some time and Switched the Evolutionary system against Women.

    Otto Weininger also writes some thing incredible about Eastern Cultures especially about Chinese and Indian

    He says Eastern Cultures Practice Overt Patriarchy but Covertly its Matriarchy that always ruled those Cultures.

    He uses examples of how Indian culture is inherently more feminine and Even societal values are more feminine rather Masculine.

    He even explains why More feminine Cultures tend to more corrupt and Espouse values of Security and Socialism

    Otto Weininger is a Jew,But he has quite different opinion about Judaism,He says Judaism is a Feminine Force ,Hell bent on promoting Feminine order into every society and Thats why Jews have always associated themselves with Money and Superstitions

    Weininger in his book Sex and Character Writes more about Sexuality and how Cultures inherently espoused Feminine centric views .

    Its one of the must read for any one who is interested in Logical Philosophy.

    In his book Sex and Character, Weininger argues that all people are composed of a mixture of the male and the female substance, and attempts to support his view scientifically. The male aspect is active, productive, conscious and moral/logical, while the female aspect is passive, unproductive, unconscious and amoral/alogical. Weininger argues that emancipation is only possible for the “masculine woman”, e.g. some lesbians, and that the female life is consumed with the sexual function: both with the act, as a prostitute, and the product, as a mother. Woman is a “matchmaker”. By contrast, the duty of the male, or the masculine aspect of personality, is to strive to become a genius, and to forego sexuality for an abstract love of the absolute, God, which he finds within himself.
    A significant part of his book is about the nature of genius. Weininger argues that there is no such thing as a person who has a genius for, say, mathematics, or music, but there is only the universal genius, in whom everything exists and makes sense. He reasons that such genius is probably present in all people to some degree.
    In a separate chapter, Weininger, himself a Jew who had converted to Christianity in 1902, analyzes the archetypal Jew as feminine, and thus profoundly irreligious, without true individuality (soul), and without a sense of good and evil. Christianity is described as “the highest expression of the highest faith”, while Judaism is called “the extreme of cowardliness”. Weininger decries the decay of modern times, and attributes much of it to feminine (or identically, “Jewish”) influences. By Weininger’s reckoning everyone shows some femininity, and what he calls “Jewishness”.

  • itsme

    not all blue pill guys can be saved. your time and energy are finite and thus valuable. save them for the blue pill guys who have seen the cracks in the matrix and are starting to question its integrity.

    this is triage.

  • dragnet

    “A beta game response is what I’d expect from this mentality, but I think what red pill viewers of this clip need to understand is the subconscious fluidity with which this reflex occurs.”

    Yep. I think that’s the first thing to jump out at true red pill men–the automatic, reflexive resort to gynocentric rhetoric from Bayless. The effortlessness of the reaction, far more than the substance of it, is telling.

    “But no one can tell you what the Matrix is when you’re in the Matrix.”

    Reminds me of an old saying–that a fish doesn’t know it’s wet.

  • John

    Is Mark Minter Rousseau on there? Fair play thats touched a few raw nerves.

  • The Right Hon. Msgr. Fred Flange

    Mark M,
    Notice how the Schwyezer Jezebel post uses Dr. Glover’s “Nice Guy” as a stalking horse? So he’s paying attention to the manosphere lingo, I see him also referencing White Knighting.

    Note that Schwyzer conflates the NMMNG “Nice Guy” (avoidant, martyr, passive-aggressive) with the Privilege-Flouting MISTER OPPRESSOR DUDE who leverages his “fake niceness” into exploitation and seximizizm. (Does anybody know any Nice Guy – or nice guy – who does that?)

    So the enemy is not the wolf-whistling PUA or MRA, but the “Nice Guy”. Who’da thunk?

    Interesting how you can define the policy choice of a group by the people they target. Hence the true villain of modern feminizizm is the Nice Guy, not the bellowing wife-beater, birth control outlawer, or sarging Casanova. In Stalin’s USSR, the KGB was told “don’t worry about the former Nazis – just round up the damn liberals!”

  • Martel

    Anti nice-guyness is partly a function of the hamster wheel. They don’t want to bang nice guys, even though they supposedly should. Therefore, the nice guys really aren’t nice guys but are instead the types of guys they should avoid in disguise.

  • Retrenched

    What feminists don’t seem to realize is that the “nice guys” they hate so much are very often the products of feminist social conditioning. (i.e., “you must respect women”, “don’t be creepy”, “don’t harass women”, “don’t objectify women”, etc.)

    Funny how the feminists who create and push these mores despise and ridicule most of the men who actually follow them, while rewarding many of the men who don’t with lots of free sex…..

  • colonelcrimson

    “Well if it’s legit, then what’s the problem?”

    Pretty much sums it up.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I’ve already done a post on the Jerk in Nice Guy clothing rationale:

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/play-nice/

  • IrishFarmer

    “Even women expressing a male perspective critical of fem-centrism are subjected to this association.”

    Sorry, brother, but I’m gonna have to call you out on this one. You claim to have swallowed the red pill, but if you really think that Venker’s writing about the war on men was from a “male perspective”, you couldn’t be more wrong.

    Her writing is all about how women can better trick men into providing more benefits for women. The ironic thing about women-friendly progressives bashing Venker for her writing, is that Venker really was advocating for feminine primacy still anyway. That was one of the most patronizingly anti-male writings I’ve read in a while, and I occasionally read Jezebel.com.

    You need to have another good look at her writing I think.

  • FuriousFerret

    Venker:

    “No, No, No, you’re doing all wrong there neo feminists, you hold the whip this way and then smack. Much more effective.”

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Oh not at all, I fully realize what Venker’s latent message is (Dalrock had a great post on her), but it proves a point in that even when a woman writes something marginally defending a male perspective, even when that message is just a veiled attempt to further subjugate men, the feminine imperative will still shout her down.

  • IrishFarmer

    “Oh not at all, I fully realize what Venker’s latent message is (Dalrock had a great post on her), but it proves a point in that even when a woman writes something marginally defending a male perspective, even when that message is just a veiled attempt to further subjugate men, the feminine imperative will still shout her down.”

    Fair enough, man. I had a feeling I might be reading you wrong.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Women in the Matrix will gladly eat their own at the first sign of anything resembling empathy for the state of men.

  • Martel

    Even though Venker and those like her still adhere to the feminine imperative, I do have some respect for them. First, it does take a lot of courage to go off the plantation even a little bit (especially for a woman). Second, they do actually recognize the underlying truth that men and women are different, which is a bit exceptional. Third, they are aware that something is most definitely wrong, even if they don’t get it all the way or advocate solutions that could in fact be counterproductive.

    I say such folks have swallowed the purple pill. Among them I include a lot of Christians and game-friendly women. They’re not all the way there, but there is a start. They’re not full-blooded allies, but there is potential so I treat them with respect.

  • michaeltx

    I saw this live yesterday while in my office…Congrats to Stephen A….! Normally I can’t stand either of those guys so when I heard him I almost fell out of my chair with pride

    on a side note, I’d love to dick Cari down after she cleaned my house & made me lunch!

  • YOHAMI

    I do that everyday. Talking red pill to women like it was the normal thing to do. I face indignation, attempts of reframing, etc, all the classics. Unless Im talking to a shithead, the points come across.

    It’s just very unusual for them to think of men as anything else of supermen/unworthy men, or to think of women as anything else of poor victims. All I have to do is be calm and decisive, and remind her that we’re not talking about her but about statistics. Once the girl is reminded we’re not talking about her she’s ready to bring down women as a gender pretty quickly, and to appreciate the nowadays unappreciated virtues of men, and to recognize that nice guys are not nice, and anything else red pill.

    It aint hard. The concepts are not new. They are just taboo.

  • itsme

    Funny how the feminists who create and push these mores despise and ridicule most of the men who actually follow them, while rewarding many of the men who don’t with lots of free sex…..

    a woman’s forebrain controls what she says. her hindbrain controls what she does. not a whole lot of neurons connecting the two.

  • Stingray

    @MikeC I’d also point out that I think solipsism and the feminine imperative are intertwined in a very important way. Because of solipsism, the majority of women are probably incapable of even considering that their own interests are not identical to the interests of men.

    Absolutely. One can actually feel ones brain fighting back when trying to break free from the power of both of these. It’s a strange sensation and then when the realization sets in it’s like a powerful slap upside the head and stomach punch at the same time. Then realization of the truth opens up all at once for a few brief moments, only to have it all collapse in on itself again. Then one has to start over again from the beginning to have that world open again.

    Women have to believe, “if it’s good for me, it must be good for them. What’s all the fuss about?” It’s the ultimate projection.

  • Martel

    I know we don’t always get too political here, but that solipsism has infiltrated every interest group on the Left. Whether you’re black, gay, labor, or some other aggrieved group, what’s good for you=what’s good for America.

    The feminization of society and its drift leftward go hand in hand. Solipsism also filters into legal and linguistic interpretation, but that requires more space to describe than I’ve got here.

  • OlioOx

    Speaking of Venker and other women who seem to be advocating for men, I must ask again that some of you with better bullshit detectors than me check out girlwriteswhat’s videos on youtube. Just do a youtube search for girlwriteswhat. She says she has been appalled by feminist hatred of men since she was in high school, and seems to me to be making a pretty good defense of men and attack on feminism. Is there a hidden agenda?

  • gregg

    You are still wanting women to “understand” something? They CAN´T. They are not able to understand abstract ideas, justice freedom, anything great and remote. They are only able to feel some way and behave the way that is best for them. They are only able to see what it near and useful to them in some, way. They were made that way, they are merely an empty vessels that have to be filled. You can´t made them to THINK and BEHAVE independently, freely.

    Everything you can, is to make them FEEL and BEHAVE in certain way. This is made by power, fear and emotions. If they “love” they will follow your ideas. It does not mean that they “understand” them. They are in “love” so they follow, they are filled with ideas of men, they love. They do not process them, they merely contain them. If they “fear” or they have no other options, again – they will behave.

    Males have to agree on how society should be structured and then pass the laws and enforce them. Women will shit test – like little children are testing their parents. Should males stand firmly, women will follow like the flock of pigeons, like they always did. That´s all, nothing complicated. You western males have failed big shit test. Now the children – women are spoiled, have no rules and behave accordingly. It is up to you to grab your balls, reestablish order and rules. ACTA non verba.

  • taterearl

    Feminism…the ultimate shit test by women works out pretty well. It exposes the guys who are nice and therefore should be avoided…while also exposes the guys who are “assholes” and therefore should be rewarded.

    And here’s the interesting part…feminism was not brought out by empowered women, instead they were influenced by an evil group of men (Rockefellers) who used propaganda.

    http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html

  • Brendan

    The concept of the feminine imperative — which is quite obviously true when you step back and look at things more carefully — is inherently problematic to women because it undermines the entire narrative that women tell themselves and have told themselves since time immemorial. It isn’t a new critique — you’ve read Chinweizu yourself, and there was a female writer in the 60s and 70s who wrote about the same basic idea (can’t remember her name now, I’m sure you know her). It’s always been an unwelcome one, however, because it puts paid to the general “victimization/untertan” narrative that women have basically always told about themselves — precisely because this narrative is advantageous. As Chinweizu points out well, women have always had tremendous power and manipulated social relations to their ends in a way that made sense in the given context. Feminism is merely the latest iteration of this in an age of technical progress, and how the feminine imperative manifests itself in this specific context. In earlier contexts it was manifested differently, but it’s the same self-interest based approach which has ruled the day, and to which men have generally submitted.

  • AW

    Yohami said: “Once the girl is reminded we’re not talking about her”

    Man oh man is this ever true. Even when speaking to a female of above average intelligence on this topic, you have to CONSTANTLY reiterate that you aren’t talking about THEM specifically. They will subconsciously and relentlessly attempt to reframe the issue at hand into being about HER specifically. And constantly use her personal experiences/observations to justify her viewpoint. It can be incredibly frustrating. Especially when it’s a sharp girl…I find myself constantly thinking “goddamn it, aren’t you better than this!?”

    Most men seem capable and ready to contemplate that there are things at play bigger than they are individually, and perhaps outside the scope of their current perception/understanding. Women, not so much…

  • Walking Dude

    @ Brendan I believe you’re talking about Esther Vilar, and her book The Manipulated Man

  • taterearl

    “Once the girl is reminded we’re not talking about her”

    This.

    You can actually make some traction by saying this, continuing to say this, and end by saying this. It also reduces my anger in them not understanding because let’s face it…they probably won’t to some degree.

    Every topic I’ve discussed with a woman always goes back to a personal experience. That’s not to say I don’t use personal experiences too…but I can also be convinced through logical discussion without personally experiencing it.

  • Brendan

    Yes, that’s right, Esther Vilar. Much in the same vein as Chinweizu’s book, but different in many particulars of course. Both explode the notion of perpetual female victimhood and disempowerment.

  • Case

    Re: OlicOx question about agenda of girlwriteswhat…
    1) women can sincerely advocate for the interests of apes, I allow that they can sincerely advocate for the interests of men
    2) I allow that sincerity is rarer than we wish for, but real nevertheless and fair
    3) sincerity and fairmindedness may have many sources different depending on the person … maybe she has sons or brothers, maybe she had a good dad, maybe she is a real humanist placing the human imperative ahead of any gendered imperative … if the outcome is fairness, I don’t care the source
    4) everyone lapses sometimes too, or just errs, or seems to err now but we learn later was ahead of his/her time … that doesn’t undermind a principle of fairness
    5) I can usually grant a benefit of doubt to anyones good will and good faith, innocent until proven guilty … that exposes me to some danger, that’s the cost of err’ing on the side of allowing for fairminded people of good will and faith … making a community of the sincere around me is an asset and strength worthy of the risk of the occasional con getting thru

    Lastly, I disagree with Gregg’s theory of mind. All of us, male and female, are of (at least) two minds. Our forebrains are largely the same, it is only a matter of how much we, as individuals, male or female, make the forebrain supreme. Our hindbrains are gendered and have gendered coding and the female coding is problematic for having evolved as an unconsious matrix of minds, whereas the male coding seems to operate as an automatan. My view.

  • YOHAMI

    The forebrain is gendered too

  • Case

    I think when you talk about forebrain and gender the discussion can break down on semantics. I believe the important evolutionary adaptation of the forebrain is conscious free agency that can override innate programming, rather then waiting for a generalized die off to reset the underlying program. Much less energy wasting from a biological perspective.
    We could quibble over whether various faculties that may occur more heavily in male or female brains are “forebrain” or not. I would argue faculties such as empathy or math or music or dance and their exact role or place in neuroarchitecture aren’t important to the immediate question.

  • sunshinemary

    Stingray wrote:

    One can actually feel ones brain fighting back when trying to break free from the power of both of these. It’s a strange sensation and then when the realization sets in it’s like a powerful slap upside the head and stomach punch at the same time. Then realization of the truth opens up all at once for a few brief moments, only to have it all collapse in on itself again.

    Thank you for saying this. It is exactly how I have been feeling, especially over the past week since I’ve been contemplating the idea of there being a feminine imperative. It’s discouraging, too, because just when I feel like I’m about to really get it, I can’t quite. I feel like I’m getting little glimpses, and even that freaks me out. I can’t even accurately assess if there is a feminine imperative because as hard as I try to see things purely from a male perspective, I just can’t. And I can’t decide if I really even want to. It’s like a curtain you aren’t supposed to look behind, but now that I’ve peeked a little, I can’t stop taking little peeks even though I really don’t know if I want to see what’s behind it. And I’m realizing that if I’m feeling this way, then the majority of other women will say, “No thanks” to any sort of red pill awakening, and that is discouraging.

  • pete

    “Women in the Matrix will gladly eat their own at the first sign of anything resembling empathy for the state of men.”

    Absolutely, they must do so. While it is simple to attack and dismiss a man as a misogynist, a woman expressing red-pill type views is much more of a threat. They can’t simply announce that she has a penis and is therefore wrong and must act decisively.

    So they will swoop on her like vultures to protect what they have won, and ensure that any alternate viewpoint is suppressed. The typically female traits of jealously, cattiness and competitiveness are able allies in this task.

  • Wilf

    A few comments back, I noticed that Brendan was talking about “The Manipulated Man” by Esther Vilar. I searched the public library for it and found only 1 copy for reference only, not for loan. This library has something like 11-million items in its’ holdings.

    I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but it does seem odd that this book with an alternate and opposite viewpoint to what is commonly accepted is for all intents and purposes, not available to the public. (According to Wikipedia, it appears to have been published in its’ 3rd edtion as recently as 2009.)

    However, in the same library system there are more than 100 copies of Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus (including Print, Video, and languages other than English). Thing that make you go hmmmmmmmmm?

  • Sword

    I was laughing when the beta guy said ‘you have a lot of hatred towards women’ the irony is the black guy is probably pounding way more, or a hotter girl than that white guy.

  • Mark Minter

    I find that any comment this late in a posting cycle is probably ignored.

    I have been thinking about this topic a lot since this post first appeared. I actually wrote an essay that was tremendously long where I noted the sheer totally about football that reinforces the feminine imperative and actually creates a beta mindset in men, both as young players, and mostly as fans.

    When I started thinking about it, the essay just got longer and longer and longer and longer, anything from playing the sport, to watching it, to being a husband and when you are “permitted” to watch it, the fact that it is permitted because it is such a beta inducing activity and value, the commercials during the games, and especially the morals that reinforced in the minds of fans. Their is such amazing outrage exhibited over some of the most trivial things that a player might do or say, both on and off the field. When I think of how many coaches and players have been used as “whipping boy” examples over violations of Femcentric values, and so dramatically punished and lost their livelihood for some actions that offends Femcentrism, Petrino getting fired for having the coed on the back of a motorcycle and getting in a wreck, Mike Price for being in topless bar while at a convention in Florida, any player with a DUI, a Domestic Violence, Big Ben and the ass whippings he took for 2 allegations of rape, and on and on and. In no other job will you lose it, or even have the fact you did lose it stand up to a civil suit, if you were not convicted in a court of law. If you weren’t convicted, then you cannot be accused of doing it, except in football.

    So I had a long comment before hat was, again, at the end of a cycle of comments about a week ago that pretty much was ignored, as this comment will probably be ignored also. It was about rejecting all morality because so much is constructed to work against your interest as a man.

    So here is my fucking question.

    Rational Male has done yeoman’s work in exposing and exposing and exposing concept after concept after concept after concept of ideas, of values, of stereotypes, of generalizations about the most fundamental constructions and abstractions that constitute the paradigm by which men view, interpret, judge, and then act in the world.

    This blog has challenged and rejected and reinterpreted things such as love, fidelity, trustworthiness, commitment, and how women and society view men and continually pound crap values into men that work against the better interest of the man and can actually kill him.

    Alright, so now in this discussion of football, fucking football of all things for Christ’s sake!!, we can see the subtle and not so subtle conditioning in it.

    So at what fucking point do men get a fucking clue that ALL OF IT is bullshit and come to my conclusion, throw all of it in the fucking garbage can, every lick of it, and start the fuck over?

    How do you know any fucking thing in your head is worth a crap?

    You can practically deconstruct all values and at some point in the deconstruction you can get to “works for the feminine imperative”.

    Consider any of the following items “Marriage” “Work” “cooperation” “generosity” “commitment” “Chaste” “Character” “honesty”

    and tell me, fucking tell where those abstractions, those ideas, those values inherent in those words do not have an interpretation that
    (1) that works to reinforce what women want from men and is in the better interest of women vis a vis the interest of men.

    (2) Which one of those terms has a different interpretation, value set, social expectation for men than the term does for women?

    So if it seems radical that I say through it all out. Fucking sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

    Ok, I’m not sorry.

  • stevie tellatruth

    Just wanna say glad to see somebody caught this episode of First Take. I was hoping someone would bring it to the ‘sphere.

  • Black Solidarity Shedding White Progressivism | realitydoug

    [...] a ‘nice guy’, basically the Let’s Just Be Friends (LJBF) cycle. I also read Rollo’s “Shouting in the Wilderness” dated 6 December 2012. SEE THE VIDEOS! What you have is somewhat red-pill Stephen A Smith in [...]

  • ariseandexcel

    Two minor points.

    First, I did a text search for ‘Minter’ to read what Mark Minter had to say on this topic. As usual.

    Second, I could probably listen to Smith talk for about twelve hours straight and not get tired of it.

  • treylesnorth

    Excellent. Rollo, my guide. Sidestepping some of the discourse I’m seeing in the comments as of late (Not sure why I’m seeing any if it… I respect the personal philosophies of YaReally, Xsplat, and King A)

    Why a girl (read: the author of the article) cheats. Written from the female as primary perspective. Not sure there’s much new about it, but something in the thought processes of the woman is tingling the spidey sense. A quick glance can’t place it.

    http://m.askmen.com/dating/vanessa_60/83_love_secrets.html

    Seems no matter how many times or ways I hear it all phrased, it’s impossible to make the pieces fit and stay fitted.

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 3,649 other followers

%d bloggers like this: