Sanitizing the Imperative

sanitize

It would appear that over this (and last) week the manosphere topic du jour has been defining the Feminine Imperative. Sunshinemary started off the hit parade with her post The feminine imperative, fact or crap? and then followed up How doth the feminine imperative grow and then this week’s seminal effort in redefining the Feminine Imperative into more fem-friendly terms with The Feminine Imperative vs. the Feminist Imperative. All of this is amounting to what’s really the feminine equivalent of a circle jerk debate over semantics.

The recurring theme in all of these posts isn’t a want for a concrete definition of what the feminine imperative is, but rather an effort to dissociate the uglier aspects of the imperative away from blaming women for the negative consequences that result from the feminine imperative. Both for Aunt Giggles and Sunshinemary the overarching concern is the default scapegoating of the feminine imperative for any inter-gender woe a man might complain of.

If this feminine ‘concern’ sounds familiar it should; it’s just a new derivation of the “Devil biology made me do it” Red Queen / Selfish Gene biological determinism reasoning they feared would end up being men’s go-to explanation for excusing their bad (i.e. non feminine compliant) behaviors. Only now the narrative isn’t about the worry of men saying “my selfish genes made me cheat on my wife” the message they hope to control is men complaining “the feminine imperative is what makes me a sexless loser.” That control comes in an interesting form of blaming the victim for his lack of performance in the face of the feminine 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 ‘man’ if you don’t stick up for yourself by saying something.

While I will admit that Sunshinemary’s point of origin probably started as an honest inquiry into the nature of the feminine imperative, her want of a feminine friendly definition stems from the same desire Aunt Sue or any other female writer in the manosphere seeks when confronted with the harsh truths of Game, Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative and contemporary understanding of intergender dynamics – feminine absolution of acknowledgement of them.

The solution to acknowledging the Feminine Imperative follows the same formula as with other aspects of men becoming aware of intergender dynamics; dissociate (or dilute) feminine accountability, redefine terms and sanitize those redefinitions to fall back into accordance with the Feminine Imperative. I predicted exactly this process of Game sanitization when I wrote Could a Man have written this?  Only women are allowed to be self-critical, which of course is yet one more social extension of the feminine imperative.

Suck It Up Guys

The primary fear Sunshinemary has is that men will see the inherent amorality of the Feminine Imperative (hypergamic warts and all) from both an evolutionary and social perspective, and that this would become some self-defeating source of anger for them.

The feminine imperative isn’t something to be angry about, it’s something to be aware of and planned for accordingly. Up until recently the issue has been about the awareness part of that equation, now it’s the contingency part that men are having to deal with, and by extension so are women. The real fear isn’t about anger issues, it’s about the contingencies men will develop with their new awareness to circumvent the more egregious aspects of the Feminine Imperative, and its effect on women. Some men, understandably, get mad for having invested themselves for so long in a set of social rules they believed everyone was (or should be) playing by, only to become aware that the game’s been rigged all along. No one’s actually been playing by the “rules” that the imperative sold them and they’ve lost a lot of personal investment as a result.

Hypergamy and many other evolved aspects of the feminine imperative are (or were) certainly instinctual, largely unlearned, survival factors that contributed to our species’ success. However, the uglier, intrinsically unfair, dynamics like concurrent cuckolding, violent mate guarding, the War Brides dynamic and even women’s inborn sexual pluralism (rooted in her menstrual cycle) are aspects most men wouldn’t voluntarily sign on for if they knew the machinations behind them, or they had an inclination of how their SMV will progressively mature.

Solution? Develop feminine operative social conventions to ensure those unpleasant realities become more palatable duties for men.

For Feminine Imperative redefiners, the basic confusion stems from separating the feminine imperative from the social conventions that evolved to better effect it. They don’t see the fundamental separation of the two. Simply put, the feminine imperative is the totality of the framework – social, biological, personal, etc. – that implicitly benefits the feminine. And while they are correct that the social conventions of the feminine imperative are (for the greater part) learned and acculturated, they are the social tools used by the imperative, not the motivating imperative itself.

To Serve and Protect

Sunshinemary, in her effort to dissociate feminine accountability to the overall Feminine Imperative, attempts to separate the social implements of the Feminine Imperative from the naturalistic (evolutionary) side of the imperative. Thus she attempts to split the definition into two camps; one the good, natural, sometimes ugly, but species beneficial Feminine Imperative, the other, a monstrous social reengineering push responsible for the evils men endure under the Feminist Imperative:

The feminine imperative: protection and resources are preferentially and willingly provided to females by related males (related by family or by marriage), which benefits both sexes due to the increased survivorship of offspring; this is primarily an evolved biological construct. Resistance is useless due to differential survivorship of offspring.

The feminist imperative: protection and resources are preferentially but unwillingly provided to females by all males regardless of relationship, with no concomitant benefit to males; this is primarily an artificially imposed social construct. Resistance is useful.

Beyond the fem-positive spin of Mary’s redefinition here, the problem is that feminism is itself a social extension of the Feminine Imperative. Feminism is essentially a social reengineering project with the express purpose of benefiting the Feminine Imperative. On a base level hypergamy IS the feminine imperative. Hypergamy and women’s sexual pluralism is literally written into women’s genetic code. In her proliferative phase, women’s hormonal predisposition is for Alpha seed, after ovulation and menses the hormonal predisposition is for Beta need. Feminism, and all of the operative social, political and psychological conventions that are derived from it serve a solitary purpose – the advancement and consolidation of the Feminine Imperative as the dominant socio-sexual frame for our species.

All one need do is consider the socio-sexual effects of feminism over the past 40+ years. Remove the necessity for male provisioning, remove the pre-sexual revolution resource dependency, enable women with unilateral control of their birthing schedule through hormonal birth control and what do women default to? Their innate Hypergamy, the prime directive of the Feminine Imperative.

Hypergamy, while inherently cruel, is in fact a proven species survival schema. However, because of women’s place in our biological order, they must be the filters of that hypergamy. Ergo, the necessity of a dominant socio-sexual framework defaults to the feminine.

By sheer force men can and have taken control of that dominant framework, by rape or religion or any other moralistic social constructs, but women’s fluid, social reengineering of those constructs circumvents and repurposes them. If you need an example just study the history of western civilization; we’ve ‘progressed’ from a society that owned women as property to women’s default ownership of men’s progeny, property, their future property and even the means for them to acquire it all through the same social convention (marriage) that was intended to prevent women from engaging in their evolved propensity for sexual pluralism and proactively or retroactively cuckolding men.

Sunshinemary’s hope is that men will refocus their (perceived) anger on the evils of the Feminist Imperative as a distinct and separate force, and accept (preferably embrace) the Feminine Imperative for being “it is what it is”. Her impression is that the Feminine Imperative is amoral while the Feminist Imperative is immoral – an impression, I might add, that trad-con feminized-church women would like to perpetuate – focus on those deplorable feminists while we functionally serve the same purpose they do.  The main disconnect here is that there is no Feminism without a Feminine Imperative. Feminism doesn’t exist without a Feminine Imperative to serve.


118 responses to “Sanitizing the Imperative

  • sunshinemary

    I give up. I’m just going to stick with posting pictures of my handguns and panties on my blog from now on.

  • theprivateman

    I’d love for Jezebel or Slate’s XX section to pick up on this. I strongly suspect that these kinds of discussions are certainly on their radar but they are mortally terrified that your excellent description of the feminist imperative will become more public. Also, that bunch lacks the intellectual horsepower to actually think through what you’ve described. Imagine Lindy West’s weak brain trying to grasp this concept. She’d only manage to cough up some unoriginal snark.

  • sunshinemary

    But, my dear Rollo, in all fairness to me, do notice that I had already discussed whether or not I’m just trying to sanitize this to protect women who are trying to play by the rules. I’ve also warned readers myself to be wary of my (and all women who write about these issues) motivations. I may be wrong or right about any given issue, but I am not Aunt Sue; I will admit that I must have a priori biases and advised readers to be aware of that.

  • FuriousFerret

    All this means is that to live for women’s desires and wants is worthless and leads to ruin. A man should control his own destiny and if a woman wants to come along for the ride, great. However, she is not the prize. She is not the leader but must be a follower. If you wants to be the be the leader then she can kindly be shown the door.

    I can understand why modern women would hate this concept and if men as a whole accepted this as the paradigm to follow they would be straight up screwed. Describing the feminine impertative is essential in helping men understand why they can never put women as the prize, leader or mission. That’s why it must stand for what it is and never be watered down.

    Just say no to redefining the core concepts especially by women. Any time a woman challenges these things take it with a grain of salt.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I should add here that Aunt Giggles has made exactly these redefinitions, and using the same process, with regards to Feminine Solipsism and Hypergamy.

    I expect she’ll do the same with the Feminine Imperative – deny it exists, accept it as a new term, reinvent and redefine it to fit her narrative, and then claim responsibility for coming up with it.

  • deti

    As one who’s gotten involved in those discussions both at Sting’s place and at Mary’s, I have to agree. The more Mary has talked about this, the more the effort is to distinguish the unsavory from the practical; the seedy and dark from the honorable and virtuous, and to deflect responsibility from women to feminism.

  • Anonymous Reader

    Rollo
    Sunshinemary’s hope is that men will refocus their (perceived) anger on the evils of the Feminist Imperative as a distinct and separate force, and accept (preferably embrace) the Feminine Imperative for being “it is what it is”. Her impression is that the Feminine Imperative is amoral while the Feminist Imperative is immoral – an impression, I might add, that trad-con feminized-church women would like to perpetuate – focus on those deplorable feminists while we functionally serve the same purpose they do.

    Rollo, I believe that SSM is honestly attempting to investigate the phenom of the FI as well as she can. This is not the same thing as what TradCon churchladies are doing – they are quite willing to fling the label of “feminist” out of the sleigh, but at the same time are in no wise willing to give up any of the privileges feminism has won for them. They are feminists who oppose abortion, basically.

    TradCon women are becoming notorious for their “livestock” attitude towards men, we are not just the walking ATM / sperm vending machine to them but also mules to carry them around. Their “concern” for men is nothing much more than the care a farmer has for livestock, and it shows when they get angry.

    SSM I hope you don’t give up. You and other statisitcal outliers need to stick around.

  • sunshinemary

    I’m not quite ready to give up yet, although I’m still not convinced that I shouldn’t just go take some more pictures of my new SCCY 9 mm and my lingerie. At least people won’t be handing my rear to me all over the ‘sphere that way. :)

    No, I’m not meaning to sanitize this. That doesn’t mean I won’t inadvertently try to do so. I have a love/hate relationship with Rollo’s blog because he’s so freaking perceptive that I can’t stop reading it even though I despise the things he points out. That’s why I’m fairly willing to consider whether or not I’m doing what he says I’m doing.

    I also think it’s pretty obvious that discussing sexual strategies makes me a little crazy. Anyone who reads my blog understands why: women hit on my husband constantly and, although he no longer cheats on my like he used to, it still drives me wild with jealousy. Clearly this clouds my perspective a lot in this one area. I’m really, really trying to step back from that, but it’s seriously hard to do.

    Obviously I’m off base on the feminist/feminine imperative thing, but I’m still having trouble understand it well. I need to stop talking about it for a bit, maybe, and just think and read a little more.

  • sunshinemary

    Gawd, could I have put anymore typos into my last comment? I’m obviously upset and need to take a break now, since I can’t even write properly.

  • Erudite Knight

    What really should be pointed out is if ‘feminism’ was EVER about equal rights why did they pick an obvivously biased name? Why not equalists, or humanists?

    From the beginning the bias was obvivous.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I disagree. She may be mouthing the words differently, but the effort is the same; disavowing feminism while attempting to make the Feminine Imperative ‘holy’ and ordained.

    As I mentioned in prior comments on her and Dalrock’s blogs, romanticized Chivalry, Victorian era prudence, Feminism and a host of other social forces are the implements of the Feminine Imperative. Just because the notion of Chivalry makes us feel warm and fuzzy, and Feminism makes us want to spit on the floor doesn’t change the fact that they both serve the same master.

    Feminized churchianity is just one more branch of the same tree. No churchlady wants the feminist association, but they definitely want all the offerings the Feminine Imperative has to offer. They’ll couch that desire in scripture, they’ll make the Imperative the divine will of God, but it’s still one more extension of the Feminine Imperative.

  • Anonymous Reader

    SSM
    I’m still not convinced that I shouldn’t just go take some more pictures of my new SCCY 9 mm and my lingerie

    You should post an image of the 9x19mm pistol and the lingerie resting on an IPSC target with a nice 3″ group in the center of mass, next time.

    This is a hint. Here is another, paraphrasing from someone who knew far more about this than I ever will:

    Owning a firearm doesn’t make one automatically able to fight, any more than holding a guitar makes one a musician.

  • Nobody

    This is ground breaking stuff. The manosphere will someday change the world, there will be much resistance first, both overt and covert.

    I wonder if there is a way to stop this redefinition of terms. When this all becomes too big to ignore then all media, in all forms, will attempt to redefine and obfuscate the truth. I cannot wait to watch this all play out.

  • Anonymous Reader

    Rollo
    As I mentioned in prior comments on her and Dalrock’s blogs, romanticized Chivalry, Victorian era prudence, Feminism and a host of other social forces are the implements of the Feminine Imperative. Just because the notion of Chivalry makes us feel warm and fuzzy, and Feminism makes us want to spit on the floor doesn’t change the fact that they both serve the same master.
    ^^^^^^^
    You misspelled “mistress”.

    Of course Chivalry, Victorianism and Feminism all serve the same mistress. As I pointed out on Stingray and SSM’s site, the last 150 years of Feminism has been all about increasing women’s access to men they want, and resources they have control over. Hmm. Sperm and resources, gee, what’s that all about, eh?

    PS: I still believe that SSM is honestly attempting to understand, it’s just very difficult for her to do so. She’s not necessarily deliberately attempting to scrape litter over the stinky part, while leaving the clean end of the turd exposed, as the Hussie does.

  • Anonymous Reader

    Nobody, redirection of terms is to be expected, it’s part of deflection, a standard passive-aggressive technique. One proper response to redefinition is amused contempt.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    One proper response to redefinition is amused contempt.

    I think I manage that pretty well.

  • sunshinemary

    @ Rollo, regarding your last comment
    There is one thing you’re maybe missing. You are writing from a secular perspective for a primarily secular audience, and I am writing from a Christian perspective for a Christian audience. Some of what you are ascribing to me and my wants are not things that I made up: they are commands in the Bible to those of us who are Christians. Biblical sexual morality is not something I devised, but it is something I espouse. It curtails both the male and the female preferences.

    I know it’s different than what you are advocating here. I accept that difference, but please remember that Christianity is not something that I am trying to impose on men. If they reject Christianity, I would actually recommend that they read your site over mine any day. I have no problem with non-Christian men being armed with this knowledge and I have no allegiance to sluts; let the men triumph over them if they can. You’ll get no argument from me on that front, and I will do nothing to give aid or comfort to women in that context.

    [Go read the comment I left on your most recent post on your blog. We're not as different as you imagine]

  • sunshinemary

    Actually, I have no problem with Christian men being armed with this knowledge either (hence why this site is in my blogroll). I generally trust that Christian men will figure out the moral application.

  • Spoos in August

    In a fundamental way, we are our biology.

    The masculine imperative is to accrue resources and status within a male hierarchy to have as many successful children by as many women as possible. Tomcatting is seen by just about everyone as an intrinsic drive in all men, and, despite all the derision directed by women at promiscuous men, it remains an object of pride and status. Men’s biological imperative underpins much of the competition that defines the culture surrounding masculinity.

    The historical reason many men defended the feminine imperative was that it gained them status within a male hierarchy and increased sexual access. Lifetime monogamy, as opposed to harems, is good for betas, and encourages, via increased certainty of paternity, intergenerational accumulation of resources (especially in an agrarian society), which can increase fertility (many nomadic peoples’ diets and lifestyles contributed to longer post-partum lactational amenorrhea). Male accession to portions of the feminine imperative was a rising tide that lifted all ships.

    Today, however, men are denied most of the sexual access status and wealth accumulation had once assured. When men who play by society’s rules are no longer getting laid, expect them to stop following them. Those rules, and continued male accession to the feminine imperative, can be maintained for a while at gunpoint, but that’s not a situation that can last.

    An unchaining of the masculine imperative would be the Rape of the Sabine Women writ large; it’s just as ugly as the feminine imperative, albeit in a different way. Humans have no better angels, and it’s important that we recognize ourselves for what we are, and act accordingly. Divorcing the feminine imperative from feminism is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that makes women feel better about themselves, just as pretending that good men are the only real men helps the gormless beta promise-keepers sleep at night.

  • Anonymous Reader

    Rollo on amused contempt:

    I think I manage that pretty well

    I wrote that advice to Nobody, not you. I won’t be advising Mr. Bolt on how to run 50 meters really fast, either.

  • Emma the Emo

    I read history of the western world, didn’t detect any men owning women as property yet. There were slaves sometimes, and sometimes serfs, but women, from my impression, were not men’s serfs.

  • alan

    [T]he effort is the same; disavowing feminism while attempting to make the Feminine Imperative ‘holy’ and ordained.

    Rollo, is this really accurate? I don’t remember SSM calling it ‘holy’ or ordained by any means. Maybe I missed something.

    Are you, on the opposite side of the fence, framing the feminine imperitive as strictly immoral? This seems extreme to me, and impractical within the normal human experience.

    Are we looking for pure altruism, devoid of any self-interest?

  • Ras Al Ghul

    “aspects most men wouldn’t voluntarily sign on for if they knew the machinations behind them”

    This is what they fear most of all.

    Imagine a world where are all the men were aware of hypergamy, the imperative and everything.

    You’re starting to see it in the wholesale withdrawal of the younger men from society and work.

    Christianity has been serving the feminine for a long time, far longer than men realize.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Alan, last week I caught this amazing quote from a commenter on Dalrock’s blog:

    Most Christians aren’t aware of it (though it’s infiltrated our churches to a dangerous extent) but New Age pushes the idea that intuition (which mostly means women’s intuition, of course) is a sort of divine guidance.

    To which my response was,..

    Excellent observation.

    This is the culmination of what I was getting at initially, a woman’s mythologized “intuition” (i.e. her hypergamous instinctual impulse) is now conflated with the Holy Spirt or some divine gifting God has ordained uniquely for women. We constantly hear this placation repeated by churchianity authorities on gender issues.

    While SSM wasn’t directly alluding to this fem-church dynamic, this is what I’ve come to expect from churchianity and I felt SSM was leaning dangerously close to this in validating the FI by separating it from her concept of the feminist imperative.

    As I’ve written before, I don’t think of the FI or Hypergamy as having any moral compass in and of themselves. It’s really about the individual application. I think it’s incorrect to deify or demonize either.

    This might help you understand me better:

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/humanism-behaviorism-and-the-amorality-of-game/

  • deti

    Emma:

    In western history women might not have been “property” but they were usually treated as such. Up until the late 19th century women had few rights. Women could not:

    1. Sue in their own name
    2. Own real property
    3. Vote
    4. Work and earn money without a husband’s permission
    5. Marry without permission from a father or other responsible man
    6. Enter into legally binding contracts
    7. Refuse to have sex with her husband (a married woman was held to give standing consent to sex with her husband at all times)

  • FuriousFerret

    “Christianity has been serving the feminine for a long time, far longer than men realize.”

    I think the straw that broke the camel’s back in this one was that church girls started shunning all the church guys and either waiting for God to deliver their alpha to them or going out and slutting it up with the alphas despite religion.

    Also the most grevious of insults was the women in their late 20s/early 30s that come back to back to church to snag their beta male provider. People are starting to get wise to this scam.

    I’m glad I left that scene right after college and I don’t want to go back.

  • Alpha Mission

    @Spoos In August. The “Rape” of the Sabine women was not rape at all. It is called such because the Roman men took these Sabine women as their wives against the Sabine fathers’ permission (see Deti’s #5 above). The Sabine men wanted to kill the Roman men for this, but the Sabine women emplored their father’s not to do it, because they were happy married to the Roman men. The Sabine women weren’t raped, they were wisked away by Roman badboys they wanted and secured provision and protection from them.

  • taterearl

    I keep thinking the X chromosome is the self destruct gene. The Y is what keeps everything in check.

  • deti

    Rollo:

    “I should add here that Aunt Giggles has made exactly these redefinitions, and using the same process, with regards to Feminine Solipsism and Hypergamy.

    “I expect she’ll do the same with the Feminine Imperative – deny it exists, accept it as a new term, reinvent and redefine it to fit her narrative, and then claim responsibility for coming up with it.”

    I doubt it, unless she feels cornered into it. She denies there is any such thing as a feminine imperative. She believes it is simply a canard invented by men to excuse, explain or rationalize away their relationship and marriage failures. The purpose of her blog isn’t really sussing out the intricacies of intergender dynamics. Rather her purpose is to help her female readers use the realities of the current SMP to get boyfriends and husbands, and to use the hookup as a potential launching pad for a relationship.

  • taterearl

    “Actually, I have no problem with Christian men being armed with this knowledge either (hence why this site is in my blogroll). I generally trust that Christian men will figure out the moral application.”

    Christian men do have the knowledge…take 5 minutes to read the fall of man or read what St. Paul had to say about marriage and that is all you need to know.

    Problem is the women spinsters only highlight what men are supposed to do and conveniently forget or induce shame when their role is brought up.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    She denies there is any such thing as a feminine imperative.

    She also emphatically stated that hypergamy was defined as a woman’s tendency to ‘marry up”, nothing more, nothing less.

    A year later, Hypergamy means what everyone’s been telling her all along, she hopes no one notices her about-face and she passes herself off as a relationship luminarie for having conceived it.

    She denied feminine solipsism for a long time too, now it means that women are positively self-concerned and men ought to thank their lucky stars for it.

  • alan

    @Rollo: As I’ve written before, I don’t think of the FI or Hypergamy as having any moral compass in and of themselves. It’s really about the individual application. I think it’s incorrect to deify or demonize either.

    Agreed. Completely. In my view, SSM is trying to recognize the basic natural impulses at work, and then deal with the fallout. Separating the urge from the action allows us to choose our course through enlightened self-interest, instead of being swept away by, ‘The Devil, my nature, peer pressure’ made me do it. That is the toxic rationalization.

    As you discussed previously, the ‘wiring’ or ‘behavior’ or ‘vice’ is amoral and is subjected to subsequent conditioning: https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/humanism-behaviorism-and-the-amorality-of-game/

    Vice is a very useful word in this conversation. A natural (and potentially destructive) tendency must be controlled, moderated, mitigated, whatever. Otherwise, disaster ensues, whether sooner or later.

    I look at my wife realistically. If I notice a feminine vice (imperitive) veering out of control, I move quickly to contain it, occasionally pointing out the reason so that she understands my actions. I don’t expect her to change and become selfless. On the contrary, she probably can’t, therefore, it’s counterproductive to barrage her with, “bad girl, bad girl, bad girl.” I pick my spots and help her (us) out when I can.

    I choose my battles while maintaining control. The vices will always remain, but the destructive behaviors can be minimized.

    I think that this is SSM’s goal. At least I’m granting her the benefit of the doubt, until proven otherwise.

  • BC

    This is why I do not believe there is such a thing as a true Red Pill woman. The imperative is always there, lurking below the surface, and just needs the right combination of factors to show itself.

    Also,

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2249144/Vasectomies-60-decade–husbands-refuse-make-ultimate-commitment.html

    1. “My body, my choice” obviously applies to only one gender.
    2. The (older) wives want their (still viable) husbands to get a vasectomy to imply their unending commitment (and to handicap them should the husband decide to leave), yet if no-fault divorce was made illegal with similarly severe penalties, these same women would be screaming their heads off. “Until death (or I decide so) do us part” also applies to only one gender.

  • Wudang

    “But, my dear Rollo, in all fairness to me, do notice that I had already discussed whether or not I’m just trying to sanitize this to protect women who are trying to play by the rules. I’ve also warned readers myself to be wary of my (and all women who write about these issues) motivations. I may be wrong or right about any given issue, but I am not Aunt Sue; I will admit that I must have a priori biases and advised readers to be aware of that.”

    This is very well done!

  • Grit

    If you assume that 99.99% of women are plugged into this feminine imperative, then:

    -In fairness, the other .01% of the likes of SSM are perfectly welcome to join the discussion.

    -In judgement, the other .01% of the likes of SSM are simply rationalizing that they are special snowflakes and NAWALT.

    The MANosphere is valuable because it allows male voices to ring clear and true underneath a PC fem-apologist society where they would face excommunication for doing so.

    Consider that the entire feminine strategy is empowered by an appeal to being fair.

    “Men and women should have fair rights, and equal opportunity and fair practice and yadda yadd yadda, SHOULDN’T THEY BOYYYS?”

    I want to see less fairness and more philanthropy.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Oh, but Grit, I welcome the other 99.99% with open arms on my comments and the SoSuave forums. It’s only through them voicing their ego-investments that I can make graphic examples of the dynamics I explain.

    It’s one thing for men to hear me in a closed room, it’s another to hear me in the marketplace.

  • JJ Roberts

    Mostly agree.

    Women have two primary imperatives wheras men only have one (has sex with lots of fertile women).

    Women’s two imperatives are really not that complicated :

    1) The need for the alpha male
    2) Hypergamy

    With hypergamy being the root cause of everything from the need for the provider (typically beta) male, marriage, prostitution and what I term type 2 feminism (modern feminism).

    Yup, I said it, the root cause of modern feminism and prostiution are the same.

  • JJ Roberts

    PS the reason I only mostly agree is because this article seems to imply that hypergamy is the more powerful of the two and it’s not.

    The need for the alpha is more powerful due to the fact that marriage, prostitution and modern feminism are not possible without the invention of property which is a relatively recently invented thing (only about 10,000 years old) which is only 5% of the last 200,000 years

    The need for the alpha male has reigned for 100% of the last 200,000 years and still reigns today. That’s why men did not develop a 2nd primary imperative to do with money – we don’t need to.

    Being an alpha still gets you laid today.

  • Enso

    “as a man you’re a whiney beta if you complain, but you’re less than a ‘man’ if you don’t stick up for yourself by saying something.”

    This is one of the things that I’ve never been really sure how to combat. IS there a good way to…”put the hammer down” on a woman without coming across as needy or out of control? If so…how? Is nexting the only real solution?

  • MarcoP

    It is a beautiful thing, the destruction of hamsters.

  • Erudite Knight

    Unfortunately their lack of logic makes their destruction much more resistant to truth.

  • Mr Strangelove

    Brilliant post!

    Has Rollo discussed of female sexual partner count and why men feel bad (at least some) about high numbers?

    I had heated discussion with one my friends (female) about partner count and I could not tell why numbers matter or why they do not matter.

  • Ace Haley

    I’m reading a lot here about a woman’s desire for a typically “beta male” provider who comes in after she’s being plowed through left and right by many other guys in the past.

    I guess what I’m trying to bring up is 2 things: How can these “beta male” guys who worked their whole 20s to suddenly come into wealth in their 30s not see the swindle? How can they not see that this woman’s financial security only benefits her and that he’d actually be more secure if he didn’t marry at all?

    I appreciate the writing from Rollo and from everyone else but it’s hard to not to acknowledge a lot of men (most men) are a completely lost cause who will use “love” as their excuse to be financially exploited by women who never worked for what these men earned.

    I feel sorry for them but at the same time, I don’t. I can’t.

  • Jacob Ian Stalk

    @SunshineMary

    “You are writing from a secular perspective for a primarily secular audience, and I am writing from a Christian perspective for a Christian audience.”

    You can’t make any assumptions about Rollo’s intentions. He writes for the Manosphere, which I suspect includes as many Christian men as it does secular men. In 4 years of voracious reading in the Manosphere, I see something happening that has rarely, if ever, happened in society (certainly not in church)- men of all stripes uniting against a common enemy. That enemy is not women, but the Feminine Imperative, otherwise known as Eve’s Original Sin. To me, this is evidence of God’s presence, whether or not the men of the ‘sphere care to acknowledge Him.

    “Some of what you are ascribing to me and my wants are not things that I made up: they are commands in the Bible to those of us who are Christians.”

    The truth is that the Feminine Imperative is biblically wrong, and yet you write about it as if it were not.

    “Biblical sexual morality is not something I devised, but it is something I espouse. It curtails both the male and the female preferences.”

    True enough. Then you, as a Christian, ought to be denouncing the Feminine Imperative rather than entertaining it the way you seem to in your blog. The Bible teaches that Christ crushes the Feminine Imperative under heel, undoing the damage first caused by Eve and then Adam.

    “I know it’s different than what you are advocating here.”

    This sounds like a get out of jail free card. Do not use Christianity as a fluffy pink scapegoat, you sinful daughter of Eve.

    “I accept that difference, but please remember that Christianity is not something that I am trying to impose on men.”

    No, you are trying to assert that the Feminine Imperative is somehow supported rather than roundly denounced by Scripture.

    “If they reject Christianity, I would actually recommend that they read your site over mine any day.”

    I recommend that Christian men read this site over yours any day. Your blog claims to be Christian but it sustains and promotes the wrong-headed notion that the Feminine Imperative is somehow acceptable to God, even when it is persuasively the act that initiated the very Fall of Man. There is narcissism, entitlement, self-love, and wong-headedness in many of your writings. Rollo isn’t always right either, and perhaps just as narcissistic (what blogger isn’t?) but he is one of the leaders of a critically needed form of mens ministry. Your attempt to give the Feminine Imperative a scriptural polish is mockery of their suffering, no matter how pink and fluffy you want to make it.

  • willis668

    SSM has given us an example of the feminine imperative in this comment section, but appears unaware of it.

    After being challenged by Rollo in this post, in her comments she reverts to the use of emoticons, mentions her panties/lingerie more than once, appeals to women’s emotionality as an excuse, and highlights her supposed ineptitude at typing as yet another excuse. No doubt she now harbors in her womanly mind an inchoate, not-completely-formed feeling that we are meanies for not responding to her feminine appeals for mercy, her resentment building as we hold her to the same standard as men. She at least has enough sense to not post those feelings here.

    SSM, if you read this, I have a question: is your display here an example of the “feminine imperative” or the “feminist imperative”?

  • Days of Broken Arrows

    I need to present a real life example of what I think this is. An ex of mine asked some advice of me, then did the opposite of what I said (wasting days of my time in the process). When she called again for “advice” I told her “no” and gave her a piece of my mind about wasting my time and not listening to what I’d said (all of which turned out to be correct).

    She then completely freaked out, whining “We’re friends, so you’re supposed to love me unconditionally!!”

    To me, that’s basically the feminine imperative in a nutshell.

    They get to do whatever they want, and any criticism, however warranted means you’re just a terrible man who didn’t love “unconditionally,” no matter how much time and effort you put into the relationship/friendship.

  • Underdog

    @ Mr Strangelove

    “I had heated discussion with one my friends (female) about partner count and I could not tell why numbers matter or why they do not matter.”

    It matters because it is your primal brain telling you not to commit energy and resources into a potential mate who most likely wont be carrying your baby.

  • Case

    Was on a popular local hiking trail today. Came down behind two young ladies, neither a day past 22. One, raging hotness. The other, squandering her youth on to many munchins.

    Anyway, we’re all hiking, so the process of coming down the hill from behind, catching up with them, then passing them takes a few minutes, enough to be in earshot of their conversation. It goes something like this:

    Munchins: Oh yeah, I’m going to that so-da-de-so blah-da-de-blah event
    Hotness: Whaaaat? Oh I totally wanted to go to that why didn’t you tell me?
    Munchins: Well you were invited
    Hotness: You have tickets and (something like backstage) and blah blah?
    Munchins: Yeah. It’s in West Hollywood at the blah-dar-de-blah
    Hotness: Will that guy from CSI be there?
    Munchins: Yeah totally and da da de da da
    Hotness: Oh, I really want to go

    Pre-red pill here’s what I’d of heard:

    Hotness wants to go to an event where some celebrity she is crushing on will be present, not unlike a dude friend of mine might want to go to an event because Megan Fox will be there.

    Red-pill / Imperative aware, here’s what I heard:

    1. Precisely which of my male friends ever expressed an interest in any event of any kind because a hot female celebrity he has no chance in hell of ever getting near let alone bedding, on account of the potential of being at an event with here?

    Oh yeah, some beta blue pill stalker wingnut. That’s right.

    2. Hotness of course is NOT heard talking about that great recent graduate she met in the bar who is an engineer at Honeywell, or developer at Google

    3. Hotness of course is NOT heard talking about or longing after the cute business school peer of hers who is likely working her like a dog, “investing” relationship equity in her

    4. Hotness is not heard saying anything like any male friend trying to get in the proximity of a hot female celebrity for whatever reason he might do that

    5. Hotness knows, she has hotness, and hotness (small h) is a currency to be traded, and Munchins has the tickets to the West Hollywood event that will put Hotness on the same floor with a male of high value who she can tender trade to, and if on inspection the high value male is prepared to make an exchange, Hotness will execute the trade unhesitantly

    For all other males in hotness’s vicinity, we can be safe assuming, no such easily willing trades are being available.

  • William

    @ Ace Haley

    Chumps have been told (often when they’re complaining about their lack of a love life) that “one day” that’ll get the girl, also they’re told that woman screwing “assholes” is just a phase that they’ll get out of
    when they’re older.

    So the chump will happily wait for the woman who’s done dating assholes and wants a “nice guy”.

  • Emma the Emo

    deti,

    You’re right about many of these things, but I’m still reading these books and it says women could own property and many did. Usually happened when the husband died and no one could take over. It wasn’t the same as for men, but to say no women owned any property is wrong. I’m not sure who chose whether a woman worked or not, if she had no husband (I admit I’m a beginner student at history), but work outside the home was possible, often for the unmarried ones. It’s just that being a wage worker sucked.

  • Johnycomelately

    Clearly FI is bullshit, where is the ‘expert’ testimony? Where are the peer reviews? How come its not listed in the DSM?

    Huh! Show me the evidence.

  • Underdog

    @Johnycomelately

    I see what you did there.

  • nek

    Part of the reason women can’t acknowledge, or at least have a harder time acknowledging, the darker side of their nature is the fact that they’re not equipped psychologically to handle discomfort directly related to their survival. They can handle loss well (see the War Brides post), but the discomfort of admitting their dark side to men is akin to Achillies having a big sign pointing to the back of his heel. In other words, they can’t handle self-defeating discomforts. Women’s propensity to survive is much greater than mens’, and therefore they have little wiggle room for anything self-defeating. This is why you see a difference in humility between men and women. Have you ever seen women who, even after being caught red-handed in their own lie, still deny that they did something they weren’t suppose to (such as cheating)? If you’ve ever watched the show “cheaters” you’ll see alot of the women start to blame their partner once they get caught, trying to remove the blame from themselves. It’s this propensity at work. Women are the ultimate survivalists. Perhaps it’s innate due to the intrinsically higher biological value the pussy has. This difference is illustrated in the facts that men are much more ready to dive into battle, but also more willing to off themselves.

    @Rollo,
    I have to say your writing style and analysis is on a whole new level now. It’s like watching a jiu-jitsu master when you dissect someone’s statement. You know the counter to every move. So now that I’m done complementing, just one quick question. What’s this “retroactive cuckolding” you speak of?

  • FuriousFerret

    @Jacob Ian Stalk

    Are you like a King A Jr or something?

  • D-Man

    @Case: Well illustrated.

    Hypergamy (partial definition)… the trade of access to high quality female genes (be seen with her, have sex with her, have babies with her) for access to higher social status, wealth, security, comfort.

    This facility to jostle and manoeuvre, to coldly ditch what they have (as your trail-hopping hotness would do her boyfriend in a heartbeat for the CSI C-lister) all for a chance at an up-move in the eternal game of snakes and ladders.

    Why can’t feminism see this and address it? Aren’t these women traitors in their midst? Don’t they need to be made aware of how they’re essentially selling their bodies, perpetuating the whore dynamic?

    Well, that’s the view from the sidelines, where nobody is buying.

    Truth is, hot women aren’t looking for feminism’s help, they’re looking for men’s… and they know exactly how to go about getting it.

    There are Alphas and Betas among women, too.

  • Vicomte

    @Johny

    I giggled.

  • 47hs

    @Ace Haley
    “How can these “beta male” guys who worked their whole 20s to suddenly come into wealth in their 30s not see the swindle? How can they not see that this woman’s financial security only benefits her and that he’d actually be more secure if he didn’t marry at all?”

    Hope is not lost, as many of us did precisely realize the swindle indeed around that age, and since then I’ve lived completely on my own and have nothing whatsoever to do with women for decade+.
    I don’t hassle them and they don’t hassle me. I came to the conculsion years ago that I was better off being single – apart from when dealing with the holiday travel industry who hate single people.
    I even know middle aged married women with husbands/children etc who now say they can see exactly why I’ve stayed on my own and that I’ve ‘too much sense’ to get married.

    T’will be interesting how I view things/feel once I get into my mid 50’s+………….maybe I’ll regret my decisions.

  • Retrenched

    @ Ace

    “How can these “beta male” guys who worked their whole 20s to suddenly come into wealth in their 30s not see the swindle? How can they not see that this woman’s financial security only benefits her and that he’d actually be more secure if he didn’t marry at all?”

    Because men often do very dumb things when they are in love, horny, or under the influence of feminine wiles. Like commit financial suicide.

    Keep in mind also that a lot of those guys went through a sexual desert in their 20s, getting lucky once in a blue moon but not really able to get anything steady and consistent. Then suddenly for the first time in his life a somewhat attractive woman notices him and wants something long-term with him and he feels like he hit the jackpot… You can figure out the rest.

  • taterearl

    @ Ace…betas go through being subjective with females.

    Men should stay mostly objective with women…at least until the woman provides a little proof she has some basic concepts of human decency. We all know what happens when you put too much stock in your feelings when you are with a woman.

  • Jacob Ian Stalk

    @FuriousFerret

    OK, I’ll bite. What’s a “King A Jr”?

  • Retrenched

    This is a big reason why a lot of women hate men learning about game, hypergamy, alpha-chasing and all that. It’s harder to get beta guys to play Captain Save-a-ho when they figure out how to get those “hos” without investment or commitment. And even men who might not be able to pull that off will still be less willing to wife these women up if they know what these women did in college (and with whom), while they were sexually frustrated and busy studying for finals.

  • FuriousFerret

    @Jacob

    Did you discover the manosphere yesterday?

    Stick around he’ll pop up.

  • Retrenched

    @ Jacob

    Or just check the archives here. He’s left comments on many of Rollo’s posts.

  • Case

    D-man,
    my own guess is that feminism is all for Hotness’s behavior here. It isn’t so much an equal rights movement that would hold high expectations on female agency as it is a female advocacy movement that promotes the interests of women, men’s interests be damned. Feminism would high five hotness, you go grrl her for plotting the scheme, double high five her if she beds CSI C-lister, triple high-five her if she achieves any resource tradeoff for the effort, all the while work its magic to be sure that older betas are ready to take care of her when she doesn’t command carousel value to alphas anymore and keep government friendly as the alpha of last resort should all other options fail. Feminism isn’t concerned with men and it doesn’t care about women experiencing the fullness of agency, feminism is the ideology of the oldest polygamist imperative (chicken/egg here): every woman should be taken care of. Hotness is doing her job, a score with CSI dude frees resources up elsewhere to take care of a woman without Hotness’s considerable sexual asset endowment.

  • Vicomte

    Jacobe, howst dareth thy knoweth not thy own nature? I find your indolence common among the inane rabble that plague this dying Earth. Your sins of ignorance shall be your downfall, and your obsequious sycophancy in response to mild chastisement bespeaks a certain wanting in regard to your intellectual character.

    Blah blah *fire* blha blah *brimstone* blah apostates blah blah blah transmogrify blah immaterial convictions blah blah false erudition among scribblers of esoteric blah blah vociferous reconstitution of ancient wisdom blah blah blah proselytes of Satan blah blah little fag bitch blah blah blah blah inveterate sham of contemporary discourse blah.

    Like that.

  • FuriousFerret

    Hotness is doing her part!

  • Case

    @Jacob,
    He’s a prick who did his part to try to expand the irreemably blighted newark ghetto that has become Chateau to these much more honorable and decent parts. Rollo did a take down on him yesterday and being one to care greatly that this neighborhood retain its distinction, I personally won’t be missing him any. The manosphere already has one virtual ghetto for those who feel most comfortable in the company of self identifying Omegas, no reason to let the whole metropolis go to shit.

  • T & A man

    Seriously, you are the star of the manosphere.

    I just shared a taxi with a 37 year old guy who is red pilling, 45 minutes later you express better what I feeel I need to express to him about every topic I can think of.

    **->MEN<-**, anyone born with testicles need you to be their voice. F*ck giving donations to abadoned greyhounds, every man alive needs you as our voice so many of us can reach their potential.

    You have got to the stage where your voice being absent from the MSM is doing us harm.

    I _IMPLORE_ you to give us readers a vehicle where we can propel you to a mainstream voice. You have reached a maturity of 'game', or positive masculinity that truely is rational, beyond reproach.

  • T & A man

    I just read the whole thing again, and the comments. Aurini asserted something which I believe forms the basis of ‘positive masculinity’ superceding ‘game’… testosterone formulates teamwork…. but under ‘game’ this is beta.

    It isn’t, it is civilisation. Under ‘game’ rules, enduring a beta existence is accepting second best. None of us will accept second best if we now the rules. But under accepting ‘teamwork’, we have a greater goal in mind which is the advancements of civilisation.

    Rules which are less than optimal, which is women picking the rules, leads to men becoming naricisstic knob-ends. If they are they are the overarching rules, rational outcomes are every male desiring to become knob-ends.

    We, as men, admire the Tesla’s, the Einstein’s, the Gates’… and I would put forward only men admire them, and only men project them as aspirational models.

    In these times, of a fem-centric world, and this modeling dwindling to the point of absence, a more pronounced voice needs to reassert where western males need to be. You do this better than anyone else.

    Can your readers assist in propelling this voice in a broader fashion?

  • FuriousFerret

    “Can your readers assist in propelling this voice in a broader fashion?”

    Rollo is putting together a book. The best thing that anybody can do is buy multiple copies of the book when it comes out and then distribute those copies to certain friends. Just start a grass roots kind word of mouth.

  • Spoos in August

    At whoever noted that the Rape of the Sabine Women was not about non-consensual sex, yes. It’s a story, however, about men doing why they want, breaking the rules, and obtaining the desired result. And while Rome eventually built a great civilization, in the short term there were a whole lot of pissed wifeless young Sabine men, and very nearly a war.

    Young men starting conflicts by whisking off impressionable women may be easy to romanticize, but it is absolutely incompatible with the fragile edifice that is contemporary civil society.

  • asdf

    Rollo,

    I just read your post(s) on moral relativism. I have to say I reject it. Taking the materialist view that we are all slaves to our drives and there is no point moralizing about it reduces us to animals.

    All of us have a need to transcend our animal instincts. To do things not because they are some evolutionary strategy but because they are good and right. Even when they conflict with earthly happiness.

    Everyone seems to understand there is a qualitative difference between happiness (making your brain release the right chemicals by doing things evolution likes) and joy (transcendent). If they did not we wouldn’t see this theme time and time again throughout history. It would not have the power it does.

    For some reason when it comes to sex people are all too willing to just embrace nihilism/evo-psych. If it feels good, do it. Even people that might maintain strict moral ideas in other spheres of life.

    This moral relativism is very dangerous. Nihilism is very dangerous. I know you think you’re being a cold eyed realist who is just going with the facts, but I think that betrays a real blindness to critical aspects of the human condition.

  • RasAlGhul

    Nek:

    “What’s this “retroactive cuckolding” you speak of?”

    Didn’t see anyone else answer so I will.

    Retroactive cuckolding is marrying a woman with kids from a previous father and raising them/ spending your financial resources on them. If you think about it society really pushes how noble this is.

    Betas, if they get married, are doing this more and more. A woman rides the carousal and gets pregnant (the single mom rate is at least 38% now if not higher) then settles down with a beta male that asks as the father.

    The successful male reproductive strategy currently in society is having a lot of baby mommas and having some schlep raise them.

    The second most successful strategy is the guy that remarries and sires more kids on a second wife.

    The fail strategy is being the idiot that hopes maybe he gets a kid while raising a bunch of others.

    If you note the huge push re adoption, and orphans in literature being raised by others (see superman).you see the female imperative. (there is the interesting conflict in the first Superman movie between bio dad and earth dad over which is really the father.)

  • Underdog

    Morality is indeed relative. Stop preaching and accept it.

  • DeNihilist

    And here is Prof. Meade’s take. Very interesting if you are a christian.

    {The message is or ought to be clear. I will come back to the Virgin Mary later; she’s one of the great enigmas of the Christian religion for many contemporary Americans and it’s hard for many of us to see just what she means or can mean to people today. But for now, on this third day of Christmas, it’s enough to understand that when Christians say that Jesus was born of a virgin, there are two main points they are making: that Jesus is the son of God, connected to the author of the universe in a unique and special way with a mission that is fundamentally different from that of all the prophets and teachers who came before, and that the free choice of a strong and faithful woman opened the door to salvation for the whole human race. Jesus is unique, and women are free and equal in God’s sight: that is what we should take away from this story.

    Christianity like many world religions has often been less than fair in its treatment of women. But at the heart of historic Christianity there has always been the idea that one young single woman’s faithful choice gave God the opening he used to save the whole human race. Christmas is a feminist holiday, a feast that celebrates the free choice of an autonomous woman. As Christianity has risen to become the largest and most widespread religion in the world, women are coming into their own. It cannot be otherwise; Christianity of all the world’s great religions owes its origin to the choice of a woman to cooperate with God.

    God didn’t send Jesus into the world because he was satisfied with the status quo. God sent him here because things needed to change — and right at the top of the list of the things God wanted to change was the position of women. The change didn’t happen overnight, and even today we haven’t seen the full consequences of giving half the world its rightful due, but from the day that Mary answered Gabriel a new force has been at work in the world, and what we see today is the blossoming of a tree that was planted a very long time ago.}

    Read the whole post here –

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/12/27/yule-blog-2012-2013-born-of-a-what/

  • DeNihilist

    Hey Jacob Ian Stalk, can you reference this please –

    [ The Bible teaches that Christ crushes the Feminine Imperative under heel, undoing the damage first caused by Eve and then Adam.]

  • asdf

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html

    Rollo,

    All you are really doing is advancing through the stages of nihilism. First we question if there really is a revelatory truth from above (liberalism). Then we seek to create our own truth from the world because we know there is “truth” in our bones (materialism). However, that is a dead end. Having failed to find truth from above or below we embrace vitalism (strong emotion and vitality as truth). Finally when this fails we embrace destruction of self or others (pure nihilism).

    Most of western society suffers from all four of these kinds of nihilism. In fact even within a person they usually suffer from multiple kinds.

    What your advocating here is simply materialism. The world is what it is. Instead of asking if something is good let us ask if it is inevitable or pragmatic. It reduces man to determinism and robes him of free will.

  • FuriousFerret

    @DeNihilist
    Some of this shit is just ridicilous. Yeah man Jesus was feminist. Straight up bullshit. Yes in terms of one’s everlasting soul we are equal but in the temporal realm, no way. You have to remember woman’s pure originial role is ‘helpmeet’. That’s her natural state to be the helper. That doesn’t sound like equal to me. It sounds more like an assistant.

  • DeNihilist

    FF – equal may not mean the same. It might actually mean complimentrary. The pigs in Orwells’ Animal Farm even went as far to say that all are equal, but some are more equal.

    Prof. Meade never stated that Christ was a Feminist. He stated that God Himself, approached Mary in a way to ressurect the fallen nature of woman, from the mistake that Eve committed. That half of His creation was languishing from the sin of Eve was no longer bearable, and through the Virgin, He stated that Women’s VALUE to Him was equal to that of men.

  • freepiss

    “”In western history women might not have been “property” but they were usually treated as such. Up until the late 19th century women had few rights. Women could not:

    1. Sue in their own name
    2. Own real property
    3. Vote
    4. Work and earn money without a husband’s permission
    5. Marry without permission from a father or other responsible man
    6. Enter into legally binding contracts
    7. Refuse to have sex with her husband (a married woman was held to give standing consent to sex with her husband at all times)””

    Deti, there was only a time frame of a total of 10 years in history women could not vote as opposed to men. Women also most certainly owned land and not just widowers either. The Bible even has plenty of passages about women and land ownership.

    You make it sound like women were somehow “oppressed” throughout history, which is nonsense. Women were no more oppressed than the thousands of men troddling off to work and die in coal mines or dying by the millions in world wars.

  • Case

    @asdf

    You have it all wrong. Religion and the belief in it are the source of nihilism.

    Religion is the very strange belief that meaning and value can only exist if a divine being wills it.

    There is no difference, on first principle, between a nihilist and a religionist. The disagreement is on second principle: is there a divine being so willing?

    If the divine can endow meaning … the divine, quite frankly, has nothing that you are not already endowed with. So get started making your own meaning and living a life of excellence according to it, and maybe on cross-ways you will find the divine, or maybe not. Either way, such praxis is the only real faith. “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.” Ecclesiastes 9:10

  • Martel

    asdf: I reread the Rollo post you’re referring to, and I strongly believe that Rollo is most definitely NOT a nihilist. I despise moral relativism and the nihilism that invariably results from it, but that’s not what Rollo is.

    We often get two extremely important principles mixed up: A is A, and God is what God is.

    Included in A is A is human nature, the good, the bad, the ugly. Rollo’s focus (as well as much of the Manosphere) is this principle. People are how they are. They act based on instinct. Guys want hot tail. Women are hypergamous. We have instincts and hormones and environments that have a huge effect on our behavior. Like it or not, that’s how it is.

    There is also the other principle regarding how we should be (moral absolutes, etc.), which is related but entirely different. Describing how we are does not necessarily describe, or even reference, how we should respond as individuals to our fallen nature.

    Furthermore, any moral systemn that refuses to acknowledge reality is bound to be counterproductive. People who refuse to acknowledge their baser instincts are usually those most enslaved to them (i.e. modern women). Governmental and religious movements througout history have proved disastrous because they failed to recognize Man as he is.

    Female biological imperatives have been the same since the dawn of time in every society. Societies that have recognized female nature have handled it better than those that haven’t.

    Rollo is correct when he asserts (I paraphrase from memory) that usually we advocate a moral system that just so happens to benefit us. This does NOT in any way mean that there is no objective moral standard to which we are held accountable, nor that we are incapable of discerning this standard. No matter how much biological sense something may make, it may well still be wrong. No matter how much something may tangibly benefit you, it might still be morally okay.

    However, I concede that too often we use nature as an excuse. “I had to do it because my genes made me.” This is a result of the “walk a mile in his mocassins” BS, that to understand is to excuse.

    Rollo’s focus is on describing how we are. How we respond to such knowledge is a moral decision, but the acquistion of this knowledge is not.

  • Case

    @FF, re: 10:38 am

    Very nice.
    Fist bump.

  • Case

    @Martel, re, “reread the Rollo post you’re referring to, and I strongly believe that Rollo is most definitely NOT a nihilist” …

    I agree.

    Considered taking point on that but chose another tact, glad you mentioned that though.

    I think asdf misunderstood the thrust of that article. High level I take it to mean that you can’t infuse evolutionary totems with humanistic meaning, something that comes fairly close to what Aunt G seems to be trying to do.

    The evolutionary totems exist. There are giraffes to awe, dolphins to play and:

    “All things scabbed and ulcerous,
    All pox both great and small,
    Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
    The Lord God made them all.” (Monty Python)

    There is no humanism in the ulcer and there is no humanism in hypergamy and there is no humanism in young/hot/tight.

    The only humanism is in what you do with it. Be a doctor, cure the ulcer, set the squid to its place, well outside the house. Whatever you do, do it excellently.

  • Jacob Ian Stalk

    I’m sure this isn’t what RT had in mind when he wrote this post but I feel compelled to respond to DeNihilist and his/her feminist distortion of the biblical message. Please forgive the long response, especially those who don’t like this sort of thing. If this is being too much like King A Jr, please say so in a mature fashion. I respect this blog and don’t want to detract from its quality.

    @DeNihilist

    ["Hey Jacob Ian Stalk, can you reference this please..."]

    Genesis 3:15, then Romans 16:20.

    Moving on…

    Your arguments are full of distortions. I don’t know whether this is due to ignorance or willfulness.

    Firstly:

    ["But at the heart of historic Christianity there has always been the idea that one young single woman’s faithful choice gave God the opening he used to save the whole human race."]

    This is not “at the heart of historical Christianity”. Jesus is its heart, then, now and always. Mother Mary’s faithfulness is evidence that God can use anyone to advance His agenda – the story is not about Mary but the character of God.

    Also, God did not save the “whole human race”. He gave both Jew and Gentile a choice: to accept Jesus Christ as Saviour or perish.

    Secondly:

    ["Christmas is a feminist holiday, a feast that celebrates the free choice of an autonomous woman."]

    Christmas celebrates God’s gift of Grace, manifested in the birth of Jesus. It does not celebrate Mother Mary or any other man or woman in the Bible. The Bible tells many stories about God’s faithful servants making the right choices and Mother Mary is just one of hundreds. The message is not at all about “the free choice of an autonomous woman” but about God’s gift of love which is available to all.

    Thirdly:

    ["That half of His creation was languishing from the sin of Eve was no longer bearable"]

    ALL of His creation was languishing from the sin of Eve (and Adam), not just the daughters of Eve. The two facets of Original Sin – i.e. Eve’s desire to place herself above God and Adam’s complicity in this foolish experiment were equally responsible for the Fall of Man.

    ["...and through the Virgin, He stated that Women’s VALUE to Him was equal to that of men."]

    The story of the virgin birth portends to Jesus’ divinity, not to the value of women. Obviously, men cannot give birth. The story of Eve coming from Adam’s rib is the prima facie evidence of women’s equal value to God.

    Fourthly:

    ["As Christianity has risen to become the largest and most widespread religion in the world, women are coming into their own.']

    Satan has dominion over the world (2 Cor 4:1-6). He uses any willing conduit as his instrument of control. The ascendancy of women in the world is a celebration of Eve’s original sin and evidence of their descendancy into Satan’s realm. Feminism is not women “coming into their own” but an utter failure to care for men as God intends. Do not put Christ in this perishable frame.

    Fifthly:

    ["Christianity of all the world’s great religions owes its origin to the choice of a woman to cooperate with God."]

    God’s footprints through Ancient Israel culminated in the resurrection of Jesus, which gave rise to the Christian religion. Mary’s choices were irrelevant. God chooses the path most likely to advance His interests, which happened to be through Mary in Jesus’ case. If this wasn’t the case, Mary’s baby would have been just another bastard child. God continues to choose men, women and children everywhere for His purposes.

    Sixthly:

    ["God sent him here because things needed to change — and right at the top of the list of the things God wanted to change was the position of women."]

    Things needed to change, certainly, but this was because the Israelites kept worshipping false idols. Through Jesus, God showed that He understands our personhood and our suffering and isn’t just some detached entity. Through Jesus, He showed that He values the poor in spirit, the mournful, the meek, those hungry for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those persecuted for righteousness. Note that there is no gender mentioned. The only “position” God wants to change is when we elevate the perceived needs (and wants) of one class of people over the real needs of others – i.e. when we elevate ourselves above Him.

    Seventhly:

    ["The change didn’t happen overnight, and even today we haven’t seen the full consequences of giving half the world its rightful due, but from the day that Mary answered Gabriel a new force has been at work in the world, and what we see today is the blossoming of a tree that was planted a very long time ago."]

    Giving half the world it’s rightful due?? The only thing due to the world is death. The Bible is clear on this. God offers a way out and into eternal life through the saving Grace of Christ, which basically means NO BIGOTRY.

    Conclusion:

    The truth is that God wants us to love one another as Jesus loves His church. Your willful distortion of this message to suit the feminist narrative is both foolish and dangerous. Christians would be well advised to ignore it.

  • Jacob Ian Stalk

    Apologies…am referring to Professor Meade’s arguments.

  • asdf

    Martel,

    The problem of evil and fallen man is a concept that has already been addressed by theologians before. You state it roughly, “we are fallen, but we shouldn’t act like it.” Which is good, but its not how Rollo’s posts come off. They come off as, “we are fallen, so be fallen.”

  • peoplegrowing

    Your blog claims to be Christian but it sustains and promotes the wrong-headed notion that the Feminine Imperative is somehow acceptable to God

    SSM never said the FI (redefined or not) was ‘good’ or even palatable; just that she agreed there was a socio/biological component.

    Where she does tread dangerous ground is by suggesting the FI (with slight redefinition to expel the feminist agenda component) is equally beneficial to men and women, by positing better survivability for offspring. While the FI does increase individual survival rates for the children of one mother, we could also posit that the masculine imperative to sleep with as many women as possible takes the shotgun approach. Each individual may have lower chances through less resources, but the MI banks on the fact that, spread your seed wide and far enough and SOMETHING is sure to stick. I even remember reading an article a few months back (linked by Spearhead at the time) about some men society would call losers who had ludicrous numbers of children spread over several mothers. They couldn’t pay child support, so they effectively provide no resources, but I’d certainly bet at least a few of those kids make it to adulthood.

    Why can’t feminism see this and address it? Aren’t these women traitors in their midst? Don’t they need to be made aware of how they’re essentially selling their bodies, perpetuating the whore dynamic?

    Ha! Hahahaha. I’m sorry, are you a little bit new? Or maybe being sarcastic? I’m a lurker who frequently doesn’t read much of the forum, so perhaps it’s just that I don’t know better. Feminists, whether consciously or not, know that sex is power. Generally, this worked best for women when they could use sex to guarantee resources, as in Marriage 1.0. The problem is that feminists didn’t realize that and wanted to be able to use this power more freely. By now, the feminist movement is drunk with the feelings of power, and is all about how “you go girl! Pull the hottest guy you can!” and forgetting that this power is fleeting.

    Well, I probably don’t do it justice in my explanation. Dalrock’s post a while back, and, indeed, many of his posts, do a much better job than I can.

    T’will be interesting how I view things/feel once I get into my mid 50′s+………….maybe I’ll regret my decisions.

    Maybe you will, but the MMV of a fifty year old man with his resources intact (no prior divorce baggage/theft!) is pretty good by all accounts. A woman at that age, on the other hand…. even one that’s never married/divorced…. Anyhow, I think you’ll be fine ^-^

    Feminism would high five hotness, you go grrl her for plotting the scheme, double high five her if she beds CSI C-lister, triple high-five her if she achieves any resource tradeoff for the effort

    Oops, the condom broke! LOL, I’ll take my child support now, kthxbai!

    @DeNihilist: Just reading the excerpt you posted is creepy >.< No way I wanna follow that link for more on the glory of the "feminist" holiday of Christmas. Bleh!

    FF – equal may not mean the same. It might actually mean complimentrary. The pigs in Orwells’ Animal Farm even went as far to say that all are equal, but some are more equal.

    This… is a joke, right?

    @Martel: A brilliant response I wanted to, but feared to make, not recalling the referenced post. (Re: moral relativism)

    @Jacob Ian Stalk: King A Matthew (or the other way around?) as you probably surmised is another commenter, I believe best known for the theological nature of his posts. I think that is what the other person was referencing, not anything particular in attitude, although someone else did ascribe that to him as well…..

  • ray

    whoo hoooo! jacob

    “The Bible teaches that Christ crushes the Feminine Imperative under heel, undoing the damage first caused by Eve and then Adam.]”

    exactly

    e.g. — Jesus uses the words of the o.t. prophets as weapons during attacks by religionistas, satan, etc — this is a “pre-redemption” of Fallen Humanity b/c, of course, the o.t. prophets were flawed (fallen) too

    each instance that Christ suffered to live out the words of the prophets, human beings came a little bit closer to Father, i.e. the opportunity, and a little more of the edenic wound was healed

    lol “professor” meade musta got his diploma from the University of Satan

    the wolves are in the professorships and pulpits, and the pastors are on the digiwaves

  • YB

    @Days of Broken Arrows – “She then completely freaked out, whining “We’re friends, so you’re supposed to love me unconditionally!!””

    Hahaha! Has anyone else noticed this “unconditional love” bullshit? Always from some female trying to take you for something. As if we are retards who will never learn.

    My friendship is conditional. My affection is conditional. My love is conditional. Treat me badly and they are gone, gone, gone. All take, no give, you don’t get the chance to take again.

    But then, we already know that some people do not understand the whole “actions have consequences” thing.

  • taterearl

    “We’re friends, so you’re supposed to love me unconditionally!!”

    Translation…you should love me like your mother.

    There is only one woman who gets that love from me…the one who brought me into this world and nutured me.

  • lavazza1891

    “We’re friends, so you’re supposed to love me unconditionally!!”

    All non written “rules” should be understood as rules for your own conduct.

    I’m a golfer and etiquette is very important in golf, but you’re supposed to follow the etiquette and never tell anybody that they are not following the etiquette, since that is a worse breach of etiquette than any other breach of etiquette.

    I think Sir Humphrey in “Yes, Minister” said something in the line of “A good chap does not tell a good chap what a good chap ought to know”.

    So if someone criticizes you for not following an unwritten rule, chances are that they have made up that rule themselves and/or are not following the rule themselves.

  • DeNihilist

    @ peoplegrowing

    nope

  • T and A Man

    The last few posts have mentionedf the “you’re supposed to love me unconditonally”. It would conclude the observation is a view that it is a central tenant of the feminine imperative.

    To me, it’s more aligned with an overtly individualist culture and individual exceptionalism. I would agree this can be cast as solipsism, and its place within the feminine imperative. Intuitively though I can’t reconcile them, I don’t know why. My observation of women in collectivist cultures doesn’t have them behaving as ‘the gift’, which a self-view of individual exceptionalism would imply.

    Can anyone else add to this? Would the desire to be loved unconditionally always be part of the feminine imperative, and only amplified within an individualist culture, and/or supressed within a collectivist culture? Or would it be entirely cultural conditioning?

  • Dillon

    The concept of love has become such a scam nowadays.

    Anytime a woman starts talking about your love for her etc, know one thing for sure. She’s not in love. (Real love does not care about being loved back)

    You have a player on your hands.

  • treylesnorth

    (Double post. Meant to put this comment under this article, not Shouting in the Wilderness)

    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 5,006 other followers

%d bloggers like this: