The Mother of (Re)Invention

invention

Blog status update: I apologize for the infrequency of my posts of late. I’ve been in the Netherlands and Belgium doing distillery stuff most of last week, but I’ve used my downtime to finish the final draft stages of the book which (I hope) should be on Amazon and other self-publishing venues about mid-March. I’ve never published anything before so it’s a learning process to be sure.

Reader Eric, again, made a revelatory observation in Soldiers:

I get the feminine imperative is what it is. I’m still coming to grips with it on a gut level, but I understand the concept. What I meant with ‘parasitic on masculine values’ was less about judging the nature of FI and more about the extent of its reach into our domain.

Robert highlighted the stark difference. Where I see the military as a repository of masculine values and culture that should be paired with the red pill, he sees a prime example of FI control of men.

The topic du jour at Dalrock’s blog this week is (yet again) the validity of the feminine imperative as a concept. What I find exceptionally ironic about the conveniently christianizing manosphere is this ceaseless droning from holier than thou white knights bemoaning how the feminine imperative is corrupting what the church traditionally should be, but are unable to look beyond how it affects what used to be their comfortable domain.

For all their kvetching they refuse to accept the feminine imperative as a concept. I realize the importance they put on having to reconcile a red pill reality with their faith, but they refuse to look beyond the narrow scope of the effect of the FI on their solitary religious institution. The Soldiers comment thread is an excellent example of another, and much broader, social institution, the military, the FI has both projected feminine primacy on, while ensuring that the beta chumps it depends on stay pliable, ignorant of, and useful to, the feminine imperative.

Reinvention

In Dal’s post Rebuilding the Mound he takes to task a commenter on his blog and deconstructs her reframing of his argument to better align with her feminine-primary interpretation of the feminine imperative. One of the prime successes of the feminine imperative is its ability to reinvent itself to jive with the present environment it finds itself in. The FI has a refined ability to evolve around not only changes in cultural shifts, but also around the the resulting failures it was responsible for.

There are many illustrations of the self-correcting, revisionism of the feminine imperative. Post-Wall spinsters re-imagine the desperation they often find themselves in by making men the culprit of their condition; never is the feminine imperative considered to be the cause. Sexual fluidity is another revisioning that absolves the FI from being the source of a woman’s condition:

The advent of embracing sexual fluidity in women is an attempt by feminized culture to put a bandaid on a lingering problem. As western feminized culture progresses onward from the late 60s, more and more women are awakening to the disillusionment that the choice they made to participate as an ‘equal’ in a masculine world required sacrifices of her femininity. Sacrifices that most come to regret later in life. Between 35 and 45 women are increasingly feeling the repercussions of their attempts to ‘have it all’ or have HAD it all, yet are left wondering why they’re not satisfied in sublimating their expectations – betraying their uniquely female biomechanics – to play the role of the New Woman.

That consensus is growing, even in Oprah-world, so what to do? What feminism has always done, move the goalposts and redefine the game. Men, for any variety of shameful reasonings, are cast as incapable of living up to the standards of being powerful, accomplished, and appealing, but even if you regret having married one, and possibly brought children into the world, you can still have a second chance at ‘having it all’ thanks to sexual fluidity. It’s not him, it’s the undiscovered homosexual you that’s been repressed all this time. Never mind that those infantile men are too preoccupied with youthful sexuality to appreciate your post-wall physique, there’s a world of lesbian women out there ready to deliver on the promise of powerful, accomplished, and appealing masculinity that your man is incapable of. It’s not that neo-feminism was wrong in promising you a satisfying life, it’s just that you were really a lesbian all this time and either didn’t know it, or were a victim of the Patriarchy and were repressed from it.

This is an excellent example of the FI’s unique capacity to morph itself to accommodate changes in culture, even when it was responsible for the negative outcomes. Another example is in Diane Mapes retrofitting her Choreplay message to align with the negative outcomes of a feminine imperative social push that it created for itself only five years earlier:

I can’t end this article without drawing attention to what I’m sure most of my readers are getting about the 5 year shift in attitude with regards to these articles. It’s easy to pass these off as some flighty progression in feminine self-understanding, but remember Diane Mapes draws a paycheck for writing these articles in well read media sources. She’s a media arm of the feminine imperative.

What we’re graphically witnessing is the fluidity with which the feminine imperative can realign itself socially to better effect its propagation. You see in 2008 the message to men (that resonated with women) was Fem-Up; stop being so insecure in your masculinity and do the dishes and laundry – the payoff will be more sexual access. In 2013 the message to men (again resonating with women) is Man-Up; stop being such a house frau and get out int the yard and mow – the payoff will be more sexual access.

In Choreplay the feminine imperative exercised a self-correction for a deleterious outcome of its own creation. Feminism, as a social impulse of the FI, is always a work in progress; it’s always a social experiment, but the Feminine Imperative being the socially correct default gradually evolves the failures of the feminist experiment into revised, intended successes.

People who can’t wrap their heads around the totality of the feminine imperative often conflate it with feminism. This is an easy mistake in light of the social upheaval that feminism has been responsible for since the sexual revolution. It’s easy to point to the glaring evidence that an acculturated feminization has worked into our collective consciousness, but I would argue that feminism is simply the latest, and most aggressive, social effort the feminine imperative has put forth in the last millenium. Feminism is the latest result of an ever reinventing, ever evolving feminine imperative.

If traditional femininity better served the feminine imperative (as it has in past generations) we would see a return to that social paradigm. As it stands in our contemporary conditions, a hybrid social utility of traditional femininity and aggressive feminism are now interchangeable to serve the FI. If gentille charms and a pandering to masculine courtesies serve best, that will be the expectation; if conditioned feminist social doctrines work better, that is what will be employed.

Further reading: The Feminine Reality and Fem-Centrism.


107 responses to “The Mother of (Re)Invention

  • YaReally

    “If traditional femininity better served the feminine imperative (as it has in past generations) we would see a return to that social paradigm.”

    Similarly, if being a gentleman and buying a girl roses and having a 6-pack better served the male imperative (gettin laaaaaaaid!!) as it has in past generations (like the 40s when being a hard-working respectable guy meant landing a solid wife),, we would see a return to that shit. PUA is simply a reflection of the female imperative.

    “When my opponent expands I contract, when they contract I expand. Be water, my friend!”

  • Anna

    @YaReally

    “PUA is simply a reflection of the female imperative.”
    Very true.

  • Leap of a Beta

    I don’t think many people at Dalrocks doubt the very loosely defined concepts of what you’ve coined as the feminine imperative Rollo. Rather most have issue with how the term itself has been used.

    Personally I find the term itself is like a mental sledgehammer. It destroys the walls that have been erected in the modern male’s thought processes byfeminism and catering to feminine nature and desires. After those trained methods of thought though the term itself doesn’t allow in depth thought or closer examination. It continues to be a blunt, heavy term that gets in the way of any precise or deeper thought processes. It feels like whenever you use the term lately that you havent made a post on any new or deeper concepts or ideas, but are either trying to show an additional example of your feminine imperative similar to what youve already described or defending the concept of your term. Sometimes both

    When we already have words and concepts to describe what you’ve coined the feminine imperative, many of us are left scratching our heads as to why we continue to insist on using it instead of tried and true terms used by the rest of the world and society. They allow for the more accurate discussion of concepts as well as not adding a confusing lexicon or terms if someone wanted to discuss the concepts with people offline thay have never been in the manosphere.

  • Retrenched

    In nature, the male is the reproductive servant of the female. You know, Briffault’s Law and all that.

    Perhaps it can be said that what you’re calling the “feminine imperative” is basically Briffault’s Law applied to humanity – in other words, the idea that men exist to serve women’s needs and to facilitate their goals and ambitions, and are therefore judged by their willingness and ability to serve women’s needs and meet their demands, whatever they happen to be (sperm, resources, protection from harm and hardship, etc).

  • Retrenched

    Not saying that I entirely agree with it, necessarily… I’m just trying to get an understanding of where you’re coming from.

  • FuriousFerret

    Would it help if everytime somebody mentioned the Feminine Imperative, we added that there does exist a Masucline Imperative so people wouldn’t get so defensive about the whole damn thing?

    It’s just that the Masucline Imperative of having the majority of women be hot and be willing to have sex on command is common knowledge and you would be called an idiot for denying it. In fact, the MI is frequently mocked and joked upon, while it’s opposite the Feminine Imperative magically isn’t a thing according to most people.

    What’s so hard to believe that both sexes have an ideal fantasy world in which their sexual needs are catered to first and foremost?

    “The greatest trick the Femine Imperative played on the world is that it’s doesn’t exist” – FuriousFerret

  • Anonymous Reader

    FuriousFerret
    Would it help if everytime somebody mentioned the Feminine Imperative, we added that there does exist a Masucline Imperative so people wouldn’t get so defensive about the whole damn thing?

    Oh, sure, Men Do That Too! (MDTT) is always so useful in exploring reality. ..

  • kolo

    western society is like a pair of scales where psychological jelly keep getting added to both sides to counterbalance the previous load of jelly that got dumped on. there is something solid underneath the jelly, that when on both sides of the scales with each other are perfectly balanced. unfortunately today the jelly weighs more than ten times what the scales were intended to weigh and are in danger of falling over, when they do we might be able to fish through the jelly to find what it is we wanted to weigh in the first place..

    ‘game for the masses’ is a jelly trick to counterbalance society, however, it also happens to have a trapdoor that leads to a way to strengthen what is it in a man’s core that gives him real power, that is, conviction over the direction of his life – that is what’s underneath the masculine jelly, only women really know what’s under their jelly, but i hope some of them are starting to get for something more substantial, we certainly are.

  • FuriousFerret

    “Oh, sure, Men Do That Too! (MDTT) is always so useful in exploring reality. ..”

    Are you serious? Men have an idealized sexual paradigm. They want frequent amounts of sex with numerous hot women hence the Masculine Imperative.However, it’s been shamed into the ground and the only ones that experience are either rebels or high value men.

  • Martel

    Not to argue against Ferret, but I’d say there’s more to the MI than just poon. For example, we crave liberty and the ability to create. We’re also more into reason.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the amorphous properties of the FI, but with feminism it’s truly become an “imperative”. The FI has warped and infiltrated the church and conecpts like chivalry, but feminism introduced genuine coerscion. Before feminism, the FI may have prodded you, often in ways you didn’t even recognize, but you weren’t necessarily REQUIRED to go along. Now you are whether you like it or not.

    Family law is one of the most egregious examples, but we’re also paying for birth control and abortions whether we want to or not. Businesses now often have to have special lactation rooms to go along with the required maternity leave.

    And just try starting up an Angles for Men and watch what happens.

  • Anna

    This is what Wikipedia has to say about female vs male imperatives;

    “The male genetic imperative compels males to seek multiple sexual partners, while the female genetic imperative compels the female to seek the fittest possible male who will help with the process of bringing the child to adulthood.”

    Of course, this only pertains to reproductive imperatives. The others are survival, territory advancement, resource competition and quality of life.

  • Anna

    @Martel

    How has the FI infiltrated the church?
    I haven’t been in that loop for about 14+ years, so I have little idea of what the situation is. If you’d enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

  • michaeltx

    Another great write up, thanks Rollo.

    @YaReally
    ‘PUA is simply a reflection of the female imperative.’ <–this

    side note; listening to State of Union speech & Obama just said he's going to try to pass the "Paycheck Fairness Act"..so women can finally be paid equal to all men.

  • Retrenched

    @ michaeltx

    The reason men make more money than women is because they work more overtime, take less time off, don’t leave work for years at a time to raise kids, and tend to do the more difficult and dangerous jobs which command higher pay.

    For men and women to be paid the same you’d have to overpay women relative to output, or underpay men relative to theirs.

  • Retrenched

    @ Anna

    Guess you’ve never heard of the Promise Keepers, or Mark Driscoll.

    Lucky you.

  • Anna

    @Retrenched

    I agree. Though there may be a few abnormal businesses out there who still pay womenfolk less than their male coworkers, they are hardly a snapshot of the common workplace. I’ve had 3 different jobs over my lifetime so far, basically leaving for better if not bigger each time…only in my very first one (age 16-18, cashier + keyholder) did I experience anything that could come close to an unequal paycheck…and even that was probably a better example of “why you don’t let managers hire their friends”.

  • Anna

    @Retrenched

    Nope. No clue who they are, but I’ll google them now.

  • MattW

    Someone else may have already asked this elsewhere, but is it the feminine imperative or the female imperative? Is this the imperative of all females or of a particular portion of females?

  • Anna

    @Retrenched

    Ah. Well, those people are certainly, um…committed to their beliefs, I suppose. Nothing I’d personally accept into my life or want my friends or brothers to believe though.

  • Leap of a Beta

    @ Retrenched
    “Perhaps it can be said that what you’re calling the “feminine imperative” is basically Briffault’s Law applied to humanity”

    That’s part of it. The problem is that even when you’re trying to explain it in your comment is that you start melding what can easily be described as feminine nature, selfishness, emotional reactions, etc, and apply them to society and politics. Instead of saying “it is the feminine imperative to react to the side that makes her feel better emotionally; especially when benefiting women. Men serve the feminine imperative by the self sustaining pressure of the feminine imperative” you could easily say “It is the nature of women to react emotionally when making any decision towards what makes her feel better, especially when benefitting other women. Men serve women’s desires because of their higher biological importance and men’s natural desire to serve as a protector and leader.”

    Both of these are correct. However, one is vague and will invite questions of what “feminine imperative” means and one is specific and will invite questions about the actual ideas and concepts instead of endlessly bickering over whether something exists or not, what the definition is, etc.

    @ Furious Ferret
    “What’s so hard to believe that both sexes have an ideal fantasy world in which their sexual needs are catered to first and foremost?”

    Nothing. But when you can so easily describe sexual desires, why make up a term? Why then apply an unwieldy term that is attempting to describe sexual desires, political movements, social structures, religious structures, laws, etc? This is what the term ‘feminine imperative’ tries to do. Like I said in my first comment, it can break down those walls quickly and easily. But when Rollo keeps using the same term it gets stale. The same term to describe how women affect the work force doesn’t work very well to also describe how female mate selection works so that they always desire the best genes they can get while still obtaining commitment from someone (if not the actual father). The same term doesn’t work well to describe women’s desire how women interact with each other in same sex groups, nor how female desires affect law and politics.

    All the term has going for it is that it ‘resonates’ with a select group of people in a small corner of the internet. Yet if you went and used it with a coworker, a friend, or a relative they’d think you’re crazy.

    @ both furious and retrenched

    Additionally, Christian (and most religious) teachings already incorporate the idea of how women are fallen, how men are fallen, and that those two are necessarily different. Besides Christianity, nearly every school of philosophy since the Greeks covers how men and women are different in their flaws and strengths. None of them needed to use Feminine Imperative, yet all of them are more thoroughly explored than anything Rollo has written. Rollo has explored how some of those concepts apply to modern society, culture, politics, and laws (no small feat!), but the more I see feminine imperative, the more I see what the term simply isn’t able to accomplish. The Christian part of the manosphere just happens to be the ones with more of the classical reading, thus they are the ones at Dalrocks asking for either further in depth thought (rather than the same thought applied to similar situations) or throwing the term out.

    I have also seen bastardizations of it. Male imperatives. Female imperatives. Conservative imperatives. Financial imperatives. Government imperatives. It’s all a bunch of shit from people unable to vocalize what they really mean or have their thoughts strong enough to stand up to any criticism. Instead, they keep it general so that instead of having holes poked through their concepts, they can dodge and twist to say “But that wasn’t what I meant at all!”

    Over all, due to it’s sole benefit being within ability to resonate on an ‘instinctual level’ while avoiding anything even close to a hard definition; that has been used and misused constantly…. It seems like an emotional reaction and an emotional term rather than facing the harder, more masculine trains of thought that require specific definitions, specific facts, specific proof. It is the only term the manosphere uses that dances and spins around more than a woman’s rationalizations.

  • Pechorin

    Rollo, I’ll tell ya, I have some deep yet soft laughs almost every time I read the truths spread throughout your discourses. Didn’t laugh during the military-themed and other solemn posts like the one on female love. Some of my laughs are autist, but that’s fine with me. You are a spectacular writer (and I read immensely).
    One can have the sense of something and maneuver accordingly, without explicitly expressing (even to oneself) what it is they are sensing. This has been the case with myself at age 16 (2005), I read Fools Die and added it up with my own experiences of females…. Fools Die happens to be recommended reading at the end of the Manipulated Male. Been red pill since. Yet always alpha in my high school group, anyway.
    I’d like to make note on the church situation. This week I vsited one of those 501c3 organizations that I had attended as a child and only hours later it dawned on me that there was practically a 4 to 1 female:male ratio. Female singers, and the others sitting near me (I was near the front). I’ve changed my thought of calling the current churches the church of man. They’re the church of woman (woman-ideology guided instead of Spirit-led). Also, I understand peoples’ distate with religion. Religion is humanity’s attempt of setting oneself right. Spirit-led repentence and belief in the death and resurrection of Messiah- in body, by the Spirit, along with water-immersion to receive the same Spirit are the means of salvation.

  • The Feminine Imperative – An emotional (thus feminine) term? « stagedreality

    […] left this comment over at Rollo’s, but thought I’d ask for people’s thoughts here. I’ve asked […]

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Everything a man experiences, every social conditioning he receives from the earliest age, every accepted social norm and every expectation of him to qualify as the definition of a mature adult Man in contemporary society is designed to serve the female imperative. Moralist wallow in it, absolutists and defeated white knights existentially depend upon it, and even the better part of relativists still (often unwittingly) feed and serve the feminine purpose. In fact, so all encompassing is this reality that we define our masculinity in the terms of how well we can accommodate that feminne influence.

    Our media celebrates it, and brooks no dissent. There is very little dissent, since to peel back the veneer is to be at odds with a reality defined by the female purpose. You feel lonely because you can’t understand it’s influence, and the conditioning you’ve been subjected to defines the objective solution to curing that feeling. You base the decisions of your future, your education, your career, your religious beliefs, even where you’ll choose to live, to better accomodate the feminine influence either in the present or in preparation of accommodating it in the future.

    You get married, out of fear for not being found acceptable of it, or from social shame for not yet having accepted your role in service to the imperative. Your children are offered in tribute to it, while in turn you unknowingly perpetuate it in them. You pay tribute in alimony, in divorce proceedings, in the expected sacrifices your career demands to maintain its influence in your own life and in society at large. You exist to facilitate a feminine reality.

    We can excuse it with moralisms, we can attach notions of honor and stability to it, we can even convince ourselves that the feminine imperative is OUR own imperative, but regardless, men still serve it.

    For one gender to realize their sexual imperative the other must sacrifice their own. This is the root source of power the feminine imperative uses to establish its own reality as the normative one. From this flows the rules of engagement for dating / mating, operative social conventions used to maintain cognitive dominance, and laws and legalities that bind society to the benefit of the feminine. From this is derived men’s default status as the ‘disposable’ sex, while women are the protected sex. It’s this root that the imperative uses to excuse (not apologize for) the most blatant inconsistencies and atrocities of women.

    Monogamy and fidelity are only useful when paired with an optimized hypergamy. Without that optimization, they’re inconvenient obligations to the the feminine reality.

    In order to effect this reality men must be convinced of a degree of more control than the feminine imperative exerts. They must believe that it is they who are the masters of a reality defined by the feminine, while remaining dependent upon the systems that the feminine reality outlines for them. So they are told they are Kings, brutes, savages, patricians, intellectuals, anything that might convince them that the reality they exist in is privileged and expressly serves their purpose. Already the ‘protected sex’, this all encourages the default presumption of victimhood for the feminine.

    The crowning irony of the feminine reality is that men should be accused of patriarchy while enabling the very framework of the feminine imperative. The feminine sexual strategy is victorious because even under the contrived auspices of male oppression, it’s still the female goal-state that is agreed upon as the correct effort. Satisfying the feminine imperative, achieving the ends of the feminine sexual strategy is still the normative condition. Men’s goals are aberrant, women’s are beatific.

    Forgive me if I’ve waxed a bit too poetic here, but it’s important to see the Matrix for what it really is. The next occasion you lock horns with even the most well-meaning woman’s (or mangina’s) opinions about life, relationships, marriage, having babies, religion, etc. understand that her perceptions are based in this reality. She’s correct because her beliefs line up with what the framework of her reality reinforced in her as correct. Any other frame of reference is either utterly alien to her at best, wicked and evil at worst.

  • 3rd Millenium Men

    ” The next occasion you lock horns with even the most well-meaning woman’s (or mangina’s) opinions about life, relationships, marriage, having babies, religion, etc. understand that her perceptions are based in this reality. She’s correct because her beliefs line up with what the framework of her reality reinforced in her as correct.”

    Sharing some cold hard facts on things like female fertility and the declining attractiveness of women as they age is something that shakes that reality to the core… though of course doing so risks resulting in you being considered a misogynist et al yawn.

  • Anna

    @Pechorin
    “Also, I understand peoples’ distaste with religion. Religion is humanity’s attempt of setting oneself right. Spirit led repentance and belief in the death and resurrection of Messiah-in body, by the Spirit, along with water-immersion to receive the same Spirit are the means of salvation.”

    This would really only apply to Christianity, not all religion. If you or others find “distaste” in this path, there are many otthers that may fulfill your spiritual needs more adequately. That’s what I did, at least.

    @Rollo
    “Satisfying the feminine imperative, achieving the ends of the female sexual strategy is still the normative condition. Men’s goals are aberrant, women’s are beatific.”

    Which is why I believe that at least some of us would benefit from polygamous relationships. I’d think that BOTH imperatives could be obtained that way…the male would be able to have anywhere from 2+ women (thus satisfying the male imperative for multiple sexual partners) and the females would be assured of resources for them and the children (thus satisfying the female imperative).

    Of course, just like monogamous marriage nowadays, nobody would be forced into it, so you’d still have men (and the abnormal woman) who would remain happily single. But overall, I see no issues with polygamous relationships.

  • Kate

    “Any other frame of reference is either utterly alien to her at best, wicked and evil at worst.”

    I told a friend about the man who recently deceived me about his age (he’s 54, not 45) and he called him a “fucking pig.” He then told me about a woman he met online who told him on their first date that she was ten years older than she had said she was originally. Could not she be called the same thing he called the guy I dated? I resent that it was okay for her to do that, but I’m supposed to feel bad for being taken advantage of when my first reaction to what he’d done was actually laughter and, though I wouldn’t admit it to too many people outside of this ‘sphere,’ a twinge of respect.

  • FuriousFerret

    “Which is why I believe that at least some of us would benefit from polygamous relationships. I’d think that BOTH imperatives could be obtained that way…the male would be able to have anywhere from 2+ women (thus satisfying the male imperative for multiple sexual partners) and the females would be assured of resources for them and the children (thus satisfying the female imperative). ”

    LOL. This already happens and is the main reason the majority of men are losers in the SMP. What you’re describing is a player with his soft hareem which women are more than willingly with a little bit of denial to be a part of. When a guy takes 2+ women in his personal hareem that takes 2+ women away from men of lower value.

    It’s just so funny your progessive idea is to share an alpha with other women. LOL. What you’re missing is that FI doesn’t ulitmately make a lot of women fulfilled and happy because it’s run under delusional wishful thinking. The assumption being that most women end up with their “soul mate” (alpha male) along with all their goodies such as career, purses, etc. All it’s done is make the SMP even more zero sum in favor of the alpha.

    Under any imperative, the alpha is the true winner. That fact is undeniable. Beautiful women don’t begin to scratch the surface of a true high value man.

    @ Kate
    “first reaction to what he’d done was actually laughter and, though I wouldn’t admit it to too many people outside of this ‘sphere,’ a twinge of respect.”

    That’s why guys lie because it really doesn’t matter. Once women have bought into you, they just won’t care and you can smooth these little lies over later. So if 54 year old told you his real age, you probably won’t go on the date, but if he gets his foot in the door and makes your tingle or better yet bangs you, you just won’t give a fuck about him 54 years old whereas before he wouldn’t even have the opportunity. This however really doesn’t work for women. LOL. If he finds out that you are 10 years older and it’s unacceptable to his perferences, LTR is off the table. Youth is queen, my friend.

  • Tam the Bam

    If traditional femininity better served the feminine imperative (as it has in past generations) we would see a return to that social paradigm. As it stands in our contemporary conditions, a hybrid social utility of traditional femininity and aggressive feminism are now interchangeable to serve the FI. If gentille charms and a pandering to masculine courtesies serve best, that will be the expectation; if conditioned feminist social doctrines work better, that is what will be employed.

    How about all the peri-Wall shamers and complainers get off our clearly inadequate, unmanly backs and look to the East.

    Innumerable millions of hardworking, lonely, virile young Chinamen out there, and they’re not vicious, lazy, drunken broke-ass pigs like us Anglo men, should be a piece of cake, getting their Womanly Qualities recognised … unless … there are no takers. Surely not! Must be a mistake! Call tha po-leeece!

  • Kate

    @Furious: “So if 54 year old told you his real age, you probably won’t go on the date” Before this experience, I would have been wary of that, yes. But, ironically, before I even found this out I had recently changed my profile ages to 40-55. So, I do have a date with a fifty year old this weekend. In an unexpected twist, its opened up a whole new thought to me. I wonder if part of the reason I liked him so well was *because* of his age. I’ve been shooting for about a decade age difference, but, perhaps because of my own life experiences, that is too low. Perhaps for a man to really feel like an “older” man, twenty years *is* a good idea! Huh :)

  • Anna

    @Furious Ferret

    “What you’re describing is a player with his soft harem…”. No, actually I wasn’t. I was talking about honest to goodness polygamy, not some alpha PUA with numerous women at his sexual disposal (in this scenario, the alpha fulfills his imperative to sleep with numerous women…but the women get no children, or at least resources from him). Also, this is hardly a “progressive” idea, since this type of arrangement has been around for ages. It’s not even something *I’m* interested in, as I enjoy being single and playing around with my lover without commitment.

    I am also confused about the part where you say;
    “What you’re missing is that FI doesn’t ultimately make a lot of women fulfilled and happy.”

    But my understanding of the FI is that other women are hypergamous, in that they want children with good genes, as well as a man who can provide them with the most comfortable and stress free life. If this is the incorrect definition then please let me know…because just last week I stated I was happy by NOT being hypergamous/getting married/having children, and was told that I was “wrong” to hold such self reliant views.

    So which is it? Are other women made happy by settling down/having children/fulfilling the female imperative…or are they not?

    @Kate
    While I think your friend overreacted, I can say that I personally find it very dishonest whenever someone lies about their age, marital status or offspring. So much so that unless they had frickin’ ASTOUNDING qualities, I’d cut off the relationship then and there. How can one be expected to have a solid relationship if there are holes in its very foundation? I wouldn’t be over the top upset like your friend though…lol.

  • Leap of a Beta

    Rollo
    What you’ve described is effectively female and male nature interacting on a variety of levels. Then you have simplified it into something easy to grasp in your hand while you paint a picture of men and women’s “Ideal Dreams” at each other’s throats to force the other to submit so they can change the world as they please. Then you call one side the Female Imperative and one the Male Imperative.

    But again, these are simplified views you’re spouting. The mating dance of humans, of nearly all animals, is one of male competitions of power, prestige, and intelligence while females hold competitions of status, looks, and health. If desired, I could simplify it down as you have done and paint it so that the women are being taken advantage of by the males (Oh no, women have negative body images and compete to be beautiful because of the patriarchy!) or I could say that the males are accomplishing great acts that further society because they’re being taken advantage of by the females (“The crowning irony of the feminine reality is that men should be accused of patriarchy while enabling the very framework of the feminine imperative. The feminine sexual strategy is victorious because even under the contrived auspices of male oppression, it’s still the female goal-state that is agreed upon as the correct effort”. – Oh no! The MATRIARCHY and FEMININE IMPERATIVE are out to get us!).

    Neither of these are correct. Both of them demand an emotional reaction to be believable and acted upon as you place men and women’s desires at each others throats instead of seeing that we have evolved to test each other. On top of each sex searching for indicators of health, women test men to see who can lead. Men test women to see who will submit. Each of these can then be broken down into masculine traits for leadership or feminine traits for submission.

    The rest of your comment can be broken down by a combination of explanations of how female nature interacts within different environments and Feminism as described as a political movement. An example:

    Feminism has achieved many of it’s goals. The relevant to the discussion being the false education of males and females over valuing women, undervaluing men, and telling each sex that it is better if it bastardizes its natural traits/desires to take on traits of the other sex.

    Thus,

    Women enter the workforce. The sudden deluge of female nature and proclivities to sacrifice achievement for emotional satisfaction gradually occurs. It does so because women, despite Feminist teachings, are not able to compete with men, are not as good at enacting masculine traits, and are not able to completely ignore their inherent feminine nature that urges them to react more emotionally to situations.

    Leading to

    Men, under the auspices of pursing the ‘righteous’ teaching of Feminism, bend their masculine competitive nature in order to outdo other men on making the woman more comfortable in what was then a masculine work environment. Over time men continued to follow their natural urge of competing for female attention at other males expense. Modern man is currently at a quandary because the false teachings of the political movement they were following have made the environment so comfortable for women that there is no room for men to compete as masculine men and thus show that they would be quality leaders. Yet it is unable to completely squash men’s natural desire to compete or achieve it’s goals of raising emotional reactions in men to the level of women to achieve a gender neutral environment.

    Along the way

    Laws were enacted and changed. Human Resources departments were created. Larger police forces became necessary as well as more politicians and lawyers – in fact, every institution became larger and bloated in personnel – to ensure the new laws and new procedures were followed. That women were comfortable, but unattractive to the feminized male who competes for comfort nor are men attracted to the masculine female who competes for power. Each sex has turned from competing for what the other sex finds desirable to compete for what their own sex finds desirable in the opposite sex.

    In conclusion to this

    Men and women are waking up. We call those that are waking from the delusion “red pillers” or part of the manosphere or “red pill inclined” if they’ve never seen this corner of the internet. All these terms effectively do is break down people that naturally knew the truth instead of the lies, from those that are discussing and finding the truth currently, or those that have found the truth where they were once lost and are attempting to learn how to disseminate the truth to others.

    Every man and woman here can read either of our versions of events and history. Judge for yourself which seems more true to the facts.

    Personally Rollo, I find your comment to be dripping in the juices of a half baked conspiracy theory that puts men and women at each other’s throats. No matter how many times I attempt to read it without having an emotional reaction that wouldn’t be based in fear, anger, or aggression while leading the reader to believe and act in a near perfect reflection of Feminism, only for men….. I can’t do it. Thus why your tale of events seems to be steeped in an emotional reaction to the current incarnations and interactions of feminine and masculine nature. Thus why it rings false and empty to me. It doesn’t seem like I seem to be the only one either.

  • Kate

    Of course, its dishonest. Oh, I called him a liar and he blocked my number. C’est la vie.

  • itsme

    @anna

    you’re an outlier, probably a high-t female, so much of what is said about the behavior and thoughts of women won’t apply to you.

  • Anna

    @itsme

    Yes, I’ve come to realize that.
    I have always been like this, though…even when I was little I never played with dolls/played house/dreamed of having a wedding. I loved playing with my GI Joe and Ninja Turtle action figures, climbing trees, driving my awesome motorized Jeep in the backyard, and running around with my dog, usually getting all scraped up. I was unpleasantly surprised to learn (in school) that “proper” young ladies don’t act that way.

    Didn’t change me though…I’m still not feminine at all (unless you count sex).

  • Martel

    @Anna: ”What you’re describing is a player with his soft harem…’. No, actually I wasn’t. I was talking about honest to goodness polygamy…”

    You may not want to describe the life of a PUA, but you are. Like Ferret says, the Alpha always ends up on top. Under a de-facto serial monogamous society like we have today, the Alpha does best, but when the institution of marriage formalizes the practice of having a harem, the beta is utterly screwed. I’ve described how that happens here: http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/vestiges/#comment-16132

    Polygamy is both “progressive” and “regressive”; it’s been the preference of the sexually liberated romantic poet and the medieval sultan, but in both cases it crystalizes not only the sexual, but the economic and political power of the Alpha male.

    “I am also confused about the part where you say;
    ‘What you’re missing is that FI doesn’t ultimately make a lot of women fulfilled and happy.'”

    One of the deficiencies in female psych is a relative blindness to the Law of Unintended Consequences. The alpha (hot) female does great when she’s 23, but ALL females become betas at some point, and all too often they end up alone and unloved. Following Team Grrl Power results in lots of single-motherhood and super-moms balancing career and endless rides to soccer practice.

    The 23 y/o hottie only vaguely realizes that traits like loyalty, reliability, and a strong work ethic are valuable and important, and that vague realization vanishes the moment The Situation enters the room. She therefore finds no men who exhibit such traits, for the men who have such traits either ditch them to become PUA’s or (more commonly) drop out of the dating market.

    At 35 she then asks, “Where have all the good men gone?” Like Rollo says, she left them in her 20’s.

  • Martel

    The FI is also a bit self-contradictory, a reflection of alpha fux/beta bux. A more traditional family structure forced women to reconcile the two within their own heads. Each woman approached the courtship ritual with the idea that she’s only going to get to pick ONE guy. As a nineteen y/o, her tingle led her to the Alpha, but she was also a bit more likely to listen to her grandmother’s advice that the tingle isn’t the only thing that matters.

    She also recognized that as much fun as it might be to bang the stable boy behind the haystacks, if the wrong people found out what happened, she might have to MARRY the stable boy and miss out on the nice clothes that the banker could get for her instead. Some made wise choices, some made dumb ones, but they all knew they had to choose.

    This pressure forced her to have to reconcile the contradictory aspects of the FI into something at least sort of resembling a coherent whole.

    Today there is no such pressure; there’s no permanence, today’s choice is tomorrow’s “unfriend”. She’s got 25 beta orbiters, so when she decides to settle down she’ll have her pick. When she’s young and hot it’s all Alpha fucks. If she gets pregnant and needs $$ or hits her wall, it’s beta bucks. When she’s an alpha, the beta male is invisible. When she becomes a beta, she becomes invisible to the Alpha male, but good luck telling her that ahead of time.

  • Anna

    @Martel

    Yes, I realize the truth of what you’ve said, even as it doesn’t apply to my personal situation. I recognize that it pertains to the majority of other women…not arguing that.

    However, it seems contradictory to say that “women are not satisfied with a FI lifestyle”, when just a few days ago I was being told that “a traditional woman is a happy woman”.

    So, in essence, the entire idea of the FI is contradictory? At least, that’s what I’m picking up here…

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Leap, you should probably read The Hypergamy Conspiracy for a better understanding, but I’ll quote this:

    The Conspiracy that Wasn’t

    One issue many of my critics have is that in exposing these inconsistencies, these operative social conventions and the latent purposes behind them, my writing (really most of the manosphere) seems to take on a conspiratorial tone. I can fully appreciate this, and it might shock a few readers to know that I reject much of the popularized MRA perspective in this respect. I agree with an MRA perspective in a rational analysis to a certain degree, but there is no grand conspiracy, no secret mysterious cabal pushing a negative perception of masculinity – and this is exactly why what I outline on this blog is so pervasive. There doesn’t need to be a unitary group of ‘anti-men’ bent on some melodramatic goal of world domination; because this feminized ideal is already embedded in our socialization. Fem-centrism IS our collective social consciousness.

    It doesn’t need a centralized directorship because the mindset is already so installed and perpetuated by society at large it’s now normalized, taken for granted and self-perpetuating. AFCs raising AFCs leads to still more AFCs. This generation doesn’t realize their own bias because it’s been standardized, encouraged and reinforced in them, and society, over the course of several generations now.

    What’s to question, especially when calling attention to the feminization dynamic leads to ridicule and ostricization?

    So to answer the conspiracy question; no, there is no illuminati shadow conspiracy and that’s exactly what makes feminization the normalized and overlooked default.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Across ethnicities, and encompassing all manner of social diversity, this influence is so insaturated into culture, laws, media, entertainment, from our collective social consciousness to our individual psyches that we simply take it for granted as the operative framework in which we live. I realize this is a tough pill to swallow, because the male imperative does in fact intersect with the female imperative depending on mutual goals. However, the point is that the operative framework, the reality we function in, is defined by the feminine.

    I can remember first becoming aware of just the hints of this the first time I watched a popular sit-com on TV with a critical eye. There simply were no positively masculine actors or roles in ANY show, and rather every male was ridiculed for his masculinity. This then led into other aspects of society and media I was just starting to become aware of. Feminization was everywhere, but my inner guilt for even considering that possibility was hindering my unplugging from it.

    I remember at first feeling guilty about feeling offended by just my noticing this. I felt ashamed of myself for thinking that maybe things weren’t as ‘normal’ as women would like me to think. What I didn’t understand was that this was part of my conditioning; to internalize a sense of shame for questioning that ‘normalcy’. A lot of men never get past this programming and never unplug. It’s just too embedded in “who they are”, and the resulting internal conflict will prompt them to deny the realities of their condition and sometimes actively fight others who challenge the normalcy they need in order to exist.

    Once I’d gotten past the self-shame, I began to notice other patterns and interlocking social conventions that promoted this fem-centrism. From the macro dynamics of divorce laws and legal definitions of rape, to the gender bias in military conscription (drafting only men to die in war) and down to the smallest details of mundane water cooler talk in the work place, I began to realize just how overwhelming this influence is on our existences.

    Observing the Framework

    Recently I listend to an advice radio talk show where a woman called in in emotional distress with her husbands actions. Apparently she’d dated the man for a year or two before marriage and they talked about how neither wanted children from the outset. Prior to the marriage both agreed, no kids, that is until about a year into their marriage the wife had secretly gone off the pill and made deliberate efforts in her sexual activities with her husband in order to conceive. Trouble was she wasn’t getting pregnant. Only later did the man confess that he’d had a vasectomy so as not to risk having kids with any woman he paired up with.

    The ensuing indignation wasn’t directed at the woman’s admitted duplicity and covert efforts to deceive her husband into thinking she’d had an accidental pregnancy, but rather all the fires of hell were concentrated on this man’s alleged deception of her. This serves as a prime example of how the feminine reality frames the directions of our lives. Publicly and privately, not even an afterthought was spared for the woman’s motivation and desperate measures to achieve her sexual imperative because the feminine imperative is normalized as the CORRECT goal of any conflict. A woman’s existential imperative, her happiness, her contentment, her protection, her provisioning, her empowerment, literally anything that benefits the feminine is not only encouraged socially, but in most cases mandated by law. Ironically, most doctors require a wife’s written consent to perform a vasectomy on a married man; not because of a legal mandate, but rather to avoid legal retaliations and damages from a wife. By hook or by crook, her imperative is the CORRECT one.

    Some will argue that it hasn’t always been thus, and that in certain eras woman have been reduced to property like cattle. While that may have some merit I would argue that the perpetuation of this notion better serves the new feminine reality in promoting a need for recognition of victim status and thus a need for restitution. The truth is that even the most ardent supporters of reconciling a “patriarchal past” are still operating in the feminine realty in the now. Other than sultans and emperors, very few men born prior to the dark ages have ever really ‘owned’ a woman.

    Sexual Revolution

    I got into a hypothetical debate with an online friend as to what it would mean to humanity (and masculinity in particular) if a new method of birth control was developed with the specific and unique ability to allow men to control conception to the same degree women were given with hormonal contraception in the mid-sixties. I thought it interesting that human effort could create reliable contraception for women in the 60′s, yet in 2011 we can map the human genome and yet not figure out how to afford men the same degree of birth control?

    Put simply, the feminine imperative will not allow this.

    Imagine the social and economic damage to the feminine infrastructure if Prometheus gave such fire to Men? Imagine that balance of control veering back into the masculine; for men to literally have the exclusive choice to fulfill a woman’s sexual strategy or not.

    The conversation got heated. Men could never be trusted with such a power! Surely humanity would come to a grinding, apocalyptic end if the feminine sexual strategy was thwarted by reliable male contraception. Societies would be sundered, populations would nosedive, and the nuclear family would be replaced with a neo-tribalism dictated by men’s sexual strategies. Honestly, you’d think the discovery of atomic weapons was on par with such an invention.

    The ridiculous, pathetic endemically juvenile and perverse masculinity that 50 years of feminization created could never be trusted to further humanity in pursuing their sex’s inborn imperatives.

    Yet, this is precisely the power that was put into the hands of women in the 1960′s and remains today. The threat that male contraception represents to the feminine imperative is one of controlling the framework of which gender’s sexual strategy will be the normative. Prior to the advent of female-exclusive hormonal birth control and the sexual revolution that resulted from it, the gender playing field was level, if not tipped in favor of masculinity due to men’s provisioning being a motivating factor in women achieving their own gender imperative. Latex prophylactics were available in the 40′s, and this may have afforded men a slight advantage, but both parties knew and agreed to the terms of their sexual activity at the time of copulation.

    Once feminine-exclusive birth control was convenient and available the locus of control switched to feminine primacy. Her imperative became the normalized imperative. His sexual imperative was only a means to achieving her own, and now the control was firmly placed in favor of feminine hypergamy. Whether in the developing world or in first world nations, the onus of directing the course of humanity fell upon women, and thus the feminine reality evolved into what it is today.

  • Joe Blow

    If we were to turn to polygamy as a social norm, we’d wind up with a bass ackwards, godawful hellhole of a society; worse even than where we’re headed now.

    A lot of alphas are bad enough as it is – you know the “dark triad” traits? To formally empower them to take a harem, you’ll have to disempower women completely – no paternity presumptions, no child support, easy divorce for the man. Some Alphas, the better socialized ones, handle it just fine and are not terribly abusive. But a lot of the other ones… well, what do you think that society looks like?

    Saudi Arabia. Or perhaps the breakaway Mormon groups that still practice polygamy. Abuse. And I don’t mean “Andrea Dworkin’s insane ass would call this abuse,” but straight up abuse.

    As much as the acceptance of 2nd Gen feminist idiocy by American women may frustrate me, I wouldn’t wish that sort of institutionalized misogyny on them. Give it another 10 years of this shit, however, and I may be talked into reconsidering.

    (No, I’m a happily married guy, but I fear for what my son is going to face).

  • Martel

    @ Joe Blow: Right on.

    @ Anna: “So, in essence, the entire idea of the FI is contradictory? At least, that’s what I’m picking up here…:

    Depends on what you mean. The “idea” of the FI is not contradictory in that it describes a very real phenomenon, but the FI itself is.

    God bless, women, but y’all are emotion-driven, solipsistic, and see things in the moment, incorrectly correctly foreseeing what comes down the road. Women are different in appearance, age, and needs. The FI for a 23 year-old is about free contraception, access to abortion, and opposition to slut-shaming. The FI for a single mom is about government-funded child-care, child support, and getting a decent guy to “man up” and marry her. The FI for a mid-30’s post wall is about getting men to find her attractive for her executive accomplishments.

    According to the FI, should a guy be “nice” and supportive of women? To the 23 year-old, hell no–she wants a bad boy who excites her. To the same chick five years later with two kids in tow, hell yes–men need to surrender their own desires for her sake.

    The FI is as contradictory as the moods of any female, but the “idea of the FI” is anything but.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Leap, the problem most people have with the concept of the FI is that they believe that part of accepting it necessarily implies it’s adversarial in nature. Hypergamy is ugly, but it is efficient. It is what it is, but like hypergamy, the FI can be contained and even used to the mutual benefit of both sexes.

    The binary response most FI deniers resort to is to presume that it’s an all or nothing proposition. So I get labeled as being divisive between the sexes, because it’s easier to throw rocks at me than it is to confront the reality of the FI.

    I covered this topic over a year ago:

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/is-game-adversarial/

    ,..let me express that I in no way believe that the sexes were meant to be adversarial. On the contrary, it is the adamant view of this blog’s proprietor that the sexes we’re, and are, meant to compliment one another. It is just in this belief that Game becomes a necessity as a logical step forward for masculinity in the face of the overwhelming feminization of the past 40 years. Game is only viewed as a retaliatory threat when it is interpreted from the perspective of female imperative interests. True misogyny and misandry are both exceptionally rare social outliers, but a female imperative, cautious of protecting its eminence and control, will fling accusations of misogyny against anything it perceives as a threat to it. In fact the liberty with which misogynistic accusations are thrown about is the best evidence of the control female primacy exerts in society. If anything is adversarial it’s the deliberate 40 year push of feminization that imbalances the genders. Feminization has become so embedded and acculturated into society at this stage that anything that attempts to tip that scale back to the masculine side (i.e. Game) is automatically ridiculed at best or legally eradicated at worst. Ultimately, my intent is that Game – real, internalized, personality changing Game – will restore that complimentary balance to gender dynamics.

  • Leap of a Beta

    Rollo
    I’ve read that post. I’ve read most of your archives. I would honestly say that I’ve spent more time on your blog and learned a great deal from it – probably more than any blog other than Dalrock’s and Roissy’s.

    Yet, I didn’t accuse you of believing in a conspiracy. If you think I did, you misunderstand the point I’m making. Rather, my issue is that your current definition and defense of Feminine Imperative as a concept has continuously become more emotional and conspiratorial in the tone of your writing. This has been a trend since you began using the term. You say there’s no conspiracy, but then say:

    “I thought it interesting that human effort could create reliable contraception for women in the 60′s, yet in 2011 we can map the human genome and yet not figure out how to afford men the same degree of birth control?
    Put simply, the feminine imperative will not allow this.”

    If you don’t think that has the tone and consistency of conspiratorial thinking and writing I would ask you what it is? Again, I realize there’s no actual institutions or groups outside of the political movement of Feminism, yet you directly say that someone, some thing, some where won’t allow something to happen. You do the same kind of contradictory claim vs argument and writings of whether men and women are adversarial or not with the “male vs female imperative” discussions.

    You then continue to reframe the discussion as whether or not the concepts we’re describing exist. Each of our views agree that the facts we see in the world around us are true – it’s the one place we agree and thus likely the reason it has sparked such heated discussions in the past. We see the same results, but attribute different causes and thus offer different solutions.

    Your stories and examples continue to prompt and rely upon emotional responses. You wield the weapons within the words of Feminine Imperative and Femcentrism like a bludgeon, as if you hit us hard enough it will finally make sense. That it has always been women with their feminine imperative subjugating men through their natural desires to lead to get only what women wanted, with just enough reward to keep the men in line. Meanwhile I can chip away at ideas with the concepts of hypergamy, women being capricious beings governed by their emotions, desiring submission. That men are risk taking leaders who will craft a world around them in order to lead men and attract women. That it is Feminism as a political movement deriving from the result of women entering politics, with all their natural flaws, laying unnatural ideas and teachings upon men and women that have screwed up our current social-political landscape.

    We each are able to nail and describe what is happening in the world. Your writing has grown from something more rationally based to something more laden with a subcurrent of emotions. More than anything else, your views seem to only see history and today’s culture through the frame today’s society and culture give you, which of necessity are tinged by Feminists version of history where they tell us that we are, indeed, at each others throats now and always have been and always will be. Which is false. So I am speaking up. Or maybe I am simply able to see it clearer after reading your work over a year while I myself learn classical literature and methods of thought.

    Regardless, I simply believe that the way you present it will lead to a male version of Feminism.. I believe your viewpoint and methods, if adopted by society at large, would lead lead to a political movement with masculinity placed on high with feminine nature dragged through the mud. Instead, most of history has had the two balanced and working together. Testing each other, but not at each other’s throats. The exceptions to this historically are few, and relatively quick to wipe themselves out as the political movement of Feminism is doing to Western Society at this present moment.

  • FuriousFerret

    @Leap

    My problem with your assertions is that you are operating under the assumption that men and women are equals while as hard as it is to accept, I don’t believe is the case. It isn’t an easy pill to shallow in today’s cultural environment. Most women basically demand men to be superior and be their leaders. When men fail to step up to the task, the situation falls apart. Women don’t want men to be their equals even when they speak those very words. It’s all a giant meta shit test. If they really truely wanted men that were equals then they would fuck and desire men that were equals to them. We all know that’s not the case.

    The promise of equality is what got us into this mess to begin becuase it’s a myth, plain and simple. One sex will always have hand in the relationship. The timeless classical paradigm is the one that favors the masculine. You can’t have your cake and eat it too in this situation.

    The Masculine Imperative will always be the correct one. I know that the pure MI is to have a harem of women for one guy, however under a masculine society checks and balances always rise up to counter this. Civilizations that support the beta males and use them as a positive resource will always trump those that want to play by primal rules of alpha takes all. Thus arises the old school models of alphas get the most beautiful with some cheating on the side while betas still get something of value in terms of a wife.

    The bitter truth is that women want men to be their masters and promoting equality is simply how feminism started in the first place. A noble idea with disasterous results.

  • Anna

    @Martel

    Yes…I see what you mean. I understand what I was missing before, thank you.

    By the Gods, womenfolk are confusing! Hot, then cold…left, then right…up, then down. It’s like a pot left on the stove that’s always on the verge of boiling over.

  • Martel

    @ Leap: You make some good points here, but I find Rollo’s writing to be anything but overly-emotional, not do I believe it is likely to inspire such reactions in others.

    The example you cite on the male pill name the FI, but not in the conspiratorial sense at all. FI rules our culture; it’s just what we do, and there need be no evil dudes in dark rooms conspiring to make it happen, and Rollo does not imply that it does. There are laws to promote the FI (i.e. what Vox writes about here: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-sluts-in-spite-of-themselves.html ), but these simply reflect what the vast majority of us think without realizing it.

    Nevertheless, your fears that we could end up with some sort of “masculinism” are well-founded (although it wouldn’t be Rollo who does it). Every social movement begins with an uneasy alliance between those who want objective justice and those who want power. At this juncture, most of us simply desire to bring back some balance, we accept the FI as necessary but also know that the MI needs some influence also.

    Yet some commenters at other sites (and every so often here) absolutely seethe with bitterness and would gladly institute some sort of Grand Patriarchy. It’s by no means prevailing, but it does exist. (I read one guy describe how the Taliban actually has a better grasp of gender than we do) A key is us not embracing the victim mentality that’s taken over feminism, the civil rights movement, gay rights, etc.

    Also, in Europe especially, a backlash is developing, but not among native European males. Swedish girls in cities like Malmo often wear head-coverings to keep from getting hassled by immigrants. The men there are way too beta to do anything about it. The women therefore suffer from a vacuum of positive masculinity, by nature they’re attracted to strength, and Swedish dudes (or French, German, whatever) don’t have it. We may therefore see some weirdisms with Euro women hooking up with middle-eastern dudes, or maybe the Euro dudes becoming hyper-masculine to fight back.

    Will be interesting either way.

  • Martel

    @ Anna: And if you don’t figure out and then agree with every little twist and turn every step of the way, you’re a misogynist!

  • M3

    In a nutshell. The feminine imperative exists. It’s why every woman i ever meet who i tell “I will not get married in this day and age” loses their shit on me and tells me i’m selfish.

    I’m not reproducing children.
    I’m not adding to society.
    I’m not building a future.
    I’m not creating the next generation.
    I’m selfish.

    What i’m actually doing is denying the imperative to:

    Support a wife.
    Pop out her ‘have it all’ kids after the carousel
    Give her the option to rape me in divorce court
    Enable more into the consumerism and debt spending world of keeping up with the jones for status and materialism
    Pay higher taxes on my higher workload to go to women’s social safety net
    Work myself to death earlier
    Possibly take in a woman with child and help raise her babbydaddy’s offspring
    etc..

    I am the bad guy. The only reason i am the bad guy is because i refuse to operate under the imperatives guidelines.

    And i like it that way.

  • Leap of a Beta

    @ Furious

    “My problem with your assertions is that you are operating under the assumption that men and women are equals while as hard as it is to accept, I don’t believe is the case.”

    Not really what I believe or am operating under at all. Like I said, they exist in balance. Males testing the women for submission, physical attraction, and health (the main values of femininity) while women test men for leadership, physical strength, and health (the main values of masculinity). In none of these categories are they equal, yet they achieve a balance through the interactions of masculine and feminine nature that are good on individual levels as well as social-political levels.

    @ Martel
    As I originally said – I don’t believe that Rollo is arguing an actual conspiracy, but that his writing tone seems to have slowly changed so that there is no way for male and female interests to exist in a balanced state of being but that they MUST be at each other’s throats.

    “FI rules our culture; it’s just what we do, and there need be no evil dudes in dark rooms conspiring to make it happen, and Rollo does not imply that it does.”

    Personally, I would describe it as Feminism and liberal ideology ruling our current culture. I think it more accurately describes how the political movement has affected us since the first wave of Feminism in the late 1800’s and really took off with the second wave in the 60’s, dragging conservatives so far left that they can’t see that what they stand for right now is a freaking joke.

    I do think that link is an interesting study of what Feminism has done and accomplished for changing people’s mindsets in Europe. I laughed for about 5 minutes when I originally read the article Vox posted. I’ve stopped getting angry about people’s stupid bullshit and started just laughing at their mistakes while I carve my own path through life.

    And, as you say, we’ll see if any reactionary “Masculinism” takes root in the West. I surely hope not, though it may not happen in our life times.

  • Anna

    @Martel

    Sad as it may sound, I’ve actually been called a misogynist before. It was in college, and I’d suggested to a particular young…lady…that she might not have gone through 15 boyfriends in one semester if she’d not wrung each of them dry financially and actually cared about the guy instead of his wallet.

    Didn’t go over well.

  • Rellz

    Lurker Loving the debate here all *drops ninja smoke* back into the shadows…

  • funny

    It’s funny how most progressive women get gina tingles about wearing a burqa and becoming part of an official family with 4-6 wives, with ‘marriage certificates’ for all. What you don’t realize is those cultures are back in the stone age, the husband can beat his wife, and basically play his easier wives, or the wives who will take it up the ass, off you. Don’t like anal sex? Stay in your bedroom then, I have another wife who does. All cultures where the men get multiple wives are either living in mud huts in the hills and chasing baboon meat, or wandering a desert with camels. The betas will not work for you in this system, enjoy your descent into fiat bankruptcy.

  • Nate

    Brendan (novaseeker) has a great series going discussing his thoughts on FI (which he has named the feminine super-norm), what it means, and how feminism is just an arm of it. As always, he writes good shit-

    http://veritaslounge.com/2013/02/09/the-super-norm-and-feminism-is-there-a-difference/

  • Ton

    How can one be aware of what’s going on and not be bring divisiveness between the sexes?

  • Leap of a Beta

    @ Nate
    Brendan is close to the same viewpoint as myself from reading the article. There are lots of similarities, with some small differences in thought. Two that jump out at me from those links:

    1. He seems to be speaking solely upon how women’s sexual impulses are affecting laws, culture, society – everything he dubs the “Super-norm”. I would posit that this is a part of it, but also include other feminine traits such as tendencies towards more emotional reactions, how everything has to ‘feel right to her’ and tendencies towards selfishness (to name only a few) affect Western Culture.

    2. He describes feminism as a political movement that began with some crazy, outlier women. Then he describes the movement as an interaction with what “super-norm” and female sexual impulses it encountered. I would say that it was the other way around – the Feminism was the effect of women entering universities, the workforce, and politics. When examining first wave feminism versus second wave, the main distinction that had changed in society was that the first wave began when upper class women started entering formal universities instead of simply schools training them how to be feminine (cooking, manners, hosting parties, etc). The natural impulses towards selfishness, hypergamy and emotional reactions thus spawned from “educated” women. Then the second wave began when women entered the workforce during WW2 – so it included the working class woman pushed by the again, ‘educated’ upper class women towards what would be ‘fair and just’ (ie – make women feel happy and comfortable). Women also thought that if they were working and more ‘independent’ they deserved a voice in politics; which was also pushed by blacks pushing for the vote. Again, simple, pure female selfishness and entitlement – it is simply adapting to new social political norms. Thus second wave Feminism was born. Like any political movement, it is pushed and shaped by the ‘Fundamentalists’ within it whose goals are never achieved, but can often set the tone for the discussions. Look at the history of politics for how this works – or one can simply look at the current fundamentalist liberal and social conservative outliers in current politics and how it affects those that could be called ‘moderates’ of each party.

    @ Tom

    Feminism as a political movement is what brought the decisiveness between the sexes. Through out history it is not a norm for how societies operate.

  • krauserpua

    My question is this……. How did feminism better serve the FI than the traditional femininity? What was the impetus to drop the latter and push the former?

    I tend to believe social transformation is often coincidental and snowballs without having a real plan, and unintended consequences abound. I suspect the FI is reacting to social change to subvert it to its priorities, rather than initiating all the change.

  • Martel

    @krauser: I would argue that traditional femininity did better serve the Fi, at least it’s more positive aspects: men not abandoning them, more support in child-rearing, women feeling fulfilled at 45 because they’ve done what comes more naturally, etc.

    The impetus to drop it is complex and coincides with the influence of Rousseau. He was militantly pro-feminine and hostile to civilization, Western Civilization, and the individual (in certain respects–he’s pretty complicated). To him, for individuals to be free they must submit themselves to the General Will.

    (this is very brief and leaves a lot out; some might accuse me of over-simplification) Prior to Rousseau, there were plenty of totalitarians, but the general trend was towards individual liberty. Rousseau introduced a new form on totalitarianism in which we need to be forced to submit to the feminine virtues which he saw as superior to the masculine, and we need to do it for our own good. The French Revolution was the first attempt to use the government to remake human nature.

    During the 19th century, the anti-western views of Rousseau (and Kant’s, but I don’t have time to write a book tonight) followers gradually gained credence, especially in Germany. These culminated with WWI, which DEVASTATED Europe to an extent that’s almost impossible to comprehend. To large segments of society, the masculine virtues of bravery and honor were entirely discredited.

    So, we turned more stuff over to women, but it didn’t stop with just equal rights and suffrage. The FI had more influence, but it also required power, the ability to MAKE people comply with it. The old values became more and more discredited. Men felt guilty about standing up to women. How you should treat women morphed into how you MUST treat women.

    There are tons of other factors (the intentional breakdown of the family, also starting with Rousseau, the need to use education to socialize through the influence of Dewey, the need for a more feminine, cooperative economy, etc.). A big jump was also in the 1970s during high inflation. The societal encouragement of women working en masse just happened to coincide with the need for increased wages for the middle class to maintain its lifestyle.

    As far as traditional feminity goes, you can’t revolutionize society if women are primarily mothers. Besides, men like traditional women, so no more of that.

    I hope this makes sense. If anyone cares I’ll elaborate on any specific elements. (I’m sure I left out some very important points.)

  • Johnycomelately

    The greatest lie of the feminine imperative is that of economic independence.

    It’s axiomatic that men are net producers of resources (on a total aggregate level) and women and children are net consumers.

    Women were never the property of men, they were the wards of men, who were their legal guardians. Why? Because WOMEN CANNOT PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES, never have and never will.

    Technology, cheap energy and economic growth has allowed the feminine imperative to create a state buffer between the provisioners of wealth (men) and the consumers of wealth (women) without the incumbent responsibilities. And they continue to be wards but of the state and not men.

    Rollo and Novaseeker are right, feminism is simply the vanguard of the feminine imperative.

  • Anna

    @Johnycomelately

    “And they continue to be wards but of the state and not men.” <— As much as I hate to admit it, this appears to be true at least on a general level. In my 27 years thusfar, I've met so many people who were leeches on society…of these people, more than half were women. Welfare babies (when birth control is readily available), food stamps (and a Mercedes in the parking lot), a physical disability check (when your strutting up and down the boutique aisles in 5" heels), and a full EBT card (that you try to use to buy $400 worth of videogames).

    Independent? You're not independent…you're a grown infant sucking at the teat of Big Government.

  • Mark Minter

    I just walked past CNN and the female talking head was cutting to a commercial with the statement/question (probably rhetorical as far as she is concerned)

    “Does America need more female leaders?”

    @Kruaser-

    What changed was reproduction. The “old” FI was based on men supporting and protecting women and it constructed a whole morality structure on reproduction. Once the pill and abortion made that requirement unnecessary then the “new” FI was possible and necessary.

    The more I mess around with these topics the more strange little nuggets of awareness come to bear.

    I did a Google search for “Baby Trap”. It was in response to a Jezebel piece where some letter from a reader asked if was OK to conspire with her best friend to put a Baby Trap on her boyfriend. The guy was dragging his feet and the girlfriend thought he would make a good father. The Jezzie writer told her “no, it’s not a good thing” but the idea of trapping this guy into a life without him choosing it in no way was met by the other women with “shock and outrage”. One comment even said something weird like “I think these two are obsessed with your vagina. You should get away from them.”

    So I searched for Baby Trap just to see how many terms came up, how common it was. One psychiatrist handled it from a clinical standpoint and spoke about why it works, why the shock of being told that a man got a woman pregnant often compels the man into action. So I guess its common enough that he wrote a thesis on it.

    The next thing I read was a funny story about a guy who had undergone a vasectomy and didn’t tell the next girlfriend that he had one. She got pregnant and tried to spring a baby trap on. The story was a funny story about who he played it out and then pulled the rug out under her. And yes, the actual father was a RockBandDrummer.

    But the real eye opener was the term “Baby Trap” that got the most hits, far more than the idea of trapping a man into marriage, was in reference to how a baby traps a woman into a particular dependency and role. There is a major feminist bible sort of work called “The Baby Trap”. So up to this moment, I had assumed that all women wanted kids, that was the biological imperative, which drove the feminine imperative to structure society for the purpose of having children, and having men and society support and celebrate this endeavor.

    So now I am not so sure. The falling marriage rate and the falling rate of birth, coupled with one of the key pillars of feminism being reproductive rights, makes me think women, just like men, wish to avoid childbirth. Not all. A bunch still go nutty over motherhood and kids and those things are still key to the FI. But evidence is starting to point that way that it is not the major prime directive any longer.

    Our favorite feminist writer Amanda Mancotte had an essay that basically told trad-cons that were calling for women to “Woman Up” and have kids because we are headed for “an economic cliff” without replacement rates of children as people age. And growth is falling and we need kids to go into schools, then get jobs, buy houses, pay taxes. And Mancotte said “How convenient for you. Well, too bad.”

    Another post-wall writer said the only people that bugged her about having kids where “old men” like her uncles that leered “Better hurry up before you run out of time. Tick tick tick”. That women never gave her crap and understood exactly why didn’t want them.

    My mother had 6 children. My grandmother had 11. I have three sisters. Two have 1 child and the one that got pregnant very early had two children, 3 women, 4 children. Two were born very very late, almost too late, when both were over 35 . At present, while they are not particularly old, none of the children of me, my brother, or my sisters have any children. The oldest at 26 is as far from having children as a girl that age could be. Only one is married and she is the fattest and ugliest of all them almost to the point if they have a photo of all the cousins together people ask “Who is that? Is she in your family?” All the rest are tall and damn good looking and all are in hot pursuit of degrees and merit badges.

    So now free from the need to require the support, assistance, and protection of men, at least from men that are husbands, then the FI needed revision, a revision that maintains primacy of the female purpose, the female method, the female desires, the female prerogative, even though the nobility of children, childbirth, child rearing and childcare moved into the background.

    Give you an example. When the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shootings occurred some men bloggers were questioning the idea of taking bullets for women, why were women of such higher value that it is naturally expected that men should die for them?. The answer came back up “We have babies”. Same thing with the “women and children first on the lifeboats”. Again, “We have babies”.

    So when remove that “we have babies” thing, then you have to “rebuild the mound” and create a new FI.

    So that’s what’s different. Even the term Reproductive Rights is an invention of the feminine imperative. Not Child Avoidance. Not even Birth Control anymore. But Reproductive Rights. She has the right to have one if she wants. Right for you to pay for her to have one, if she wants. Right not to have one, if she wants. Right to think she wants one but then change her mind and abort it before it’s born, even if it is late term abortion if she wants. But mostly, now, She has the right not to have one but still enjoy all the cash and prizes that the gender “deserves”.

    She still wants primacy. She still wants control over social values. She still wants to repress and control men’s sexual imperatives and desires yet redefine hers so that she still seems superior, more moral, and more valued then men.

    @Leap,

    In my opinion, I don’t think it is possible for any reconciliation between men and the Feminine Imperative.

    There is a very old German saying “The woman is like the hound. She is at your feet or at your throat.”

    At best there might be “detente” (Détente is the easing of strained relations, especially in a political situation.). But in my opinion, you have already lost the battle.

    You two choices.

    What you got today and tomorrow you will probably have something even worse. (See my first statement above – “Does America need more female leaders?” query from the CNN Anchorwoman.)

    Or Islam.

    There can be no middle. She won’t let there be one. Not now, not after gaining “reproductive rights”.

  • Martel

    Another criticism of feminism is the plain old boring economic concept of division of labor.

    Two singles spend almost twice as much time doing errands, cleaning up around the house, laundry, etc. as a housewife does by herself. They also spend twice as much time at work as a bread-earning father. Two housing units need to shelter them whereas in a traditional family one would suffice.

    It’s also double the washers and dryers that have to be purchased, twice as many beds and couches and God knows what all else around the house. Food needs to be bought in smaller quantities.

    This makes the price of everything go up, which in turn makes it even harder for a family to survive with just one bread-earner.

    It used to actually be possible for a blue-collar man to support a family on his salary alone. And then all the neighbors wives started working, prices went up to reflect the increased purchasing power, so either the janitor’s wife had to start working or their living standard would decrease.

    Feminism introduced the concept of a “career woman” as a fun and exciting way for women to “find themselves”. Before we knew what hit us, they became a damn near necessity.

    @Minter: It’s sure gonna be interesting to see what happens over the next few years. I’m not sure I’m with you on the irreconcilability of the FI with men, although I’m certain there’s no possiblity to reconcile with feminism. My historical studies show me that the FI isn’t nearly as destructive when subservient to the MI. When men are in charge of things women can actually do some good. However, feminism precludes that from happening.

    As far as Islam goes, my name might give you a hint as to where I stand.

    But, as a wise man once said, if it can’t go on forever, it won’t. Something’s gotta break. Hopefully It’s Mandy Marcunt.

  • Anna

    @Mark

    “So up to this point, I had assumed that all women wanted kids…”. No, some of us do not, though I truly believe that there are women out there who actually DO, and they are simply not aware of it due to a lack of introspection on their part…I can tell you honestly that women are usually expected to “follow their feelings”/ “trust your gut” / “be impulsive so men don’t think you’re mentally slow. Any female that goes against this is viewed as unacceptable or broken, rather than simply wanting to provide a more thought provoking (or correct) statement.

    While there undoubtedly are others like myself (women who are high testosterone, who are happy “bachelors”) I think many are simply not having children because that’s what they’re told will bring happiness. They are blindly playing follow the leader…without pausing to consider WHY they are following in the first place.

    Though many doubt it, I’ve thought long and hard about the prospect of getting married and/or having children. I’ve weighed the pros and cons, spoken to people who have 9 kids and those who are infertile. I’ve determined where I want to be in 5, 10, 25 years and the most efficient way to get there…and, of course, whether I’ll be content on said journey. I reached the conclusion that I’d be most fulfilled by remaining self reliant, educated, and single without children of my own.

    But I wonder how many other single women have done this honestly with themselves. I’d bet an entire paycheck that it’s not many at all. And that, to me, is very sad.

  • Chuck Hammer

    Anna
    I’ve weighed the pros and cons, spoken to people who have 9 kids and those who are infertile. I’ve determined where I want to be in 5, 10, 25 years and the most efficient way to get there…and, of course, whether I’ll be content on said journey. I reached the conclusion that I’d be most fulfilled by remaining self reliant, educated, and single without children of my own.

    Get where?

    I’m 55. I still smile when I think of my infant son giggling hysterically when I sang “I’m a little teapot” to him. My most prized possessions are a note my son wrote to me in 3rd grade and a photo I took of my daughter in my wife’s arms when we were out picking strawberries.

  • Anna

    @Chuck

    That sounds like you have a wonderfully happy and precious family. I’m glad for you, and wish you many more fond memories.

  • Chuck Hammer

    @Anna

    I’m married to a New York feminist. So, not so totally wonderful. But not too bad at times.

    What I want to know is did you build a spreadsheet to evaluate your life options? Come on, admit it, you did, didn’t you.

  • Ton

    My point is anything we do will be considered divisive because we are not playing by “their” rules. Up setting the apple cart, so to speak.

  • Anna

    @Chuck

    Lol, a spreadsheet? Dear Gods, no!
    I do love organization, but even *I* wouldn’t go that far. That’s borderline ridiculous.

    I used a simple venn diagram… :P

  • Kate

    Mark wrote: “The falling marriage rate and the falling rate of birth, coupled with one of the key pillars of feminism being reproductive rights, makes me think women, just like men, wish to avoid childbirth.”

    Chuck asks an excellent question, Anna? Just where are you hoping to get? And what makes you think that decisions you make now will not be ones that you heartily regret in the future? You can’t make choices for yourself based on experiences you don’t have; that is why we have “tradition.” It tells us, from the experience of history, this is the best way of going about things.

    I have always felt that leaving things to nature is the best route. Aristotle says that to achieve happiness we must fulfill our natural function. To me, for women, that means becoming a mother no matter what the trepidation.

    You asked about fears before, Anna, and I didn’t feel like answering. Since its come up again, I will tell you it is totally normal to feel anxious about motherhood. Most things that involve huge responsibility or pain cause us to be nervous- even queasy. Everything about being a female, from puberty on, scared me (mostly because I did not have a female role model who made me comfortable going through all of those changes). However, I did not become a *woman* until I had my daughter.

    Feel the fear and do it anyway; its called courage, and you can do it!

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Leap

    Again, I realize there’s no actual institutions or groups outside of the political movement of Feminism, yet you directly say that someone, some thing, some where won’t allow something to happen.

    You are aware that the governments of Germany and France (soon Brazil) are outlawing paternity testing when initiated by the purported father? You are aware that there is a trad-con effort (complicitly aided by feminists) to ban hormonal forms of male contraception?

    I can give you links if you’d like, but it’s not just the Spearhead or AVfM that are writing about it; Cane Caldo and Dalrock have a lot on their blogs too.

    I understand how that sounds conspiratorial and I’m sure you wont refute the the evidence, but you will qualify it as a social effort of feminism; which wont be entirely untrue. However, who does keeping men in a state of biological subservience benefit? Just feminists or all women?

    There was a time before we had reliable genetic testing that the only way a guy could be 100% sure the kid wasn’t his was if he were white and the child was born black. Now we have the means to verify this, but it’s the feminine imperative that wants to put that Genie back in the bottle. We can have birth control for women, but no birth verification for men. What purpose does that serve? Hypergamy. Alpha seed, Beta need. That’s not a tenet of feminism, that is an imperative aspect of the feminine sexual strategy.

    The problem in defining the feminine imperative in the narrow terms of growing feminism is that it remains blind to the totality of the feminine super-norm (if you like that term better). The FI existed long before feminism and long before chivalry or any other social paradigm that it’s used for its benefit. As I said, obviously the FI and MI come into a state of balance depending upon mutual benefit for the species – without that mutual benefit there is no species.

  • Anna

    @Kate

    “What makes you think that decisions you make now will not be ones you heartily regret in the future?”

    As I’ve said before, I (like anyone) can not tell the future. I am making the decision to be single and not have children because it seems to be the best route for ME. Obviously, I may regret it one day…or I could be thankful til my dying breath that I didn’t cave in to societal pressures and remained true to myself and my desires/ideals. In my next life, I may very well be a woman again, and this time make the decision to marry and have 8 children with a husband I cherish. Or perhaps I’ve already been a husband/wife with a large brood, and so I don’t need to again. I don’t know, but I do know that I am living my life as I see fit, and am not harming anyone by not marrying a theoretical spouse or by not birthing theoretical children.

    “Aristotle says that to achieve happiness we must fulfill our natural function. To me, for women, that means becoming a mother no matter what the trepidation.”

    Oh Kate…there are so many things wrong with this way of thinking. Since we’re already playing with theoreticals, let’s pretend that I’m infertile. I have fallopian tubes, breasts, a perfectly shaped “baby carrying” body, a uterus, a clit, a vagina…this theoretical me seems to be wonderful for the act of being a mother. But no matter what, I can’t get pregnant. Would you say that this version of me is less of a woman? That she can NEVER be fulfilled, she exists as a mere shadow of womanhood due to a trick of nature? What about all the women who actually ARE infertile…do you make it a point to tell them that an ancient philosopher has deemed them “unhappy”?

    Aristotle was a tremendous person, I’d never argue that. However I will argue that he, like all of us, was a product of his time. How many other things has he stated that you take to heart? Do you also believe you are inherently inferior to a man, that you have fewer teeth(false) and thus require less food and should be deprived of nutrition, that your ovaries serve no purpose and your genetic material is not in your eggs, but your lubrication? I could go on, but I’m simply pointing out that as great as the ancient Greek/Roman philosophers were…they had ideas that were later proven wrong by science or later philosophical teachers. Why indeed, should I make decisions about my life based on what a single person said thousands of years ago?

    “Everything about being a female, from puberty on, scared me…However, I did not become a *woman* until I had my daughter.”

    First, let me say that I’m sorry you didn’t have a good role model, or at least someone to help explain the changes going on with your body. It actually sounds like it might have caused some minor psychological trauma for you, and that is a very unfortunate thing. You have my sympathies, to be sure, but I’m sure you’ve since realized that puberty is a difficult time for *everybody*, male or female.

    I was luckier. I grew up in my great grandmother’s home, with her, my mother, my aunt, and my grandmother. Yes, that’s right…four generations of Germanic women in the same home! It’s a good thing that it was such a large house and we each had our own bedroom, lol. (Of course, my mother got remarried when I was 7, but my formative years were surrounded by wonderful female relatives that I loved dearly.) Growing up like this was awesome. I’d shower with my mom or grandmother, so I got to see the different stages of the female body and got to ask typical child questions about it. Without any men around (my father was abusive, drunk and gone…my grandfathers had died of a car accident and a brain tumor) I learned the importance of being self sufficient. We had our own apple, pear, and peach trees…we grew small crops like carrots, tomatoes, cucumbers, and traded with our neighbors…my grandmother even took tech classes at the local college to help eliminate the need for unnecessary plumbing/electrician/home repair workers. I guess this is where I get my sense of self reliance from…

    Anyway, at no time was I ever taught that women *needed* men. Don’t get me wrong, my grandfathers were ALWAYS spoken of dearly, and I loved hearing the stories of howthey came to America and did very well for themselves through hard work and determination…but my grandmothers were always right there beside them, working together, pooling money/resources/contacts to make damn good on “the American Dream”.

    I tell you now, that never once did they say that womanhood is earned through childbirth. No, it is what you are born as and what you grow into…through all the experiences of your life journey, never just one. A single experience may be huge. It may lead you to question everything in your life, or confirm what you already know. It could be a death, a birth, a wonderful accident or a horrible tragedy. It could span years, or last for a minute. But it is still just *one* step on your road…and since we’re all on different ones, I can’t really tell you where to turn, now can I? :)

  • Kate

    A female does not fully experience womanhood without children. That really can’t be argued. You might think you’ve reached an apex in some equivalent way, but you haven’t. There is no way to entirely replicate the experience.

  • Anna

    @Kate

    As you wish.

    You know, it hasn’t been lost on me that you’ve not taken M3 to task on *his* comment above.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have a feeling that if I had been dishonest, signed in under a male name, and posted that I was a happy bachelor with no interest in having children…you probably wouldn’t have batted an eye. Or perhaps I’m wrong. Do you tell MGTOW that because their penis has not been used to sire a child that they aren’t fulfilled menfolk? Will M3 never reach *his* life’s apex unless he has offspring?

    I’m not being snarky or sarcastic.
    I honestly want to know what you’d say, if anything at all.

  • Kate

    Aristotle would not consider a man without children as having lived a full life either.

    No, I don’t try to argue with everyone all of the time. I’m not a feminist ;)

  • Anna

    @Kate

    Lol. No, I suppose you aren’t.

    Well, I don’t believe we’ll ever agree on this topic.
    However, I’ll accept that your motherhood makes you feel like a fulfilled woman if you can accept that I still feel like a complete woman without motherhood.

    Again, who knows? Maybe I’ll have 12 children in my next life! Wouldn’t that be something? :)

  • Kate

    I can’t accept it and neither should you :) What is this talk of a next life? Are you a cat?

  • Leap of a Beta

    @ Rollo
    “You are aware that the governments of Germany and France (soon Brazil) are outlawing paternity testing when initiated by the purported father? You are aware that there is a trad-con effort (complicitly aided by feminists) to ban hormonal forms of male contraception?”

    I was aware of the first, not of the second. Not really surprised by either, to be honest. If they ban male contraception here in the US in the form of the insertion who’s name I can’t remember, I suspect many men will either decide to get the vasectomy they’ve been putting off or get the procedure done in another country.

    “The problem in defining the feminine imperative in the narrow terms of growing feminism is that it remains blind to the totality of the feminine super-norm (if you like that term better). The FI existed long before feminism and long before chivalry or any other social paradigm that it’s used for its benefit. ”

    Eh, whatever. I still stand by being able to describe the situation accurately through biology, social dynamics, sexual desires, psychology, political science, etc. Before Feminism one uses those to describe how men and women interacted, then those interactions led to indirect changes of women through their men if the men decided to act. After Feminism you can apply the faults of women directly into politics. Honestly it’s started making more sense for me to think this way than when I had used the term for 6-8 months. It’s able to dig into the underlying causes and motivations that didn’t make sense to me when I was in a “female imperative” mind set – usually the outlier, extreme actions or those that exist in a weird middle space. I can then talk about it with people outside the ‘Sphere without having to rely on confusing terminology – which is important to me both as a personal and professional part of my life.

  • Anna

    @Kate

    Really? It’s impossible for you to accept that we women do not share a Hivemind? You can’t accept that I’m happy how I am, despite the fact that I’m perfectly capable of accepting that you *are*? Wow…um, okay. This is starting to feel less like a opinionated conversation, and more like a introduction to some weird ass conversion process. Does *everyone* in your community think the same way? I’m kind of imagining you as a Stepford Wife now…lol.

    As for the next life thing, no I’m not a cat…though that might be cool if I was and I could type on a computer. I’m Wiccan, and have been since I was 13, so about 14 years now. In case you’re unaware, the majority of us believe in reincarnation after our souls rest/reflect in the Summerland. In our religion, there is no heaven or hell or devil/Lucifer, only the Lady and Lord.

    Surprised it took you this long to notice…it’s not like I try to hide my religion from anyone here.

  • FuriousFerret

    @kate and anna

    You girls should meet up and pillow fight in teddies. Be sure it webcast through a webcam.

  • Anna

    @Furious Ferret

    Ugh. For the love of all that is holy…no.
    Just no.

    My shift is beginning anyway.
    See you in 9 hours, ta.

  • FuriousFerret

    “Ugh. For the love of all that is holy…no.
    Just no.”

    Why? It would be more productive and interesting than the little cat fight you’re having now.

  • Kate

    “You can’t accept that I’m happy how I am, despite the fact that I’m perfectly capable of accepting that you *are*?”

    Nope :)

  • FuriousFerret

    “Nope :)”

    Winner!

  • Kate

    It’s official!

  • Anna

    @Furious Ferret
    Why? Because if I didn’t do things like that when I was 14, what in the world makes you think I’d act like a loon now at age 27? Also, I refuse to believe that another woman cares about the state of my uterus to the point of utter intolerance for any opinion that’s different than hers…therefore, I shall henceforth think of Kate as a creature that dwells under bridges and eats billy goats.

    And I’d never have a pillow fight with something like *that*. :P

    Nice talking to you, Kate-Troll.

  • FuriousFerret

    “@Furious Ferret
    Why?”

    Because Kate controlled frame and made you her bitch, that’s why.

    Let’s review, shall we:

    Anna: Me. Me. Me. None of the stuff you talk about applies to me. Me. Special.

    Kate: Reason. Reason. Reason. You are too young to fully understand your circumstances and don’t know what you are talking about.

    Anna: ME, ME, ME, I’m DIFFERENT. NOT LIKE THE OTHER WOMEN.

    Kate: More reason, More reason, Hear me out.

    Anna: NOOOO, ME, (MORE SOLIPSISM), Be condescending

    Kate: Stopping argueing and begins mind fucking. Treats Anna like the little girl that she is.

    Anna: Appeals to some type of morality that she thinks everyone should share and tries to shame Kate.
    “You can’t accept that I’m happy how I am, despite the fact that I’m perfectly capable of accepting that you *are*?”

    Kate: Delievers coup de grâce by not giving a fuck and shuts this internet cat fight down with authoritative “Nope :)”

    To “Our Lady of the ‘Rational Male'” GeishaKate I award honorary ‘Player for a Day’.

    To Anna: I award zero points, we all stupidier for listening to your dumb musings.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Most comment threads from women in the manosphere usually flow something like this,…

  • Anna

    As you wish.

    I’ve come to expect this from most MRA blogs/forums…any female who isn’t part of the traditional feminine hivemind is shot down and called names, because we are always wrong.

    Don’t care.
    I still support equal rights for men, and will still speak out against misandric practices.

  • Kate

    Alright, alright. I was just teasing a little. No more arguing. Its a holiday!

  • FuriousFerret

    @Anna

    LOL. Anna you came to this blog proudly displaying the strong independent woman meme and expecting people to support it. LOL.

    What if I went to jezebel and was like “I agree with most of what you girls say about women deserve careers, jobs and right, etc, however I love screwing around on my girlfriend and spinning a bunch of college co-ed plates. Don’t worry though, it’s all cool, I like women’s equal rights. Just support me ok”. What do you think their response would be? Do you think they would be like “You go Ferret. Fuck a bunch of college women and use them as cum rags while keeping this all a secret from your gf”. HAHAHAHHAHAHA.

    What were you expecting? Do you not have any idea how annoying careerist women are? If women could do the career thing while raising kids and not being bitches, I would support it 100%, but they just don’t. They turn into pseudo-men and their behavior drags down my own life quality even when I try to avoid them as much as possible.

  • Anna

    @Furious Ferret

    I’m the only career woman I know. Sorry, but I don’t know how the others act…I’m not playing dumb, I truly don’t. How do they impact the quality of your life?

    The manosphere is an odd place. Some of you guys want every woman to be a virgin til marriage…others want women to sleep with them all the time. Some of you think all women want babies and are sperm snatchers…others think that we hate families and are trying to kill the species. I’ve met men online who think women still need to be coddled in the home…while others scream “throw them to the olves!”. And of course, there’s the MRAs who feel all women should be content with their “barefoot and pregnant/no job/rely completely on her husband” life…or there’s the MRAs who say “no, women should be more self reliant and pay their own way from now on”.

    It’s difficult at times to tell which segment of this sphere a comment audience occupies. This was my mistake, as I thought that since other bloggers (who are far less traditional) link here so much, that the audience here was far more open and casual minded. Like I said, my mistake.

    But honestly? Making fun of someone’s religion, openly being unaccepting of different lifestyles, mocking the fact that a new commenter is willing to let differences slide and constantly making them defend their own comments (thereby creating a false sense of solipsism), and then blatantly calling their argument dumb/stupid?

    Really not the way to win someone over to your cause.

  • Shawn

    Apologizing is beta, besides the lapse between post gives me time to let your excellent posts marinate into my psyche.

  • Anna

    @Rollo

    Thank you for being such a gracious host. I truly enjoyed your posts, and think you are a detailed and exquisite writer. If any of the bloggers I currently follow put a link to your page, I’ll quite gladly peruse it. It is my honest hope that you keep writing and enlightening others to the situation at hand. The inequality of feminist thought will decay someday, and you are playing a big part in opening peoples eyes to that. Though I’ll not be commenting on/subscribing to Rational Male anymore for obvious reasons, I simply wanted to let you know that you have a supporter in me, and I’ll try to send new readers to you whenever the opportunity presents itself. Were that I could remain, but I fear I’ve overstayed an already nonexistent welcome.

    I wish you all a happy and healthy life for you and yours.
    Thank you again, and goodbye to all.

  • FuriousFerret

    Don’t be a pussy Anna.

    You want don’t want children and marriage, that’s fine. Who the fuck is FuriousFerret to you anyways? You want to be a CEO, and you let me get under your skin. That’s bullshit. Suck it up and fight for your views.

    By way it’s not your content that lost the arguement. It’s your mindset and demeanor. You let it get you rattled and you went into mini meltdown mode. You want to make it in the true real world with your MBA, you have to do better than that. You want to compete with men, you can’t be a little girl and throw in the towel at the first sign of resistance. You want to be an outliner, then prove it.

    Every woman that I’ve seen come in here, starts talking about this and that. They dictate what guys should think. Then at the first little sign of blowback they can’t take it and revert to emotional/shaming rhetoric. Kate is one of the very few that holds up as an iron butterfly.

    If FuriousFerret rattles you into your little emotional replies, then you are straight up fucked when you go compete in the real business world.

    Also, there is merit to your own personal arguement that extraordinary women should pursue their passions and dreams. This has always been the case. Women with true talent have bucked the system and made it. However, this is unsuitable for most women and deep down most will want a family and the powers that be are royally screwing them in the ass for their own purposes of labor costs and social engineering. Simply put, most women should be pushed towards a career path simply because marxists want them to and laws shouldn’t be erected to make jobs for them at the expense of men that need those jobs.

    I get it Anna, you don’t want to be traditional woman and you don’t have to be one. Do whatever you want. You have an ASCII ghost FuriousFerret’s blessing.

  • Tam the Bam

    “Really not the way to win someone over to your cause.”

    I doubt that’s the purpose of the discussion here.
    We’ve all got our own not necessarily congruent opinions, generally based on the only real source of actual knowledge, experience.

    For instance, I suspect that my old foreign man’s ideas on many other subjects would make your eyes melt. But they’re nobody’s business but my own and I certainly wouldn’t expect anybody else to agree with them. Quite alarming, if that were the case, in fact.

    I didn’t come here for conversion, I came for information and possible explanations for things I can’t make sense of.
    Always to be held up against the light of my own observations and tested against reality. And if something doesn’t ring true to me, well I’m empty-headed enough to be able to remember precisely what it was, and file it away behind the eyes. Without shitting my pants in vexation.

    Agree to disagree, like gentlemen. Information, cogitation, verification (or not). That’s the game. I frequently take the liberty of simply ignoring anything I perceive to be embarrassingly incorrect. Not my job to educate people.

    They’re right, you really are very, very young, aren’t you? Lucky you. [ /rowley birkin qc]

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Just to restate my policy here again, but I don’t moderate comments for anything other than spam and I have never banned a commenter (as much as I’d like to sometimes). The free exchange of ideas is what tests their validity.

    I encourage women to participate here because it exposes them to the same red pill ideas that enlighten men, and when they disagree (sometimes vocally and irrationally)the often further reinforce a point I or someone else was making.

    I will never run off any commenter from this blog, even my haters, because more often than not their ignorance helps prove a point. I like that Anna and Kate and other women participate, because it gives guys a testing ground to see the female reaction and their thought process.

    Unfortunately the price of this open exchange often leaves people with bruises. I’m not asking anyone to be polite, but just understand what you’re getting into when you comment.

  • itsme

    wha, that’s it?? anna how come you didn’t use the testosterone powerups to level up your butthurt shield?

  • misterinfinite

    Feminists are able to maintain their leeching grasp on our culture because they have taken control of the emotional components of certain words. Everything is spun in their favor. It gives them that much more power over controlling the cultural narrative, while utterly neutralizing criticism.

    http://welcometothelifestyle.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/ideological-linguistic-prescription/

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 6,000 other followers

%d bloggers like this: