A little over fifteen years ago my wife was pregnant with Bebé Tomassi. For most of her adult life Mrs. Tomassi has been a medical professional (radiology) so when she was knocked up she and her girl-friends at the hospital would take any free moment they got to sneak into the ultrasound room a have a peek at our gestating daughter. As a result we have about 4 times as many ultrasound pics as most other couples get. I actually have images of Bebé as a multi-celled organism.
It was during one of these impromptu scannings that we discovered what gender our child would be. We were both more than a bit impatient and didn’t want to wait for the silly build up the OBGYN would make of revealing her gender, so we hit up a girl-friend of my wife to do another ultrasound around the right trimester.
She scanned for a bit and said, “Oh yeah, you’ve got a girl.” We asked how she could be so sure and she said, “Her hands aren’t in the right place.” We were like WTF? Then she explained, “Almost always when the baby is a boy his hands will be down around his crotch once he’s matured to a certain phase in the pregnancy. There’s not much to do in there, so they play with themselves. Your daughter’s hands are usually up around her face.”
After hearing this, it was at that point I began to appreciate the power of testosterone. Whenever I read someone tell me sex isn’t really a “need”, I think about how even in the womb the influence of testosterone is there. For better or worse, our lives as Men center on our capacity to control, unleash, mitigate and direct that influence. Socially we build up appropriate conventions intended to bind it into some kind of uniformity, to prevent the destructive potential and exploit its constructive potential – while personally we develop convictions, psychologies and internalized rules by order of degree to live our lives with its influence always running in the background of our subconsciousness.
Experience
Women become very indignant when trying to understand the male experience. This is due in most part to women’s innate solipsism and their presumption that their experience is the universal one. Part of this presumption is due to social reinforcement, but that social presumption – essentially the equalist presumption – is rooted in women’s base indifference to anything external that doesn’t affect them directly and personally. If everyone is essentially the same and equal, and we’re acculturated to encourage this perspective, it leaves women to interpret their imperatives and innate solipsism to be the normative for men.
So it often comes with a lot shock and indignation (which women instinctively crave) when women are forced, sometimes rudely, to acknowledge that men’s experience doesn’t reflect their own. The reactive response is to force-fit men’s experience into women’s solipsistic interpretations of what it should be according to a feminine-primary perception of what works best for women. On an individual woman’s level this amounts to denial and rejection of a legitimate male-primary experience through shame or implied fem-centric obligations to accept and adopt her experience as his responsibility. On a social level this conflict is reflected in social conventions and feminine-centric social doctrines, as well as being written directly into binding laws that forcibly enact a feminine-centric perspective into our social fabric.
Feminine solipsism and the primacy of the female experience superseding the male experience begins with the individual woman (micro) and extrapolates into a feminine primary social construct (macro).
Virtually every conflict between the sexes comes back to the rejection of the legitimacy of the male experience. As I’ve stated in the past, for one sex to realize their own sexual imperative, the other sex must sacrifice their own. In virtually every dynamic I’ve ever written about the fundamental lack of understanding the male experience influences women’s perception of our sex. Whether it’s understanding our sexual impulse, our idealizations of love, or appreciating the sacrifices men uniquely make to facilitate a feminine reality, the disconnect always distills down to a fundamental lack of appreciating the legitimacy of the male experience.
It would be too easy a cop out to simply write this disconnect off as an existential difference. Obviously men and women cannot spend time in each other’s skin to directly appreciate the experience of the other. However, since the Feminine Imperative is the normative one in our current social makeup the presumption is that a feminine directed ‘equalism’ is the only legitimate experience. Thus the masculine experience is, by default, delegitimized, if not vilified for simply reminding the feminine that inherent, evolved sexual differences challenge equalism by masculinity’s very presence.
I reject your reality and replace it with my own…
Men just being men is a passive challenge to the feminine imperative; red pill awareness is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a feminine primary experience. It’s important to recall here that the primacy of the female experience begins on the personal level with an individual woman and then exponentially multiplies into a social (macro) scale. When you assert yourself as a red pill Man, you are asserting your disconnection from that feminine-primary frame. This begins on a personal level for a woman, and then extrapolates into a social affront for all women.
The initial shock (and indignation) is one of interrupting her comfortable, predictable expectations of men in the feminine defined, solipsistic reality she experiences for herself. As even the most rookie of red pill Men will attest, the legitimate female experience rejects this assertion, most times with an amount of hostility. As expected, Men are met with the socially reinforced, prepared responses designed to defend against attempts to question the legitimacy of the primacy of the feminine experience – shaming is often the first recourse, even most passive challenges warrant shaming, but character assassination and disqualifications based upon a feminine primary perspective are the go-to weapons of the solipsistic nature of the feminine mindset (even when men are the ones subscribing to it).
The next weapon in the feminine psychological arsenal is histrionics. Aggrandized exaggerations and overblown straw man tactics may seem like a last resort for women to the man attempting to rationally impose his red pill, legitimized, male experience, but know histrionics for what they are – a carefully design, feminine-specific and socially approved failsafe for women. In the same vein as a Woman’s Prerogative (women can change their minds) and the Feminine Mystique, female histrionics are a legitimized and socially excusable tactic with the latent purpose of protecting a woman’s solipsistic experience. She’s an emotional creature and your challenge to her ego only brings out the hysteric in her – it’s men’s fault that they don’t get it, and it’s men’s fault for bringing it out in her by challenging her solipsism. And thus is she excused from her protective histrionics at men’s cost.
It’s important for red pill Men to understand what their presence, much less their assertions, mean to the feminine; their very existence, just their questioning, represents a challenge to individual, ego-invested feminine solipsism. Always be prepared for the inevitable defense of a woman’s solipsism. Even in the most measured approach, you are essentially breaking a woman’s self-concept by reminding or asserting that her experience is not the universal experience. There’s a temptation for red pill Men to get comfortable with a woman’s who accepts red pill truths, only to find that her solipsism has only accepted the parts of those truths that its comfortable with and benefits from. That solipsism doesn’t die once she’s acknowledged the legitimacy of your experience, anymore than your sexual imperative dies if you accept her experience as the legitimate one.
September 12th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Well said, Rollo.
This is why I don’t put any stake in women telling men to “man up”. If men are, say, choosing not to get married, they are doing so for their own reasons they’ve arrived at as men.
That’s exactly what a man does when he exercises his self-determination, he IS manning up.
Crazy how they try to make something into its opposite, and how many people they actually manage to convince.
September 12th, 2013 at 5:02 pm
@Stingray
… and that’s really all that’s necessary. Men are not looking down on you for being under-educated, lacking IQ, or being under-informed as to the ways of the world. They’re not. Your value to men does not suffer for not understanding calculus. However, a man’s value does suffer for being stupid. That fact alone should tell you something. It should tell you that the male experience is vastly different based solely on the fact that men are kept on their intellectual toes by other men far more often than you are. So when it comes to the area of experience and intelligence, you’re already suffering from a stacked deck. Men will still value you when you say stupid shit, they will also ignore your intelligence as well; because of these facts, men *will* value the experience of men more because men are constantly tested against other men.
If you’re going to step into the sphere of male influence you have to have your ducks in a row, you can’t do it half-heartedly. Just as women would (and should) laugh at me if I ever tried to make myself look like a 20-year-old high-SMP-value female and wield that side of societal power, men will chuckle at you if you venture opinions and insight based on your experiences in an effort to influence them. It is not as if your experiences are entirely worthless, but they hold significantly less value to men because the male experience is different (as this entire post by Rollo tries to illustrate).
If you’re a high IQ woman, seeking to influence men with words, this would understandably be frustrating. But you have to remember you’re not playing to your strengths at all by trying to use your high IQ to reason with men. That doesn’t mean that no man will ever value your ability to reason. Quite the opposite actually. When it comes to making life-decisions, if the woman he is with can see reason that means he’s not dealing with an emotional child. Better still, if the woman has a high IQ, she’s likely not putting herself into horrific debt before she gets married (which is very important to men). Conversely, women generally don’t value the physical nature of a man as much as men value it in women. Women generally ignore whether or not a man is in shape as long as he has influence, money, and authority. However, if as a man I let my body go, well then I’m far less useful to the woman because I can no longer lift heavy things for her, can’t work as hard to improve her quality of life, and will more likely be a health burden on her later in life. She’ll be upset with me for letting myself rot, and she would be right to be upset with me. These secondary aspects between the sexes do have value to the opposite sex, but they’re of complementary value, not primary.
Women do not influence men with appeals to reason, never have. Women influence men with their vaginas. Prohibition started and stopped in fits for years before women literally banded together and started forbidding access to their reproductive parts for men who went to saloons. When that happened, suddenly men cared about banning alcohol and breaking the backs of the saloon lobbies. This power is not unlimited. Obviously if your demands are totally unreasonable you can expect to be kicked to the curb. But just never forget that that is where your main tool of influence lies.
Some women do it, *some* women literally bridge the gap and compete and thrive with men at men’s (complementary, not necessarily superior) level. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. But look at what Margaret had to give up to do so. She basically wasn’t anything remotely close to a feminine woman. I doubt she *ever* used access to her reproductive capabilities as an influential tool. She took the time to learn the game men play and played it reasonably well herself. How did she do this? Probably through nothing more than a lot of hard work. Do you want to work that hard and sacrifice that much to compete with men on the plane of male influence when you could just influence men in other ways for which you were born with advantages? I would never think less of you for choosing to play to your strengths.
September 12th, 2013 at 6:09 pm
@ Furious Ferret
SSM et al seem to be holding to a modified version of NAWALT, which concedes that MOST women are indeed “like that”… but not Mary, nor her daughter, nor their wives (or hypothetical future wives as the case may be). For example, “tingle addicted sluts” may get aroused by PUAs running game or the water cannon guy from SSM’s story, but real women of quality would NEVER go for anyone like that. No, they just want REAL MEN with Christian virtue, and they don’t like being “objectified”, and they don’t find mischievous “water cannon” guy’s behavior arousing in the slightest…
The hierarchy must be policed at all costs I guess.
September 12th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
The problem SSM has is she doesn’t want to accept that tingle addiction is ‘factory installed standard hardware’ for human females – herself included. Her daughters are the result of that tingle addiction.
She chomps at the bit whenever I reminder her that God and evolution have us hardwired the way we are, but for her to confront that she thinks it means abandoning her convictions, I’m saying it doesn’t. In fact I think it’s personally damaging to pursue this constant denial and insulation from how we’re made.
The discomfort she and other christians have with this conflict is EXACTLY the reason she asks the question ‘are christian guys pansies?’ Yes, they are because they deny that this is the way they are made and replace it with unrealistic, and now utterly feminized, responsibilities of conviction.
Her daughters (and probably my own) will follow in the exact same footsteps as their mother – get turned on by the water cannon kid Alpha, lock him down for commitment and then “get right with God” and hope he follows suit after marriage and pregnancy.
She’s a post-facto christian who thinks what happened to her in the past has no bearing on reality. But rather than confront, accept and teach from that perspective, she’ll just call my wife a whore, giggle and move on to posts about baking cupcakes or something.
September 12th, 2013 at 8:55 pm
This is purely anecdotal, but I can speak some level of experience about Christian behavior – at least the behavior of college age students at a very conservative Church of Christ university…even good little, inexperienced Christian girls get the tingle. The difference is, they tingle on Saturday night, then go to church on Sunday, make the walk of shame to the front of the church to “confess their sins” and it usually would take them a about a month to start hangin’ the bad boys again (who were also in church on Sunday, but didn’t have the same guilt, therefore the same need to confess anything). I know, because I was one of the bad boys – from 1980 to 1984 – once again that’s just to say, that ALL females will tingle, how far they go with it is up them, and then they have to rationalize (or repent) afterwards.
September 13th, 2013 at 12:46 am
I’m willing to entertain the idea that most of SSM’s difficulty swallowing uncomfortable truths are actually a result of letting her faith replace her critical thinking, rather than the FI.
Not that that makes much difference.
September 13th, 2013 at 7:53 am
[…] Anonymous Reader: Is it just my mistaken impression, or do women as a group seem to have a real problem understanding the difference between “ought” and “is” ? “should be” and “are”? […]
September 13th, 2013 at 8:11 am
I was watching the choir chick-flick “Joyful Noise” last night and it’s a perfect example of female think. All the ugly women are beautiful inside and out, and God’s purpose can’t be questioned; everything that happens is supposed to happen.
For women and women minded men, reality can’t be swallowed unless should can be made equal to is. An almighty intercessor must intercede to give the authority of should to is, just to be able to start to come to grips with reality.
Women’s utopian thinking seems literally insane to men.
It’s too complicated for women to understand that describing reality is not recommending a reality. They “think” with emotions that tell them that the only allowable reality must be convenient and agreeable to them personally. And they take it as a given that reality is a social construct put together by wags.
As Rollo points out, for women the distinct male sexual/strategic experience does not exist, because it should not exist. Evo-psych does not exist. Fem-centrism is all of reality.
September 13th, 2013 at 9:13 am
Thank you, thank you, thank you,
I’d like to think I might have figured some of this stuff out, but it would have been useless at 90 years of age.
The stuff about feminine love is so obvious in retrospect that it’s embarrasing. Your arguments smash the case that deep emotions are female territory.
You’ve got a great line in logical argument construction which presents a winning case in concise steps, all the more surprising in that that skill set normally belongs to guys who don’t figure girls.
Only problem now is that I’m indebted, personally. Flinging some cash at your hound charity doesn’t really seem to cut it.
September 13th, 2013 at 11:13 am
Welllll,..the book IS going to drop this month,…
but my racers need the help.
September 13th, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Ah, shit….just getting caught up. Who the hell ever heard of Sunshine Mary…
September 13th, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Mr. Tomassi wrote:
Incredible. “Man”-o-sphere as soap opera. Your investment in personality over substance is feminine. One personal dig and you are writing a brand new theory about “red pill women.” You imbue your work product with pique, and it shows. Unfiltered amateur spew.
Yeah, your secular missionary shtick wasn’t fooling us. Christians understand what you are better than you understand what Christianity is.
The whole Women Tingle For Evil is not incorrect. It’s just basic. It is intersexual relations 101, asked and answered on the first day of the first class in Sunday School. It is literally in the third chapter of the first book of the Bible, right after the creation of the universe and of man.
So it goes like this, roughly. I. The Beginning of Time. II. The Dawn of Man. III. Female Perfidy.
Tell us something we don’t know, Mr. Enlightenment.
You inaugurated the personal references in her post. You strutted in to tell her what’s what about her daughter, posting some inane Gospel According to Danzig youtube video, as if that weren’t the very subject about which she originally posted.
You combine clueless incomprehension with the idea that you have a thing or two to teach poor, benighted rubes — and every churchgoer by definition is a rube to you. It’s a tautology, and you are too dumb-arrogant to recognize the circularity of your evangelistic fervor.
Mrs. Sunshine has an excuse for being overinvested in personal dynamics, for fixating on slights, for making mountains out of molehills, for conflating abstractions with drama: She is a woman. What’s yours?
Matt
September 13th, 2013 at 1:42 pm
I guess the moralistic long con with Feministix isn’t bearing the fruit you thought it would ‘eh Matt?
Then again I guess it’s hard to get any traction with her when you’re competing against Army Ranger boyfriends and lesbian stripper girlfriends, right?
Welcome back.
September 13th, 2013 at 2:10 pm
For the love of Pete, both of you, shut up! Or I will reach through this screen and clonk your heads together. And don’t think I won’t do it! And then I’ll send the footage to the Discovery Channel for their special on “When Bitches Attack” if they don’t already have enough material from SSM;) Then, maybe- just maybe- we all behave like adults and try to get along again.
September 13th, 2013 at 3:19 pm
The reason women don’t believe things like the SMV chart is because it doesn’t reflect their current reality. Given how much the dating market has swung in women’s favour over the last few decades, i don’t believe that women in their 30’s now are going to have the same drop off in terms of options that the previous generations did. I have been working around women in their 30’s and 40’s for the last few months and i see ZERO signs of panic in any of them. You can say it’s just denial, and i’d really like to believe it is, but i’m not sure that is simply the case anymore.
Women always have options, and that’s the thing that kills me personally. There are always desperate guys that will take women their own age or older and it isn’t just low status ‘losers’ anymore either. I WISH it was the case that men with ‘good jobs’ were only chasing younger women but i see very little evidence of that where i live.
I accepted a few long time ago that it’s difficult for me to complete in this current SMV so now i only date foreign women, mostly from Europe and Asia. Women in the Anglosphere are very unforgiving of male flaws, especially physical ones, and it’s just much easier to hook up with a women that wasn’t born in that part of the world.
September 13th, 2013 at 9:47 pm
Rollo touched on something I dislike about mainstream Christians
As a Christain, one of my many beefs with Christians is the negative spin many of us put on things like our sex drive which has been programmed into us by the Alimghty. They do this with pride, anger and a boat load of other good masculine qualities. By in large, pastors, priests, theologians are terribly weak and fearful men. They fear masculinty as created by the Creator and want men to be more like them ie women. Being basically women, they are squashed in solipsism, and experts at deception and manipulation of words.
September 13th, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Rangers lead the way.
September 14th, 2013 at 2:23 am
For fuck’s sake. Someone in the MS must FINALLY call this out. I guess it will be me—I’m willing to take the flack. I love Rollo. The dude is awesome. The fact that he has figured out what I am about to explain on his own individual observation is simply outstanding. He gets NOTHING but my applause. However, there is MUCH more to the story than what his astute observations reveal.
Let’s all grow up, please. The females of our species did not just one day wake up and scream, “Go, girl!” No, it was funded. By international banks. Through tax-free foundations. This is ALL in the FUCKING CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS. I have personally read the actual documents… not ONLINE, but in an actual congressional library record depository… there are six of them around the country… do the math. I have PHYSICALLY held the congressional records in my hand that lay it ALL out. I have read these documents in physical black and white PRINT—bound paper. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, but they exist, nonetheless, in physical black and white print, on library shelves. I HAVE PHYSICALLY HELD THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS IN MY HANDS… and oh, what more I could share with you (feeding uranium pills to Air Force wives, opening mail (in the 70s), etc.) But, today, we will stick to matters relevant to the MS.
Look, gentlemen, the entire reason that the MS exists, is because certain parties made a conscious decision to destroy men of the West. To destroy them as the heads of their households. To destroy them as heterosexuals. To destroy their very creator-given instinct to fight for their own survival. A conscious decision was made to sap them of their very WILL to live. Why? To weaken them so that they might be conquered. It’s called psychological warfare. Turn the females against the males. Divide and conquer. This is warfare, as it has been waged for millennia, only now it is waged GLOBALLY through concentrated ownership of the mass media. To pretend for one second that this percolated from the ground up is pure folly. FEMALES ARE NOT CAPABLE OF THAT. Males did this. Males who want to destroy YOU.
Like me or not, before you scoff at me (or lol me), I beseech you all to perform a minimum of due diligence. Research the CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS. Get your fucking hands on them. It’s all there. I applaud all of Rollo’s (and other’s) efforts in fighting this, but it’s time for the MS to grow up and begin hacking at the root, rather than merely the branches. Love you Rollo, but please, dig deeper. Do some research. Start, I don’t know, maybe in the congressional records. Trust me: what you find will lend HEAVY credence to your ebook, more, I think, than, at this point in your research, you can begin to comprehend.
I disagree with nothing you purport. However, I beseech you to dig deeper. Your analysis is BACKWARD. It is NOT micro to macro. It is macro to micro. It is massive fiat printed out of nothing funds trickling down to hundreds of millions of little insignificant childish brains. I’m all for fighting against the micro, upwards. But, if we ever want to gain real traction, we must also fight from macro, downwards.
If we can get the MS to get a sense of where this bullshit is REALLY coming from, so that we can hack at the root, then maybe we stand a chance. So long as we continue hacking at branches, we stand no chance.
I’m not going to spoonfeed you, but I beseech you to please do the research. This is not my opinion. It’s in the congressional records, for you to read, in black in white. I’ve held the black and white print in my grubby hands. Please, brother, take this step, and raise your mission to the next level.
An admirer,
avd
September 14th, 2013 at 3:29 am
Shall I go out on a limb and suggest that the mental attitude of women has to do with neoteny – or the closer resemblence women have to children. Physically AND mentally. If you look at children, they have an innate solipsism and view themselves as having less agency in an environement which they have little control over. Children tend to be more self absorbed and self centred too – because their “ego” hasn’t yet “separated” from their sense of being part of a bigger whole containing other people. Funny thing is that men tend to find more neotenous women more attractive. Women with more male characteristics (including mental characteristics) are viewed less positively by men – which means, in this age of independent mate selection, that even more immature and solipsitic women will be selected for breeding, at the expense of more mature and less solipsitic ones.
September 14th, 2013 at 7:49 am
“Funny thing is that men tend to find more neotenous women more attractive.” I have found that when I slip into something akin to this from time to time, it creates much bemusement. So much so that I have said: “I’ve been doing it all wrong. Here I have been stupidly being smart when I should have been smartly being stupid!”
September 14th, 2013 at 11:19 am
@avd
Keynesian economics depends on women, yes? 80% of our economy is dependent on consumers. Women do most of the consuming and purchasing in this country. I think what you’re getting at is our economic and monetary system is designed to be dependent on the loose spending habits of women, rather than frugal men saving.
If this what you’re saying, I agree. At its root, our problems as a society are economic.
September 14th, 2013 at 12:03 pm
@Donttreadonmatt,
I appreciate your comment. Economics is but a tiny sliver of the real issue. The banks PRINT money out of nothing. It’s NOT about money for them. It’s about control and domination. The ULTIMATE AMOG, for those of you who subscribe to such concepts. GBFM is very much on the money in this regard, although even he doesn’t push his analysis to its logical conclusion.
Yes, the argument can definitely be made that this is all about pushing female consumers into the workplace to displace male jobs and increase their consumerism (see Aaron Russo interviews). But that doesn’t explain the vilification of white males (apologies to immigrants, but this is the war that our indigenous face… no slight to you… probably worse conditions whence you departed), or the INTENSE promotion of homosexuality.
Not to be disagreeable, but no, this is not about economics, at least not on the level that the MS could deal with it. As previously mentioned, the international banks, governed by the CLOSED sessions of the BIS, PRINT money. They did NOT fund feminism (Gloria Steinem was on CIA payroll) for economic reasons, in the traditional understanding of that concept. It’s a zero sum game with these psychopaths. They want to own, dominate, and destroy you and your loved ones. I know that sounds extreme, but do the research. They use fiat bologna money as a weapon to that end, NOT as a means to make money. They already “make” money by printing it. No, their printing presses are a weapon more insidious than physical weapons to rob you of your VERY life.
Do they steal your wealth through inflation, through dilution of your dollar units? Yes, they do. Incidentally, it’s illegal in corporate law for majority shareholders to dilute the holdings of minority shareholders through issuing shares (printing money). But that’s not the case in international currencies. Federal Reserve banks of the world (coordinated by the BIS in Switzerland) are legally allowed to dilute your whitey-tighties right of your ass, with no repercussions. And so, they do it, as we are all witnessing right now, writ large. How is your (or your parents’) portfolio holding up against this criminal onslaught? Not so well, I would imagine.
Now then, not to take Rollo’s blog off into the realms of finance and economics, what the hell does any of this have to do with the ‘feminine imperative?’ Well, these international banks, coordinated out of Switzerland, who print money out of nothing, with ZERO hard assets backing their fiat paper, don’t really need to hose you for your ‘money’, now, do they? They print the garbage. So why in the world would they fund feminism?
I’ll give you a really fucking simple answer: look at the MS. Look at all the BROKEN men therein. Look at all the angst. All the negativity. All the sniping and snarking. All the males who are unable to relate to other males without employing faux frame techniques. How would one ever possibly raise a unified male force to counter the money masters out of such a mélange of broken men. Damn near impossible, as is amply evidenced by all the sniping, snarking, and division in the MS. THAT IS WHY THEY FUND FEMINISM. While all these (engineered) omegas are fighting with each other in the pit, the money masters are fucking all of you, without you even noticing, because you’re too busy trying to fulfill your biological imperative to pass along your genes, which has been bastardized and grotesquely mutated through the funding of weaponized feminism via international banks via tax-free foundations.
Chateau had a post this week about the Cathedral re textbooks. Well, how the fuck do you think that weaponized toxin made it into those books for CHILDREN? From the ground up, randomly? Please. Study the textbook industry. Go to edgar.com and research which entities own which entities, and which (banking) entities own them. That weaponized garbage was placed there, in the same way that a mine is placed on a battlefield.
Again, everyone research WHENCE feminism and the “feminine imperative” actually derives, and then let us attack it at its source, rather than at the level of individual females in our lives, who are casualties of this campaign. At the end of the day, it’s the responsibility of a given population’s males to protect and defend their genetic legacy, as carried in the eggs of their females. To blame females for the results of a weaponized enemy campaign against them (really, against us) is cowardly, to say the least.
Females are not our equals; they are our charge. To cry and moan about their behavior under feminism is an abrogation of our duty to protect and defend our genetic legacy. Far better to seek out the root of our unhappiness, and ROUT IT THE FUCK OUT. Only then will our females belong to us once again, as they should, under natural law.
September 14th, 2013 at 2:33 pm
@Kate
The most attractive woman is the one who challenged you intellectually without it ever being apparent that you were being challenged until it was all over.
September 14th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
@Ton
I’m remembering lots of scripture from that part of my life:
— The meek shall inherit the earth
— Simon Peter said, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”
— The fear of the Lord is the instruction for wisdom, And before honor comes humility.
…I could probably fill Rollo’s comment section with relevant quotes..
It’s not so much any specific sect’s focus as it is the entire book is geared towards humbling people, which is very non-masculine.
September 14th, 2013 at 3:37 pm
“It’s not so much any specific sect’s focus as it is the entire book is geared towards humbling people, which is very non-masculine.”
The message is not to be a total reckless asshat. The message isn’t to act like a pussy.
This is the simple hierarchy of being for a guy:
Fluid ‘cool’ guy that is able to effortless be friendly and aggressive when the event calls for it -> Aggressive dickhead ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–> ‘nice guy’ who is submissive to the leaders.
The church is terrified of the asshole and will castrate men to be total beta simps to avoid creating any type of asshole.
The bible doesn’t advocate asshole because being an uncalibrated dickhead is a bad thing. Sure it’s way better in terms of rewards but the guy in the end is still a huge dick. Maybe people respect him more but they sure as hell don’t like him. However, being a ‘nice guy’ is worse. You aren’t liked or respected.
The real problem is that that to become the actualized man that is powerful yet chill require growing pains and they won’t let that happen.
September 14th, 2013 at 4:35 pm
I never said asshole or pussy. I said the book is geared towards humbling anyone and everyone. In fact, I stand by what I said ferret, I can’t see how your comment alters, amends or adds anything to what I said.
September 14th, 2013 at 5:15 pm
@avd
I think the real question everyone wants to know the answer to is: how does YaReally fit into this conspiracy?
(lol sorry Rollo!)
September 14th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
@punk
I think you do, actually. Based on your own comments over time, it is my belief that you are a textbook example of a casualty in all of this. You are fond of bashing the “Disney bullshit” view of things (paraphrasing). Have you ever actually taken the time to research who manages Disney, or who owns it? I didn’t think so.
You have found your inner fire (where ‘game’ begins) and a method by which to fight back (RSD), and I’m happy for you on that front. Good for you, truly. That’s not a swipe, but a sincere kudos. Two entire generations of males have been subjected to this bullshit, SINCE THEY WERE IN GRADESCHOOL, per Heartiste’s post. What fucking chance does a third grader have? None. This is a serious fucking issue, with which I think you will agree, based on your comments over time. Among that morass, YOU have managed to rise up to reclaim your malehood. Again, good for you, sincerely.
NOTICE that I have NEVER called you out for your content… I could care less. Yes, I’ve commented on it, but I’ve never called you out on it. Why? Because different males can arrive at different conclusions, based on a wide variety of factors. The only time and/or reason I’ve ever called you out are based DIRECTLY on your disrespect toward the wide spectrum of males in the community. That’s it. Lol Learn to respect others, and you will never hear from me again. It’s entirely possible to make your point without faux framing your position. Try it, I think you might just find it liberating… to not have to go through life framing your very creator-given existence.
September 14th, 2013 at 5:41 pm
Not to make this a religious thread, but it’s not the Bible, it’s the girly men who tell folks what the Bible says. King David, Abraham, Simpson, those men threw down hard, had multiple wives, drank, killed men, took what was their enemies stuff and made it theirs with none of the broken groveling preachers etc want from men now.
September 14th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Brilliant observation on neoteny, Not Carrie Bradshaw. Women who can act like adults deliberately act like children because men find signals of youth attractive. Hence baby voices and make-up.
Matt
September 14th, 2013 at 9:43 pm
I’ve viewed the manosphere as saving the world one man, and thus one family, at a time. I’m not an Alex Jones type, but I’ve started listening to him lately because he plays awesome bumper music and he’s fucking funny as hell, especially when mimicking members of the illuminati. If there is a conspiracy or not does not matter to each individual man and family, because how we respond to the world and its current difficulties is the same regardless.
I personally doubt that the NWO wants 5 billion people dead, with the remainder living under a neo-feudal totalitarian state. But my response to the world I live in is the same as those who believe in such conspiracies, so whatever man. We live in crazy times, as all others throughout history must’ve also felt, and we will always seek to understand why.
\m/
September 14th, 2013 at 11:12 pm
>> Ok, I’ll bite. Outside of the technicalities and artistry in knitting, what would I or any man be interested in precisely?
to make a garment.
it’s not women’s fault that you retained control of the (say for example) machine-shop universe; but allowed women to seize control of garment fabrication.
September 15th, 2013 at 4:14 am
I made an attempt to read all 600ish comments in the SSM article but even doing so it was dizzying. Reading this here and how others came away from it, it’s more dizzying. Strangers talking online through comment posts. That seems like it ought to give several points down automatically on the “take personally” basis.
I look more at projects. SSM and Dalrock have a project to apply red pill to shore up the efficacy of their value systems in a world that’s siphoned them off at every corner. It’s rear-guard work and odds of success are not looking favorable. As a non-believer it isn’t surprising that I disagree with a lot of what they write and their commenters write, but I don’t like testing ideological purity. Rather I put up front that their hearts seem to be in the right place. They think family is important and they think red pill can be applied to preserve it. Not sure it will work, but that isn’t stemming from nefarious motives and when the enemy is rolling over family in panzers you’ll take the detached conscript who shows up with a Mauser. I can’t say that for all the sites and bloggers we cite here. From time to time friends say sh*t, or let me down. If they are friend at all I assume we are past ideology. You have a friendship with a person, not with a person and his or her ideology. I guess if the friend makes ideology an obstacle well, that can break the relationship, but in my book it’s something I leave out till someone brings it in then you need to make it clear: “it’s our warm, affectionate friendship where you have someone like me who’s rock solid or the dank lonely tower of your ideology. Your choice. I’ll be fine either way.”
September 15th, 2013 at 5:32 am
““Funny thing is that men tend to find more neotenous women more attractive.” I have found that when I slip into something akin to this from time to time, it creates much bemusement. So much so that I have said: “I’ve been doing it all wrong. Here I have been stupidly being smart when I should have been smartly being stupid!””
Being smart is not a problem. Being smart AND thinking you are “special” for it is, for men and women. Humility is key, but it’s a value that has been obliterated from the face of the Western world. And this, again, relates to what avd is trying to say. But gaming blogs are very very focused on male/female dynamics, they don’t see the political world around it yet. Which is a shame, because the root of this evil is right there.
September 15th, 2013 at 6:54 am
September 15th, 2013 at 10:04 am
Women in societies where traditional gender roles are valued do not act so much like the women described in this blog post. For example, when I lived in S. Korea and Japan, on several occasions local women asked me to explain he principles of Western feminism. Upon doing so, the local women often responded with mocking laughter and comments such as, “Do American women think that way to justify their large weight gains?” or “Is that a tactic they use to try to rationalize their own selfishness?” Women in some societies still enjoy being feminine and respecting biological, natural gender-roles. Those societies, at least on that basis, are enjoyable to experience.
September 15th, 2013 at 2:19 pm
SSM’s hysterical reaction to Rollo’s post is probably a reaction to the events of her post about her daughters despite the mismatched dates. They are getting to that age and she suddenly realizes that they have the same drives as other young women. Her daughter is showing interest in the naughty boys, and that freaked her out. Her post on Christian men not being pansies and being truly attractive reads more like someone trying to convince themselves of something. If she can believe that the beaten, quivering lot in churches are attractive, then, by solopsism, so will her girls!
Unfortunately, she also drives away the men on her blog who have a set of functional testicles and some self respect. The loss of networking alone is unwise, let alone the men who are looking for a wife. Who knows who else has left that blog, who was of a mind to marry? Who left who knew a good man like that, and could have made the introduction, but now would not? She panicked, and lashed out, and she will have to face the consequences of that, and deal with them.
The Shadowed Knight
September 16th, 2013 at 12:04 am
Dear Rollo Tomassi,
I think prenuptials would make a good topic for you to write about. Read the first woman in this advice column. It’s unbelievably eerie how well your analyses explain this woman’s thinly-veiled M.O. and behavior
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-08/business/40430213_1_prenup-deal-breaker-marriage
September 16th, 2013 at 12:58 am
Couple words no one will probably read then I’ll be out.
First – thanks out to Mr.C for posting the Bill Burr link above and all the other snipets that links to. I’ve been doing heavy research/number crunching all day and ran that in the background, … much goodness.
Second – a few thoughts that may bear on l’affair SSM, whether they do or not I leave to you. I apply something I call to myself “the foxhole test”. The way the foxhole test goes is I ask myself if we were being shot at, are “you” a “we”, i.e.: are we likely in the same foxhole with me. Odds are, if you are American, Canadian, British or generally western, answer is: “we’re in a foxhole together mate, get used to it, here, have a smoke.”
Point is: there fellows who would be those shooting at us – and believe me – there are folks who would and will and then later after a pause, will again – we are in it together.
We. Are. In. It. Together. (fire away anti-cultural Marxists).
At least we are in something together. Complete and total strangers, but we are united by this thing. And if you don’t know or understand what that thing is that unites us, I can guarantee this:
The people shooting at you do.
So it’s a good idea to figure out what it is that bonds us, to recognize that it transcends male and female, race and ethnicity, and among allies who don’t always like each other but are allies just the same, it transcends nationality.
So when people pass the “foxhole” test they get a different standard. I tolerate dissent. I express my own dissent in terms that make clear my good will and good faith. I understand that it was a wise person who coined the words:
“loyal opposition”.
We have blind spots, because we are human, and we are in need of one another to point out each other’s blind spots so we don’t lose our way. And we do … every one of us … lose our way from time to time.
Asian cultures refer to the term of “saving face” because it is felt that when you do something that causes someone else to “lose face” that it is as if you are tearing claws across their face … not only injuring them, but scarring and uglifying them. It is a terrible offense.
The concept is almost too strong, but it is instructive. One of the two reasons I find Manboobz/Futrelle so particularly objectionable is that he seems to be so comfortable in his smug safety that he is utterly devoid of consciousness to the fact that he has made it his business to deface …
… De – face …
… people who, however misled or chauvenistic or crass or bipolar or whatever … are nevertheless people who have no more choice than he who it is they are bonded with. The bullets will fly at us together. Good idea, when the bullets aren’t flying, to recognize who’s in the foxhole with you.
September 16th, 2013 at 9:44 am
“You have a friendship with a person, not with a person and his or her ideology” from @Case
I have a life long friend, we met in Kindergarten (and yes, that was a long time ago) and remained friends our entire lives. We have times where we see each other often, then, there might be times when we only see or talk to each other every few months. But regardless, when we catch up or talk, it is from a place of heartfelt friendship on both our parts.
BUT, he and I share almost no common views on almost any topic. He is a die-hard republican, I’m a dis-interested independent; he is a bible thumping Christian, I have my doubts about the whole thing (not that God exists, or that Christ died for the sins of the world, but how hypocritical most modern Christians are today); he is a card carrying NRA advocate, I don’t know that a normal citizen really needs anti-tank or armor piercing bullets and a tank (but you can have as many guns as you want); you get the point – we could spent every minute we have together debating and arguing – spending intellectual capital on trying to convince the other how wrong they are and how they should believe what we do.
But we don’t. We agree to disagree and then start talking about our common interests, what’s going on in other lives, etc. and so on. Our friendship is not based upon our individual ideologies, it is based upon our commonalities.
Just wanted to thank you Case for making that point.
September 16th, 2013 at 11:07 am
I’ve gotten really weary of late.
I’m disappointed in some of the influential women in the manosphere, and some of the male Christians who operate at the sphere’s fringes but employ its language and basic concepts. There’s a basic failure to acknowledge and appreciate the gravity and depth of the problems we face, or even to acknowledge them as problems worthy of solutions. Men come to this corner of the internet with real problems about sex, dating, pregnancy and divorce. Men also come here because they’re hurting and confused and afraid. At first they need a bit of understanding. But at bottom these men come here because they need answers and help to piece their lives back together. Or they need to learn how to improve so as to get what they want from relationships. Or they need to learn to redirect their lives away from sex and women for whatever reason.
But what are the messages from some of the women in and around the ‘sphere, and from some male Christians? Men are inveterate whiny bitches for going their own way. Misrepresentation and distortion of male bloggers’ positions, followed by doubling down and pressing the misrepresentation and distortion even further. Men wanting sex and simply following their hard-wired imperative is denigrated and sneerily dismissed as a “fixation on the male sex drive”. Women should marry for money.
Married men must learn to do without sex from their wives. Married men will just have to die on that cross and procreate with wives who hate them and have treachery in their hearts. Dogged, inexplicable refusal to accept the simple, easily observable fact of women’s constant and consistent access to sex and marriage whenever they want it.
The consistent thread running through this is a refusal even to acknowledge the existence of the sexual experience of the average male in the West.
Instead of offering help, some male Christians sit back and offer nothing but Pharisaical platitudes and cryptic statements. They participate on threads intended for advice, but then when pressed, deny they are offering advice. They claim it is “insane” to offer advice, yet continue to pop off, contributing nothing but further confusion. If we’re Christians, then offering advice in love is the least we can do for these men. If we’re Christians we should be seeking to help, REALLY help; not quoting scripture and telling these men they just need to learn to excuse their wives’ disobedience and disrespect. If they aren’t going to help, then the least these Christian men could do is remain silent.
The lack of straightforward argumentation technique is particularly maddening. Disagreement is labeled “goalpost moving” or “insult” or “slander”. Particularly forceful argumentation by men is called “venting” or “ranting” or derided as “whining”. In attempt to drive home the points, what was ACTUALLY said is ignored in favor of what the reader BELIEVES was said. The “offending” statement is first misstated; then outright distorted. Then the “offending” statement is restructured again and again, changing this word slightly here, restating and ever so subtly altering the opponent’s original premise there, until the discussion is led far afield from the original premise. When the argument is lost, out trots the “you’re so angry!” and “you’re just a bitter loser who can’t get laid!” shaming language.
I’m beginning to believe that in terms of discussion on the internet, where it is still mostly anonymous, candid and explicit, not much is going to be accomplished with men and women together discussing intersexual relationships. I saw this at HUS and I’m seeing it elsewhere – when men talk about things bluntly and forcefully and without regard for feelings of others (as they are wont to do), the women are horrified by it. When confronted with a man’s raw pain in a difficult situation, they recoil in pearl clutching, gasping disbelief; or they spout platitudes. Or they respond with red-eyed rage when confronted with the manner in which men see sex and intersexual relationships.
I’ve been part of this community for 2 ½ years now, discussing these issues with both men and women. And we’re still no closer to any understanding than we were when I first got here. Women still shake their heads from side to side when I point out the irrefutable truth that all but the most unattractive women can get sex whenever they want it. Women still deny the statistics showing that despite the rampant sluttiness and premarital sex they engage in, the vast, vast majority of them will still be able to find a man somewhere willing to wife them up when they’re done on the carousel. Women STILL cannot wrap their minds around just how important sex is to men. Even the Church demonizes male sexual desire and conduct. A man simply should not marry unless the woman he’s thinking about marrying is strongly sexually attracted to him. But in seeking men for marriage, many, many women seem good at faking even strong sexual attraction to an inexperienced man.
To those who say this is pitting women against men and vice versa; and we should be focusing on “what is right” according to Christ’s teachings, I say – I fully agree. We should focus on “what is right”. But to do that we would have to do away with the Churchianity that infects our churches. And most of these men are incapable of, or simply do not care about, bringing “what is right” to these men’s levels, meeting them where they are. I’m concerned that exhortations to do “what is right” are simply thinly veiled “Man up!” shaming.
“Man up and DO WHAT IS RIGHT!”
“Man up and marry the slut!”
“You’re married to a treacherous wife who hates you and is using you; but you need to man up and make a baby with her!”
“Man up and admit that women can love, even though you never said anything to the contrary!”
“Man up and stop going your own way! You’re just being a whiny bitch pussy!”
Frankly I’m starting to wonder whether any good at all is coming out of these intersexual discussions . There are none so blind as those who will not see; none so deaf as those who refuse to hear. I’m starting to think men simply shouldn’t discuss these things with women at all. It’s not conducive to learning or to self-improvement. It generates only argument and discord. And in the end, all that can be done, all that can be hoped for, is that a man or woman out there somewhere will read this and will understand the pack of lies that have been fed to them; and hope to get better.
September 16th, 2013 at 1:08 pm
@Deti
Hence Rollo’s post here.
I don’t think it’s quite as desperate as you may feel it is Deti. I think SSM is a shocking example of the rapidity with which the FI will re-assert itself in a woman, even someone who has spent significant time trying to understand. I agree there’s plenty more examples of SSM’s reaction last week in other women involved in the manosphere.
However, consider where these women are coming from. We’ve had 3-5 generations of women now in the developed world who were never warned about the treacherous nature of the female by their religion. It used to be part-and-parcel of lecturing your followers for a preacher to explain the negative side of both men and women. But discussing the negative side of the female fell out of favor a long time ago. And that’s just for those who are involved in mainstream Christianity. I think it’s highly likely that for the atheist crowd, until this grouping of blogs came into being, they *never* explored female nature. Atheists are usually bought-and-paid-for strict egalitarians. We’ve probably had 200-300 years of no one explaining to women that their own human nature can be deceitful, unjust, and selfish. By contrast men are constantly reminded of their evils, constantly. I’m a white male so I am responsible for slavery, I am responsible for chinese immigrant railroad deaths, I am responsible for WW1, I am responsible for WW2, I am responsible for nuclear weapons, etc..etc…etc…
Women today simply do not believe they have a bad side, a side that is BAD for men. They don’t want to believe it. They’ve been raised without any concept that anything they innately do can be so wrong, and they’ve been constantly bombarded with everything that is wrong with men. They’re literally spoiled brats, even the GOOD ones can turn spoiled brat and deny that the bad parts of their own basic nature exist.
I think, Deti, that you have to at least consider that when it comes to convincing women of the legitimacy of the male experience and the reality of the negative sides of female nature… That not only is it an ultimately impossible task (on a societal level) as many in this post have said, but it’s likely we’ll never see any progress in our lifetime simply based on the stacked deck we’re dealing with.
September 16th, 2013 at 1:51 pm
I’ve been reading around a lot of the smaller blogs by some really delightful, introspective people and there seems to be a lot of conversation about dating and how it should work and what men and women are looking for, etc. What I don’t see a lot of are dating journals or any evidence really that people are even trying to date. Nobody wants to fail, but if you aren’t willing to try, willing to err, it isn’t going to just miraculously happen that your dream soulmate shows up on your front porch in a puff of smoke. The way men and women could probably help each other the most is through coaching.
September 16th, 2013 at 4:41 pm
@deti
I heavily agree with your whole post.
“I’m beginning to believe that in terms of discussion on the internet, where it is still mostly anonymous, candid and explicit, not much is going to be accomplished with men and women together discussing intersexual relationships”
I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: one of the big reasons the PUA community made so much progress in breaking down social dynamics so fast was that we didn’t have women in our community. Everything came down to logic and field experience. Even if you disagreed and fought with eachother, we all had the same common goal and we would put shit to the field test and find out who was right or wrong.
Contrast that to the manosphere where I’m over on Heartiste today like a dumbass explaining to the silly solipsistic “red pill women” there why their bad advice is bad and re-explaining red pill nuances that I KNOW most of the men there already understand. It’s such a waste of time and energy and quite frankly I’m retarded for even trying but good god the comment section is like 20 pages of Live Journal estrogen these days because now that the girls have been given validation of the label “red pill women”, they’re suddenly “experts” and need to share every detail of their lives feministx style.
Women are simply not capable of being red pill and they slow up progress for men because we have to spend an extra 10 pages explaining to them why they’re wrong and trying to convince them of something they never really wanted to accept in the first place, Aunt Giggles style.
There is nothing women can teach men about social dynamics because everything they believe is 1) solipsistic and 2) not necessarily how they will ACTUALLY emotionally react in the moment or how they’ve acted and backwards rationalized later.
At best all they can do, like Rollo described, is inadvertantly provid examples of what we’re talking about.
September 16th, 2013 at 5:41 pm
I’m disappointed in some of the influential women in the manosphere, and some of the male Christians who operate at the sphere’s fringes but employ its language and basic concepts.
Rollo really was prescient in this regard. I remember from day 1 he was correctly skeptical of the women claiming to be “red pill”. I remember thinking “No, some of these women get it”. Haha….in the end the solipsism is insurmountable.
I’m beginning to believe that in terms of discussion on the internet, where it is still mostly anonymous, candid and explicit, not much is going to be accomplished with men and women together discussing intersexual relationships. I saw this at HUS and I’m seeing it elsewhere – when men talk about things bluntly and forcefully and without regard for feelings of others (as they are wont to do), the women are horrified by it. When confronted with a man’s raw pain in a difficult situation, they recoil in pearl clutching, gasping disbelief; or they spout platitudes. Or they respond with red-eyed rage when confronted with the manner in which men see sex and intersexual relationships.
Yeah, I think that is correct. The evolution of HUS over time, with its final resolution in a “reboot” demonstrates the futility of intersexual dialogue, especially when substantive differences of opinion exist. Intersexual dialogue for women is a lot like Orwell’s Animal Farm. In the book, “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others”. Similarly, the default position of the feminine in intersex dialogue is we can have robust discussion of our various points of view and interests as long as you agree with my point of view and interests. I know at HUS that many fairly moderate commenters (such as BastiatBlogger) were given the permanent boot while only mangina bootlickers were allowed to stay as commenters.
The correct approach for all men is not to “convince” or “persuade” women of anything or any position. The answer is to learn how to communicate with women, have the right frame, etc. so that convincing is unnecessary. The other answer is to learn to walk away. When individual men essentially stop failing the shit test of accepting bad behavior, the bad behavior will stop, not when women are convinced of the bad behavior.
September 16th, 2013 at 6:08 pm
“The correct approach for all men is not to “convince” or “persuade” women of anything or any position. The answer is to learn how to communicate with women, have the right frame, etc. so that convincing is unnecessary. The other answer is to learn to walk away.”
Yes, I think that’s correct. The way to do this is to state one’s position, calmly and carefully, without emotion or bombast, and then sit back. If responses are warranted, provide them. If you’ve made your points, don’t respond further. This really is becoming too emotional for too many people, which is to be expected since the subject matter is the most intimate of any we engage with. It’s gets emotional for a lot of women confronted with the truth of their faults and sins. It gets emotional for men confronted with the fact that unless they improve, they just won’t have what it takes to get and keep a woman in this sexual and marriage market place.
September 16th, 2013 at 6:41 pm
Agreed. However, I would like to add that I think women’s entry into the manosphere and “red pill awareness” such as it is, is just another extension of women’s obsession with forcing themselves into “all-male spaces”.
It’s not that I can’t appreciate what women like Stingray do bring to comments threads, but for all of SSM’s handwringing about women feeling entitled to men’s space she and other “red pill” women are guilty of the same obsession.
While I can’t entirely agree with Vox’s take that ‘women ruin everything’ I will say that the FI by way of feminism forces itself into male spaces not from an earnest desire to participate in them, but rather as a means of controlling those spaces. This is exactly my concern when I refer to sanitizing the mesage.
September 16th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Interesting, I was thinking about the Three Laws of Robotics created by Isaac Asimov…
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
All you need to do is substitute “robot” for “man” and “human being” for “woman” and you get the following…
1. A man may not injure a woman or, through inaction, allow a woman to come to harm.
2. A man must obey the orders given to him by a woman, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A man must protect his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
Men are living in a perpetual state of Catch-22. And without the real help of other Men – that state of existence will drive create such mental and physical overload that we either snap or just sit down and give up. OK, I’ve said it before, women don’t need the Red Pill, it has no affect on them what-so-ever – but let’s drop that for a second – Men are in need of other Men – as Deti said, we come to this place for help (for whatever reason), but only robots can truly understand other robots, and only men can truly understand other men.
No matter how sympathetic a woman may be (for some, it may only be our mothers) they just can’t help. Our wives, our GFs, our significant others – they miss the point in so many areas – even if they desperately want to understand, they just can’t. And as many here have experienced in their own lives, if we actually reveal our emotions, how close we are to totally loosing it, how thin the ice really is – well, that’s the same moment that the crack appears and begins to grow.
I remember during the last few months of my marriage, the worst sound in the world was my (x)wife coming up the stairs, because I had no more answers, I had no more fight, I was defeated – the day she left, the only feeling I had was relief – because at that point, the only place I had to go was forward. That’s what she couldn’t understand, that I felt defeated within an relationship that all I wanted to do was support, love, respect and a complete “safe zone” from all the crap going on in the world around us. I fucked up by opening up – it will never happen again.
September 16th, 2013 at 8:23 pm
I nearly shed a tear over these comments. You beautiful bastards. There are certain spaces for males that are sacred, where certain ideas are shared and certain bonds are made. Women should never be able to set foot in them. For even if they are in full agreement, their mere presence changes the experience.
September 16th, 2013 at 8:34 pm
@Underdog…”For even if they are in full agreement, their mere presence changes the experience”
My sentiments exactly.
September 16th, 2013 at 9:42 pm
Well…
I’m convinced.
I’m going to start ignoring the women w.r.t. red pill.
September 17th, 2013 at 9:52 am
Rollo –
Is it possible to expose a hard-core blue-pill woman to red pill truths in a way that would validate the male experience? I have a friend who is the whole feminine matrix in a nutshell, and everything I say is wrong to her because I am a male. My life experience counts for nothing, because my world view is different from hers.
I don’t expect to change her mind. I just want to find some way to validate my experiences.
September 17th, 2013 at 10:41 am
@David R.
Why are you seeking validation from her?
September 17th, 2013 at 11:57 am
@avd
I agree with you in broad terms that the apex people of society (mostly male but a few females as well) have been and are very much in agreement with the changes that have happened in society and encouraging female independence in order to acquire more votes, more consumers, more labor, and (in the case of the top men) more pussy.
I would put the bigger and bigger level of gov’t spending (to replace the man as the provider in many cases), and misandrist laws and favoritism of females in the work place as bigger drivers than printing fiat currency and the printing of all the money is simply one tool of many to drive their ends…but it’s not the be all and end all. Printing lots of money does serve to increase the value of assets, and who holds most of the assets? The ultra rich. Also, huge gov’t debt to fund welfare states (that disproportionately benefit women) helps exacerbate things.
Underlying all this, however, is technology that can exploit readily available and relatively cheap energy, that has made the world incredibly rich when compared to 50, 100, 1000 or 10000 years ago. Said technology and energy have made the physical strength of men much less relevant–they do much of the hard work now (e.g. trucks, machines, combines) and are instrument to inflict violence (e.g. guns, drones, bombs).
So the underlying environment (tech and energy) have made it so that human physical force is irrelevant most of the time and then on top of this the apex powers have decided they want to exacerbate and amplify things by enacting and propagating misandrist levels of feminism and welfare and collectivism for the lower masses but huge profits for the ultra wealthy.
Basically, the apex people want to hog most of the resources for themselves and the apex men want to hog most of the pussy for themselves (speaking in broad strokes and some apex men may be focused more on power or money rather than pussy, and others may be focused primarily on pussy).
September 17th, 2013 at 2:02 pm
I think that the primary lesson of Game is that one needs to have a life and purpose that makes a man happy and determined to wake up every morning. Once a man takes control of his life, then a woman becomes an interchangeable part of it like anything else. The road to that state only lies through relentless self-improvement and the shedding of prior limitations. Otherwise, the same brutal cycle repeats itself.
September 17th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
As I’ve stated before, a woman should only ever be a compliment to a Man’s life, never the focus of it.
September 17th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
These are not “male spaces” to be preserved or invaded. These are anonymous fora in which the most basic criterion for male exclusivity — one’s sex — remains elusive to prove and (sometimes deliberately) obscure.
If you want to make a He-Man Woman Hater’s club, you will have to do more than fill out a WordPest questionnaire. Men’s clubs require some pedigree, a charter within the broader social milieu that goes beyond one protester’s preference to be surrounded by the same sex.
What’s amusing is that this idea has gotten legs among you because Rollo had a spat with some broad. You fellows do not possess the stuff to sustain, much less inaugurate, the venerability of an institution that could get away with strict membership criteria.
One sign of a “community” or “movement” in disarray is schisms over trivia. You become more and more cultish, heap more and more requirements upon membership, and refine your audience down to only the purest of the pure. A promising, lively project gathers new support and does not fixate on wedge issues. Your purity tests and constant complaining make your mission moribund, no matter what truth you may have to offer the world.
Matt
September 17th, 2013 at 7:07 pm
Thanks for the strawman, Matt. I hereby call this session of the He-Man Woman Haters Club to order. The first motion is to dissolve. The Club, do I have a second? The motion is seconded. Ayes? Unanimous, the Ayes have it. Motion passed, the He-Man Woman Haters Club is now disbanded, end minutes.
The Shadowed Knight
September 17th, 2013 at 7:58 pm
These are not “male spaces” to be preserved or invaded. These are anonymous fora in which the most basic criterion for male exclusivity — one’s sex — remains elusive to prove and (sometimes deliberately) obscure.
Huh? You really think there is a substantial number of women pretending to be men commenting?
One sign of a “community” or “movement” in disarray is schisms over trivia. You become more and more cultish, heap more and more requirements upon membership, and refine your audience down to only the purest of the pure. A promising, lively project gathers new support and does not fixate on wedge issues. Your purity tests and constant complaining make your mission moribund, no matter what truth you may have to offer the world.
Meh. I don’t know if this is a “mission”/”movement” that is moribund. The real strength of the movement is providing answers for guys who start to ask the right questions. To provide a paradigm, framework, and toolbox for how to interact with women in the real world to be “successful” however one personally defines that (being a supplicating chump would not be one). I don’t think there is some grand plan to remake society although I think the individual decision making of a number of men at the margin will have a sizable impact.
September 17th, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Matt fancies himself as a King Leonidas and always want to cast me as his hedonist Xerxes antagonist. It’s easier for him to wrap his head around overblown archetypes of antiquity he read about in the liberal arts colleges he purports to hate so much.
He thinks I’m a self styled cult leader, when in fact the social movement that is the red pill moved past a need for cult leaders a long time ago.
September 17th, 2013 at 10:16 pm
I think that where the focus needs to be is on the self. Are you getting stronger, smarter, more disciplined every day. How are you managing the tough situations in life? Are you forcing yourself to go the extra mile at work, in the gym, with your kids? I think that if those questions can be answered then the female issues are naturally resolved. A man in control of his life will bend his relationships to his will, including his wife/girlfriend/kids/colleagues.
Rollo has done a superb job of laying out the basic male/female psychology….in a way that I have never seen anyone do before. However, this knowledge should be used with positive effect to try to improve oneself….not rail against the evil of women. Anger and venting has never made anyone happier or more successful.
September 17th, 2013 at 11:10 pm
I do believe there needs to be a place for men to gather, but having it based upon virtual technology is really pretty silly. To have real affect, you’d have to see the Man eye-to-eye – you’d need to take time to get to know them. There used to be lots of Men-only clients – I believe there will be a swing back to that at some point.
As far as venting and anger go – hell, It thought that was why the internet was here. I can come on, hide behind my avatar – rant, vent, get pissy, use lots of four-letter-words, capitals, not punctuation. Relationships we build with people over the internet is like masturbation — it can provide a release, but it will never be as good as real, in the flesh, relationships with other Men.
And Matt – thanks for the swing and miss – once again, you are arguing with yourself, because you completely missed the point.
September 17th, 2013 at 11:58 pm
@Tin Man re: “he is a card carrying NRA advocate, I don’t know that a normal citizen really needs anti-tank or armor piercing bullets and a tank”
Ha, lol…infekindeeed
But otherwise yeah…to the bigger point, people who get it, live. Those who don’t get a cold dank tower of their own ideological making. Hats off to you & your bro. Friends aren’t cheap.
September 18th, 2013 at 8:16 am
@ David R.
First off, give some very serious consideration to Underdog’s question. Why is it important to you?
Second, if you decide that it is important you need to know two things. 1) A woman will only learn the things you wish her to know from a man she respects. 2) She won’t understand them unless she can feel them (the great majority of the time). You have to personalize it for her so she can actually feel it.
September 18th, 2013 at 8:19 am
Side Note: Realize that there are going to be certain things that you cannot ever make her feel and that she is never going to understand.
September 18th, 2013 at 8:22 am
@ donttreadonmatt
I agree with all that you said and would only add that not only are the children depending on the strength of that roof, but they are watching it intently so as to copy it for their own lives. Mom must respect Dad so Junior knows what to expect from his own wife. Mom must respect Dad so that Daughter knows how to treat her husband and all of this vice versa as well as daughters tend to marry men much like their fathers.
September 18th, 2013 at 11:51 am
While I really appreciate Rollo for his balanced views on marriage, I take umbrage at his labeling of women as solipsistic in ways he claims men are not. Here are some examples of male solipsism:
One in three children grow up in homes without their biological fathers.
40 percent of children whose fathers live outside the home have no contact with them.
70 percent of married men admit to cheating on their wives, compared to 50-60 percent of married women.
In 2010, men were responsible for four out of every five DUIs.
Men are much more likely to be incarcerated than women. Nearly 9 times as many men (5,037,000) as women (581,000) had ever at one time been incarcerated in a State or Federal prison.
Males committed the vast majority of homicides in the United States at that time, representing 90% of the total number of offenders.
Of children under age 5 killed by a parent, the rate for biological fathers was only slightly higher than for biological mothers. However, of children under 5 killed by someone other than their parent, 80% were killed by males.
Male murderers were most likely to use guns: 91% of gun-related homicides were committed by men.
Narcissists are more likely to be male (7.7%) than female (4.8%).
Sociopaths (aka individuals with antisocial personality disorder) are more likely to be male (3%) than female (1%).
September 18th, 2013 at 11:53 am
Oh, right…. lest I forget… that data is….all women’s fault, right? lol
September 18th, 2013 at 1:54 pm
@Ana Serene
You must be new here. Welcome.
September 18th, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Oh, and making a list of male-related data in faith that people who read male-related blogs are ignorant of them is a shining example of female solipsism.
September 18th, 2013 at 2:23 pm
That, i.e. your labeling without any cogent argument, makes absolutely no sense. I got that on another forum filled with misogynists. Command, communicate, control….
Anyway…I thought of another example. In my experience, the vast majority of charitable people, who volunteer their time, money, and energy, are female. Take a Board of Directors I sit on… we are all women and the volunteers at the organization, almost all 50 of them, are women.
Seriously, I honestly cannot understand how Rollo can accuse women of solipsism. Women are obviously socialized to be caregivers and to put others before themselves. (Also, he should really just say self-centered, as that is what he means.)
September 18th, 2013 at 2:40 pm
@Ana Serene
You seem to be confusing solipsism (the belief that your mind is the only true concept) with altruism/selfishness.
September 18th, 2013 at 2:51 pm
I know what solipsism is. I think Rollo is using the term as a euphemism for self-centeredness.
September 18th, 2013 at 2:52 pm
The women who post on sites like these under the auspices of NAWALT are all the same. They infiltrate male spaces and multiply to dilute it. They’re also being AWs.
They can’t help themselves.
I do agree with Rollo in that sometimes it serves as a good learning tool when they pretty much prove the intent of the site, whether or not they realize it.
As someone else mentioned, Red Pill women are an “oxymoron,” as they would cease to be women.
Women behave appropriately when they actually have to deal with consequences, nothing less can substitute this.
September 18th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
“Seriously, I honestly cannot understand how Rollo can accuse women of solipsism. Women are obviously socialized to be caregivers and to put others before themselves.”
lol, this is too easy.
September 18th, 2013 at 3:00 pm
@Ana Serene
I see you fed your hamster today. You might want to sit back and let the Men talk for awhile, you just might learn something.
Just as a side note, not all studies and stats are created equal. Some, in fact can present a point the researchers want to substantiate. Case in point, the “affair” study is self reported – meaning the you get to answer anonymously and traditionally, men will be more honest than women in those studies – although I don’t have “data” to back that up – I believe it to be true. And example of a possible hamster answer to the question – “have you ever had an affair?” – “well no, I had sex with that one man a couple times, but I didn’t really like him and besides, I was really mad at my husband at the time, besides, affairs last like years, I only had sex with a couple of those men a like one or two times. So I answered the question NO.”
So according the studies you cite…I’m an outlier…
(1) My (x)wife left/moved out and took my kids with her
(2) I support her and the kids, providing almost all the money she has, except for the small amount she makes via her jobs of selling or original art and being a fitness class instructor (she doesn’t have a full time job, the last one she had, she got quit because it was beneath her)
(3) She was the one that had an affair, first an emotional one that started via Tumblr, then a physical one — I on the other had did not have an affair
(4) I see my kids at least 4 or 5 times per week, I have attended almost all of their activities and events (she usually has something else to do)
(5) I’ve never laid a hand on her, although she has told family and friends that she was “scared that I would hurt her”
I could go on, but you get the idea.
And to your last comment about “Charity”…I don’t know, and have no “data” to back it up, BUT I imagine most of those woman have the free time to volunteer and their husbands provide the resources to allow it. So, maybe it’s a chicken-and-egg thing here, but potentially the time is theirs, but it really is created by the Man.
That’s it for me. I really hope you stick around and make the decision to actually learn something from this blog. There are concepts and thoughts, from both the posts and comments, that can provide insight(s) that most of us have never had before. But don’t expect to get a big huggie bear hug on anything geared towards Men – we don’t operate that way.
September 18th, 2013 at 3:00 pm
@Ana Serene
Your suspecting Rollo of implying self-centeredness then proceeding to make posts about self-centeredness without being truly assured of his intent was an example of female solipsism.
September 18th, 2013 at 3:11 pm
Crap, I should really proof read my comments before I hit POST …
@Underdog & @Rol … Hamster runs ’round and ’round and never makes any progress. And agree, although she is trying to make a point, and started off pretty good, citing actual research, she ultimately supported Rollo’s point more than her own. Never ceases to amaze me.
Later Gentlemen.
September 18th, 2013 at 3:22 pm
@ Underdog
You are funny.
Your assumption that I don’t understand the concept of solipsism is an example of male solipsism.
Your comment that my suspecting Rollo of implying self-centeredness then proceeding to make posts about self-centeredness without being truly assured of his intent was an example of female solipsism is an example of male solipsism.
I can play this game too.
September 18th, 2013 at 3:29 pm
“I can play this game too”
This is where I get off the bus. Have a nice ride to nowhere…
September 18th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
@Ana Serene
1st statement was reading comprehension fail on your part. When someone says “you seem to be…” that person is not making an assumption as to whether or not you actually are.
Your 2nd statement doesn’t make any logical sense. But perhaps you think it does due to your demonstrated inclination toward solipsism.
September 18th, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Same troll, different name.
September 18th, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Plain Jane? I never thought of you as serene…
September 18th, 2013 at 9:21 pm
This Ana chick is a perfect example of where we end up having to waste 10 pages explaining shit to a woman that she doesn’t get, doesn’t want to get, and couldn’t get even if she tried to.
VS 10 pages of discussion about something that will actually make progress and help other men. I’m not anti-women-in-the-community, but like I say, there’s a reason our “boy’s club” of PUAs skyrocketed game knowledge in such a short time…we didn’t waste time giving a shit if women approved of what we were saying lol
September 18th, 2013 at 11:51 pm
A woman’s solipsism is her only natural condition. Women’s base mentality is that of a weak dependent. Hence, the need for a man to always be in charge through a strong frame. A dependent can only see their own fragile world and does not have the strength to appreciate anything else. Hence, a woman, by definition cannot appreciate a man’s point view because she sees her own existence in such perilous terms that her anxiety simply overwhelms her. We cannot hope to get equals through relationships. We can only have fun complements while always remembering that we are the ones in charge and in control.
September 19th, 2013 at 8:01 am
One word. Irony. :)
September 19th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
I’m a little late to the discussion, but it’s funny to me that it totally escaped Sunshine Mary that her daughter may have taken a step back on purpose after I missed shooting her in the butt the first time.
September 19th, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Heheh
September 19th, 2013 at 2:47 pm
I agree with YaReally: trying to engage the hamster-troll here is a waste of resources.
But I also agree with Rollo: having women in the forum makes for a great demonstration of his points. Plain Jane (or whomever) is here to make pronouncements and feel good about herself for it; she’s looking for validation and attention, not to understand — which is made painfully clear by the fact that she doesn’t understand the concept of solipsism, and doesn’t ask any questions.
@Underdog: when a man says “You seem to be X” he is stating a fact about appearances. When a woman says “you seem to be X” she’s trying to tactfully claim someone *is* X.
September 25th, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Humanity consists of Men & Women. But I am surprised to know as to why most of the difficult and dangerous work is assigned to men.
When humans were developed in ancient land, search for food through hunting was a dangerous activity. Even in contemporary tribal societies, it has been found that almost 90% of the men die a violent death in search of food or security. This activity was given to men, and along with this activity the possibility of death. In middle ages, the only employment available was that of a soldier. Men were employed and died. I was just thinking as to why men accepted these dangerous works to do and opted for death, whereas women lived longer in the shelter of cave or home. In ancient days marriage was sacred. It was a divine right of a woman. It was also a divine duty of a man, to marry a woman, to discharge what is called “Pitri Rrin” (father’s debt). Marriage vow was unbreakable. Due to high mortality rate of men, and longevity of women; polygamy was moral and allowed.
The situation changed. With development of science and technology, our planet becomes a safer place to live. Employment becomes available outside military also. Women opted to work outside. I am surprised to find the smartness of human females- as long as working outside was dangerous, they preferred the safety of home and the moment it becomes safer to work outside home, they decided to work outside home. Same goes with marriage- now it becomes possible for a woman to live alone, without support of a man- divorce becomes acceptable and moral. The sacred marriage becomes a personal choice.
The smartness of womenhood does not stop here. They alleged that man has exploited women for thousands of years. They were not allowed to work outside home. They were kept in bondage in marriage. And surprisingly, many men believe this argument. To correct this historical wrong they are advocating various privileges to be given to women! This article is an attempt to examine the reasons of such manipulation of man.
There is a basic dichotomy between men and women. Men want sex. It is said that men think about sex every 55 seconds. On the contrary women do not want sex. In a recent book, Why Women have Sex (Cindy Metson & David Buss), the authors say,
“Research has shown that most men find most women at least somewhat sexually attractive, whereas most women do not find most men sexually attractive at all…..”
Thus sex becomes a bargaining tool in the hand of women. Men wanted sex all the time. Women have monopoly on this demand of men. Due to this dichotomy men become a “Sexual Slaves”, i.e. they can be asked to do work which were dangerous and which women do not want to do. That is the beginning of slavery. Such manipulation of men is also evident in nature like some birds forcing males to construct a nest before they mate etc.
Cultural development perpetuated this slavery of men and monopoly of women. Sex outside marriage was seen as taboo. Sex, which is a natural activity like eating or sleeping was given a sacred place. To reduce the supply of sex, prostitution was made illegal. All these cultural developments increased men’s dependence on a single woman for sex, so that slavery of the man can be perpetuated.
In course of time a myth was created- “power of sexual desire”. In my view sexual desire is there and some power is also there behind it. But power of “food desire” or “sleep desire” is much more powerful than “sex desire”. The power of sexual desire was created artificially by reducing supply of sex, by suppressing sexual independence, by prohibiting free trade in sex etc.
The effect of sex slavery is also seen today. In today’s world men work harder, in all dangerous situation, share their earning with the women, pay large amount of taxes to state….. and live much lower than the woman. Society and state condition them to marry to perpetuate their slavery. These developments have made man a slave, a sexual slave. In the society there is nothing like power of a man, there is only slavery of a man. Men must understand their slavery. If they don’t understand it, they will be treated as slaves and abused as exploiter. They will be living in the myth of “male power” and dying early. The “myth of male power” also allow state to make anti-men laws so that slavery of men can be perpetuated through power of law.
The slavery of men is not in their chains, it is in their ignorance.
September 25th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Interesting comment. I must disagree with “In today’s world men work harder, in all dangerous situation, share their earning with the women, pay large amount of taxes to state….. and live much lower than the woman.” Women have the primary breadwinner role in 4 out of 10 US American households these days. Not sure what you mean about “living much lower” but more women live in poverty than do men and take care of the vast majority of children, 25% of whom live in poverty in the US.
October 1st, 2013 at 10:28 pm
I just discovered you.
Congrats on the book!
Please look at my blog.
October 5th, 2013 at 6:08 pm
l no longer concern myself with trying to attain recognition of my experience from anyone. Such validation is essentially seeking to satisfy the inherently solipsitic nature of ego/self/identity.
What really seems to rattle people, to the point of fear, anger and lashing out, is to be quietly disconnected from worldly matters and persona. Whilst going about one’s life, freely and simply.
The desire for recognition of one’s experience is essentially feminine in nature, ie ego based.
Things can and do change, simply by detaching from that which one does not abide, neither supporting nor refuting, not participating, yet not blockading. Just move towards where one wants to be is enough. Of course, those who need us to do their bidding, will regard that as a selfish act, b/c not yielding it impedes them, such is the extent of their bubble. When someone appears through a window, all they can see is their reflection in the glass.
October 8th, 2013 at 1:28 am
[…] are going to necessarily be different. Women cannot fully appreciate the male experience (much less validate it) unless they can actually become men and live in a lifetime of their experiences, their upbringing, […]
October 24th, 2013 at 10:51 am
There is a great book coming out. Men are Pigs and it really dissects the relationship between sexes and the need for sex.
November 13th, 2013 at 12:37 am
[…] solipsistic nature (predicated on hypergamy) necessarily excludes them from empathizing with the male experience – and this extends to men’s legitimate pain. The idea that a man, the man her hypergamy […]
December 16th, 2013 at 3:24 am
[…] anger at my questioning her consistent desire to control our family and lead it to ruin was quite baffling at the time. But instead of her being able to communicate about this issue in a calm mature way, […]
December 19th, 2013 at 7:15 pm
Holy fuckin’ nigga town am I glad I found this stuff. HUGE PROPS bro and gratitude.
July 5th, 2014 at 10:13 pm
I love this. I had a girl, then a boy. The boy’s behavior was markedly different. The one thing that stood out was that, as soon as he was capable, he’d pick up sticks when we went on walks and swing them around. I spoke with other mothers and finally understood that this was a uniquely male behavior. This small thing began my path of understanding that the male experience really is different from women. They’ve got their own vulnerabilities and insecurities and drives.
And they *need* other males to be psychologically healthy – just as women need time with one another.
I fully agree that society is, right now, working from a female-centric perspective and it’s frustrating.
September 10th, 2014 at 12:18 am
[…] The Male Experience […]