Nursing Power

matriarchy_rome

Needless to say, last week’s post sparked some interesting, not to mention predictable, conversations and response. After sifting through all of the ego-invested brinksmanship by the token feminist reader of RM, the takeaway was actually a better understanding of the latent purpose of feminism.Perhaps not the understanding she intended, but certainly a confirmation of premise.

A handful of my male readers often ask why I don’t moderate comments, or that the message of Rational Male would be better served if I banned certain commenters. I’ve mentioned on several posts and threads as to why I won’t ever do that (except for blatant spamming), but in a nutshell it’s my fundamental belief that the validity of any premise or idea should be able to withstand public debate. People who aren’t confident of the strength of their assertions or ideas, or are more concerned with profiting from the branding of those weak assertions than they are in truth, are the first to cry about the harshness of their critics and kill all dissent as well as all discourse about those assertions.

That’s the primary reason I’ve never moderated; if people think I’m full of shit I’m all ears – I’m not so arrogant as to think I’ve thought of every angle about any idea I express here or on any other forum. However, the second reason I don’t censor, ban users or delete comments is that I believe it’s useful to have critics (usually women or fem-men) provide the gallery with examples of exactly the mentality or dynamic I’m describing in an essay. With a fair amount of predictability, a blue pill male or an upset woman will just as often prove my point for me and serve as a model for what I’ve described.

I never intentionally try to make rubes out of the critics I know will chime in about something, but I will sometimes leave out certain considerations I may have already thought about something, knowing it will get picked up on by a critic. I do this on occasion because the I know that the “ah hah! I got him, he forgot about X,Y, Z” moment serves as a better teaching tool and confirms for me that a critic does in fact comprehend what I’m going on about.

Take the Power Back

So it was throughout last week’s commentary about the branding of the Strong Independent Woman® social template offered and reinforced by the feminist mindset, and endorsed wholesale by pop-culture and popular media. Considering the new outside awareness the manosphere is receiving courtesy of Return of Kings these days, I expect we’ll see more of the point-and-sputter, dismissive ignorance of offended egos, or we’ll see more cathartic overwritten mission statements repeated by feminists confronted with logical arguments that contradict their comfortably solipsistic world-view.

Doctor Jeremy actually started me back on considering gender power dynamics with his comments here:

As always, your article is insightful. I get concerned with the limit to the progress the manosphere can make, however, because I think the discussions are missing a central concept – power. The goal of this branding, social engineering, and gender-role change you identify is the redistribution of various forms of power and influence within our society. For some reason, however, much of the manosphere’s writing and discussion does not seem to include that level of analysis. This is unfortunate, as feminist and women’s discourse is often focused on redistribution of power – and quite successful as a result of that focus.

As support for my point, please review the quotes I have extracted from livingtree2013′s various comments [emphasis mine]:

“But it is not because women want to eliminate men from the equation. It is because women have historically been entirely dependent on men for their survival, which gave men far too much power over us, and we have worked tirelessly to extract ourselves from that position of inferiority.”

“So why would you expect anything different from us? Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will, which truly, I can see coming in the near future.”

“Unfortunately, you guys didn’t want us doing those things because it negatively affected you in the power balance, but that didn’t stop us from needing it.”

She is not talking about independence. She is not talking about self-esteem. She is talking about who has the power to control the interaction and call the shots…

As far as power is concerned I think anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a few posts knows I quote Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power more often than any other resource here, and regularly use those laws to illustrate how they apply to intergender relations. That said, I have dedicated posts to the influence power has in personal dynamics, and I certainly recognize, if sometimes indirectly, the power dynamic in Frame, Dread, and certainly in The Feminine Imperative.

I fully understand the redistribution of power in our gender landscape from a social perspective, but the fundamental question about any form of real power isn’t about who has it or not, but to what ends they apply it.

I felt so strongly about the Truth to Power essay that I included it in the Rational Male book. The salient point in that post was this:

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.

I expect that would align with what our token, self-identifying feminist LivingTree was repeating, but the underlying question is what are women using that power to achieve?

As I stated prior, feminism as a social influence, has never been about its stated goal of egalitarian equality between the sexes, but rather it’s been about restitution and retribution from the masculine it perceives as its historical oppressors. This was the original intent of feminine independence (before it became the brand it is today), a separation from the dependency (perceived or actual) of women on men. However, the problem inherent in that separation is that in creating a new, autonomous sex role for women, the innate differences and deficits that the former complementary interdependence with men satisfied had to be compensated for.

All of the inherent weaknesses of the feminine that were balanced by the masculine’s inherent strengths had to be provided for in order to achieve this new independence from the masculine. I should also point out that in this feminist separation the masculine is also left in a deficit of having its own inherent weaknesses balanced by the compensating strengths of the feminine.

Power Slaves

I’ve quoted that feminism is the mistaken belief that a more equitable society can be achieved by focusing efforts solely on the interests of one sex.

Sarcasm aside, this is exactly the use to which women have applied the power that feminism and the feminization of society has afforded them since the sexual revolution. Feminism is not, and has never been about leveling a playing field or equality amongst the genders, it’s been about power and applying it to separating from, marginalization of, and eventual eradication of, the masculine influence that the feminine imperative wants restitution and retribution from. LivingTree illustrates this for us here:

Independence for women meant we didn’t have to tolerate abuse anymore because we had the option to leave. It meant that if you left us, we wouldn’t be completely desperate. It meant we didn’t have to cling to you guys for support. It meant we could make decisions about our own lives. It meant we didn’t have to be “seen and not heard”. It meant we didn’t have to be a slave to a stereotype anymore. It meant we could be self-actualizing if we wanted to. It meant we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with. And it meant we could admit we had sexual desires.

Tucked into LT’s recitation of feminist boilerplate is the true application and intent of use of the power women’s emancipation from the masculine wants to achieve – direct control of the conditions dictating their innate hypergamy.

The gist of LT’s reasoning for women wanting power, and “Independence” (as a brand or otherwise) from men is due to women’s innate need for security. This need for security and certainty is literally written into women’s DNA, their neural wiring and hormones. As the ‘nurturers’ of the next generation of humanity, evolution selected-for, and reinforced the biological and psychological mechanisms of women with the best capacity to filter for situations that would provide her and her offspring with the best possible security in a chaotic and insecure world. This drive for security is what’s at the root of hypergamy, and in all fairness has been a successful survival mechanism for the human species.

Hypergamy’s constant, limbic, survival-level question for women is “Is this the optimal condition I can secure to ensure my wellbeing and my (future) children?” Whether she’s been married for decades or is out on the town with her girlfriends, that question nags a woman in her hindbrain from childhood to death. Hypergamy’s question and doubt is at the heart of every unconscious shit-test a woman will ever deliver. Hypergamy’s unrealizable quest for optimization extends from the individual woman to women’s social influences. From the micro to the macro, Hypergamy’s constant want of an unachievable contented security defines the Feminine Imperative.

Rigging the Game

In terms of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks) that question extends to who she selects as a sex partner to breed with, as well as whom she selects to be the provider for her long term provisioning. At the heart of it, women’s desire for independence and the perceived power they believe it should give them is an effort in controlling the conditions that they believe will satisfy Hypergamy’s question. Every popular woman’s issue you can list will find its way back to the want for control of the circumstances that dictate how well a woman can satisfy her Hypergamy.

Fat acceptance, the right to vote, child custody and paternity laws, divorce laws, slut walks, accusations of rape culture, more women in the boardroom, feminization of men and culture on whole, hell, every item LivingTree mentions in her comment, just name the issue and underneath the social or personal veneer is the clutching after of some usable power to control the conditions that will satisfy her need for security and optimize women’s Hypergamy.

LT is correct, women don’t want to eliminate men, they simply want to control them, both directly and indirectly, socially and personally, subtly and subconsciously as well as overtly when necessary, to comply with satisfying their innate hypergamy. They want independence from men’s influence in the process of satisfying hypergamy – they want to rig the game by replacing his genuine desires by forcing him to comply with her control of his conditions. Women want the power to control men’s desires, their ideologies, their sexual response, their individualism and the decisions that result from them all in order to optimize hypergamy

The problem in all this effort for control is that nature stagnates in homogeny. Androgyny, homogeny, are the first order for inbreeding. For as much as women make efforts to emancipate themselves and change the rules of the game to better fit their deficiencies, they are always confounded by the innate drives and desires of men. They get frustrated with men who wont play their version of the game, or worse, the ones who play it more poorly than they themselves do. So they jail them, they shame them, they pathologize his sexual impulse, they condition feminization into them from their earliest development, they punish them for not playing the game that should  always end with them optimizing hypergamy’s nagging doubt – in spite of falling short of it under organic circumstances. For all the delusions of independence, autonomy and the fantasy of some form of control of the process, they find men will simply not cooperate. They wont give them the satisfaction of optimizing their solipsistic hypergamy, because the Men who have the capacity to do so, the ones women want to be satisfied with simply aren’t playing their version of the game.


105 responses to “Nursing Power

  • Ulf E

    Simply brilliant analysis.

  • BC

    When the game is rigged, he who plays by the rules, loses.
    When the game is rigged, there are no rules.

    If women want that kind of battle between the sexes, it is only a matter of time before men oblige them. Enter Game and MGTOW.

  • Orthodox

    “When the game is rigged, there are no rules.

    If women want that kind of battle between the sexes, it is only a matter of time before men oblige them. Enter Game and MGTOW.”

    And Calvin Ball.

  • Mr.C

    The anger of a person’s rebuttal is (usually) directly correlated with how badly the truth stung them.

  • Tin Man

    Power is in constant flux, at least from a natural perspective. It is never in perfect harmony, but if it gets too far out of whack, then the system will completely fall apart – and if the system collapses, something comes in to replace it – even if it appears to be nothing. Found the following on Wikipedia (I know, so take it with a grain of salt) about predator/prey dynamics – thought it was interesting:

    “Predator-prey populations tend to show chaotic behavior within limits, where the sizes of populations change in a way that may appear random, but is in fact obeying deterministic laws based only on the relationship between a population and its food source illustrated by the Lotka–Volterra equation. An experimental example of this was shown in an eight year study on small Baltic Sea creatures such as plankton, which were isolated from the rest of the ocean. Each member of the food web was shown to take turns multiplying and declining, even though the scientists kept the outside conditions constant.”

  • earl

    Great read.

    “When the game is rigged, there are no rules.

    If women want that kind of battle between the sexes, it is only a matter of time before men oblige them. Enter Game and MGTOW.”

    And Calvin Ball.”

    Calvin Ball is exactly how a woman plays the game. Bill Watterson was well ahead of his time.

  • Tilikum

    i went back and read through the exchange. holy mental gymnastics batman.

    its pretty clear to me that she (living tree) doesn’t buy any of her own crap, but is pretty logical yet untrusting of her own judgement. so she is looking for a strong, immutable presence to dispel her own bullshit and feel……..normal. whoever said catharsis was right on.

    its the turning of women back to women, on full display. if you care enough they all will turn, it just takes time.

  • Stingray

    women don’t want to eliminate men, they simply want to control them, both directly and indirectly, socially and personally, subtly and subconsciously as well as overtly when necessary, to comply with satisfying their innate hypergamy.

    And this oxymoron is one of the reasons so many women report such great unhappiness today. That pill they take is an extremely poor substitute.

  • aaron

    Great article and response to the feminist-handbook arguments put forward by LT. In the great game of reproduction, in contrast to the female, the success of a male’s reproductive strategy is almost entirely dependent on what he’s able to do and the apparent power he is able to wield within his given environment.

    This “masculine” power and “doer” role within the gender power dynamic, is at the heart of his reproductive strategy and, in trying to demonize and purge all the supposedly unwanted traits of masculinity from society, men’s reproductive strategy is effectively crippled. The end result would be (and is) women complaining that there are no good men – a bit like in a game of tennis, taking away your opponent’s racket and then complaining that there’s no decent competition – but such is female reproductive strategy.

  • js

    The manosphere doesn’t talk about power because we’re interested in function: we want functioning families, relationships, and society. Equal power creates disfunction everywhere. Feminism wants to recreate the ancestral female environment of women working communally and noncompetitively while the men were away competing.

  • Tsi

    The token feminist also mentioned the pay gap in the last thread. She should read up on why it is 100% fair. Men get paid more for taking on higher RISKS, of things such as unemployment, and BURDENS such as death:

    http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/

    It is not that women’s work is valued less it is that many male dominated professions pay more in order for anyone to be willing to do those jobs because of the risks and burdens involved.

  • swiftfoxmark2

    I remember Chris Rock’s statement that men have a handicap when it comes to arguing with women. Men have to make sense.

    For decades now, men have assumed that women are their equals and so they think like men. You are playing their game when you assume a level playing field.

    In truth, men have far more power than women do and most women know this. Not just physical but mental power as well. Women know this and try to contain it (the curse of Eve comes to mind) but Game is all about asserting that power.

  • Why Feminists Hate MGTOW

    […] is some of the most elegant I have seen in the manosphere and his latest offering is no different. Nursing Power | The entire entry is well worth reading but I'm going to just post the last two paragraphs here as […]

  • The Burninator

    I can’t speak for how others took her, but her quick resort to basically implying/saying “you’re all bitter” and starting in with the normal and expected shaming by the second page of the article confirms pretty much the entire power dynamic and frustration on her part (and by extension, feminism) with men who will not fall in line with the diktat of emotions, tears and appeals to fantasy that make up the bulk of feminist thought. Rollo’s nailing of her expressing the prime directive of hypergamy is spot on, and I only regret that I didn’t latch onto it immediately when she posted it, heh.

  • The Burninator

    Interesting use of Romulus and Remus as an illustration for the article. Not sure if it falls under subtle-message or irony.

  • Marky Mark

    Well… we gave them what they want and now they have to face the consequences of their actions… Did they think men would sit by and get screwed over forever? We built society and we are too smart for it.

  • Jeremy

    Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.

    I would go further. I would say that real power includes the degree to which someone is capable of leaving their mark on future generations. This is facilitated through the power one perceives they have or can have over the opposite sex. This is why the most destructive criminals in society are the men who are most convinced they will never have a stable job, wife and kids. This is why the women with the greatest sexual power are the ones most likely to abuse that power.

    LT is correct, women don’t want to eliminate men, they simply want to control them, both directly and indirectly, socially and personally, subtly and subconsciously as well as overtly when necessary, to comply with satisfying their innate hypergamy.

    LT was incorrect. Controlling men *IS* eliminating them. A vassal is not the thing you desire, will never be. Just as I do not desire a female slave as a wife, women inherently do not desire a spineless beta as a husband.

  • Jeremy

    I thought LT’s inner-solipsism moment was pretty easy to spot. The degree to which society has become focused on female needs is inherently difficult for men to spot, because instinct tells us to protect them. It takes a mind with little-to-no skin in the game to easily pick up on the degree of selfishness. This, to me, explains why Girl Writes What (bisexual) is able to so cogently speak on the topic of female selfishness. What’s scary is, when you consider how hard it might be for the average manosphere writer/commenter/reader to spot the solipsism, it’s probably 10x harder for the average woman who has her DNA telling her that other people need to provide for her.

  • Fred Flange, PsyChoD.

    Indeed, witness the side-step when I pointed out the far-more-elementary proposition that to at least wield true political power, you have to temper your goals and find common ground with coalition partners whose aims might not match yours exactly, and who certainly won’t toe the thought-crime line. This is the roadblock that the hard-core, pure-in-heart women’s activists are now slamming into. You can do only so much in academic circles and consulting, but only up to a point. Like, OK, we have speech codes, on-campus sex conduct rules that make Bob Jones University look like the Playboy mansion, and degree programs, hooray, we’re done. They think that is sufficient to solidify their gains, but it’s not. (This is something the MRA crowd has definitely missed).

    The cracks in the foundation are appearing, most particularly the failure of the mostly white UMC feminist class to acknowledge or engage with other constituencies that could have been their allies, like Latinos and other people of color (esp. black women, who have no use for white-girl feminist concepts and where for decades black men have pioneered MGTOW, as Obsidian has written over at Just Four Guys in convincing fashion).

  • LiveFearless

    “The Rational Male” by Rollo Tomassi has clarity, brevity with elegant genius in its writing. It’s about 300 pages of ‘missing life manual’ stuff for men. If your ex is taking 100% of your income, it’s time to borrow the less than $10 you need to get “The Rational Male” — It changes everything.

    From Rollo’s book:

    “I’ve yet to meet the guy who’s told me he’s getting more frequent, more intense sex after his LTR / Marriage / Live-in situation was established

    The primary reason for this is the relaxation of the competition anxiety that made the urgency of fucking you with lustful abandon in your dating phase an imperative to get you to commit to her frame

    That’s the crux of the matter that so many guys fail in, they surrender the frame before they commit to an LTR

    They believe, (thanks to their feminine conditioning) that commitment necessitates, and is synonymous with, acquiescing to her frame control”

  • BC

    Interesting use of Romulus and Remus as an illustration for the article. Not sure if it falls under subtle-message or irony.

    It’s part of the double (triple?) entendre with the title, especially since it shows a hyena nursing the twins instead of the traditional wolf.

    Question: Name the animal where the female has higher testosterone levels than the male and an overgrown clit only surpassed by the size of her nasty disposition and ferocious ego.

    Answer: Feminists. Oh, and hyenas, too.

    Rollo is very skilled with his use of titles and images, but this time he has outdone himself. My hat is doffed, good sir.

  • New Yorker

    Straight up 100% truth. Play your game, ignore the noise, and victories will come.

  • Dr. Jeremy

    @ Rollo

    Well done. I personally appreciate your lack of moderation and openness to discussion. Thank you for providing a valuable forum where I can discuss these issues openly. Thank you too for your thoughtful reply on the topic.

    Having said that, I would like to further discuss one aspect of the analysis:

    I fully understand the redistribution of power in our gender landscape from a social perspective, but the fundamental question about any form of real power isn’t about who has it or not, but to what ends they apply it.

    I saw this sentiment reflected in the comments of other men as well. I understand this to mean that the problem comes from the fact that women are wielding their “excess power” in self-serving ways, rather than the fact that they have more power than men overall. Thus, if women were somehow encouraged to “rule benevolently”, for the benefit of both women and men, the problem would be eradicated. Is that a correct understanding?

    I certainly see that notion reflected in aspects of the manosphere. Many men don’t seem overly concerned about their ever-increasing, unilateral dependency on women. Rather, much of the manosphere efforts to date seem to center on simply trying to persuade women to be less selfish and solipsistic with their leadership and dominance over men. For example, the PUAs generally seem less concerned with the power imbalance that allows “women to be the chooser” – and more concerned with how to appear valuable so women pick them. Similarly, many married men seem less concerned about the unfair marriage laws that give their wives unilateral control over the relationships – and more interested in how to be “attractive husbands” and “act alpha”, so their wives don’t file for divorce. Thus, the focus is often on how to please female leadership to hopefully acquire tokens of positive behavior, rather than having equal choice, influence, or say in that behavior.

    I realize, as js said above, that men simply want functional relationships. They don’t want to be powerful influencers or advocates for social change. They want things to be “okay”, usually with as little struggle and confrontation as possible. But this generally submissive approach of appeasing women, in the hopes of fostering their benevolent leadership and favor, will not make things okay. Whenever one group holds unilateral power over another, they are always solipsistic and selfish with how they wield that power. Without equal power to provide check-and-balance, functional relationships that satisfy both partners equally is not possible.

    Given that, I believe the overall focus should be on balancing power – as well as how that power is used. Certainly, in an ideal situation, both men and women would use their own power for the benefit of the whole family. So, it is indeed important to instruct everyone to use power benevolently. However, until that power is equal in relationships, men will not have any influence to guide women toward that benevolence. Essentially then, things will never be “okay” until men reacquire equal power and assert it fairly to ensure things are okay.

    Or, as livingtree2013 put it, “So why would you expect anything different from us? Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will…”. That doesn’t sound like the current male submissive solutions of being attractive mates or appeals to morality for positive treatment are going to turn the tide with these women – at least not without a balancing power counter force supporting male interest to assure that treatment.

  • Jeremy

    I try not to look at Hyenas, to me they’re literally one of the ugliest animals on earth. No surprise that they’re an analog for a feminist fantasyland.

  • davidvs

    Independence for women meant we didn’t have to tolerate abuse anymore because we had the option to leave. It meant that if you left us, we wouldn’t be completely desperate. It meant we didn’t have to cling to you guys for support. It meant we could make decisions about our own lives. It meant we didn’t have to be “seen and not heard”. It meant we didn’t have to be a slave to a stereotype anymore. It meant we could be self-actualizing if we wanted to. It meant we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with. And it meant we could admit we had sexual desires.

    It notice how most of the fault I find in LT’s paragraph is how she assumes only women suffered those ills “in the old days”.

    There were husbands with abusive wives. There were husbands made desperate (socially or sexually) by wives who left. Men without wives lacked many social supports. Most men worked hard labor and had little opportunity for self-actualizing or decisions about the directions of their lives. Most men were ignored by men of higher social status and by desirable women. Men had their slavery to stereotypes. Very few men could pick and choose their mates.

    For me, the gist of Rollo’s essay is that feminism is trying to create for women an imaginary utopia while calling that effort “fairness”.

    Yes, “the old days” had problems, especially for women. But the current feminist goal of independence from men is beyond what either sex can expect. And unrealistic expectatons do not creating long-term happiness or stability.

  • Tam the Bam

    Tree :- ” It meant we could be self-actualizing if we wanted to. It meant we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with. And it meant we could admit we had sexual desires.”

    So, did I get this straight? “Independence” for Wymminz can be nothing less than deep-sixing or exiling all unobliging or non-attractive men, and keeping a few stud-beasts on a leash for when the mood strikes?? I say, go for it, gals. ‘Bye.
    An actual Canadian Secretary doesn’t want to annihilate men, but is confused as to why they can’t be more like pets .. say, a nice fluffy cat? But sexy and powerful. Or something. ¿Que?

    I say old man! Is this a bit of Freud slipping out from under the powersuit?
    Tree :- “Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will…””

  • Rollo Tomassi

    The tl;dr version: feminism’s latent purpose is assuming power in order to optimize hypergamy by controlling men’s desires to provide women with the security of long term provisioning and the optimal genetic short term breeding. All irrespective of women’s individual circumstance or meriting that optimization.

  • Stingray

    Did they think men would sit by and get screwed over forever?

    No. Women thought you would thoroughly enjoy taking care of them as you’re “supposed” to do. You’re supposed to be happy while being a “good man”. You’re supposed to find the 40 year old career gal who finally found herself to be irresistible. In short, you’re supposed to be utterly happy playing by her rules and be grateful that she made them. Only, women didn’t count for the fact that they do not get to determine what it means to be masculine.

  • Jeremy

    Rollo,

    Women don’t accept that because they believe they’ve been victimized. This belief correlates with what their DNA tells them, that is to seek provisioning and protection from all who will offer it. I find it arguable that women will never fully see how selfish their power grab actually was, how blatantly it ignored the sacrifices of men that were occurring on a daily basis for these same women who felt oppressed.

    My two posts in very late response to LT on the previous thread were attempting to illustrate this. Here we have a society where women by-default expect government to take care of them, and their alpha-widow-children, to the detriment of most men. This provision for women can only be painted in appropriate contrast when you consider what it ultimately provides for women, that is not and never has been provided for men.

    Consider that the single woman in the modern world has all power to find herself an alpha to mate with, poke holes in the condom to get pregnant from the alpha, extract financial resources via state power if desired, and never have to deal with a man in her life at all while raising her own guaranteed genetic progeny.

    Meanwhile, on the male side, the state demands military service, even sacrificing of male lives, while guaranteeing nothing about those same men’s ability to have an impact on the future with their DNA. There are even active attempts at removing paternity tests as a method control for the average male. We effectively have male lives with government power tipped such that they absolutely no control over whether or not their DNA makes it into the next generation. In fact, we’ve had this sort of thing for centuries with conscription.

    Yet women continue to cling to feelings of oppression, because it’s what their DNA tells them is the case by default. You couldn’t get a more sick patient than modern society’s gender imbalance, but because men are genetically programmed to provision and provide for women, and women are genetically programmed to demand such things, absent an alien invasion that smacks women upside the head and makes them value men, I don’t see things changing much. This fight is nearly eternal in a comfortable and developed society because of our genetic programming. What needs to happen is a scientifically codified correction on these inborn directions that each gender pushes us, a recognition of true male and female nature.

  • Marky Mark

    Too late though… came has caught on in the mainstream and guys are opting out and just using women for short term pleasure. As the saying goes… ‘Be careful what you wish for you just might get it’… well women got exactly what they wanted but didn’t expect men to react the way they have.

  • Random Angeleno

    Men change their responses to reframed incentives. In their own way. Do feminists get that? Not without a lot of shrieking and shaming language. Did not have to leave the last thread to find such language.

  • The Burninator

    “Too late though… came has caught on in the mainstream and guys are opting out and just using women for short term pleasure. As the saying goes… ‘Be careful what you wish for you just might get it’… well women got exactly what they wanted but didn’t expect men to react the way they have.”

    But…the thing is that men are still being strong armed by the state to support hypergamy even if we get a bit of strange on the side from women too stupid to sort their biology from their feminism. Not all alphas are out of work bums living on a beach, most of us make livings, very good livings, and no matter how I approach women in real life, I’m still end of the day forced to support their idiocy via law.

    A better solution would be a way to extract ourselves from their support mechanism AND their deceitful, lying philosophy, otherwise we lose in the long run. I’m open to suggestions.

  • BlackPoisonSoul

    @BC and @Orthodox – men learned Game from women.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Hahah!,..I love how LT hasn’t taken the time to read today’s post and yet yammers on in last week’s comment thread only reinforcing everything I go into here.

    Now do you understand why I don’t moderate and encourage women to participate here?

  • Random Angeleno

    Someone in the previous thread quoted Upton Sinclair saying “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Excellent reference.

    That situation applies to LT: the necessity of men going against their biology is set in stone from her point of view. Her refusal to understand the arguments against her positions is completely dependent on her refusal to understand the biological differences between men and women and how they complement each other.

    When one understands the feminist need for men to go against their biology, one then understands the need that feminists have to legislate men into one-sided legal environments, e.g., domestic violence, family courts, etc. Further, one understands the feminist need to drug “overactive” boys at school and to alter educational presentation into “girls good, boys bad” memes. Is it any wonder we now have more girls than boys in many colleges?

  • Jeremy

    She is completely avoiding the fairly incisive points I made, probably smart on her part since they have no counter.

  • Gurney Halleck

    Another home run. Rollo and Dalrock are the best manosphere writers.

    Too bad people are eager to add “Heartiste” to make a triumvirate…that guy is only interested in the manosphere to enhance white nationalist positions by association.

  • Gurney Halleck

    A curious thing is that much of what Rollo writes about is not intuitive. The “feminine imperative” is a pretty heady concept…so is “hyerpgamy” that manifests itself as a grand strategy of feminists rather than the inclination of one woman. It’s not really easy for individual men to come to these realizations on their own.

  • sunshinemary

    All of the inherent weaknesses of the feminine that were balanced by the masculine’s inherent strengths had to be provided for in order to achieve this new independence from the masculine. I should also point out that in this feminist separation the masculine is also left in a deficit of having its own inherent weaknesses balanced by the compensating strengths of the feminine.

    This is such an important point. Feminism has been far more destructive than most women fully understand.

  • Max

    “women don’t want to eliminate men, they simply want to control them, both directly and indirectly, socially and personally, subtly and subconsciously as well as overtly when necessary, to comply with satisfying their innate hypergamy”

    This is Genesis 3:16 expanded upon. My mind has been blown.

  • anony

    Great great great post!!!

  • Jack.Rayner

    @Jeremy

    “The degree to which society has become focused on female needs is inherently difficult for men to spot, because instinct tells us to protect them. It takes a mind with little-to-no skin in the game to easily pick up on the degree of selfishness. This, to me, explains why Girl Writes What (bisexual) is able to so cogently speak on the topic of female selfishness.”

    I think Justicar/IntegralMath is another example of this. He’s a gay dude, but he’s lacking the victim mentality that seems to push the average gay person to side with Feminism. Not being interested in pussy makes it all the easier for him to speak his mind about it without fearing the social consequences.

    Aside from sharing the victim mentality, I can’t imagine any other reason for gay dudes siding with Feminism as much as they do…

  • Wise Man

    “Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters . . .”

    Cato the Elder 234–149 B.C., quoted in Livy’s History of Rome

  • Jeremy

    I still say, that controlling men is eliminating men. I’m surprised no one has argued with me on that point since I am contradicting Rollo’s post.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I’m beginning to agree with you:

    http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/The-End-of-Men

    Read the comments here, they cut to the heart of LT’s ideology.

    Are men obsolete?

    This monk debate is organized by: Tim Berners-Lee, an Patrick Luciani
    This comment is posted on Disqus made by : Daniel Ha and Jason Yan
    This page uses HTML: Proposed by Tim Berners-Lee

    The information might be stored in Mysql(Michael Widenius) or Oracle(Larry Ellison, Bob Miner and Ed Oates) or perhabs postgresql(Michael Stonebraker)

    Does it use PHP? (Rasmus Lerdorf ) Or Java? (James Gosling, Mike Sheridan, and Patrick Naughton)

    These women use twitter (Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams, Biz Stone and Noah Glass) and Facebook ( Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes)

    They might be using an Android phone(based on linux by Linus Torval and Gnu founder Richard Stallman), or an Iphone (Steve Jobs designed by Jonathan Ive)

    Or they might be using Macs or Windows (Jobs and Gates)

    I could go on and on like this. But these two women (Rosin and Dowd) Should realize that this debate would not even exist and without men, they would not even be able to talk about it. In picture, they do look like intelligent women, they must realize that without men all of this does not exist right? This is only a joke, right?

    I posted this link on the previous comment thread and LT feigned a convenient ignorance of what the debate implies with relation to her own assertions.

  • bob

    “If women want that kind of battle between the sexes, it is only a matter of time before men oblige them. Enter Game and MGTOW.”

    “Women” don’t want a battle between the sexes. “Women” never asked for feminism. Or did your mother, your sister, your girl friends, ever asked for it? Feminism is a creation of a very small elite, and has very little support beyond the borders of mainstream medias’ reality.

    Pointing the finger at “women” is feminism the other way around, call it masculinism if you will. And it’s EXACTLY why feminism was created : to promote division. Divide and conquer, etc.

    I suspect the manosphere hasn’t been taken down yet because it is still fuelling in an indirect way (sometimes very directly too) this battle of the sexes.

    Politics is like chess : you plan 3, 4 moves ahead.

    Make men and women come together again and shit will hit the fan very fast.

  • Jeremy

    Oh, I am under no delusions of future slavery at the direct hands of women, Rollo. What I’m saying is that distorting the natural expression of either gender is a destruction of that gender. When women propose to “control” men they are in fact saying they want to eliminate masculinity, i.e., eliminate men. This is a perversion of human nature and ultimately self-destructive. Since we’ve evolved to appreciate the natural strengths and weaknesses of both, “controlling men” means women are actually eliminating something they desire whether they realize it or not.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    “Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished forever.”
    ― George Orwell, Animal Farm

  • Jeremy

    I posted this link on the previous comment thread and LT feigned a convenient ignorance of what the debate implies with relation to her own assertions.

    That does seem to be her favorite tactic.

  • Stingray

    In the comment Rollo left it is asked, “they do look like intelligent women, they must realize that without men all of this does not exist right?”

    Most women absolutely do not think about this until a man they respect points it out to them. That iPhone is there and it works. I don’t need to think about where it came from our why, because it’s right there. It’s solipsism.

  • hisashikarazu

    The promotion of the male worldview is an interesting social project, but one I think that should consider the miserable failure of feminism.

    I think you hit the nail on the head when you state that feminism is a brand, a co-opted concept used to sell shoes, vibrators and chocolate, a buzz-word with less counter-cultural revolutionary value than rock music.

    Any attempt at a consistent, socially progressive attempt to improve the place of women has been lost and the project has been co-opted by capitalism to transform women into consumers and flexible workers. There is no solidarity between women, it’s a mad scramble for the best job, flat, vibrator, chocolate and of course ‘the one’ – they messianic figure who is the culmination of their romantic destiny, and about as likely to ever truly arrive as God himself is to bump into her at the supermarket.

    Society has changed and men are increasingly marginalized, but it’s not feminism that has done this. The increased role of women in society has nothing to do with the rational arguments given in favour of equality, and everything to do with the need to de-unionise labour and increase the number and flexibility of workers, therefore increasing competition and decreasing cost.

    Everywhere now we see the rise of the pink-branded ‘office angels’ secretarial pool temp agencies for providing white collar staff (often part-time and always disposable.) These jobs don’t represent a genuine, socially progressive role for women, and have as their USP only that they are not the really shit work dished out to the men unloading containers, cleaning sewers, collecting garbage and dying on the front lines.

    Feminism=Globalization

    Capitalism is a race to the bottom with the work always going to those who will do the most for the least. Neither gender is benefiting from the new social order. Stay at home husbands are the most ridiculous myth. They exist, but are a tiny minority. Most couples now both work. We all know this outside the upper-class media fantasy land. In the 1950’s the household could live off the man’s wage – now families can barely scrape by on double incomes. How has anyone’s lot improved?

    And the changes are continuing. The recent recession has been referred
    to as a man-cession due to the systematic targeting of well-paid male staff for redundancy, and the most dangerous and poorly paid jobs are still overwhelmingly done by men. “Feminism” has been promoted and exploited by the same bankers and financiers who are outsourcing your jobs to the BRICs as I write this.

    Women are a second world country to outsource jobs to, and much like China and Brazil, the gains they have made are contingent on them working cheap.

    Now, I’m no red commie out to tear down capitalism. There isn’t a viable alternative on the table as far as I can see. What matters is if and how we can rebalance the global system to give a fair deal for everyone. And right now, that means making it key to advertisers and markets to recognize the power of the ‘blue pill dollar’.

    So my key question is this; as a rational male, do you agree with the proposition that a reasoned understanding of the nature of gender politics from the male perspective will never gain traction in the mainstream media or societal consciousness unless the viewpoint of the manosphere can be made to coincide with the interests of capitalism?

  • Jeremy

    So my key question is this; as a rational male, do you agree with the proposition that a reasoned understanding of the nature of gender politics from the male perspective will never gain traction in the mainstream media or societal consciousness unless the viewpoint of the manosphere can be made to coincide with the interests of capitalism?

    No, I don’t. But I’m not so self-deceived to think that my own efforts, or even the efforts of the manosphere would be sufficient to do so.

    True masculinity is nurtured by only one thing I know of. That thing is the existence and accessibility of a frontier. When the frontier became closed, when the west became domesticated, masculinity began it’s inevitable decline.

    Only when men literally have their own nuclear option of leaving civilization, not contributing to any tax base, and making their own fortune off the risk of their own hide on the brutal plain of an uncivilized territory/space while living life as they see fit… Only then will you see masculinity assert itself to the levels it needs to. The masculine is uniquely suited to such living. Men are human survivors, women are human procreators. The domain of the feminine is the civilized world. The domain of the masculine is the uncivilized world, or the frontier. The masculine requires untainted freedom.

  • Tam the Bam

    “Women” never asked for feminism. Or did your mother, your sister, your girl friends, ever asked for it?
    bob, I’d have thought you must have a pretty good inside track on how women think?

    They may not have asked for it, but the minute they heard about it, they each and every one said “yeah, that makes sense, gimme! Gimme gimme gimme! Faster, better, more and NOW!”.

    Oh and the answers to the last question are “yes” (to a quite hilarious and eventually tragic degree), “3 bros, no sis”, and “yes indeedy”, every single one.

  • hisashikarazu

    Your answer precludes a positive place for men in the civilized, domesticated world of social obligations or social contracts, and yet I would argue that men have always been the forgers of civility and politics for the benefit of everyone.
    We literally build the homes and skyscrapers. We build roads and industries. We build nations. And we do all this together.
    I’m talking about fraternity and paternity.

    Even at the level of the tribe or the street gang, men co-operate and establish hierarchies in which alphas divide out resources including procreative opportunities to betas in order to gain the advantage of working in a group (thus securing their alpha position.)

    The ‘old boy network’ that feminist so strongly argue against is precisely such a structure at the highest levels of business, the trade union is the equivalent of the left. These societies seek to distribute favors (money, positions etc.) to key allies who in return secure the position of the alpha against challengers. We see this everywhere from Wall Street to Iran, from Mexican drug cartels to martial arts clubs. Men are good at establishing a social and sexual hierarchy, and then working together to achieve a common end.

    The frontier argument reads as an abdication of any attempt at a practical politics of the masculine right here and now, which is surprising given your attempt to enlighten men as to the true nature of their exploited status in Western liberal society. Nor would I accept that there is anything inevitable about the decline of masculinity. This ersatz feminism of sex-and-the-city which turns women into competitors in a rat race for tatty shoes and chocolate fueled missionary sex is only on the rise because it suits the business interests of the predominantly male super-wealthy banking class.

    Either way – you’ve given me some food for thought brother, and I thank you for that. You’ve given some thought to your position and said something about the world that is neither ignorant nor brain-washed.

  • Jeremy

    Your answer precludes a positive place for men in the civilized, domesticated world of social obligations or social contracts, and yet I would argue that men have always been the forgers of civility and politics for the benefit of everyone.

    My answer does no such thing. I’m stating that masculinity does not take root in the comfort of a warm bed, the safety of OSHA rules, the job security of unions, or the promise of government handouts. Men did forge the civilized world, but we did it for women. Men do not need conveniences, we do not need 90+% of what we have brought into existence with civilization. The masculine is that which comes from hardship, from challenge. There is nothing more challenging than taming a frontier.

  • The Burninator

    I’m with Jeremy on this one. We’ve had harsh lives until just this last century, and for all of human history we’ve had an escape hatch for men called frontiers/no-man’s land in the event a man got fed up with the stifling conformity of civilization. Now that’s gone, or mostly gone, what few frontiers are left are exclusively the domain of the governments/the wealthy (space and deep sea) and even then they’re not colonizing anything or living off the land, so really, there’s no escape hatch at all.

    There are lots of men out here who are dying a soul-death with no place left to meander off to, and men in civilization are no longer even challenged with what “civilization” 200 years ago offered hardship wise, and thus we have lost a purpose, a goal, a hardship, a task to strive forward with and conquer. Sitting in cubicle land day after day and coming home to suburbia is hardly the kind of thing that satisfies a man’s soul or raises his levels of manliness.

  • bob

    “They may not have asked for it, but the minute they heard about it, they each and every one said “yeah, that makes sense, gimme! Gimme gimme gimme! Faster, better, more and NOW!”.”

    Not true. Your everyday girl is a paper feminist: she follows a social trend, but wouldn’t defend it should it be under reconsideration. If you have done a bit of pick-up, you know girls have no idea what to think as far as politics is concerned.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Dr. J had a very insightful comment in the last thread:

    http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/20/the-brand-of-independence/comment-page-3/#comment-25505

    I thought this might have more application in this thread.

    I hadn’t considered that in its efforts of eliminating masculine influence that feminism would also seek to end men’s biological predispositions and personal reasons for parental investment with regard to raising and providing for his own genetic offspring.

    Since the latent purpose of feminism is optimizing hypergamy, it would stand to reason that promoting social and personal acceptance of cuckolding a male provider into caring for her hypergamous breeding efforts (either proactively or retroactively) with better breeding (not provisioning) stock would need to be socialized into the majority of beta men.

    Obviously failing in this feminism needed social welfare programs to fill that provisioning gap, but it’s interesting to consider the feminine socialization efforts to make men more feminine from an early age so as to better prepare them to accept that cuckoldry and support role for their pluralistic sexual strategy (alpha fucks / beta bucks) when they reach adulthood.

    This may explain the conditioned stimulation and rise in popularity of cuckolding porn.

  • Tam the Bam

    Not at all bob, they (Mommy Dearest, and the successive squeezes) were passionate true believers (which is why they sooner or later became insufferable to me).
    But this was (cough) some time ago, when The Second Sex and The Female Eunuch were new, radicalizing tracts, most exciting to modern young ladies who wanted to have “political” views to give a name to their generalized dissatisfaction with just about .. everything, but couldn’t stomach the contemporary herds of Trotskyites or Maoists (not difficult).

    I haven’t done PU/gone on the pull in decades, ‘Er Indoors was quite illiberal about That Sort Of Thing.
    And now I have a white beard! Young women think I’m Santa come early. Old ones think I’m Harold Shipman.

  • Jeremy

    Obviously failing in this feminism needed social welfare programs to fill that provisioning gap, but it’s interesting to consider the feminine socialization efforts to make men more feminine from an early age so as to better prepare them to accept that cuckoldry and support role for their pluralistic sexual strategy (alpha fucks / beta bucks) when they reach adulthood.

    Mostly this. After going red pill, most of my childhood came into serious question. A week still does not go by without recognizing a blue-pill conditioning element from childhood of some kind. Most of what I got was from mom, and not at all contradicted by dad. Mind you, it wasn’t intentional, and it wasn’t malicious, but it was evil.

  • gregg

    @DR. Jeremy.

    “Or, as livingtree2013 put it, “So why would you expect anything different from us? Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will…”. That doesn’t sound like the current male submissive solutions of being attractive mates or appeals to morality for positive treatment are going to turn the tide with these women – at least not without a balancing power counter force supporting male interest to assure that treatment.”

    EXACTLY!

    What are we witnessing here are manSLAVES begging/persuading their womanMASTERS not to misuse their power over them. Pleaaaase you baaad women, why you do not like us????

    Almost all manosphere, Pua, MRA and other guys are nothing but slaves trying to impress their masters.

    Wise man knows that he has to develop HIS OWN POWER first. After that there are no problems with chicks. They are simpy NOT SO IMPORTANT.

  • tarzanwannabe

    Here’s a Peter Zohrab (NZ) link similarly discussing power: http://nzmera.orconhosting.net.nz/1narcism.html#2002

    He seems to say the Feminizm does not sit at the center of the power issue, but is just a useful “pillar”. Sorry grrrlz. :( haha

  • david

    Genesis 3:16
    Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

    Just as an aside, I think some of you could find this entertaining and relevant to the smp.

  • david

    Sorry for the double post….the relevant part start at around 26:00

  • Johnycomelately

    Sex pheromone cuts insecticide use.

    “The male either becomes confused and doesn’t know which direction to turn for the female, or he becomes desensitised to the lower levels of pheromones naturally given out by the female and has no incentive to mate with her,” says Dr Vickers

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/16/199218.htm

    You should be careful what you wish for.

    Power is a double edged sword and it should be wielded wisely, nature has a nasty habit of reverting back to the mean.

    These nuggets of truth wont fall on deaf ears, they will eventually coalesce and the eventual reversion to the mean (backlash) will be fierce and brutal.

    Top post and top commenting Dr Jeremy.

  • The culture of over-moderated forums « Random Xpat Rantings

    […] therationalmale: A handful of my male readers often ask why I don’t moderate comments, or that the message of […]

  • Dr. Jeremy

    ROK has a new post up (Act as if Every Girl is a Slut) that seems to support my “Player Schema” hypothesis (here)

    http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/20/the-brand-of-independence/comment-page-3/#comment-25520

    The author states:

    Over the past month, I slept with several new girls – girls I saw once or twice. That was it – I doubt I’ll ever get to sleep with any of them again. We had met for a date in each case, and then proceeded to have sex on the first date, or in one case, a second date. When I tried to push it beyond a second date, only a couple were interested.

    He desires some type of longer-term commitment, but does not have the power to influence it. Instead of realizing that, he follows the “Player Schema” and concludes:

    These girls were like cold beads of water coursing through my fingers – refreshing, but I’d be a fool to try and hold on to them. Better to enjoy them for the brief moment I have them laid away in my lair.

    The rest of the article outlines ways to “benefit” from the situation (make the best of the powerlessness). It suggests ways to get (actually give) sex with less investment. How to do things just right and not “poison the pot”…yet view these women as noncommittal “sluts”, so they are “easily seduced” into “giving sex quickly”. How to “be bold” and “get a night of sex” from someone’s “slutty” girlfriend…before she chooses to go back to her boyfriend. Of course, the fact that the author is powerless to secure any type of sexual exclusivity is lost in this “player schema” reframe. Instead, he tries to celebrate random ONS…that he worked so hard to make himself available for on her terms…that he didn’t want anyway? All to (mistakenly) conclude that another low-investment and quick notch was desirable, and makes him powerful, in that situation…

    That’s why understanding power is so important… Power is having actual influence over the outcome you desire. Rationalizing that you desire only what you are given by others is coping with powerlessness. Rationalizing that you don’t desire what you can’t get is sour grapes…

    When men adopt a “player schema” that motivates them to be indiscriminate and give up their own power over when, where, to whom, and how they “give” sex…they might not really be a powerful stud. Instead, they might just become random women’s beck-and-call gigolos…without even the gigolo’s “power” to get paid for services rendered.

    Food for thought…Now on to actual food. Happy Thanksgiving!

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I would agree with you up to a point. While it may seem like this is a coping mechanism (really a workaround) you’re presuming that committed sex is his ultimate goal (or should be his ultimate goal).

    That may not be the case. It seems like some tactical measure to get laid in the short term, but is it really? Presuming all women are sluts is just pragmatism when you understand the dynamic and mechanics of feminine hypergamy and their pluralistic sexual strategies. The author is just making the best use this understanding.

    So is it really powerlessness if he begins from a presumption that proves true enough times that it produces a predictable outcome?

    http://therationalmale.com/2013/08/29/as-good-as-it-gets/

  • Dr. Jeremy

    @ Rollo,

    I do not believe that committed sex should always be the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal should be up to each man to decide for himself. In this case, however, given the author’s own disappointment over not having repeat sexual access, it appears his ultimate goal and desire was some type of longer-term sexual commitment. Because he failed to get what he desired and gave up on that desire, I assert that makes his subsequent behavior a coping mechanism, rather than a workaround.

    Having said that, I do agree that his outlook is indeed pragmatic – and “could be” powerful. It is not powerful, for him and his desired goal, however, because he is not “making the best use” of this understanding to get what he truly wants. If his goal was indeed a ONS, or he used the understanding of sexual dynamics to get the repeated sexual access he desired, then it certainly would be powerful. Instead, he is using his knowledge of the dynamic to disempower himself – convincing himself that he is satisfied with the sex that he got, on the women’s terms. Thus, it is indeed powerlessness, if he begins from a presumption that leads him to believe that an outcome he does not desire is predictable – motivating him to “make the best of it”, rather than seek to get what he wants.

    Back to my earlier behavior mod argument… All I’m saying is that it is disempowering for him to completely give her what she wants, before he gets what he wants. In this case, if he truly wanted a longer-term commitment, then he should have secured that commitment before he fully gratified her sexual needs. This is where techniques like “being the prize” and “qualification” are so important. Maybe he qualifies her before they have sex, asking her “how do I know you’re not just one of those girls who will use me for mind-blowing sex, and then disappear”? Or he takes the frame, “I might consider having sex with you, but only because you seem like a girl who wants to satisfy a man when he wants it too…not just when she’s in the mood”. Or, perhaps, the guy simply alludes to a few more sex tricks and experiences that he will “save for next time” when “she earns them”, after they get done with a satisfactory “first-night stand”.

    In any case, if the guy just wants to have a ONS…and the girl does too…then all is fair and wonderful. If he wants more, however, then he should hold back completely gratifying her needs, keeping the power and tension of desire, until he gets it. Any mindset that obscures that and makes him reward her too early, is disempowering. It makes him “be bold” and gratify her sexually too quickly – hoping that his good service will oblige her to to address his needs after the fact. This is the same “obligated desire” as the beta Captain – except instead of giving resources too quickly, and not getting sex – it is giving sex too quickly, and not getting commitment.

    Thus, what happens when “as good as it gets” is less than “as good as I want it”? Does the guy cave to the power and control of someone else? Is absolute notch count the only measure of the power of game? Or, is getting repeated sex from a girlfriend or wife – when you desire it – powerful too? Does the guy who has a lot of ONS, with girls he’s not attracted to, when the girls want it and he doesn’t, really “have game”? While we both agree that game “can” be used for power and influence…I would argue that it is being improperly applied in some of these cases, if it is not helping the man get what he wants too.

  • LiveFearless

    This is one of the most brilliant sermons I’ve heard. Here’s the original text by the venerable everend Rollo J. Tomassi http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/soothing-words-for-the-unrepentant-baby-mama/#comment-99607

    I thought ‘porn lowers testosterone’ was a great sermon, but Rev. Rollo J. Tomassi has hit the ball out of the park with this!

    Seriously, one of the latest soul sells (to the devil) Matt Walsh is in over his head. We allowed “Fireproof” and its offspring “The Love Dare” to go global because they’re associated with the embarrassing Kirk Cameron. There are many more advanced, funded culture creation industry streams coming which will be more destructive.

    Miley Cyrus isn’t singing any ‘Christian’ related themes, so whatever they force her to do is expected. And yes, it’s all forced. She chooses nothing. She decides nothing. Matt Walsh, however, is pushing a script (not written by him – teams did this). It is catching on. How is it that ‘rigging the game’ was so easy for the entities in control? Well, now you have the opportunity to watch it happen in real time. Or, you can spread the truth about this little boy Matt Walsh.

  • FuriousFerret

    About the ROK article, I think you are missing a huge aspect here.

    To many city college grads, while some men are good enough to fuck they aren’t their dream man so they will simply want ONS. These chicks are so entitled that you might be a guy that they will want to screw but they can’t see themselves LTR/marrying someone that isn’t a traditional big shot in society or actively working for it.

    I don’t think that the author could have achieved a different outcome without having the qualities she has in her list. He probably just would have missed out on the bang. Basically she wants the beta bucks/alpha fucks man in one package because yes she is that stupid.But that’s what happens when you spoil a whole generation of middle class+ women.

    We really need to get the message out there to society that unless you have legit model aesthetics you will not get this man.

  • Johnycomelately

    Dr Jeremy has a point, if females have a dual mating strategy, getting alpha fux and wealth transfer beta bucks, she controls the power dynamic.

    The only rebuttal to this I have seen is Dalrocks assertion that females want marriage as a status marker. Even in this context the male role is supplicatory to her desire for status.

    And going by cultural markers even this point is moot.

  • D-Man

    “When men adopt a “player schema” that motivates them to be indiscriminate and give up their own power over when, where, to whom, and how they “give” sex…they might not really be a powerful stud. Instead, they might just become random women’s beck-and-call gigolos…”

    True from experience. When your ego has a hard time saying no, you can exhaust yourself. It’s fun for awhile, but eventually you come to realize that your resources (hard-ons, loads) are finite. And (sometimes despite yourself) you will naturally gravitate towards the woman you feel something more with.

    Just like women have finite resources of eggs, no man can fuck the whole world… but get this, a woman can outfuck you if she so chooses. She can fuck many, many men in a row. It’s goddamn chilling when you think about it.

    But getting back to the point of the piece, our desires can only be (wo)manipulated so much. A woman can choose have sex for any number of her own reasons… but despite the fact that men’s desire is so demonized, there’s something inherently genuine about it. If we ain’t into it, it ain’t happening. That dichotomy is a truth that doesn’t get enough airtime.

  • Jeremy

    Thus, what happens when “as good as it gets” is less than “as good as I want it”? Does the guy cave to the power and control of someone else? Is absolute notch count the only measure of the power of game? Or, is getting repeated sex from a girlfriend or wife – when you desire it – powerful too? Does the guy who has a lot of ONS, with girls he’s not attracted to, when the girls want it and he doesn’t, really “have game”? While we both agree that game “can” be used for power and influence…I would argue that it is being improperly applied in some of these cases, if it is not helping the man get what he wants too.

    *IF* men are simply being told to go out and use game to get laid, I think that’s almost as great an injustice as telling women they’re not sluts for screwing whenever they want.

    Game is much much much more than this, and we should be better than that. The fundamental hypocrisy in the manosphere is the push to get laid, while blasting women for being on a cock carousel. I’m not going to pretend I have a viable alternative, but it’s still hypocrisy.

  • hoellenhund2

    “The fundamental hypocrisy in the manosphere is the push to get laid, while blasting women for being on a cock carousel.”

    There’s no contradiction. It’s nothing but the male equivalent of a shit-test. The women who yield to the push for easy sex deserve contempt, those who don’t yield deserve respect. There’s no hypocrisy. It’s more than justifiable to encourage men not to follow a mating script that is no longer culturally and legally enforced, and seek out alternatives instead.

  • Dr. Jeremy

    Thank you everyone for your thoughts. I appreciate the discussion.

    @ FuriousFerret

    I agree that the author would have more power over the outcome, if he had more value to offer. Nevertheless, the main problem is still being convinced to give that value too quickly, without moving toward what he wants too. If he had a million dollars too – and he spent it all on her on the first date – we all understand she would still be done with him. So, the power is not just a function of having value…but also how you hold onto it, never completely gratifying her needs, until you get the outcome you want too. I would argue, if he withheld some of his sexual value (even a few “tricks left for next time”), she would have stuck around for a few more sessions. That was all he wanted anyway.

    @ D-Man

    I’m not sure how genuine men’s desire is anymore in the days of Viagra. Men, young and old, now take pills to “perform” for women that do not excite them naturally. Heck, the fact that they are even marketed as performance-enhancement tells you something about the psychology of the act. People perform at work, or in a competition for status, not in leisure activities for their own enjoyment. So now, if a guy “ain’t into it”, he’s shamed and told there is something wrong with him as a man (ED) – and is given a pill to “perform” anyway. So, I ask you, how much can our male desire (or performance) be manipulated?

    @ Jeremy

    The viable alternative is to be discriminating and selective in the service of keeping power to meet your own desires and goals. The alternative is also to ignore social influence, both pushes and shaming, that disempower and divert you from those genuine goals and desires. If both were a little more selective, they would retain their power to get what they want. They would also retain their value a bit more for the opposite sex, reducing the need for hypocrisy and social control.

    In the end, we try to control each other socially, when everyone fails to control themselves personally. A return to being self-directed and responsible alleviates (and negates) external control and hypocrisy.

  • D-Man

    Well said Doc:

    “if a guy “ain’t into it”, he’s shamed and told there is something wrong with him as a man”

    …couple this with wholesale societal shaming towards men’s natural, healthy, unaugmented desires… and the dilemma comes into sharp relief.

    So let’s get this straight – the fem-centric societal code is: men are creepy for wanting sex (or making it known), and for having sexual thoughts about a woman, because it might make her feel uncomfortable, oppressed and objectified. We are conditioned from infancy to stifle and suffocate our urges, to disconnect from this element of our nature, and to view this part of ourselves as shameful.

    Then, when women want sex, we’re expected to magically reconnect with our natures, unleash the beast within and perform on demand. If we’re unable to do this – either through pure psychological confusion or because the woman (god forbid you judge her) just isn’t hot enough, or isn’t trying enough… we have a pill for that. But you should still be ashamed taking it, you shouldn’t talk about it with your buddies because they’ll think you’re a wimp, and you definitely shouldn’t let the woman find out, because it might shatter her poor fragile self-esteem.

    Is that about right?

    Power and control indeed.

  • D-Man

    Oh yeah, and the REST of the time, we’re supposed to be redirecting those energies into:

    building, maintaining, and advancing the modern world;

    producing more than we consume, so those who are unable to provide for themselves have their needs met;

    protecting those who are unable to protect themselves.

    And we better not be too proud about it.

    Oh yeah, we’re also expected to absorb collateral blame for anything shitty done by anyone with a dick and two balls (or one, Mr. Godwin)… whether it’s happening in the world right now or it happened before we were born.

    But don’t let any of that pressure get into your head when you’re banging her, it might throw off your performance. It’s more important than whether or not you’re having a good time. Gentlemen always please the lady first, remember? Never mind that you can’t make your dick vibrate at 60 Hz. She might leave and bang someone else. Or bang someone else and then leave. If you keep her happy, you can secure her… you can secure her… what was it again?

  • LiveFearless

    $2.3 million per year as Head Football Coach. Beta Bucks.

    Kristi, his wife, belittles him on stage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErFxwJZMKuM

  • Tam the Bam

    I’d say, D-man, you’ve got distilled there the very essence of all Shit Tests

    .. when women want sex, we’re expected to magically reconnect with our natures, unleash the beast within and perform on demand ..

    because the second part would simply never occur to an alpha mindset. Not ever.
    .. We are conditioned from infancy to stifle and suffocate our urges, to disconnect from this element of our nature, and to view this part of ourselves as shameful.
    Instant Fail.

    “Say wut bitch? No I knows you like it thataways ..

    [Any girl=every girl, of course]

  • Jeremy

    What if game were only used to tease?

    What if every man who visited clubs, bars, social scenes with the intent on using game, simply didn’t go for the close? What if all they ever did was get a woman so close to closing that she knew it was going to happen, and then those same men simply pretended they were never talking to that woman? Or worse, what if they used the fact that they had brought a woman to the cusp to pretend like the woman acting like a slut? (not that it matters if she is/is not)

    To me, male power will be exposed to the masses when it’s used to deny women those things they too easily expect from us.

  • Tam the Bam

    Oh Jeremy, you bad man. You’ve reminded me that I used to be young and horribly pretty.
    And this sort of thing used to happen without me even noticing (I was, as I said, very young, under thirty I think)

    “What if all they ever did was get a woman so close to closing that she knew it was going to happen ..”

    I’ll tell ya Jezza mate.
    Eventually they scream. And scream. In public.
    “You’re Fucking Gay! You gay bastard, you poof ya fucking queer, bentshot bastard! Barry ‘e’s a poof! garn ‘kick ‘is fuckin’ nuts off ..”
    etc.

    Leading to my precipitate and alarmed exit (“WTF? Do I know you? What’s the matter? Who The Fuck are you? Where did you come from?” etc), unless trapped (in which case, well, let’s say I still retain vestiges of my juvenile beauty. Whereas things did not often go well for Barry. Or Dean. Or poor Darren.
    Of course none of us had heard of “Let’s You and Him Fight” back then. Shoulda twatted her instead. Carl Froch-style quick jab and a right’un, in-out, gone.
    We live and learn.

  • D-Man

    You know it, Tam

  • Jeremy

    Eventually they scream. And scream. In public.

    Because they’re spoiled.

  • Dr. Jeremy

    @ D-Man

    Exactly… That is my concern about additional power dynamics at play. I truly respect and appreciate the level of “red pill” knowledge collected thus far. I chat here because I find Rollo’s work particularly thoughtful about how the bigger social picture influences our daily interactions. I just think that that there may be more to uncover, as with the sexual power dynamics we’re now discussing above.

    That’s not to say I have “all the answers”. But, sometimes my different perspective on these matters leads me to ask different questions. So, it is helpful to share those thoughts and questions with Rollo and you guys…and see whether they make sense from your perspectives as well.

    I just wish we could all sit down over a drink instead… Sometimes it is hard to convey my thoughts accurately with just a few hundred words of text. So, until the first Manosphere Conference…please endure my long comments.

  • Tin Man

    So why not a Manosphere conference? Would it legal to keep the women out? and of course the man-boobz also. Why couldn’t it happen – there is even a potential monetary aspect for those that have books and such. Like any conference, it would have different “tracks” for different interests. I remember the days of the Black Hat conference, when it was underground and wasn’t publicized – they just came together. Could happen here – you could even call it something non-Manospherian so as not draw too much attention.

    It could happen. Just needs a few Men to decide to do it – that whole mission thing and all.

  • Jeremy

    I would attend. I think it should be a requirement for all speakers to have a beer during their talk.

  • Dr. Jeremy

    @ Tin Man

    It could certainly be underground. Perhaps an in-the-know invite-only kind of thing. Or, if it is private, I think it might be possible to take applications for admittance and then only select certain people.

    The biggest potential barrier I see is anonymity. Most of the manosphere greats are anonymous – with good reason. They are professionals with a lot to lose. The guys who go public get a lot of flak, if not worse. From his blog, it looks like even Athol Kay and his wife got pushed out of jobs for this stuff – and, in my opinion, his work is relatively “tame” and noncontroversial by comparison to the rest of the manosphere.

    So, there would have to be a way of having them speak, while still guarding their anonymity.

  • hoellenhund2

    “So why not a Manosphere conference? Would it legal to keep the women out? and of course the man-boobz also.”

    No, and no. What would be the point of such a conference anyway? Knowledge can be spread online. Conferences are normally for the Blue Piller supporters of the Cathedral.

  • kerynrobinsonartist

    What is the ‘game’?

    I’m a woman living my life, I try to be kind to others and respect other people, male or female. I’m a feminist, ie I believe in equal rights and equal pay for men and women. I don’t get your alpha and beta stuff. I don’t hate men. I think you’re being a bit extreme, but you have the right to express your opinion.

    But maybe women aren’t the enemy. Just saying.

  • Glengarry

    “Women thought you would thoroughly enjoy taking care of them as you’re “supposed” to do. You’re supposed to be happy while being a “good man”. You’re supposed to find the 40 year old career gal who finally found herself to be irresistible. In short, you’re supposed to be utterly happy playing by her rules and be grateful that she made them.”

    Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Mother.

  • New Yorker

    Glengarry’s comment is so spot on. As a single man now who openly speaks his mind, I find women are terrified when I simply say that any relationship will run according to my rules. Even family members assume that I just need to find a girl acceptable enough so that I can then surrender to her domestic imperative. It is still a shock for them to understand that the only imperative that will rule my actions is mine. Rather shocking how the feminine conditioning is ingrained into people.

  • Tam the Bam

    @keryn ” I believe in equal rights and equal pay for men and women”
    Now I hope you’re sitting down, this may come as a bit of a shock.
    So do “we”.
    (i.e. me, and insofar as I can tell it’s the expressed opinion of the other blokes. I’ve never met a (white) man who disagreed).
    My father said the same, and he said his dad was of a like mind.
    ( Relayed to me as “S’ long as thur getten proper rate for t’job, Ah’m no’ agen it”. If they can stand up ti th’work … [sucks on pipe, ominous glowering] ).
    Agreed on “universal” suffrage too. When my grandad was a young man, men of his class didn’t have the vote either. Whereas posh ladies with even a tiny quantity of ‘property’ did. Ha!).

  • Jeremy

    I’m a feminist, ie I believe in equal rights and equal pay for men and women. I don’t get your alpha and beta stuff. I don’t hate men.

    Feminism is hatred of true masculinity. Enforced equality without merit is actually injustice.

  • itsme

    What is the ‘game’?

    no need to worry about that, it’s something for young people.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,005 other followers

%d bloggers like this: