Suck It Up

suck-it-up

Recently Marellus from Just Four Guys brought this to my attention:

Did you see how the womyn tore apart a commenter, by the name of Redlum, on Jezebel ?

Just because he said this :

Why does feminism have to antagonize and mock men all the time? Men are expected to have no vulnerabilities, this is an oppressive gender role. When men’s vulnerabilities are exposed, such as feeling emasculated or being insecure about women making them “obsolete”, that is a human emotion and gloating over it and mocking it is not only terrible, but also one of the big things giving feminism a bad name.

The top reply was this :

If being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you and/or has a higher position than you makes you feel that you are becoming obsolete, maybe you should be mocked for being silly, immature, and sexist. So now, on top of everything else that women have to deal with, we have to comfort men for freaking out whenever a woman surpasses them at something? I’m sorry – if you are in a group that has been privileged over/oppressive of other groups, you don’t get an apology and a reassuring hug every time we get a millimeter closer to some semblance of fairness and equality. Men need to suck it up and deal with life on more equitable terms like adults, without those who do just that expecting a medal for it.

Write a post on what this guy did wrong, if possible.

Redlum’s mistake was twofold. His first error was to ever overtly look for sympathy from a woman (women). We already know women lack the capacity for empathizing with the male experience, but sympathy is another side of the equation. One grave error most blue pill plug-ins make in this respect is a presumption that women owe them sympathy or that women are predisposed to sympathizing with them.

This is usually due to having been conditioned by the feminine for so long to believe that “Open Communication®”, sharing his feelings and being vulnerable will make him the ideal man. This is an unfortunate outcome of the ‘get in touch with your feminine side’ curse of Jung: in a similar respect to the myth of Relational Equity where a man expects his sacrifices and investment in a relationship will be a buffer against women’s Hypergamy, the expectation is that women will appreciate his openness and vulnerabilities. He believes the feminine identity lie that “vulnerability is strength.”

It’s a very seductive fallacy for a dyed-in-the-wool plug-in to make. I’ve read Redlum’s comments before and he doesn’t impress me as a chump, so I believe his comment on Jezebel was really more of a symbolic appeal to feminine reason. What he illustrates here is a common misgiving most Beta blue pill men subscribe to – that they will be perceived as unique, “not like other guys” in his embracing feminine vulnerability. And as you can see from the top Jezebel reply he was met with the same hostility women have for “vulnerable” men.

Hypergamy psychologically predisposes women to hold either contempt or pity for male vulnerability on a limbic level. Even in the most ‘emotionally evolved’ women, by order of degree, Hypergamy is always testing for male fitness in order to assess whom she will pair with either in short term breeding availability or long term provisioning availability. When a man overtly expresses an openness to vulnerability, on a subconscious level it telegraphs his insecurity to her Hypergamous nature. Thus, she filters him out, or if she’s paired with him prior to this expression she initiates the mental protocol to leave him for a better match.

The contempt expressed by the Jezebel authoress is a good example of this.

So now, on top of everything else that women have to deal with, we have to comfort men for freaking out whenever a woman surpasses them at something?

You’re a man, suck it up, you shouldn’t be vulnerable by virtue of your maleness. It’s a conflicting message in light of the touchy-feely feminine conditioning men endure in their upbringing, but it is an honest reaction, and one that men need to understand when sorting out the reality of women and their need to unplug.

I’m not gonna write you a love song, cause you asked for one,..

The second (symbolic?) mistake Redlum makes is making an appeal for sympathy. In Empathy I outlined women’s gut-level, evolutionarily selected-for, lack of empathizing with the male experience. I defined the difference between empathy and sympathy, and while women might lack the means for that empathy, they have a very strong sense of sympathy. However that sympathy comes with conditions.

Women involved with high SMV Alpha Men can be some of the most genuinely, organically sympathetic women you’ll ever encounter. Granted, that sympathy may facilitate her own Hypergamous interests, but more so because that Alpha never petitions her for her sympathy.

Women give their sympathies of their own accord, never as the result of a man petitioning it from her. A woman must be inspired to sympathy for a man, asking for it is negotiating for her desire to be sympathetic.

A man who is intentionally vulnerable smacks of a guy who is so in an effort to qualify for her intimacy. It’s similar to the dynamic found in Play Nice, that niceness, that vulnerability that’s supposed to be strength, is perceived as a ruse to better identify with the feminine and thus be more acceptable to it. If feminine Hypergamy is fine tuned for anything it’s genuineness. That’s not to say women wont turn it to their social and biological advantages, but Hypergamy is always testing for certainty and authenticity. I’ve stated before that there is nothing more satisfying for a woman than to believe she’s figured a guy out using her mythical feminine intuition, this is a direct satisfaction of Hypergamy’s need for certainty, but I should also add that there is nothing more mortifying, rage inducing and produces more bitter tears than a woman who’s had her Hypergamy fooled by an imposter. Not only does this deception involve a loss of investment and resources to her, but it’s also an insult to her ego that her capacity to filter for authenticity isn’t as effective as she believes her ‘intuition’ actually is.

Suck It Up

The bigger picture in this Jezebel exchange is really about one of the most basic and useful social conventions ever devised by the Feminine Imperative – The Male Catch 22:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

This dualistic, conveniently conflicting, social convention is what defines a condition of ‘equality’ for today’s New Woman:

 Men need to suck it up and deal with life on more equitable terms like adults, without those who do just that expecting a medal for it.

In other words suck it up when convenient and sack up when necessary. In a sense she’s not wrong– an intrinsic part of the male experience is not to complain about adversity, not to complain about pain and not to complain about suffering – in other words, Man Up, be strong and don’t let on to any vulnerability. If that sounds contradictory to a lifetime of feminine sensitivity training for men it should, but only because it’s half of the usefulness of the Male Catch 22. Where our Jezebeler drops the ball is the other half of the con – Man up and be useful, to women, to the Feminine Imperative. The problem is that equality only applies to what benefits the feminine, anything else that constitutes a man, constitutes masculinity, is a liability.

If being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you and/or has a higher position than you makes you feel that you are becoming obsolete, maybe you should be mocked for being silly, immature, and sexist.

There is also the option that Men may simply opt out of involving themselves in a relationship with said woman. In this case the Male Catch 22 is used to shame him for his insecurities not only by women for not participating in their potential provisioning, but also by a chorus of plugged in men ready to mock him for his lack of manhood (also in order to convince the feminine of their unique dedication to the imperative and hopefully get laid as a result of it). It’s at this point he’s derided for his ‘fragile ego’ and his ‘being threatened by strong independent women®.”

By virtue of his maleness, he literally cannot win, and any expression of this condition, even the questioning of this situation is then perceived as his complaining about it – and overt confession of vulnerability. What I’m describing here is the core issue blue pill, plugged in men have with Game and the red pill – just asking a question or making a critical observation about the feminine with regard to the male condition is always conflated with men complaining – something men aren’t allowed to do. It comes off as “poor men”, just as our Jezebeler recounts, but it distracts and discourages real discourse about those conditions.

That is how effective the Male Catch 22 is, it kills all critical inquiry before the questions can even be asked.


261 responses to “Suck It Up

  • DEN1

    I’ve always heard, there are two reason you don’t wrestle with pigs: 1) you’ll get dirty and, 2) the pigs like it.

  • Mark

    What I’ve found is that women will only support what benefits them and their future plans/visions. Also this is always in flux, the female prerogative to “change her mind” when it suits her. For example, she might have though it was cool and sexy that you played in a band when you met. But once the band interferes in any way with her plans, she will shame you and guilt you into spending less time on the very thing that attracted her to you. They will also expect you fall in line with any new expectations or changes in opinion because if you truly love them, you’d do anything to stay together… I’m starting to think LTR’s are truly a form of insanity.

  • Gnarkillicious

    Wouldn’t the positive masculine behavior then be to not even OVERTLY question the feminine imperative in any way or petition for empathy or sympathy? It doesn’t seem to me that either are pertinent or necessary for the methods or goals of an Alpha male.

  • Revo Luzione

    Great post, Rollo. Your title evinces a 1990’s Van Halen song, Sucker In a Three Piece, which contains a small morsel of resonance message regarding women’s double standard of behavior and emotional receptivity around high SMV men vs. men that are perceived to be weaker, less alpha, less dominant, and thus more beta.

    Since tightening up my game, cultivating confidence, spinning MLTR plates for the last 4+ years, I’ve found that women are so much more sympathetic and empathetic when weakness is not perceived. In fact, when I’m really crushing it, when my SMV is perceived highly, I need more vulnerability in the relationship in order to really connect. In my 3 year MLTR, I evinced only armor, no softness. It served me well, and, admittedly I left a trail of alpha widows in my wake.

    Now, after 3 years of the tough guy game, which I genuinely enjoyed, I also crave a little tenderness, a bit more emotional connection. Which sucks, but I trust my gut, so I’m working to let a little love into my heart. However it’s a tough balance, and I’m grateful that I have red-pill eyes such that I can see the effect of too much emotionality. Calibration is king, and unfortunately one slip-up can be hard to recover from. I think this is why the manosphere tends to be so hard on betas and on vulnerability in general–in the modern SMP, vulnerability exhibits wicked asset price volatility. Better avoid it almost entirely.

    The Jezebel example is an interesting one. For all the feminist’s noise, they don’t seem to be a very vulnerable group, unless one counts bitching and kvetching as “sharing one’s feelings.” Nor do they seem interested in vulnerable men.

    The only group I’m aware of that seeks vulnerability in men are the new-age & quasi-new-age people who are on “a spiritual path,” etc. This group seems to seek vulnerability in men more than most cultural groups of women, and after observing a strong trend of hypergamy and its associate hamsterbations in this group of people, I suspect that that old maxim, which I attribute to this blog, is as true here as anywhere else: “Women want men to be honest about their feelings for the same reason as Uncle Sam wants us to be honest about our finances.”

    So, once and for all–could the entire concept of “vulnerability” simply be an evolutionary hack on the part of the XX chromosome, so that women can literally find a male’s reproductive fitness vulnerabilities and weaknesses?

    More practically, ss there any heuristic or maxim we can use to calibrate vulnerability more effectively? Vulnerability game has helped me immensely, but it’s so easy to over-apply it.

  • TJ

    “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
    ― Mark Twain

  • TJ

    Also interesting to note that the original Jez article refers to a tv show and a movie as examples of relationships. TV is not real life.

  • ng85

    One of the first things I did when I took the red pill was to stop looking to women for emotional support, because I quickly learned that any sign of weakness is something they can pounce upon. Likewise, the more out of control a woman’s life is, the more stable she’ll want her man to be. Basically, be whatever it is she’s not, because she’ll need your attributes to make her a “whole” person.

  • ng85

    And on the subject, this blog post reminded me of a time that really drove home how little American women care about men they’re not invested in. A few months ago I went out on the town with the girl I was seeing and a female friend of hers, as well as this model-esque beauty who I was just meeting that night. The model girl was constantly texting and typing away on her phone the entire time we were there. My girl asked how my weekend was, and I told her I had to go home because my grandmother was in the hospital and her health was declining. Upon hearing my girl and the other friend giving condolences, the model girl stops texting, looks up, and asks “Wait, what happened?” So I re-told the story, essentially that my grandmother might be dying. Her response?

    “Oh.”

    And back to her phone she went. I wasn’t expecting her to get all emotional and coddle me, but someone close to me was very ill at the time, and in most cases some kind of sympathy or condolences should be expressed. And whatever happened to the kindness of strangers? I’ve found that men are usually the most kind to strangers, but to friends and family they have no problems with playful ribbing. But with women it’s the opposite, their initial interactions with men and women are shit tests and rudeness, and only once they determine you worthy then they express normal human emotions. But the hotter the girl, the more nasty, rude, or just plain socially retarded she’ll be.

  • Keoni Galt

    That is how effective the Male Catch 22 is, it kills all critical inquiry before the questions can even be asked.

    Hmmmmmm….kinda sounds like another Catch 22 we should all be familar with, no?

    “Do these jeans make me look fat?”

  • Tam the Bam

    “.. the model girl stops texting, looks up, and asks “Wait, what happened?” So I re-told the story, essentially that my grandmother might be dying. Her response? “Oh.” “
    You seem to be a deal more easygoing and relaxed than me, ng85.
    I’d have been sorely tempted to reassure her with
    “.. don’t worry, darling, you’ll never be a grandmother”.

  • DBM

    “So, once and for all–could the entire concept of “vulnerability” simply be an evolutionary hack on the part of the XX chromosome, so that women can literally find a male’s reproductive fitness vulnerabilities and weaknesses?”

    Yes, this is correct. When the vulnerable guy exposes himself he signals low reproductive value and either becomes a tool or a criminal to the feminine imperative. He might as well be a terrible dancer, too.

    Male weakness is the most selected against personality trait in the human animal kingdom. Women are the daughters of brutal and dangerous men who scattered the brains out of less fit males for thousands of years. This is the hardest part of the red pill to swallow, in my opinion, because it mixes the unequivocal truth of the brutality of nature with female deception. You are only what you can kill.

    What is interesting about the vulnerable man myth is that so many feminists are quick to dismiss it. The other major pillar of female power is male self-sacrifice and that is far more important to the feminine imperative in the 21st century. One wonders if the sensitivity myth is used more frequently in times of abundance while the white knight provider myth is used more frequently in times of economic scarcity.

    More interesting than feminist dismissal of male emotional sensitivity is masculine dismissal of emotional sensitivity. Males who point and laugh at the weakest male in the group get to push themselves above that male on the hierarchy. For these males, merely being above the weak male (in perception if not in fact) gives them the ability to defend or indulge in white knight provider behavior. This is the source of the blue pill alpha, a truly despicably dishonest pussy.

    As a side-note. The MRAsphere would do well to change their marketing simply because of the truth of this post by Rollo. By attempting to directly protect male weakness and sensitivity to inequality they expose themselves as lower tiered targets of women’s scorn. Chateau Heartiste also protects the interest of sensitive males but does so in a confrontational, masculine way that creates a palpable sense of fear in his antagonists. If MRAs wish to protect the interests of men they should do so in a Machiavellian way which does not expose them to “weak” men scorn. They will be treated more seriously by both men and women and will appeal to men who need political representation. A shift of perception for this organization would make all the difference.

  • Johnycomelately

    Wow, top, top post.

    “One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient.”

    This was a particularly enlightening post for me and made sense of the recent barrage of attacks on male fags.

    “Women give their sympathies of their own accord, never as the result of a man petitioning it from her.”

    Reminds me of the old Westerns where the hero is seriously injured and only grudgingly accepts help from the concerned heroine, usually only after he has passed out.

  • LiveFearless

    ‘Redlum’ made a comment under a post about a journal article based on ‘research’ … Observation:

    In the final two experiments, conducted online, 657 U.S. participants, 284 of whom were men, were asked to think about a time when their partner had succeeded or failed.
    That’s 370 women, 284 men. Wait, some articles say 700 participants. So, 413 women, 284 men. The study was done online.

    As we’ve discussed in prior comment threads. Can research funding sources affect outcomes of peer-reviewed academic/scholarly journal work?

    What entities have funded the ‘Gender Differences in Implicit Self-Esteem Following a Romantic Partner’s Success or Failure’ journal article? Kate Ratliff is credited for the work.

    Where did funding for the research come from?

    Kate Ratliff is Principal Investigator of Project Implicit, a Harvard-based multidisciplinary collaboration…

    https://implicit.harvard.edu/‎

    https://www.projectimplicit.net/about.html

    “Project Implicit supports a collaborative network of researchers interested in basic and applied research concerning thoughts and feelings that occur outside of conscious awareness or control.”

    Feelings. Thoughts. Outside of… control.

  • Carlos

    Are you sure that using Jezebel as an example is sound? From what I understand, the regulars there are some mighty bitter, angry, man-hating crones. Are normal women also that turned-off by displays of vulnerability?

  • LiveFearless

    It’s too bad ‘Redlum’ failed to purchase “The Rational Male” (book). He missed out on quoting its wisdom. If @Redlum is reading, you should quote from this (free of charge) post:

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/13/timeline-of-the-professional-woman/

    A career man rarely sees a career woman as a good choice for a wife or an LTR, not because he’s ‘threatened’ by her status, but because he’s known and worked with enough of them once he’s reached 35+ years of age to steer clear of them.
    Men typically could care less what a woman earns or what she does to earn it – it’s simply not a factor in attraction for us – we don’t take a woman’s status or wealth into consideration~Rollo Tomassi

  • Vi Nay

    1st mistake: Playing the vulnerability game. This is only advantageous if a man is hitting on a woman he is clearly hotter than.
    2nd mistake: Showing an air of awe towards successful women. This is simply not required in any given situation.
    3rd mistake: Even if a woman is beautiful, intelligent and successful, her worth is dominated by her look. This optimum look only has a short shelf life before decline creeps in.
    4th mistake: Not acknowledging that women, in almost every circumstance, strive to be with a man of higher value. So just because she may have a better occupation than the relative man doesn’t make her necessarily more desirable. This is the way a man must always hold his attitude.
    5th mistake: Giving a toss about women’s evolved “success”. Men should either have the confidence to embrace it – hence knowing she’s onto a good thing with him – or move onto a lower calibre woman if he hasn’t the confidence to cope with her.

    All the above manifests in never idolizing women. The below link may add a little more.

    http://www.vinaywcmd.com/2013/12/the-curse-of-male-wolf-whistling.html

  • Flatnose

    Before reading your blogs Rollo I would have fallen for this man’s message hook line and sinker.

    https://www.facebook.com/theproblemismen#!/theproblemismen/photos_stream

    1.1 million followers!

  • Different T

    @Tam

    I’d have been sorely tempted to reassure her with
    “.. don’t worry, darling, you’ll never be a grandmother”.

    Beautiful.

    May I have your permission to put that on a shirt design?

  • Eris

    It can be a hard lesson for many of us to learn. In my experience guys who grow up in a heavily female-influenced environment often unwittingly internalize the idea of “Open Communication®” (did you do a whole article on this topic?) and it can be a painful realisation that women don’t actually want to hear about your feelings, but rather expect you to be the fixed object at the centre of their orbit, so to speak.

    In the media we so frequently see the cliché of the woman taming the free alpha spirit, and him readily falling in line with her expectations becoming a romantic, emotionally-always-available nice guy who finally admits to her that he’s vulnerable (how often have I heard a woman tout the sex appeal of a man who can show his vulnerabilities – really?).

    However, watching this as an inexperienced guy with a male problem-solving mind, the tendency is to think, well if that’s what women want, well then we’ll do that and be successful. The problem is, the men portrayed in this way in the media, due to their status, are already perceived as alpha by women and thus what we really see the expression of the female nature’s drive to harness, utilise and effectively wield the power associated with “prime alpha stock” to her benefit, all packaged neatly in a nice romantic fantasy.

    Much of this bunk created for women is little more than a validation of her own agency by way of her sexual power – the thing with purging the alpha from the man is that the pleasure is in the actual purging and not in the result – hence all these films, shows etc. always end in the same place.

    As such, this apparently contradictory behaviour could be an expression of women’s instinct to exercise their own agency over men but – as I think Rollo actually wrote in another article(?), it may in reality serve as a kind of built in system to filter and select for those men that, despite women’s apparent validation depending on it, even so, will just not be tamed.

  • gregg

    The basic message is that women simply do not care! She cares about herself and her children. You are nothing but a TOOL.

    Normal men are not able to understand this one. They are not even willing to understand. I see romantic nature, this yearning for justice, goodness, soul-mates in almost every post of this blog, written by man. Our very willingness to live is dependent on recognition, sympathy of women. But, again – women do not care! So, what we would do now?

    I see quite different message in posts of women. For example living tree. She as a women does not understand the concept of value, self-sacrifice for ideas, justice, goodness. For her this is nothing but WEAKNESS. Therefore, she pities men, as she wrote in previous posts. She realizes that it is due to those ideas, that women are able to manipulate, rule and exploit men.

    She, like every woman, is survivalist, cold, manipulative, calculating, with precise, sharp inteligence, capable of survival in almost every situation. Most of men are no match for her. Woman WILL be sympathetic, she will show even empathy – when it is to her advantage – like when she is trying to catch her alpha. She will be cold, sharp – when it is to her advantage – in divorce. Then will be sweet, sexy and feminine – with her new lover, right after divorce, in which she robbed her slave of everything. These changes can take place within minutes, something incomprehensible for normal men. There si really a cold, animalistic, dark place in each woman, she is basically walking DNA.

    But men – they will sacrifice themselves just to be recognized by her…

  • Different T

    @DBM

    The MRAsphere would do well to change their marketing simply because of the truth of this post by Rollo. By attempting to directly protect male weakness and sensitivity to inequality they expose themselves as lower tiered targets of women’s scorn.

    If you value life differently than the equalists, we must accept that the “manosphere” may appear as the ultimate egalitarian.

    Regarding supposed “red pill women” Rol states: they’ll pretend like they’re somehow on the same team

    What “team” are these males on?

    Sites like Dalrock and a few others attempt to reorient “beta” males away from service of the feminine imperative and towards the authors’ interpretation of the Christian God.

    What do sites like RationalMale and the majority of the manosphere offer?

    The readers and commenters are certainly not “alpha” males, certainly no longer “beta” males, and far too common to be “sigma” males.

    What do you sites like RationalMale and Chateau Heartiste actually breed.

    Eris, in a previous comment states these males are learning “placing value on his own personal fulfilment (arguably to match that of the modern ‘empowered’ western woman).”

    Formula for the majority of the “manosphere”

    Cause: Disillusionment with the feminine imperative.

    Response: “overwriting or re-purposing by ideology” their ability to serve. Literally, a mental autoimmune disease whereby all subjugation is slavery and detrimental.

    Effect: Opening a gaping vacuum of purpose.

    Response: Fortunately for the these disordered males, there are plenty of fatty-fuckers who will whisper sweet nothings in their ear and give their life a purpose, if only for fleeting moments. The more subterranean and hidden the subjugation, the more it is desired.

  • Lion

    All of the strong independent women® that I have worked for over the years have intentionally laid out a mine field for male employees to navigate through. Women of authority in the workplace are full of insecurities, fears, and irrational emotions. I never made any progress professionally until I found a company with a male management team where my strengths were put to good use, and I moved up quickly. Had I continued in the feminine workplace, I would still be navigating the minefield, I’d still be poor, and I’d still be wondering why my accomplishments don’t translate into rewards. I’m sure these women have two faces… the one they wear to work, and the one they wear on the dating scene. God help them if they don’t mask themselves on the dating scene ’cause they’re pretty repulsive in the workplace.

  • Tony

    This is opening my eyes….

    I remember a several TV sitcoms (e.g. Rhoda) in my formative youth about where the woman was encouraging the man to be soft and cry…. so you’d think that’s what they wanted….. but what I didn’t notice until just now remembering it was the peals of laughter on the laugh track. That laughter was mocking laughter wasn’t it. And the slightly confused feeling I got as a boy as to what I should be doing was the correct instinctual response to being fucked with as a test.

  • jf12

    I keep trying to get in touch with my feminine side, but she keeps slapping my hand away.

  • Tilikum

    vulnerability is only really possible for the superior man.

    when you have sufficiently demonstrated that you can control your emotions 100%, and in light of the physical, social, and mental dominance you exude, only then is it not just ok, but will cement you to the women around you.

    yet given the above, this is only possible for maybe 3% of men. then yet again, that’s who Jezebelers are writing too…….the object of their affections.

  • jf12

    Women really really really enjoy sympathizing with and soothing a wounded alpha male, even if he’s being all pouty e.g. about someone in the world not falling at his feet. Every woman does in fact feel that an alpha deserves the best, including her naturally, just like she feels she deserves the best. Thus it is only true of beta males that they are expected to “suck it up” themselves and “By virtue of his maleness, he literally cannot win, and any expression of this condition, even the questioning of this situation is then perceived as his complaining about it – and overt confession of vulnerability.” Plenty of alpha males do it all the time, despite what you might have otherwise believed. The difference is that for an alpha male women will line up to suck it up for him.

  • deti

    jf12:

    Get in touch with your feminine side.

    And then strangle that bitch.

  • jf12

    @DT “certainly no longer “beta” males” On what basis do you assert such certainty?

  • Tin Man

    This is one of the areas where I went off the rails with my (x)wife. For the longest time, I didn’t “open up” to her about feelings, then when things were going south, it was encouraged by almost everyone to “open up” tell her how you really feel .. from what i could tell (even in my BP/Beta Husband mindset), it just gave her a new club or two to beat me over the head with later on.

    My suggestion … Bitch to your Male friends, those that you trust with your own life, and you know have your back … don’t open up to any woman you are in a “relationship” with.

  • On the Dark Enlightenment

    […] is just feminist talk for the aspects of masculinity that do not serve the Feminine Imperative. Suck It Up | Don't fall for their bullshit, it's just another attempt to get the slaves back to the […]

  • Simon

    Better yet, just go your own way and don’t even bother with them. Doing so is completely wasting masculine energy that could be far better used, to enjoy, to create.. People like Tesla come to mind. Great example.

  • Kingsley

    @ Mark
    “For example, she might have though it was cool and sexy that you played in a band when you met. But once the band interferes in any way with her plans, she will shame you and guilt you into spending less time on the very thing that attracted her to you.”

    Then she’ll despise you even more for acquiescing to her demands.

    Rollo, your most excellent post is decades too late (for me) but is very much appreciated in forgiving/understanding the most relevant heart break ever…..my mother.

  • Apollo

    I think his first and only mistake was expecting a reasonable response from a bunch of nasty raging bitches.

    Seriously, why bother with them? Did he think he was going to change some minds in the hen house with his “facts” and “logic”? Those are just tools of the evil Patriarchy, and are no match for a womans mighty feelings, telling her shes right, this time and every time.

    Good post though Rollo.

  • Water Cannon Boy

    Likewise, the more out of control a woman’s life is, the more stable she’ll want her man to be.
    I’ve always felt that was a big part of why couples breakup after a death of a child. The father or husband isn’t allowed to grieve like he should be able to. If he does, he’s not being there for the wife/mother.

    But the hotter the girl, the more nasty, rude, or just plain socially retarded she’ll be.
    I actually don’t find that. I’ve found that the ones that I would call reasonably attractive, ones that have had their mother and enough naive guys tell them how great they are. Those are the ones that can be a little uppity. Especially reasonably attractive face with a non exciting body. Not a bad body, just regular. Think Taylor Swift.
    But ones that are truly really good looking are fine as long as there isn’t someone around acting like a cartoon character.

  • SGT Ted

    Your reply was good but a bit long and a little in the weeds.

    “Why does feminism have to antagonize and mock men all the time?”

    Because feminism, like all neo-Marxist drivel, is the creed of selfish assholes and supremacists, that is less about actual sexism and more about cultural Marxist assertions and power plays. Their responses to intellectual challenge can all be predicted, not so much on hypergamy grounds, but with the rather ordinary neo-Marxist template “oppressor/oppressed” grievance pablum inculcated in the Universities. The Jezebel comments are shot through with it.

    Regular non-female neo-Marxists make the same sort of non-replies to challenges to their assertions, name calling and ridicule being foremost tactic, rather than intellectual attempts at argument. It is all they have.

  • DBM

    @ Different T

    At the end of the day it’s simply the improved odds of success with a higher quality vagina to give birth to your genetic progeny. An ugly, emotionally weak, innately inferior male who selfishly and deceptively plays the best card he can in the mating market will do for *himself* what society won’t – look out for his interests.

    I’m not interested in the broader philosophical implications of non truly “alpha” men swerving away from their intended destinies. I don’t care if civilization collapses and I don’t care if it goes against the natural order. I acknowledge the existence of hierarchy but believe in change or I’m confident enough in myself to understand that I can improve to a point where I can more fully satisfy my selfish desires.

    I haven’t known a single man who hasn’t benefitted from understanding the narcissism and deception of the human female. The more a man embraces this analysis the more he can adjust and react in a more advantageous fashion. Your barely comprehensible and suggestive post seems to me a circuitous tap dance around the core reason for the existence of something as profoundly amoral and disadvantageous to women as the Red Pill: Demand.

  • David Carter

    “Write a post on what this guy did wrong”

    Unlike women (who didn’t have to prove their value to the tribe) men had to continually earn their place by demonstrating valuable qualities – Such as Courage, Honesty, Integrity and Self Sacrifice etc… to other men of the tribe. Over time these valuable qualities evolved to be an inherent part of the Male psyche.

    Instead of valuing them, women developed very effective methods and strategies of using the value men put on these virtues, to manipulate him into acting in way to benefit her. Over time these manipulative ploys evolved to be an inherent part of the female psyche.

    Any man entering into a dialog/argument/relationship with a woman, expecting her to value – let alone display – these virtues, will inevitably become frustrated and confused.

    That’s not to say that we should blame women for this, any more than we should blame an orange tree for not giving us apples. But it is why: Debating with even the educated living-trees of this world, will always be fruitless.

  • Mike

    Rollo, you wrote: “Hypergamy psychologically predisposes women to hold either contempt or pity for male vulnerability on a limbic level.”

    That means women will automatically reject men who show weakness or submissiveness, either to them, other women, or even other men. Young men still have the memory of their mother comforting them, when they were sad or hurt, fresh in their minds. But to look for that type of response from women that are potential mates is to ensure outright rejection, not attraction. This was a difficult truth for me to accept, and I’m not a young man. But as I do, it will be better to have attraction without sympathy, than to have neither. Thanks for putting this information out there for us.

  • ng85

    “You seem to be a deal more easygoing and relaxed than me, ng85.
    I’d have been sorely tempted to reassure her with
    “.. don’t worry, darling, you’ll never be a grandmother”.”

    In hindsight I could’ve called her out for it. After all, hot girls’ shitty behavior is a product of people being afraid to call them out on things. In the past when I was “gaming” girls I found it so much easier to “neg” an average looking girl than a gorgeous one, and still to this day I find my brain goes numb when I have to interact with any girl over an 8. In addition, the hotter a girl is, the more glued to her iPhone she’ll be. In her eyes I was probably the asshole – How DARE I distract her from texting people and reading comments on her Instagram photos with my sob story about a dying family member???

    But part of the red pill is learning just to not care. This girl was hot, but I wasn’t fucking her and I had only just met her. Why should I care so much about what a stranger says or thinks?

  • D-Man

    Actually used this dynamic to my advantage in the past, to cleanly dissolve an LTR.

    Very attractive girl… she started throwing sloppy drunken fits, provoking me like a child, for no good reason… probably wanted to be “dominated” more, was trying to pull it out of me. I simply didn’t feel like it, it was just a plain drag. Been through enough to know that you can waste your life getting drawn into these kinds of histrionics.

    Soon as I saw crazy, I knew I was out, so I noped out of the situation by deliberately showing my “vulnerable” side. Where she expected me to get angry, I showed concern for her. And she couldn’t fucking stand it. Then I stone nexted her.

    That’s the thing about the shit test: when shit is legitimately hitting fan, I am perfectly confident that I will dig down and deal. But artificial, manufactured crises? I’m not stupid, I can see the behaviour is unnecessary. Is she really testing me to see if I can deal with life’s shit? Or is she testing me to see if I will consent to deal with HER shit? Even getting angry, if that’s what she wants, is playing into her game. Wanna test me? YOU FAIL. No time for it.

    I’ll fight for you honey, but I won’t fight YOU for you. In her core: a feral wraith, provoking me, yearning to be controlled. Since having read more, a good 50 shades routine would’ve done the trick, probably all she wanted. But even today, I wouldn’t do any different.

    This is what feminism needs to learn: when you condition men to control their urges from birth, they will get good at it… but the agency they gain will be at their behest, not yours.

  • Badpainter

    D-Man – “This is what feminism needs to learn: when you condition men to control their urges from birth, they will get good at it… but the agency they gain will be at their behest, not yours.”

    This is gold right here. When man is told everything he does, thinks. and desires is wrong he will eventually choose to do what best serves his own needs.

  • 8to12

    This dovetails with a post I made a while back: The Myth of the Egalitarian Marriage .

    A married couple along with their two children are driving home from a weekend trip. As they round the corner their home comes into view. There are firetrucks and flashing lights. They simultaneously realize that their house has burned to the ground. One spouse emotionally melts down; turns to the other spouse; and with tears in their eyes and panic in their voice screams: “Oh my God! What are we going to do? Tell me, what are we going to do?”

    Which spouse had the emotional meltdown?

    Men do not have the option of emotional weakness. Women love to talk about equality, but when the sh*t hits the fan, men are expected to be the strong one.

  • Great Caesar's Ghost

    I’ll suck it up, all right. I’ll suck it up and stick with women who are feminine. Gee, my loss, but I guess I gotta do it.

  • 8to12

    @D-Man said: “Is she really testing me to see if I can deal with life’s shit? Or is she testing me to see if I will consent to deal with HER shit?”

    Yes, to both questions.

    If you can’t handle the little bit of sh*t she (a little ol’ woman) throws your way, how can she be confident that you can handle a big load of sh*t that the world might throw at you?

    If you must take your child to the emergency room, and they tell you it will be a 7 hour wait, how will you handle it? Will you be nice and supplicating (“no problem; my child can bleed for seven more hours”), or will you bow up and raise holy hell to get your child seen by a doctor right now?

    Be it a wild animal attack in the far distant past; an attack from another tribe/village in the not so distant past; or an emergency in the present, all women understand (at an unconscious level anyway) their welfare depended on how a man reacted when the sh*t hit the fan. The only indication a woman has about how you will act in an emergency is how you react to her sh*t tests. Do you roll over or fight back?

    And if you can’t handle the sh*t she (a woman) throws at you, then she’ll have zero confidence you’ll be able to handle the big sh*t the world throws at you.

    I don’t think women do this consciousl. It’s so hardwired into them they do it without even realizing they are doing it.

  • Mr. Craig

    Great post again Rollo! This article is a constant reminder to me how women just despise weak men. A previous commenter said it best, “if you need to complain, tell your male friends”…Never ever complain or look for sympathy in a woman about your issues, they will use it against you, and their respect for you drops instantly. I know a lot of men out there find this unfair, but this the “red pill life” and we are better for it. But the funny thing is, I have dated many women in my life, and when the proverbial “shit does hit the fan” for them you will not find another woman helping them through tough times, it will ALWAYS be a man. Women, by nature, are the more selfish of the sexes, and only see how things pertain to them. Keep up the good work Rollo!

  • D-Man

    Pffft. It’s not that I can’t handle it, it’s that I choose not to. It’s not worth it. It’s a losing investment. A sucking hole of the wrong kind. The first stage in an attempt to establish a Pavlovian response. It’s not real crisis. If I responded limbically to eveything a woman tried to put me to, I’d be too fried to deal with the real crises when they came. I decide what I need to get worked up over. That’s my point. Get it?

    Besides that, if I’ve already had a woman a hundred times, dropping her pleasant demeanour is not going to work in her favour.

  • D-Man

    BTW nice try at the “not man enough” reframe attempt

  • aethonblack

    This post is pure platinum. I recently nexted a girl who is a nanny for a rich couple. Despite her deep desire to have her own kids, The wife spoils her regularly in order to bribe her into contiuning to watch her kid…I’m talking purses shoes, a condo, you name it. Once the “you don’t care about me enough” histronics started I saw hypergamy rearing its demonic head. After a brief attempt at a sit-down talk, I saw the writing on the wall–I wasn’t beta enough and she expected me to spoil and dote on her and compete with her boss. Fuck that shit sideways. I promptly fucked her shit sideways, and after her last emotional flareup told her good luck having a baby with her Harpy of a boss, left for Vegas for a bachelor party, and never called her again.

  • D-Man

    @8to12:

    “I don’t think men do this consciously. It’s so hardwired into them they do it without even realizing they are doing it.”

    Sound rapey?

  • eris

    In virtually relationship barring very short ones, they will always be an element of the woman using the man to unload her emotional instability, be it complaining, nagging or stroppy behaviour that will rear it’s ugly head with greater or lesser frequency. It’s just is the way women are – for them, anything that they deem is a crisis IS a crisis and and their self-centric nature allows them unload their woes onto the guy without a second’s thought – with only fleeting insights of “maybe I was a bit unfair to him” – if you’re lucky.

    Women, on the other hand, find it so hard to lend a sympathetic ear to the guy they’ve emotionally invested in; they know intellectually that a man “theoretically” has feelings but some instinct in them seems to enable them to entertain a kind of perpetual cognitive dissonance and in protesting you force upon them an issue that they were quite happy pretending didn’t exist.

    In the long run, it comes down to whether her emotional instability shows itself infrequently enough to be manageable; women seem to quickly cotton onto what a guy’s buttons are, the question is once she knows, whether or not she’s prepared to play it – the more immature and insecure she is the more likely she is to use it on a whim.

  • HanSolo

    DBM

    Thanks for a full-bellied laugh reading this statement:

    “the blue pill alpha, a truly despicably dishonest pussy.”

  • jf12

    Re: women surpassing. All men say, and all studies bear out, that men would prefer to be hypergamous too if they could. It’s women who will not let them. A man would always (always) prefer his wife to be richer, if she wouldn’t get an attitude. But she WILL definitely get an attitude. It’s not the man’s fault.

  • Treize

    @ mark

    You just described my last relationship…

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Rivelino tweeted this today:

    She wants a kind man who knows when to be tough. #bluepill

    She wants a tough man who knows when to be kind. #redpill

  • aethonblack

    @jf12

    Women hate HATE HATE when you apply their strategies toward them. Indifference, callousness and lack of empathy being the top three. In their case unfortunately, being rich isn’t a requirement for attraction from males. This is why it makes no sense to hail their accomplishments. It turns them into men, albeit with much shittier dispositions and robs them of their ability to be pleasant and feminine

  • aethonblack

    @Rollo

    you suggesting we keep a stash of both in the apothecary?

  • Morpheus

    In virtually relationship barring very short ones, they will always be an element of the woman using the man to unload her emotional instability, be it complaining, nagging or stroppy behaviour that will rear it’s ugly head with greater or lesser frequency. It’s just is the way women are – for them, anything that they deem is a crisis IS a crisis and and their self-centric nature allows them unload their woes onto the guy without a second’s thought – with only fleeting insights of “maybe I was a bit unfair to him” – if you’re lucky.
    Women, on the other hand, find it so hard to lend a sympathetic ear to the guy they’ve emotionally invested in; they know intellectually that a man “theoretically” has feelings but some instinct in them seems to enable them to entertain a kind of perpetual cognitive dissonance and in protesting you force upon them an issue that they were quite happy pretending didn’t exist.

    Eris,

    Interesting. I think you’ve nailed it here. I’ve read some women who drone on endlessly about “emotional intimacy” and only selecting men “capable of emotional intimacy” and I wondered what was meant, and I think your description applies. Emotional intimacy basically means the man being a receptacle for the woman’s emotional instability. In a sense, the man’s function is a sponge, and sponges soak up, they don’t unload themselves.

  • D-Man

    hmmm, there’s a name for a sponge that women use…
    Yep Eris, you have nailed something here, in that when a woman offloads her emotional instability on a man – something he puts up with – she might actually see it as an investment. So him “opening up” to her in return would be, in her math, a counter investment that she must honor. Is this why a woman will remember the details you tell her in confidence and use them later against you, when guys rarely do that?

  • Different T

    @DBM

    At the end of the day it’s simply the improved odds of success with a higher quality vagina to give birth to your genetic progeny.

    So you want kids now?

    I don’t care if civilization collapses and I don’t care if it goes against the natural order.

    So you want kids now, but don’t care what environment they inherit? Targeted baby-bashing good for you?

    Whether you or I “care” about what happens to the current civilization is not going to change the outcome.

    The question is: are you capable of more?

    I acknowledge the existence of hierarchy but believe in change or I’m confident enough in myself to understand that I can improve to a point where I can more fully satisfy my selfish desires.

    Understood. If you were in the position to profit from the enforcement of the feminine imperative, would you enforce it? Would you pass the laws, write the programs, and maintain plausible deniability?

    In a previous comment regarding “red pill awareness” Tin Man stated, “The journey is hard, the road is long, but the destination is worth it.”

    What is offered as the destination except learning how to navigate within the feminine imperative.

    I haven’t known a single man who hasn’t benefitted from understanding the narcissism and deception of the human female. The more a man embraces this analysis the more he can adjust and react in a more advantageous fashion.

    To whom is this directed?

    Your barely comprehensible and suggestive post seems to me a circuitous tap dance around the core reason for the existence of something as profoundly amoral and disadvantageous to women as the Red Pill: Demand.

    That was not the intent. Again, none of this is to suggest anyone turns Captain-Save-A-Ho towards a female, a state, or civilization.

  • Rol

    @DT

    Regarding supposed “red pill women” Rol states: they’ll pretend like they’re somehow on the same team
    What “team” are these males on?

    Men have a vested interest in uncovering the truth. Blogs such as this are an excellent medium to exchange ideas and provide a constant reinforcement of “awareness”.

    We’re constantly bombarded with the feminine imperative. At home, work, school, church, TV/movies, music, etc. It permeates our everyday lives. You quite literally cannot escape it.

    It is a contradiction to believe women are comfortable with this. It takes away part of the tremendous leverage they’ve been given. They’re not even conscious of why they behave the way they do often times.

    The movement is still relatively small, but men are coming together as a “team” to fight back.

  • Eris

    @ D-Man I’m not sure whether women count it as a negative investment, although maybe. In the end those key chinks in a man’s emotional armour are carefully registered by her on some level.

    The fact she uses those details against him later on is more to do with a women’s style of arguing. Arguing with a woman about an issue close to her heart is like trying to reason with a child; no matter how irritated a man becomes he nearly always attempts to appeal to her reason in some way, in contrast women in arguments make no sense and eventually resort to foul play, going for those emotional soft spots in order provoke and getting to play the victim card when he loses his rag and says something he shouldn’t – even when both are displaying equal levels of anger, a man always comes off looking worse than the woman.

    Nevertheless, that same foul play just does not work when used on her
    and on the flip side a guy suggesting that a woman was being deliberately provocative with her words, has become equally socially unacceptable – it’s a no win situation.

    From what I’ve seen, the only solution is, as others have said, offload emotionally away from home and never share that part of you with her, and if you already did, when the she throws a hissy fit (as she inevitable will), know what’s probably on its way, make yourself scarce and just let her burn herself out – lose the battle to win the war, as they say.

  • Different T

    @ Rol

    Men have a vested interest in uncovering the truth. Blogs such as this are an excellent medium to exchange ideas and provide a constant reinforcement of “awareness”.

    We’re constantly bombarded with the feminine imperative. At home, work, school, church, TV/movies, music, etc. It permeates our everyday lives. You quite literally cannot escape it.

    It is a contradiction to believe women are comfortable with this. It takes away part of the tremendous leverage they’ve been given. They’re not even conscious of why they behave the way they do often times.

    Understood.

    The movement is still relatively small, but men are coming together as a “team” to fight back.

    This is not understood. Again, a team has mission, a goal.

    Is this the goal?

    these males are learning “placing value on his own personal fulfilment (arguably to match that of the modern ‘empowered’ western woman).”

    In other words,

    What is offered as the destination except learning how to navigate within the feminine imperative.

    I perceive those as the goal. If my perception is incorrect, what do you assume is the goal.

    If my perception is correct, how do those goals not lead to an affirmative answer to If you were in the position to profit from the enforcement of the feminine imperative, would you enforce it? Would you pass the laws, write the programs, and maintain plausible deniability?

    Again, some sites deal with this issue. Guys like Vox and Dalrock reorient the males towards their interpretation of the Christian God. Chateau, RationaleMale, the vast majority of the rest…….

  • Different T

    It is a contradiction to believe women are comfortable with this.

    Here is a different interpretation. The reason you are seeing Dr. Helen on Fox News, WSJ is publishing a feminist’s defense of masculinity, and “red pill women” are sprouting up like weeds is that they are genuinely scared. They are beginning to sense that these males are not playing along, are not turning a blind eye, are not “pussy whipped” (or whatever temporal emotion).

    They are afraid the males are as weak, ignorant, and fundamentally incapable as they appear.

  • Alexander

    Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative.

    I wonder which are the psychological consequences of this Catch 22 situation for boys. Sounds like an imprisonment.

    Signor Tommassi, you’re indeed a brilliant writer. I had read before a manosphere blog of an equally intelligent writer (which was shut down by the way on accusations of misogyny) in which he described how is a woman’s love. Actually he was mostly referring to and denouncing the feminist mindset. It resemble a Dante-esque description in which he basically asserted some tenets:

    a. Feminists are megalomaniacs and narcissists. They believe in guaranteed happiness and that they are entitled to make mistakes as much as they want in life, as there will always be something better.
    b. Feminists value exhibition, exhibition of sexual power (by locking down a very valuable mate).
    c. Technological development and sexual freedom (in the free world) has rendered the value of the ordinary man close to zero, to nothing to most feminists.
    d. So that the ordinary man might have access to a woman’s (or feminist’s) love, he has to “compensate” for his lack of value (either by having game, an extraordinary sexual power/status, wealth, etc. especially power). According to him, a feminist’s love is proportionate to a man’s power (Francois Hollande comes to my mind: has power and the potential for exhibitionism as he’s a public figure, president, etc.). Without power, a man has no value for a feminist.
    e. When the feminist marries a man of low power, she starts to feel neediness, because she feels that she is much more valuable than him. There comes in the female depression in relationships, the need for expensive trips, etc. It’s all about alleviating the depression of being married to a man of low value (i.e., low power).
    f. After a while, she will want divorce (or “frivorce”) because she believes that she deserves something better and she also believes that her sexual power will never come to an end (megalomania).

    I have used the word “feminist” in order not to offend some honest women. What I find interesting about all this, is that a megalomaniac feminist is: 1) unaware of her own megalomania; 2) unaware that her sexual value has a deadline (he used to cite Hollywood and Meryl Streep as examples of the culture perpetuating the megalomaniac mindset of feminists); 3) most importantly, they are unaware and insensitive to the emotional inferno they cause to men who enter into their lives.

    Keep up your good work, instructing new generations of men about the realities they were not told about by feminists.

  • Anthony

    The only reason the female gender succeeds at ANYTHING is because the male gender allows it.

  • DBM

    “So you want kids now?”

    In the same way Frank Sinatra had a kid with Mia Farrow. Or the same way Bill Paxton had kids in Big Love.

    “So you want kids now, but don’t care what environment they inherit? Targeted baby-bashing good for you? ”

    Sure it is. I want the option of providing my “dad” services or “provider” services based upon my own self-interest. I don’t want to be cuckolded by the maternal state to provide for little fuckwits running around with thug/redneck DNA. I want men off the hook for child support, matrimony, and everything else entitled to women by this society.

    If I have kids they will be with high quality women engaged in an unequal male-female relationship with me. Their lives will not be supplemented by the state. Civilizational downfalls are not apocalyptic events but gradual slides into decadence. America is burning, yes, but the embers won’t be extinguished for another hundred years at least and a successful male’s children will lead lives of aristocratic abandon.

    “Whether you or I “care” about what happens to the current civilization is not going to change the outcome. ”

    I think I can convince enough of my friends to let women and their cad children drown in the Atlantic this time around. I can’t think of a single male left who buys into the feminine imperative, even if they can’t fully articulate the reasons why.

    More importantly than the downfall of civilization, however, is the fact that I don’t resent women for their choices. I merely will not extend the large reserves of compassion and energy that I have towards alleviating their burden without payment in return. No longer being chained to empathizing with the feminine at least saves me a lot of time.

    “The question is: are you capable of more?”

    You mean Athenian Democracy and Patriarchy? Sure, if it’s back on the table. If it’s winner take all then that’s cool too. The point that I’m trying to make is that I will subvert or circumvent feminine imperative programming, legislation, and ideology by primarily focusing on myself and how I can get ahead. You want some ultimate answer to the endless struggle between the sexes, but for right now the 21st century male response is merely a tactical manoevre to win the next battle.

    If your point is that men should define themselves as an individual separate from a group. That they should be an individual and not a definition against the “other” then I’d say that de-cuntifying oneself is a necessary step towards greatness, transcendance, righteousness, and salvation. 100% of everything a man can do improves by throwing off the chains of blue pill.

    To answer your final question: Maintaining the feminine imperative in order to get pussy is like supporting the cause of secession in 1865 Richmond in order to sell more bullets.

  • Badpainter

    “They are afraid the males are as weak, ignorant, and fundamentally incapable as they appear.”

    Incapable of what exactly?

  • Different T

    @ DBM

    Understood. Thank you, that was very well articulated.

  • Jeremy

    Posts like this tend to make all women look quite misandric, so much so that one tends to want to believe some of that appearance is deceiving. If the “less-useful” or “less-desirable” aspects of masculinity are so disagreeable to the FI, then attempts at suppressing it can only be described as hatred towards males particularly when masculinity is encouraged in women (lesbians) but discouraged in men (healthy masculinity).

    I’m trying to think of an analog. I’m trying to find an aspect of feminimity that men might find less desirable and worthy of suppression. Anyone care to help?

  • jf12

    @Jeremy
    Crazy emphasis on feelings.
    Get-out-of-jail-free card for being mean, or breaking things, or buying the 4th pair of shoes in a month.

  • Glenn

    It’s so liberating to recognize what women are actually up to with men. Recent experiences that contained a high degree of conflict and emotion with women in my life – not at my instigation, but rather due to circumstances – have been the acid test of my Red Pill digestion. I just don’t get sucked into their games anymore in the sense that I expect them to react to reason or have any respect for me emotionally. One in particular was thrown into a frenzy because in the past her guilting and passive aggression would usually elicit a reaction from me but instead I just brushed it off. Not because it was a shit test but because it was bullshit. She was so maddened by my sudden imovability and lack of emotional reaction that she escalated into oblivion and I just stood there, disengaged and not even interested. She fled the premises screaming and crying like a mad woman. Lol, what a child. It’s so nice to not be affected by such nonsense.

    Separately, I am amused the by pseudo-intellectual and tedious comment parsing of @Different T. She seems to be asserting in this comment stream that Rollo has a responsibility to repurpose men who take the Red Pill. I wonder, does she believe women freed of the constraints of being homemakers and sex objects needed to be repurposed or handed some kind of gameplan? Destroying the maze that we are in and penetrating the mendacity of women is quite enough. My life purpose is quite clear. Enjoy myself. Be good to people who deserve it. I have interests and am engaged in many things that fill my life up, I have no need for Rollo to give me some kind of new delusion to subscribe to. As an atheist the last thing in the world I would do is look for something or someone new to worship. Women were my last God and I’ll never need another.

    Men are quite good at managing their own liberty and pursuits. Freed of the nonsense and pain women impose on us, we get on with having the great lives many of us delayed having. I’m 51, and I already have a child – a daughter who at 25 has become a class A bitch actually – so I couldn’t in good conscience tell any man to sign up for that duty. If I was 40, I’d surrogate a boy and raise him to be a man who embraces positive masculinity and sees women for who they are. But whatever I decided, I wouldn’t need Rollo to tell me what it was.

    Different T is quite sad actually. So desperate to reframe the dialog here and impose her imperative, but doesn’t get that we don’t give a shit what women think of all this. That’s the best part, doesn’t she get it?

  • jf12

    @Glenn
    I still have no idea what she means by a lot of things, including “The readers and commenters are certainly not “alpha” males, certainly no longer “beta” males”
    Does she think she gets to redefine terms ad hoc without telling us what the redefined terms mean? It’s hard to tell. So, I guess so.

  • DeNihilist

    Suck it up Buttercup, the perfect woman sentence. Be strong you weak dink! In this very sentence the whole of this post is boiled down, Man up and shut up! the most effective retort?

    Laugh!

  • DeNihilist

    Live fearless – “http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/13/timeline-of-the-professional-woman/”

    latest out stating that maternity leave is bad for the professional woman!

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/01/20/is-maternity-leave-a-bad-ideathe-motherhood-gap/

  • LiveFearless

    @Glenn

    Lol, what a child. It’s so nice to not be affected by such nonsense.

    I hope you’ve read “The Rational Male” (book). Seriously, there are five passages in my mind right now that you would think were written for you.

  • sheldon archer

    One of the reasons I moved to Indonesia and married a local was to get away from Feminists and their bullshit. Ten years of total peace and love.

  • Alexander

    @Signor Tommassi:

    As I don’t comment here on a regular basis, I would like to leave some more thoughts on the issue of women’s sexual freedom and religion.

    Once a bitchy, complaining and frustrated feminist told me that all women should be thankful to Christianity for having emancipated women from the historical patriarchic oppression. That made me think and over for such a long time about how women or feminists view the issue of sexual freedom. I came to some interesting conclusions and observations, which I would like to share:

    1. Most Christian countries have below replacement total birth rate levels nowadays. Actually this is a complex issue and one has to take into account the role of the capitalist model of production, the ascension of women to the workplace and therefore being in conflict with their maternal vocation and the technological development which enabled birth control, etc. In fact, we could as well assert that below replacement levels can be associated with material development (comfort) PLUS women’s sexual freedom. But for as much as one might not like Islam, for instance, the matter of the fact is that they have much higher total birth rates on average. So, could it be that ultimately Christianity failed to understand women? Both Islam and ancient Judaism are based on the Old Testament, which is more, say, “patriarchic”. Moreover Eliphas Levi in History of Magic makes an association between promiscuity and the fall of the Roman Empire, by associating the extinction of the holy fire kept by the vestal virgins with the beginning of the downfall. The Persian tale of god Marduk also associates matriarchy with chaos and that patriarchy creates order. All in all, it does seem that “controlling” women’s sexuality has always been vital to the very survival of civilizations. As I see it, it’s the same dilemma we’re going through on a societal level, while facing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism: basically, they’re rising because their societies are based upon patriarchy. At the least, we might also assert that feminists paid Christianity with hypergamy, by promoting sexual freedom, abortion and the fight against the traditional family model, patriarchy, religion, etc.

    2. Having sexual freedom is of paramount importance for the modern women/feminist. As I understand, this is the condition sine qua non for they to exert their power of choice. Not all, but a lot of women seemingly view sexual freedom as a free pass to a life of adventure, excitement, passion, romance, etc. in which they would mate with all the guys they want, at the age they want, enjoy a lot of favors, free gifts, free rides on powerful bikes and luxury cars, etc. And then, if something goes wrong, there will always be a willing “beta” for her to settle down and make the AFBB transition. I think this is the main reason why they strive so much for sexual freedom. It’s important to notice, that they’re not actually aiming at the “beta”. They’re aiming at the powerful “alpha” with “beta” characteristics, i.e., a “tamed alpha” (proof of her superior sexual power and intelligence, etc.).

    3. The problem of all this, is that they being unable to reason in a logical, manly way, and very alienated from male mindset by feminist brainwashing, they have paradoxical and conflicting attitudes to relationships and life. They fail to understand for instance:

    a) female sexual freedom increases female intrasexual competition and increases beauty standards. In other words, in a world where boys grew up view all women under a burka and not knowing what a pussy is like, will get more excited and attracted to the average female than a boy who’s seen a thousand vaginas (even if just virtually);

    b) female sexual freedom is incompatible with a passive attitude to relationships. In other words, most women would be able to make the AFBB transition if they had the initiative, smartness and attitude to do so (S. Walsh comes to my mind :-D). But very few women are really capable of that because they have a passive attitude to relationships in which they expect men to jump hoops and “prove their value”, etc. to be worthy of their love (that’s why they love emotional games – they see themselves in a superior auditing position). But to do so, they’ve got to have a lot of value! It’s implicit in such a mindset that they view themselves as having a lot of value and they fail to understand that sexual freedom diminishes their sexual value. Using Susan Walsh’s “I don’t do casual” article as an example, they fail to realize that the keejerk reaction/question a man will have is “But have you ever done casual”? Sort of:

    W – I don’t do casual.
    M – But did you do casual?
    W – Yes, I did. I am free.
    M – But then why not with me? Why do I have to marry you to have sex?

    or

    W – I don’t do casual.
    M – But did you do casual?
    W – No, I never did. I’m a virgin.
    M – Great. I value virgins.
    W – You chauvinist sexist!

    The bottom line: i) the most valuable asset a woman could have to remain a passive attitude is being chaste or virgin and having feminine qualities valued by most men (beauty, empathy, submission, etc.). Feminism and sexual freedom kills most of a woman’s marriage value. ii) female passivity is incompatible with their sexual freedom: they have to compensate their lack of sexual and marriage value with more initiative.

    Enough ranting. :) All the best.

  • Alexander

    And finally, but not the least important: just because some women love animals, it doesn’t mean that they have a superior moral agency. There is a lot of confusion here. Some women love animals and campaign to help and save strayed animals, etc. They think they are superior than other human beings for doing so. It happens so that this is just an “affected” sense of superior morality because very often these same women are quite unable to love their own children! And eve less so, their own husbands who are usually caring the financial burden of the relationship. Whereas I also value animals and I think we should treat them with respect, let’s not forget that the love some women have for animals is a psychological substitution for real relationships (sometimes even as a compensation for their inability to love and care for their own children and husband!). Ciao!

  • Marellus (@Sazelus)

    Rollo.

    Epic exposition. Thank you.

  • The Burninator

    “Hmmmmmm….kinda sounds like another Catch 22 we should all be familar with, no?

    “Do these jeans make me look fat?””

    Make it a Catch-22 for her, not you. Answer honestly and with brutal directness. If she flinches or starts the whole female bullshit routine, tell her that if she wanted you to lie she needs to state as much before she asks, otherwise, don’t ask.

    Go all Sean Connery on her ass. She’ll learn and adapt, or she’ll spin around like a demon for the next few days. Either way it’s her problem, not yours, and don’t make it yours.

  • Glenn

    @ LiveFearless – Isn’t the book just a compendium of all the posts on this blog? I’ve been working my way through them and have read most of the first year and a smattering of others. I direct link/cite would be helpful if you wouldn’t mind.

    What I’ve learned is two-fold and once I got over the disappointment and anger, it’s been liberating. First, I had completely internalized the female imperative in so many ways, particularly in seeing their emotional state and shaming me for using reason or heaven forbid, being “aggressive” to manipulate me. I took it all very seriously for most of my life and made their emotions a high priority to me. Second I had to come to grips the low character of many women who use these tactics. I innately gave women credit for being “good” based on no evidence.

    Now, I see such behavior as no different from what a child pulls to try and get their way and to manipulate me. I don’t get angry and I don’t buy in, and in fact I will also use “technique” to manipulate the child away from the upset as it’s almost always unhelpful to the child or anyone else. It took me about 9 months to get through my denial about all this as I had deeply invested myself in women’s innate goodness. But now I’ve popped out the other side and just don’t care. I take people as they come and recognize what many women are actually up to when they interact with me. As a sentient, wise and mature man, I’m so far beyond dealing with immature and unreasonable people in my life. Women were the only source of any conflict in my life – my male relationships were all fantastic, long lasting, mutual and rewarding – and utterly without drama.

    In other words, the female imperative has been exposed for me and when I encounter it, I find that by simply ignoring it and proceeding accordingly is empowering. That it drives some selfish, immature and manipulative bitchy women crazy is just a bonus…

  • The Burninator

    @Carlos

    “Are you sure that using Jezebel as an example is sound? From what I understand, the regulars there are some mighty bitter, angry, man-hating crones. Are normal women also that turned-off by displays of vulnerability?”

    Yes. They may tolerate a display once or twice in a lifetime relationship (say, your father dies, etc) but if you are the normal emotional weeping modern man who shares his feelings and looks for validation like her girlfriends do on a regular basis then you are held in as much contempt as you would be by the mouth breathing idiots over at Jezbian…er…Jezebel.

  • Glenn

    @ Carlos – What are “normal women”? Fyi, uprobably should have said “Is a normal woman” (collective doesn’t really work there). Try it is all I have to say. After a lifetime of being scorned by women when I’ve shown my vulnerability and being shocked by their derision over and over and over, this single observation alone opened my eyes dramatically. In my experience, it happens whether a woman is a radfem or not. That’s why I actually only go to the men in my life with difficult emotions and when I’m overwhelmed. I universally receive compassion from men when vulnerable. It’s true that i can make them uncomfortable or awkward, but I’ve never been shunned or denigrated by a man for doing so.

  • eris

    “Are normal women also that turned-off by displays of vulnerability?”

    What women are willing to put up depends on her SMV and potential to achieve something she sees as better, thus just because in your average married couple, the guy seems have fallen into the habit of displaying his feelings to her on a regular basis, doesn’t mean that in other circumstances and at another point in her life, she wouldn’t have sought out something “better”.

    The “beta” behaviour that women really turn off to, that cause her fem-senses to percieve him as more of her child than a mate, are not the things she will openly express a direct dislike for; you can only really tell by her bitchy, or even worse, cold behaviour toward the guy.
    The vast majority stuff she moans about, like not doing x, y or z for her is there to be ignored and is her intellect struggling against her instinct – the obligation she feels to be treated as a total equal (that she’s been told from day one) battling her instinctual need to let him take the lead.

  • Mike

    @Alexander

    What you wrote: “the value of the ordinary man close to zero, to nothing to most feminists”.

    This agrees with my experience with women in the Northeast during the 1990s. A family-oriented man with a good job, providing a safe, comfortable home, vacations, presents, etc., was not really valued by his wife or significant other. Unfortunately, I was that man. If I understand you right, these attributes describe an “ordinary man”, and what women value is a non-ordinary, high-status man. Even though they might be better off in the long run with an ordinary man who will be there for them when they are old, like my parents and grandparents were for each other.

    You wrote: “When the feminist marries a man of low power, she starts to feel neediness, because she feels that she is much more valuable than him. There comes in the female depression in relationships, the need for expensive trips, etc. It’s all about alleviating the depression of being married to a man of low value (i.e., low power)”.

    The only times my wife ever showed public displays of affection was when I received public praise from a group of people; the first time it happened, I was surprised; the next few times it happened, I began to see the pattern. At other times, when I have been just an ordinary worker in a factory – go to work, eat, watch TV, go to bed, mow the lawn on Saturday, go to church on Sunday, repeat – the neediness, depression, need for expensive trips were all there. Am I right in thinking that women perceive their value to be high based on the large number of men that want their attentions, compared to the relatively lower number of women that desire “ordinary” men? Is it this imbalance that causes so much trouble? Is it as simple as her needing a man that has as many women after him that she has after her? In other words, that both need to be in equal demand.

    And you wrote:

    “After a while, she will want divorce (or “frivorce”) because she believes that she deserves something better and she also believes that her sexual power will never come to an end (megalomania)”

    It should be (and probably was before feminism) common sense that a woman’s value (based on how many men demand her) is time limited, and a man’s value, although smaller at any given point in time, is probably not much lower on average over his lifetime.

    Thanks for posting this comment.

  • Alexander

    @Mike: Addressing your questions:

    If I understand you right, these attributes describe an “ordinary man”, and what women value is a non-ordinary, high-status man.

    Exactly. High-status for them is mostly derived from the number of female competitors she has for his attention, which is usually correlated with his power and potential for exhibitionism. Francois Hollande, for instance, looks like a very ordinary, “beta” man. Yet, his wife lost him for a younger competitor, mostly because of his power and public projection, as I see it. The younger competitor takes pleasure in robbing her husband and therefore projecting her sexual power to females all over the world. More or less the same with porn stars, and “alpha” chasers in general. The ordinary man doesn’t have value for many women because they (the new woman) suffer from superiority complex (they believe they are superior because of the greater male sexual drive). The feminist propaganda feeds their belief of superiority to a megalomaniac level (they are mostly unable to realize that their sexual or marriage value decreases with time and with promiscuity/casual sex).

    Am I right in thinking that women perceive their value to be high based on the large number of men that want their attentions, compared to the relatively lower number of women that desire “ordinary” men? Is it this imbalance that causes so much trouble?

    I think so. Unlike them, men are emotionally needy. Even more so because of the feminist shaming and “pre-whipping” Rollo referred to in a previous article. Even so, eventually one can spot some women who seemingly don’t fit this pattern and were always congruous in wanting to set up a family as their first goal. They usually marry betas and are happy with them, because they know what they wanted and how to get it: ” Even though they might be better off in the long run with an ordinary man who will be there for them when they are old, like my parents and grandparents were for each other.” The others will display what is called late repentence, which S.Walsh calls “arrested development”. I do not think it’s all about arrested development. Even if it’s so, the consequences are the same.

    In other words, that both need to be in equal demand.

    This will never happen because men have a higher libido.

    It should be (and probably was before feminism) common sense that a woman’s value (based on how many men demand her) is time limited, and a man’s value, although smaller at any given point in time, is probably not much lower on average over his lifetime.

    It should be, but it’s not common sense. Women learn the lessons only the hard way, because they’re unable to care about what men think. There is another problem is that they expect men to be solidary and understanding whereas they never were in the first place… and usually are really unable to be solidary or understanding with any male weakness (immaturity is not accepted either as an excuse). So there is a mismatch in expectations even though a man’s value is probably not much lower on average over his lifetime.

  • Glenn

    @ Mike and Alexander – Thanks for the exposition of how this plays out, very informative to a Red Piller who is trying to get his head around game. I was reflecting that the only time my erstwhile wife and I would have good sex is when I went out and stayed out late. Defying her and arousing her jealousy seemed to be the only thing that got her wet. She was quite attractive – homecoming and prom queen. I was pretty good looking too, and socially dominant but also quite insecure and utterly game un-aware. Her treatment of me became abusive and to the point where her sister confronted her about how she constantly treated me with scorn and derision in public, and refused to have us over to her house as she was embarrassed by it. Fyi, my ex was a stay at home wife at that point.

    I can’t help but wonder how it all would have gone if I had any idea what the fuck I was doing. I kept trying to reason with her and negotiate and got sucked into all her emotional garbage. But since I was alphaish, I didn’t take it for long and brought it to a head which she resolved by finding a lover and moving on, which was mostly a relief for me (except for how effed up it was for my daughter). I also didn’t ever take shit from a woman again, but that resulted in 9 relationships that lasted exactly 4-5 months where my tolerance would be exceeded and I would exit. With game I could have managed all this much more productively – I had somewhat high SMV and was attracting really high quality women. But I didn’t have a clue to handle any of it. Sigh….

  • Kate

    “I innately gave women credit for being “good” based on no evidence.”

    This is basically a statement about morals. Anyone with them, male or female, is bound to generously believe that other people have them too. Good people are liable to be taken advantage of. The nicest people imbue their good traits on others who may or may not deserve that designation. In part of my favorite quotation from Mother Theresa, she says: “If you are honest and sincere, people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.” I say, yes, do still be honest and sincere, but be smart about it :)

  • Glenn

    @ Kate – Absurd. You make a global claims about “anyone” that have no evidentiary or rational basis. I’m a good person and do not assume all people are – but was brainwashed for years to believe women were innately good by a femcentric/gynocentric/female imperative soaked society. Mother Theresa was a monster, btw, here’s a great vid Christopher Hitchens did on her http://youtu.be/76_qL6fiyDw

    Think more, post less.

  • Kate

    What makes you so sure you’re a good person?

  • Glenn

    Really? You think I’m going to jump in the pool with you? Giggling. The best part of this site is women coming along and doing exactly what Rollo tells us they will do. It’s fun to watch – but if you have read my comments and think for a second I take you seriously, I guess you really aren’t paying attention.

  • Badpainter

    What life has taught me about being a good man.

    A good man is selfless

    A good man does for others.

    A good man lives to serve his country, community, family, wife, children, employer, friends.

    A good man never expects others to serve to him.

    A good man never asks others to serve him.

    A good man gives till it hurts.

    A good man realizes that it is more blessed to give than to receive.

    A good man realizes that other who receive are equally blessed.

    A good knows that he himself receiving is sinful.

    A good man is ashamed of his success because other are not as successful.

    A good loves everyone.

    A good knows not to expect love from anyone.

    A good man harbors no grudges

    A good man accepts those who harbor grudges against him need him to take corrective action.

    A good man is never angry.

    A good man is never resentful.

    A good man never judges others.

    A good man realizes that when others are angry, resentful, or judgmental towards him it is for his own failings.

    A good man seeks validation from the good opinion of others.

    A good man submits his own opinion to that of the consensus.

    A good doesn’t question his betters.

    A good know everyone is better.

    A good man never expects reciprocity for good deeds.

    A good man knows it all his fault. 

    Even when it isn’t.

    A good man ultimately has as much concern for himself as everyone else does.

    Which is none.

    A good man is a living suicide.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Hypergamy doesn’t care about any of that

  • Badpainter

    “Hypergamy doesn’t care about any of that”

    Which is my point. So being a “good man” is a walking death, best to not be one.

  • Eris

    @Kate.
    Cue female knee-jerk in-group defence mechanism.

    “Anyone with them, male or female, is bound to generously believe that other people have them too.”

    Anyone who wouldn’t be prepared to wreck someone else’s life for personal gain “generously believes that” other people aren’t like that? I beg to differ. Your comment seems to suggest that one couldn’t imagine other people’s behaviour differing from their own, and that morality is something for the naïve.
    You criticise Glenn for his presuming that women are good (something almost all men do initially) but in reality the “imbuing” of innocence and of guilt begins from birth onto girls and guys respectively – being perceived as lacking in agency has its upsides.

    “What makes you so sure you’re a good person?” *groan

  • D-Man

    Allow me to go off on a tangerine a bit…

    Hypergamy (the female drive to mate with and lock into commitment the highest status male(s) she can) is probably more complex than the fundamentals of simply securing the best seed, then fulfilling her and her offspring’s provisioning and protection needs.

    I think at least part of the reason women want to pair with high status men is to exercise power on the world through their influence on those men. Theories on why any human being might feel driven to rule over their fellow humans aside, I don’t think the urge is exclusively masculine. It’s just that women haven’t historically been able to do so on their own, because it usually required backing by force.

    How many times have you heard the phrase “behind every great man is a great woman”? Not saying I necessarily subscribe to this, but the notion is ubiquitous enough to register as a cliche. Women have historically lacked the physical fortitude to dominate, just as they’ve lacked the razor focus, narrow solitary dedication to innovate, grit and discipline to push into the lead of any competitive endeavour.

    But this doesn’t mean that women don’t have the same urge to “be somebody”, to satisfy a craving to feel important by imposing their will on others or be admired; in short, they lust for power too, and not just power over an individual man, real power in the world sphere too. She wants to be part of the action. Look how many women are fame junkies.

    So they’ve evolved (both genetically and culturally) to exert themselves indirectly, which often meant through men. This could mean anything from pillow whispers as the wife and confidante of a world leader, to propping up a wealthy but hapless beta and pushing him to do her bidding. It could mean being the trophy wife of an organized crime boss and commanding respect from the little people, and it could mean the power to crumble an empire by enticing a man to stray.

    How many important decisions have been swayed in private by the influence of women close to a powerful man?

    So when a woman sizes a man up, she does so not only as a sperm donor, a bank account, and a bodyguard, but also in terms of his influence on the world and projected potential therein.

    If he’s too easy to manipulate, and she’s the type who craves power, her inner calculus will still impel her to move up, even if he’s healthy, intelligent, wealthy, and tough, but content with his station. Like a future CEO hopping up the corporate ladder, she’s not satisfied yet, she thinks she can do better.

    This is part of the reason why Game works: by directly communicating that you are resistant to manipulation and you’re aware of power dynamics, you instantly gain the respect of these women.

  • D-Man

    Yes, you did cover many of those points.

    Like the 12-bar blues, so many ways to approach it

  • Kate

    @ Eris: Its a perfectly valid question. But, if he doesn’t want to answer it, he doesn’t have to answer it. You have to remember that here in the Manosphere, you only hear the reports of the casualties on *your* side. You’re only getting half the story.

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 5,334 other followers

%d bloggers like this: