Comments on: Equalism and Masculinity

By: The Remedial Red Pill |

The Remedial Red Pill | — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:38:55 +0000

[…] mind, it’s going to come up often in this post. I’ve covered egalitarian equalism both here and […]

By: The Love Experience |

The Love Experience | — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:01:01 +0000

[…] perspective we see the error in evidence of this egalitarian fantasy. I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be […]

By: Socialized Hypergamy |

Socialized Hypergamy | — Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:45:53 +0000

[…] written more than a few posts about equalism here, but one thing that needs to be made clear is that a true state of egalitarian equalism among […]

By: Alpha Tells |

Alpha Tells | — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 03:26:00 +0000

[…] one of the missives of an equalitarian mindset; that an individualized, egalitarian balance of masculine and feminine aspects in two independent […]

By: Bluedog

Bluedog — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 03:04:10 +0000

Rollo – I think that when you talk about humanism and equalism you are in many respects taking things underneath the surface. If the dialectic most people are engaged in is touch and massage, your approach – i think – is a hypodermic needle.
You are attacking the sub-dermal dialectic – and that’s likely to be lost on a lot of readers.
I don’t think you mean to collude philosophical and political humanism with gender/sexual relations – but you also don’t really clarify this yourself, you kind of leave it open-ended.
So – as an example of how this can confuse some readers about what is going on with humanism as it socially changes our culture, versus what is going on with expectations of sexual equalism that we all probably experience and that you are taking aim at, consider these cases:

Is a male billionaire a humanist or equalist?
Is a smoking hot woman a humanist or equalist?
Is an MMA fighter a humanist or equalist?

Well – if they believe in individual choice, individual autonomy, they are a humanist. Are they equalist? Well – they could be anywhere from a Jeffersonian equality-under-the-law “equalist” to a Marxist “equalist” – it’s not a very useful term because it’s whatever it means to them. Or they can be neither and yet post-modernly believe that the best sex comes from relationships that are equal.

In all of these cases – it doesn’t change the fact that the three examples have high MV: market value… SMV, MMV – whatever, either, both. They have value – and they will play their value.
Warren Buffet, George Soros – billionaires – we can be sure that these are men who drive deals and who know how to drive deals.
The smoking hot woman … she drives deals, and drives for the best one.

So your point that these evolved sexual complementary strategies can’t be equalized …

…May be true … it’s your hypothesis/thesis/theory … you ably defend it on this blog. Someone can even disagree with you but they should admit you might be right – at end we are all conjecturing.

But even if you are right about that – you are hypodermically right. Meaning: the billionaire makes the best deal he can and knows how, and – pun intended, “all other things equal” … there is nothing wrong with that.
Humanism marches on unmolested.
People still have their individual autonomy. They aren’t all billionaires, but we credit them their freedom, even if they don’t deal with the billionaire, or get the worse of the deal.
The smoking hot, high SMV, MMV woman – ditto – she makes the best deal she can and probably knows how, and “all other things equal”, …
Humanism is ok.
Look – everyone can’t afford a house in Chelsea Heights.
Everyone can’t get a deal with Warren Buffet.
And everyone doesn’t stand a chance with Molly Sims.

None of this undermines humanism. Humanism is ok. It marches on.
My worry is that especially in the “dark enlightenment” manosphere where people who have struggled their whole lives to understand non-verbal messages come to study at the heels of men such as yourself, … the hypodermic nature of the point you are making is likely to be lost on more than a few.

By: The Best of Rational Male – Year Three |

The Best of Rational Male – Year Three | — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 04:18:37 +0000

[…] Equalism and Masculinity […]

By: kfg

kfg — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:19:56 +0000

“You’re going to the gym to make yourself more fuckable in her eyes.”

I go to the gym to make myself stronger, so that I might ride my bike faster. When I am riding my bike her eyes don’t see me for the simple reason that she can’t keep up.

If I’m going for a record I’ll shave my legs, because wind tunnel tests show that it actually does confer a significant advantage. I don’t shave my beard, because the wind tunnel tests show that, much to my surprise, it does not.

I don’t shave my chest because the skinsuit covers it up and is more aerodynamic than bare skin anyway.

If a woman happens to see me walking through the park and thinks my build is attractive, that is a purely incidental effect.

If she asks me to shave my chest she can bite my shiny metal seatpost. I’m not interested in women who are sexually interested in prepubescent children.

By: Phero

Phero — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:59:08 +0000

“have I simply aligned myself with a context under which their genuine desire”
Lol Rollo, it’s called “Doing it hoping to get laid”.
I agree with most here, but now your using fancy wordings for a very simple concept:
You’re going to the gym to make yourself more fuckable in her eyes.
It sounds like a chick wearing makeup & pushup bra just for herself.
Guys shave their chest, arm leg in hope to get laid too. Cause women like it that way now.
Maybe it’s modern evolution of copulation, but that’s where it’s at.
If you want fucking women to be easier, go to the gym and shave your body.
Chicks do it and expect you to do it too. Some equalisms have been effective.