In last week’s post my intent was to shed some light on how an idealized state of egalitarian equalism and gender parity is always at odds with our ‘feral’ natures which evolved not due to co-equal partnership between the sexes, but from a complementarity between the sexes that fostered the then mutually beneficial imperatives of both.
Any time I suggest the ‘nature’ of how human beings’ evolved psyches influence our personal and social interaction in the now, I’m always going to get resistance from the “rise above our natures” faction of humanistic (and moralistic) hopefuls that insist the instinctual natures which made us such a successful species can (or should) be sublimated by our higher rational (or spiritual) selves.
I can fully relate with those who see the red pill as cynical or pessimistic.
When egalitarian equalism has been the model you’ve been conditioned to believe from birth is the only viable model to base a society and personal relation on, anything different, especially brutal observable realities, is going to smack of cynicism and defeatism.
One reason I believe most guys, either reject the concept of Alpha or want Alpha to fit into a super-heroic ‘leader-of-men’ archetypal definition is because it agrees better with an egalitarian mindset. Most women like to cast Alpha in this way because it serves the public relations aspect of their hypergamy better – Beta men make better, more dedicated resource providers when the only message they hear is what they’re doing is ‘the real Alpha’.
It’s not until men are confronted with the cruel realities in real time that they have an opportunity to learn from experience that, for as much as they want to cling to the ‘open communication / rise above our programming’ memes of egalitarianism, the observable (often painful) reality is one where women’s instinctual natures dictate their behaviors. And, as might be expected of an equalist mindset, those behaviors are then excused and rationalized as forgivable “human vulnerabilities” – and if you don’t forgive them, you risk being judgmental and further fail to live up to the egalitarian equalist/humanist ideal.
The Feral Woman
As loathe as I am to give the HuffPo any link love, I read with interest Why Great Husbands Are Being Abandoned. I’m going to quote some of it here, but I do so because it seems to me that even the bastions of equalist thought are finally, begrudgingly, coming to terms with the inherent failings of reconciling equalism with evolved, conventional, complementarity among the sexes.
In the last few decades women have slowly driven their point home. The millennial men, who are their current counterparts, are freer thinkers and they have responded in kind in their relationships as well. These men like their women strong and feisty, and have willingly accepted the responsibility to connect in a more vulnerable way. They get it that it’s sexy to help make a meal or take the kids away on a Sunday morning so their wives can sleep in. They are the androgynous guys that their women have asked them to become.
You would think that the women in these new relationships would be ecstatic. They’ve got a guy who wants to work out together, share parenting, support their parallel dreams, and make their family collective central to both of their lives. They’ve established an equal relationship of coordinated teamwork, and the guys don’t seem to miss their old need to posture for power over intimate connections.
Well, guess again. Fifty percent of marriages are still ending in divorce, and women continue to be the gender that initiates those endings. In the past, their reasons for leaving most often had to do with infidelity, neglect, or abuse. Now they’re dumping men who are faithful, attentive, and respectful, the very men they said they have always wanted. Why would women who have accomplished the female dream suddenly not be satisfied with it? Why are they leaving these ideal guys, and for what reasons?
I am currently dealing with several of these great husbands. They are, across the board, respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive guys whose wives have left them for a different kind of man. These once-beloved men make a living, love their kids, help with chores, support aging parents, and support their mate’s desires and interests. They believe they’ve done everything right. They are devastated, confused, disoriented, and heartsick. In a tragic way, they startlingly resemble the disheartened women of the past who were left behind by men who “just wanted something new.”
You may think that these women are ruthless and inconsiderate. Those I know are far from that. More often, they still love their husbands as much as they ever did, but in a different way. They tell me how wonderful their men are and how much they respect them. They just don’t want to be married to them anymore.
I read this article after I’d read the plea for Traditional Masculinity in the Jezebel groupthink article I linked in last week’s post and it struck me that along with the societal emphasis on a more overt and open hypergamy comes a need to reconcile it with equalism. This is proving to be a tall order as articles of this nature illustrate.
It’s important to understand that this internal conflict isn’t coming from men trying to square their sexual impulses with their higher-self aspiration of honor, duty and integrity. This conflict is coming from women who’ve been raised with expectations of gender parity, equalism and ‘open communication’ to resolve differences.
These women are now observing their own behavior and trying to reconcile the base feral motivators (hypergamy) with “how things ought to be” in an idealized state of egalitarian equalism.
These women cannot help but see the very observable consequences of open hypergamy now. I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusions Randi Gunther comes to at the end of this article, I just disagree with how he comes to them.
Then things started to go awry. Perhaps these androgynous couples over-valued adopting the same behaviors in their relationship. Maybe the men got too nice and the women a little too challenging. Oddly, the androgynous men seemed to like their new-found emotional availability, while the women began to feel more unfulfilled. Her “perfect” partner, in the process of reclaiming his full emotional expressiveness, somehow ended up paying an unfair price; he was no longer able to command the hierarchical respect from her that was once his inalienable right.
What Randi doesn’t consider is the natural complementary states men and women’s psychological firmware descended from since our hunter-gatherer tribal beginnings. He can’t consider it because it disagrees with the ‘higher-selves overcoming our natural state’ aspect of egalitarian humanism.
But the observable truth is right there in front of him, with his head in his hands, so he can’t ignore it. Naturally the first recourse is to force fit this truth into a more palatable egalitarian framework, but even this falls flat (as evidenced by the predictably dismissive comments). What he and the commenters can’t reconcile is the truth of the androgynous men directly created by egalitarian equalism and the natural and instinctual predisposition of feminine hypergamy.
Red pill aware men see this for what it is because we’re accepting of the truth of women’s feral natures and what it prompts them to, but this is an excellent illustration of the primary differences between a red and blue pill mindset.
There is a primal need women have for natural masculine dominance. Whether this dominance is physical (looks and sexual prowess), psychological (Game) or provisional, women are seeking a dominance that an androgynous man is incapable of providing. As I’ve stated in prior posts, androgyny is homogeny, and nature stagnates (and often dies out) in conditions of homogeny. Androgynous men, by definition aren’t men – they are neither masculine or feminine – so is it any surprise that women’s innate, heteronormative, subliminal and tingle inducing need for a traditionally masculine man is frustrated by the same egalitarian mindset they’ve fostered in compliant men for so long?
Primal femininity is confused and frustrated by blank-slate equalism.
The Blue Pill Painted Red
As open hypergamy and the conflict between equalism and complementarity becomes more evident the advocates for that ‘touchy-feely’ “men need to be more balanced with Beta” sentimentalism will find it increasingly more difficult to sell that brand of equalism.
I’m aware of many a former (nominally) red pill blogger who’s dropped their previous advocacy for masculine (Alpha) attributes being arousing/attractive in favor of a diluted blue pill ‘new age sensitive guy’ message that better resonates with his increasingly female readership. While spinning just enough red pill into what accounts for a blue pill ideology might make for better, temporary, revenue, it only aggravates the same conflict between equalism and complementarity that Gunther here is exposing.
The DeadBedrooms subreddit is an excellent example of this conflict. I’ll warn you now, this forum will depress you, but virtually every personal admission here is a testament to what men were conditioned to believe women would want in a man, in a relationship, and the empirical results of the imbalance between a blue pill mindset and a red pill reality.
The popular message, the socially acceptable one, is that what makes a man an ideal long term partner will necessarily make him a tingle inducing sexual prospect. It sounds right, and it lifts women on whole up to a more idealized, humanist, higher-self.
Prior to the push for a more open hypergamy, what woman wanted to cop to love fucking the bad boys and “best sex ever” short term partners? No dutiful Beta wants to hear that truth, so the praises of the “respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive” guys are sung.
It may sell books and increase click-thru traffic, but ultimately hypergamy doesn’t care about higher-self aspirations or the conditioned delusions of men who believe that what makes men an attractive prospect for Beta Bucks will necessarily turn women on for Alpha Fucks. Your proof is in the DeadBedrooms subred.
Before I end here, I feel I have to address that I do in fact believe that men and women can, and regularly do, rise above our innate instinctual natures. Obviously civilization didn’t reach the point we have by not controlling our base natures. The problem I see now is the social order established to effect that control is failing to account for the conflict between equalism and complementarity.
If there’s a take away lesson to be learned from Gunther’s article it’s not that men are lacking in Beta attributes or sensitivity training to balance their asshole Alpha egos. If anything the vast majority of men have too much invested in that Beta equalism and sentimentality.
Whether it’s openly or covert, the message we get from those men’s consequences is that women are overwhelmingly conveying the want for traditional masculine dominance, prowess, control and even a bit of the cocky ego that legitimately comes along with it.
It’s been mentioned in many a manosphere comment thread that, the medium is the message, and women’s medium has been proving that their interests lean much more openly towards Alpha Fucks, even after marriage, even after consolidation on Beta Bucks provisioning.
August 27th, 2014 at 2:28 pm
@ BV
That comment was in response to a series of questions and statements by LiveFearless. From my understanding, he was specifically asking me where scientists and the application of science seem to go off course, become biased, and cause problems. That was my long-winded two cents reply.
Now, if you’re asking me how the practice of science should ideally operate, then I’m inclined to agree with you. It should be objective. It should simply reveal “what is” in a reproducible and falsifiable way. It should not simply be selling what others wish to hear or pandering to popular opinion. Beyond that, when we get to the behavior of actual scientists and particularly the dissemination of their work, then these other issues, motivations, and choices come into play.
I don’t know whether my initial response was unclear to you, or whether it was read out of context. Perhaps the odd/amusing caveman example LiveFearless chose, and I went with, threw you off. Either way, I hope that clarifies things.
August 27th, 2014 at 7:04 pm
@kfg
Concerning your response to my comments about Cinderella, Snow White, etc…
Thank you for referring to the original versions written in the 1600s and early 1800s.
But…this year is 2014….and the stories have been rewritten…several times since the originals….they have “evolved” to accommodate new propaganda imperatives. Review the most recent versions. The latest Rapunzel Disney video production I’m familiar with is very different than anything remotely like the original version or the version I was exposed to in the 60s, it is not even the same story line. It depicts Rapunzel as a very masculine acting hero figure.
August 27th, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Description of the latest “Rapunzel” can be reviewed here:
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Rapunzel
August 27th, 2014 at 7:25 pm
The review http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Rapunzel includes the following:
“In the closing narration, Eugene says that he has accepted Rapunzel’s proposal after years and years of asking, only to be corrected by Rapunzel. Eugene then amends that he asked her, which Rapunzel supports by stating that they are living happily ever after, which presumes that the two have wed.”
If you want to induce vomiting, read the entire review.
August 27th, 2014 at 9:05 pm
@Dr. Jeremy, when I refer to scientists that ‘spout’ I am not referring to you. You’re a man that understands science and understands your audience. You’re not here trying to show how much more intelligent you are than every in this space including the creative genius and writer of The Rational Male. You think like an actual scientist. Real scientists, like my buddy Ray Cronise, are full of humility despite the inventions, innovations and discoveries that’ve changed everything.
They tend to not want the spotlight at all, but, in Ray’s case, he finally allowed his work to show up in Tim Ferriss number one best seller and all those front-page articles in magazines like Wired. You should reach out to him, by the way.
You’re not insecure, therefore you’ve no signs of pontificating.
August 28th, 2014 at 12:05 am
@ Tomassi
You can use Freezepage. com to freeze and link pages without promoting them.
Also, you said “…the advocates for that ‘touchy-feely’ “men need to be more balanced with Beta” sentimentalism will find it increasingly more difficult to sell that brand of equalism.
What about a more balanced alpha? Can you put a rough percentage on what you see as the ideal alpha beta mix? (or maybe you already have and I missed it.)
It seems to me that a mix of alpha/beta, overall 50%/50%, but at times skewed wildly in one direction, would be best in the confines of a LTR/marriage. What are your thoughts?
August 28th, 2014 at 2:51 am
”What Randi doesn’t consider is the natural complementary states men and women’s psychological firmware descended from since our hunter-gatherer tribal beginnings. He can’t consider it because it disagrees with the ‘higher-selves overcoming our natural state’ aspect of egalitarian humanism.”
Our natural state is that of women only mating with the best-looking/richest males, that’s how it was back then. Women also had no idea who was the father of their children because they mated with several elite men at the same time. The leader of the tribe would hoard the most attractive women, but the rest of the women would be divided between the men with power and there was no concept of paternity. The children were raised by the village.
If you want an extreme example of the true nature of men and women, read the first novel of the barsoom series, a Princess of Mars. The green men of Mars are selected by the women for their size,height, strength, sadism and ferocity, much like women have always selected men, and monogamy has never been natural. it was created by the Mesopotamian Emperor, Hammurabi- He did this because he realized sexually frustrated men do not contribute to the society they live in.
its not even natural for true Alpha males to bother with women past sex and reproduction. The older Alpha males I’ve met through my father have dozens of children around the world, kids they never met, they never payed alimony nor child-support. On the other hand, ti seems that most men want a reliable vagina for sex and reproduction. What for? Unless you are a King or you have notorious genes(like you were the modern version of Alexander III of Macedonia) it makes no sense for the average man to want children or a relationship with a woman. Women cant’ feel attraction to average men and women are certainly not into gym-fabricated visual Alphas.
August 28th, 2014 at 3:03 am
”I’d argue that millennial men have become submissive men, especially after being born to a generation of “strong and independent” mothers. I’d take this a step further and argue today’s men have deep “Mommy Issues.” They want the woman to lead and be in charge. They are even turned on by this. They want to submit to the Feminine Imperative.”
Speak for yourself, bro. i don’t have mommy issues. Whenever my mother would begin with her nagging I’d either zone her out or I’d get out of the house and I would only return when it was nighttime.
My grandmother is the same way. She tries to manipulate me but I just laugh it off and do what I want to do. They admire that, that I don’t roll over and obey their commands like the rest of the men in my family do.
I’m simply not pussy-addicted like most men are and I do not seek female-approval to validate my ”manhood” I couldn’t care less what women think of me, I actually make whatever is possible to make myself as ugly as possible, by slouching, using cheap/ruffed clothes, not shaving my facial hair(and it grows thick and wild and fast) and I try to appear as poor as possible.
Why do I do this? I don’t need the hassle of having women in my life. i enjoy coming home to read books, play video games, work on my painting skills, and trying to become well-rounded in my favorite activities. Pussy – the act of getting it and keeping it is too much work and effort. I know, I know, women are the ultimate drug but I am not interested in drugs.
Women can lead all they want. I’m very happy for them, and I hope they stop being the leeches they’ve been for the past twenty-thousand years. They can feed themselves and protect themselves. Think about it. Let them have all the responsibilities.
August 28th, 2014 at 5:21 am
“its not even natural for true Alpha males to bother with women past sex and reproduction. ”
Self checkout machines at the supermarket have helped.
August 28th, 2014 at 11:20 am
To J.J.,
Regarding your insightful comment way earlier about men becoming more balanced, while women have devolved into ferality:
However, you’re misusing the term “feral” in this context. Women haven’t “remained feral,” because that would mean that they’re always been feral.
A “feral” animal is one that was once domesticated, but is now living in the wild. A good example is a house cat that’s put out on it’s own into the wild – called a “feral cat.” Another good (maybe better, in this context) example is a domesticated pig that gets loose and goes into the wild; it eventually develops tusks and hair, like a boar.
Women were once “tame” in our society, when their hypergamy was kept in check via societal mores, shaming, morals, etc. They’ve now become “feral” in our society, now that those checks on their natural hypergamy have been removed. It’s akin to the house cat or pig getting loose into the wild.
I’m curious as to how Rollo and his wife have been/are raising their daughter in these current societal conditions. I assume it must be very challenging, even for the Swami of the Manosphere…
August 28th, 2014 at 5:07 pm
“The Unbearable Lightness of Being“ is a 1988 American film adaptation of the novel of the same name by Milan Kundera, published in 1984.
Tomas is Alpha im extasis, Sabine his 1 tier kitten, all woman left are just all punp and dummps until Tereza show up…
Sabine is sex, Tereza is love.Tomas want all too… once I was in that situation too, i saw this film wich boath of them , of course each one girl
was in Persona whit diferent woman
two weeks ago i saw this film again…and then strook me like a bolt!
Sabine is hotter, sexier, lasziver,aggressive,and…wait! she is an Alpha female! no problem hot babe , but…she is just a mirror image from Tomas!!!
yeah! that sound pretty egalitarian…in another scene she dump a tipical Beta chump while he left his wife for her, She want only the best
and the only one!..The Alpha Tomas…but he new the diferent!
She is like him! a man in action! but he dont need a man !
August 28th, 2014 at 6:08 pm
Anyone care to comment about the NFL proposal re: domestic abuse: a 6-game suspension for a first offense, and LIFETIME (???????!!!!!!!) ban for a second offense?
August 28th, 2014 at 7:13 pm
Stop watching sportstainment. Take up an individual athletic activity in the time you would have spent watching other people actually do things, but be very wary of formally organized events.
Runners and cyclists can use Strava to fulfill their competitive urges and informal games with trusted friends are more fun anyway.
August 28th, 2014 at 8:33 pm
”Most men now will be limited in achieving dominion inside their own concentric circles: Their bodies, their minds, their jobs, and their material possessions. But now, most men can barely achieve dominion over their bodies (obesity, substance abuse) and their minds (mass media, porn, idiocracy). But all this is obvious. The main problem is that most men will never have an incentive to try to achieve mastery over anything else beyond their own minds and bodies.”
You should see how being aware of the anti-male laws can do for one’s self-control. Basically, anytime a non-hot male is in the presence of a woman, her hamster might be in need of attention, so she can accuse the guy of rape without having any evidence and bam, his life is destroyed.
Why do men have to master something? Life is only worth something if you are a Shakespeare, a Galileo or if you look like a Spartan warrior? What’s wrong with finding enjoyment and fulfillment in the little things, in the same consistent routine. I enjoy very much coming home after work and either play a a league of legends or counter-strike global offensive game over going out with my friends because, frankly, I enjoy my own company.
Obesity is there because most people have crappy genes. There is no such thing as obesity in my family and we eat the same things that everyone else eats. My mother can eat anything she wants, how much she wants it, and she has never gone beyond a weight of 48 kilos, and she’s 5 feet tall, my father has had the same weight he’s always had, 5’9” and 70 kilos. We are also pretty healthy with no history of family substance abuse
Porn idiocy? . What would that be? Porn is awesome. It makes the viewer immune to ”normal” sexual attraction. Even if the woman is a tall, natural blonde Russian model and she’s in front of you, there’s no risk of becoming another pussy-beggar like most men are because you aren’t thirsty. Your brain has had it fill of beautiful women. There is no interest in being with her, first because you know you can’t have her, and second because you know women like that are impossible to keep.
Not everyone wants to spend their 40s and 50s hitting clubs to get them 20-something chicks, you know game can get them despite how old the man is! At least that is what the male hamster keeps telling average men, that they can be at the same level of real 25 year old Alpha males because, social dynamics blablabla.
There is a shit coming, a societal earthquake that will baffle the social scientists like that fella up there who thinks society is going to collapse(not really, we are going to create lifelike virtual reality that will satisfy the sexual needs of average men, and women will only reproduce with the likes of Dorian Gray), a shit which will see men turning their backs to relationships, women, game and all that nonsense.
And man, you should see how funny it is when women realize they can’t use their power over you because you are not a horn-dog anymore.
August 28th, 2014 at 8:36 pm
””Most men now will be limited in achieving dominion ”
Well, I’m sure the testosterone created by pumping iron makes men a little bit hit with fever, but you’re lamenting the lack of Bonapartes, Genghis Khan and the sort? You do know that most men do not have the genetic potential nor the means to conquer the Persian Empire, right? I know I might sound a bit effeminate or beta or whatever it is, but I’m not interested in dying at the age of 33. Hell, I laugh my ass off when I hear of some guy my brother knows, a guy who died because he went up to these two thugs who groped a female friend of his.
Men, most of them are suckers. They deserve what they get.
August 29th, 2014 at 10:47 am
A Culture of accepted promiscuity has demoralized our nation terribly.
Miley cirus, beyonce, kim slut kardashian are our celebrated female celebrities/role models.
On the other side ours EMINEM! And Jay-Z
Burn it down
August 29th, 2014 at 10:56 am
It’s cultural marxism at work but in the long run it won’t be sustainable. Cases like Rotherham will get some peple to wake up and restore the order.
August 29th, 2014 at 2:48 pm
@ BuenaVista,
I meant to tell you I appreciated your final comment summary of our discussion at J4G on this issue too. I particularly liked your decision science approach.
In regard to the question you posed about “on average” vs. “your dead” in relationship exchange… To me, the probability-weight of the exchange changes at marriage, due to a number of inequitable laws. In other words, the game changes when we go from the SMP to the MMP.
As a result, I think my approach can work for creating longer-term relationships – up to cohabitation (for those interested). However, in our current society, the usefulness of the approach breaks down in marriage (or even parenting-without-marriage). When a legal/contractual situation unilaterally strips the majority of resources from one “trading” partner and “entitles” it to the other, I don’t see how there can be equitable outcomes…or even exchange.
Beyond that, I am acutely and personally aware of the effects of divorce on men. So, I do not discount their feelings. I also know the current social/legal system needs to change before we can possibly have more favorable, win-win scenarios for marriage and parenting.
Within those limitations, however, I am trying to find potential solutions for men (and women) who would like something other than just ONS or beta-orbiting…that will not leave men twisting in the breeze either. I’m still learning and refining too though. That is why I keep engaging in these discussions.
Sometimes those discussions just get short-circuited online, however, due to the limitations of the medium. If we were talking face-to-face, we could clarify our stances and find a common understanding more easily. We’ll just keep doing the best we can though. Thanks.
August 29th, 2014 at 4:12 pm
edit: should have been “you’re dead”…
August 30th, 2014 at 12:12 am
”Within those limitations, however, I am trying to find potential solutions for men (and women) who would like something other than just ONS or beta-orbiting…that will not leave men twisting in the breeze either. I’m still learning and refining too though. That is why I keep engaging in these discussions.”
So, Susan Walsh male version, huh? Dr, there is no returning to marriage and the value women find in men depends on what they can do for them. That is why you see women allowing men to be their beta orbiters. These guys work under the cover of friendship but women know all of the guys who spend time with them are interested in having sex with them. That is the value they receive from betas. How can betas receive anything from this?
Nothing. These guys are indoctrinated from the moment they are born to be compliant to women, that their happiness relies on what women think of women, that is why when a woman is mad at a guy she tells him, ”I hope you die alone,” as if that was something to fear.
I remember one classmate I had, she was 21, Colombian, all the right measures and looks that would make Roosh and the likes do whatever it was necessary to have her. Her mother was working to support her mother. The girl’s father was working to support her mother. When I told her I have no intention to use my money or time to help a anyone(of course she assumed I was talking about women) she became angry at me and tried to shame me with the line of ending-up alone.
Wonderful! No drama to deal with, no unnecessary bills, and I won’t need a man-cave because the whole house is my man-cave.
Its not just that the legislation aggravates the living conditions of men. My grandfather married the dream girl of many of the redpillers you see around. She was a virgin, 20 years old, beautiful and feminine. From what I remember, my grandfather spent every second he had with me to get away from his wife, and my father tells me his dad was rarely at home, always working. Sure he died with money, but what’s the point of having money you aren’t enjoying because you are too busy working to get away from your wife?
I ‘ve met many older men, men my father served with, men whose sons and daughters went to school with me, people who grew up with me. The vast majority of these older men had 1.0 marriages. Nearly all of them were unhappy, un-sexed, or stressed out paying bills.
I’ve also met terrific people whose children are awful. Junkies, lawyers or thieves, for no reason at all.
I know that you folk are weary. Western Civilization is weakening. There are more and more non-western immigrants ”invading” the western world by the minute and they reproduce far faster than the white folk do.
You can’t change that. There is no incentive for men to reproduce.in the Nordic Countries the birth rates are so low, the govt. keeps on increasing the incentives for couples to have children. They even offer 100 euros to each child per month from the day they first begin their schooling, to the day they end their formal education, and they even pay for the higher education. There is no college debt in Europe. Even the poorer Countries have accessible school fees.
Do you think people are making babies? Nope, the population is aged, the few young ones are either moving away to exotic Countries to try their luck at becoming rich or they drop out from society.
This situation is a combination of women having no real value. Reproduction? Do you people honestly have a biological clock? I know women have it, but men have it also? And just because it begins to work,its logical to follow suit? There is really not much a difference between women and men. Human beings cannot control themselves. The only difference is that women have the opportunities and the means to act out on their desires and most men can’t. That’s where the real outrage comes from.
But men is a voluntary slave. Men only find happiness when they are doing the bidding of women. How can young men relate with older men when older men are addicted to a female ideal that has never existed?
Eventually, the majority of the men who are my age and younger will become Ghosts. There’s just too much information out there on the true nature of women, we also are forced to spend the majority of our time with women, for women are everywhere and there are no such thing as male-only space.The fascination men feel for women will fade away quickly.
And Dr.? Marriage is not the ideal model for child-raising. Children have always been the property of the village. Women weren’t aware of whom was the father of the child they were carrying. Monogamy is very taxing, its not a normal sexual strategy and it wears off on the health of both the woman and the man. My ideal reproductive model is to have women choose the genetic material they want from sperm banks and for them to raise their own kids(with their own money). On occasion, if a guy wants to have sex he can go up to one of these single mothers and return to his lifestyle afterwards.
This, will happen in all of Europe and in all of America. Its already prevalent in Sweden. Won’t take long for Germany to incorporate this into their culture and as the Crown Jewel of Europe, as the seat of Europe, Germany will influence the other Euro Countries to adopt this method of child-producing and raising.
Then, some 50 years from now, genetic engineering will be viable enough for all reproduction to be made only via genetic engineering, vastly increasing the quality of the human genetics and breeding only perfect-looking human beings. Physical and mental perfection will also be achieved.
That is, if Western civilization is still alive fifty or something years from now, lol.
August 30th, 2014 at 9:33 am
@ Hardwiggs:
On ghosting and the information on women available: For me it’s kind of true what you’re writing here. I read a lot of Rollo and Roissy and it makes you jaded. I remember I never have held anything against women. I thought they were genuinely nice people, I was a classical beta perhaps. Not anymore. One day I just snapped. And yeah, we as men need our own spaces again. I’m working out and even in the locker room and the sauna you have female staff checking or cleaning stuff. The other way round would be impossible!
In my opinion what females do to always be in the presence of men dressing like sluts is attention whoring and mind rape. It’s distracting men from accomplishing stuff and it’s getting on my nerves. But you see, I’m doing my best to ignore them and they can feel that they won’t get anywhere with me so they usually tone it down rather quick.
What you’re saying about the family might have been true a long time ago, but civilization relies on the family as an incentive for men to be productive. So I don’t think we’re going back there even though a certain group is working very hard to destroy the family.
August 30th, 2014 at 11:17 am
One of the foundational tenets of (Cultural) Marxism is the destruction of the family, in order to have people dependent upon the State for the security and stability that was formerly provided by the family – both nuclear and extended family.
The weakening and effeminization/emasculation of men, concurrent with the “empowerment/liberation” and masculinization of women (unrestrained hypergamy), has advanced this cause quite nicely, probably to the point of no returning to the old family-based social structure – barring some type of major, macro-level catastrophe in the society – economic collapse, infrastructure collapse, etc. – whereby Western society is thrown out of its relative affluence and comfort and into a situation where resources are more scarce and women find they need the protection of strong men once again for the survival of themselves and their children.
Weak, effeminate men are much easier to control, as their natural male fighting instinct has been ‘bred out’, if you will. Women will never pose a threat to the Elites who foist this garbage on the society, as no matter how “empowered” and “masculine” they become, they’re still essentially herd-state followers who will move in the direction they’re told to by the media and cultural propaganda machine – even if that direction is counter to their own ultimate self-interest. (This is a clue as to why this Cultural Marxist social agenda has been/is largely implemented via the agency of women, while the efforts directed at men have been of the weakening variety.)
Only by men being forced to become more “feral” and reclaim their natural masculine instincts by necessity will things change.
(I’m not advocating this or wishing for anything bad to happen, I’m just making an observation and reasoning out from there.)
August 30th, 2014 at 11:51 am
Maybe you guys should start realising that humans are not machines and that there are meant to be major variations in the level of masculinity or femininity in both genders – and due to that, in the past, people always found their match / mate in the opposite gender (eventually).
If you mess with that artificially and start promotion an ideal level of masculinity (in the case of femininity this is not happening…), you are unbalancing the natural equilibrium of how nature orders things.
SO, “sensitive” men and introverted men, who could be exceptionally heroic or brave or physically strong, etc, etc (all VERY masculine traits) and who in the past would have had no problem finding matching mates naturally, become sidelined over time, because women start considering these men to be “betas” due to their temperament…
This has absolutely zero to due with their masculinity and everything to do with perception – artificially created perception.
August 30th, 2014 at 12:03 pm
The idea that all betas are going to become or turn into alphas is the biggest illusion this side of the century.
People are born how they are born – this is set by nature. There has to be balance. Sure, a small percentage of betas may mimic alphas effectively, but ultimately they are still beta (in the current understanding of beta), yet you will find that the vast majority of so-called alphas display the traits which from a progression of society point of view point to beta traits – that is: not the builders of society.
August 30th, 2014 at 12:17 pm
@ Kid Jupiter
“Women were once “tame” in our society, when their hypergamy was kept in check via societal mores, shaming, morals, etc. They’ve now become “feral” in our society, now that those checks on their natural hypergamy have been removed. It’s akin to the house cat or pig getting loose into the wild.”
You are absolutely correct – I did not clarify that properly, but you have done it for me – thank you.
August 30th, 2014 at 1:30 pm
@ J.J.
Bringing the ‘nature vs. nurture’ dichotomy into this, do you think men are strictly born an ‘Alpha’ or ‘Beta’, or does the environment they’re raised in create the ‘Alpha’ or ‘Beta’? I’m not sure about this myself, but I get the feeling that environmental factors have a whole lot to do with it. But there’s definitely a natural, observable genetic baseline in this equation, as well. I think if a boy has enlightened Red Pill parents, they can coax out more Alpha traits by encouraging them, while discouraging the Beta traits, during the imprint stage and beyond.
I’m still not clear about the absolute definition of ‘Alpha’ myself; in his book, Rollo seems to allude that it’s an ‘action’ type orientation, as opposed to a more reflective orientation. They get the pussy because they take action to get the pussy, they don’t reflect, deliberate, get hung up on all the Beta/F.I. social myths and mores. They just go for it, and the girls respond positively to the confidence they perceive (or they don’t respond positively – the Alpha can handle rejection and just move on to the next one.) I’ve gathered this is the distilled point in the book, when Rollo deconstructs all the Beta illusions in the ‘Plugged In’ chapter. (I’m still reading the book, but I got through this part…)
August 30th, 2014 at 4:16 pm
”Women were once “tame” in our society, when their hypergamy was kept in check via societal mores, shaming, morals, etc. They’ve now become “feral” in our society, now that those checks on their natural hypergamy have been removed. It’s akin to the house cat or pig getting loose into the wild.”
You are absolutely correct – I did not clarify that properly, but you have done it for me – thank you.”
Yes. In the Muslim world women are tamed. Look how stagnant and prehistoric their society is. Do you want that? The problem with the western world is the addiction you fellas have over women. Get over that, let those elitists like that Dr. Fella up there wear himself out because people aren’t marrying or making babies. A lot of these doctors are parasites. They depend on the misery and suffering caused by child-raising, marriage and dating/hooking-up to make a buck.
That doctor is like Susan Walsh. He wants to hang on to something that is very rapidly fading away. ”Commitment.” Women are not loyal to any man, only to themselves, and even Alpha males are treated like trash, used, and dumped.
August 31st, 2014 at 5:50 am
@ Professor Von Hardwiggs
“Yes. In the Muslim world women are tamed. Look how stagnant and prehistoric their society is. Do you want that?”
Obviously not. No-one is talking about those societies – we are comparing the more traditional past.
“Women are not loyal to any man, only to themselves, and even Alpha males are treated like trash, used, and dumped.”
Well, we don’t want this either do we? So what do we want? Something in-between maybe? We used to have that – not so many years ago.
What we have at the moment is proof that the idea of absolute freedom is an illusion, because humans, especially women, are not able to mature or evolve or even be responsible without any expectations from them.
I do however agree fully that as things stand at the moment marriage is not an option. It’s simply not worth it. Forget about it, not in this environment. Maybe the pendulum will swing back at some stage and it might become worth it again, but for now I would stay well clear of it.
“The problem with the western world is the addiction you fellas have over women.”
Agreed. Do something useful with your life – channel your libido into something creative or productive – plan and build your own life and spend your energy on reaching your own personal objectives other than wasting it on obsessing and chasing afte low-quality women who will just make you jump through more and more hoops and then dump you ass as soon as she’s ready to “upgrade” to another random dick.
August 31st, 2014 at 5:58 am
@ Professor Von Hardwiggs
“Tame” in the above context means developed as human beings. Formed and cultured. Rather than undeveloped, unformed, feral – thinking with their “tingles” first and only with that. No wonder alphas love the feral types. Women have no self-control these days and self control comes form being a developed human being, able to be responsible and not just follow your base urges. Obviously in their current state women are not able to commit.
Besides, when last have any of you tried to have a conversation of any kind of depth with any of these “sophisticated” ladies of today?
August 31st, 2014 at 6:56 am
“Bringing the ‘nature vs. nurture’ dichotomy into this, do you think men are strictly born an ‘Alpha’ or ‘Beta’, or does the environment they’re raised in create the ‘Alpha’ or ‘Beta’?”
Not an easy question to answer and all of this is much more complex than game theory would let us believe.
No, I don’t think men are born strictly alpha or beta. I do think that the environment you are brought up in can mould you – as it should, if it is a positive, well-structured environment. The question is: who decides what is alpha and what is beta? Should parents “kick the beta-ness” out of a child because what is currently perceived as beta might just be that the is an introvert by birth, meaning: SHY; or it could be that the child is a creative type – these are often “sensitive” people. Should a child be discouraged to be and become himself and forced into becoming an alpha? For balance in societies you need creatives – and they should be encouraged to be creative. Being creative has zero to do with your masculinity – being masculine stands alone of being creative or not.
We know that there are more or less 50% introverts and 50% extroverts in society. We know that some societies lean more towards extroversion (most societies) and some lean more towards introversion. The USA, Australia and Germany for example are extroverted societies.
If the connotation of “beta” is applied to more or less 50% of men in society, no matter their level of masculinity, you are creating a type of discrimination against half of the male population. Just because a man is not outgoing and charismatic he is “beta” and therefore “less masculine” and therefore somehow “genetically inferior” ?? Think for a few minutes how utterly ridiculous that notion is, yet a lot of people seem to believe that.
We know that plus minus 10 – 20% of people of both genders are considered “sensitives” – these are the creative types – often they become the artists and poets and philosophers and writers and designers in society. They are 100% straight. They are born sensitive. It is a physiological (not psychological) phenomenon. All species have a percentage of sensitives – it is a survival mechanism in species.
If the connotation of “beta” is applied to more or less another 15% of men in society you are artificially reducing what is considered as “the ideal man” to roughly about 30% of the men in society or less.
Now think about this. Also what you are doing is you are motivating all these less-than-ideal” men to spend all their energy on trying to “overcome” their “inferiority” by chasing women and obsessing about them and trying to “become alpha” instead of these men doing what they should be doing for themselves – and by extension for society.
—
“…in his book, Rollo seems to allude that it’s an ‘action’ type orientation, as opposed to a more reflective orientation. They get the pussy because they take action to get the pussy, they don’t reflect, deliberate, get hung up on all the Beta/F.I. social myths and mores.”
In my opinion all “betas” have the ability to step into this alpha-zone when needed, so they do get women and partners, but less often than alphas, and there is a reason for that – “betas” are the builders of society – they are not meant to be chasing pussy 24/7, 365 days of the year. When the moments are right, betas get the chicks, but unlike always-on alphas (the alphas all betas are apparently meant to aspire to), they do not “live” from alphaness – they are not born to. Nature is more intelligent that we give it credit for, but strangely we think we are more clever,so we mess with it and with ourselves – and with our societies.
The west is in major decline and we are bringing it upon ourselves.
August 31st, 2014 at 6:57 am
My last post was addressed to: @ Kid Jupiter
August 31st, 2014 at 8:54 am
Dr. J writes:
“To me, the probability-weight of the exchange changes at marriage, due to a number of inequitable laws. … As a result, I think my approach can work for creating longer-term relationships – up to cohabitation (for those interested). However, in our current society, the usefulness of the approach breaks down in marriage (or even parenting-without-marriage). When a legal/contractual situation unilaterally strips the majority of resources from one “trading” partner and “entitles” it to the other, I don’t see how there can be equitable outcomes…or even exchange.”
Agreed. Though as a divorced man I would note that cohabitation is increasingly impossible (if one wishes to firewall personal assets), and any single man dating *any* woman (“high quality” or otherwise), who wants to lock him down, had best be prepared to take 100% responsibility for birth control.
I don’t think there’s a way to finesse a situation where the legal and financial options, rights and incentives in any LTR reside on one side of the table. It’s simply objective. The “strategies” a man can take, if he wants an LTR, are meager:
1. capitulate and hope. Pretend that the laws haven’t shifted all the options to the woman’s side of the deal. If a man goes this way and he has resources he needs to prepare for nonstop Game until death. Or be fine sliding onto an assortive, UMC-style, beta bux treadmill. Oh, and hope.
2. marry “down”: man marries someone who is a couple of points down in her SMV, and smart enough to realize and value this fact. (Then game her nonstop until he dies, and hope.)
3. enter the marriage/LTR in a rarefied state of enlightened detachment — essentially at peace, emotionally, with the knowledge that he has *already* lost 60% of his assets and access to his children. This is what Stoic philosophy advises: to accept as rational and right the imminent loss of all that is dear, and yet live well and usefully. This is counter to how all of us were raised, i.e., to be at peace and effectively functional while privately knowing that a newborn child is already lost, a balance sheet is already exploded — at the moment of commitment.
4. refuse compromise, and seek unicorns who acknowledge that feminism and its usurpation and control of the culture, government apparatus, and law have destroyed good faith mating impulses. For example, a few years ago I thought I met a unicorn, and my fantasy was to buy the house next door to hers, and live like Sartre and de Beauvoir. But it does happen, from time to time, and in the meantime one might avoid the self-immolation of contractual relations.
5. go the PUA/MGTOW route and subsume emotion in sensation, indefinitely. Neither of us appears to have any interest in this, but it is a rational response to the environment.
It’s a frustrating situation because very, very few men or women in my cohort are willing to look at the hard facts of how the State and the culture have created objective conditions that make an LTR/marriage contract quite stupid. No one writes any sort of financial deal that assigns 100% of the options to one side. But particularly with the intelligentsia/clerisy/cognitive elite, the standard directive is to suck it up, Man Up!, and hope for the best.
For this reason I focus on items 3) and 4) above.
I do think it’s possible that the feminist rule structure pushes it’s luck too hard — say, in the California affirmative consent fiasco, or in the academy now, where men are suing successfully for the denial of due process — and there is a massive blowback when women discover their unintended isolation. But that too is, essentially, affirming hope as a strategy. There’s no evidence that women will ever relinquish the authority they’ve accrued. The only people I know who are able, much less willing, to even discuss the objective terms of this marriage market conditions and the bizarre monopoly on rights and options by one side of the marriage transaction, are people who’ve already been mugged. Even my best friends freak out and say idiotic crap like “that’s not possible” or “you can’t say that!” or “NAWALT” or any of the shaming talking points, when confronted with the objective facts.
So yeah, the only rational way to enter a marriage is to assume it’s already over, and you’ve been strip-mined and had your children alienated or kidnapped — and be at peace with that emotionally. Because “on average” 10% of LTRs are emotionally alive and “on average” only 50% end in divorce. Where this intersects with decision theory: What most people can’t get their heads around is that there’s no such thing as an “on average” allocation of parental rights: they exist or they don’t. At present, if one is a man, they do *not* exist except insofar as a woman chooses to allow them to exist. So we’re back to thinking strategically, but hoping for gracious unicorns.
August 31st, 2014 at 10:08 am
That DeadBedrooms place is scary. One repeated theme that I saw in there was the women turning off the tap/denying sex once she is married…or even just engaged. Glad I’m a bachelor.
August 31st, 2014 at 10:36 am
@BV:
1. I wouldn’t advise anyone to “hope” any more than I’d advise them to “pull and pray” when it is so easy nowadays to know the “science” behind relationships and reproduction.
2. Shouldn’t a man always marry “down”? Isn’t that the only way to ensure against hypergamy raising its ugly head? You want to be a happily married man? Marry not the woman you adore but the woman who adores you. If these happen to be the same person, all the better. But it is far more important for the woman to love the man than the man to love the woman if you want to have a lasting relationship. Trust in this. Once bonding has done its work and you have children, the marriage is “safe.” She won’t leave you because you’re “above” you, and you won’t leave her because of the children.
3. For divorced men, many of them have already lost everything and are able to enter into another marriage with that state of detachment. For some, a second marriage might be a financial windfall: a considerable rise in standard of living. And having few to no assets actually ensures against a woman marrying you for the wrong reasons: only your money. Buddhism is the divorced man’s religion. Life is loss and pain. But you go on living. Always. It is a great chess game and, in the end, it is actually better to have been used and abused than to have done the using and abusing. Judge not your success in life by material standards. Judge it by how hard you fought to keep your virtue.
4. Hip hip hooray! Reward these women! Especially reformed feminists. (Remember that a lot of us knew no better and were raised by women who sold us into this. Our mothers got to play career for a decade and then married and stayed at home with the children. Because they wanted to work, now we have to. The best we can do is learn how we were led astray and prevent it from happening to our daughters.) Praise them. Demand they live up to your standards. Anything else compromises you and them. And throw out notions of what normal marriage looks like. Two of my neighbors who live next door to each other fell in love but retain their own residences. And they seem very happy with the arrangement. What happened to your girl, BV?
5. These are short-term coping mechanisms that do not bring lasting happiness for men who are family oriented. For bull and bear alphas, they may be all that they are capable of. But many men simply want more. And with the knowledge and support of a true community, they can.
August 31st, 2014 at 11:47 am
“Are women what is most important?” ;-)
August 31st, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Mike from Danger And Play does an excellent 2300 word interview with Dr Jeremy
September 1st, 2014 at 11:13 pm
Rollo,
Thank you for referencing and recommending The 48 Laws of Power. I’m reading it now, also read The Art of Seduction. These are excellent reads.
Currently I’m reading the chapter entitled “Avoid Stepping Into A Powerful Mans shoes”, specifically the excerpt, “The Problem of Paul Morphy”. This reference to chess and the sterilization, death (checkmate) of the king (father figure) is extremely interesting to me as it may relate to,the context of our discussions here.
I grew up playing chess often. The chess king is the second weakest chess piece (weakest second to the sacrificial pawn). The queen is the most powerful. This disparity always bothered me and seems a perverted reversal, not consistent with reality.
I wonder if you ever considered this and, if so, what are your thoughts?
September 1st, 2014 at 11:25 pm
Best I can do at the moment, but have a read of this:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/11/21/promise-keepers/
September 2nd, 2014 at 3:56 pm
The problem with Men is that the majority of us are romantics by nature. We were indoctrinated by the women who raised us in kindergardens, who controlled our social growing-up in elementary school, and as we joined the hordes of Junior high schoolers, we were unprepared to deal with the power females wield over males
”. Shouldn’t a man always marry “down”? Isn’t that the only way to ensure against hypergamy raising its ugly head? You want to be a happily married man? Marry not the woman you adore but the woman who adores you. If these happen to be the same person, all the better. But it is far more important for the woman to love the man than the man to love the woman if you want to have a lasting relationship. Trust in this. Once bonding has done its work and you have children, the marriage is “safe.” She won’t leave you because you’re “above” you, and you won’t leave her because of the children.’
Women are incapable of love. Even Angelina Jolie would drop Brad Pitt if she could find a better deal. Women are creatures of sexual desire and of greed. Women will have sex with a man if he’s attractive(tall, handsome) and women will have sex with average men if the women are post-wall and are in wallet-seeking mode. Women younger than 25 are still supported by their fathers, they can get all the Alpha bangs they want, which is why there are very few beta relationships in their 20s. Of course there are women who keep a beta boyfriend for comfort, attention and to have someone to spend money on them, but the bulk of the sex the women have is with Alpha men.
Marrying a woman who is shorter, or less-attractive than you does not make her sexually attractive to you if you aren’t tall or handsome. I have always been partial to my friend’s fathers and they’ve always complained of the lack of respect and of the lack of sex they’ve been suffering from ever since they had kids, and all of these guys have good jobs, good careers, good academical education. They married women who were average and with high school/only a bachelor’s education.
Women only adore men who are far above all of the other males. Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Donald Trump and so on. Only these men have women who adore them.
”3. For divorced men, many of them have already lost everything and are able to enter into another marriage with that state of detachment. For some, a second marriage might be a financial windfall: a considerable rise in standard of living. And having few to no assets actually ensures against a woman marrying you for the wrong reasons: only your money. Buddhism is the divorced man’s religion. Life is loss and pain. But you go on living. Always. It is a great chess game and, in the end, it is actually better to have been used and abused than to have done the using and abusing. Judge not your success in life by material standards. Judge it by how hard you fought to keep your virtue.”
In life, there are only two types of person. The ones who are used and the ones who are abused.
Be the one who abuses. Don’t let anyone use you, guys, and if women use you, use them back.
”4. Hip hip hooray! Reward these women! Especially reformed feminists. (Remember that a lot of us knew no better and were raised by women who sold us into this. Our mothers got to play career for a decade and then married and stayed at home with the children. Because they wanted to work, now we have to. The best we can do is learn how we were led astray and prevent it from happening to our daughters.) Praise them. Demand they live up to your standards. Anything else compromises you and them. And throw out notions of what normal marriage looks like. Two of my neighbors who live next door to each other fell in love but retain their own residences. And they seem very happy with the arrangement. What happened to your girl, BV?”
No. I’ve never assaulted anyone. I never did anything wrong to any woman or man. I didn’t need anyone to tell me not to do it. If women are like this, if most women cheat and if most women divorce their good husbands its because women aren’t worthwile. I advice going ghost on women. But if you are still ruled by your sex drive, pump and dump women.
” These are short-term coping mechanisms that do not bring lasting happiness for men who are family oriented. For bull and bear alphas, they may be all that they are capable of. But many men simply want more. And with the knowledge and support of a true community, they can.”
You don’t seem to know much about men. Most relationships don’t last past the 2 year mark. Most men have their wives divorced them. There are increasing numbers of men who are becoming grass-eating men. A huge percentage of the young men are ”addicted” to porn and don’t want to talk to women, let alone sleep with them. Most of the 40-50 year old crowd remarries..but they are old. They’ll die in 10 or 20 years. Then they’ll be replaced by 40-50 men who are too tired of women and their BS. Oh, and please do leave that Religions nonsense behind. Virtue? right.. Church girls are the most promiscuous and whorish of them all, either banging bad boys, getting pregnant in their teens, or having one of those ”reborn-virgins” moments hit them when they become 30 and want to breed a kid to guarantee alimony and child-support.
September 2nd, 2014 at 3:58 pm
‘In life, there are only two types of person. The ones who are used and the ones who are abused.”
The ones who are used and the ones who use *
September 2nd, 2014 at 4:02 pm
”That DeadBedrooms place is scary. One repeated theme that I saw in there was the women turning off the tap/denying sex once she is married…or even just engaged. Glad I’m a bachelor.”
Aha, that’s what nearly every woman does. They make it look like they are crazy in lust/love with their target, then whey they’ve succeeded in having the sucker invest money/time/resources/his future to her, she closes down the water flow and she’ll use sex sporadically to get from her husband/boyfriend what she wants.That’s why women get so crazy when you show no sexual desire for them.
Women are incapable of climbing the ladder of life, heck most of them are unfit to do the vast majority of work that is needed to build and maintain a civilization. They are small, weak, tire quickly, have no strength, no creative drive and no ambition.
September 4th, 2014 at 10:38 pm
Just need a bunch more from you on “married/LTR” game. You have some posts, but not nearly enough. Why are YOU successful at your marriage?
September 4th, 2014 at 11:01 pm
@FM
http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/09/relationship-game-a-primer/
http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/23/relationship-game-wife-sex/
September 6th, 2014 at 2:02 am
Only 2? With unnamed bloggers peddling a blue pill painted red that leaves you an Dalrock as some of the last married men standing up to the feminine imperative.
Off the top of my head how about:
-Is the betafication of men in marriage inevitable?
-Dread in LTR’s
-The Married Man’s Frame
-The long-long Game
-Fulfilling AF/BB in LTR’s
-When can you turn it around?
-When is it time to call the lawyer?
-Shit Tests and Comfort Tests in LTR’s
etc
September 7th, 2014 at 1:53 pm
Incase anyones interested (don’t judge the man by his knitwear!)
September 13th, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Rollo usually I just read here and don’t comment much but there are a few places I think I need to more aggressively challenge you – not on the basis of different camp, but more on the basis of iron-sharpening-iron.
You habitually collude humanism and equalism. They are not the same. Also – you are wont to equate expressions of human aspiration that are found in conventional wisdom with humanism, per se, which I think is an error.
Humanism has a lot going for it and try as you might, the fact is that whether you are fully conscious of it or not, there are humanistic strains running roughshod throughout your writing.
So – to take on a few of these things as posted in this article, you write, “What Randi doesn’t consider is the natural complementary states men and women’s psychological firmware descended from since our hunter-gatherer tribal beginnings. He can’t consider it because it disagrees with the ‘higher-selves overcoming our natural state’ aspect of egalitarian humanism.”
Ok – but:
1) You are colluding egalitarianism with humanism, and you are colluding a specific form of pop culture heterosexual egalitarianism with humanism, where we could decipher political, economic and even gender egalitarianism apart from heterosexual egalitarianism, and in all cases the egalitarianism remains intact against your implied suggestion of its frailty
2) You are not allowing for a difference between heterosexual egalitarianism and gender egalitarianism
3) Regardless of how we parse egalitarianism, humanism does not by necessity collude with any of it
You go on to write,
“Androgynous men, by definition aren’t men – they are neither masculine or feminine – so is it any surprise that women’s innate, heteronormative, subliminal and tingle inducing need for a traditionally masculine man is frustrated by the same egalitarian mindset they’ve fostered in compliant men for so long?”
Here I think you are really on to something, but your earlier conceptual collusions are preventing you from breaking through to the next clue along the way.
It is: heteronormativity – that is at stake. To see what I mean by that, back up and come back at it again.
Begin with this starting point: human beings – men or women – can be androgynous. They are still human, in fact: they are 100% human.
“Male” and “female” do not add one iota to the humanness of a human. That is a key, critical, vital fact – well known to humanism, that “red pill” aware types have a huge gaping blind spot for.
If we correct that blind spot then we need to acknowledge several humanist insights: men are women, androdyne or not – are morally equal, and from their moral equality follows their equality of autonomy.
From autonomy follows that a woman may choose to be feminine, masculine, or androgynous, and a man, likewise.
Humanity is NOT at stake in the outcome. What is at stake is ask you said:
“heteronormativity”.
Men can choose to be feminine or androgynous. Women can choose to be masculine or androgynous.
Humanism requires neither end choice – humanism only requires the autonomy of the individual to choose.
But humanism would also say that for choices to be truly autonomous (i.e.: humanist) … those making the choices must understand the results of their choices – they must make their choices in the context of “informed consent”.
And someone properly informed – as by someone such as yourself – should understand that if they choose heteronormativity … which is a wholly valid choice under humanism … then that means men choosing to be masculine and women choosing to be feminine.
They are of course free to choose not to be masculine or feminine, but they should understand that in doing so – they are repudiating heteronormativity.
Humanism as far as I can tell does not brook having one’s cake and eating it to. This is where “red pill” probably has something to say to humanism and to add to humanism, but which doesn’t undermine humanism. “Red pill” will get push back when it makes impositions on people’s autonomy and forces their choices, … many of us call that “fascism”, but “Red Pill” is on solid ground when it informs humanism that heteronormativity is something that men, and women, can have, or not have, and it can only be had by those who want it when men are masculine and women are feminine.
People can choose anything else they want, autonomy and all, but they shouldn’t kid themselves into thinking that with their different choices will come a nice healthy dish of heteronormativity. These are either/or propositions.
All in all – I would prefer that if you must collude humanism with a qualifier then avoid “equalism” or “egalitarianism” as those stand on their own two feet and are unnecessary to humanism.
The qualifier that cannot be divorced from humanism, if you need one, is “autonomy”.
September 13th, 2014 at 5:10 pm
Correction in above post, middle paragraph should read: “If we correct that blind spot then we need to acknowledge several humanist insights: men OR women, androdyne OR not – are morally equal, and from their moral equality follows their equality of autonomy.”
October 24th, 2014 at 8:00 pm
[…] are natural traits and natural gifts that both sexes have. They are not equal, they are complimentary. It’s about time we stopped trying to be zoo animals. The men who engineered your sewage pipes […]
October 25th, 2014 at 6:21 pm
[…] Since in or around about the mid-2000s a verifiable cottage industry has sprouted up on the web to advise men on how to game women. And its not just men who are providing these services – even women are getting in on the act. Over time, this part of the internet, known as the manosphere, has transformed into something bigger: advice how on how to become a man, various critiques of feminism, a bastion of paleo-conservatism and at its most darkest, an insight into the darwinian female psyche. […]
March 10th, 2015 at 9:48 am
[…] Since in or around about the mid-2000s a verifiable cottage industry has sprouted up on the web to advise men on how to game women. And its not just men who are providing these services – even women are getting in on the act. Over time, this part of the internet, known as the manosphere, has transformed into something bigger: advice how on how to become a man, various critiques of feminism, a bastion of paleo-conservatism and at its most darkest, an insight into the darwinian female psyche. […]