As of this post there are now 400 essays on Rational Male. And if there’s one thing that writing for as long as I have in what’s now known as the manosphere has taught me is the difficulty of having to initiate new readers to old concepts. When we get down and dirty in the commentary on a particular topic I tend to assume most commenters are familiar with at least the core concepts I’ve presented over the years and those who aren’t usually ask me for a link they probably could’ve found just by perusing the sidebar links, categories or a quick term search to see what I’ve post about a particular topic.
Still, this doesn’t seem to placate the disease of attention deficit disorder common to people who want to find whatever fault they can to defend the narrative they’ve invested themselves in. The problem then becomes one not unlike playing whack-a-mole where I’ve got to post links in comments or tweets I can only hope the critic will actually have the temerity and patience to read. Usually it comes back to TL;DR and they never really consider a rebuttal to their ‘Gotcha’ that I covered, in some cases, a decade ago.
As the manosphere and Red Pill awareness go more mainstream I expect this intellectual lethargy to increase on the part of those who are ego-invested in the continuance of a feminine-primary social order. As I’ve posted before,…ahem, the Red Pill is a Threat to the comfort and certainty of men and women conditioned to be dependent on its continuance:
Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.
I’m proud to say that the comments in the last post reached a record high of over 700. And while I’m appreciative of that it does have the unfortunate effect of burying some really interesting commentary deep in the thread. Towards the 5th page of comments I got the following post from a commenter going by the handle ‘Alpha Female’. The consequent posts were a screed of what even the newest of Red Pill men can recognize as standard Gender Studies Major boilerplate.
I can’t say as I was surprised to see ‘Alpha Female’s’ comment on this week’s post since I was already aware of her previous foaming rant on the Women in Love post under the telling monicker of ‘The Best Thing You’ll Never Have’.
Against my better judgement I’m going to pick her comment apart here for this week’s discussion. Just so you know, I’m fully aware this is feeding a blatant troll. I also understand that Ms. Alpha lacks the critical thinking skills and curiosity to make even a cursory attempt to search for any of the 399 prior posts (a third of which I wrote for SoSuave over a decade ago) that might actually give her pause to think I’d covered them before.
Try not to think of this as a courtesy to Alpha Female, her argumentative style is one of presuming personal truths that fit her ego centered reality are the universally accepted ones. Think of this as more of a remedial lesson in Red Pill theory/ideology/practice and background for those new to Red Pill awareness.
Feel free to pick apart any or all of her initial list below in the comment thread. You can pick up the old thread to see where her rabbit hole goes here, but as you’ll probably expect most of the conversation revolves her own personal experiences and veers off into “ooh ooh, men do it too” and “people are all different, society sucks” tangents. Like most bad debaters, she flits from one issue to another when a snare she wasn’t expecting to conflict with her ‘correct’ reality holds her on that challenge for too long.
1. Equalitarian and “female-primary” social orders are not synonymous nor interchangeable. I assume you know the definition of equalitarian, yet you are using the term interchangeably to mean a female dominant social order. First example of flawed reasoning in this article.
Actually the only error is in AF not having searched the term “equalism” here, but keep that in mind, it’s going to come up often in this post. I’ve covered egalitarian equalism both here and here.
She is correct though, they shouldn’t be synonymous or interchangeable, but unfortunately the Feminine Imperative, and its predominant social arm of feminism, has conflated them both to serve a purpose for going on 70 years now. Universalism and Equalism have been the cover story to sell a feminine-primary social order since the late 60s.
It would be very simple if, as she constantly parrots, the definition of equalitarianism was only limited to a belief in ‘equal rights’ for all. Very few people are going to argue against that ideology, but the fact is that her ego-preferred definition has been contorted to be a useful tool of the Feminine Imperative.
The social veneer of ‘equalism’ was a necessary social convention in recruiting men to disavow their conventional masculinity (which later would be redefined by the feminine for them in later generations to better fit women’s dualistic sexual strategy) as well as their self-interests and adopt the idea that a nebulous ‘society’, and more specifically a Patriarchal one, was the source of gender roles they were told they should find oppressing.
Thus the synonymous association of a ‘faux equalist’ equalitarianism was paired with feminine social primacy. Equalism is simply the religion of feminism because it can hide the more egregious aspects of its agenda (unfettered Hypergamy for instance) behind a social convention that very few people would want to ‘be against’ – those who are are easily ostracized as “backwards” anachronisms by way of that definition. So the “flawed reasoning” really comes down to the semantics of the fluid definition the Feminine Imperative has prepared for women like AF to use and the observable facts of the utility it serves the Feminine Imperative.
Feminism has never been concerned with true egalitarian equality. Feminism has only ever been an effort in retribution and restitution. Our present social state of Open Hypergamy and feminist triumphalism is an indictment of that fact.
2. “The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.” There is evidence that exactly this is true.
This is interesting, because she cites no evidence. That’s because there is exactly zero evidence this is the case and increasingly science is proving exactly the opposite, much to the ideological discomfort of “equalists”. Men and women’s brains are literally wired differently (if she’d had the curiosity to look at this link I provided in the post she found so offensive she’d know this).
But we don’t even need those studies to grasp this most basic of human truths – we already know that men and women’s biochemistry and endocrinology work and affect their respective sex’s bodies and minds differently. Whether it’s the dominant presence of estrogen, progesterone and oxytocin in women or the dominant presence of testosterone in men, the body state – behavioral effects and emotional stimulus of those hormones make us fundamentally different beings – and that’s a good thing.
Complementarianism benefits women and men.
Furthermore, each sex evolved into different gender roles according to these biological predilections. We can split hairs as to which sex should be more suited for higher order vocations based on intellect and personal merit, but the obvious fact that men are more physically suited to certain tasks, and women are also similarly suited to other tasks – yet both complement the other – is inescapable.
Part of the evolved male neurological firmware is a natural aptitude to accurately and forcefully throw an object from a very early age – an evolved behavior necessary for survival and hunting. Yes, girls can be taught to throw as or more effectively than a boy with the right training, but it’s the natural unlearned aptitude boys have that puts the lie to the “we’re all born the same” blank slate trope.
So the question then becomes one of determining which sex’s strategy stands to benefit most from advocating for a belief that all humans are a blank slate, biology is meaningless and all gender is a social construct. Which sex has their interests served in lowering the bar and “leveling the playing field” to become more like the other?
Examine how being transgender impacts someone’s gender. You believe in a heteronormative gender binary which clouds your judgment and makes you incapable of understanding how gender relates to power dynamics in society. Until you can grasp that gender is defined by more than genitals, you will continue to write this complete and utter tripe that disparages women for the sake of helping you feel superior (which a truly superior person would not do).
Transgenderism is a mental disorder:
In the vast majority of cases, children who say they’re transgender and act that way change their minds about being the opposite sex—if you just leave them alone.According to a recent Hastings Center report, gender dysphoria does not persist into adulthood in up to 73 to 94 percent of cases (citing the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which noted dysphoria continuing in only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls.)
[…] Heyer’s blog cites a national survey of more than 6,500 transgenders that asked the question, “Have you tried to commit suicide?” Forty-one percent answered, “Yes.” That’s astonishingly more than the national average of less than 2 percent. Virtually all people who attempt suicide are suffering from some form of mental disorder or depression. So it should seem clear that blaming society for that depression will not address the dysphoria and depression an individual feels.
The term “heteronormative” is a common trope taught by Gender Studies academia with the latent purpose of canonizing a new definition of the term by demonizing and marginalizing the fundamental truth that gender finds its ‘normative’ condition in an evolved ‘hetero’sexual biology – and yes, that is a binary, one from which you cannot escape. Just ask the 41 precent of depressed and suicidal transgendered people about their attempts to escape it.
The roots of gender are written into your DNA.That hetero normative state is responsible for producing you. Try as you may to convince yourself socially or psychologically it’s otherwise, you will never escape the biomechanic foundation that influences your motivations as a man or a woman.
With regard to how gender influences social dynamics, the Red Pill is the direct result of, and logical contingency to the feminine-primary social engineering the Feminine Imperative has instated into society over the last 70 years. If it weren’t for that foundational recognition of feminine-primary social power by the Red Pill you wouldn’t be reading this blog.
I do agree on this, gender is far more than genitals. Once an ideologically ‘correct’ form androgyny and egalitarian equalism enter the public sphere, the biological influences on gender determines who will play the perpetual victim and who must play the role of victimizer.
3. “It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways.” All people experience life in different ways. You are overvaluing the common experiences that you have with men and undervaluing the common experiences you have with women. The binary that you use to define your superiority is again hampering your ability to understand that you are not defined by gender and your experiences will never perfectly align with any other human being’s experiences and that you share lots of common experiences with BOTH men and women.
AF’s out of context quote only makes my preceding point for me:
I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.
I found this interesting considering that it entirely contradicts point 2 – if gender is self or socially assigned and we’re all alike (blank slate) independent of biology this then precludes independent differences since we’re all supposed to have some ‘enlightened’ higher-self capacity to rise above them. In other words all people should be inherently bisexual and born with the capacity to fluidly transition from one set of arousal cues to the opposite in any given environment. Androgyny should be the normative in that model. Yet we find that in nature androgyny and homogeny lead to evolutionary dead ends
But if that’s true then homosexuals, and heterosexuals aren’t born the way they are, they’re behaviorally conditioned into their sexual alignments and gender roles by “society“, right?
Individuals do experience life in different ways, but each of those individuals are still subject to their biologically determined physical influences and the environments they find themselves in.
4. Hypergamy is conflated in your mind with gender, when it is absolutely normal for people in both genders (and not all people in either gender) to branch swing from one mate to the next based on perceived value or sexual attraction. Males engage in this behavior all the time. Not withstanding the obvious mountain of evidence you have at your disposal to verify the fact that I’m stating, it is indisputable that the incidence of infidelity in males is higher than in females, yet you claim women cannot “love” a man in the same way that a man “loves” a woman.
Hypergamy is the biologically influenced normative state of females to prefer men of a sexual market value above their own perceived sexual market value.
This metric is determined (again) by the inescapable biological realities of the influence women’s hormonal and menstrual cycles, and the evident behavioral effects play on their sexual selection strategies. The influences of women’s innate ovulatory shift behaviors and preferences define the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks sexual strategy on both the personal and societal level.
Remember the usefulness of the “equalitarian” term as defined by the Feminine Imperative we discussed above? Women’s innate, biologically determined and sex-specific Hypergamy is where that conflation finds its purpose. AF makes the same comparison to men’s sexual selectivity being itself a form of hypergamy because she fundamentally clings to her ego-investment that ‘all are equal’ and men’s sexual strategy serves the same purpose as women’s. It is not and it does not, and any basic knowledge of parental investment theory as well as the biological realities of men’s reproductive methods once again put the lie to her assertions. Men quantity, women quality, and no one’s ugly after 2am.
Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time. Neither can they sell Open Hypergamy and the premise of egalitarian equalism – particularly when AF’s feminine-primary boilerplate is refuted by statistics taken after the advent of unilaterally feminine controlled hormonal birth-control.
You see, it’s was a useful trope that men cheat more than women when Hypergamy was more socially concealed, but in an age of unrestricted, socially mandated Open Hypergamy the only question that remains is whether a man will choose to be cuckolded before or after he’s invested himself personally, emotionally and financially in monogamy with a woman who’s looking for an “equal partnership” (now that she’s less able to arouse the Alpha bad boys she’s happy to tell him about).
But, wait, if we’re all ‘equal’ and the plumbing doesn’t matter, wouldn’t men and women cheat equally?
5. ‘“I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.’ And yet asexual men exist, which directly contradicts the anecdotal evidence you use to support your non-fact based argument that men are simply horny all the time and are therefore experiencing a condition that women cannot even begin to fathom. I mean when you write this tripe, you are well aware of the many logical fallacies that you use to justify your beliefs, are you not? I hope you are. And if your response is “Well those asexual men are just exceptions to the rule” or “hyper sexual women are the exception to the rule” is simply to say that “I know my theory has been disproved but I would rather ignore the facts and evidence that do not support my claim in favor of plowing on so that I can continue to demean females with my outdated 15th century mindset.”
Put an ‘asexual’ man in the private room at the Spearmint Rhino in Vegas and we’ll see how ‘asexual’ he really is. Again, ‘asexuality’ is an evolutionary dead-end. Only in our present social state of enlightenment do we entertain the “equalist” notion that an ‘asexual’ person in anyway represents anything significant to human development.
However AF still doesn’t grasp that the ‘anecdotal’ example I give here has been repeated in every woman who’s taken anabolic steroids, and every woman ever proscribed hormone therapy to aid her flagging libido and mood swings after menopause. It’s a good thing gynecologists and endocrinologists don’t share her opinion that we’re all the same except for the plumbing. It’s interesting that we’ll prescribe hormone therapy for menopausal women and transexuals, but we’re expected to accept that ‘asexuality’ is normative and not an ill.
I should also add that AF has very poor debate skills.
6. “So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s.” Your logic is inherently flawed, [presuming the condition] and then you make an assertion that there should be a logical conclusion that the assumptions you have not and cannot prove [already present in the post] should mean that all women experience relationships in exactly the same way [what part of individuated experience did I lose you on?] .
Let me make a correlation. [I reject your reality and replace it with my own] I am reading misogynistic psychobabble from overly emotional men [projecting bias] that demeans women and places them in a position beneath men [implied nowhere in the essay, and in fact I concede that women do love deeply based on their opportunistic criteria] based solely on their genital composition [“equalist’ binary presumption and again not implied in the post] , so I conclude based on this evidence (and my evidence is actually supported so it is very different from your flawed premise [support that is never supplied and expected to be presumed as valid] ) that all men view women as inferior beings that are not worthy of equal treatment. [presuming a truth. treatment is not to be conflated with expectations of stimulus to predicted behavior]
That is the logic you use, and it is absolutely worthless. [straw men always nod their heads in agreement with your reality] The saddest thing about it is that people with this mindset purport to be pseudo-intellectuals and use junk science to support their claims [still waiting on your non-junk science] while men of lower intellect just eat it up because it makes them feel all rough and tough and superior for a while. [yes, because spending hours a day reading a blog is a better high than getting drunk or going out to do something productive]
Group think is a terrible and scary thing, [you’re right about that] as this blog proves time and time again.
Final note: I realized in the time it took to compile this that Alpha Female is really an comment thread attention whore who’s need for catharsis over her sadly Hyena-like marriage motivates her to write stream-of-consciousness diatribes to support truths she needs to support her ego-investments and self-image.
January 11th, 2015 at 1:41 pm
More.
January 11th, 2015 at 2:01 pm
@Badpainter
Re: bots. Not necessarily…
January 11th, 2015 at 2:33 pm
@ Rollo
What we’re observing here is a rudimentary conflict between an internalized humanist idealism (the way equalism teaches thing’s should be) versus evolved, impulsive realism (the way things are).
Nonsense. It’s a struggle for control between the amygdala and the cortex. The more tingles, the more control that the amygdala gets. Realism is irrelevant. Humanist idealism rules the cortex of most women.
January 11th, 2015 at 2:37 pm
@ Rollo
The sexes evolved to be complementary to each other for the betterment of the species.
Let’s only state what we actually know.
The sexes are complementary. This is uncontroversial and simple. Adding an evolutionary gloss is only for the purpose of persuading weak minds. A Jedi mind trick.
January 11th, 2015 at 2:43 pm
@ alfalfa
theadsgamer, At most things, but thank you for acknowledging it.
Apparently, spelling isn’t one of them. Heh.
January 11th, 2015 at 2:54 pm
Once upon a time, return of kings banned not only women commentators, but also the men who reply .
This attention whore is a time waster. There is no possibility of logically convincing her of anything, same as with LyingTree.
Predictable walls of texts from men following every woman’s post in the comments. I skipped all of the long paragraphs.
January 11th, 2015 at 3:01 pm
@ Rollo
What does a woman want?
More.
+1 to that.
70% of divorces are filed by women. This shows that men aren’t leaving their aging wives to date younger, more attractive women even though that is something that almost all men could do.
Women do the home-wrecking and they have one of two possible motives.
1) get more
2) give less
January 11th, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Ang Amer
One thing is for sure, the attention whore’s no match for younger hotter tighter competition in real life. A normal man, even beta males, wouldn’t give her attention in real life. Why is anyone giving her attention on the Internet’s??
January 11th, 2015 at 4:10 pm
“Your blather about how ‘most men’ can support the dictionary definition of ‘equalitariainism’ is a prime example of someone who believes themselves to be in a superior class, then dictating the ‘rights’ they grant the people of what they perceive to be an inferior class. So essentially, as long as women only have the right to vote, access to education, and other very basic human ‘rights,’ you are fine, but when that freedom extends to things like freedom from patriarchal dominance in the workplace or freedom from gender roles in the home, well you can’t abide that. Here’s a tip: you don’t get to decide which freedoms are granted to women, and the only reason you would argue that you do (as you do here), is if you fundamentally believe you are superior to all women. Yes all. Not some.”
Eh, this strikes me as Carl Jung tier psychobabble. Patriarchal dominance is mostly a conspiracy theory, but what truth there is in it is almost certainly an emergent property of the fact that historically, men were better suited for the workforce because they didn’t have to worry about getting pregnant and nursing. Same with gender roles. You’re asking for freedom from these things as if they were handed down to you by the decisions of some tyrant, but they’re just part of the growing pains of a species of imperfect animals. And by the way, if men are as powerful and dominant as you say, then it kind of IS their choice what “rights” you get to have (I’m not even going to go into the distinction between positive and negative rights, but I hope that’s not lost on you), is it not? I don’t say that as a normative statement, just as a positive one.
“Also, I would like to point out that different doesn’t mean superior. You seem to think by default men’s brains are always more suited for X and women are more suited for Y. You know this is not the case, but you continue to parrot it as a defense for taking control of women as if they’re herd animals. Why do I think you think the inferior/superior dichotomy exists around gender specifically? Because that’s what every word you speak revolves around, so don’t pull out another fallacy to say that you don’t think the inferior/superior dichotomy is what it is, and I’m just putting words in your mouth. There’s this handy tool we use in debate called inference. Not to mention, that’s exactly what you think, and THAT has not been proven by science nor is there a single scrap of evidence to support it. Also, explain this, “Male and female brains showed few differences in connectivity up to the age of 13, but became more differentiated in 14- to 17-year-olds.” Hormones. So it’s not an intrinsic biological difference, as if it were, there would be evidence of it from birth. You were saying?
Hormones affect people differently. Therefore, we can deduce that hormonal changes do not have the same impact on every being nor are they experienced the same by every being, since all people are different”
Yes, different doesn’t necessarily mean superior–that’s kind of one of the ideas of TRP logic; that the sexes are complementary and women shouldn’t feel that being intrinsically different means they’re somehow lesser.
Your observation on brain differences in childhood is moot and doesn’t prove your point at all. Children do not reproduce and it’s not even remotely surprising that they would diverge more at puberty. That sex differences increase substantially as sex and gender roles start to become relevant undermines your argument about social constructs, it does not support it.
“New studies show that transgenderism is biological. Your study shows that children many times identify as transgender and later change that to cisgender later in life. What we can deduce from that reasoning is that they are born transgender but either through conditioning, life experiences, etc. they identify as another gender later in life (supporting the premise that gender is a social construct). For more information: http://www.gjss.org/sites/default/files/issues/chapters/papers/Journal-07-02–02-Kennedy-Hellen.pdf . Where transgenderism not a choice, it would not present in children. Their brains are not developed enough to contrive it.”
Erm, no, all it establishes is that children are often confused in their young age. I’ve spent a fair amount of my life working with children as a camp counselor, etc. and I can confirm that it’s true. It’s a complete non-sequitur to assume that gender dysphoria in children somehow proves that it’s all a social construct.
““Just ask the 41 precent of depressed and suicidal transgendered people about their attempts to escape it.” You mean ask the people who prove that gender is a social construct rather than a biological imperative? Yes let’s ask them.”
Transgender people are no such proof. Your statement is the equivalent of saying that the existence of geniuses proves that there’s no such thing as average intelligence. It’s an incredible leap of logic to assume that the existence of outliers disproves the existence of a norm. Psychopaths exist too, but it would be bizarre to claim that they are just as normal as everyone else–and even more bizarre to make a normative claim that their existence is somehow healthy and good.
““Hypergamy is the biologically influenced normative state of females to prefer men of a sexual market value above their own perceived sexual market value.” This is not biological, and you have absolutely 0 proof that it is. Women that know they can and will provide for themselves do not seek mates that they believe can ‘provide’ more or that have a higher ‘value’ than they do. That’s not how it works. You are speaking of what we like to call gold diggers, Rollo and that is all. Some women, surprisingly enough, know they are capable of making money and acquiring many resources without the help of a man and are thus attracted to people who hold specific traits that they find appealing, e.g., great sense of humor, faithfulness, thick hair, tall, alluring eyes, nice lips, or whatever it may be for ANY specific woman. Women go for men’s resources when they don’t think they are capable of providing the resources they want themselves. IT IS NOT BIOLOGICAL. Also, “higher sexual market value” is based on inherently subjective criteria that YOU define based on YOUR perceptions of what makes someone valuable. It is socially accepted that certain things are desirable – money, beauty, health, etc. however, it is SOCIAL and not BIOLOGICAL, which you claim it to be.”
You should look into the field of evolutionary psychology. There’s always a social component, but there is more than enough evidence to show that biology plays a potent role, in particular the fact that some preferences are shown to be true consistently across different times and cultures. At the moment I’m not feeling like going on a chase through the research of David Buss, Steven Pinker, et al. but if I must, I will later on.
“I’m glad we got to this part where you beat the drum about hypergamy again because this is the cornerstone of the entire Red Pill theory. Let me explain to you why hypergamy isn’t a biological imperative, and is instead, if anything, a social construct. Hypergamy is the practice of “marrying up,” which we all know. Women have traditionally “married up” because they did not have access to the same resources that men had, i.e., they could not acquire the resources in the same way men did and therefore they were forced to dig for gold in a husband if they wanted to live a life above the poverty level. This is where we historically see a confluence of hypergamy in women, when they have no rights. It is, in fact, a symptom of them having no rights, and not a biological imperative. When women are capable of earning the money/influence/power/etc. themselves, they do not seek a mate that they believe to be “above” themselves necessarily. Look at any powerful woman that is powerful in her own right and through her own merit. You may find men that are kind of in the same general league with her (because that’s who she is exposed to most on a regular basis), but you’re not going to find women that as successful multi-millionaires only select husbands from the pool of billionaires. This does not happen often. When you find women with a defeatist mindset that believe they are inferior to men or that have low self esteem, THAT is where you see hypergamy at play the most. Also, now if we define hypergamy by the parameters society typically judges women on (beauty), then we can see that men practice hypergamy throughout their lives.
In summary: hypergamy is something that any person of perceived low sexual market is going to attempt to do, whether it be that their spouse is better looking (some men seeking women) or that they have a higher earning potential (some women seeking men). It is very common in both genders, and none of your mental gymnastics will change that fact.”
You could well be right about this. The problem is that you’re relying on anecdotes, and distant ones at that. Keep in mind that hypergamy is not assumed to always be dependent on narrow conceptions of status (i.e, he has more money than I do) but on more intuitive things–is he confident? Does he let me push him around? Would he still be well off and successful without needing me? You also have to consider the proposed dual sexual imperative here. A rich and powerful woman, especially if she’s older, may well decide to pursue someone who’s more stable and dependable, as opposed to the attractive asshole that’s more likely to turn the age-old table of alimony and divorce her for her money–but that doesn’t mean that her choice of husband reflects what she finds to be the most sexually exciting.
““Put an ‘asexual’ man in the private room at the Spearmint Rhino in Vegas and we’ll see how ‘asexual’ he really is. Again, ‘asexuality’ is an evolutionary dead-end.” Irrelevant and stupid supposition. Assuming you know all men’s sexuality better than they know it themselves is pretty low level thinking, Rollo. Pick it up.”
In fairness, I’ve known enough asexual people that I agree that Rollo is being overly dismissive here of their existence. That said, he’s absolutely right that asexuality is an evolutionary dead end. This is logically unassailable. An asexual individual may still choose to reproduce, in which case their asexuality may not be overly crippling to their inherent drive as biological creatures to carry on their genes, but it is never beneficial to them. Mind once again that this is a positive, not a normative argument. No one here is saying that asexuals are bad people who should be hated. Just that their existence has no biological rationale, and is in all likelihood just an accident of biology, much the same as a piebald deer.
“And you ended a worthless, irrational rant with an ad hominem, as expected. You will be the next subject of Rollo logic, just like Dr. Nova. Until then, ciao stranzo.
Cue the super alpha men instructing the beta alpha men to stop responding to me. Then whining at the length of my reply.”
No further comment warranted.
January 11th, 2015 at 5:07 pm
@Jeremy: A masculine primary social order, where polyamory is openly practiced and encouraged
This is pretty much the society that feminists have created – although they scream and yell about it. The fact is that as an alpha male, I have as many young women as I want, on MY terms without promising anything other than a good hard f**king. The only difference is that I do it from the back-ground, enjoying young pu**y on my terms and letting women spout their non-sense while I laugh.
It’s just that we (men that know how to play the system) don’t talk about it, but all of us enjoy it. I have always found Feminists to be “useful idiots” that deliver everything I want and openly advocate for it – while I quietly reap the benefits from the background. Of course, I do the same for Liberals that set things up to benefit various minority groups – and to penalize stupid white men, but those of us that know how to take advantage of it, laugh all the way to the bank. Today it’s simple to do, as long as you keep quiet and do it from the background. That is the key – it’s like everything else, just use your knowledge of the corrupt system to benefit yourself, but don’t make waves and you can live like a king…
January 11th, 2015 at 5:52 pm
@Rollo
This was for my reader’s benefit, not hers.
Exactly.
All of us appreciate this.
You’ve got quite the vocabulary, Rollo.
You’ve taken on these complicated concepts, then added your signature Clarity® to simplify them so that anyone can understand them.
This is another master work filled with insights that debunk the lies of lifetime indoctrination.
January 11th, 2015 at 6:23 pm
The blue pill causes the eternal scarcity mindset in men and the ephemeral abundance behavior (carousel) in women. This drastically lowers both the SMV of men and the MMV of women. It is lose/lose. Hence the antidote to the blue pill is the abundance mentality in men and scarcity *behavior* in women.
The abundance mentality, from which flows sexual confidence, causes sexually confident behavior, thereby greatly increasing the SMV of men. Scarcity behavior promotes, at least, the appearance of chastity, dramatically increasing the MMV of women.
January 11th, 2015 at 6:42 pm
I just wanted to insert here that it’s interesting that a Feminist who is steeped in the transgender/gay narrative that certain behaviors are biological only. aka ‘born that way’
Those Feminists are also the same Feminists who will completely disregard ANY biological underpinnings of Male Accomplishment vs Female Accomplishment, Biological underpinnings of IQ, Biological implications to Male/Female reasoning… etc
This is why I have given up talking to women about most issues. The very idea that Biology drive Gay behavior is accepted as settled fact.
But… if it’s all human behavior is biology then… it can’t be Male Patriarchal Order keepin the Ladies down then can it???
January 11th, 2015 at 7:00 pm
@Ang
Absolutely true. The entire reason I don’t hate gays or transgenders is because I think nature does play a role in gender identity just as nurture does. The convenient exclusion of one or the other as it is convenient to support someone’s chosen bigotry is disingenuous to say the least.
I find it ironic how many feminists tell me they share my agnostic atheist evidence-based beliefs, then recoil the moment I suggest men and women are inherently very different creatures due to the underlying biology. To profess acceptance of scientific views of evolution then reject those very same views if they suggest you might be inferior at some things and superior at others is the height of self-deceptive duplicity.
January 11th, 2015 at 7:04 pm
Very useful posting, the URL should be preserved in a sidebar under “remedial / necessary reading”.
January 11th, 2015 at 7:19 pm
Softek
January 11th, 2015 at 10:20 am
It’s very funny to me how just about any woman who read this stuff would be INFURIATED. Beyond measure.
Was having that very discussion with the fm.
She: “I want more romance”
Me: “When I give you romance you lose interest in me”
She: “That is because I had a lousy childhood”
Me: “Nope – AWALT”
Me: “Didn’t I prove it to you last night? I was very unromantic and it made you white hot for me.” (I was playing extreme dread game. She loves it.)
She: crickets
And note – my extreme dread game is so open that it has for practical purposes become a ritual. I make her say things like “I like watching you with other women. It makes me hot for you.” And then I describe things I’m going to make her do to the other woman to get the other woman ready for me.
And the close runs something like, “You will help the other woman bond to me as I direct and you will defeat that bond by wanting me more.” Which brings on the final melt and intense desire for me on her part.
January 11th, 2015 at 7:22 pm
I find it ironic how many feminists tell me they share my agnostic atheist evidence-based beliefs, then recoil the moment I suggest men and women are inherently very different creatures due to the underlying biology.
Quoting commenter TFH: women aren’t very good at cause and effect.
To profess acceptance of scientific views of evolution then reject those very same views if they suggest you might be inferior at some things and superior at others is the height of self-deceptive duplicity.
As a rule, such people are merely parroting back what they have been taught. It is de regure in the West to accept some version of Darwin’s evolutionary theory as true, but as most people are not taught to think it is quite common to encounter those who believe in evolution, but reject any logical implications.
One can find people who will watch the Olympics yet reject the notion that men and women are not physical equals, too. Cogntive dissonance is very common. Especially in ideologues.
January 11th, 2015 at 7:29 pm
theasdgamer
January 11th, 2015 at 2:33 pm
You might want to look up the blog “Anonymous Conservative”. Lots of discussion of the amygdala and r/K theory. He is a little light on endocannabinoids and cannabinoids when it comes to the amygdala but unlike most high K/Right/Conservative sites he is open to learning.
January 11th, 2015 at 7:45 pm
Alex
January 11th, 2015 at 4:10 pm
Re: Steven Pinker – I had an interaction with him roughly 15 years back about cannabis/addiction and he was vehement about his position. I stopped the conversation. Some years later I find he adopted my position which says he can learn (unusual), But AFAIK he never gave me credit. Ah. Well.
And my position? “There is no such thing as addiction. People in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers. When the pain goes away so does the ‘addiction’. ” I went on to discuss how most of that pain was PTSD. I won’t run down the whole chain of logic here but it was extensive and backed with studies.
So I have mixed feeling about Pinker. But that is a personal deal. On the whole I do like his work.
January 11th, 2015 at 7:52 pm
@ Anonymous Reader
it is quite common to encounter those who believe in evolution, but reject any logical implications.
Sadly many of these people work in the field of science.
January 11th, 2015 at 8:34 pm
@ Alex
I’ve known enough asexual people that I agree that Rollo is being overly dismissive here of their existence. That said, he’s absolutely right that asexuality is an evolutionary dead end.
Asexuality isn’t an evolutionary dead end. It’s an indication that a disease process had damaged some important component necessary for sexual attraction. Like Schizophrenia around 1% of the population is Asexual. This is far too large of a group to be the result of heredity or random mutation. It’s the result of damage. Until someone discovers and explains the mechanics that’s the easiest, safest bet anyone can make. It’s as safe as betting that the sun will rise tomorrow.
January 11th, 2015 at 8:42 pm
meanwhile on an awards show tonight the two male hosts compared who they would sleep with, to much laughter
oh wait, I forgot, Open Hypergamy, it was two female hosts, my bad
January 11th, 2015 at 9:01 pm
Beneath all of AF’s inchoate ramblings is the radical feminist boilerplate that any man who doesn’t comply with the feminist narrative necessarily doesn’t comply the equalist narrative feminism has co-opted.
Thus, if a man is even marginally critical, marginally analytical or simply calls outright bullshit regarding anything that’s part of the Feminine Imperative’s doctrine, he’s necessarily against the ‘equalism’ that feminism has defined for him to agree with.
This is why AF and all rad-fems begin their interpretation of all men, not just Red Pill men, with a suspicion of wanting to dominate, oppress and control women by default. This is why she begins every interaction here from the position that men “think they’re superior” to women and seek to exercise power over every aspect of women’s lives.
This is kind of ironic since other feminists (such as Hannah Rosin in her book The End of Men) have been crowing like the morning cock for years now about how women have finally socially displaced men. This kind of feminist triumphalism conflicts with the “we’re still victims of male power” narrative that AF wants to cling to.
Statistically it’s very easy to track how men and conventional masculinity have been marginalized by the Feminine Imperative since the sexual revolution (the great “man-cession” for instance). But just like Open Hypergamy can’t be sold at the same time as commodified Idealistic Love, feminist triumphalism can’t be sold alongside feminist victimization – and that’s the conflict feminists like AF are going to find increasingly harder to reconcile as time goes on.
Quite honestly I don’t really care if a woman has access to higher education, the right to vote (which virtually all did on a state by state basis long before the equal rights amendment) or wants to follow a career path that negates or limits her capacity to have kids. I think they should be afforded all of the same opportunities men have, but they should also be limited by the same circumstances, obstacles and the reality of any given environment men are expected to confront and overcome.
What I’m against is men being expected to make concessions for the decisions women make for their lives, personally and socially. What I am against is men being conditioned for the better part of their lives to buy a bill of goods crafted to absolve women of the consequences of their choices (right around women’s Epiphany Phase) that only serves the furtherance of the Feminine Imperative and debilitates men’s ability to make their own decisions independent of women.
This is the crux of the “equalist” horse shit when it’s co-opted by the Feminine Imperative – any decisions men make for themselves independent of women, is by default competing with women. So when a man outperforms a woman, or in this case simply dismantles the Red Pill truth behind the Game that’s been perpetrated on the Masculine Imperative, he is automatically cast as a male supremacist.
January 11th, 2015 at 9:38 pm
Asexuality: prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15497056
A number of factors were related to asexuality, including gender (i.e., more women than men), short stature, low education, low socioeconomic status, and poor health. Asexual women also had a later onset of menarche relative to sexual women. The results suggest that a number of pathways, both biological and psychosocial, contribute to the development of asexuality.
Short stature, low education, low socioeconomic status, poor health are all associated with Asexuality. That’s bad. Not mentioned in the abstract is that Asexuals are more likely to be left handed. This suggests that a disease process is at work in Asexuals. The fact that Asexuality is associated with left handedness indicates that it begins during early development.
Any time you see a disease associated with non-right handedness think early developmental problem. Some sort of fuse was blown.
January 11th, 2015 at 10:09 pm
Rollo – “…the crux of the ‘equalist’ horse shit…”
Is actually a dogmatic focus on fairness as opposed to justice. The equality sought isn’t the right to compete on a level and objective playing field were rules are equally enforced but a “right” instead to equal outcomes regardless of the results of individual effort, or the objective value of that effort. The only model ever described of this perfect equalism was in Harrison Bergeron where equality was enforced by tyrannical handicapping of the capable to ensure the equality of the incapable.
So, yes, I for one reject this version of equality and claim myself superior to those who believe in it. Only the bent and broken of mind and soul could find such nonsense aspirational. It’s the mentality of the regressive, and the unimaginative, and the weak who are best ignored as distractions to genuine progress.
January 11th, 2015 at 10:19 pm
@BP, reminded me of this post:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/03/25/hypergamy-synthesis/
January 11th, 2015 at 11:24 pm
@ Rollo
I am guessing I don’t quite grok something in your Hypergamy Synthesis piece. Regardless of that I was struck by this bit:
“Men given to moral absolute ideals, like blue pill men still plugged in, do something similar in their own mindset, and just like the feminine imperative, find themselves equally disappointed when the Rules don’t change to meet their capacity to play the game.”
That probably describes me. The only distinction I would make for myself vs. the masses (I too am a special snowflake) is I now realize that in this game the only Rule is to Win, and Winning is the only moral. In this sense adherence to externally imposed rules, morals, ethics and standards are just handicapps we willingly accept and which are the active devaluing of ourselves.
Decency is the exclusive luxury of the winner, mercy the exclusive realm of the powerful, and compassion the exclusive gift of the strong. If one is a weak, powerless, loser one has nothing to give but cheap facsimiles that are credit claims against the genuine articles.
January 12th, 2015 at 12:13 am
AF=alpha widow if there ever was one
January 12th, 2015 at 12:26 am
@Badpainter re: “I am guessing I don’t quite grok something in your Hypergamy Synthesis piece.”
Something like this?: “The conceptual awareness of hypergamy was so disturbing to the human condition that, in our evolved past, humanity literally selected-for people with the ability to psychologically repress the awareness of it.”
This is the matrix of the feminine imperative. An example being females who self-describe as alphas, i.e. better than beta males. “It isn’t hypergamy to think 80% of men are below average; that’s just reality.”
January 12th, 2015 at 1:13 am
@Rollo
What I’m against is men being expected to make concessions for the decisions women make for their lives, personally and socially. What I am against is men being conditioned for the better part of their lives to buy a bill of goods crafted to absolve women of the consequences of their choices (right around women’s Epiphany Phase) that only serves the furtherance of the Feminine Imperative and debilitates men’s ability to make their own decisions independent of women.
Agreed. I’m all for equal rights so long as we’re not trying to guarantee equal outcomes. Even on a level playing field there’s a winner and a loser.
January 12th, 2015 at 1:38 am
zdr01dz
January 11th, 2015 at 9:38 pm
About 10% of people are left handed. Heck of a disease you got there.
==============
BTW IQ follows a bell curve. Why not sexuality? And why not genetic? IQ is genetic.Or hormones in the womb. At least some aspects of sexuality depend on hormones in the womb. Homosexuality fer instance.
January 12th, 2015 at 1:44 am
I should add that IQ is not only genetic. It depends on proper childhood nutrition.
Lots of factors involved. Why not also sexuality?
January 12th, 2015 at 1:47 am
@Louise, re: “Do men still marry for money nowadays?”
Which men? I’m tempted to call apex fallacy on the question itself. I’m certain that an extremely small percentage of (far less than 1%) very attractive men who want money would consider being a male golddigger, but I’m also certain that rich women tend go after even richer men. I’m even more certain that there are far fewer *hetero* male golddiggers than there are *hetero* male prostitutes, i.e. far fewer than two orders of magnitude less than female golddiggers.
FWIW my first wife, whom I married in about 1970, was quite wealthy and her wealth did not affect her marriageableness to me at all. Similarly my second wife, whom I married in about 1990, was quite poor and her lack of wealth did not affect her marriageableness to me at all.
January 12th, 2015 at 1:54 am
We all know the Golden Rule – treat people how you want to be treated. And as men we know it doesn’t work it getting women to treat men well, although that wasn’t it’s stated purpose anyway. And given women’s ubiquitous solipsism, projection, and Freudian envies, we know that the reason women treat men so poorly is that the women are showing the men how to do it to them.
So what should we call the red pill rule of “Treat her meaner to keep her keener”? The Brass Rule?
January 12th, 2015 at 2:16 am
@jf12
I think what put the biggest dread in to one of the plates I’ve been spinning recently is when I let her know her status as a lawyer and the money it makes actually play no part in my attraction to her. She was pretty much incredulous.
Chick’s a real type-A personality that pushes hard, plans everything meticulously, and panics when things don’t go according to plan. I never tell her my plans or even if I have any, specifically to drive her nuts. She goes from barracuda at work to timid highschool girl around me, constantly trying to earn my approval in realizing that what she does during the day doesn’t keep me around.
She just messaged me this evening telling me she misses me while she’s out of town. I have no plans on keeping this chick, but she’s behaving like she’d really like to keep me. Funny how dominance and dread works on any woman, particularly when you let them know you don’t value them for the things that give them dominance elsewhere in their life.
January 12th, 2015 at 6:06 am
Equality I’d a fairy tale grown ass men should put behind them. Sort of like the fairy tale that some chick can really kick a dude’s ass in a bar brawl.
January 12th, 2015 at 6:18 am
I like the Brass Rule.
It’s best for society and for women as well if women are held as property but folks around here are pretty liberal so that won’t float but I am not sure how anyone can believe in evolution and equality. Evolution pretty much means winners and losers in the genetics arm race.
January 12th, 2015 at 6:20 am
Ps, BP just summed up the morality of reality.
January 12th, 2015 at 7:20 am
“Not withstanding the obvious mountain of evidence you have at your disposal to verify the fact that I’m stating, it is indisputable that the incidence of infidelity in males is higher than in females”
Nice one. In my extended circle of family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances, I know more women than men of whom I am 100 % sure they cheated, either because they told me so (unbelievable hamster spins as a byproduct btw), or I was a witness to the affair or was exposed to the fallout in various degrees once it came to light.
January 12th, 2015 at 7:48 am
Re: cheating men
Amongst my friends half of those married 5 years ago are divorced. Every single case involved infidelity on the part of the wife. I know of no men, personally who have cheated though all have been tempted.
January 12th, 2015 at 8:30 am
re: “I know of no men, personally who have cheated though all have been tempted.”
I know too many men who have cheated, but they stay married even after the wife finds out. It has always seemed to me that women cheat specifically to get divorced, like my first wife did.
January 12th, 2015 at 8:37 am
@Sun Wukong re: “constantly trying to earn my approval in realizing that what she does during the day doesn’t keep me around.”
Besides what you’ve already said, the girlishness and “think of you” checking-in, I’m curious to know what specifically you count from her as earning your approval. “Is this sandwich how you like it?” “Is this dress what you wanted me to wear?” “I can go even faster if you want.”
January 12th, 2015 at 8:49 am
Rollo, I liked your comment Jan. 11/9:01
Fairness is such a difficult concept for people to grasp, because one’s view of what is fair depends on perspective.
For example, the most recent Pew study on division of household chores indicated that women still do much more housework and childcare work, on average, than men. So many articles and blogs were written, decrying the unfairness of the current state of affairs. Yet, when viewed in the greater context of total hours worked (paid, unpaid, childcare), men and women worked about the same number (men slightly higher). In spite of the fact that women worked more unpaid hours at home, men worked more paid hours at work. The totals were equal!
Thus, to state that men should be doing more housework/childcare implies that men should be working FAR more total hours than women, all in – would that be fair? The only way to avoid this necessity is for women to work more paid hours, or men to work fewer paid hours. And women don’t want EITHER of those options – the statistical majority of women with young children do not WANT to work full-time, and so forcing them to work more paid hours goes against what they want. Forcing men to work fewer paid hours just indirectly forces women to work more to make up the difference.
The Pew study shows EQUALITY, not unfairness. The equality reflects different choices made by different genders, on average, but the total is equal. Yet it is perceived to be unfair due to limited perspective.
If one’s perspective is that women are still disadvantaged in today’s society, that person will perceive to be fair any ideology that advances the interests of women. If men are perceived to be advantaged, people will consider it to be fair that the disadvantaged should profit at the expense of the advantaged. Of course, there’s a word for that. Patriarchy :)
In today’s society, women do face challenges, but so do men. Those challenges may differ, but one group’s challenges are not greater than the other’s. In such a society, advocating for the rights of women at the expense of men is skewed in the same way advocating for men to do more unpaid work is skewed, and for the same reasons.
January 12th, 2015 at 9:14 am
My take on “Alpha Female”:
a) AF comes across as a haughty, righteous, bigoted, bitter femcunt; she probably is PHAT too on top of all that. She could not possibly be an Alpha Female as an AF is by definition self-respecting as demure and sexually aggressive (among other trats), i.e. she’d have a fulfilling relation with a high-value man, have her shit together and be able to keep a family together; an AF would have no interest in crazy shit like feminism as she’d know instinctively that such a dumb ideology is counter her innate interest. “Alpha Female” is probably more near the Omega side of the female socio-sexual hierarchy.
b) Saying that “gender is a social construct” is putting the cart before the ox. More sensibly, to mis-cite Birdwhistell (Kinesics and Context, 1970), sexuality is expressed foremost at the level of tertiary sexual attributes, i.e., at the level of social interaction, as purely “the plumbing”, 1st and 2nd level sexual attributes do not suffice to express our “differentness”. Birdwhistell was an anthropologist and one of the few people in that field who were neither lefties (I infer from his writing) nor kikes.
c) Lots of the shit AF states is regurgitated BS (as per Rollo), and she shows a decided lack of understanding what is said as compared to what she understands, as well as a lack of debating ability (idem), and also a lack of the ability to ingest and process information outside of the narrow scope of her preconceived ideas (her lefto-marxist conditioning). Just look at her rambling posts in this thread. All together I gather that she suffers of psychosis induced by a destructive ideology – inability to distinguish facts from preconceived ideas is an indicator of mental illness.
Summa summarum, I am with Roosh: DO NOT TALK TO FEMINISTS.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:11 am
@ jf12
It has always seemed to me that women cheat specifically to get divorced, like my first wife did.
I think that women decide that they want to leave a relationship, then find a convenient place to land, then actually leave the relationship.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:19 am
@zdr01dz
Keep in mind, when Freud wrote that, most of hypergamy was well concealed. Yeah, he was an idiot, but it’s kind of like saying Isaac Newton was an idiot for not seeing quantum mechanics.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:23 am
@ M Simon
IQ follows a bell curve. Why not sexuality? And why not genetic? IQ is genetic.Or hormones in the womb. At least some aspects of sexuality depend on hormones in the womb. Homosexuality fer instance.
Good question and there is a simple answer. Male sexual orientation doesn’t exist on a bell curve because as far as nature is concerned there is only one correct answer. Attraction to females, especially fertile females is the only plan that gets DNA into the next generation. Natural selection doesn’t predict that healthy men would be attracted to anything else. So you might ask why do men desire sexual acts that don’t impregnate the female? Everything comes back to the health of the father, mother or unborn child.
For example: Blow jobs
Human semen contains extremely dense concentrations of both Spermidine and Spermine. There is a wide body of evidence that these molecules have therapeutic effects on diseases that largely afflict females. You’ll find a lot doing a basic Pubmed search but here is a brief overview. http://docblock.com/spermine-panacea/
Spermidine triggers autophagy which is believed to be the main reason it fights disease and aging.
Spermidine: a novel autophagy inducer and longevity elixir.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110777
Last but not least Spermidine should make her hair more beautiful.
Spermidine Promotes Human Hair Growth and Is a Novel Modulator of Human Epithelial Stem Cell Functions
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022564
If one man wants a particular type of sex that doesn’t mean very much. But if most men all around the world want something you can bet human instincts and evolution are involved. We share that instinct because it serves some positive purpose.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:36 am
@Jeremy re: Freud
Related: when asked what he does all day, trapped in his own body in his wheelchair for many decades, the brilliant Stephen Hawking said he spends most of his time thinking about women.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:40 am
What women want, Part 1.
For some, possibly Freudian reason, I forgot to comb my hair this morning and I guess my wife didn’t notice. Granted it’s like an inch long, inch and a half max, so it’s kind of hard to tell, maybe. But already so far two women have mentioned that it looks good. What women want to see is a little difference, a little rebellion.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:45 am
What women want, Part 2.
Although women notice everything, I’m certain that the only body part that my women have been definitely specifically focused on has been my penis. It’s the only thing they ever look at, the only thing they ever reach for.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:48 am
What women want, Part 3.
In Freud’s case, what women wanted was to babble endlessly about themselves while making up sexual stories to tell to a weird dude who always wanted to hear more.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:50 am
What women want, Part 4.
Women want to be thought of as alpha females by other women. Women want to be copied by other women.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:50 am
“and she shows a decided lack of understanding what is said as compared to what she understands”
It is like that with most women. One thing I learned from this blog and others is that there is no point in debating. So I no longer debate anything with my wife, I just do or don’t do an action on my part and do or don’t accept an action on her part. As a result I no longer have endless pointless debates and arguments and feel a LOT better
January 12th, 2015 at 10:55 am
What women want, Part 5.
Women want to be men; specifically women consider a greater beta’s life to be the authentically lived life. I don’t think that fact is just due to media influence, i.e. just because almost all good stories are written by betas. I think all women not-so-secretly want to be a nice guy beta male who magically succeeds with women, in order to show beta males how to do it right.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:56 am
What women want, Part 6.
Although women *want* an alpha male, they don’t want to want him.
January 12th, 2015 at 10:58 am
What women want, Part 7.
Women hate the fact that they have so many choices, especially so many sexual choices, so much sexual freedom, and so women want to feel forced, to feel constrained, to feel bound.
January 12th, 2015 at 11:28 am
What women want, Part 8.
The blue pill is currently investing extremely heavily in falsely promoting men’s looks and men’s “prosocial” (nice guy beta provider) behaviors as being more important to sexual success than men’s dominance. Women wish dominant men were nicer and better looking.
January 12th, 2015 at 11:30 am
@jf12
lol, be careful what you wish for ladies.
January 12th, 2015 at 11:47 am
What women want, Part 9.
After the Great Influx of women into Tinder the past couple of years, which was done by deliberately limiting which active men the women see, i.e. the false pretense that the handsome guys are more numerous by not letting the women see so many unattractive guys, Tinder is just now trying to get beta males to up their ante.
Despite over-showing the better-looking men by more than a factor of two, women were still swiping right on less than 1/7 of the men. Swiping left is what the women were enjoying doing, but it isn’t where Tinder makes money, which is by swindling investors by the promise of a pyramid scheme of *coming* investors lured by the app’s success in making matches.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/121714/how-tinder-makes-money.asp
January 12th, 2015 at 11:49 am
@jeremy,
Oh, but it gets so much more interesting when women devise social conventions to convince men that doing more chores (traditionally feminine chores in specific) will get them laid more often.
‘Rape Culture’ mavens love the indignation that comes from men thinking they’re owed sex, but can’t deny the usefulness of the sex carrot to get men to pull her cart:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/30/choreplay/
January 12th, 2015 at 11:51 am
What women want, Part 10.
Women want beta males to be deceived about dominance.
January 12th, 2015 at 11:53 am
Shorter red pill: dominance works with women.
January 12th, 2015 at 11:58 am
Since the only men on Tinder that swipe left are handsome men, no man is ever going to pay for the service of Undo. Only women will pay for the humiliation of admitting she can’t hookup with any of the handsome guys she swiped right on, and so NOW, finally, she wants to give the lesser men a chance with her.
January 12th, 2015 at 12:02 pm
An attractive woman dangling the potential for sex with her is the exact (symplectic) analogy of a dominant man dangling the potential for niceness from him. Having read that, you can’t unread it, so do with it what you will.
January 12th, 2015 at 12:07 pm
What women want, Part 11.
Women want a “bookstore”, in quotes, that sells almost no books, where they can sit and look books and magazines with no intention of buying, and drink expensive coffee and cocoa and nibble on expensive biscotti, while using the “free” internet.
January 12th, 2015 at 12:15 pm
What women want, Part 12.
Women want to think they would look better in more expensive shoes.
That previous sentence is the Key To Everything, to the man seeking wisdom in this area. An interesting corollary: women wish they could wear slutty shoes regally.
January 12th, 2015 at 12:36 pm
Best red pill advice for women: Wise woman warns “act under the mentality that 20 is the new 30″.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-ong-zimmerman/2015/01/sorry-but-30-is-not-the-new-20-when-it-comes-to-love/
January 12th, 2015 at 12:40 pm
RE: What women want.
This is the single best comment I think Dalrock has ever made on my blog:
This perfectly encapsulates my position on treating women equally. “Equality” to women always comes with the expectation that men will be required to make their inherently unsafe decisions safe for them. That expectation of men’s responsibility to do so defines the female experience. And as I illustrated in Appreciation, women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate the feminine reality.
January 12th, 2015 at 12:45 pm
re: Freud and Hawking.
What a pair of pussies. Understandable but still pathetic. I used to be a mangina myself, though, so I don’t hold it against them. Although secretly in my mind I do. Ha.
re: Tinder. Got over 40 matches. All the girls I messaged either completely ignored me or unmatched me soon afterwards. My guess is for every match I’d get, the girl I matched with was getting 30-40 matches — or she would, if she was indiscriminately swiping right like I was doing. If not more.
I just ended up being completely bored with it. A good learning experience, I guess, but it feels more like a waste of time than anything else.
January 12th, 2015 at 12:48 pm
@Rollo, it isn’t just about household chores. It speaks to the different ways that boys and girls are raised. I’ve written it before, but I’ll say it again: Boys are raised to believe that their education and income is their gateway to sex, intimacy, and family. They are taught from childhood that if they want a wife (sex, family), they will need to get a job – the higher-income/prestige, the better. Their job will be their conduit to family – it will be what women find attractive in them. And women encourage this line of thinking – it is responsible for new generations of “good husbands.” Of course, what is important to women is that these men BE good husbands. What is important to the men is what their motivation for doing so should be.
Let’s be painfully honest here – if you tell a man that if he works hard and gets a job, he will be guaranteed a wife and good sex life – you’ll see universities filled with men. If you tell men that if they work hard and get a job, they will perhaps marry a woman who will become entitled to their income in perpetuity, even should the marriage dissolve, but who will not necessarily have sex with him, even should the marriage endure forever – what do you expect will happen?
Women MUST maintain the fiction that good jobs = sex, good husbands=sex, because if they don’t they will witness men not getting jobs, men not being good husbands, and they will wonder where all the good men went.
Thus we are left with a contradiction in female/societal thought: Men are not owed sex. But it is reasonable for men to expect sexual satisfaction within the bounds of their marriage, and thus they should WANT good jobs and marriage. And if that sounds like a meaningless oxymoron to you, it’s because it IS. Sure, it is entirely reasonable for a man to divorce his wife for not wanting sex, as long as he is willing to part with his children, home, half his assets, and a perpetual alimony check. He isn’t entitled to sex. But she is entitled to all of that stuff :)
January 12th, 2015 at 12:54 pm
Stephen Hawking, Beta.
January 12th, 2015 at 12:56 pm
Pretty much…
http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/14/the-second-set-of-books/
January 12th, 2015 at 1:00 pm
@Softek, re: messaging.
The women feel they are doing their part by choosing you as attractive enough to have sex with. After matching, they feel it is your part to exhibit sexual dominance. And more sexual dominance.
“Katherine waited an hour to respond. Then: “Ha.” And then, one minute later, “I will.” And: “I kinda do.””
http://www.gq.com/life/relationships/201402/tinder-online-dating-sex-app
January 12th, 2015 at 1:23 pm
@ jf12
Point taken. I’ll have to do some experimenting. I say that I don’t give a fuck — now it’s time to start acting like it. I’m teetering on the edge of MGTOW. Probably a normal phase for recovering Betas, especially ones who were prone to extreme ONE-itis like me that’re transitioning to spinning plates.
New Year’s was a good lesson for me with that girl telling me to “grow a pair.” Time for the gloves to come off. They did that night. It wasn’t too long after she dropped that line that she was saying “That’s definitely not a virgin move” while we were fooling around on the couch.
@ Rollo re: Hawking, the Beta
LOL
January 12th, 2015 at 1:26 pm
Rollo and all,
Excellent comment thread. Thanks for so much for the useful information. One item comes to mind for me; “pay attention to actions not words” has gotten little attention as it relates to AF. I get more info about her and the FI from the frequency of her replies and the walls of words than from the content. Consequently I have no interest in responding to her. Also, thanks to whoever it was that put TL;DR in a comment. I was doing that but didn’t know it had a name.
January 12th, 2015 at 1:51 pm
women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate the feminine reality.
To which the likely feminine reply is, “That’s reality. Suck it up.”
January 12th, 2015 at 1:54 pm
Women have no sense of gratitude; they feel entitled to the sacrifices of men.
January 12th, 2015 at 2:08 pm
zdr01dz
January 12th, 2015 at 10:23 am
Nature gives lots of incorrect answers for lots of things. Those genes are constantly “looking” for new niches. Mistakes are made in mutation, transcription, association, and many other places.
Fer instance – gayness has been found to be useful in propagating a brother’s or sisters genes.
Life is very complex and the best understanding is not reductionist.
January 12th, 2015 at 2:09 pm
@jf12 re: wise woman.
I honestly didn’t know what to do, and unintentionally found myself with men I shouldn’t have been with, and in relationships that didn’t progress [where I wanted].
If that was wise, I’m curious what you regard as unwise.
January 12th, 2015 at 2:24 pm
jf12
January 12th, 2015 at 10:50 am
When playing dread game with the fm I can feel her knotting up as I get more and more into the other. And then I tell her she can win me back by wanting me more than any other woman does. She totally relaxes because she knows she can do that. In fact she likes doing that so much that sometimes she gets hot just from me telling her how she will help me with the other.
So yeah. The real AFs like beating the competition for a dominant guy. FM likes dominating other women. I had a woman turn me down for side action once because she felt she could not compete. She tried it once with me and the fm, and wasn’t willing to give it a second go.
The fm is not too happy with Red Pill but she responds totally in an RP way. And she likes the feelings RP gives her.
January 12th, 2015 at 2:30 pm
jf12
January 12th, 2015 at 10:56 am
What women want, Part 6.
Although women *want* an alpha male, they don’t want to want him.
The fm likes to be “made” to want me. I always ask her after a dread session, “Now don’t you feel better.” And the answer is always, “Yes.”
January 12th, 2015 at 2:31 pm
@Exfernal, her wisdom was in telling women she was wrong to think and to do the things she did.
January 12th, 2015 at 2:38 pm
Rollo Tomassi
January 12th, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Yep. That is what they want.
January 12th, 2015 at 3:26 pm
This exchange with AF confirms a realization I had pretty early in my Red Pill journey. I decided to avoid arguing with women about anything, especially Red Pill principles.
Because:
1) Their “facts” are their emotions. As long as they continue to feel the same way, they believe they are winning the argument.
2) They change topics, get personal, dredge up every piece of garbage they can think of & become hysterically emotional to evade conceding a point.
3) They lean so heavily on NAWALT, isolated anecdotes that “disprove” general observations, a subjectivism that makes any assertions invalid, shaming, out-grouping & every rhetorical fallacy in the book. Not to mention every tenet of the Feminine Imperitave canon offered as incontrovertible fact. And if they have been to college, they will be sure to throw in a lot of Gender Studies gobbledygook about equalism, socialization & patriarchy, too.
4) They are comfortable arguing in this manner, eternally. And are by natural inclination & lifelong practice better at it than I am. After all, arguing & nagging & persuading men to give them what they want is pretty much what women are programmed & trained to do.
When one of my plates misbehaved I realized that my best course of action was NOT to discuss it with her. Using my words to describe my feelings & request changes was waging a war on HER home territory.
To switch metaphors, women are the spider and words & emotions are their web. My best bet is to stay out of it entirely.
Instead I learned to simply withdraw my attention completely, to soft next her with the intent to re-engage her later without even referring to the incident.
When I do, it’s instructive to notice how desperate these women become to get me to engage with them. I get bombarded with text after text in short order. Apologizing for their misbehavior, then explaining it, then justifying it, then minimizing it, then criticizing me, shaming me, guilting me & so on. Often all within a single hour!
Basically they are testing every possible strategy to get me to start exchanging words & emotions with them. In other words, to enter their web.
To which I say “fuck that noise”. Best response is no response.
January 12th, 2015 at 3:54 pm
@ M Simon
Life is very complex and the best understanding is not reductionist.
I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The rules of the universe are really simple once you know what they are.
Mass and energy are the same thing.
E=mc^2
Female attraction model
Self+1=Profit
8-)
January 12th, 2015 at 3:58 pm
@funoldguy
At what point would totally ignoring people like AF look like acceptance? At what point would it look like she’s being ignored? I can’t answer those questions. I do, however, think you have made the single most important point w.r.t. most blue-pill women commenting here… and that is that their very action of posting here betrays their need for hypergamy-aware male attention.
Do we give them the attention they seek, for their feelz?
Or do we ignore them?
If this were a pay-per-view single-proprietor pr0n site, the talent would charge by the minute to give the guy patrons the feeling they’re looking for.
January 12th, 2015 at 4:06 pm
@jf12
And we all know how well “Do as I say, not as I do” will go over with the younger women. I predict it will fly like a concrete kite when weighed against the hedonistic joy of the Carousel.
As to your earlier questions about qualifying, when we crash together I always wake up to breakfast prepared. I’m pretty much begged for more of my time with promise of sexual favors. I rarely initiate texting with a woman who initially told me on a first date that she “Doesn’t do the whole texting thing.” When she asked “Wait you’re not a feminist?” on our last date (I had just made a comment that some feminist ideal was stupid) I simply replied “No.” and continued with the conversation. No protest on her part, just shock that a modern man would a) not be feminist and b) be completely unapologetic for it.
Her demeanor is a constant desire to please when dealing with me. I attribute it to my own experience combined with the lessons from Rollo and others in the ‘sphere. I am slowly becoming the kind of man who truly takes no shit from people around him, and more importantly I’m learning to put it across in a way that draws people to me. It’s refreshing, but unfortunately not a one of my current plates is keeper material. They’ve mostly just been tests to practice new ideas on.
January 12th, 2015 at 4:08 pm
@Hosswire
Yep. I have/had similar thoughts/feelings/actions on this myself. There are women that in the past I might have discussed anything related to the attraction of women. Now? I wouldn’t dare bring it up. It’s not worth it. Almost all of them would feign disgust and some might even go SJW on me.
There was one that I brought the topic up to when I was initially reading through Rollo and other sites nearly 2 years ago now. I managed to hold this woman’s attention enough that she considered what I said to be one of the most fascinating conversations she’s had on the subject (she said as much directly to me after the conversation). But only a few months later, when the same topic came up, she acted entirely differently about it, and basically did not want to discuss it.
It was as if her subconscious mind had realized that I had exposed the matrix, and she would have none of it.
January 12th, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Rollo,
Do you have an article the correlates women’s happiness with male leadership/family headship i.e. women of the 1950s being more happy than women today? And how that might play into hypergamy, red pill, etc?
I enjoy reading your blogs because of the logic and use of statics/science to back up the assertion. At some point I read a study that 70% of women marry a man who is a higher social class, 70% marry a man who makes more money, 60% marry a man taller than them. 60% marry some one smarter than them, etc. These stats if true support your position re the reality of hypergamy. (% rounded and based on my poor memory so I may be off a wee bit).
I noticed a few commenters say that we, as men. should just give women what they want to hasten the fall. I think this is just laziness on the ones that promote such an agenda. It is the easy out (beta thinking??). We need to fight the good fight because it is the right fight. It is so our sons are not as burdened/hen pecked/treated as inferiors as society treats men currently. There were those that suggested Americans/the West should have given into communism to “hasten” the fall. We resisted that false logic and in time prevailed. Here to we can prevail – it is the long struggle, not an over night outing.
Peace to you my brother
January 12th, 2015 at 4:50 pm
@Jeremy +1
It’s pushing water uphill to debate it past about the 8th word in my experience. As Rollo and many others have pointed out, shining light on the meta-strategy really makes them run for the shadows or screech a lot. For my part I have had varying results.
Case one. About a year ago I revealed slowly the RP to my wife, mostly by showing it in action in the field and illustrating why her parents marriage was so dysfunctional. The model fit perfectly. Wife is smart, she had an epiphany and was actually able to swallow the pill quickly. It was not without some drama and mis-steps but she is far happier as a result. All manner of physical and mental ailments have somehow managed to clear up since she accepted it into her mind and vagina. That having been said, the hamster still dwells there and does not like to be shown mirrors too often.
Case two. My older sister. (AF would like this one), she holds not one but two PHD’s and it’s fair to say she is an accomplished woman in her own right on a number of fronts. We only see each other occasionally due to geography. I put some red pill ideas to her to challenge current campus cultural direction and how rad-feminism is putting her two college attending sons at risk lest they make a small mistake. Rollo would have marvelled at the state of her ego-investment in the tenants of feminism. After 4 hours of wine and heated debate, she waved the white flag and retreated claiming excessive fatigue and emotional exhaustion. I know from her husband she has internalized a chunk of what I offered and she is revisiting some of her more hide bound beliefs, if only for the sake of her two sons.
Other cases: I find talking to older women, in my parents generation to be the most amusing. In the 70’s +- age range has been very entertaining in that women of that cohort are surprisingly receptive to RP ideas. It seems for the most part they are past any kind of pretense (Robin Korth excepted) and they, like a good competitor after a game, are prepared to admit their previously hidden strategies. They are not ego-invested in anything, they just seem to want to relax and have some fun. They find it refreshing to hear some of the ideas I present to them and even more so if it comes with some shameless flirting, just for shits and giggles. They will readily admit to pretty much most of the strategies we identify in RP culture. Sometimes they show regret but more often then not they simply like that some man actually “gets it”. Once they are well ensconced in their lot in life and see no potential to “lose” they are quite easy to converse with in this regard and they readily admit to “gaming” men in essence over the course of their lives.
Younger women, in their 20’s. (Context I am mid forties, have great social proof in my circle and my circle is atypical in that it spans generations). It’s fun playing with girls in this age group in that some of them have fully internalized explicit hypergamy and will espouse its benefits without the slightest hint of irony. Given that my social group is at the apex of privileged many of the young ladies don’t sign onto the whole feminism thing lock stock and barrel as they understand it would make them less attractive and more harpy like which would shoo off those hawt alpha boys they so love to sample. They don’t like to discuss these things in front of young men they have in their sights but to me, in hushed tones they won’t deny it, especially if I give them some kind of socially acceptable “out” or free pass for the hamster. Pour another, laugh about it, slap her on the ass and we all move on.
So yes women love it with men who just “get it”.
But hey, I also love women who “just get it” themselves, and don’t have to perform mental gymnastics to rationalize their own behaviour. They openly enjoy the complementary approach and see the upside for themselves if they have sufficient intestinal fortitude.
January 12th, 2015 at 4:56 pm
A special congratulations to AF for her / it’s efforts in making it though who knows how many posts without mentioning the word “Patriarchy”. I am impressed with that level of self control, bravo.
January 12th, 2015 at 5:19 pm
Demonstrate, never explicate the Red Pill.
http://therationalmale.com/2013/12/30/secret-of-the-red-pill/
January 12th, 2015 at 5:24 pm
@rollo.
Ahh, I know you’re right,however sometimes I just love to be reckless and toss grenades just to see what happens.
to your point, I never discuss it with the wife anymore, it was a one shot deal
January 12th, 2015 at 5:48 pm
Oxytocin does not seem to drive nurturing behavior in men the way it does in women …, whereas women appear to have evolved to have a “brain-hormone-behavior constellation” that’s automatically primed for mothering”
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/what-happens-to-a-womans-brain-when-she-becomes-a-mother/384179/
January 12th, 2015 at 5:50 pm
AF’s parenting style explained:
January 12th, 2015 at 6:05 pm
Explained the female Self+1 attraction model to my wife
Her response: Maybe, but I don’t think so.
My response: Which one of your romance novels doesn’t follow Self+1?
Her response: Hmmm…. you’re right.
My wife has a fairly high IQ so after some thought it made sense. She’s reasonable. By contrast I shudder to think how my mother would respond to this line of reasoning. Her hamster is the size of a badger and equally vicious.
January 12th, 2015 at 6:28 pm
@Rollo
It takes a lot to offend me. That commercial offends me. Not because they had little kids curse, mind you. Because they lied through their goddamn teeth and reinforced the stereotype of shitty, angry female as appropriate to little girls. I feel for the young men that run in to the vitriolic cunts those girls eventually become. Wish I could tell them “No, you did nothing to deserve that girl’s hate. A bunch of terrible old women did, and then told them to take it out on you.”
January 12th, 2015 at 6:47 pm
So, after a full semester of Yes Means Yes! Yes! Yes! at the flagship YMY campus, the results are mixed. A slight uptick in girls feeling they must have been drugged “because I don’t think I drank all that much more than usual”, and a slight uptick in cougar sightings.
http://police.berkeley.edu/crimealerts/2014/index.html
January 12th, 2015 at 7:04 pm
@ Rollo
At the 2:19 mark they ruined a young boy’s life. Someday that child will grow up, go to college, land a good job and then get replaced by a robot. Then his wife will leave him for the robot. So many surprises in store for this kid. I’m sure he’ll have a good chuckle when he figures out that everything he was taught was a lie.
January 12th, 2015 at 7:14 pm
@AF re: “I’ll come back and check periodically”
So, in about a month, then? It’s a date!