In Monday’s post comments there was a lot of back and forth, but in the latter pages there was an interesting exchange I thought might make for an interesting weekend discussion. Commenter Kryptokate resurrected an old feminine social convention I recently covered in Validation Hunting & The Jenny Bahn Epiphany. The premise of this convention is that men seek out, and motivate themselves towards highly attractive women because they enjoy the validation or affirmation they receive from their male peers when they’re seen paired with an HB9 high SMV woman on his arm.
The “arm candy” trope is a useful convention for women in that it assuages her bruised ego and competition anxiety by converting a man’s natural desire for a high SMV woman into a perceived insecurity of his (really all men by association).
Kryprokate:
I’m sticking with my assertion that lots of guys love to show off a hot woman to other guys to gain their respect and increase their status. I’m not saying ALL guys want to do this and maybe you don’t, but lots of them do. I don’t want to “show off” a guy either — I’m an introverted homebody and don’t want a guy for anything but to stay home with, talk, have sex, watch movies, etc. But lots of men love to show off to their peers just like lots (probably most) women do.
Johnnycomelately:
Men don’t seek validation through females, men desire females objectively, tits are tits, don’t matter what the guys thinks. You think men watch porn to get validation?
Women desire to be desired, the process is completely about validation.
Problem with female desire to be desired is that it is not a very high bar to pass, I find it humorous that women brag-splain about getting sex from men.
“Heck, give me ten minutes to download an app and I could get a man to have sex with me in 30 minutes. Nothing to write home about.”
And from the Validation Hunting post:
The idea that men “seek validation” for their earned status or to ‘right’ past wrongs to their egos while they were working their way to that status is a social convention. The Feminine Imperative relies on memes and conventions which shift the ownership of women’s personal liabilities for their sexual strategy to men.
When men are blamed for the negative consequences of women’s sexual strategy it helps to blunt the painful truths that Jenny Bahn is (to her credit) honestly confronting in her article at 30 years old and the SMV balance shifts towards enabling men’s capacity to effect their own sexual strategy.
One of the unique aspects of the Feminine Imperative is its fluid ability to craft social conventions that obscure the worst misgivings of women’s dualistic sexual strategy (Hypergamy) and redirect the liability for them squarely on men’s shoulders. I covered many of these conventions in Operative Social Conventions, but chief among them is the utility of shame.
Shaming features in a majority of feminine social conventions used against men because women are conditioned to fear social ostracization as part of their same-sex peer socialization. Little girls punish each other by ‘not-being-friends-with’ another girl in their peer clutch. Using shame is a skill women learn early in life to effect the ends of their developing solipsism.
If men can be shamed into believing that their natural predisposition toward sexually desiring high SMV, physically ideal specimens of women is due to an insecurity with their personal status the effect would be one of leveling the SMP playing field. “Men only want hot women to feed their egos and impress other men” translates into shaming men (the more desirable men who can merit the attention of a high SMV woman) for being insecure with the perceptions of other men.
This carefully removes any negative association with women’s competitiveness for higher tier men, convinces women themselves that “men are just like that” to Buffer against rejection, and puts the burden of that competition on the man in the hopes that he’ll pair with a woman who is of lower SMV for fear of being shamed about his “insecurity” of wanting other men to see his status as higher than it should be.
Thus, the optimized ends of Hypergamy – a woman pairing with an SMV superior man – are better effected by a social convention.
I should also add that this social convention dovetails with another useful convention that relies on a similar dynamic – that of women complaining men sexually objectify women. The simple truth is that it’s part of men’s neurological firmware to see women’s bodies as objects. It’s a well studied fact that when men see an arousing woman’s semi-nude body it triggers the same area of our brains associated with tool use. Sexual objectification is a feature for men, not a bug.
I’ve gotten into this debate on other forums and comment threads, but it bears repeating. My N-count is a bit more than 40 women, and of those women never did I make an approach (or go along with a woman opening me) with a forethought of wanting to impress my male friends. In fact there were some women I got with I’d rather my friends at the time knew nothing about.
The debate usually spins from there about how men just “do it unconsciously”. That’s an easy fallback, but I’d argue that the limbic and visceral incentive of wanting to sexually experience a smoking hot HB9.5 supersedes any subconscious thought of how good a guy will look when he shows her off to his buddies. I’ve been with strippers, a girl who was in Playboy in the 90’s, and several other women most guys just fantasize about – half the reason I stayed with the BPD girlfriend for so long was because she was just so fucking hot – but not once did I have any thought of brandishing any of them to improve my status with my peers. In fact I preferred we just get after it at her or my place than make any conscious effort on my part to show her off.
This’ll sound facetious, but I’ve never thought of sex as being “validating” or ego-affirming. I honestly think a lot of that expectation comes from a feminized conditioning about “how sex should be” for men. I was, and still kind of am, more into sex as experience. It’s always been something fun to enjoy with a woman for me, not some meaningful act of cosmic significance. I’ve had sex with women I loved and women I didn’t, some were memorable, some were…meh. Even in my bluest of blue pill days my ‘validation’ came from other sources, not sex.
So the question for the weekend is this, as a man, do you give any headspace at all to considering how your status might improve with other men if you’re seen with a hot woman?
When you see a guy who’s physically an obvious 1-2 SMV degrees lower than the woman he’s with, do you think any better of him or do you presume the imbalance is due to some other external factor (such as wealth or fame)?
Do you see the method behind the madness of shaming-down apex Men in order to better optimize Hypergamy for “lesser” SMV women?
January 26th, 2015 at 1:16 am
@StringsofCoins
At least until one of their group loses 100 pounds and is hit on relentlessly. Then they start talking about getting their stomachs stapled.
No way, the rest of her group just sits around complaining about how men only like her because they view her as a sex object. Commerce hamstring to justify not losing a pound because men should like them for their personalities.
Nevermind that I we can’t put our dicks in their victim mentalities.
January 26th, 2015 at 1:44 am
@ jf12 – dangly things
And that’s why the Scots where sporrans with their plaids and kilts. Sadly my ancestry doesn’t justify such fashions. Maybe I can hang a pretzel when wearing lederhosen.
January 26th, 2015 at 1:49 am
@ jf12 I am not sure about this zipper thing, I must have missed the backstory. Is it a new fad? But I think I get the idea. Of those you suggested, brass ring was the bait that jumped out to me. But you have several great zingers there! (Look away from the zipper! Lol)
January 26th, 2015 at 1:52 am
Dangly things continued.
For those of us out west it might be an opportunity to repurpose the fashion abomination known as the bolo tie.
Perhaps cod pieces will make a comeback. Maybe just sewing gaudy, shiny buttons to flies of our trousers would do the trick.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:21 am
redpillgirlnotes,
“I would add that woman’s natural role is to help support the man so he can take care of them both and to have and care for children.”
I think that you are absolutely right, and that any honest disagreement arises from confusion about the word “support”, which tends to be used to mean many different things.
In some of my previous comments I have mentioned complementarity, which is essentially a natural interdependence, in which capacities satisfy needs, and strengths compensate for weaknesses.
However, men and women have different capabilities, and when they choose / desire to support each other, they can do so only in ways that are possible / natural for them, and these are not the same for men and women.
.
“I largely see women not wanting to give their part because “that’s oppression” and the rest of the feminist dogma. … I didn’t even see it, either. I just bought the blue pill girl version, feminism, as truth.”
Because survival (throughout most of our history) has required women to be accepted into groups, they are very easily swayed by supposed consensus, and thus misdirected from a path that otherwise could have been natural for them.
And enormous resources have been expended to enable the negative types of women, who have been mentioned in some comments here as the “cause” of feminism, to appear much more prevalent and significant than they actually are.
Furthermore, it seems odd that some who can explain in great detail how undesirable (depending on your agenda) male traits were enabled and amplified by societal conditioning, the Blue Pill, will then refuse to consider that the same could have been done to women.
Because women operate from emotions (which is necessary for raising children, especially infants) and not from principles, and because they are not natural leaders, for a positive complementarity to be possible, it must first be enabled (and everything that that entails), for women, by men.
.
“Women were created to nurture and support others, not to in eat all that in the self (which actually leads to unhappiness, not happiness). Not sure I am saying this right, what you say is beautiful but woman has to give, too.”
You are saying this exactly right, but some may not yet have the proper context to understand it.
For the past 50 years or so, the self-reported unhappiness of women has been rising steadily and significantly. But if you look at the women who have self-reported happiness during this same period, and indeed throughout history, you will see that they are precisely the ones who have been “nurturing and supporting others”.
Unfortunately, it is not difficult to create a self-fulfilling prophesy by constantly telling people that their natural and normal inclinations are bad and will lead to unhappiness, because this can cause them to either 1) follow their ideal path, while simultaneously fighting against themselves to a loss, or 2) do the opposite (which could not possibly lead to happiness, in the first place).
January 26th, 2015 at 2:23 am
@bp
“No thanks, coach. The ladies like it when I wear my cup on the outside and plated with chrome.”
January 26th, 2015 at 8:34 am
@ Stringofcoins – Please, oh please post a pic of the PokeMon thing hanging from your zipper.
@ eon & redpillgirl – The operative question when evaluating who is screwing who in the Blue Pill, FI informed world is to ask the age old question: “Qui bene” – who benefits? Women, in spades. So pardon me if I don’t let women off the hook for this shit. I was that way for a while in my early RP journey – a good year of just saying “hey, we have all been operating with a bad script” after being initially pissed and so hurt. It was a nice reprieve to not be angry for a while. Nah, not so much anymore.
Consider what redpillgirl notes about “take-take” relationships. This isn’t a revelation, women can and do cooperate with others when it suits their interests to do so. Women behave as they do with men because they can get away with it. It’s the old “Why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can” thing.
Even here we claim they are “solipsistic” – really? As though this is something they are overcome with that can’t be helped. Isn’t it convenient how the solipsism comes and goes? And seems to only apply when women are manipulating and abusing men to get their way or maintain the social order they benefit from? Yet, these same women can turn around be quite rational and aware of others when organizing a fundraiser for the local non-profit or when shopping (crawl inside a women’s shopping mind to see keen analysis and rationality). I keep saying that I’ve been observing women carefully, and this is what I actually see. Women simply know that the fastest route to “winning” with men is to escalate conflict and to not engage in our arguments. That’s an automatic win for a women in the media or interpersonally. All she has to say is, “You’re being too aggressive”…I mean, can you imagine if men held a similar trump card over women? No, I know, neither can I, short of smacking them into submission (which I have no interest in doing).
Women don’t have to treat men well in today’s world and in fact men are disposable to most women in today’s society. Our suffering is also irrelevant and none of this is true for women in our culture. So pardon me if I don’t go down the “we’re all in this together” path. While of course we are all acting out of instinct and biology and social norms that have been imposed upon us, we also make choices. And most women choose to lap up their privileges and laugh at men the whole way these days.
The very fact that some women notice it is all the proof I need. It’s not automatic and any woman with a conscience can change her behavior to a significant degree. @KryptoKate – you really can resist fucking that hot guy, you just choose not to because in that moment you’d rather have great sex than be a great wife/mother/partner. It’s a choice. The plain truth is that women are optimizing and using the power of the pussy to get away with social murder in our society.
Keep it up girls, you’ve just about destroyed western civilization in 50 short years. And while politics is verboten here, the only way this goes on steroids is via politics and the power of the state that politics parcels out. Just look how women vote – always for Daddy state and more goodies for them. Women just gave the U.S. two terms of Barack Obama – a dilettante, a wannabe, a “community organizer” and a well established Marxist (and if you don’t know he’s a Marxist that’s your ignorance, not my bias). Men didn’t put him and his ilk into office, women did. They happily lap up the Marxist division of society into oppressor/victim dyads because it aggrandizes female power. In fact, without Marxism, women would not be seen officially as a “victim block” of their own in our politics. Do you folks here realize that women get “set aside” contracts from the federal and state governments, just like blacks and other minorities under today’s civil rights laws? As I said to a young woman recently, “Look me in the eyes and tell me you or any woman in this country is oppressed.” She just laughed and immediately admitted such an idea is absurd. And every woman here knows the same.
Why do you folks think it’s women running all these “activist” and Social Justice (that term makes me want to wretch at this stage of the game) NGOs and non-profits? The entire Social Justice Warrior complex is aimed squarely at demonizing men and masculinity, white men, sort of, but really do you see any SJW actually advocating for black men? They advocate for racial justice but not really black men. Nah, they are kind of scary to upper middle class white girls which is why they fantasize about fucking them. The idiocy emanating from this quarter of society is nothing short of unbelievable but now the ideas of the Social Justice Warrior are held by most institutions and the elite in our society, and this moral code informs their actions. All due to mainly to women – not men.
Nietzsche predicted what the world would become like when women attempted to adopt masculine traits and asserted themselves in our societies politically and intellectually. He claimed that our public political and social discourse would descend into a hash of nonsense, that everything would become dumbed down and absurd. If you can look at the news today and not feel that he was correct, well I say you just aren’t paying attention.
@ Redpillgirl – The above is just a start on the ‘butcher’s bill’ for women’s perfidy in our world. Which is why I say that any Red Pill Girl should do the following if she’s really been woken up to this insanity.
1. Don’t talk to us – we know. Take on your sisters. In fact, take on the worst of them, the RadFems, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren. And don’t just do it to advocate for your Christianity – that isn’t the answer here either. Reason and truth are the way forward but women’s very participation in public and political discourse is cheapening reason itself. Commenting here makes no difference. Women will only change if enough women enforce a better standard of personal and political behavior upon their insane sisters – who women currently are allowing to run things. Does it ever occur to you how convenient this is for women? Most distance themselves from RadFem ideas because those ideas are patently insane, but how many women actually refuse to take the goodies these insane bitches win for women? The question answers itself.
2. Fuck incel guys – I’m no incel and am not asking you to fuck me. But one of the things that I just never knew about before the manosphere was how badly many men suffered due to the unforgiving nature of the SMP. I’ve heard the laments over and over again of men who are 30 year old virgins who ache for the soft touch of a woman and the sexual release only a woman can give them.
I mean, you are Red Pill now, right? That means you realize that he current SMP leaves as many as 50% of men in sexless, loveless lives. I actually know men who haven’t been touched intimately in 10 or more years (again, not me, my N is over 100), but they are just like me – bio programmed to be very sexually attracted to women. These guys live lives of incredible suffering – and you (and most other women) could relieve their suffering in real ways anytime you choose. But of course, I’ve never yet once met a “Red Pill chick” who actually would devalue her power of sexual selection and her SMV in this way – which tells me everything I need to know. If you really got the monumental suffering this imposes on many men, you would be at least giving incels handjobs with a nice makeout/cuddle session. I mean, do you have any idea the joy this would give guys in this state of affairs? It’s not a stretch to say you’d be saving lives.
But no, you won’t do that. In fact, whenever I suggest this to Red Pill chicks they freak out and tell me that I don’t “deserve” sex, that it’s their choice and that I’m a pig for suggesting this. Really? Red Pill girls say they care and “get it” – if so, using your biologically granted privilege to relieve some men’s suffering seems a logical personal reaction. It’s easy to comment on blogs and talk – but action is what counts. What are Red Pill women actually doing to change things and help men and to reduce male suffering? Yakking on blogs – and color me as unimpressed.
January 26th, 2015 at 10:14 am
Former Apple CEO being sued by ex for ‘hiding millions’ in divorce
This is a photo of his ex-wife Leezy.
This is a photo of his new girlfriend.
January 26th, 2015 at 10:21 am
Just a few minutes before reading this post I messaged a friend suggesting I bring a hottie I’m currently banging to a gathering where I know several of our friends will be. I did this consciously aware of the fact I’d be showing her off. I don’t think my ego is low or I’m low on confidence. In fact I’m quite confident generally and am banging two other hotties on the side (not as hot as the one I’m inviting). I think this has mostly to do with me perceiving her as a trophy, demonstrating to the others that Game works (all of whom are Game aware but not all agree with it) and boosting my own value/ego.
Seeing a man with a 1-2 point higher SMV chick I think better of him. Seeing a man with a woman that’s 4+ points higher than him I think the relationship has much to do with external factors.
January 26th, 2015 at 10:30 am
@ Softek
WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE
Haha! Holy crap is that a real frame from anime?
January 26th, 2015 at 10:55 am
@glenn
My Red Pill thinking has come with a heavy dose of Machiavellian thinking and understanding of people and their interactions. If you really want to understand what women are up to, do the first thing you must do to form a strategy in war or negotiation: find their true objective. From there you can derive almost all their future actions.
Women aren’t solipsistic as much as they’re cut throat. If you serve their current objective, you’re part of their life. The moment you don’t, you’re not. It’s pragmatic, efficient, and ruthless particularly when dealing with men. It isn’t personal though, it’s strictly business so long as they win. It only becomes personal when they lose, and even then that’s only a last ditch emotionally manipulative attempt to win before giving up.
January 26th, 2015 at 10:57 am
@Glenn
Hypergamy is a biologically enforced, ladder-climbing motivation. Chaos is a ladder. Therefore, it stands to reason that hypergamy would have selected for women who create chaos within the ranks of men. Within the chaos created in the world of men, hypergamy is unchained. We’re now at the point where hypergamy is openly acknowledged and masculine order is considered insanity.
Again, I’m not excusing the conscious decisions of frivorce or anything like that… but on a societal scale, they truly cannot help it.
But you’re asking the scorpion to not sting the frog, Glenn. Yes, incels suffer greatly, yes it’s entirely likely that a lot of social ills could be solved if all men had reasonable access to female sexuality instead of being brutally shut out. But even in a masculine dominated world, female sexuality has value, and it should not be otherwise. You can’t ask the owner of a mercedes to say to himself, “You know, those poor Zimbabwe people, they need a luxury ride, I’ll just loan them my Mercedes for a while, nothing bad will happen to it right? It will still have the same value as before it was used, right?”
It just doesn’t work like that, which is why Rollo so often says, “Don’t wish the game were easier, wish you were better.” Women can’t be expected to devalue completely, so realistically the best way to force women to stop overvaluing themselves is to teach men to value themselves and their freedom properly. Luckily for us, feminism is providing ample evidence for guys on reasons to avoid the vast majority of women who are not worthy. All that takes is a bit of awakening to the risks. California’s doing just that, there’s actually a movement within high school males to avoid California universities.
You see, their chaos is now hurting themselves more than anything.
January 26th, 2015 at 10:58 am
To me at least this is when women look the hottest. Natural. Flip flops, jeans, t-shirt = SMOKIN!
When chicks get dressed up like John Sculley’s new girlfriend with the caked-on makeup, fancy clothes and jewelry it makes them look old. I know some people love it but I hate it. Throw that shit out.
January 26th, 2015 at 11:06 am
Jeremy – “…realistically the best way to force women to stop overvaluing themselves is to teach men to value themselves and their freedom properly.”
Other than the homosexuallity the classical Greek approach makes more and more sense.
January 26th, 2015 at 11:10 am
Jeremy – “But even in a masculine dominated world, female sexuality has value, and it should not be otherwise.”
Allow me to rephrase.
But even in a masculine dominated world, women have value beyond sex, and it should not be otherwise, but in a feminine dominated world their only value to men is for sex.
January 26th, 2015 at 11:43 am
@ allons
Seeing a man with a 1-2 point higher SMV chick I think better of him. Seeing a man with a woman that’s 4+ points higher than him I think the relationship has much to do with external factors.
No, unless the woman is 1-2 SMV points below the man (not based entirely on his looks), then she’s likely doing other d1ck and he’s the schlub for whom she settled.
January 26th, 2015 at 11:45 am
@ Jeremy
Hypergamy is a biologically enforced, ladder-climbing motivation. Chaos is a ladder. Therefore, it stands to reason that hypergamy would have selected for women who create chaos
Huh? Chaos is a ladder?
January 26th, 2015 at 11:53 am
@Badpainter, re: “in a feminine dominated world their only value to men is for sex”
Yes. In a male dominated world the female’s contributions are valued to the precise extent that the male is able to *expect* them. “Marge, I’m going to miss you so much. And it’s not just the sex. It’s also the food preparation.” And the purpose of the sexual revolution was to undermine men’s expectations for women, so men would have to settle for less.
In a female dominated world, she only makes sandwiches and gives footrubs when she g_d_ well pleases, i.e. basically never, and then *only* when he least expects it i.e. when he least wants it. “I know it’s 2:00 AM, dear, but I was hungry so I figured you might want something too.”
However this intermittent random nonsense does work, slightly, with sex, and only with sex. “I know it’s 2:00 AM, dear, but I was horny so I figured you might want something too.”
January 26th, 2015 at 11:58 am
Chaos is a ladder.
Examples:
— More fortunes were made during the great depression than any other time in history. More fortunes were made during the 2007/8 financial crisis than in the 40 years previous, and those fortunes are still growing thanks to debt-bailouts. Financial chaos is a ladder for those who are prepared and remain calm.
— Human social/political revolution is always chaotic. If it were possible/normal for humans with reasoned/popular arguments to ascend during times of calm, they would do so. History says otherwise. Social chaos is a ladder for those who want to advance an argument.
— Given a relatively free political system in the West, the politicians create chaos. They do this because in order to get elected or move up, there must be some kind of crisis for them to solve. They’re essentially creating the conditions for field-promoting themselves. They instinctively know that chaos is a ladder, and since they are obsessed with advancing themselves, they must have chaos.
So yes, I meant exactly what I said… Chaos is a ladder, just as was so eloquently quoted in Game of Thrones.
January 26th, 2015 at 12:12 pm
More pedantically, chaos creates opportunity from the misfortunes of others.
January 26th, 2015 at 12:25 pm
Maybe, but it’s not necessary to create misfortune in others. For instance, when a politician latches onto a crisis, or perceived crisis… terrorism for example… there’s really no misfortune. More people die from Bee Stings each year than die from terrorism. The perception of potential misfortune is enough to convince people that we need to bomb ISIS, even though rational thinking should tell us otherwise. Stable societies have stable values and very predictable judgements on any event that occurs. This makes it extremely difficult and slow for the psychos among us to climb to the top. But drop a bit of chaos into that mix, and everything changes.
Take gay marriage. I’ve seen people, grown men even, get emotional over this issue. The mere mention of strong opinions either way is enough to make some people cry. But by all rights, gay marriage should be the absolute furthest thing from anyone’s mind. It is a non-issue by any objective measurement. Homosexuals comprise less than 10% of the population, and gay people wishing to get married are even LESS. So why on earth should anyone be talking about this? It’s because politicians realized they could create social chaos and in so doing make themselves appear to be moral knights of future righteousness, and in doing that get themselves advanced politically.
The gay marriage issue is pure social chaos that only exists to serve the politicians seeking to advance themselves. Even most Gay people don’t really care one way or the other whether or not the state recognizes their marriage.
January 26th, 2015 at 12:32 pm
@ jf12
It’s less a matter of the value of individual women to individual men but rather the aggregate reality of what feminism has turned women in the West and the first world into. That is modern women in developed first world societies have become smaller, weaker, lazier, less creative, whiner men by having forfeit their biological role as the sole producers of children.
Giving live birth is the only thing women can do that men can’t, and men do everything else either better than women in aggregate or well enough to have eliminated their comparative advantage except as sexual partners for heterosexual men. Taking away the non sexual complimentary support and collaborative roles that women played with men in the past has removed any uniquely special purpose and value beyond entertainment. And men are working to replace them in that role with technology because of disparities in distribution, and pricing.
January 26th, 2015 at 12:37 pm
re: gay marriage and gay arm candy
I think it says something about women, not just gay women, that lesbian couples are an order of magnitude more likely to get state-married than gay male couples.
Beside the few obvious lesbian examples, I’m trying to think of gay couples that could be said to involve arm candy.
January 26th, 2015 at 12:51 pm
Or does it say something about the “idealistic” family of the 50’s that hypergamy had to throw chaos into it? Was there simply not enough social chaos in that world for hypergamous instincts to avoid screwing it all up? Are we as humans, as complementary sexes, only capable of advancing humanity in unstable societies such as a frontier or war?
That’s what I wrestle with. I’m convinced that humanity would be very different right now if middle-class families could afford to send their children to frontier colonies where they could live outside the reach of earthly governments. When men can leave all society and take a woman with them, the reproductive imperative becomes much clearer and the chaos of congested urban societies becomes only a memory.
In short, we’re born to be nomads, and women (ultimately) can’t stand the civilization men built for them.
January 26th, 2015 at 12:53 pm
If you want to improve your status with your buddies, keep your house in order, physically and financially. Women come and go.
January 26th, 2015 at 1:00 pm
“Was there simply not enough social chaos in that world for hypergamous instincts to avoid screwing it all up?”
Notice how this shit storm ramped up faster and faster after the end of the cold war.
January 26th, 2015 at 1:05 pm
“In short, we’re born to be nomads, and women (ultimately) can’t stand the civilization men built for them.”
Umm…no. Men built civilization for men. Yes women aren’t happy or appreciative of that, and lack the ability to understand the delicate and fragile system that permits them to acquire ridiculous amounts of footware.
What’s the line about women being charge and living in grass huts? Nothing makes women happier than watching men die for them, there’s no greater drama, and the emotions are at maximum intensity.
January 26th, 2015 at 1:11 pm
@Jeremy, re: “When men can leave all society and take a woman with them, the reproductive imperative becomes much clearer”
I’m convinced that dad reproduction i.e. monogamy comes so naturally to most men because monogamous pairings are the best way to increase population to exploit new resources. Thus most all of us are descended from large nuclear families from the periods of exponential population growth with stable social structures.
In contrast, during episodes of chaos, famine, war, decreasing resources, it is ever-changing strong-man rule and cad reproduction, with effective polygyny resulting both from strong men acquiring harems and sneaky cads getting theirs. Since these episodes have not been infrequent, then unfortunately most all of us are also descended from awful men who pillaged and raped and snuck around.
January 26th, 2015 at 1:12 pm
Yeah, but BP, civilization doesn’t help a man become sexually successful. War does though. Many soldiers can end up raping many women as they like during the chaos of invasions/etc.. Reproductively speaking, civilization helps women more than men, or at least it helps their BB requirements. It does nothing for men, whose polygamous strategy works best in a situation where women with no protection are readily available (wartime).
January 26th, 2015 at 1:33 pm
@zdr01dz
I couldn’t care less what a woman wears so long as it ain’t a bunch of extra pounds.
January 26th, 2015 at 1:35 pm
Well, lemme take that back; I briefly dated a chick that decided to pull out the full length jean skirt. No. Just no.
January 26th, 2015 at 1:38 pm
@ Jeremy
There’s a constant tension between monogamy and polygamy. Monogamy is stable and makes life better for everyone at the expense of a relative few, and yes women are less than amused. Those few in return don’t have to worry as much about pirates and brigands, and the women don’t have to fear rape (though I think they want to). Polygamy is unstable long term and requires tyrannical, in the modern worst sense, oppression and makes life awful for most including most women.
While I know you’re arguing abstract amoral naturalism, I can’t ignore the moral reality of the Hobbesian existance. To ignore that makes chattel slavery, genocide and a real rape culture every bit as morally equal as rule of law and civil society. All are organic manifestations of a dynamic system of thinking beings. As such we get to choose which direction to support moving toward.
The current hybrid system of unrestrained hypergamy, if allowed to fester long enough will destroy 3000 yrs of social evolution, a repeat of the wars of the 20th century seems a small price to keep it going. Which is where I think we’re heading. Besides women like watching men die so they’ll get a charge out it.
I used to think the sort of punishments against the women in France, and else where who “collaborated” with the Nazis got a raw deal. Now I think they just got lucky they and their Nazi spawn weren’t culled from the herd. Such is the restraint of civilized men.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:21 pm
@ Glenn, January 26th, 2015 at 8:34 am
.
“The operative question when evaluating who is screwing who in the Blue Pill, FI informed world is to ask the age old question: “Qui bene” – who benefits? Women, in spades. So pardon me if I don’t let women off the hook for this shit.”
Nobody is suggesting that you “let women off the hook” for anything. But “teh wimenz be bitches” is not an answer for everything. And “hypergamy”, “solipsism”, and the “FI” are not magic words that are always applicable and available to wash away your bullshit.
In spite of their bravado, women are the dependent and vulnerable sex, so their natural inclinations are completely reasonable (and Nature is amoral), even though they can make women seem indistinguishable from resource acquisition robots.
This is why the tactics against homemaking and motherhood had to be changed around the middle of the last century.
The first attempt was to say: “look at how modern conveniences have reduced your workload; don’t you feel guilty about being able to sit around so much?”. And the women replied: “umm, no, we like it just fine”.
And then they realized that, because women’s natural fear was deprivation, the proper tactic was to say: “men are oppressing you, because they want to deprive you of all the wonderful benefits of a job outside of the home, which they are hoarding for themselves”. This tactic worked, obviously.
“[A]s long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed…. No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975. [ http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/theme-articles/you-dont-know-feminism/ ]
If you had actually wanted to know who benefits, then you would have followed the money. Leading feminists have been created in the same way that “celebrities” are invented today, to be considered “beautiful” and somehow “relevant”, instead of just common trash.
.
“Consider what redpillgirl notes about “take-take” relationships. This isn’t a revelation, women can and do cooperate with others when it suits their interests to do so. Women behave as they do with men because they can get away with it. It’s the old “Why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can” thing.”
You are upset that the truth that Red Pill Girl mentioned was already known by some?
And men also “behave as they do with men because they can get away with it”. Haven’t you noticed that some men complain mightily about how poorly they were treated while they were Blue Pill Ignorant, and yet have no problem with cuckolding those who are no different than they were not too long ago?
.
“Even here we claim they are “solipsistic” – really? As though this is something they are overcome with that can’t be helped. Isn’t it convenient how the solipsism comes and goes? And seems to only apply when women are manipulating and abusing men to get their way or maintain the social order they benefit from? Yet, these same women can turn around be quite rational and aware of others when organizing a fundraiser for the local non-profit or when shopping (crawl inside a women’s shopping mind to see keen analysis and rationality).”
So, according to you, those who are genuinely solipsistic (self-centered), and not just faking it, are unable to shop? Do you own a fucking dictionary?
Hypergamy and solipsism “can’t be helped”, because they are biologically “wired”, because they are necessary for the survival of those who are smaller and weaker (mentally and physically), and essentially incapacitated for almost a year at a time.
.
“So pardon me if I don’t go down the “we’re all in this together” path.”
We are all in this together, in one way or another.
So why are you pushing the idea that men should feel and become helpless, believe that the present society is inevitable as the only possibility, and view women only as all-powerful enemies?
.
“Keep it up girls, you’ve just about destroyed western civilization in 50 short years.”
You are such a fucking hypocrite!
For example, you still whine that your wife was the one who wreaked your relationship with your daughter *, even after trying to teach and induce ** fathers to neglect and abandon their daughters.
* See the quote at beginning of the /2015/01/18/she-turned-on-me/ article.
** I took his tutorial apart here: /2014/12/05/teach-your-children-well/comment-page-2/#comment-72350
.
“Why do you folks think it’s women running all these “activist” and Social Justice (that term makes me want to wretch at this stage of the game) NGOs and non-profits?”
The sock-puppet spokeswomen are not actually “running” anything. It wouldn’t be that hard, even for you, to trace the strings of financing and control.
Women can’t even “run” being topless: www[]independent[]co[]uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-man-who-made-femen-new-film-outs-victor-svyatski-as-the-mastermind-behind-the-protest-group-and-its-breastbaring-stunts-8797042[]html
“… Initially, Mr Svyatski refused to allow Ms Green to film him but she was determined that he should feature. ‘It was a big moral thing for me because I realised how this organisation was run. He was quite horrible with the girls. He would scream at them and call them bitches.’
“When the Femen founder finally spoke to Ms Green, he sought to justify his role within the organisation and acknowledged the paradox of being a “patriarch” running a feminist protest group. “These girls are weak,” he says in the film.
“They don’t have the strength of character. They don’t even have the desire to be strong. Instead, they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them. …”
.
Red Pill Girl is welcome here, by policy, and because her perspective will be valuable to some readers, and especially since her story isn’t inconsistent bullshit that changes from day to day.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:24 pm
@BP
Is that the “restraint of civilized men”? Or is it the FI? It’s hard to separate them in my mind. I’m not actually certain where the civilized man ends and the feminine imperative begins.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:31 pm
@ Jeremy
The uncivilized Hobbesian state of nature man would have killed the children and possibly the women. Not all male actions that benefit women are manipulations of the FI.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:31 pm
@ Jeremy – You are badly misusing the word “chaos” and of course it’s not a ladder, that’s just something cute a writer for a TV show dreamed up. In reality, we live in a complex system with independent agents acting in their own interests and against the constraints of that system institutionally and otherwise. Sometimes there are social upheavals, other times there aren’t – yawn. Yes, tumult can create openings and opportunities for someone who is looking for them. But your quote on the financial crisis of ’07/08 is truly ludicrous. Trillions in wealth evaporated too, btw. Sure, some small number of contrarians benefitted – none of this proves any of your points.
Let’s put this directly so we can have an actually constructive argument:
Question: Do women consciously adopt strategies to keep men in a Blue Pill, FI enforced reality or not?
Question: Does Kate have a choice to have sex when that super sexy, game-genius hot, tall guy gets her all moist or not?
Question: Are you aware that all the science that “proves” hypergamy shows it’s a subtle effect, in conflict with many other impulses? Go to the data Rollo cites – Hasselton and elsewhere.
Question: When you are arguing with a woman and she refuses to consider any of your evidence or reasoning, is that a conscious decision by her or something she can’t help because of hypergamy? Even when the woman, in the very next moment, makes a series of rational decisions on other matters? Like what to cook for dinner or running a meeting in a business setting or organizing the family for an outing? How come they can turn their natures on a dime if you introduce “dread” into a relationship properly> It turns out that was the only thing that would snap my ex-wife back into a state of reasonableness for a short period of time. How can that be if hypergamy is in charge?
Me? I’m very clear how much intentionality there is behind all of this now. You can see it if you just watch women carefully as I do. They enjoy fucking with men and reveling in their privileges. Really. And society says, “you go gurl”.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:33 pm
@ eon – Such a steaming pile of nonsense I’m not even going to bother.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:46 pm
@Badpainter, re: ” Besides women like watching men die so they’ll get a charge out it.”
Maybe, but dying also makes reproduction more difficult for those men.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:48 pm
@Jeremy, re: ” I’m not actually certain where the civilized man ends and the feminine imperative begins.”
The FI never ends.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:52 pm
Brain candy.
http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2015/01/26/research-suggests-that-up-to-one-in-25-people-hears-voices-regularly/
Bed candy.
[link removed]
January 26th, 2015 at 2:52 pm
I only feel the sting of lower smv women dragging me down, I can’t ever recall bringing a girl around my friends for the sake of seeming “cool”. That said i would be just as satisfied with her if she never met them. Often times in my ltrs i would see these outtings with her and friends as “maintenance” so as to ensure sexy time after.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:57 pm
Booty candy. Meghan Trainor fan base. She sexed up her image so that mothers of little girls would be more interested in her.
January 26th, 2015 at 2:59 pm
@Tiberius, re: “Often times in my ltrs i would see these outtings with her and friends as “maintenance” so as to ensure sexy time after.”
Good catch! That is indeed an important reason, probably the single most important reason that men bring their ltr women to functions.
Your experience of women as drags resonates with practically all men here. Women don’t elevate but certainly can drag down.
January 26th, 2015 at 3:08 pm
@ Glenn
“Such a steaming pile of nonsense I’m not even going to bother.”
I wasn’t writing for your benefit, dumbass, lol.
Did you notice the last sentence quoted from your buddy Svyatski?
It was: “These are qualities which it was essential to teach them.”
But according to you and your sycophants, it is not possible to teach women qualities like how to be good wives and mothers.
January 26th, 2015 at 3:10 pm
@ Glenn
I really do not consider it so ludicrous, when a Rothschild is quoted as saying this:
When you say “wealth evaporated” you’re not wrong, but you’re using the standard of “paper wealth”, which anyone who knows anything recognizes as mostly a big game. Real wealth is in who owns the assets, Real Estate, Utilities, Gold, etc.. That’s real wealth. Everything else is just cash flow. So yes, paper, financialized debt did evaporate in 2007/2008, but it’s not true wealth. You’re ignoring that we had gigantic banks become bigger, *AND* end up getting bailed out, *AND* repossessing homes that were defaulted on (gaining real-estate). So yeah, the chaos was a ladder for those who positioned themselves to gain hard assets from those who thought paper wealth, or numbers on their online brokerage account were real. We now have a bigger, more centralized, more ignorant of the man-on-the-street banking system than we’ve ever had. So yes, I’d say the banks profited very nicely from 07/08, for those that were positioned to do so (politically connected ones).
But let’s get back to the topic of the blog…
I’m not a woman, so there’s no way for me to say for certain that they consciously do anything. Kate’s choice to act on an alpha that gives her attention is her choice. I have no doubt that hypergamy is in conflict with other motivations, since many human motivations often conflict with each other, sometimes as basic as eating and sleeping. I also have no doubt that hypergamy is a subtle influence. I also have no doubt that gravity is a subtle influence, one of the weakest of all forces and often in conflict with stronger forces. However the universe wouldn’t exist without it, and there are many instances where it’s effects entirely dominate despite it’s subtlety.
Now that’s a good question. I would say that most of the time when women come here to argue, they are convinced that their feminine-imperative-driven perspective is the only correct perspective that anyone should have. They’re considering our words from a position of presumed authority and assumed ignorance on our part. It would be the same as if I decided to go to a political blog and bloviate on about how my political perspective was the only correct one.
I’m not sure how much experience you’ve had with people who have had their critical thinking skills suspended, Glenn. I’ve had decades of it. I grew up in a cult. I can tell you that it is entirely believable that in a feminine-imperative driven culture, it makes absolute perfect sense that women can have the conflicting thoughts they have that you are describing, and not be doing such things to men to intentionally/consciously cause harm. They are deceived, and their critical thinking skills w.r.t. how they treat men are wholly damaged because in their entire upbringing they only see the boys around them treated as second class citizens. They regard boys as literally lesser lifeforms in practice, and “equals” in everything else. Again, many of them have never had cause to question their upbringing in this aspect. It’s just life for them.
When your critical thinking about your own behavior is suspended, the human mind becomes capable of essentially infinite hypocrisy. This is why women behave the way they do, they’ve absolutely never questioned how they treat men.
January 26th, 2015 at 3:15 pm
@eon re: “good wives and mothers”
The quote is ““These girls are weak,” he says in the film. “They don’t have the strength of character. They don’t even have the desire to be strong. Instead, they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them. …””
He said he chose these women because they were easily led, and he had to work to turn them into appearing to be SIW. I don’t know about you but being a shrieking topless globe-trotting activist is the furthest thing from being a good wife and mother. So the quote in context means that he views the teachable qualities as the anti-wife qualities.
January 26th, 2015 at 3:47 pm
The first word in “arm candy” is “arm” not “candy”. The first and most important aspect of arm candy is her obedience to and/ dependence upon The Man. This is what Vashti messed up when she disobeyed Ahaseurus.
January 26th, 2015 at 3:51 pm
@ jf12, January 26th, 2015 at 3:15 pm
“These girls are weak. They don’t have the strength of character. They don’t even have the desire to be strong. Instead, they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them.”
Is equivalent to:
“These girls are weak … they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. They don’t have the strength of character. They don’t even have the desire to be strong. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them.”
He is saying that the girls were inadequate, for his purposes, and needed to be taught the qualities necessary for political activists.
I was neither referencing particular qualities mentioned in his statement, nor claiming that it is even possible to teach strength, specifically, to women.
My point was that even he was agreeing that qualities are teachable to women.
January 26th, 2015 at 3:59 pm
re: “qualities are teachable to women.”
All qualities? For example teachableness?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Teachableness
January 26th, 2015 at 4:01 pm
jf12 – “Maybe, but dying also makes reproduction more difficult for those men.”
And thus the source of enjoyment.
AND they get that wonderful combination of schadenfreude mixed with guilt and sympathy for the merely injured men and grieving widows and mothers. An intense emotional experience, especially with the possibility of rape and pillage to follow. A veritable downpour of cascading tingles.
My guess is the reality of so many dead men, and the raping and pillaging soon becomes a sort of let down. Possibly damaging if there’s too much intense reality. I wonder if the women of Caen were less hypergamous in the mid 1400s after a century of regular and routine sack and plunder during the 100 years war, or were they addicted to it, secretly longing for the next army to arrive. Hmmm… some things just don’t make ino the history books.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:02 pm
Friction is a familiar example of a force that is always negative, always slows things down. It does no good to say “Well, but, it’s a force, for heaven’s sake, so use it to your advantage to speed up, since that what all forces do.”
No. Not all forces.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:09 pm
So, if a woman makes reproduction a lot more difficult if not impossible for the majority of men, and if she does reproduce then she makes the man jump through a lot of hoops, then she has fulfilled her role in sexual conflict. And if a man, despite women’s flak, manages to reproduce with an easy Skittles woman and/or more than one woman than he has fulfilled his role in sexual conflict.
Uneasily, I move my game piece and my wives’ game pieces to the winning side.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:10 pm
@jf12
Friction is a familiar example of a force that is always negative, always slows things down.
You’ve apparently never tried to make a wheeled vehicle accelerate or get through a turn.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:12 pm
If you’re only talking about dynamic friction, that’s true jf12, but static friction is actually required for speeding up relative to the surface you’re pushing off against.
What I meant to try to illustrate is that just because a particular motivation/force is subtle, that does not mean it does, or can not dominate the situation.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:18 pm
You can go a whole lot faster skating on ice than walking on concrete, dudes.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:20 pm
If by “use it to your advantage” you mean “ok, it sucks, but if you crawl across broken glass then at least you’re not sitting still”, then ok.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:20 pm
jf12 – “because a particular motivation/force is subtle, that does not mean it does, or can not dominate the situation.”
For example Japan is staring down the barrel of genetic and utural suicide. The current birth rate mean an almost 2/3 reduction in population by 2100. The subtle force is the complete lack of give a shit on the part of the women.
Hypergamy doesn’t care. That absence of caring is the subtle force needed to resist, mostly, all attempts at restraint.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:21 pm
above quote was Jeremy not jf12. Apologies to both.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:22 pm
And for that matter, if you take all of the energy you would have used for static friction and instead throw it behind you for the rocket effect, then you will go a lot faster.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:26 pm
@Eon, Glenn, Jeremy, etc.
When I wrote the post Empathy Sunshinemary (before she cuddled up with Aunt Giggles) linkjacked that post to one of her own where she went into great detail about how women needed to be taught to consider and appreciate their husband’s humanness, particularly when they were incapacitated due to some physical injury or medical condition. The greater whole of her “good christian women” commenters agreed with her assertions after reluctantly admitting that when they discovered their husbands had suffered a debilitating accident, their first concern, their first thought, wasn’t for his physical wellbeing, but her and her kids financial and provisional future.
My whole purpose of writing Empathy was to draw attention to the very popular myth that women possess some supernatural capacity for empathy (part of the Feminine Mystique) that men could simply never attain or understand. I called bullshit, but in doing so I also inadvertently revealed that women really have little or no real capacity for empathy with men when they become a physical liability instead of a resource utility.
Hypergamy (and the War Brides dynamic) predisposes women to self-concern and solipsism as a survival mechanic. Can women learn empathy, compassion and a sense of responsibility for their men? Of course, but the fact that they should need to learn it defines the condition of women and the influence their mental priorities have on them. Hypergamy isn’t biological predetermination, but it does define a woman’s condition.
Hypergamy isn’t a “get out of responsibility free” card. Many anti-Red Pill women love to use a similar argument for men; my evolved biological makeup predisposes me to view semi-naked women as objects to be manipulated. These women screech the same line about ‘personal responsibility’ and how men are all dogs because they’re just doing what nature prepared them to do. They think men will use the knowledge of their biological predispositions to excuse infidelity and abandoning parental investments.
You can make a case about how women aren’t living up to reigning in the worst aspects of their Hypergamy. In a feminine primary social order that’s going to be a real challenge because all of the onus is on men to reign the worst of it in for them, while exercising their own self-control. That said, Hypergamy is still the water that the fish is wet in but doesn’t know it. Hypergamy is not its own excuse, it’s the condition women operate in.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:34 pm
re: sexlessness in Britain too.
In Britain “About 15pc of men and about 35pc of women weren’t interested in sex at all and about 40pc [of couples] had not had sex in the last four weeks.” compared to 20% of young Japanese men and 46% of young Japanese women and 50% of young Japanese couples.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11362306/Why-dont-Japanese-men-like-having-sex.html
January 26th, 2015 at 4:37 pm
I fucking hate you!!!!
I have boinked 9/10s, but they were like blow up dolls in bed, just laying there.
On with my life I became the beta boy for my now wife of 20 years, she is a solid 7.
I never cared about what other guys thought with my hotties. Like you at that age I just wanted a hot chick in bed.
My wife was the epiphany girlfriend!!!!!!!!!!!!! She is 9 years older (30 when I met her) and we were friends for 2 years then ended up in bed. To this day she is still the best sex I ever had, and come to think of it most of the lower SMV chicks were way better in bed than the 9/10s.
I have gained my Alpha back to the point of telling her to go up to bed…. LOVE IT.
She has not rejected me for sex in 4 years. I literally joke with her and she’ll say, “we can if you want, right now.” I have taken her up on it on some odd occasions (expecting company any minute) and she complied.
MY ADVICE TO HUSBANDS GETTING REJECTED:
If she is not responding you are not being assertive enough… if she is not responding, but is not rejecting you outright then use her like a piece of meat and boink her.
If she does reject you, tell her “I’m having sex right now, join me or not.” and whack off and lean over and try your best to shoot on her…. anywhere as long as he feels it. Get your fucking balls back from her and whack off in front of her/on her.
If you are not married and she is not putting out… LEAVE!
January 26th, 2015 at 4:39 pm
I was not attempting to suggest, to Glenn or anyone, that hypergamy washes away responsibility.
I was simply saying that Glenn’s perspective (in his original comment to which I was responding) was expecting the scorpion to not sting the frog.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:53 pm
re: uneasily winning.
As far as I can recall, every woman I’ve actually discussed this with, online for the most part, has eventually made this same point: “You’ve had children, raised to adulthood, by two different women? So you ARE winning.” And I would whine that it didn’t feel like me winning with them, it felt like the women were winning with me. And they’d go “So that means they too thought you were the best one to have children with. So you ARE winning.”
It’s difficult to express just how Matrixy it feels to fail to convince (some) women what I loser I am.
January 26th, 2015 at 4:58 pm
@jf12
Indeed, it’s like being handed a huge payout by someone you know is fabulously wealthy, and having them tell you how awesome you did, and how much of a “winner” you are as they retreat back inside their compound. Sorry ladies, your judgements on male success are as satisfying as conversations with used auto salesmen.
January 26th, 2015 at 5:40 pm
re: Loser game.
re: “That’s chokin’ on the splinters”. My unneutered rescue Weimeraner-mix is a buff 80 lbs in winter. He was bought by me, wife selected for cuteness, to be a companion for our aging spayed female, but merely got on her nerves. For the past five years or so he has been the absolute undisputed ruler of almost half an acre of the Earth, but I am his sole benefactor and sole worthy opponent. I am the only Thing that ever controls him.
When he was little, I tried to train him to chase sticks. He was game enough to do *something*, but not bright enough to catch on. He decided I was trying to get him to eat the sticks. So he did, obediently I guess. And now he eats whole fallen limbs; I have to protect my firewood from him. He likes curling up with a nice log on a cold day and gnawing on it like a bone. Sometimes he gets giant splinters through his lips, and occasionally coughs up a wood fiber ball, but he has never had an infection or other problem.
January 26th, 2015 at 5:47 pm
Women go out to get cute dogs to peep cutely out of their cute purses on their arms, to show off to other women.
Men go out to get faithful companions to ride shotgun and flap their ears in the wind, enjoying life together.
Dog, dude, sorry I’ve been inattentive. We’ll go fishing one day this week, just you and me.
January 26th, 2015 at 5:48 pm
@Jeremy
when a Rothschild is quoted as saying this:
By my observations, when any wealthy investor states publicly what you should do, it’s because they stand profit from the misfortune you’ll suffer by doing it. I know if I were at the top of the financial food chain and had the bully pulpit, I’d see that strategy sitting there like an HB12 pushing a pair of angelic boobs at me.
January 26th, 2015 at 6:02 pm
The silly Dodai Stewart misses the entire point.
““[T]he objectification of men is a false equivalency to the objectification of women, because what’s being fetishized is strength. Virility, capability, vigor, fortitude. Power.”
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/bachelor-shirtless-men-dawn-female-gaze-hesaid/
So the things that women ogle, like bulging biceps and bulging crotches, are *good* to ogle, because what women do is good, by definition. A woman’s arm candy is a guy who can deadlift her with one arm.
January 26th, 2015 at 6:25 pm
The most amazing thing to me about women’s resistance is that it can be so easily overcome, if you want to. This resistance tops out at pretty weak in my book, and hence fails badly if it were supposed to be a real test of genetic fitness or other nonsense. Very much like men’s attraction to beauty fails to be a real genetic test: men’s beauty threshold for having sex is quite low. Similarly women’s dominance threshold is quite low in reality.
January 26th, 2015 at 7:00 pm
@Sun Wukong, re: full length jean skirts. These be my peeps. I don’t see the prob. Of course, “we” don’t show elbows either.
January 26th, 2015 at 7:24 pm
In front of males I’m slightly ashamed or slightly proud of my ugly or hot fucks. In front of women I’m very ashamed (to be point of never admitting it) or proud of my ugly or hot fucks.
January 26th, 2015 at 7:33 pm
The Rothschilds were bankers, not investors, back when they were actually separate activities. The advice of bankers should always be suspect, but in this case the advice is mathematically sound. Save your money into hard forms of wealth wherever you can (also note how bankers try extremely hard to get every large population saving in anything other than paper forms of wealth), wait for the day that the market (casino) collapses, then use your stored wealth to buy what’s on sale.
January 26th, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Err, I misstated myself there… Bankers tend to prevent large populations from saving in anything other than paper wealth.
January 26th, 2015 at 8:48 pm
@ Rollo, January 26th, 2015 at 4:26 pm
I agree with what you wrote, and with what many other men write on this site.
My main points often deal with the need to understand that we are talking about a natural system with many levels, and inter-level feedback loops, and to be consistent.
By being consistent I mean, among other things, accepting both halves of an almost tautology of one’s own creation, for example: if men are stronger, smarter and more capable than women (who also lack leadership and organizational capabilities), then men are responsible for their society, through action or inaction. (Which is not to say that an individual man is responsible for the inertia of the masses.)
Saying that a woman manipulated a man does not alter the fact that it was ultimately his decision, and this type of moral agency is something that men here regularly demand of women.
While women can be “taught qualities”, as long as these are not in opposition to their female basis, I mentioned that term only because I found it curious that that Svyatski would go down that path.
More precisely, I think that men can guide women to ideas (feelings) that they might never have found on their own but that could resonate with them, selectively create environments that enable / induce women to express behaviors from one possible set instead of another, and establish societal structures that do not enable or permit negative female proclivities to have effects.
I can understand, in an abstract sort of way, why a woman would prioritize “her and her kids financial and provisional future” over concern for her man’s physical well-being, but I have no direct understanding, because men are not the dependent sex.
What often seems to be overlooked by men, because they have no direct experience, is the overarching significance of how dependence and vulnerability are experienced by women. This is pivotal, and has influenced our evolutionary history, with respect to many traits and behaviors.
The War Brides phenomenon that you mentioned is an evolved coping mechanism that developed in reaction to extremely harsh conditions. It is a fundamental element that defines women, and explains an important part of their nature.
That it is now fundamental does not mean that it is ultimately unchangeable, but changing it would require energy and conditions at least at the level that created it, in the first place. So it is not reasonable for men to say to women: “Okay, that’s nice, so why don’t you just forget about it and decide to feel deep empathy instead?”.
And if women actually have little or no real capacity for empathy with men when they become a physical liability instead of a resource utility, this would be the same as having little or no real capacity for empathy, in any complete sense.
This state of lacking capacity for something that men consider morally meaningful would then tend to support the idea that women may lack the capacity for meaningful understanding in other areas, and this would directly undercut the idea that they have complete moral agency.
And if women have only compromised moral agency, at best, then reining in the worst aspects of their nature is simply not an option for them, and the onus is necessarily on men “to rein the worst of it in for them, while exercising their own self-control”.
January 26th, 2015 at 9:54 pm
@ Tomassi,
Will the book be offered in a digital version? I’d rather not tip my hand by having your book on my coffee table. Digital versions need never be seen.
January 26th, 2015 at 10:05 pm
@David, of course. That’s actually the delay at this point, but I’m going to release them both at the same time.
January 26th, 2015 at 10:22 pm
Women are notoriously bad at picking mates and determining what are good traits in mates (note the plethora of stories that everybody hears of young women running off with the village idiot or loser bad boy, and we all know how those stories always end). That is why women need men to lead them. However, the current laws and social conventions encourage womens’ worst destructive innate behavior unfortunately. Men and the civilization they built for women serves as a constraint on womens’ behavior, but these constraints to keep womens’ behavior in check have been stripped away. Men have given women power that women will use to destroy men, themselves and civilization.
January 27th, 2015 at 2:14 am
@if12
How about we just cover women completely?
That way they’ll know how a man feels.
Women (and not so good looking rich beta men)would completely lose the one and only weapon they have.
I visited Saudi Arabia 10 years ago and I doubt the Saudi men or women knew what an arm kandy is , what was interesting though that women-who are covered- would find a way to pursue good looking men and, ,,yes, and fuck them.
The dynamic was an out of world experience though.
January 27th, 2015 at 2:55 am
Lookswise, I find it best to leave the considerations of others out of your head. Your attraction to her should be your only concern.
However, there are those who seek out easy opportunities for sex (think 250lbs/low relative sexual rank/etc) who brag about having regular sex, but refuse to show any instagram stills to their friends. This comes full circle into a double validation seek (one for bragging, two for hiding the undesirable).
As for guys with other girls, I look at the dynamic more than her looks. It’s easy (contrary to popular belief) to lock down a good looking woman. Can he keep her grounded? That’s the consideration.
January 27th, 2015 at 3:06 am
One more thing,
In the early Islamic time the Boss Muhammad ordered ONLY beautiful women should cover their faces , and that prompted the not so beautiful women to object ! So the not so beautiful women were the early feminist pioneers who lobbied for : covers for all .
It sound nuts, but that was for real.
January 27th, 2015 at 3:57 am
Re: woman commenters; derailing threads
I think it’s always important to consider intentions when one is interpreting another’s words.
My only intentions, when posting on this or other “red pill” blogs, is to gain insight, pose and consider unsettled questions, and contribute to the development of the collective social analysis by offering my point of view when I think a theory has become exaggerated, off-track, is marred by confirmation bias, or has missed some key considerations. Or to provide supporting experiences/data in areas that I think are on track. In general I think Rollo’s framework is useful and often right. But it also sometimes misses key contradictory facts or otherwise goes off track by failing to consider simpler explanations that don’t require such convoluted explication, or by looking at narrow cultural samples rather than the broader picture. In sum, I’m just seeking and trying to add to the discovery of truth. I assume many are here for the same reason, though some may have more emotional motivations. But taking the time to consider a comment made in good faith, rather than immediately rejecting it based on suspicions about the writer, should be helpful in refining one’s analysis into its truest and most fully developed form, in any case.
Where I have made references to my appearance or experiences, it is solely to provide a basis for my knowledge to give the reader a foundation of credibility. Because when I don’t, I get protestations that I’m either not really a woman or that I must be an unattractive woman who’s just bitter and telling lies or that I’m a deluded feminazi or that I’m a spoiled pretty cupcake ignorant of my own feminine privileges. Take your pick, sigh. But when I try to qualify the basis of my comments by grounding them in my actual experience, I’m accused of courting attention and admiration rather than actually trying to make a point. Though I notice that men who post about their experiences of success with women are not likewise accused of bragging. This appears to me to just be sour grapes, though I like to give the benefit of the doubt so I’m open to being convinced otherwise.
Truly I would like nothing more than for my comments to be considered as standing on their own (for good or ill), without needing to resort to personal qualifications or establish credibility. But I don’t see a way to do that, other than posting as a man. And I don’t want to post falsely as a man, or as a different sort of woman than the one I actually am, because the entire point of posting anonymously in online discussions is that it allows me to tell the unvarnished truth, rather than having to resort to the necessary lies required by polite society.
That said, I’ll leave a few quotes from the preface of “Men”, the new book I’ve been reading by the excellent and poetic Laura Kipnis, which reminded me on several levels of some of the dynamics I see going on with this blog and its commenters:
“The inevitability of an ongoing mismatch between the sexes is apparently our little tragicomedy to endure, though on the plus side, it makes the other sex so much more alluring. The capacity to be disappointed by someone confers on them a special emotional force, at least as much as being merely gratified.
…
But it would be a pretty diminished imaginative life if we were constrained to identify with one gender alone, wouldn’t it? …which pretty much sums up the situation of a female writer writing about men. By situation, I mean the elasticity of fellow-feeling that stretches to accommodate jealousy, longing, affinity, antagonism, erotics, and every stop in between.
…
In Aristophanes’ tale about love, we’re all just severed remnants of our original selves, rummaging among the fragments of other humans for the parts that will make us whole. I suspect it works in a similar way with writers and what they write about. Without vicariousness, without these clashes of attraction and disavowal, would there even be words to put on a page?
…
Beneath our pleasant facades, women’s attitudes toward men are just as rapacious and primitive as the most notorious emblems of hardcase masculinity around. We’ve just been politer about expressing it…Some have tried to argue, on this basis, that women are possessed of better moral character, but I strongly doubt it…No, the predacious drives and motives are just more submerged…Sometimes your own agenda can come as a nasty surprise.
Revolutionist or cannibal? I say far better to devour your opponents in a gluttonous frenzy than be fated to earnestness and rebuke-issuing, and the deadly security of what you already know…Chew slowly and savor any alarming new thoughts.”
January 27th, 2015 at 4:01 am
And as an example of me trying to contribute where I think a theory has failed to consider the data rather than anecdote: regarding empathy and injured or ill men, all data I’ve seen shows the opposite effect, with men being much less likely to support an ill spouse than the other way around. See: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33832513/ns/health-cancer/t/men-more-likely-leave-spouse-who-has-cancer/#.VMdHJdLF-ik
Men are six times more likely to abandon a spouse with a cancer diagnosis than the other way around. Divorce likelihood after a cancer diagnosis goes way DOWN when it’s the man with cancer, and increases sharply when it’s the woman with cancer. So, consider how this fits with the theory advanced here about women’s limited empathy?
January 27th, 2015 at 8:26 am
I know this is going to get lost, but this section:
Shaming features in a majority of feminine social conventions used against men because women are conditioned to fear social ostracization as part of their same-sex peer socialization. Little girls punish each other by ‘not-being-friends-with’ another girl in their peer clutch. Using shame is a skill women learn early in life to effect the ends of their developing solipsism.
isn’t quite right. Little girls are no more socialized to fear social ostracization than boys are socialized to punch each other to work out problems on the playground. The fear of being “left out” is very much an innate feature of the female mind. Even the most Type-A, aggressive, masculine, counter-culture women I know still experience some pain from being ejected from the group.
To that point, I would suggest that it doesn’t so much serve solipsism as help it develop. Girls learn very early the pain that comes with being expelled from the group, and thus, learn to adjust their own beliefs to better conform to the herd’s (whatever it is they perceive the majority opinion to be). The further separate those beliefs are from observable reality, the more difficult it is to align one’s thought processes with it. Somehow, though, we always manage to do this without going insane.
Men tend to align themselves with what they believe, and throw themselves into it whole-heartedly. Women, on the other hand, align themselves with what others believe and discard the parts of themselves that don’t fit.
January 27th, 2015 at 8:57 am
@eon
Your comment on the fembot 9/10 wife vs. the supportive pretty wife is so amazing. My husband and I talked about this a lot… roosh is right when he says that the manosphere is going the direction of men who are bitter because of their choices being bad. If you choose a woman based only on her looks (and only value 9’s 10’s), you MAY end up with a woman who doesn’t love supporting you in your life goals (she may not even care about your life goals because of her self-absorption), doesn’t love having passionate frequent sex with you, or care about pleasing you in general, and having your children.
The woman who is supportive and does all these things to take care of her man is invaluable to him, and as eon said, it makes his peers/bosses look at him (maybe, not all), differently – better because of it. Its happened with us, I go to a wives group JUST so that I can support my husband in his line of work and also figure out how to help support him trying to promote and reach his aspirations.
Some women create a beautiful marriage, and some are all about themselves. You MAY have more of the latter when you are dealing with 9’s 10’s.. but definitely not always. Inner beauty really does matter.
January 27th, 2015 at 9:59 am
@Krypto kate
re: “contradictory facts”. You didn’t respond to my points, for example a woman not increasing a negative effect on status is not the same as a positive effect, or that in every single one of your proffered examples of power couples (Bill and Melinda Gates, e.g.) the woman do not increase his status.
January 27th, 2015 at 10:01 am
@Kryptokate, re: Kipnis
She makes the point that she perceives rapacious men as being the most masculine. But in her Freudian envy she pretends that “women rape too!” instead of women getting raped.
January 27th, 2015 at 10:02 am
@cupkate
“One study showed that in 93 percent of cases of MSbP (Münchausen syndrome by proxy) the abuser is the mother or another female guardian or caregiver. The female preponderance of the perpetrator may be attributed to socialization patterns that encourage females to seek the sympathy and assistance of others, and to the prevalence of women as the primary care giver within such patterns.”
January 27th, 2015 at 10:04 am
@Kryptokate re: cancer study
The funniest part about the women divorcing with cancer is that the women filed more. Chamberlain et al. left off that rather pertinent detail, but there were discussions about it. According to the ex-spurts, the reason that the women filed for divorce more is that the women didn’t like how their men were caretaking.
January 27th, 2015 at 10:10 am
Re: Cynthia
The belief about shame / relational aggression used by girls / women, but not by boys / men (or more than boys / men) is not supported by reality.
Boys use relational aggression (shame, exclusion, gossip, false rumors, ridicule) more than girls:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/AB.21563/abstract
http://www.macleans.ca/society/qa-are-boys-even-more-mean-than-mean-girls/
Pop presentation:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolynkylstra/more-like-mean-boys
January 27th, 2015 at 10:49 am
This blog rules. Just a suggestion. I’m sure you are doing it this way on purpose, but I would like to be able to see replies to *my* comments. It seems like registering by email does not really do this since all comments are independent. Follow me? You don’t allow comment “threads.” Actually, it does not appear I am even getting notice of *new* comments. I made some comments using my real email address and I would like to be able to see if you reply with advice. Like you replied to one of my comments with a link to a prior post that was good, but I only know that because I checked back in. I can’t keep up with where my comments are consistently because I follow your links and jump around throughout this treasure trove of knowledge.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:43 am
jf12 beat me to it.`
January 27th, 2015 at 11:45 am
“more than girls”
That sounds ridiculous to me.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:48 am
dude, LOL
” the students were asked how often they had done the following things during the previous 30 days”
Unsurprisingly, girls said they were more often the victim than they were the aggressors, and boys said they were more the aggressors than they were the victims.
Are you kidding me.
Put hidden cameras and record conversations. This self reported business with a hidden agenda is too cliche by now.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:49 am
“They found that boys admitted to significantly more acts of relational aggression than girls did.”
Newsflash: study concludes girls dont admit to relational aggression
January 27th, 2015 at 11:55 am
@anon, I actually had the comments set like that in the beginning, but it got really confusing and cramped sorting out return comments.
I only dislike Disqus because it’s one more app I’d have to deal with. It’s a good comment system, but I like everything in one place.
I’ll consider it.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:05 pm
re: the narrative of “man bad” regarding women with cancer
In every large study of the effect on couples of cancer, e.g.
Syse, A., & Kravdal, Ø. 2007. Does cancer affect the divorce rate? Demographic Research, 16(15), 469-492.
http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol16/15/16-15.pdf
the effect of cancer on divorce is minimal. Almost always, the divorce rate *drops* slightly after diagnosis. And in the cases where it does rise, it is almost always the women filing more. Keep in mind it was Elizabeth Edwards who filed.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:11 pm
today’s Dear Abby:
“DEAR ABBY: I am considered to be a quite attractive — easily a nine or a 10 — professional dancer here in Las Vegas. I recently met a guy who has literally met almost all my dream qualities for a life partner, husband and father of my future children. The problem is, I’m not attracted to him …”
Abby replies: “… Whether lack of sexual chemistry is a deal-breaker for you depends upon how important sex is to you …”
http://news.yahoo.com/woman-isnt-really-attracted-man-her-dreams-050114253.html
notice there is no consideration for the feelings of BB, he is disposable
January 27th, 2015 at 12:25 pm
The comment format seem to be a pretty good compromise the way that it is now.
I would prefer a single page, because that would make it easier to save an article with all of its comments. But I think that someone mentioned that this slows down loading on some mobile devices.
Slowing things down is why I don’t like Disqus. Disqus requires scripting to be enabled, and when using certain devices on some sites, by the time all of the extraneous ads, videos and other crap gets loaded, I have become bored and moved on.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:40 pm
re: the narrative of “man bad” regarding women with cancer
Laurel Northouse has made a long career of studying the relationships of women who get cancer.
http://nursing.umich.edu/faculty-staff/laurel-northouse
“Northouse found that only 3 to 4 per cent of marriages ended in divorce within the first 12 months and that, in some cases, it was the wife who decided she no longer wanted to invest emotionally in a man she did not love. “To outsiders it might look as if the husband is leaving her,” Northouse says.”