Category Archives: Idealizations

A Teachable Moment

Teachable

While I’d had another post on deck for today I simply couldn’t let Divided Line’s most recent comment go unanswered. I was going to riff on his comment in that thread, but it occurred to me that his concerns would be educational for many new readers and what I tell him here might give even my regulars something new to think about.

This is the part I can’t get. I can look back and see how my beta behaviors made it impossible for my ex to respect and love me. I see those behaviors for what they are, but what I can’t do is internalize a competing value system, or a competing idealism, one which would allow me to judge myself in the way you’re judging yourself here. I still get stuck on “but she *should* have loved me for those behaviors,” even if I understand on an intellectual level why she didn’t. Even if I game myself into believing I feel differently about it, I know that on some level, I’m still going to be hoping that every girl I get involved with will prove to be capable of fulfilling that blue pill idealism. I fully expect to just fall back into oneitis and needy supplicating behaviors whenever I meet somebody. they just creep up on you without you even realizing it.

When I go into the intricacies of men’s innate sense of idealism this is what I mean. In a Blue Pill context there will always be an expectation of some possibility of an ideal state with a woman. The problem here isn’t men’s idealism, but rather the conditioning of it to expect an idealized Blue Pill outcome.

From a strictly deductive standpoint DL’s ex should have loved him for the idealized, pro-social, pro-family, pro-parental investment, pro-providership and pro-egalitarian that were some of the most integral parts of his life’s Blue Pill conditioning.

The reality is that he’d been convinced of a Blue Pill social order founded on an Old Set of Books.

Let’s get real about it. It’s not like women have good reason to behave the way they do. Whatever evo-psych explanation we can come with, it doesn’t provide them with an excuse. They’re not stewards of the gene pool, there is no greater good that is served by hypergamy. In a modern context it’s a liability, not an asset. At the limbic level they’re screening for traits that would have been advantageous 20,000 years ago, not in a modern industrial or post industrial society. Should I try to convince myself otherwise and judge myself according to my evolutionary fitness or something? It seems absurd.

When I wrote Our Sisters’ Keeper I delved into the question of whether it could be expected of women to take responsibility for their own decisions, moral or otherwise. It generally comes down to a question of the seeming determinism that Hypergamy represents, and the deductive male-logic that, idealistically, expects women to take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

In this respect Hypergamy doesn’t provide women with an excuse for the consequences, but the question of personal responsibility still doesn’t change the the underlying motivators, incentives and influences that Hypergamy exerts over women. The devil biology made me do it is the same alibi for Hypergamy as it is for men’s Selfish Gene.

While the software may change with the environment, our firmware and our hardware are still very much based in the evolution that benefitted our prehistoric predecessors. What measure you personally choose to judge yourself by is up to you, but again, the hardware and the firmware doesn’t change.

Under our modern social environment women have an unprecedented, virtually unilateral, stewardship of the gene pool. So much so in fact that women’s sexual selection strategy, Hypergamy and feminine social primacy are enforced by law and ensaturated into our social fabric. Whether this is for ‘the greater good’ or not all depends on who’s agenda defines what ‘good’ is.

For a very long time men had at least some measure of being able to direct the course that the gene pool was going. Men’s influence today is only as potent as women’s legislated sexual selection will allow them.

Women aren’t dogs, they’re human beings. They’re perfectly capable of self awareness and of awareness of others. In theory they’re perfectly capable of higher order idealism – anybody who can think at an abstract level should be. Women are unaware of themselves because the bar is so low for them, because they are profoundly privileged and everything is handed to them on a silver platter, not because they’re incapable of treating men in a way that would have made the blue pill equality ideal possible.

It really just boils down to a profound form of inferiority, their unwillingness to empathize or give a shit. They don’t care because they don’t have to. It’s a fundamental hollowness at the core of their character.

You’re presuming an egalitarian inspired similarity between men and women, and once again I’ll refer you to what I proposed above; you’re expecting software to override firmware and hardware. There are simply evidential and provable physical and cognitive differences between men and women.

I believe you’re correct – women are perfectly capable of self awareness and of awareness of others. In theory they’re perfectly capable of higher order idealism – however, this is not women’s firmware directive. It is not their initial mental point of origin.

True, women can learn to be empathetic, learn to be idealistic, and yes, learn to sublimate their innate solipsism, but their capacity to learn to override their firmware doesn’t erase the root conditions they must learn and practice to override.

And yes, we’ve reached a (western) social order that prioritizes and privileges women by setting the bar very low for them, thus making this ‘learning’, or even the desire to learn, to override their neural firmware not just a challenge, but entirely unexpected of them.

The capacity fro women to realize that Blue Pill ideal is there, but what this does is pit women’s innate dispositions against what men think would be an ideal state for both sexes, and then holds women personally responsible for not ‘learning’ to override their firmware.

Dalrock has a series of posts about feminism that blames men for the failures of feminism. Feminism would work if not for uncooperative men; the same is true for Blue Pill men – Blue Pill idealism would work if not for uncooperative women. Both blame the failures of their goal-states on the other sex’s personal / social character flaws without consideration of the hindbrain, firmware that always rebels against those states.

How do you just accept that and blame yourself for being beta? I’m not saying you shouldn’t, I’m saying I want to be able to do the same thing. I just can’t access that mindset.

What was so terrible about the blue pill equalism really? We all regard it with contempt, but we’re just being pragmatic, since it’s unworkable, a cruel lie we were all fed from birth. I get all that. But in and of itself, what was so terrible about it? Had it been possible – which it is not – would the idea been worthy of such contempt? I can’t convince myself of that.

Again, men’s idealistic root note wants some kind of cooperative Blue Pill harmony to exist in a mutually shared, mutually negotiated and mutually agreed upon state between men and women. Yes, Blue Pill equalism seems very pragmatic, that’s what makes subscribing to it so seductive, and potentially so damaging for idealistic men. The Feminine Imperative figured that out a hundred thousand years ago – men are the True Romantics, and that’s been their thumbscrew for millennia.

All I did was treat my ex the way I wanted to be treated. In fact, that’s all I did in any of my relationships. And not even because I was trying to be Ghandi or live according to some conscious code, but simply because that is what came naturally. That’s what made the relationship appealing and worth investing in in the first place. Feeling that way about her cultivated a selfless aspect of myself, one that I actually *like.* I miss feeling that way. I loved her because she inspired me to treat her the way I did, or to want to treat her that way. I can look back on it and see it as beta, and if I regard women like robots running an evo-psych script, I can see that it would have been impossible for her to love and respect me, I guess. So is that what it boils down to? Thinking about women as if they are children or dumb dogs and accepting it?

There is great power in the Golden Rule. I don’t mean that from the sentimentalist, “do unto others” perspective, but rather how available you make yourself to exploitation and manipulation when adopting that mindset. There is no position more vulnerable than an expectation of equal treatment from another for like treatment from yourself. It presumes a mutually shared acknowledgement of how that other would perceive treating you as they would themselves.

The fundamental differences between men and women (idealistic vs. opportunistic love concepts) virtually ensure that a conflict will occur when you pair this expectation of equal treatment and equal appreciation with the cardinal rule of sexual strategies:

The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

Men’s predilection for idealism make them the logical candidates for this compromise or abandonment of their own imperatives, however, in doing so they fall prey to self-sacrifice in the hopes of mutual appreciation, earning relational equity and all while idealistically affirming for themselves their own righteousness of that sacrifice. The more you suffer the more it shows you really care, right?

The problem then becomes one of women fundamentally lacking the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate her own reality.

And thus we come back to the software vs. firmware conflict again.

This is what I mean when I say that women are “awful.” I don’t even have words for it. I don’t understand how I’m supposed to get past the contempt or sense of being wronged. You can tell yourself “stop being beta, bro. Don’t wish it was easier, wish you were better, etc.,” or anything you like, it doesn’t change the reality or the fact that I recognize the reality. It’s like trying to convince yourself that 2+2=5.

My idealism was co-opted to serve the FI, but what is competing idealism? Stoicism and being a badass who can take it? Beating myself up for being beta and striving for what? It’s like I’m supposed to improve myself, but I can’t see anything that I would actually regard as an improvement, just traits that would appeal to women’s hunter gatherer libido.

The first step is giving up hope on the Blue Pill ideals you’ve been conditioned to believe are desirable, much less achievable. You need to accept that Blue Pill idealism will never be achieved in a Red Pill paradigm.

The next step is to accept that you can create new hope and a new ideal founded on Red Pill awareness rather than succumbing to a nihilistic despair that’s based on the hope for Blue Pill falsehoods.

Men’s idealistic nature can either be his greatest vulnerability or the source of his greatest strength and drive. It’s the context and conditioning of that idealism that makes it a danger or a boon. Stoicism is a practical measuring of that idealism based on self-knowledge and a truthful understanding of the state in which a man lives (Red Pill awareness).

Why are we so much more idealistic and imaginative in our youth? Because we have very little life experience with which to measure that idealism against. This is exactly why the Feminine Imperative must condition men from an early age – to direct that idealism to its own Blue Pill ends before a man learns enough about his reality to reject the imperatives’ ends in favor of his own.

And that is why undiluted, uncompromised Red Pill awareness being widely available is a threat to the Feminine Imperative.


Women ‘Improving’ Men

Improving_men

“I’d honestly love if the manosphere would actually focus on helping men in relationships and self-improvement.”

I had this comment offered in a recent thread. It’s a common gripe from women who believe they’re in some way Red Pill and want to divert their new acceptance of Red Pill truths to serve the same tired ends of the Feminine Imperative. The operative, of course, is always whose definition do we base the measure of ‘improvement’ on? For most women the term ‘improvement’ always aligns with whatever best serves a female sexual strategy – because from a feminine-solipsistic perspective whatever serve women should necessarily serve men.

As with most uneducated women’s concerns I’d already addressed this long ago in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

A lot gets made of the Dark Triad or the Dark Side of Game where a skillful player can sadistically use his newly learned red-pill super powers for evil instead of for the greater good of mankind. Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaing the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;

“Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, Hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”

It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered). Even in the admission of the truth that Game has enlightened Men of, the feminine imperative still seeks to categorize the application of Game to its own end. That Men might have some means of access to their own sexual strategy is too terrible a Threat; Game must be colored good or bad as it concerns the imperatives of women and a fem-centric societal norm.

As the default, socially correct and virtuous concern, women have an easier time of this. As Game becomes increasingly more difficult to deny or misdirect for the feminine, the natural next step in accepting it becomes qualifying its acceptable uses. While hypergamy is an ugly truth, the characterization of it becomes “just how women are” –an unfortunate legacy of their evolution. However for Men, the characterizations of the harsher aspects of Game in its rawest form  (contingencies for hypergamy) are dubbed “the dark arts”.

In her trolling ignorance she fails to understand that she and many “Red Pill Women” before her all want a better Beta. They want a Beta with a side of Alpha – in essence a better slave; one that’s just ignorant enough of female nature and the consequences that ignorance represents, but one who also Just Gets It and satisfies their need for amused mastery, masculine dominance (when it’s convenient and affirming), and ‘just gets women’ so well he never needs to be made aware of women’s nature.

The difference in this case is that the ostensibly “Red Pill” woman now looks to the manosphere’s best and brightest to provide them with such men via some distortion of Red Pill social proof. Not only that, but, in their entitled hubris, they are all too willing to pander to exactly the male idealistic nature I described in the last post. Their appeal is to Red Pill aware men’s sense of duty, honor or integrity in mentoring other Blue Pill Beta men (the ones they hope to improve) in an acceptable Purple Pill fashion – just enough ‘self-improvement’ to serve women’s sexual strategies, but just enough watered down ignorance of women’s feral nature to serve as what they believe would be their ‘right guy’.

You’re just not a “Man” if you don’t promote a feminine reviewed and approved version of the Red Pill to other men.

Many of the wives and women that participate in formerly Red Pill married forums follow this invasion into that previously male space and then turn it to similar ends.

The worst part of this bastardization of course is that they only need to encourage the parts of Red Pill awareness that serves their ends. They feel entitled to Red Pill men educating the plugged-in in how to become the ‘improved’ men they believe they deserve. Thus it’s an easy bandwagon to get aboard so long as their redefinition of what actually is Red Pill jives with what they feel is their due in men.

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

The ideal situation for Red Pill women here is to have a group of respected Red Pill men educate the next generation of plugged-in men to provide the attractive aspects of this awareness while stifling the uncomfortable threatening aspects that might require women to actually prove their own worthiness of those men.

Sexy Psychopaths

My good friend Dagonet had a bit of a misguided hope in this tweet today:

Once again, male idealism gets the better of one of our own. I wish it were in fact the case that women’s innate, evolved Hypergamy could be overridden so they would find men’s higher-order virtues and ideals to be arousing and attractive. This, however, is not the reality we are dealing with.

Reader Gregg brought up an interesting, and as you’ll read timely, comment about why Dag is in error:

Men think that women want “confident, strong” men. Why do we think that way? Because women told us so, or we have read it in some “wise” 500 pages psychology book. Our old provider needs to believe this, so that he has some “noble” manly goal he can pursue. Of course it is very beneficial for women to have STRONG, CONFIDENT slave that protect her. Put aside our male ego, our goals and aspirationas when we want to understand women. They know that our male ego will side with them, will help them in their game. Unhampered by ego, woman can easily enslave man like that.

Male ego tells us – we have to be strong and confident..cos it is “manly”, it’s “respectable” and women SHOULD respect that! So it is a given that they respect that! While in reality…nothing is further from the truth. She wants strong and confident men as her protecting slaves but she tingles and craves for emotionally unstable man. Like attracts the like. Is Tyler Durden a strong, confident man? He is unstable, knows weak spot of women, he can live in a moment, is more unpredictable than woman. He is emotionally intelligent, more so than typical women. He behaves more like a woman than like a man. Therefore he HAS POWER over them! Is Mystery a strong, confident man? Anyone who’s read “the Game” knows how he was driven mad by one, single chick.

What are the traits of men, women are madly enslaved to? Is it confidence, is it strenght? NOPE. It is unpredictability, unstability, emotional COLDNESS, psychopathy! In this case he is more unstable than her, so SHE is trying to fix the relationship, she is trying to give them some rules, some stability, some “security”. She must do all the work, otherwise there is nothing. She fills the void. He who cares less…..

We still do not want to confess hard, dark truth about women and about ourselves. We still talk about this burden of performance, confidence, strenght, emh..POSITIVE masculinity. We still discuss with women, try to persuade them with logic, try to impress them with our “performance”, knowledge, experience. So can our man with innate need to perform rule/care less about, the realtionship? How? He is enslaved by his very need to perform which performance will be judged by women!

Ultimate lotharios are neither strong, nor confident. They behave more like women than like men. They do not feel the need to perform, to protect, to build, to be confident, to answer, to be responsible. Take Charlie Sheen as an example. This man is emotionally damaged, unstable, irresponsible, weak. Majority of women are much more stable than him. Yet he has fucked more then 5000 of them. You think it is due to his fame? I am sure each of us know weak men, psychopatic men with no fame, yet with harems of women.

It is still the same…discussion of slaves how to be worthy of women. Maybe mentality, maybe genetics, do not know which one more. And new generations of lambs arises…primed for slaughter as the last. We are loosing my friends, big time.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but I’ll drop a two of the responding comments before I do. YaReally provides some counterbalance here:

YaReally:

And here we come to two different results because Gregg isn’t entirely inaccurate that a lot of fucked up damaged dudes are catnip for girls (and not just damaged fucked up girls, hi madonna/whore complex). Whenever we get two different results we have to drill deeper to find the commonality.

It comes down to the guy having an emotional impact on the girl. It doesn’t matter whether you make her feel good or bad emotions (ideally you make her feel both at various times), all that matters is that you have emotional impact on her. The damaged basketcase hot & cold guy who treats her like a princess one minute then tells her to fuck off because his life is falling apart the next is giving her a full range of emotions. So is the super confident guy with his shit together who’s running push/pull on her.

The biggest thing no one will talk about because it sets guys on a bad path is how fucked up and falling apart your life can really BE and you can still attract and keep hot poon around. Ideally we want men to go the TRP route where they build their careers and hit the gym and don’t booze it up etc. But the reality is you can be a fucking MESS and still get hot girls, as long as you have emotional impact on them. It’s why chicks will whore themselves out for ugly pimps and go back to abusive relationships, and on the flip side it’s why they’ll leave dependable boring guys who give them an emotional flatline day to day.

Personally I think that in the old days a chick had a baby at an early enough age to fulfill her need for crazy emotional impact drama to keep her happy and not craving it, but these days since they don’t want kids till they’re 30+ they fill that voice with the cock carousel, cats, Eat Pray Love adventures, hundreds of hours of Netflix (shows/movies full of emotional ups and downs), fucking guys like me, etc.

And finally I’m going to paraphrase SJF’s comment here for another perspective:

What makes you think “lothario” is the kind of man some of us want to be? (although I’m not sure if you are advocating being one or not.) A lothario is an unscrupulous seducer of woman. Unscrupulous means having or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair.

Just because a man has an innate desire (not need) to perform, doesn’t mean he is enslaved. The Rational Male certainly confesses/explicates/describes truths about women and ourselves. Some of us aren’t shackled by knowledge of the burden of performance and having confidence, strength and positive masculinity. Some of us have found that not to be a burden. To be a low hurdle to real power. With low downside and potentially huge upside.

As an aside here I would also point out that Gregg’s focus on men’s Burden of Performance is entirely on serving women’s interests rather than a natural order of male idealism. This is a common mindset among Blue Pill, plugged-in men, they can’t imagine an existence where their finding of an idealistically male purpose or passion in life is set in a context that doesn’t relate to how women perceive it. It’s a logical trap that most MGTOWs find themselves in – they want a world where their performance burden is removed with regard to women, but still refuse to accept that this burden exists independent from women’s perceptions.

In other words they can’t exit the Game, the fundamental rules persist; whether they choose to play or not the Game proceeds in spite of their involvement.

That being what it is, I’ve set these two concepts together here for a reason. First we have a set of Red Pill women seemingly desirous of Red Pill aware men that serve their imperatives within their acceptable frame of what “Red Pill” ought to be for them. Second we have a parallel between Gregg’s take and YaReally’s take on what women are honestly seeking in an ‘improved’ man – a more perfected slave; one who can embody the worst contradiction to positive masculinity (from Gregg’s perspective), and one who despite his performance burden is really only required to provide emotional polarity to generate tingles and genuine desire.

Toxic Masculinity

Liz’s comment from the last thread (emphasis mine):

Masculinity is not bad, it is good.

The poster responded that toxic masculinity refers to behaviors that cause distress (telling a son not to cry and so forth). I didn’t go further into the argument with her, we didn’t see eye to eye enough to really engage anyway […]

Juxtapose this with the feminine way of going things. He is told everyone has his or her own unique specialness and he just needs some encouragement.

Sometimes I think our idea of “bad” and “good” are skewed, and that’s just feminist poisoning.

Toxic masculinity is yet another narrative buzz word the Feminine Imperative has made endemic in the same way it repeats the “rape culture’ meme. By adding the term ‘culture’ to any article you find offensive you make that article an endemic phenomenon – Rape ‘culture’, Bro ‘culture’, a ‘Culture’ of Corruption, etc.

‘Toxic’ Masculinity is another such exercise. It presumes a universally agreed upon definition of what exactly is toxic – very similar again to the good and bad uses of Game in the Dark Art / Dark Triad associations I made at the beginning of this article. And in Liz’s exchange that definition is whatever male-specific behaviors women find “distressing”.

However as we see in Gregg’s example of ideal masculinity, those distressing attributes are in fact the most arousing attributes of men. I’ve used this example before, but the most pussy I’ve ever enjoyed, the most freely given and most genuinely sought after of myself by women was when I was virtually penniless. I didn’t need to signal parental investment and provisioning cues to get women’s sexual interest, I just need to fit the bill for what YaReally defines as the “fun guy” – or as Sheryl Sandberg agrees, “the bad boy, the crazy boy, the cool boy, and the commitment-phobic boy in order to prompt a woman’s genuinely inspired sexual best.

Women & Altruism:

Altruism plays a role in mate choice, particularly in women’s preferences and in long-term (LT) relationships. The current study analyzed how these preferences interacted with another important mate choice variable, physical attractiveness. Here, female participants were presented with photographs of men of varying levels of physical attractiveness, alongside descriptions of them behaving either altruistically or not in different scenarios. The results showed women preferred altruistic men, particularly in LT relationships and that this interacted with physical attractiveness such that being both attractive and altruistic made a man more desirable than just the sum of the two desirable parts. Also, being altruistic made low attractive men more desirable but only for LT relationships. Finally, men who were just altruistic were rated more desirable than men who were just attractive, especially for LT relationships. Overall, these findings are discussed in terms of the role of altruism in mate choice, particularly in LT relationships and directions of future research.

There’s subsection of Red Pill thought (Athol Kay in particular) that believes that Beta attributes align with the effects oxytocin has on men and women. I’m adding this here to provide a balance to that misguided idea:

It has been suggested that the degree of compassion—the feeling of warmth, understanding and kindness that motivates the desire to help others, is modulated by observers’ views regarding the target’s vulnerability and suffering. This study tested the hypothesis that as compassion developed to protect vulnerable kinships, hormones such as oxytocin, which have been suggested as playing a key role in ‘tend-and-befriend’ behaviors among women, will enhance compassion toward women but not toward men. Thirty subjects participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subject study. Following administration of oxytocin/placebo, participants listened to recordings of different female/male protagonists describing distressful emotional conflicts and were then asked to provide compassionate advice to the protagonist. The participants’ responses were coded according to various components of compassion by two clinical psychologists who were blind to the treatment. The results showed that in women and men participants oxytocin enhanced compassion toward women, but did not affect compassion toward men. These findings indicate that the oxytocinergic system differentially mediates compassion toward women and toward men, emphasizing an evolutionary perspective that views compassion as a caregiving behavior designed to help vulnerable individuals.

Those example might seem a bit abstract, but I’m putting them up here to make the point that women’s sexual selection filtering is a two-fold prospect rooted in the dual nature of women’s Hypergamy. What best serves Alpha Fucks is contradicted by Beta Bucks.

Thus we have notions like the attributes that make up “Toxic Masculinity” being arbitrarily whatever aspects of the male nature women find themselves most lacking in men. And by way of that we get a definition that fluctuates according to the Feminine Imperative’s needs. Because of this women, Red Pill or otherwise will never be honest arbiter of ‘improving’ men’s states of masculinity.


Storytelling

storyteller2

“If a story is not about the hearer he will not listen. And here I make a rule – a great and interesting story is about everyone or it will not last.”  – East of Eden

About 3 months ago there was a very interesting side conversation of the main article topic in the comments. The movie 300 came up and how it was or wasn’t a good illustration of conventional masculinity. I’ll just say that from a purely pulp fantasy perspective I loved the movie. And as a fantasy it was great, but both men and women like to romanticize various times and stories in history to suit their desires, as well as reinforce their beliefs.

I think many retromasculinty subscribers get caught up in what YaReally calls LARPing – live action roleplaying – with regards to how these fantasies become romanticized ideals that were neither true of that period, nor are they really relevant for contemporary times. With today’s communication and ubiquitous movie animation it’s all too simple for the less socially savvy to latch on to old books heroic ideals.

But as I said, I loved the movie and I can see how heroic movies in this theme appeal to men frustrated by modern societal circumstance. If that mythological fantasy inspires them to greater aspiration I would say they do serve some purpose – for personal visualization if nothing else.

Unfortunately anything that celebrates masculinity today just becomes a target of ridicule and homosexual shaming for heterosexual men. It’s ironic how a fem-centric society will embrace flagrant homosexuality as normative yet when a heterosexual man celebrates his maleness he’s shamefully suspected of being homosexual himself. This in effect is a way to contain conventional masculinity in something that the Feminine Imperative hopes will control it.

I have on 3 separate occasions at 3 separate evangelical churches seen the ‘going off to war’ scene from 300 used as a ridiculous marketing tool to inspire ‘christian’ men to go to a Christian Men’s weekend retreat. It’s the part where the 300 are ranked up in front of Leonidas and he’s surveying their fitness for battle. The language is in french and the english subtitles are swapped in for some suitably ridiculous dialog between the men and Leonidas and Leo’s wife (whom he refers to as “snuggle bear” or some shit).

This is a good example of the feminine-primary ridicule of masculinity that Churchianity co-opts into Christian Culture. They are all too ready, maybe even more ready, to pander to men’s LARPing instinct while simultaneously ridiculing anything that might hint at men celebrating their maleness – much less finding any realistic empowerment from it. And the real tragedy is that it’s these self-same christian men who are creating these parodies of themselves.

The Imperative Awakens

I’m going to paraphrase a bit here, but there’s an idiom that states if you can control the art and imagination of a culture you can subdue that culture. I may be butchering that, but the drift is that when you supplant an ‘organic’ idealism with the ideological seeds of what you believe ‘ought to be’ you begin by stirring the imagination at an early age.

When we’re in our early youth we’re like intellectual sponges from the age of 5 on into (and beyond) our teenage years. So it should come as no surprise that male idealism finds its most formative roots when we’re kids. Even when our imaginations aren’t fed by myths and stories boys will take up the role of creating them for themselves. The details of exactly what we create and romanticize are less important than how we came to identifying with it and how it influences our identities later in life.

I’m prefacing here with this to give you an understanding of just how easy it’s become for a feminine-primary social order to influence this nascent idealism in boys and later men. The human race is one based on stories. First it was oral histories and later those were recorded in written languages. Telling stories is how we used to learn, and really still do in a more detailed fashion with the rise of technology and global communications. When boys are playing out the roles of characters presented to them they are enacting the ideals of what’s represented in those stories.

SPOILER ALERT – If you haven’t seen Star Wars, The Force Awakens yet, you’ll want to skip this next part until you do.

I recently watched the latest installment of the Star Wars series, The Force Awakens, and as you might guess it’s virtually impossible for me to see any popular media without my Red Pill Lenses on. Going in I had no doubt that I’d be subjected to the messaging of the Feminine Imperative, but I loved the original series and even the much maligned prequels, so I knew I’d want to see this one.

I fondly remember seeing the original Star Wars in the theater when it released in 1977. I was 9 years old and I absorbed the fantasy and mythology of it as you might expect a boy would. Heroism, daring, fighting, and all the comic book bravado I was already steeped in was more than satisfying, but there was also the element of mythology and moralism that crept into the story arc in the sequels.

Of course I couldn’t appreciate it then, but that mythology was a carefully crafted aspect of the original stories. There’s a great book, and I think documentary, called The Power of Myth about the Star Wars series that I later found an appreciation for as I got older and made the connections with the classics I also loved in college.

So with this in the back of my head I went to see The Force Awakens, and with a Red Pill perspective I could appreciate the complete, feminized, bastardization of this original, well crafted mythology.

Granted the story arc carefully followed from the original Star Wars movie; Death Star, small weakness, heroic last minute attempt to destroy it, galaxy saved when the bigger Death Star explodes, the end. The basic plot is essentially the same and left me thinking that this was more of a rewrite than any real progression from the original trilogy.

Overall it felt very hurried. There was the presumption of familiarity with, and between, all of the new characters, but within the familiar formula-theme (you know the Titanic sinks and you know the Death Star explodes) the lack of character development is obviously something the writers will explore in future sequels.

It’s important to keep this copping of the old formula in mind, because what J.J. Abrams does in this effective retelling is important when you begin to see the bastardization and the influence of the Feminine Imperative in the story. For the past decade there’s been a popular push to assimilate old, formulaically successful films and story franchises and retell them from a feminine-primary perspective. Recently that was the Mad Max rehash that casts the main character as an ambiguously masculine woman. In 2016 the ‘all-female-but-don’t-call-it-all-female’ version of Ghost Busters is slated for release. Hell, even 300 got the ‘make it feminine primary’ treatment with its sequel.

It’s no secret that there’s been a dearth of original storytelling in Hollywood for the better part of the 21st century. Thus, the want to return to the old magic that got the last 3 generations inspired. 80’s cartoons, now classic sci-fi and fantasy franchises, and golden era comics serves as a deep well of movie-ready stories, but none are retold without the ubiquitous pervasiveness that the Feminine Imperative requires of its storytellers today.

Killing Heroes in Male Space

I was not shocked in the slightest that the first heroic casualty of the film would be Han Solo; and slain by his neurotic, identity conflicted son no less. It was apropos for a retelling of the classic formula that would see all semblances of conventional masculinity erased from what is intended to be a new classic. Han Solo represented the last of a kind, the brash, self-assured, cocky scoundrel that women cannot resist – the “I love you.” “I know.” brand of rake.

In an earlier iteration Captain Kirk from the original Star Trek series held the same old books bravado, and minus the outlaw, anti-hero aspect of Solo, Kirk was essentially the same character (if not with a bit more responsibility). If I had the stomach to do so, it would be an interesting social experiment to do a cross-generational comparative analysis of the characters from the original Star Trek series cast with the Next Generation cast of the early 90s. Even if you only have a cursory understanding of both series, you can see the generational capstones evident in the main characters of each generation, separated by less than 30 odd years.

It might seem a bit foolish to use flights of fancy as archetypes that define the character of a generation, but remember this is science fiction, and that genre describes a want for how that generation sees the future unfolding – even when it is just fantasy. Were it not de rigueur for the franchise I might expect J.J. Abrams to delete the iconic “A long time ago”, part of a galaxy far, far away.

What Star Wars and other long established story franchises represent to the prophets of the Feminine Imperative is twofold. First and foremost they represent familiar vehicles into which the ideological messaging of the imperative can be palatably digested. Second, they represent opportunities of the retribution and restitution for perceived wrongs that feminism has always sought after.

Paint it Pink

As I mentioned earlier, these classic feminine-interpreted remakes are glaring examples of the lack of any truly creative storytelling for some time. I had to laugh a bit when I’d seen that The Mighty Thor (classic conventional masculine archetype) had been “bravely” replaced by a female Thor in the comics recently. The story formula remains the same, but the gender is swapped. Not for nothing, but if Marvel were truly ‘brave’ about a gender swap they’d make Red Sonja a ginger male barbarian who goes around wantonly killing women to prove he’s as good as any woman in combat.

However, the gender swaps, the killing of long established, storied masculine characters, and the appropriation of classic, heroic masculine story formulae (even all-male comedies) all represent the jealous need to retell and rehash in a way that denies and discredits Male Space. The attempts (like Star Wars) are feeble retellings of exactly the same stories with women characters and women’s interests inserted into what formerly accounted for male space storytelling.

Blue Pill readers may read this last assertion and think, well, that’s kind of a stretch, but what you should ask yourselves is why those well established franchises are such attractive, more attractive, endeavors than making the efforts to create a new story to tell that conveys the same, feminine primary, social narrative? Why remake Mad Max as a woman? Why give Thor a sex change rather than create a new character in a new franchise that embodies the same ideals the imperative hopes will ride on the old ones?

Because that ideology, by and of itself, is neither believable nor admirable to men. Those bastardized, contrived notions of feminine empowerment are only legitimized in a world, fantasy or otherwise, that was created by men. So we get a girl Jedi (my guess is Disney will eventually make Rey a princess) who is all things to everything. And we get a bumbling, reluctant male “hero” who’s stumbles along needing her aid at every obstacle. Compare the character of Finn with that of Han Solo and you begin to understand why Solo needs to die when the Star Wars franchise playground passes into the hands of a director who’s been steeped in feminine-primacy for a lifetime.

Now, all of this might seem like an effort in pointing out the obvious for most Red Pill aware men. After all, it was this time last year that I wrote the Red Pill Lens, and even if I hadn’t most Red Pill men are painfully aware of how saturated in the imperative that popular media/culture truly is. Bear in mind, the Disney marketing juggernaut had the entire world aware of all the new characters’ names, the basic plot and a million different co-branding effort in every imaginable, and unrelated, variety since the beginning of June this year.

But all this comes back to the stories we tell ourselves. What flights of fancy we romanticizes and idealize (idolize?) in our youth, as well as the ones we reminisce over later in life. It’s one thing to point out how boys are taught to gender loathe in school or how our teachers instill us with their own ideological bents, but that learning goes far beyond the formal institutionalized kind. Flights of fancy, imaginative storytelling, the games we play as children and adults are indulgences we want to play a part in willingly. We like that kind of teaching, we look forward to it; but even so, feminine-primacy is ready to co-opt that desire for it’s own ends.

And that is how you subdue a culture.


Open Relationships

Functional_cuckoldry

During the last post’s comment thread I sort of went back in time to when I’d first heard the term ‘open relationship’. It was back in the mid 80s and I’d heard it being proposed to me by my first girlfriend when I was around 19 and she’d grown bored of my predictable Beta perfection. Needless to say this moment preceded my semi-pro rock star 20s and the natural Alpha-ness I matured into. So at the time I was thoroughly steeped in the dutiful Beta conditioning of believing that ‘going steady’ monogamy and only banging the ONE girl was the right thing to do.

I also believed that women’s motives were reliably based on what they said rather than what their behaviors implied (and their contradicting behaviors were the result of being confused by nebulous ‘society’s’ unfair expectations of women). So it was with a great deal of confusion that I was forced to wrap my head around exactly why my ‘girlfriend’ would want to retain me as an intimate orbiter while she pursued other guys to bang and become potential intimates with.

She suggested an “open relationship” – all the same non-sexual intimate expectations with no expectation of reciprocal sexual fidelity –  an idea she’d no doubt been familiarized with from her former hippie ‘free love‘ parents. And not unlike the simpering Beta in today’s cartoon, I too was uncomfortable with sharing my 18 year old girlfriend with any other guy. Looking back it was quite the conflict to my 19 year old, Beta conditioned mind. On one hand I was taught to respect the independence of a woman and didn’t want to be the guy to tell her what she could or couldn’t do, but I also bought into the Disneyesque sacrifice all for true love narrative.

I suppose now I owe her some gratitude since my rejecting this “I want to play the field” episode was instrumental in setting me on a course for my Alpha 20s and the “don’t give a fuck” attitude that unintentionally served me so well with women then.

Today there are cutesy synonyms like ‘poly’ to describe a woman who believes it’s in her multiple lovers’, as well as her own, mutual interests that they obligate themselves to what really amounts to her attention, emotional and sexual needs independent of each guy who fulfills that role for her. The problem arises in the degree of investment those men believe that an above board ‘poly’ woman will be able to appreciate. I had this situation presented in last weeks’ comments:

Why does an open relationship favor women and not men? It’s only cuckoldry if you don’t approve of it. If you agree to an open relationship for both of you, then it seems like an equal footing.

The cuckoldry Devil is in the details; and in this case that Devil is in the perceived ‘agreement’ and who’s doing the agreeing. Contemporary Open Cuckoldry and the social conventions of ‘free love’ era faux-idealisms in ‘open relationships’ work in tandem today to promote the sexual selection strategy of women’s Hypergamy.

Cuckoldry, in its most visceral, Hypergamous sense, favors women because there is no margin for error on a man’s part. Bear in mind that an ‘open’ relationship only serves a woman’s sexual imperative because she benefits from comfort, rapport, security and likely provisioning of the primary man with whom she’s come to this agreement with. In all honesty I’ve rarely met a guy in an open relationship who wasn’t a Beta at the mercy of his wife or LTR’s proliferative phase, Alpha Fucks, Hypergamous impulses.

Most of them understand their optionless condition and resign themselves to the women they’ve committed to, wanting to, and acting on fucking more suitably, conventionally, masculine men than themselves. Arguably, most stay at home fathers fall into a sort of contextual form of an open relationship for much of the same reasons even if their wives are only getting a vicarious Alpha ‘fix’ by working among higher status men who haven’t abdicated on their burden of performance by adopting the feminine support role.

What About Those Assholes?

Now I am aware of the often domineering men who insist on fucking women outside of their commitment to a monogamous lover. I also understand that the reverse can and does apply. I’m also aware that when a man’s SMV exceeds a woman’s it places her into a similar position to that of the Beta men I’ve just described.

Bear in mind that the issue I’m on about here isn’t one of fault, but rather how an effectively polygamous relationship serves the interests of either genders’ sexual strategy.

It’s vitally important to consider how both of these ‘open relationship’ formats are popularly perceived in a cultural context. For a woman, being ‘poly’ may hold some stigma to it. She may be considered a de facto slut in some sense – remember she’s maintaining the pretense that she’s committed to one or more men, rather than a booty call where there is no pretense of exclusivity – but the social (not to mention legal assurance) efforts being made to ‘normalize’ what amounts to her cuckoldry of that ‘primary’ partner is reinforced because it seemingly serves as some kind of new-age feminine-primary family unit. And after all, he too is ostensibly free to exercise his sexual strategy in this arrangement. A win-win, right?

In the case where the ‘primary’ partner is the woman and the high SMV man leaves her no choice but to adopt his sexual strategy as the dominant one in the relationship, that ‘open relationship’ is considered dysfunctional and socially frowned upon. He’s a cad or a philanderer at best, and an abusive self-absorbed inconsiderate monster at worst. Reverse the sexes in today’s cartoon and imagine what the feminine-primary social response might be.

Force Fitting Sexual Strategies

What we’re observing in a modern interpretation of ‘poly’ or ‘open relationships’ is a conflict between the normalization of unilateral control of sexual strategy within a monogamous relationship context. I know that sounds like a mouthful but consider…

The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

No doubt many Blue and Purple Pill readers will (in the interests of “equality”) remind us that there was a time when it was socially expected of (high socio-economic status) men to “keep” a mistress (or use prostitutes) as well as a wife, or even have many wives. All socio-economic Apex Fallacies aside, this being an outlier rather than a norm, those arrangements still put that man into a position of maintaining support for both (all) women in order to satisfy his sexual appetites as well as the relative wellbeing of them.

In the modern instance where western(ized) women are a protected class in a feminine-primary social order, the priority of sexual strategy changes hands. I cover this exchange in the Adaptation series of posts, but to paraphrase, Free Love, open relationships or now, ‘poly’, has really become an increasingly acceptable methodology for women to optimize both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of Hypergamy while still enjoying a semblance of the security that old order monogamy provides for women’s emotional needs.

Now lets review The Cardinal Rule of Relationships:

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

In an economic state where women are less financially dependent on (or autonomous from) men, the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy will take priority. That’s not to say the Beta comfort and rapport appeal becomes worthless as an emotional investment, but it’s less likely for a woman to need to prioritize that aspect while pursuing the Alpha Fucks aspect. Beta comfort and security have a value, but that value requires less urgency than pursing Alpha sexual experience (functional breeding opportunities).

Consider the poor Beta symp in the cartoon. That caricature is of a Beta conditioned man struggling with the Old Set of Books, with the old order ruleset expectations from a woman who will never recognize them because she’s never needed to. It’s his investment in her, his necessitousness, his optionlessness and his inability to see it’s the source of his frustration and his anxiety. He needs her, expects more from her, than she needs him.

The lie inherent in the humor of the cartoon is that women possess the capacity to compartmentalize their emotional investments. The Medium is the Message; women can only compartmentalize their feelings for men they don’t see as Hypergamously optimal men (i.e. Alpha, higher than their own SMV men). For men who embody that optimization, women simply cannot afford to feel anything more than submission (a submission to a dominant man they innately desire) to him and are thus unable to consider anything like compartmentalizing their emotions for him.

And from Schedules of Mating:

For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she’s able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring’s survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.

‘Open’ relationships, and the social narrative reinforcement of the concept, are one such adaptation to facilitate this methodology.

All of this may seem a bit pervasive coming from the guy who advises men to spin plates and date non-exclusively for as long as it takes (if ever) to attain the depth of experience to become a relatively good judge of women’s innate nature, and then if he so chooses, decide how best to pair and parent with her.

The difference in this approach is characteristic of the differences in men and women’s sexual strategies. In Plate Theory, while there is an above board implication of non-exclusivity, there is never an implication that a woman is (or should be) more than a non-exclusive dating opportunity. There should never be any pretense of there being an established, invested relationship as we see in the ‘poly’ concept of women.

In fact this is the primary distinction in non-exclusivity; who’s Frame is the predominant one? In a woman’s ‘poly’ Frame there is a retainership implied in what she believes should be an accepted non-exclusivity.

Ask yourself this, why would a man persist in an ‘open’ relationship? What unique advantages does he get in this arrangement that he couldn’t by simply staying single, practicing Game and spinning plates? Then ask yourself what unique benefits does a woman receive from the same ‘polyamorous’ arrangement?

When you’re contemplating this, try to divorce yourself from the emotional investments and focus on cold hard evolved Hypergamy and how it would function for either sex in that arrangement. Keep in mind that as far as feminized society is concerned, and for all of the triumphalism of independent women, the onus of committed relationship responsibility still defines the worth of a man.

Beta “Manhood”

From MoodyPrism had an interesting observation about the social acceptance of cuckoldry:

I’ve seen men make the mistake of mentioning that they would never raise another man’s child on FaceBook. Shit storms ensued. The usual shaming tactics were trotted out such as manning up. Interestingly enough I’ve heard a woman (on one of those absolutely dreadful day time talk shows such as the View) say that a woman in a relationship with a man with his own kids was a fool for wasting her time on his kids instead of hers. The framework for open cuckoldry is already there, we just need to see the push that makes it completely socially acceptable.

Open Cuckoldry is already in its developmental stage in a social respect. When you consider the Sandbergian plan for Open Hypergamy, the logical implication of this is what’s described here – prioritizing the sexual selection and Hypergamous optimization of women on a societal level while maximally restricting (via social shaming and disapproval) the sexual strategies that would ever serve male interests,…so long as that male is anything less than an optimal Alpha.

Open Cuckoldry has many euphemisms now, but in the Red Pill aware perspective it’s just a matter of time until the social plan of prioritized Hypergamy and outright cuckoldry becomes a social norm.

TuffLuv also presented me with a related question in the last comment thread:

A little too black and white on this stuff Rollo. Sure cuckoldry, as you call it is becoming the norm.. the euphemism being “mixed family”. But I see the majority of instances not being a chick who had the child of some alpha bad boy, or even alpha good boy.. I just see fickle chicks who dumped the baby daddy cuz she either found something better or went looking for something better. The poor dad is just an every day average guy who got his heart broken by the bitch.

So, ponder if you will, if there is a difference between a man raising another man’s child(ren) where the bio father is less alpha (possibly by far) than the new suitor, and a beta man raising the child of one of the woman’s former studs.. I think in the real world you find the former far more than the latter, except in cases where the married or committed woman actually went out and cheated and got pregnant with another man’s child. Maybe that happens a lot but that is not *open* cuckoldry.. That’s classic cuckoldry, and perhaps the only thing that should be called cuckoldry.

I think there should be another designation for the former case. It’s still a bit shameful, but not nearly as much as the latter, eh?

Definitely something to consider, but this situation also implies a change in conditions or context with regard to the woman doing the cuckolding. The fundamentals don’t change – that woman may have bred with a less than optimal man, but the Hypergamous sexual selection impulse still drives her to seek out the Alpha fucks aspect of Hypergamy. She’s Making Up for Missing Out and still she has the provisioning and support she needs in order to pursue the opposite side of the Hypergamous equation she missed out on courtesy of the Beta father.


Attitude Sells

attitude_sells

There are many attitudinal and subtle behavior traits that manifest in men who are presented with options or enjoy even casual social proof. I’m not sure a lot of guys really realize just how sensitive women are to those ‘tells’. You will do things, say things, without thinking about them that indicate on a limbic level what you believe about yourself. Women have evolved to perceive the smallest cues and subtlest of hints – to the point it’s a subconscious subroutine running in their background processing of information about you when they’re not even cognitively aware of it.

They may not be able to consciously put a finger on it, but on some level of consciousness these tells are informing a woman’s limbic understanding of your SMV.

I’ve gone back and forth about covert communications vs. overt communications on this blog over the years. There is a certain school of Game that teaches a bold, direct action wherein a guy overtly inserts himself into that woman’s immediate experience and I can certainly see the merits of it.

Law 28
Enter into action with boldness

If you are unsure of a course of action, do not attempt it. Your doubts and hesitations will infect your execution. Timidity is dangerous: better to enter with boldness. Any mistakes you commit through audacity are easily corrected with more audacity. Everyone admires the bold; no one honors the timid.

There is a certain gravitas that accompanies an extroverted approach with women, the trick is not coming off as a ‘try hard’ and overplaying it, thereby overtly confirming your following a script. When you don’t believe it’s you it’s a pretty good bet she doesn’t either.

A lot of proponents of this in-your-face approach will tell you it’s the only way a “real” man should interact with women; boldly and confidently, and entirely on his terms. And while I agree with this, how you go about effecting that can vary depending on context and condition.

When a guy is initially establishing Frame and drawing the woman (women) of his choosing into his reality, that overt, direct approach can be the deciding factor for a woman’s acquiescing to his Frame. Caught up in the moment (such as an ‘insta-date’ or an encounter she wasn’t expecting) and charging her with an immediate rush of endorphins, a woman’s Hypergamous filtering process gets overridden by that excitement. This is the same principle operating behind planning dates with an excitement factor involved (rock climbing, sky diving, are both exaggerations, but you get the idea) – an emotional attachment paired with an endorphin rush associates that ‘feeling’ with you.

There’s a tendency I think for Red Pill aware men to view women’s Hypergamous / Solipsistic natures as hinderances to men effecting their own interests with them. Shit tests, filtering, sexual prospect comparison and a whole host of other conscious and subconscious vetting inherent to women seems like an insufferable waste of effort for men. However, while Hypergamy may define the rules of the game it’s important for men to understand how to work it to their advantage in both a direct approach and in understanding the subtle filtering that women do.

I’ve read more than a few ‘dating gurus’ define this “being direct with her” approach as the only legitimate form of Game. A Real Man® sees what he wants and goes out and boldly gets it. The problem is that this attitude gets tied to The Male Catch 22 and any derivation is compared with unmanliness.

As I said, while I agree there’s merit to this directness, it shouldn’t be done at the cost of understanding how women subconsciously vet and filter to better discern a man’s (perceptively) true sexual market value to her – as well as how she contrasts his SMV to her self-perceived SMV. There is nothing “unmanly” about having a curiosity for how the female mind works and then using that understanding to your advantage.

Maintaining Frame

It’s one thing to draw that woman into your reality and your psychological Frame, it’s another to maintain this Frame once she’s stepped into it.

I went into some of the subtle ‘tells’ about a man’s SMV in Alpha Tells and Beta Tells and the subcommunication messaging that transfers between men and women. In these posts I described the process beneath those tells and what’s being communicated in them. One thing I believe even Red Pill aware men subscribe to is the idea that their Frame can only be maintained by the same overt and bluntly direct means that helped them create it.

This is the root of men’s initial anxiety of having to upkeep their Red Pill “act”; “Red Pill is impossible to float all the time! What? Am I expected to Game my LTR forever?” The answer of course is internalizing Red Pill awareness into one’s personality, but one thing that also goes along with that is the manifesting of behaviors that help maintain your Frame.

Women pick up on behavioral cues, attitude, how things affect you, how you apply yourself to a task, how you deal with adversity and certainly the interplay you engage in with her while playing with her. If you’re thinking that women wanting men who Just Get It is all direct Game and all above board you need to reconsider that quite a bit of women’s filtering occurs when you’re not ‘on‘ and she’s casually picking up on your behavioral cues.

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be.

Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

Much of a woman’s vetting process takes place in her hindbrain. It’s very easy for most guys in western(ized) culture to presume that hot, but vapid, women are too oblivious to really pay much attention to this process. Lost in their hedonism and self-affirmations it’s easy to believe that those processes aren’t as influential in hook-ups as they might be in a long term arrangement, but trust that even though they might be under the surface they are being processed.

Mindset

It’s a Tomassi Maxim now, but bears repeating; Alpha is a mindset, not a demographic. I’ve explained what I mean by this on many occasions, but when it comes to what I consider the abstraction that is Alpha it can primarily be reduced to a particular mindset of masculine dominance and confidence.

I wont belabor this here again, but suffice to say that while I believe there is a natural component to it, I do think that to varying degrees this Alpha mindset, or something approaching it, is a learnable state for men. That said, I also think men need to use caution when when evaluating how to go about cultivating and internalizing this mindset.

It’s very easy to get caught up in the hope for a magic solution to your problems in life. There’s no shortage of motivational speakers and charismatic ‘self-help’ gurus ready to sell you a book, or a sermon, or some self-styled social movement promising to show you how to develop this “winners’ mindset”. It’s important to bear in mind that any mindset you learn is only as legitimate as the realities that inform it.

A lot of hate directed at PUAs, motivational speakers, pastors or even your parents can be traced back to their failings in understanding simple evidential realities. Their hopeful formulas for your success end up being frustrations and anxieties when they’ve proven to fail you because you invest yourself in part, or in whole, in them.

Much of what constitutes Blue Pill conditioning is founded in the same misgivings. It’s very easy to hype up and sensationalize Blue Pill idealisms in ‘optimism’ soaked rhetorics, but these hopes are easily dispelled with a Red Pill aware lens. That’s one reason the Red Pill can be bitter – it’s a real buzz kill when you’re high on Blue Pill optimism.

The primary reason I’ve always been reluctant to be prescriptive with Red Pill awareness in practice is because I’ve always believed that the Red Pill is never going to be one size fits all. While Red Pill truths are universal, their application is subjective to the man employing them. How he develops the mindset that best serves him is contextual to his own circumstance.

That said, I think a pragmatic approach based on Red Pill awareness and the fundaments that make it up would serve men best in developing a Red Pill mindset that works for him. You might think that in light of my recent Purple Pill post that I’m alluding to the ‘coaches’ and re-definers of the Red Pill in all this, but lots of “Red Pill” men are actually Purple Pill hoping that some of the old rules might still apply.

While I emphatically recognize the power of positive thought in altering one’s mindset and changing the course of one’s life, I also understand that zeal for change needs to be tempered with a healthy skepticism. If you find yourself being swept up in a tide of super-optimism that’s the time to question the foundations of it. Positive, motivational memes can become clichéd aphorisms when those foundations are proven to be false.


Complementarity

complementarity

At the Man In Demand conference I briefly got into the topic of egalitarian equalism and its relation to complementarity during my talk. On my flight home I was jotting down my thoughts about the seminar and one thing I now have plans to do for the next one* is base an entire talk and group discussion about the distinctions between equalism and complementarity as I understand them.

However, for now, consider this post a primer for that talk. I’ve done my best to explain the differences between equalism and complementarity in Equalism and Masculinity and Positive Masculinity vs. EqualismMy detailing the social dynamics and psychological influences men face in an equalist headspace has been a recurrent theme in many of my posts. On occasion I’ve made contrasting comparisons to Complementarity, but until the Red Pill Parenting series I hadn’t gone into the detail I’d like to.

Guy starts us off:

As many of you have already mentioned in the stories you’ve shared, it is usually the father who pushes their children towards a higher standard of success. This is critical for the child to develop into a successful adult that excels in society.

It is usually the mother who coos and coddles their children. This is also necessary, as it’s vitally important for children to feel loved and accepted by their parents. This shows the necessity of the roles of both mothers and fathers in the development of children. If a child faces only criticism, it may have lasting effects on their self esteem. If a child is never criticized, they may never grow up into an adult.

The negative effects of too much coddling are so widespread, that we actually have sayings that illustrate it.
“A ____ only a mother could love”

To understand the dynamic of complementarity first it’s important to consider the theology behind egalitarianism. I tend to use the term egalitarianism and equalism interchangeably, but I do so because I see them both as stems from the same tree of blank-slate humanism. In the first Red Pill Parent essay I made the following case against of a single parent, single gender upbringing of children:

Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the complementary relationship between a mother and father.

It’s the height of gender-supremacism to be so arrogantly self-convinced as to deliberately choose to birth a child and attempt to raise it into the contrived ideal of what that “parent” believes the other gender’s role oughtto be.

This should put the institutionalized social engineering agenda of the Feminine Imperative into stark contrast for anyone considering intentional single parenthood. Now consider that sperm banks and feminine-specific fertility institutions have been part of normalized society for over 60 years and you can see that Hypergamy has dictated the course of parenting for some time now. This is the definition of social engineering.

The idea that a single mother is as co-effective as a father stems from the blank-slate belief that gender is a social construct rather than the physical and psychological manifestation of humans’ evolved mental firmware. While the foundations of this blank-slate theory originated with John Locke in in the 17th century it would be the anima/animus theories of Carl Jung to cement egalitarian equalism into the popular conscious with regard to gender relations.

Tabula Rasa (blank-slate) refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. With the scientific and technical advancements of the 20th and 21st centuries we now have a better understanding of how the human brains of men and women operate from a far more advanced perspective than either Jung or Locke had knowledge of. To be fair, Jung’s presupposition was one that human’s possess innate potentials for both the masculine and feminine (thus the “get in touch with your feminine side” trope for men), but those potentials derive from a presumed-accepted egalitarian base.

Yet still, from a meta-social perspective, western(izing) culture still clings to the blank-slate theoretical models from Jung inspired by Locke and other tabula rasa thinkers of old.

Why is that? Why should it be that for all of our greater understanding of the biomechanics of the human body and it’s influences on behavior that the greater whole of society persists in the belief that men and women possess co-equal gender proficiencies based on an outdated, largely disproven Tabula Rasa model? I would argue that resisting the more obvious and practical model of evolved gender differences presents an uncomfortable proposition of biological determinism to people conditioned to believe gender is a nurture, not nature, proposition.

I’ve opined about Carl Jung’s contributions to our present state of feminine social primacy in the past.

One of the key elements Jung introduced into western culture’s popular consciousness is the theory of anima and animus; that each individual, irrespective of sex, possesses greater or lesser degrees of association and manifested behavior of masculine and feminine psychological affiliations. In 2012, when you hear a 6 year old girl tell a 6 year old boy “you need to get in touch with your feminine side” in order to get him to comply with her, you can begin to understand the scope to which this idea has been internalized into society’s collective consciousness. So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back its origins – it’s simply taken as fact that men and women possess varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s.

It’s important to consider Jung’s bi-gender individualities within the individual person in context with Locke’s Tabula Rasa theory because in tandem they constitute the basis of the egalitarian equalism which feminism and our present feminine-primary conditioning rely upon. To the modern egalitarian mind, inequalities in social dynamics, gender conflicts and economic disparities are the result of a deliberate (if not malicious) intent on the part of individuals to limit the presumedly equal potentials of others. Social ills are the conflict between the selfish need of the one versus the equalized need of the many.

There is very little headspace given to the material, innate, mechanics that make up the condition of the individual. Natural talent, innate ability, in-born predispositions, and physical and adaptational advantages stemming from evolved differences – whether a boon or a burden – are either disqualified or marginalized in an egalitarian mindset. The egalitarian, while very humanistic, leans almost entirely on the learned behavior model of human development. It’s Tabula Rasa, and the zeroed-out-at-birth content of the individual is filled by the influence of a society that is corrupted by those who don’t agree with an idealized egalitarian imperative.

Complementarity

Complementarity acknowledges the importance of the inborn differences between the sexes that egalitarianism marginalizes or outright denies exist while recognizing and embracing the strengths and weaknesses those differences represent.

There are many well documented, peer reviewed, scientific studies on the neurological differences between men and women’s brain structure. The easiest evidence of these differences is the cyclic nature of women’s sexuality (versus men’s always-on sexuality) and the neurological/hormonal influences on beliefs, behaviors and the rationalizations for those behaviors prompted by the innate drive to optimize Hypergamy.

Women experience negative emotions differently from men. The male brain evolved to seek out sex before food. And while our feminine-centric social order insists that, in the name of equalism, boys should be forced to learn in the same modality as that of girls, the science shows that boys brains are rudimentarily wired to learn differently.

Stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains.

Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women’s brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men’s brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.

Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

“If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there’s a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better,” Verma said. “Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more.”

Ironically, in an egalitarian gender-neutral social order, a college professor publicly suggesting that men are more adept at mathematical thinking gets him fired from a lengthy tenure, but when a female researcher suggests the same she’s rewarded with professional accolades and grant money.

As you might expect, this article focuses primarily on the triumphant advantages of the female brain structure, but the studies themselves are revealing of the empirical evidence that men and women are not the functional equals that egalitarianism would insist we are.

The scans showed greater connectivity between the left and right sides of the brain in women, while the connections in men were mostly confined to individual hemispheres. The only region where men had more connections between the left and right sides of the brain was in the cerebellum, which plays a vital role in motor control. “If you want to learn how to ski, it’s the cerebellum that has to be strong,” Verma said. Details of the study are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It’s quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are,” Ruben Gur, a co-author on the study, said in a statement. “Detailed connectome maps of the brain will not only help us better understand the differences between how men and women think, but it will also give us more insight into the roots of neurological disorders, which are often sex-related.”

These distinct neurological differences between men and women are evidence of a an evolved intersexual complementarity that has manifested in both the personal and social dynamic of intergender relations for millennia. Conventional gender roles where there is a defined interdependence between the sexes is reflective of precisely the hardwired “stereotypes” researchers were so shocked to discover in men and women’s neural wiring.

Talents and Deficits

I’m often asked what the complementarian model looks like and it’s all too easy to not want to fall into the perceived trap in defining gender roles for men and women as they’ve been for centuries before our own era. Conventionally feminine women and masculine men are ‘shocking’ stereotypes to a society steeped and conditioned to accept the egalitarian model as the norm. The simple fact is that equality is only defined by the conditions and environmental circumstance that make something equal or unequal.

Men and women are biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally and sexually different. This presents a very difficult proposition to an egalitarian mindset – men and women are simply better suited for, better wired, better enabled and better physically capable of succeeding in different tasks, different environments, different socialization, different mental or emotional demands as those circumstances dictate.

We simply evolved for symbiosis between the sexes; the strengths of one compensate for the weakness of the other. Depending on the challenge presented, yes, this means that in our complementarity the difference between a man and a woman are going to be unequal. Much of the gender discord our present society suffers is due primarily to the intentional rejection of this evolved, symbiotic complementarity and its replacement with the fantasy of uninfluenced, independently sustaining equalism. From the egalitarian mindset, the genders are self-sustaining and independent, thus men and women simply have no need for the other.

Though egalitarians will argue it does, complementarity doesn’t imply a universal superiority of one gender or the other. Rather, depending on the task at hand, one sex will be better predisposed to accomplishing it. Furthermore this isn’t to say that the gender-specific deficiencies of one gender cannot be overcome by learning, practice and brain plasticity to achieve the same ends – it is to say that men and women’s brains, and the task specific adaptations of them, predispose them to being better capable of achieving them.

Fighting Nature

For the better part of this blog’s history I’ve outlined the process of how the Feminine Imperative conditions men to embrace their “feminine sides” and create generations of ready Betas. Most Blue Pill men will fail to identify with the more masculine specificity I’ve outlined above. It’s important to remember that learning to be better at non-gender specificity in an attempt to override this natural gender-wiring is not always a voluntary effort on the part of a person – especially when egalitarian Mom and Dad are in on the conditioning.

When we see the recent popular social effort to embrace transexual acceptance what we’re being asked to do is accept a learning process that countermands a male or female’s evolved neural architecture. Brain plasticity is a marvel of evolution, but it is subject to external manipulation and the ideologies of those doing the manipulating.

There’s been a criticism of western public education’s push to force boys to learn like girls – we treat boys like they are defective girls. This is a prime example of not just a social engineering effort, but an effort in reprogramming boys to override their natural, neurological maleness. Thus they become less effective girls because they are required to think, emote and react in way their brains never predisposed them to.

Likewise there is a popular push to encourage girls to adopt male modalities of thinking. In the hopes to make mathematics and technology fields more gender equal egalitarian society will make special compensation and establish exclusive academic rewards for girls who teach themselves to override their intrinsic mental proficiencies and find intrinsic reward in adopting those of boys.

The egalitarian mindset simply denies the foundational truths that decades of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology and anthropological research indicate about our present state of intersexual relations. Inso doing they reject a complementary model and embrace an egalitarian one. Their mistake is presuming that evo-psych necessitates a biological determinism and thereby absolves an individual of personal responsibility for their behavior. It does not, but it does provide a framework that more accurately describes the mental state, sexual strategies and social environment in which men find themselves with women.

When you hear or read the trope that “women are just as sexual as men” what’s being related to you is founded in the same egalitarian root that teaches us to believe that “women are just as good at fathering as any man”. All are equal, but men’s sexuality seems a boon that egalitarian women would like to adopt.

One reason egalitarianism is an appealing cover story for feminism is because its primary goal is leveling the sexual competition playing field for all women to optimize Hypergamy at the expense of men’s own sexual strategy interests. If all is equal, if men’s basic biological impulses are reduced to shamed criminality, if women can expect men to be aroused by their perceived value of their self-defined self-worth, then all material and physiological deficits can be effectively dismissed.

Under the guise of egalitarianism, feminism has effected feminine social dominance for over half a century now.

Egalitarianism is likewise appealing to evo-psych detractors because a belief in egalitarianism should mean that men can escape their burden of performance. I touched on this in the first post of the Adaptations series. The presumption is that if the more intrinsic, ephemeral aspects of men’s higher-order thinking and personal worth is appreciated as a sexual attraction, then all deficiencies in meeting his naturalistic burden of performance can be rescinded. Game, physique, personality, status, success, achievement, etc. are superseded by his equalist belief system and this is sold to him as the new order upon which women should find him attractive.

Complementarity is the evolved interdependence between the sexes and it’s been a responsible element of how the human race has risen to be the apex species on this planet, but it doesn’t ensure an optimal breeding schedule for either sex. So long as men and women are mired in a denial of the evolved psychological differences between the sexes, their only alternative is to embrace egalitarianism.

The reason feminism hates the Red Pill – in its concrete sense – is because it more accurately predicts human behavior than feminism and equalism have ever been capable of.


Neofemininity

Left: A child shows off his favorite nightgown. Right: Throughout the weekend make-up is applied, removed and reapplied and wardrobe change is constant.

I’ll admit my reluctance to address anything written by Kevin Powell, but as his most recent CNN pandering to the Feminine Imperative was the Twitter topic du jour in the manosphere this week I thought I’d make a perfunctory stab at it. I’m reluctant to do so because in doing a take-down article I’ll only be preaching to the choir and revisiting many well established topics I’ve covered on The Rational Male for years now.

What convinced me was a conversation I had with Mrs. Tomassi while walking my greyhounds this week. She asked me, “What the hell is wrong with boys these days? The all have no balls. It’s like they want to be girls or something.” We’ve had this discussion before. It usually gets brought up after she’s heard some story about the boys at my daughter’s high school or she sees it first-hand at a football game or some other event.

“Pretty soon, everyone is going to be a woman. Look at Bruce Jenner, “Woman of the Year”?! In the next ten years everyone will be a woman.”

I told her I think ten years might be too long.

When I read male-apologetics like Kevin Powell’s tribute to his own feminine ‘transitioning’ and his efforts at identifying and qualifying to be considered a more ‘perfected man’ in the terms set for him by a feminine-primary social order, it’s not hard to believe that social switch is right around the corner.

A Crisis of Manhood

Masculinity in “crisis” is a hot seller for click-bait articles these days. Women embrace the meme because it offers the tacit prospect of wrangling men into a more definitive control by the Feminine Imperative. Like all popular characterization of conventional masculinity, men have a problem and the cure is to become more like women.

Average men, the ones who make it their sexual strategy to better identify with the feminine, get behind the meme because it offers an easy opportunity to present themselves as the ‘evolved’, not-like-other-guys men they’ve been conditioned to believe women will sexually respond to favorably. Embracing this men-as-problem meme also offers them the opportunity to passively compete intrasexually with the conventionally masculine men then would otherwise never engage.

Before I dig into Powell’s article here I think it’s important to revisit my essay about Vulnerability. Powell’s ego is invested in the ‘strength in weakness’ theme his feminine conditioning has taught him is ennobling and as you read through his pleas for a more feminine-perfected social order he’ll return to it often.

From Vulnerability:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself.

[…]Men are ridiculous posers. Men are socialized to wear masks to hide what the Feminine Imperative has decided is their true natures (they’re really girls wearing boy masks). Men’s problems extend from their inability to properly emote like women, and once they are raised better (by women and men who comply with the Feminine Imperative) they can cease being “tough” and get along better with women. That’s the real strength that comes from men’s feminized concept of vulnerability – compliance with the Feminine Imperative.

[…]It’s indictment of the definers of what masculinity ought to be that they still characterize modern masculinity (based on the ‘feels’) as being problematic when for generations our feminine-primary social order has conditioned men to associate that masculinity in as feminine-beneficial a context as women would want.

They still rely on an outdated formula which presumes the male experience is inferior, a sham, in comparison to the female experience, and then presumes to know what the male experience really is and offers feminine-primary solutions for it.

It’s important to understand the machinations in which the Feminine Imperative will define masculinity for men. In order to maintain social preeminence the Feminine Imperative must keep men perpetually confused about what masculinity really is. This is precisely why the “crisis” of masculinity will, deliberately, never be solved to the satisfaction of the imperative. To solve the ‘crisis’ would be to deny the Feminine Imperative a method of ever changing, fluid control over men.

Tail Chasing

Thus we get inquisitive articles or mandatory gatherings to discuss “what is manhood?” In a state of feminine social primacy men discussing new definitions of masculinity is always a proposition of men chasing their own tails, but the ambiguity of that question is a calculated one.

Men are encouraged to continually attempt to answer “what is manhood?”, but the touchy-feely equalist appropriate answer is never one defined by the men asking it; the answer is always provided to them and this is always “whatever serves women the best”. Their confused state is a deliberate perpetual one.

As I stated in Vulnerability the narrative of the Feminine Imperative about masculinity is one that’s based falsehoods. If men define masculinity for themselves, and that definition serves men’s exclusive interests it is equated with posing or a front men falsely wear to mask the real masculinity that feminine primacy has ordained as legitimate.

So even when men collectively compare notes and prioritize their needs and their sexual strategy in the context of a legitimate definition of masculinity, the social narrative of feminism and feminine primacy readily disqualifies it as a being a macho bravado worn by men to cover their real vulnerable sensitive feminine-corrected egos provided for them by the imperative.

One of the ways of determining whether the propaganda you’ve dropped from the planes is sinking into the general populace is that your language, your narrative and your public relations material is willfully being professed by the people you hope to conquer. To say Powell is a Vichy Male wouldn’t do his obliviousness to being so credit. Powell is a testament to the degree to which feminine-primary, feminine-correct thought has saturated into men confused about their own masculinity, and the feminine correct definitions of it he’s ready to evangelize.

Neofemininity

Powell’s ego-investment in his feminine-defined masculinity is glaringly apparent.  To attack his belief is to attack his personality, but it’s important to note that his evangelizing reveals his obliviousness to his Blue Pill conditioning. Powell isn’t making a case for a ‘healthier masculinity’; he’s advocating for men adopting a neo-femininity in place of conventional masculinity. Powell is essentially advocating men become more perfected women and renaming that state “masculinity”.

I knew the guys were not comfortable with these mandatory gatherings, so I started each with a simple question:
What is a man?

Sighs of relief and phrases such as “leader,” “protector,” “caretaker,” “responsible,” “head of the house” fell from their mouths. Each session, I told them that they had just described my single mother and most women I’ve encountered in my life. These young men would grow quiet.

Powell kicks things off here with the blank-slate “men and women are functional equals” I described in Hypergamy Knows Best. This is the same “women are just as good at fathering as any man could be” rationale that reinforces men’s superfluousness with women. However, in doing so he sets the stage for defining masculinity in neo-feminine terms.

I grew up as most heterosexual boys did: I played every sport possible. I learned early on the rite-of-passage of seeing girls as sexual objects, as playthings, as anything except my equal. I fought because boys were taught to fight, be rough, antagonistic, to never show weakness, not even to cry, at least not in public. I digested every kind of pop cultural icon one could name, on television, in movies, in books, in my beloved hip-hop culture, who represented the mighty male figure that armies of us were instructed we must become.

This behavior led to catastrophic results for me. I had no clue how to express a balance of emotions for many years: It was either thunderous silence or raw explosions of rage. I did not know how to give love to myself or women and girls, and by the time I got to college, I merely did what other young males on my campus did: I had sex as casually as I slipped on my jeans and sneakers, and often did not give much thought to the woman on the receiving end. And I eventually pushed a girlfriend, post-college, into a bathroom door as we were arguing, the culmination of years of backward and very warped definitions of manhood imprisoned in pain and trauma.

Powell attempts to frame his case for a neo-feminine definition of masculinity in what are now very clichéd, very expected personal vignettes. It follows the Script.

We have the ostensibly ‘tough’ boy who grew up to be so thanks to a comically stereotypically male acculturation that taught him how to adapt and survive in his environment, but all of which stunted his capacity to balance his emotions. Emotional expression and an overemphasis on understanding emotion (in favor of reason) in men is the hallmark of a social narrative that prioritizes the feminine as the correct social context.

The story continues as expected. The kid who had no positive model of masculinity presented to him has an epiphany, renounces his unhealthy masculinity and adopts a non-toxic feminine-defined ‘healthy masculinity’ that prioritizes women under the auspices of “equality”. Most of his corrupted upbringing of course being the fallout from not having his superfluous father around to instruct him. My guess is Mom wasn’t quite the ‘equal’ of being the man he hoped to equate her with earlier.

Just as the feminist movement in America has challenged male domination in every form, a men’s movement is needed now more than ever before. The movement must be inclusive of males of all ages and backgrounds, rooted in peace, love and healthy definitions of manhood that include viewing women and girls as our equals. It should be a movement that is not in opposition to women, not trying to return to the days of “the rugged man,” but one that makes room for every kind of man possible (including men on the LGBTQ spectrum), where we can be vulnerable, emotionally available, truly free.

This is the crux of Powell’s misinformation. The ideal ‘masculinity’ in Powell’s estimate isn’t one of rugged individualism, but rather one that is more feminine-corrected; one in which a believes that society has progressed to a point where his personal vulnerabilities and emotionalism will not only be appreciated, but a source of intersexual attraction. His ideal simply amounts to a common plea for men to identify with women so thoroughly that they answer the question “what is a man?” with “a better woman.”

That Powell subscribes to egalitarian equalism is a given here, but what he needs to truly grasp is that men and women are not, and never have been functional equals. It’s ironic that he should describe his single mother ‘as a man’ and then go on to tell the story of his misspent masculine youth – he makes the case for necessary complentarianism without even realizing it. While I do agree about the necessity of understanding individuals other than ourselves, Powell never makes the connection that it is men upon whom the onus of understanding women always falls. You will never read deep soul searching testimonials like this from women who look to redefine femininity in ways that better accommodate the emotional health of men.

Caricatures of Masculinity

I undertook this post today because of a story I heard on NPR recently. It was about a tribe of Native Americans (I believe in Montana) who were struggling to preserve their indigenous language. The problem was that most of its native speakers were dying out and there were less than six tribe members who still used the language.

During the late 1800s there was a program instituted by the government that made great, often cruel, efforts to assimilate these Indian children into western society. That meant forbidding them from speaking their native tongue and adopting an American social identity. Being young, the kids had little choice and not the same sense of ethnic belonging to really understand why their parents would resist this assimilation.

I think a similar dynamic has been in effect in western culture with regard to masculinity for over sixty years. It’s come full circle now to the point where ‘men’ like Powell only know the caricatured, ridiculous portrayals of conventional masculinity when they need a convenient straw man to blow down. It’s like Indian children seeing the grotesque cartoon parodies of people of their ethnicity in the movies or media; after the laughter and denigration they come to a point of self-loathing where they gladly embrace the new racial identity that’s prepared for them.

The point of Powell’s article was a plea to more thoroughly assimilate young men into a neo-feminine definition of masculinity. He believes that a re-education of boys would help avert more mass shootings by these same young men.  So invested is he in this narrative that the question of whether doubling-down on the re-education in feminine primacy already in place might in fact be the associative cause of these shootings, men’s 4-times higher rate of suicide or PTSD. This isn’t even an afterthought for him.

To Powell the only cure resides with women. To become more like women is masculinity to him. We will denigrate and admonish the overt sexualization of young girls, but when young boys wish to ‘transition’ into being girls themselves we praise them for it, we celebrate it. Feminine primacy consolidates power by replicating itself in men.

The primary reason I went to the effort of writing the Red Pill Parenting series was to help men stave off the total, ethnocidal-like destruction of any semblance of conventional masculinity by men like Powell bent on replacing it with ‘perfected’, male-embodied femininity. The problem isn’t one of boys adopting toxic masculinity, it’s the institutionalized gender-loathing re-education that Powell so desperately endorses. Neofemininity will be the realm of boys and men in tomorrow’s idealism.


Never Take a Woman Fishing

never_fishing

(h/t to Zelscorpion for the image and ref for today’s post)

Hi Rollo,
On rereading Truth to Power a very inspirational post, I wanted to hear your thoughts on men with families such as my self choosing to travel on vacation alone.

In your videos above you touched on masculine qualities men being in the driver seat around decision making. I have a wife you as with many women is cultured to try assume headship of the household with decision making even vacations etc.

She doesn’t want to travel abroad as we have a 7 month old son where as I feel there is no reason why she should worry about doing so. Anyway the crux of the issue is I am only 28 years old and having sacrificed my independence early (at 25) have a desire to travel and I don’t care about rocking the boat to make that happen.

I would love to hear some advice about the benefits of and good ways of grabbing hold again of control of our own circumstances and decisions!

Never take a woman fishing.

That’s a little idiom I learned way before I was Red Pill aware from the guy who was the best man at my wedding, and my long time fishing buddy. I wouldn’t call him a philosopher, but he was a keen observer of women’s behavior and became salt-of-the-earth wise by default:

“When you take a woman fishing you’re trying to include them in something they really don’t want to be doing, but you like it a lot. So you think ‘I like fishing and I want to include her in something we can do together’, but when you do she complains about EVERYTHING. ‘It’s dirty, I’m cold, I’m hot, I didn’t bring a water bottle, where’s the sunscreen?, there’s too many bugs, why are there so many bugs?, why do we have to hike so far to fish? can’t we just find a spot by the dam? where’s the bathroom?, etc. etc.”

“So what do you do? You force yourself to make her comfortable the whole damn time. You don’t hike, you don’t scout for the sweet spots on the river or, God forbid, you try to get her in a kayak. You end up going out after breakfast and the light’s all wrong. You try to keep them clean and close to the ‘potty’, you bait their hook ’cause it’s filthy, you untangle their reel snarls,…what you don’t do is fish. Your whole trip becomes about making her ‘like’ fishing with you and not about actually fishing and doing all the things we do when we fish together or on our own. I mean, you want ’em to like it, but you’ll never teach them to like it because you’re too busy making everything right for ’em.”

“Unless they were brought up right and they dig fishing ’cause their Dad taught ’em to like it, never try to bring a woman fishing. They gotta come to liking it on their own, they gotta want to do it on their own. I mean, look at Dodge (our dog) he don’t care if it’s cold or 4am, he’s happy to be on the trail going wherever the fuck we’re headed.”

Back in May Zelscorpion tweeted a few of the pictures from this series and made an interesting point:

I had to admit, he’s got a point and it reminded me of the sage words of my Best Man. I think one of the tragedies of men’s Blue Pill conditioning is the presumption that they must find a way, sometimes forcibly, to become more compatible with a woman. I wrote about the paradox of compatibility a while back:

It’s very entertaining for me to hear guys reason as to why they got into yoga, or my all time favorite, salsa dancing as some means of meeting girls. I mean really, if that’s the goal you choose to devote the precious few hours of your leisure time to then I suppose a guy ought to take up scrap-booking or zumba.

If you’re picking up a hobby in order to meet women all you’re doing is attempting to Identify with what you expect your idealized woman to appreciate. If you get into something for this reason it’s not a hobby, it’s a Buffer.

Successful men don’t chase success – success chases them. Women are going to expect you to have your own uncontrived, interests, passions and hobbies established before meeting them.

When I first began counseling men in my SoSuave days many times I’d read guys telling me, “Well if she’s not into the same things I am she’s just not the ‘right’ girl for me”, as if common interests were some criteria that would trump his sexual interests in a girl. Blue Pill idealism convinces men that the “right girl” will necessarily love doing the same things as himself, but the all too common Red Pill truth is that men will have their peak experiences in life alone or in the company of other men who share the passions and interests their wives simply have no interest in.

Peak Experience

I don’t subscribe to Maslow’s theories in whole, but I do think his Peak Experience idea has merit. There will be times and achievements in your life that will stand out as significantly memorable. It’s easy to point to the experiences that should be the most significant; a marriage, the birth of a child, a religious experience, a first kiss, a school graduation, etc., you get the idea – experiences that should be the standard fare in a romanticized, idealistic sense.

We tend to overblow these experiences because we think they should be something to etch in our consciousness; and if we don’t, well, then there must be something wrong with us for not appreciating their popular significance. Tragically it’s our negative experiences that have the most lasting effect on us; evolution has made pain something memorable so as to help us avoid potentially life-ending future experiences. But the events that should evoke lasting good memories, the ones we are taught should be significant, are often the ones we ruin with unrealistic expectations, or we build up only to have them not quite live up to the fantasy we make of them.

The Peak Experiences I’m talking about here aren’t planned, or are just loosely planned by necessity. Some of the most memorable events you’ll ever experience wont be ones that you had a forethought about. These are often the experiences we hope to recreate long after they occur, but prove impossible to really recapture. Much of what makes up our personal preferences in life come from these spontaneous Peak Experiences. Remember the first girl you got with? Remember that time when things aligned just perfectly for you to hit that hole in one?

One of the reasons I have such a passion for snowmobiles was due to a day I blew off work so I could go out for the entire day on a beautiful Lake Tahoe morning. I went on my own which is something I rarely did. It was a Wednesday so there was nobody on the trails. The snow was only a day old and I took my sled to the top of a place called High Meadows, but even this pristine place wasn’t high enough. I took off in the back country and got to the top of a peak that was as high as I dared to go alone. Once I got there I had a view of the lake that I imagine few people had experienced. Then I fell back on the seat of my sled and stared at a sky that was so blue I never thought of it in the same way again. I laid there for a long time just staring and thinking about life and living and God and the universe.

On my way down the hill I thought how cool it would be to bring Mrs. Tomassi up there so she could appreciate it too. I mean, why wouldn’t I want to share such an incredible Peak Experience with the woman I love; the woman I want to share my life with? To this day Mrs. T has only been on my sled about 3 times. She’s very self-cautious and doesn’t like the smell and sound of the engine. That might seem trivial, but no matter how much I can try to relate that experience or try to recapture it no one but myself will ever have that unique event.

Experience & Frame

When I look at the guy with his dog in these camping shots I can now appreciate them much more because I know he’s experienced that same uniqueness. When you plan an event with a woman, when you make efforts to bring her into an appreciation of something you enjoy the experience of you must remember that you are, in essence, negotiating for her genuine desire to do so.

Now, before I’m run up the flagpole for suggesting otherwise, yes I know that many men and women do in fact find pleasure in commonly held interests. I see women on the river fishing in waders and at Trout Unlimited events all the time. My point isn’t the interest itself, but rather the desire to participate in it. A lot of guys hold the belief that including their wife, girlfriend or even a girl they’re spinning as a plate in something they think she should enjoy will have the effect of bringing them closer. The inherent problem with this is the presumption that including her in it will lead to some new shared experience that will bond them both in a genuine way.

The problem with preplanned ‘date nights’ is the same problem men experience with trying to pull a woman into his Frame by insisting she take up one of his hobbies or passions; it’s contrived and feels disingenuous to her. The point of the experience becomes about her being involved in it and not the actual doing of whatever it is you do together. The vibe becomes one of him making and controlling that experience so it becomes something pleasurable for her to participate in rather than really finding some inherent reward from it due to genuine interest.

Thus you get guys who (figuratively) take their women fishing and the event becomes more about introducing her to it than actually catching fish. Guys get so caught up in controlling unpleasant variables for her that the real experience of fishing is something entirely different. They want that woman to feel the same joy he does in doing something intrinsically rewarding to him, but the truth of it is she must come to it on her own.

Always Maintain Your Individualism

And this leads us back, once again, to establishing and maintaining a positive, dominant and individualistic Frame with a woman. She must want to enter your reality for it to be a genuine desire on her part – you cannot lead her into it, she must enter it of her own volition. Spontaneity is the key. Whether it’s an ‘insta-date’ from a PUA perspective, or an unexpected twist of plans in your marriage, that woman must want to participate in that event, in that moment of her own accord.

A good test of genuine interest with a woman is less about how open she is to trying “your things” and more about how insistent she is instigating her own participation in them. The trap most Betas fall into is converting “his things” into “our things” and he compromises those previously rewarding experiences into a sideshow he hopes will bond he and his woman together.

In Male Space I made this point:

When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

A similar dynamic plays out when men try to open the Male Space of whatever it is they find individually enjoyable to the women they hope will share in his enthusiasm. One thing I learned very early on in my marriage was the absolutely vital importance of maintaining my individual identity apart from my wife.

The biggest mistake I made when I was involved in LTRs prior to meeting my wife was allowing myself to get caught up in the equalist idea that since both men and women were functional equals we should necessarily base our compatibility estimates on how alike we were in interests. Consequently I progressively began convincing myself that I found their interests fascinating, but in doing so I slipped into their Frame. I was too scared of losing a woman and was too necessitous to experiment with doing what I should have – insisting on maintaining my individual interests and maintaining my own reality for a woman to enter.

I was fortunate in that Mrs. T expected me to control the Frame from the start of our relationship. I’ll admit, at the time it was something very unfamiliar to me to have a woman expect me to prioritize my interests above her own, but the purpose of this was establishing a Frame she wanted to enter into. Today I adamantly insist on having a life that is apart from her, but she can enter into if she has a real interest in it. This blog is just one extension of that dynamic.

If you are to maintain a dominant Frame with a woman you must necessarily set your interests apart from her own. You must still insist on your individualized identity and the experiences that set you apart from her in order to maintain a reality in which she continually wishes to genuinely be a part of.

Ted had a great comment from last week’s thread that speaks to this:

I don’t expect my wife to be like a man with male interests. I expect her to be a human with human interests. Something deeper than pop culture anyway.

I know a little bit about a whole lot of stuff. I’m willing to chat about any number of subjects other than tech and politics. It just has to he something better than what’s on TV and the weather. I keep hearing women can do anything a man can, so let’s see some intellectual debate!

More often than not truths must be brought to women by men. It’s uniquely refreshing when women have the critical insight to look for truths, but it’s refreshing because it’s rare – and it’s refreshing when they seek them from a man who’s Frame she’s chosen to be a part of. One of the best aspects of the principle of Amused Mastery is that, if you actually have the mastery that comes from individualized experience, it makes maintaining a positive, dominant and enjoyable Frame much easier with the same woman.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 10,454 other followers