Category Archives: Positive Masculinity

Game Changers

game-changer

Whenever I consult teenage guys or young adult men I’m always reminded about how my ‘Game’ has changed over the course of my lifetime. The 17 year old Rollo Tomassi would be be appalled at the mindset of the 46 year old Rollo Tomassi.

Granted, much of that shock would probably be attributed to the lack of experience my younger self had with regards to female nature, human nature and, if I’m honest, I suffered from the same naiveté most young men do when it comes to judging people’s character. In fact, at the time, my belief was that I shouldn’t ever judge anyone’s character, nor did I, nor should anyone really, have the right to.

Part of that assumption was from an undeveloped religious learning, but more so it was due to a youthful idealism I held – I’d been conditioned to believe not only that you “can’t judge a book by its cover”, but also that you shouldn’t do so, and ought to be ashamed for considering it.

I’m flattered that people might think I’m some phenomenal interpreter of psychology, the nature of women, intergender relations and a model upon which men should aspire to in order to get laid and still have a great (now 18 year) marriage. It has not always been so.

If I have any credibility now it’s not due to my getting everything miraculously right, but because I had everything so horribly wrong more often than not.

One of the most valuable lessons I learned in my time studying psychology and personality studies is that personality is alway in flux. Who you are today is not who you will be in another few years. Hopefully that’s for the better after learning something and applying it towards your own personal progress, but it could equally be a traumatic experience that changes you for the worse.

For better or worse, personality shifts – sometimes slowly, sometimes suddenly – and while you may retain aspects of your personality, mannerisms, talents, past experiences and beliefs into the next iteration of yourself in a new phase of your life, rest assured, you will not be who you are now at any other time.

Game Changes

I’m sorry if this sounds all fortune cookie to you at the moment, but it’s a necessary preface to understanding how Game changes for men as their life situations and circumstances change during different phases of their lives and the shifts in their own personalities and learned perceptions change as they age.

It’s an easy step for me to assume that, were I to find myself single tomorrow, I wouldn’t approach Game in any degree as I would were I the 26 year old version of myself. Indeed, the primary reason I’ve involved myself in expanding the Preventative Medicine series into the next volume of The Rational Male is to help men at different phases of their own development understand what to expect from women (and themselves) during these periods of their life.

About two weeks ago I broached the subject of how Game should be a universal knowledge-tool for the everyman. My intent in Game and Circumstance was to shine some light on how Game and red pill awareness is (should be) a benefit for men regardless of their circumstance.

As I expected, the comparisons of Looks vs. Game was the inevitable discussion in the comment thread, because the presumption is that a man’s most evident condition is how he looks and how women are or are not aroused / attracted to their perception of him. I’ve written more about this Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks arousal dynamic than I care to review at the moment, but suffice it to say I do place a high importance on a man’s physical bearing.

However, my intent wasn’t to engage in a debate over the importance of looks, but rather that Game and red pill awareness is applicable for men of every social or personal condition – even the short, pudgy guy who empties the trash in your office. He may not have the potential to enjoy sex with a swimsuit model, but the tenets of Game can help him improve his life within his own circumstances.

Game Beyond PUA

When I was writing The Rational Male I specifically wrote and published a post on the Evolution of Game to be included in the book in order to demystify an impression of Game which I still think people (particularly the blue pill uninitiated), sometimes intentionally, misconstrue as some magical panacea to their ‘girl problems’. My definition was thus:

For the unfamiliar, just the word ‘Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ‘just be himself‘ with women and how women allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.

At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.

Game has more applications than just in the realm of intergender relations, but this is my best estimation of Game for the uninitiated. Game is the practical application of a new knowledge and increasingly broader awareness of intergender relations – often referred to, for convenience, as Red Pill awareness, by myself and others in the broader manosphere. Game begins with red pill awareness and using that awareness to develop Game.

The body of infield evidence collected by 15 years of PUA is far more reliable and valid than anything social science has produced on seduction – Nick Krauser

As I’ve written in the past, everyone has Game. Every guy you know right now has some idea, methodology or system of belief by which he thinks he can best put himself into a position of relating to, and becoming intimate with, a woman.

From even the most rank Beta plug-in to the 14 year old high school freshmen boy has some notion about what he, and by extension all men, should do in order to become intimate with a girl. I described this a bit in Beta Game where I outlined the Beta plan of identifying with women’s “needs” and adopting a feminine-primary mental point of origin in order to become more like the target(s) of his affection.

What ‘formalzed’ Game comes down to is what genuinely works for the betterment of his life. Men don’t seek out the manosphere because their Beta Game works so well for them.

 

I’ll admit, this was my own Game when I was in my late teens. Like most properly conditioned young men,I subscribed to the idea that men needed to be more empathetic and sensitive to women’s experience (rather than putting priority on his own) as the most deductive means to getting a girlfriend who’d appreciate my uniqueness for being so ‘in tune’ with the feminine.

If you’d have asked me at the time (the mid 80’s), my belief was that the best way to ‘get the girl’ was to take women at their word, use their “advice“, be their friend, make her comfortable, sacrifice your own (chauvinist) self-importance and support her importance, and mold your incorrect male self into a more perfect feminine ideal. The idea was that the lesser you made yourself, the more you made of her, and the more likely she was to reciprocate intimacy in appreciation.

That was my Game up until I learned through trial and painful error that women loath a man who needs to be instructed on how to actually be more attractive to women. I didn’t understand that by my subscribing to this spoon-fed feminization Game and overtly advocating for it I was only advertising to the very girls I wanted that I Just Didn’t Get It.

This was simply the first stage of Game changing for me, and I’m fairly certain that you’d read a similar story from most of the manosphere’s heaviest hitters. I’m peripherally familiar with the early histories of the likes of Roosh, Nick Krauser and even Mystery, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the Game they practice today would be foreign to their younger selves.

When I moved into my rock star 20’s I began practicing a new form of Game, one based on social proof and demonstrating higher value (DHV).

Of course I had no idea I was practicing any Game at the time. I had reinvented myself and my identity shifted into that of a guy who was Spinning Plates, being more self-concerned and enjoying the benefits of that social proof and DHV; but if you’d asked me what I’d done to effect that change, or how my Game was affected by it, I wouldn’t have been able to give you an answer then – Game was just instinctual for me.

Now in my married years, as a husband and the father of a teenage daughter, and my professional life in the liquor and casino world where I interact with beautiful women on a weekly basis, I still employ Game when I don’t realize I am.

However, that Game is the compounded, internalized result of what I’ve learned and used since the days I believed in the “be nice for girls to like you” teenage Game. Amused Mastery, Command Presence and a few other principles became much easier to employ as a mature man, but also a new grasp of how women’s lives have a more or less predictable pattern to them.

Thanks to my time studying behavioral psychology I understand the methods women use to prompt and provoke men (shit tests). Thanks to my red pill awareness and simple understand of how women’s biology influences hypergamy I now understand why they do so – and more importantly, how to avoid the traps of falling into the worst aspects of women’s dualistic sexual strategy.

All of this influences my ‘Game’ in the now. As before, I don’t play a constant, conscious game of mental chess in my dealings with women (and even the men in my social and professional life), I just live it.

So, in closing, it’s important to consider that the concept of Game you might be struggling with now was probably some other man’s experience before you encountered it. What is Game for me at 46, will most likely not have the exact same utility for me at 56, but if I stay sharp and learn along the way I’ll develop a new Game for that phase of life.

In Roosh’s most recent book, he has a quote in it that struck me (I paraphrase): There are a lot of men who tell me they wish they knew back then what they know now, but in all likelihood that knowledge wouldn’t serve them as well as they believe it would. They’d simply make new mistakes (and hopefully learn from them) based on the things they never had any experience of in the now.

There is always additional knowledge a man can know even when he possess the highest level of knowledge.

 

 


Game and Circumstance

circumstance

“Don’t be mad E. It’s not our fault you were born without the sport fucking gene, come on.”

 

At the start of July, 2011 (a month before I began this blog in earnest) I took a backpacking trip through the Great Smokey Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina. This was due to my desire to unplug, go off the grid and get back into the real face-to-face world. It was only for 10 days but well worth burning 10 days of PTO for.

It was an educational experience meeting people, most of whom have very little online presence beyond using Twitter or FaceBook occasionally. I didn’t have cell service for most of the hike. The people I met along the way, and I’ll put this politely, were “salt of the earth” people. Some were other hikers, others were people who lived and worked in the few surrounding communities. It was good to reaffirm my ability to survive on my own and realize that there is a whole world of Men out there who live well, far beyond the influence of “men” who’ve never mowed their own lawns, much less lived by their own wit in the country. Guys who build muscle by working outdoors, not in a gym. I met beautiful women who worked in small diners you’ll never hear of. I fished rivers and streams, for dinner some nights, and I saw fireflies for the first time (I grew up in southern California, it’s a novelty).

At some point I think Men need to get back to their primal natures, they need to embrace it fearlessly and without shame. We’re far too insulated by the Buffers of technology. Even the more belligerent rednecks I encountered still preferred to text their girlfriends and came off as pussified for doing so.

I guess what I’ve come to realize is that we tend to view what we ‘know’ about men and women from the experiences we have reported to us from all over the world on blogs, forums, the manosphere  – and I still endorse the purpose of it’s unwritten mission – however, this trip reaffirmed for me that there is no substitute for real interaction. Game will work equally well with the cute blonde serving coffee in a rural diner as it would with the club girl in NYC. Both are equally given to the same feminine fundamentals we’ve untangled about women in the ‘sphere for over a decade, but the one we tend to use as a female archetype is the typical club girl for our examples. Daisy Duke is still subject to hypergamy, she just applies it differently.

I’m not turning into Roosh, but I’m considering burning a couple months doing the entire Appalachian trail all the way to Maine.

In my day to day life I deal with a lot of rich men. Every patron or boss, every general manager I’ve dealt with for the past 15 years has been a millionaire. The primary owner of one of my liquor brand is that many times over. None of the “business friends” I shoot golf with have weeded their own lawns or installed a radiator in 20+ years. When I was on the trail I thought about how ridiculous it would be to see a guy like that or some PUA guru having to dig his own toilet and take a dump in the woods, or hoist his pack in a tree so the damn bears don’t eat the only food he’s got for the next 3 days. These guys are insulated.

I want to run, and fight, and fuck, as well as I deal with the ‘civilized’ things I do. Imagine a guy like Mystery wringing out the sweat and filth of his clothes in a stream somewhere. Now, that’s some funny shit.

Game and Circumstance

I start off with this today because this experience wasn’t just humbling, but it also taught me that what I experience day to day isn’t at all what a majority of men experience. My past, my N count, my 18 year marriage, and what I do professionally sets me apart in a way that I sometimes don’t appreciate or take into consideration when I’m advising men.

It’s also very humbling and affirming when I receive emails or comments from men living in countries I’ve only seen in pictures who nevertheless share a common male experience that reinforces many of the things I write about – but even within that commonality, I have to remember, my circumstance is not theirs.

I walk through a casino almost every day now and I see the same people. Not the fun glamour you see in commercials or ads about Las Vegas (that’s usually night promos), but the real people, the overweight, housekeeping and table crew, the geriatric spending their savings and social security on a hope they’ll win something significant, the desperate and the people just looking for distraction.

I walk by some of these men and think “how is Game going to help a guy like that?” While I do believe that Game is universally beneficial on many levels (primarily between the sexes, but not exclusively) there’s a point where that improvement is going to be limited by a guy’s circumstance, where he is in life and what he’s made of it so far. It’s a manosphere cliché now, but most men aren’t ready for the red pill. The red pill awareness is simply too much for them to accept within the context of their circumstances.

That circumstance isn’t based on age or a particular demographic, but Game is only going to be as liberating for a man in as far as he’s willing to accept it in terms of his own circumstance.

Not Just Sex

Game gets a lot of misconstrued criticism in that ignorant critics presume Game only ever equals PUA and that “those guys are only interested in fucking as many low self-esteem sluts as humanly possible.” It’s much more difficult for them to confront that Game is far more than this, and applicable within relationships, in the workplace (with women and men) and even in their family dealings.

That’s kind of a scary prospect for men comfortable in living within their own contexts and circumstance. Sport fucking isn’t what most men think it is because they’ve never experienced anything beyond serial monogamy, nor is it what most (80%+ Beta) men even have the capacity to actualize for themselves. But, as Game has evolved, it isn’t just about Spinning Plates, or sport fucking, it’s more encompassing than this.

Game is, or should be, for the everyman.

“He only wants me for sex” or “I need to be sure he’s interested in me and not just sex” are the admonishments of women who really have no introspective interest in how a majority of men really approach becoming intimate with women. Oh it makes for a good rationale when women finally “want to get things right” with a provider, but even the excuse belies a lack of how most men organize their lives to accommodate women’s schedules of mating.

Mostly to their detriment, the vast majority of men follow a deductive,but anti-seductive, Beta Game plan of comfort, identification, familiarity and patience with women in the hopes that what they hear women tell them is the way to their intimacy will eventually pan out for them. Their Beta Game plan is in fact to prove they “aren’t just in it for the sex” in order to get to a point of having sex with a particular woman.

I always find it ironic when men tell me that their deductive plan for getting after it with a woman is to prove he’s not actually trying to get after it with her. However, this is what most men’s Game amounts to; deductively attempting to move into a long term monogamy based on what women, saturated in a presumption of gender equalism, tell him he ought to expect from himself in order to align himself with her intimate interest.

I could use the term “appeasement”, but that’s not what most men want to call it. Most men call it being a better man (for her), better than “other guys” who wont align themselves accordingly. It becomes their point of pride in fact.

Male Long Term Security

Most men, average men – and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense – want a form of security.

Most men are designed, perhaps bred, to be necessitous. To be sure , men need to be constant performers, constant qualifiers, in order to mitigate hypergamy. In the past, and to an extent now, this performance simply became a part of who he was as a man and didn’t require a constant effort, but increasingly, as male feminization has spread, men have been made to be necessitous of security.

I would say that desire for long term security differs significantly from women’s Beta Bucks side of hypergamy need since the drive to secure provisioning is an innate part of women’s firmware. The security average men need is rooted in a need for certainty in his ability to meet with a woman’s performance standards – and ultimately avoid feminine rejection.

In today’s feminine-centric social order, men are ceaselessly bombarded with masculine ridicule, ceaselessly reminded of their inadequacies, and endlessly conditioned to question and doubt any notion of how masculinity should be defined – in fact ridicule is the first response for any man attempting to objectively define it.

It’s this doubt, this constant consideration of his own adequacy to meet the shifting nature of women’s hypergamic drive, from which stems this need for security. The average man needs the certainty of knowing that he meets and exceeds a woman’s prerequisites in a social circumstance that constantly tells him he never will – and his just asking himself the question if he ever will makes him that much less of a man.

The average man will look for, or create his own rationales to salve this necessitousness. He’ll create his own ego in the image of what he thinks he embodies best as being “Alpha” or he’ll adopt the easy doctrines of equalism which tell him women and men are fundamentally the same rational actors and convince himself he’s not subject to the capricious whims of feminine hypergamy because men and women are more ‘evolved’ than that– but that nagging doubt will manifest when the right circumstances and right opportunities present themselves.

Changing Your Programming

I mention in the book that I am not a motivational speaker, I’m not anyone’s savior and I would rather men be the self-sustaining solutions to becoming the men they want and need to be – not Rollo Tomassi’s success stories, but their own success stories.

That said, let me add that I would not be writing what I do if I thought that biological determinism, circumstance and social conditioning were insurmountable factors in any Man’s life. Men can accomplish great things through acts of will, they can be masters of their circumstances and most importantly masters of themselves.

With a healthy understanding, respect and awareness of what influences his own condition, a Man can overcome and thrive within the context of them – but he must first be aware of, and accepting of, the conditions under which he operates and maneuvers.

You may not be able to control the actions of others, you may not be able to account for women’s hypergamy, but you can be prepared for them, you can protect yourself from the consequences of them and you can be ready to make educated decisions of your own based upon that knowledge.

You can unplug.

You can change your programming, and you can live a better life no matter your demographic, age, past regrets or present circumstances.


The Apologists

apologists

Posted this morning, Obsidian at Just Four Guys had an excellent 10 question interview of Professor Michael Kimmel who has been so concerned about the male anger simmering in the manosphere that he was distracted from his professorship of Sociology and Gender Studies and executive directorship for the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University that he was forced by academic passions to write such titles as Guyland and Angry White Men (not to be confused with Stupid White Men).

The open format interviews of semi-mainstream authors are starting to carve out a missing manosphere niche for J4G, so I don’t want to steal any of that thunder with this post, but since “angry manosphereans” was the topic du jour at Aunt Giggles’ echo-chamber (“Oh my stars and garters! Tindr is really a hook up app populated by men and women who just wanna fuck?”) I thought I’d riff a little on a few of his answers and what I think are the esteemed Professors’ most glaring problems.

But the real answer to your question is not “why am I so different from other men?” but rather how am I so similar to other men? I grew up breathing the same air, and drinking the same water as you did. I believe firmly in the ideals of American democracy, and so I feel compelled as a citizen to speak out against inequality and injustice. Supporting gender equality is right, fair, and patriotically American.

He is correct, he’s JUST like the majority of ‘other’ men – suffering from a  lifetime of thorough social feminization conditioning to become the champion of feminine-identification Game. His Beta mindset is easily recognizable, but his Game is still the same ‘like attracts like’ mentality that’s characteristic of a solid insaturation in blank slate equalism. Hugo Schwyzer left a vacuum, Kimmel is just stepping into it. Be more ‘like’ a woman and they’ll appreciate your efforts in supporting and understanding them, and you’ll be rewarded with reciprocal sexual interest.

It is a compassionate look at the lives of young men, and especially the things that those young me are being asked to do – by other guys – to prove their manhood. And the argument of the book is that proving masculinity becomes a sort of relentless test for guys, and that THAT is what we have to pay attention to. The book is a sort of catalog of how guys feel they have to prove it — video games, porn, sports, binge drinking, hooking up, initiation and hazing. All of it. It’s not about how awful guys are because they are doing it. It’s about how awful it is that they often feel they are being forced to do those things they don’t want to do because if they don’t other guys will call them pussies.

This is the hallmark of a feminized Beta mindset – to believe that “guys being guys” is inherently aberrant. It’s something other guys do. I could go into detail about how men giving each other shit is an evolutionary (and useful) vestige of tribalism and how men would use this “challenging” to ensure the strength and survivability of the collective, but this will only grate against his ‘gender-as-social-construct’ belief.

Why do men think they’re so great? Because that’s the kind of men women love.

This discomfort with ‘being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual dividends. These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity. Risk taking, physical aggression (constructive and destructive) and physicality in general, ambition, team reliance and individualism are all part of this masculinity. That potential for violence scares the shit out of men like Kimmel, but that potential is also precisely what’s need for survival and success of a species.

Betas like Kimmel who grew up in fear of Alpha aggression instead of embracing and matching it directly, see bullying in every marginalized form of boys being boys, to say nothing of Men being Men, when they reach adulthood and still haven’t figured out how to relate to men and the masculine beyond what the easy answers feminization has provided for them. These are the men who’ll explain their feminine identification Game as being a personality issue, “I’ve always related to / better with women.” For feminized male apologists anything resembling an intrinsic understanding of masculinity is indistinguishable from Hypermasculinity.

Because of this embrace of feminine-primacy, the Professor is probably not the best equipped to educate men on issues of anger. As such, my guess is he cannot discern the difference between aggression born from anger and aggression as a vetting and honing mechanism of the male psychology.

Kimmel, presumes that men don’t want to participate in this vetting, but as always, want’s got nothing to do with it. It’s easy to characterize this vetting in the context of Bro Culture, but the fact of the matter is that it exists in every masculine subdomain from Frat Brothers and the football team to coders, gamers and 4Chan /b/rothers.

What’s “wrong” with the pickup seduction manuals is not so much that they treat women as objects, the means to get laid, notches on belts etc., and not as whole people. That’s pretty silly in the modern era.

Apparently Kimmel’s has yet to discover Tindr in this modern era. Someone ought to link Kimmel and Aunt Giggles to @Tinderfessions on Twitter – don’t say I didn’t warn you. It may be silly, but it’s reliable in the context of reality. If women have to be “warned” about this or that PUA tactic, it stands to reason said tactic will be effective. It also stands to reason the technique was based on a provable, intrinsically valid, female dynamic to be effective.

But what bothers me about these books is that they treat men as pathetic losers, utterly incapable of honest conversation, genuine affection, and authentic emotion. So they male-bash. They treat men as such losers that they have to be inauthentic game players in order to be successful with women. I have a much more sanguine view of men than that. I believe that when men are honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships.

What if these pathetic losers could become ‘authentic’ Men by learning how women actually relate to them on every level; from sociological to psychological, from evolutionary perspectives to the underlying biology that motivates women’s behaviors not only sexually, but emotionally, pragmatically and sympathetically? Would they still be pathetic losers?

What if these men could be ‘authentic’ in their understanding the nature of women and how women solipsistically and subconsciously institute their own Game socially and psychologically to ensure optimizing hypergamy to their best benefit?

What if these men could “Just Get It” and leverage that understanding not only to improve their own lives, but also the lives of other men, their sons, their brothers, and the lives of the women they involve themselves with? Would they be pathetic losers then?

What if these men’s genuineness in honesty, conversation and emotion were the result of red pill truth and having the blinders removed that a feminized acculturation fitted them with for the better part of a lifetime? The nature of that honesty, conversation and emotion might be something quite different than what your own feminine conditioning would have you envision Professor Kimmel. So are they pathetic losers because their genuineness derives from the red pill, or are they genuine because they buy into what you and a feminine-centric culture tells them they should adopt and internalize in order for women to love them? In other words, what are you selling that’s any different?

I agree, if men could be honest, communicative, and authentic, they will have great relationships, but how a guy comes to being honest with himself after shedding his blue pill programming, how he learns women ‘actually’ communicate, and how he becomes ‘authentic’ after having internalized Game-awareness and red pill truth is a far different prospect than telling men to just be themselves and trust in the alleged rationalness, equalism and zero-sum goodness inherent in ‘most’ women today.


Women Talk, Men Do

talk

Towards the end of last week’s comment thread there were some very insightful questions about how Men and women communicate.

Jeremy:

Honestly, [Stingray], I’ve never met a woman who actually wanted…”deep meaningful conversations, often.” I think this is another lie that women tell themselves. What women seem to want, conversationally, is an authority figure. They want someone who can talk for hours about things they have no understanding of. They want to be intellectually dazzled more than participate in a “deep meaningful conversation.”

[...] To be honest, and this will sound like I’m being arrogant, most women I’ve spent any time conversing with are poorly-read, lacking creative thoughts, and have an abysmal understanding of politics and the world at large. Having said that, I still can’t stand it when women say nothing on a date.

Yohami:

”deep meaningful conversations” for a woman, means “emotional stuff about how I feel and what I want”, “reaffirmation and validation of my viewpoints” and of course “entertain me with stories that show me your character and make me feel good about myself for being with you”

So of course they want that often.

jf12:

Yohami, deep doesn’t mean just telling her how you feel about her feelings, it means also helping her to uncover her inner goodness in the way that she agonized for almost a few moments when she betrayed one friend at the expense of another. In other words, you hold your metaphorical conch of an echo chamber to her metaphorical ear and its solipsistic otoacoustic emissions, and she can hear what she wants to hear, deeply.

Stingray:

Woman are not good at and hate what men mean by a deep meaningful conversation. The argument and debate, presenting and then criticizing ideas, and the ad hominems (that so often you all can then get up from the table and it is ALL over). That is not our idea of deep conversation at all. Then the feelings are NOT good and most women hate it.

Deti:

And the last thing a woman wants in a “deep, meaningful conversation is for the guy to talk about things important to HIM or, even worse, about HIS feelings. HIS feelings, wants, needs, and desires are the LAST things she wants to talk about because that’s so….beta.

The best male friends I have share one or more common interests with me – a sport, a hobby, music, art, fishing, lifting, golf, etc. – and the best conversations I can remember with these friends occurred while we were engaged in some particular activity or event. Even just moving a friend into his new house; it’s about accomplishing something together and in that time relating about shit. When I lived in Florida some of the best conversations I had with my studio guys were during some project we had to collaborate on for a week or two.

Women, make time with the express purpose of talking between friends. Over coffee perhaps, but the act of communication is more important than the event or activity. Even a ‘stitch-and-bitch’ is simply an organized excuse to get together and relate. For women, communication is about context. They are rewarded by how that communication makes them feel. For Men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the interchange of information and ideas.

Women talk, Men do.

Josey Wales:

Women typically don’t give a shit about world affairs, history, etc. They just don’t seem interested in pondering, learning about, debating the big issues.

There has to be a bio/evo explanation for this, and my best guess is that women’s concerns/interests have always been more provincial, localized and trivial. Picture a bunch of women sitting around a campfire hen party cluck session in primitive societies… Sharing gossip as they threshed the grain or made clothes.

I’m inclined to agree this. It’s no secret that men and women’s brains are wired differently, but what’s interesting is the complementarity between between both sex’s brains. It’s a mistake to think that women’s neural predilections for emotion and intuitiveness is inherently a weakness or a liability, but it’s equally a mistake to think that men’s dispositions towards rationalism, problem solving and inventiveness.

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.”

This pretty much confirms men and women’s communicative methods I outlined in The Medium is the Message:

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that in our hunter-gatherer tribal roles had a hand in men and women’s communication differences. Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort; in fact the earliest cave paintings were essentially records of a successful hunt and instructions on how to do it. Early men’s communication would necessarily have been content driven discourse or the tribe didn’t eat.

Similarly women’s communications would’ve been during gathering efforts and childcare. It would stand to reason that due to women’s more collectivist roles they would evolve to be more intuitive, and context oriented, rather than objective oriented. A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predispositions is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.

Men Like Women

When a man attempts to communicate like a woman (context-primary), women associate him with the feminine (i.e. he talks like a woman). This subconsciously indicates to her that a guy is Beta and making concessions of his maleness to better identify with the feminine. When you read about angry women feeling duped by the Nice Guy, who was only ‘playing nice’ in order to earn her intimacies, that deception is rooted in a guy relating to women as a woman would.

As you’re probably guessing, with the rise of social feminization, post-sexual revolution, men have been socialized and acculturated to express themselves increasingly as a woman would. This is part of boys-men’s earliest feminine conditioning; a calculated effort by the Feminine Imperative to train men to communicate as women do. I call this men’s “sensitivity training”, but in essence it’s a social effort to force men to rewire their brains to better accommodate a feminine-primary society. “Get in touch with your feminine side”, is really a plea for men to contort their natural ways of communicating into a feminine aligned mode of communicating.

The results however are very much the same as the faux-nice guy effect I describe. There is a subtle disingenuousness that the feminine mind perceives when a man communicates as a woman would. Alpha Men wouldn’t care enough to accommodate women’s communication preferences.

Incongruent communication styles is a tough obstacle for blue pill men to overcome when transitioning to red pill Game-awareness. The sincerity they hope to convey to women about their intentions is incongruous with how women’s limbic understanding of male communication style works. Men are men, because they talk ‘like men’ and are concerned with what Men are concerned with. Granted, the socialization of men to be more feminine-oriented doesn’t do a man any favors in unlearning this, but overcoming the fear of asserting himself as a Man and communicating to a woman as a Man would is imperative.

As most of the male commenters above will attest, there comes a point (usually for older, mature men with the experience to know) where forcing himself to relate to a woman on her terms is simply exhausting. It becomes mentally taxing to maintain interest – at some point men will want to speak their own language, feminine-primacy be damned, but it’s when he does revert back to his native gender language that he becomes more attractive.

When a Man drops the pretense of catering to the feminine, this is when he sets himself apart as a truly masculine agent. He is unapologetically masculine, and that is the mark of an Alpha – to not bend over into the feminine to better identify himself with the feminine. There is strength(and tingles) in our differences from women. So if you’re a newly red pill Man, start making efforts to consciously identify where you’re aligning yourself, your beliefs, your personality with accommodating the feminine and start unapologetically shifting them to a masculine-primary purpose.


Lessons for my Son

Lessons

As many of my readers know Mrs. Tomassi and I are raising a daughter. We had one child by design, and in all honesty I’m rather relieved it was a girl. Take this however you’d like, but I think raising a girl has allowed me more insight into how women grow and mature into young women, and it’s been through this experience that I’ve based more than a few of my theories on.

I have one younger brother, so the maturation process of growing up female was something I’ve never been familiar with until the past 15 years. I suppose the possibility exists that I may at some point be able to pass on my Red Pill wisdom to a future grandson, certainly my brother’s son, and many older male relatives, however I don’t really have any regrets since I’ve had more private messages and consult requests (I do read all of them) from the sons I never had.

One of the best compliments I get from Red Pill fathers is when they email me about how they’ve bought an extra copy of The Rational Male that they plan to give to their sons or some other male relative. Nothing encourages me to keep writing than the stories I receive like this – this is why I published the book.

So it was with some admitted pride that I came across this post on the Red Pill reddit forum. Testerod brings an  insightful list of points he plans to teach his son(s). I may at some point write a list like this for my daughter, but I thought this was good enough for a standalone post that might inspire some discussion over the weekend.

I came to RP late in life, and looking back on my 45 years, I now see that my path to happiness as an adult could have been much smoother had I known and internalized RP truths as an adolescent… Looking back on my relationships over the years, I can now see as clear as day that when I was successful it was because I was in an alpha frame… When I crashed and burned, it’s because I demonstrated beta behaviors.

My dad never really gave me the sex talk growing up. His abbreviated version of it was “I don’t care who you do, just don’t do it under my roof.” Marginally helpful maybe, but I could have avoided lots of crashing and burning had he given me some version of what I lay out below.

It’s still too early for the sex talk with my own son, but I want to be fully prepped at the right time to share as many RP truths with my son. In fact, I think it’s probably one of the most important things I can do to prepare him for manhood.

So, I wanted to pose the questions: A) What is the appropriate age to have “the talk” with my son? I’m currently thinking around the age when he starts becoming interested in girls (13-14). B) Would love to get your thoughts on some bulleted wisdom to share with him at the right time. Here’s some ideas I’ve been thinking about sharing:

  1. (13 & up) Whatever you do, don’t settle for one girl (oneitis) until much later in life. Play the field, spin plates, date lots of girls. This is the only way you’ll be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and realize what you really want in an LTR relationship down the road if/when you want a family.
  2. (13 & up) Your physical characteristics matter (looks, body type, etc.)… An alpha attitude matters more.
  3. (13 & up) Don’t chase. Be aloof. Let girls come to you. If you do pursue, do it in a carefully calculated way: Pursue and retreat. Push and pull.
  4. (13 & up) Keep her constantly guessing. Always let her know that you have options.
  5. (13 & up) Texting, phone calls, etc… Be disciplined in your response. Use the 1-3 ratio in responding to her texts, phone calls. Give her one short text response/phone conversation for every three she gives you.
  6. (13 & up) Define your mission and pursue it (not girls) passionately. Admittedly, this will be undefined and in flux for an adolescent, but whether it’s sports, studies, extracurricular activities, make those your first priority.
  7. (13 & up)Develop a keen understanding of the psychological/biological nature of women… Understand how girls think. They are ALWAYS looking to upgrade. If you’re not always the “best in show”, they WILL cheat on you find someone else.
  8. (13 & up) Nice guys finish last. There’s a reason all the girls like the boy who (good naturedly) teases them.
  9. (17 & up) Niceness will never get you laid, but will put you forever in the friend zone and give you a terrible case of blue balls.
  10. (17 & up) Be a leader in every relationship. If you’re on a date, make sure you’re doing something that YOU want to do. She can come along for the ride.
  11. (17 & up) Understand shit tests and learn to master them. Girls will always be qualifying you to make sure you’re the alpha male she wants you to be. If you start getting a lot of shit tests, re-evaluate your frame — you’re probably coming across as too needy.
  12. (17 & up) Understand female physiology and how to bring a woman to orgasm.
  13. (17 & up) Girls are the gatekeepers to sex. Men are the gatekeepers to relationships. Never forget this and be stingy as hell with your relationships.
  14. (17 & up) Girls will love you, but only opportunistically. If you demonstrate lower value (DLV), their love for you will evaporate.
  15. (17 & up) Show your beta traits occasionally, but use extreme caution when dong so. Girls will want to see that you are stoic, self-reliant, and confident. If you want a shoulder to cry on, get a dog. Use beta comfort only as a reward for good behavior.
  16. (17 & up)Be dominant in the relationship, in your life, and in the bedroom.
  17. (17 & up)Smile less, smirk more.
  18. (13 & up) Tease relentlessly.
  19. (17 & up) Learn what style of game works best for you: Are you the extroverted “cocky-funny” type? Are you the introverted “aloof-amused mastery type?” Are you the asshole type?
  20. (13 & up) Stay away from online porn.
  21. (13 & up) As an adolescent, you will be consumed with thoughts of sex. Fapping is inevitable. Don’t overdo it though. Control your masculine energy so that it can be harnessed outwardly instead of inwardly in the realm of fantasy.
  22. (17 & up) Realize that the build up of testosterone is what gives you your masculine energy. Don’t fap as a crutch to avoid meaningful interactions with real women. That guy who sits in his basement fapping to online porn all day? Don’t be that guy. Women are repulsed by him because his masculine energy is depleted and he has not learned to focus that energy on real women.
  23. (17 & up) Embrace the fact that men have huge sexual appetites. Never be ashamed of this and fully appreciate your masculine sexuality.
  24. (17 & up) Understand a female menstrual cycle and what it means for them, and more importantly for you (e.g. up the alpha during ovulation, throw in some beta during shark week.)
  25. (17 & up) Understand that for females, sexual arousal typically takes place in the brain and that they are less visually aroused than you are.
  26. (17 & up) Make sure that your sexual market rank is at least 1-2 points above hers at all times. This can be done either with attitude, physical fitness, your life passion or some combination of the above.
  27. (13 & up) Learn not to fear rejection. In game as in life, failure is the best teaching tool there is.
  28. (17 & up) Approach and open often. The more girls you talk to, the more you’ll refine your specific style and what works for you.
  29. (13 & up) Don’t think doing nice things for girls (giving them flowers, valentines, carrying their books, etc.) will make them like you more. It won’t. But they will swoon over you if you’re a fully complete, self-confident, at ease individual in your own right.
  30. (13 & up) Adolescence sucks. You will likely be filled with insecurities, you’ll be self-conscious, you’ll think you look like a goof, you’ll say dumb things to girls and then obsess about it. It’s only temporary… You’re learning and practicing the skills to be a man and there will be failures and mistakes. Always remember that everyone of your peers is going through the exact same thing.
  31. (17 & up) Push boundaries, take risks and be exciting… Even when you’re scared shitless. There’s nothing sexier to a woman than a man who is unafraid to embrace challenges.
  32. (13 & up) Don’t EVER BE A DOORMAT. The minute a girl disrespects you call her on it. And if she continues to disrespect you “next” her immediately no matter how emotionally difficult it is. This is absolutely critical to build your long term self-respect/self-confidence.

Admittedly, the list isn’t exhaustive, but interested in your thoughts and what else I’m leaving out.

If you cannot teach your son positive masculinity, the Feminine Imperative and a fem-centric world will tech him its version of masculinity.


The Second Set of Books

books

One of the cornerstones of red pill truth is in men coming to terms with what amounts to (in most cases) half a lifetime of feminine conditioning. It’s interesting to consider that there was a time (pre-sexual revolution) when a man wasn’t in someway socialized and acculturated in his upbringing to give deference to the feminine or to become more feminine-identifying. There are plenty of other manosphere bloggers who’ll run down in detail all of the many ways boys are now raised and educated to be what a feminine-primary world would like them to be, but at the heart of it is a presumption that boys should be raised and conditioned to be more like girls; conditioned from their earliest memories to be better providers for what women believe they will eventually want them to be as adult ‘men’.

For men who’ve become aware of this conditioning through some trauma or personal crisis that prompted him to seek answers for his condition, we call this period our blue pill days. I think it’s important to make a distinction about this time – whether or not a man is Alpha or Beta doesn’t necessarily exclude him from the consequences of a blue pill conditioning. That isn’t to say that a more natural Alpha Man can’t see the world in a red pill perspective by his own means, but rather that his feminine-primary upbringing doesn’t necessarily make a man Alpha or Beta.

The Blue Pill Alpha

I’m making this distinction because there is school of thought that being blue pill (unaware of one’s conditioning) necessitates him being more Beta. To be sure, feminine-primary conditioning would raise a boy into a more feminine-pliable man – ready to serve as the good Beta provider when a woman’s SMV declines and she’s less able to compete with her younger sexual competitors.

However, there exist more Alpha Men also conditioned to be servants of the Feminine Imperative. These men make for some of the most self-evincing White Knights you’ll ever meet and are usually the first men to “defend the honor” of the feminine and women for whom they lack a real awareness of. Binary absolutism and an upbringing steeped in feminization makes for a potent sense of self-righteousness. Blue pill Alphas live for the opportunity to defend everything their conditioning has taught them. To the blue pill Alpha all women are victims by default, all women share a common historic suffrage and any man (his sexual competitors) critical of the feminine are simply an opportunity to prove his worth to any woman in earshot who might at all find his zealousness attractive.

The Second Set of Books

On June 15th, 2011, Thomas Ball set himself on fire in front of Cheshire Superior Court in New Hampshire. While I strongly disagree with his decision to self-immolate, I understand his sentiment. In last week’s Possession, Living Tree attempted to call me to the carpet about how a man might come to the conclusion of suicide or murder once he’d become confronted with a total loss of all his personal and emotional investment in life:

But Rollo, you just justified murder as “logical”, by illustrating that insecurity is the prime motivator for this man’s life (and many others, I’d imagine). The decision may have be understandable in an empathetic sense, and he might have seen it as logical at the time, but there is nothing logical about it. You are making extreme beta-ism seem more and more like a mental disorder.

Just for the record, I’d argue that ONEitis, however extreme, is in fact a mental disorder.

I haven’t justified anything, murder or suicide, I’ve simply outlined the deductive process men use when confronting the actualized loss of their most important investment (or perceptually so) in life. They are convinced and conditioned to believe that women are playing by a set of rules and will honor the terms of those rules, only to find that after ego-investing themselves for a lifetime in the correctness and appropriateness of those rules does he discover in cruel and harsh terms that women are playing by another set of rules and wonder at how stupid he could be to have ever believed in the rules he was conditioned to expect everyone would abide by.

Suicide or murder is certainly a deductive and pragmatic end for some men, but by no means is it justified. Thomas Ball, for all of his due diligence in uncovering the ugly processes of the American divorce industry, was far more useful alive than dead in some symbolic suicide. He wasn’t the martyr he probably expected he’d be, he’s just a footnote.

For all of that, Thomas Ball and his last message to humanity serves as an excellent illustration of a man coming to terms with his own conditioning. In his message Ball makes a very important observation about his legal ordeals. He comes to understand that there are two sets of books rather than the one he’d been lead to believe that everyone understood as ‘the rules’ everyone should play by.

The confusion you have with them is you both are using different sets of books. You are using the old First Set of Books- the Constitution, the general laws or statutes and the court ruling sometime call Common Law. They are using the newer Second Set of Books. That is the collection of the policy, procedures and protocols. Once you know what set of books everyone is using, then everything they do looks logical and upright.

Ball was of course making a political statement in his account of going through the legal system and the cruel education he got in the process, but when men transition from their comfortable blue pill perspective into the harsh reality that the red pill represents, the experience is a lot like Ball discovering that the set of books (the set of rules) he’d believed everyone was using wasn’t so. Likewise, men who’ve been conditioned since birth to believe that women were using a common set of rules – a set where certain expectations and mutual exchange were understood – were in fact using their own set. Furthermore these men ‘just didn’t get it’ that they should’ve known all along that women, as well as men’s feminization conditioning, were founded in a second set of books.

In and of itself, this is a difficult lesson for young men to learn and disabuse themselves of before they’ve invested their most productive years into what their blue pill conditioning has convinced them they can expect from life and women. However, when a mature man, who’s based the better part of his life and invested his future into the hope that the first set of books is actually legitimate set is disenfranchised by the second set of books, by the actual set of rules he’s been playing with, that’s when all of the equity he believed he’d established under the first set of books counts for nothing. Literally his life (up to that point) counted for nothing.

When faced with the prospect of rebuilding himself after living so long under false pretenses, after having all he believed he was building turn up to be a lifetime of wasted effort, he’s faced with two real options. Recreate himself or destroy himself. Needless to say suicide statistics among men are a strong indication that the majority of men (Betas) simply don’t have the personal strength to recreate themselves. Thomas Ball didn’t.

There’s usually a lot of disillusionment that comes with making the transition to Red Pill awareness. I’ve written more than a few posts about the stages of grief and acceptance that come along with that transition. Guy’s get upset that what they now see was really there all along, but it’s not so much the harshness of seeing red pill dynamics in women or a feminized society play out with such predictability, it’s the loss of investment that cause the real sense of nihilism. When I wrote Anger Management, the overarching reason most men experienced what they called a righteous anger, wasn’t at how the second set of books had been dictating their lives for so long, but rather it was anger at having invested so much of themselves in the first set of books and losing that very long term investment.

The good news is you can rebuild yourself. A lot gets written about how nihilistic the red pill is, but this is for a lack of understanding that you can recreate yourself for the positive with the knowledge of both sets of rules. One common thread I see come up often on the Red Pill Reddit forum is how Game-awareness has completely destroyed a guy’s world view. I get it, I realize it’s a hard realization, but their depression is only for a lack of realizing that they can become even better in this new understanding than they were in their blue pill ignorance.


Anger Management

anger-management1

If the “postponement” of the ABC 20/20 manosphere “exposé” has taught us anything it’s that the writers seeking to cast light on the manosphere are looking for crazy. They need crazy because it’s the only thing they know how, or have the patience, to confront in as minimal an effort as it takes to type a few paragraphs dismissing it as misogyny.

Writers (vichy male writers) like R. Tod Kelly are also lazy. They see an opportunity for outrage and that sells advertising. They wanted Stormfront and what they got was a global consortium of rational, well reasoned men with jobs, families and intelligence, men from all walks of life, all ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds expressing ideas that don’t fit into an acculturation of feminine primacy.

If you read Matt Forney’s 20/20 interview post you’ll see the desperation for crazy in their producer’s attempts to provoke him to become what they think he should be – a frothing, angry, hate-fueled misogynist. That would make it easy for them, they know how to sell crazy. The copy gets approved, the crazies get marginalized and we move on to the next Mabeline commercial.

But they didn’t get crazy from Matt, or Roosh (OK Paul Elam looks a bit like Charles Manson in a certain light), they got well reasoned, sensibility that was hard to argue against, so they attempted to prompt the crazy by barraging Roosh with questions about rape in the hopes that he’d blow up. He wouldn’t. They wanted it to be easy. They wanted to know all they needed to know about the manosphere by sourcing Manboobz, interviewing 3 manosphere bloggers and then trot out the crazy, show off the carnival freak, demonize and marginalize him and frog march the crazy off the stage. They wanted fringe, the easy kind of fringe that their journalism, communications and women’s studies classes taught them the easy answers to confront it with.

But the manosphere isn’t fringe. For as much as R. Tod Kelly, or the producers at ABC would like it to be, the manosphere is too broad, too comprehensive, too diverse for anyone unfamiliar with it to really understand it, much less deliver an unbiased objective opinion of it. So Kelly follows formula and makes the same lame attempts at simple aspersion and misogynistic dismissal 20/20 had already failed in doing (as evidenced by their show postponement). The Daily Beast wanted its formulaic red meat, but Kelly is just dishing out ABC’s cold left-overs.

Anger is a Gift

One of the more common criticisms lobbed at the manosphere in general is that the men contributing and commenting are just angry.

It’s the easiest reaction for men and women conditioned to feminine-primacy to retort with. If men are just “bitter”, “burned” and “angry” it absolve them of really having to think critically about what those men are proposing. Anger is one of those easy answers for people who don’t want to be exposed to things that either they don’t have a real answer for (such as JBY) or are too comfortable in their ego-investments that they don’t want to be forced into any kind of introspection that might challenge them.

So the manosphere is just a collection of angry men, shaking their virtual fists and venting their frustrations about their loser status, their tough luck or being on the sharp end of the SMP.

“There’s a lot of anger towards women in the manosphere. These misogynists think all women are evil bitches out to take half their money, steal their children and force them into indentured servitude. I pity them, really I do.”

Most appeals to anger read like some variation of this. While being an easy retort, playing the anger card is also a very useful social convention for the feminine in that it’s so culturally embedded that it’s men who display the most anger and therefore more believable. Anger is the perfect disqualifier for the feminine. Accusing a man of misogyny will always be more believable than accusing a woman of misandry because men are always just angrier than women.

Beyond the quick and easy dismissal of anger about anything even marginally critical a man might say about the feminine is an underlying conditioning that prompts people to it. By that I mean, to the majority of blue-pill plugged in people, anything critical of the feminine, by default, is rooted in anger. We can link this to women’s default status of victimhood, but even relating the most objective observation of behaviors, psychology or social constructs pertaining to the feminine in anything less than a flattering light is automatically suspect of a male anger bias.

But are we angry? I can’t say that I haven’t encountered a few guys on some forums and comment threads who I’d characterize as angry judging from their comments or describing their situations. For the greater whole I’d say the manosphere is not angry, but the views we express don’t align with a feminine-primary society. Men expressing a dissatisfaction with feminine-primacy, men coming together to make sense of it, sound angry to people who’s sense of comfort comes from what the feminine imperative has conditioned them to.

Most of the men who’ve expressed a genuine anger with me aren’t angry with women, but rather they’re angry with themselves for having been blind to the Game that they’d been a part of for so long in their blue-pill ignorance. They’re angry that they hadn’t figured it out sooner.

I understand that a lot of what is written in the manosphere can certainly be interpreted as coming from a source for anger. When I (or anyone else) outline the fundaments of hypergamy for instance, there’s a lot to be angry about for a man. Women get pissed because it exposes an ugly truth that the feminine exhausts a lot of resources to keep under the rug, but for men, learning about the feral reasons for feminine (and masculine) behaviors often enough cause a guy to become despondent or angry. That impression should never be the basis for a Man’s Game, nor is it ever really an aspect of internalizing Game that will benefit him personally.

It’s easy for women and blue-pill men to discourage a Man from red-pill self-improvement by convincing him he’ll turn into an angry Jerk who no woman would want to get with, but the truth is that learning Game isn’t the positively life altering revelation it is because it begins from a root anger. It’s successful because Men have a motivation to move past the anger or despondency that comes from a better understanding of the hows and whys of the feminine. They want a better life for themselves and the women they engage with. Whether that means upping a guy’s notch count or finding a woman worthy of his attentions and provisioning for monogamy, Men realize that their betterment with women and themselves doesn’t begin with anger, or hate, or crazy.


Love Story

Blue-Valentine-stills-blue-valentine-25345256-1280-852

Among my more controversial essays is my series on the differences in interpretations of love as specific to each gender. As I’ve elaborated before Men approach love from idealistic foundations, while due to their innate hypergamy, women’s approach to love is rooted in opportunism. The easy rebuttal to this that often comes from women is to presume that either sex’s life experiences are going to necessarily be different. Women cannot fully appreciate the male experience (much less validate it) unless they can actually become men and live in a lifetime of their experiences, their upbringing, their biology, their acculturation and societal conditioning.

Yes, I am aware that it works both ways, men cannot fully appreciate women’s existential experiences either and for the same reason, however that doesn’t excuse either gender from making an effort to better understand the other’s experience. In a social environment where the feminine perspective has primacy, it has been women who have been the arbiters of what should universally be the socially agreed upon definition of what love means to both sexes.

However, this hasn’t stopped men from trying to define love for themselves, and make efforts to make women see how they would like their love to be in idealistic terms. History is rife with examples of men, in every culture, venturing to make women understand and really grasp their idealized notion of love. From ancient love poems, to epic stories of one woman launching a thousand ships, to Romeo and Juliet, Men have attempted to educate women on how they would be loved, and how they would like to love.

As I’ve detailed before, once a man really unplugs from his feminine conditioning he becomes more sensitive to the world that’s been pulled over his eyes. Hearing common terms in conversation that belie a feminine mindset, listening to songs that drip with male self-sacrifice for women, understanding why certain themes in popular media resonate with culture is all part of this new sensitivity. One thing the red pill has has made me keenly aware over time is the difference in storytelling that applies to each gender.

It would be too easy an assumption to say that I have a better awareness as to which gender is telling a particular story, but rather, I have a keener sensitivity to which gender perspective a story is originating from now – and particularly when that story involves specific gender approaches to love. I could single out the stories of Emily Bronte and compare them with the formulaic themes of modern romance novels or romantic comedy movies, but that would be easy and expected. Any women’s studies major could tell you this. What I’m interested in is how the genders interpret each other’s idealized concepts of love.

Example 1

Titanic, 1997. Arguably one of the greatest love stories ever put on film. I can remember adult women of the time who literally were incapable of going to work or doing much of anything else the day after watching this movie. I can remember women I dealt with professionally bursting into tears because they were so wracked with vicarious imagined grief – this is the psychological impact Titanic had, don’t even get me started on the teenage girls of the time.

A lot went on in Titanic from a feminine-romanticized perspective. It’s definitely an epic fairytale, and one that has all of the formulaic elements of a classic love story. Rich beautiful girl, scrappy-poor-but-Alpha-and good looking hero who draws girl into his reality. Tragic, but sacrificial death of said hero to save her and ensure her a better life.

I’ve linked the last few minutes of Titanic here because it’s really the summation of the entire story. The former beauty, now old woman, Rose still pines for her Alpha she lost so long ago. This scene epitomizes the concept of the Alpha Widow — As the heart that was given to her by her Alpha sinks to the bottom of the ocean, we pan across photos of all of her life experiences afforded to her by Jack’s sacrifice; the beauty queen, the mother, the Amelia Earhart-esque (have it all fantasy) pilot, horseback rider and finally she can return to her Alpha in death.

Example 2

Saving Private Ryan, 1998. Released just one year later, Saving Private Ryan debuts. Also, arguably one of the greatest, heroic and epic stories put to film from an unarguably masculine perspective. Where Titanic relies on a clever retelling of classic and tested romantic themes, SPR explores distinctly male themes of honor, duty, courage, service and also sacrifice. Captain Miller’s sacrifice is of a decidedly different nature, but the premise is the same — self-sacrifice for the betterment of another individual. As Captain Miller dies his last words are “Earn this.” Merit this, be worthy of this.

Granted, more men than just Captain Miller die on Ryan’s behalf, but he’s the protagonist and the one we really care about as his death is personalized for us. In an almost analogous ending to Titanic (linked) we see the elderly Ryan contemplating his life and wondering if he’d “earned it” with what he’d done with his life. And in classic form he seeks that affirmation from a woman, his wife.

“Tell me I’ve led a good life. Tell me I’m a good man.”

We can tell there’s no connection, no familiarity of Ryan’s experience shared with his wife. Her response is just this side of a patronizing dismissal of the imagined concerns of an old man. We can presume Ryan has led a somewhat good life, he’s still married, probably has kids, but nowhere is the have it all fantasization that an elderly Rose enjoys. We still don’t know if Ryan had ‘earned it’, if his life’s performance was good enough; the pat on the cheek from his oblivious wife doesn’t confirm it, but that’s the operative difference between Ryan’s character and Rose’s — Rose’s good life was never expected to have been earned.

Almost serendipitously Mac commented on my Sorry,.. post this evening:

I was picked on as a boy and decided at a very young age to fight back by outdoing all my naysayers. All the people that tell you your not good enough, smart enough or talented enough… So I became the antithesis of their projections and surpassed all my personal goals. It’s more than just getting the girl… It’s about conquering “your” world!

Men are expected to perform. To be successful, to get the girl, to live a good life, men must do. Whether it’s riding wheelies down the street on your bicycle to get that cute girl’s attention or to get a doctorate degree to ensure your personal success and your future family’s, Men must perform. Women’s arousal, attraction, desire and love are rooted in that conditional performance. The degree to which that performance meets or exceeds expectations is certainly subjective, and the ease with which you can perform is also an issue, but perform you must.

There is one final movie that I would use as an illustration of gender-differential love approaches and that is the movie Blue Valentine. I would link some clips here but I think it’s probably best to watch it in its entirety to really understand the principle differences between men and women’s idealized love.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,436 other followers