Category Archives: Positive Masculinity

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.


The Curse of Potential

potential

One of the most frustrating things I’ve had to deal with in this life is knowing men with incredible potential who, for whatever reason, never realize it (or as fully) because they deliberately limit themselves due to a Beta mindset . Whether it’s potential for success due to a particular talent, the potential of their socio-economic state and affluence, or simply dumb luck that put them into a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, their blue-pill ignorance or pride, or rule-bound duty to the feminine imperative thanks to their Beta frame of mind, hold them back from really benefitting from it.

God forbid you’d have to cooperate with a guy like this in a business or creative endeavor where your own livelihood might be attached to his inability to move past his Beta frame or his feminine conditioning. One of the benefits of becoming red pill aware is a heightened sensitivity to how the feminized world we live in is organized; and part of that sensitivity is becoming a better judge of Beta character and avoiding it, or at least insofar as minimizing another man’s liabilities as a Beta to how his malaise could affect you.

I used to work with a very rich man who owned a few of the brands I became involved with in my career. While he was wealthy and had a certain knack for developing some very creative and profitable products, the guy was a deplorable chump with regards to his personal and romantic life. He was very much a White Knight Beta bordering on martyrdom when it came to his wives and the women in his life, who were all too happy to capitalize on this very obvious flaw. At one point he was attempting to launch a new product for which he needed some financial backing, but simply couldn’t get it from investors because they weren’t convinced their part of his venture wouldn’t end up as part of his next divorce settlement since he was planning his 3rd marriage.

His self-righteous ‘love conquers all’ White Knight idealism chaffed at the suggestion he would need a pre-nuptial affidavit for anyone to even chance being involved with him professionally, but his proven Beta mindset was a liability to his realizing his full potential. His story is an exceptional illustration of this Beta limitation dynamic, but there are far more common examples with everyday men I know, and you probably do too. That limitation may not even be recognizable until such a time that it becomes an impediment to some future opportunity that opens up to you.

From Letting Go of Invisible Friends:

I can’t begin to list the number of otherwise intelligent and ambitious men I’ve known who’ve drastically altered the course of their lives to follow their ONE. Men who’ve changed their majors in college, who’ve selected or switched universities, men who’ve applied for jobs in states they would never have considered, accepted jobs that are sub-standard to their ambitions or qualifications, men who’ve renounced former religions and men who’ve moved across the planet all in an effort to better accommodate an idealized woman with whom they’ve played pseudo-boyfriend with over the course of an LDR; only to find that she wasn’t the person they thought she was and were depressive over the gravity that their decisions played in their lives.

And again from Dream Killers:

It never ceases to amaze me when I talk with these young men in their teens and 20s and they try to impress me with their fierce independence in every other realm of their lives, yet they are the same guys who are so ready to limit that independence and ambition in exchange for dependable female intimacy. They’re far too eager to slap on the handcuffs of monogamy, rather than develop themselves into men of ambition and passion that women naturally want to be associated with.[...]

All of this is limited by a man’s attitude towards the opposite sex. Women are dream killers. Not because they have an agenda to be so, but because men will all too willingly sacrifice their ambitions for a steady supply of pussy and the responsibilities that women attach to this.

Social feminization and the Feminine Imperative both play an active role in curtailing a man’s potential, but more often than not it’s with a willing male participant. It’s important for red pill Men to remember that the Feminine Imperative is more concerned about women’s perpetuated long-term security than it will ever be about Men actualizing their true potential – even when it means his sacrificing that potential to sustain her security, and by doing so makes him progressively less able to sustain it.

Women who read my Appreciation essay and try to wrap their heads around my assertion that women will never appreciate the sacrifices men will readily make to ensure a feminine-primary reality never take this equation into account. They think I’m attacking the sincerity of their commitment by pointing out a less than flattering truth — hypergamy wants the security of knowing (or at least believing) that a woman is paired with the best man her SMV merits, but the fundamental problem is that her hypergamy conflicts with his capacity to develop himself to his best potential.

Turnkey Hypergamy

Hypergamy wants a pre-made Man. If you look at my now infamous comparative SMP curve, one thing you’ll notice is the peak SMV span between the sexes:

SMV_Curve

Good looking, professionally accomplished, socially matured, has Game, confidence, status, decisive and Just Gets It when it comes to women. Look at any of the commonalities of terms you see in any ‘would like to meet’ portion of a woman’s online dating profile and you’ll begin to understand that hypergamy wants optimization and it wants it now. Because a woman’s capacity to attract her hypergamous ideal decays with every passing year, her urgency demands immediacy with a Man embodying as close to that ideal as possible in the now.

Hypergamy takes a big risk in betting on a man’s future potential to become (or get close to being) her hypergamous ideal, so the preference leans toward seeking out the man who is more made than the next.

The problem with this scenario as you might guess is that women’s SMV depreciates as men’s appreciates — or at least should appreciate. As I outlined above, the same hypergamy that constantly tests and doubts the fitness of a man in seeking its security also limits his potential to consistently satisfy it.

Developing Potential

Just Four Guys (fast becoming my most lurked blog) had an interesting article on Quantifying Sexual Market Value:

Rollo Tomassi at Rational Male has a differing graph of SMV based on his personal estimation. While his evaluation of female SMV with age matches both these graphs quite closely, the same cannot be said of male SMV. However, the difference is that he is measuring potential SMV, rather than actual SMV, and he believes that older men who maintain a proper lifestyle can maximise their SMV to far higher levels than younger men can.

By age 36 the average man has reached his own relative SMV apex. It’s at this phase that his sexual / social / professional appeal has reached maturity. Assuming he’s maximized as much of his potential as possible, it’s at this stage that women’s hypergamous directives will find him the most acceptable for her long-term investment. He’s young enough to retain his physique in better part, but old enough to have attained social and professional maturity.

Thus, what we’re seeing here is the SMV that is actualized by the average male, whereas Rollo’s SMV is what a man could theoretically achieve with good inner game.

One misinterpretation I diligently tried to avoid in estimating men’s relative SMV is in using sex (or the capacity to attract potential sex partners) as an exclusive metric for evaluating men’s overall SMV. Notch count in and of itself is not the benchmark for SMV, rather it is a Man’s actualization of his real potential (of which notch count is an aspect) that determines his SMV. Hypergamy wants you to fulfill your best potential (the better to filter you), but it doesn’t want to assume the risk of protracted personal investment that your fulfilled potential will eventually place your SMV so far above her own that you leave her and her investment is lost.

This then is the conflict between male potential and feminine hypergamy. I detailed this in The Threat:

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

On the blue pill reddit forum I recently read a criticism of my SMP graph, dismissing it by stating that an early to mid-thirties guy was far more likely to look like your average schlub, with an average low wage job than some mature, successful guy, who’s kept himself in shape and maintains some GQ lifestyle. I have to say I’m inclined to agree; most men, average men are men who haven’t realized the potential they could. Whether this lack is due to motivation, the limitations of a feminine socialization, or an inability to come to terms with their blue-pill reality, they never actualize the potential that would make them higher SMV men. The blue pill redditors can’t see that it’s Men’s potential that sets them apart on the SMV scale.

I’ll finish this with a quote from New Yorker in last week’s comment thread:

I think that the primary lesson of Game is that one needs to have a life and purpose that makes a man happy and determined to wake up every morning. Once a man takes control of his life, then a woman becomes an interchangeable part of it like anything else. The road to that state only lies through relentless self-improvement and the shedding of prior limitations. Otherwise, the same brutal cycle repeats itself.


The Male Experience

experience

A little over fifteen years ago my wife was pregnant with Bebé Tomassi. For most of her adult life Mrs. Tomassi has been a medical professional (radiology) so when she was knocked up she and her girl-friends at the hospital would take any free moment they got to sneak into the ultrasound room a have a peek at our gestating daughter.  As a result we have about 4 times as many ultrasound pics as most other couples get. I actually have images of Bebé as a multi-celled organism.

It was during one of these impromptu scannings that we discovered what gender our child would  be. We were both more than a bit impatient and didn’t want to wait for the silly build up the OBGYN would make of revealing her gender, so we hit up a girl-friend of my wife to do another ultrasound around the right trimester.

She scanned for a bit and said, “Oh yeah, you’ve got a girl.” We asked how she could be so sure and she said, “Her hands aren’t in the right place.” We were like WTF? Then she explained, “Almost always when the baby is a boy his hands will be down around his crotch once he’s matured to a certain phase in the pregnancy. There’s not much to do in there, so they play with themselves. Your daughter’s hands are usually up around her face.”

After hearing this, it was at that point I began to appreciate the power of testosterone. Whenever I read someone tell me sex isn’t really a “need”, I think about how even in the womb the influence of testosterone is there. For better or worse, our lives as Men center on our capacity to control, unleash, mitigate and direct that influence. Socially we build up appropriate conventions intended to bind it into some kind of uniformity, to prevent the destructive potential and exploit its constructive potential – while personally we develop convictions, psychologies and internalized rules by order of degree to live our lives with its influence always running in the background of our subconsciousness.

Experience

Women become very indignant when trying to understand the male experience. This is due in most part to women’s innate solipsism and their presumption that their experience is the universal one. Part of this presumption is due to social reinforcement, but that social presumption – essentially the equalist presumption – is rooted in women’s base indifference to anything external that doesn’t affect them directly and personally. If everyone is essentially the same and equal, and we’re acculturated to encourage this perspective, it leaves women to interpret their imperatives and innate solipsism to be the normative for men.

So it often comes with a lot shock and indignation (which women instinctively crave) when women are forced, sometimes rudely, to acknowledge that men’s experience doesn’t reflect their own. The reactive response is to force-fit men’s experience into women’s solipsistic interpretations of what it should be according to a feminine-primary perception of what works best for women. On an individual woman’s level this amounts to denial and rejection of a legitimate male-primary experience through shame or implied fem-centric obligations to accept and adopt her experience as his responsibility. On a social level this conflict is reflected in social conventions and feminine-centric social doctrines, as well as being written directly into binding laws that forcibly enact a feminine-centric perspective into our social fabric.

Feminine solipsism and the primacy of the female experience superseding the male experience begins with the individual woman (micro) and extrapolates into a feminine primary social construct (macro).

Virtually every conflict between the sexes comes back to the rejection of the legitimacy of the male experience. As I’ve stated in the past, for one sex to realize their own sexual imperative, the other sex must sacrifice their own. In virtually every dynamic I’ve ever written about the fundamental lack of understanding the male experience influences women’s perception of our sex. Whether it’s understanding our sexual impulse, our idealizations of love, or appreciating the sacrifices men uniquely make to facilitate a feminine reality, the disconnect always distills down to a fundamental lack of appreciating the legitimacy of the male experience.

It would be too easy a cop out to simply write this disconnect off as an existential difference. Obviously men and women cannot spend time in each other’s skin to directly appreciate the experience of the other. However, since the Feminine Imperative is the normative one in our current social makeup the presumption is that a feminine directed ‘equalism’ is the only legitimate experience. Thus the masculine experience is, by default, delegitimized, if not vilified for simply reminding the feminine that inherent, evolved sexual differences challenge equalism by masculinity’s very presence.

I reject your reality and replace it with my own…

Men just being men is a passive challenge to the feminine imperative; red pill awareness is a direct challenge to the legitimacy of a feminine primary experience. It’s important to recall here that the primacy of the female experience begins on the personal level with an individual woman and then exponentially multiplies into a social (macro) scale. When you assert yourself as a red pill Man, you are asserting your disconnection from that feminine-primary frame. This begins on a personal level for a woman, and then extrapolates into a social affront for all women.

The initial shock (and indignation) is one of interrupting her comfortable, predictable expectations of men in the feminine defined, solipsistic reality she experiences for herself. As even the most rookie of red pill Men will attest, the legitimate female experience rejects this assertion, most times with an amount of hostility. As expected, Men are met with the socially reinforced, prepared responses designed to defend against attempts to question the legitimacy of the primacy of the feminine experience – shaming is often the first recourse, even most passive challenges warrant shaming, but character assassination and disqualifications based upon a feminine primary perspective are the go-to weapons of the solipsistic nature of the feminine mindset (even when men are the ones subscribing to it).

The next weapon in the feminine psychological arsenal is histrionics. Aggrandized exaggerations and overblown straw man tactics may seem like a last resort for women to the man attempting to rationally impose his red pill, legitimized, male experience, but know histrionics for what they are – a carefully design, feminine-specific and socially approved failsafe for women. In the same vein as a Woman’s Prerogative (women can change their minds) and the Feminine Mystique, female histrionics are a legitimized and socially excusable tactic with the latent purpose of protecting a woman’s solipsistic experience. She’s an emotional creature and your challenge to her ego only brings out the hysteric in her – it’s men’s fault that they don’t get it, and it’s men’s fault for bringing it out in her by challenging her solipsism. And thus is she excused from her protective histrionics at men’s cost.

It’s important for red pill Men to understand what their presence, much less their assertions, mean to the feminine; their very existence, just their questioning, represents a challenge to individual, ego-invested feminine solipsism. Always be prepared for the inevitable defense of a woman’s solipsism. Even in the most measured approach, you are essentially breaking a woman’s self-concept by reminding or asserting that her experience is not the universal experience. There’s a temptation for red pill Men to get comfortable with a woman’s who accepts red pill truths, only to find that her solipsism has only accepted the parts of those truths that its comfortable with and benefits from. That solipsism doesn’t die once she’s acknowledged the legitimacy of your experience, anymore than your sexual imperative dies if you accept her experience as the legitimate one.


Beer and Boobs

I can remember watching a few episodes of The Man Show back in 2002 or 2003. I was finishing my degree at the time, and although I was much older than most of my college peers then, I actually had offers from fraternities to join during ‘rush’ week. I never took them up on it; my being at least 10 years older than even the oldest ‘brother’ didn’t sit right with me, and the fact I was working 40+ hours a week didn’t leave me much time to ‘go greek’. Of the few friends I had time for then, at least 4 were frat guys, and they loved The Man Show.

These guys knew of my interest in gender and personality studies in (my then minor) behavioral psychology, but it was mostly due to my presenting them with something they could agree with about how women were. They innocently suggested I check out The Man Show thinking I would be interested in it because “it’s finally a show for guys.” Back then I was dissecting the masculine ridicule and caricaturizations of male roles in movies and TV and these guys were enthusiastic about what I was writing and telling them.

I thought the show was pretty funny at first. I still love and reference Adam Carola, and his insights on gender. However, after watching the show for a while, something wasn’t sitting well for me. I couldn’t put my finger on it then, but at some point I thought, “man this is stupid, can’t we do better than this?” The realization I was making was if this was a “show for men” then men were, well, kind of stupid.

I was already well aware of the dumbing-down of the masculine roles in popular media (TV, movies, etc.), but when what was supposedly an exclusively male oriented show is offered it seems that masculine ridicule is only reaffirmed. I’m using The Man Show as an illustration of a bigger dynamic here – if all we had to go on was popular  (i.e. feminized) culture to help us characterize what is masculine then we’d be bad off enough, but it appears that men themselves are almost subconsciously complicit in reinforcing these feminine-defined cartoons of ‘how men really are.’

I love football. I would probably bore you to tears with my enthusiasm about next season and how the pre-season can’t get here soon enough. Ask me about baseball, I’ll tell you I like the Dodgers, but I know relatively nothing about America’s pastime. Soccer, golf, tennis, hockey, I couldn’t carry a conversation about any of them. I like big boobs (fake or real), I like women’s long legs and great assess. You all know I’ve worked in the liquor industry for over 9 years, so I have a vested interest in booze too. However, these natural interests of mine are only small component elements of who I am as a Man.

Granted, sex and alcohol seem to be the top two elements contributing to human happiness, but there is much more to me, much more to my existence as a man, than my base impulses. The problem with defining masculinity in terms of our root interests is that men begin to believe that’s all we have the potential for. For all of its social influence, the Feminine Imperative has no real frame of reference when it comes to the male experience. So in its effort to marginalize the masculine, effectively emasculating society, its only recourse is to define manhood in terms of what best demonizes masculinity. The Imperative can’t afford men to define masculinity for themselves, so the real roles of men are either ridiculous buffoons in need of uniquely feminine correction, or they’re boorish, brutes, poisoned by testosterone and little more than alcoholic, easily manipulable, walking hard-ons.

That’s what men get in their man-space. Hooters, football, beer and boobs. Even in their ‘man-caves’ this is what a woman can expect to find. Left to their own devices, men would simply turn the world into one grandiose Bro-Culture. Nowhere will you find the dreamers, the leaders, the thinkers, the artists or engineers – in girl-world, the majority of men are either pigs or damaged goods.

But if the Feminine Imperative is anything, it’s self-effacing and self-contradicting. According to the Feminine Imperative, for all of the feral worst it characterizes masculinity as, it’s not enough to accept men’s nature as so. You see nothing, not even the feminine reinforced pig-man nature is actually real, it’s just a mask men are socialized to wear.

So what is real masculinity? Make no mistake, the confusing redefinition of masculinity is a deliberate effort in social control on the part of the Feminine Imperative. Pointing out its schizophrenic misunderstanding (or intentional distortion) of the masculine is easy enough, but men have unwittingly adopted and reinforced their own gender role confusion. Either by embracing the Bro-Culture lie or by subscribing wholesale to the feminine identification of what masculinity should be, men are complicit in limiting themselves from defining masculinity for themselves.

Understand this now, a fem-centric society wants you to believe that masculinity is loutish, beer-swilling frat boys AND horribly damaged male psyches socialized into being so. A fem-centric society can’t afford to allow men to self-define masculinity, because it throws that deep feminine need for security and control over to the men they cannot trust because of the same definition it encourages for its own control.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,649 other followers