Category Archives: Psychology

January 20, 2014

Suck It Up

By Rollo Tomassi

suck-it-up

Recently Marellus from Just Four Guys brought this to my attention:

Did you see how the womyn tore apart a commenter, by the name of Redlum, on Jezebel ?

Just because he said this :

Why does feminism have to antagonize and mock men all the time? Men are expected to have no vulnerabilities, this is an oppressive gender role. When men’s vulnerabilities are exposed, such as feeling emasculated or being insecure about women making them “obsolete”, that is a human emotion and gloating over it and mocking it is not only terrible, but also one of the big things giving feminism a bad name.

The top reply was this :

If being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you and/or has a higher position than you makes you feel that you are becoming obsolete, maybe you should be mocked for being silly, immature, and sexist. So now, on top of everything else that women have to deal with, we have to comfort men for freaking out whenever a woman surpasses them at something? I’m sorry – if you are in a group that has been privileged over/oppressive of other groups, you don’t get an apology and a reassuring hug every time we get a millimeter closer to some semblance of fairness and equality. Men need to suck it up and deal with life on more equitable terms like adults, without those who do just that expecting a medal for it.

Write a post on what this guy did wrong, if possible.

Redlum’s mistake was twofold. His first error was to ever overtly look for sympathy from a woman (women). We already know women lack the capacity for empathizing with the male experience, but sympathy is another side of the equation. One grave error most blue pill plug-ins make in this respect is a presumption that women owe them sympathy or that women are predisposed to sympathizing with them.

This is usually due to having been conditioned by the feminine for so long to believe that “Open Communication®”, sharing his feelings and being vulnerable will make him the ideal man. This is an unfortunate outcome of the ‘get in touch with your feminine side’ curse of Jung: in a similar respect to the myth of Relational Equity where a man expects his sacrifices and investment in a relationship will be a buffer against women’s Hypergamy, the expectation is that women will appreciate his openness and vulnerabilities. He believes the feminine identity lie that “vulnerability is strength.”

It’s a very seductive fallacy for a dyed-in-the-wool plug-in to make. I’ve read Redlum’s comments before and he doesn’t impress me as a chump, so I believe his comment on Jezebel was really more of a symbolic appeal to feminine reason. What he illustrates here is a common misgiving most Beta blue pill men subscribe to – that they will be perceived as unique, “not like other guys” in his embracing feminine vulnerability. And as you can see from the top Jezebel reply he was met with the same hostility women have for “vulnerable” men.

Hypergamy psychologically predisposes women to hold either contempt or pity for male vulnerability on a limbic level. Even in the most ’emotionally evolved’ women, by order of degree, Hypergamy is always testing for male fitness in order to assess whom she will pair with either in short term breeding availability or long term provisioning availability. When a man overtly expresses an openness to vulnerability, on a subconscious level it telegraphs his insecurity to her Hypergamous nature. Thus, she filters him out, or if she’s paired with him prior to this expression she initiates the mental protocol to leave him for a better match.

The contempt expressed by the Jezebel authoress is a good example of this.

So now, on top of everything else that women have to deal with, we have to comfort men for freaking out whenever a woman surpasses them at something?

You’re a man, suck it up, you shouldn’t be vulnerable by virtue of your maleness. It’s a conflicting message in light of the touchy-feely feminine conditioning men endure in their upbringing, but it is an honest reaction, and one that men need to understand when sorting out the reality of women and their need to unplug.

I’m not gonna write you a love song, cause you asked for one,..

The second (symbolic?) mistake Redlum makes is making an appeal for sympathy. In Empathy I outlined women’s gut-level, evolutionarily selected-for, lack of empathizing with the male experience. I defined the difference between empathy and sympathy, and while women might lack the means for that empathy, they have a very strong sense of sympathy. However that sympathy comes with conditions.

Women involved with high SMV Alpha Men can be some of the most genuinely, organically sympathetic women you’ll ever encounter. Granted, that sympathy may facilitate her own Hypergamous interests, but more so because that Alpha never petitions her for her sympathy.

Women give their sympathies of their own accord, never as the result of a man petitioning it from her. A woman must be inspired to sympathy for a man, asking for it is negotiating for her desire to be sympathetic.

A man who is intentionally vulnerable smacks of a guy who is so in an effort to qualify for her intimacy. It’s similar to the dynamic found in Play Nice, that niceness, that vulnerability that’s supposed to be strength, is perceived as a ruse to better identify with the feminine and thus be more acceptable to it. If feminine Hypergamy is fine tuned for anything it’s genuineness. That’s not to say women wont turn it to their social and biological advantages, but Hypergamy is always testing for certainty and authenticity. I’ve stated before that there is nothing more satisfying for a woman than to believe she’s figured a guy out using her mythical feminine intuition, this is a direct satisfaction of Hypergamy’s need for certainty, but I should also add that there is nothing more mortifying, rage inducing and produces more bitter tears than a woman who’s had her Hypergamy fooled by an imposter. Not only does this deception involve a loss of investment and resources to her, but it’s also an insult to her ego that her capacity to filter for authenticity isn’t as effective as she believes her ‘intuition’ actually is.

Suck It Up

The bigger picture in this Jezebel exchange is really about one of the most basic and useful social conventions ever devised by the Feminine Imperative – The Male Catch 22:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

This dualistic, conveniently conflicting, social convention is what defines a condition of ‘equality’ for today’s New Woman:

 Men need to suck it up and deal with life on more equitable terms like adults, without those who do just that expecting a medal for it.

In other words suck it up when convenient and sack up when necessary. In a sense she’s not wrong– an intrinsic part of the male experience is not to complain about adversity, not to complain about pain and not to complain about suffering – in other words, Man Up, be strong and don’t let on to any vulnerability. If that sounds contradictory to a lifetime of feminine sensitivity training for men it should, but only because it’s half of the usefulness of the Male Catch 22. Where our Jezebeler drops the ball is the other half of the con – Man up and be useful, to women, to the Feminine Imperative. The problem is that equality only applies to what benefits the feminine, anything else that constitutes a man, constitutes masculinity, is a liability.

If being in a relationship with a woman who makes more money than you and/or has a higher position than you makes you feel that you are becoming obsolete, maybe you should be mocked for being silly, immature, and sexist.

There is also the option that Men may simply opt out of involving themselves in a relationship with said woman. In this case the Male Catch 22 is used to shame him for his insecurities not only by women for not participating in their potential provisioning, but also by a chorus of plugged in men ready to mock him for his lack of manhood (also in order to convince the feminine of their unique dedication to the imperative and hopefully get laid as a result of it). It’s at this point he’s derided for his ‘fragile ego’ and his ‘being threatened by strong independent women®.”

By virtue of his maleness, he literally cannot win, and any expression of this condition, even the questioning of this situation is then perceived as his complaining about it – and overt confession of vulnerability. What I’m describing here is the core issue blue pill, plugged in men have with Game and the red pill – just asking a question or making a critical observation about the feminine with regard to the male condition is always conflated with men complaining – something men aren’t allowed to do. It comes off as “poor men”, just as our Jezebeler recounts, but it distracts and discourages real discourse about those conditions.

That is how effective the Male Catch 22 is, it kills all critical inquiry before the questions can even be asked.

261 Comments   |  tags: , , , , | posted in Alpha, Hypergamy, Operative Social Conventions, Psychology, The Feminine Imperative, Unplugging

January 8, 2014

Possession

By Rollo Tomassi

possession

In my essay Casualties I described the situation of my sister-in-law and her first husband committing suicide.

The first guy I knew to commit suicide over a woman was my brother-in-law. I don’t like to go into too much detail about it as critics may think it’s my casus belli for getting involved in the manosphere, but suffice to say it was after a 20 year marriage and 2 children. My sister-in-law promptly married the millionaire she was seeing less than a year after he was in the ground. This is a real point of contention her family and I have with her, but it was his terminal  beta-ness / ONEitis conditioning that greatly contributed to his hanging himself. The psychologist in me knows there are plenty of imbalances that dispose a person to suicide, but I also know there are plenty of external prompts that make taking action more probable.

My brother-in-law hung himself as a response to having the unthinkable happen to him; his ONE, his soulmate, a woman he was very posessive of, was leaving him after 20 years of marriage (for a millionaire we discovered later). She was the ONLY woman he’d ever had sex with and had been (to the best of my knowledge) a faithful and dependable husband and father since they married at 18 and 19. He did the ‘right thing’ and married her when he’d gotten her pregnant at 17 and stuck by her, sacrificed any ambition he had and worked his ass off to send both his kids to college – an advantage he’d never achieve. He wasn’t a saint by any means, and I’m not going to argue my sister-in-law’s motivations, since those aren’t my point; my point is that he was an AFC who never came to terms with it and believed his life was only completed with his ONE. He literally couldn’t go on without her.

He couldn’t kill the beta (if he was even aware of it), so he killed himself.

This was back in 2003 and I’ll admit the trauma of this experience and the behavior and consequent mindset of my wife’s sister was a catalyst in waking me up to a much broader definition of feminine hypergamy. No longer was this curious term just about “the tendency of women to ‘marry up’ in status with men”, it was about an entire psycho-social dynamic written into women’s psychological firmware since birth. It was this experience that made me aware that hypergamy was an overriding psychological imperative based on a constant condition of doubt and uncertainty about how well she might optimize this hypergamy in measure with her capacity to attract men of equal or greater SMV than her own.

I’ll also admit this episode in my life was personally jarring for me when I considered that my own wife would necessarily be prone to the same predispositions. Her sister, a God-fearing evangelical ‘good girl’, had gone feral on the husband who’d done the right thing after knocking her up at 17 and married her and set about working his ass off for the next 20 years. She was already in the process of divorcing him when he decided a noose and a tree were a better option than living in a world where he had to see his still gorgeous ex-wife with the millionaire she’d met (and later married). So why not Mrs. Tomassi too, right?

I can list any number of reasons as to why I trust Mrs. Tomassi, all of which I’ve read from every blue pill married chump in my time in the manosphere, but I’m not so naive as to think that certain circumstances and conditions ‘could’ change and she could also go feral. This is what my brother-in-law never could grasp. His world literally revolved around his wife.

He was by no means a saint, and for all of his dedication to his family and wife, his main fault was his possessiveness. My brother-in-law controlled the frame of his marriage, but this frame control was rooted in an insecure possessiveness bordering on the obsessive. On some level of consciousness he knew, by happenstance, an unplanned pregnancy and an early marriage, that he’d married well above what his realized SMV would’ve normally merited.

Possessiveness

I’ve seen this type of possessiveness in other men as well, but the common thread among them is usually an underlying, subconscious sense that the guy doesn’t deserve the woman he’s locked down in one way or another. A lot of them would be counted amongst the same Betas who subscribe to the Leagues mentality, only much more pronounced – it’s as if through luck or circumstance, or maybe due to a natural Alpha dominance that they don’t really understand they manifest, they get into an LTR with a woman they would otherwise consider “out of their league.”

Just this possessiveness might seem bad enough, but when it’s combined with ONEitis (the soul-mate myth), a Scarcity Mentality, a subscribing to the myth of Relational Equity or especially a self-righteous dedication to his feminine conditioning and White Knighting, then you’ve got a volatile mix of psychoses and a recipe for suicide or murder-suicide. When possessiveness is a man’s ego-investment and his worst fears of losing the “best thing he’ll ever have”, the relationship he subconsciously believes he didn’t deserve, comes to actuality, he may cease to exist because that former reality ceases to exist. What’s worth living for when you’ve already experienced the best you never merited to begin with?

A lot of my readers got irate with me when I suggested that if their girlfriends or wives wanted to head out with the girls for a GNO they should, as indifferently as possible, let them go. Granted, I attached more than a few caveats as to how to go about it, but the operative behind this indifference is really a test of your own possessiveness.

I’m sure many guys reading this are experiencing the twangs of possessive insecurity even in my suggesting this course of action. The reflexive response most guys will have in a situation like this will be one of mate protection; the fear being that if they don’t express their disapproval they’ll run the risk of their woman thinking they don’t care enough about them to be jealous. This is a trope most guys sell themselves, because it’s more about suspicion than jealousy. As intuitive as this sounds it really masks the insecurity that their girl will meet another guy and hook up with him. On an instinctual level we’re well aware of women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, thus an evolutionarily honed suspicion was hardwired into our psyches to protect men from becoming the beta cuckold provisioning for another male’s offspring. However, as counterintuitive as this sounds, a GNO is an excellent opportunity to display confidence behaviors.

There is always going to be a naturalistic side to male possessiveness. For very good reason evolution selected-for men with a honed sense of suspicion – men want a certainty that their parental investment (or potential for it) will be worth the exchange of resources with a woman who will facilitate it. In other words evolution selected-for men with an internalized, hardwired understanding of women’s biological directive for optimized hypergamy. When a man’s sexual strategy and sexual optimization has to be sacrificed for women’s optimized hypergamous and pluralistic (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) sexual strategy in order to breed, monogamy becomes a one-sided risk for him.

Sunshine Mary had a recent post with more than a few loose premises about the nature of women. The first of which was this:

1. Women were not designed by either God / evolution to be traded around among men.  There are few (or no?) societies in human history in which human females were heavily sexually promiscuous, and marriage has existed in some form in nearly every culture.

I’m not drawing attention to SSM to run her up the flagpole for this assumption, but it does illustrate a very visceral point about the possessiveness dynamic we’re exploring today. I responded to Mary with this:

In human male sperm there are 3 heteromorphic types: Killers, Defenders and Runners (fertilizers).

Killers destroy opposing sperm, Defenders encircle the ovum and provide a barrier against opposing sperm’s runners, and Runners specialize in ovum penetration and fertilization.

The only logical purpose for the evolution (or intelligent design if you prefer) of these type-specific sperm adaptations would be to optimize a competitive advantage in female fertilization of promiscuous human females possessing secretive ovulation.

Even the shape of a male penis is “designed” to maximize insertion depth to the uterus and simultaneously shovel out competing sperm from the vagina.

If women weren’t promiscuous, if women’s biological imperative wasn’t dictated by hypergamy, would these biological phenomenon have been a necessary evolution for human males? The predominant state of sexual competition, rooted in the dualistic, cuckolding, sexual strategies of human females, necessitated not only an evolved, male, psychological predilection for sexual fidelity suspicion, but an evolution of three types of purpose-specific sperm cells to maximize passing a man’s genetic legacy under conditions of uncertainty.

The Possessive Difference

Back in his earlier work Roissy had an interesting post about the behavioral manifestations displayed between Alpha men and Beta men. Really he likened the behaviors to more animalistic tendencies, but whether or not you acknowledge similar behaviors in people, the reasoning behind these actions make a lot of sense. Alpha men are slow to respond to sudden stimuli (such as loud noises or boisterous taunts) because they are so unused to any significant challenge – in other words, they’re not jumpy Betas used to opting for flight instead of fight. Their posture and body language convey confidence, but only because this Alpha posture is behaviorally associated with what Alphas do.

This is an important dynamic to understand when we consider possessiveness. A man with an Alpha disposition would be less possessive, and therefore display an indifference to possessing any particular woman due to his condition of (relative) sexual abundance. Possessiveness, or certainly an overly pronounced manifestation of possessiveness is the behavior of a Beta unused to sexual abundance and more likely accustomed sexual rejection.

It’s important to bear in mind that possessiveness is conveyed in a set of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs communicated in many ways. It’s not that possessiveness necessarily makes a man unattractive to a woman; on the contrary, it’s almost a universal female fantasy to be possessed by a so deserving and desirably dominant Alpha Man. It’s a visceral endorsement of the status of a woman’s superior desirability among her peers to be the object of such an Alpha Man’s possession; but likewise this is so common a (romance novel) feminine fantasy because of Alpha Men’s general indifference to possessiveness that makes it so tempting for women.

When self-deprecating, undeserving Beta men overtly display possessiveness, women read the behavior for what it is. Beta possessiveness is almost universally a death sentence (often literally) for an LTR. Nothing demonstrates lower value and confirms a lack of hypergamous suitability for a woman than a Beta preoccupied to the brink of obsession with controlling her behaviors. This isn’t to discount the very real reasons an Alpha or a Beta might have concern for a woman’s behaviors, it’s that his own possessiveness conveys a lack of confidence in himself.

149 Comments   |  tags: | posted in Biomechanics, Case Studies, Hypergamy, Psychology

December 30, 2013

Secret of the Red Pill

By Rollo Tomassi

B3FXCT conspiracy

Joker79 from the SoSuave forum relates a common red pill dilemma;

I’m a huge fan of the rational male and I can’t deny that it helped my a lot in these years. I’m spinning plates and I can literally pull out from the crowd the girl I want to bang. I find really amusing though when I challenge some chicks with the uncomfortable truth of the matrix (e.g. their hypergamy, decreasing SMV with age, the feminine mystique and so on). I wonder which is the common (and the worst) reaction you got from your female friends, girlfriend, women you’re meeting daily when you show them that you know the game they’re playing? I usually get “pffff NAWALT” or “you’re a player” or they seems to be butthurt once they realize I turned the table against them… nothing concrete of course because they know I’m right. any meaningful and/or funny experience?

Synergy1 adds the most common response:

I don’t openly discuss the RM and other theories with people, but its funny how a lot of the truths are actually accepted by people. Just the other day I had a discussion on how if you insult a man its funny, but if you mention a fact about women, it’s considered misogyny. The coworkers’ comment was that women are weaker than men are and I responded – why do you hate America. It got some laughs.

Some people get it. These are the same people who have been through divorce and see things for as they are. The younger guys who are still in fairytale land don’t understand or buy into it.

Joker79:

It’s not really discussing openly or starting a conversation about red pill topic, it’s more about observing their behavior when your reaction is different from what chicks expect (e.g. walk away when you’re supposed to beg them to stay, hitting on different chicks when she’s with you and disrespects you and you’re not trying to qualify for her attention at all). More often than not you get either an annoyed reaction (he’s a player) motivated by the discomfort of her knowing that you know her strategy and how to workaround it or a butthurt behavior where she pretends not to care and avoid you (rationalization hamster spinning!)

Think about it this way – you can never tell a woman about the red pill or how Game savvy you are, you can only show her.

Demonstrate, never explicate. While it might be satisfying to overtly crush a woman’s gender perceptions, being overt will always come off like conceit, or bitterness or melancholy.

If your purpose is to alienate and/or correct a woman you have no interest in by pointing out the brutal truths of being Game-aware, that’s certainly your prerogative, but you will never get into a woman’s pants or be more attractive to her by explaining the Game you are engaged in with her (or hope to be).

Women want a guy who Just Gets It.

She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be. Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shït test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her.

Remember what I’ve bolded here, the same applies to you revealing your understanding of Game. As I’ve stated many times, women may think they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure. Women want to play the Game with you, but they want it running covertly in the background, not overtly and in her face. Much of the reason the red pill, Game and the manosphere are vilified by a blue pill public is due to the overt nature of explaining the psychological and sociological mechanisms operating underneath the social conventions, ego-invested beliefs and masks we wear in engaging with the opposite sex.

The red pill strips away a comfortable veneer – we’re supposed to Just Get It, without explaining how we just get it. Men being the more pragmatic and rational sex tend to think that a reasoned approach should be the most practical one. We deduce that women ought to be just as reasonable and can handle the truth – after all the constant repetition of how women and men are the same with different genitals – so to the uninitiated, newly unplugged red pill guy it seems sensible to remove all the pretense and explain all his understanding to a woman he’s interested in.

Play with her, and play with her.

As I’ve explained before, appeals to a woman’s reason will never bear the fruit that hopeful Beta men expect it will. Women don’t want to be told how the Game works (on some limbic level they already know how it works), they want to play the Game with a Man to determine that he knows how the Game works. There is nothing so self-satisfying for a woman than for her to believe she’s figured a Man out using her (mythical) feminine intuition. Understanding this basic tenet of women is one of the most under-appreciated advantages men have in Game.

This is where the ‘Art’ in Pick Up Artist is important. Too many men believe that understanding red pill truths and the underpinnings of Game should be enough to be convincing with women, but that learning isn’t enough. Playing the Game and applying that knowledge with women without revealing an overt understanding of it is an art that must be practiced and developed to the point where adaptation and improvisation become second nature to a man. Men with this understanding are often the ones with the most comfort and facility with women – Amused Mastery is his natural state, because he knows his advantage in not revealing the secret of the red pill to any woman he’s interested in.

129 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Communication, Game, Inter-gender Communication, Psychology, Unplugging

December 12, 2013

Madonnas and Whores

By Rollo Tomassi

Madonna-Whore

It appears that for whatever reason the manosphere topic du jour of last week has turned some fresh light on the debate regarding the validity of the concept of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. In between reposting HuffPo articles and any pop-psychology pablum that agrees with her ego-investments, Aunt Giggles seems to have decided to reject reality and replace it with her own (you expected something else?), more comforting, fantasies she finds catharsis in. If readers want to sift through the pop-up ads and fem.mgid links to get the gist of her ‘reasons’ why she believes AFBB is some viral manosphere myth, feel free to head over to her Hooking Up Betas echo chamber and brush up on it.

If you want the short version it’s basically this; in her 5 years of blogging all of the 7 or 8 unmoderated commenters she consistently allows to reinforce her own perspectives have told her that Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks is bunk. So there you have it, myth busted! This is kind of surprising since the concept of Hypergamy she so reluctantly conceded to essentially  contradicts this, but as with all things Giggles, she was against it before she was for it before she was against it again….or, whatever the sponsors want her to be for.

All digs aside the epic comment thread from last week’s post went in all manner of direction, but it was fairly enlightening with regard to the level of vitriol women have for Alphas. You see when it comes down to it, Alpha Men are the ones women love to hate. Poor Betas only deserve a passing mention; just enough “we love ya nice guys” so as not to raise suspicions that they might be getting a raw deal for their provisioning and good behavior right at the last moment when women need it the most.

It’s the Alpha that the widows pine for. It’s the Alpha who’s the culprit for all the feminine imperative’s woes. It’s that damn Alpha who gives her the tingles, but so frustratingly won’t submit commit to her imperatives – why can’t they just play nice, like a good Beta will? It’s the Alpha that women write songs for.

The Process

During last week’s comment thread Dr. J reminded me of the process of breaking down a behavioral dynamic. The distilled version of that process is as follows:

Biological —> Psychological —> Sociological.

This is a valuable progression to remember when it comes to understanding whys  of red pill dynamics. When there’s a breakdown in understanding a particular dynamic, or even a willful refusal to understand it, at some stage there is a failure to make the connection between these realms.

Just for sake of a neutral illustration here lets take the dynamic of hunger. Biologically we get hungry, our bodies need nurishment, and thanks to our evolved genetics, and the scarcity of food in our evolutionary past, we tend to prefer certain types of energy rich food over others. Psychologically we might develop the conviction to train ourselves to eat right and exercise, or we might develop various personal rationalizations for why we’re OK with being fat . Sociologically this dynamic extends into the obesity epidemic society is now facing, and depending upon the predominance of a particular individualized psychology the social manifestation may be a Fat Acceptance movement or a cultural obsession with physical fitness.

Granted, this is a simplistic illustration which becomes more complex as more dynamics are layered upon others – For instance both Fat Acceptance and physical fitness psychology are also rooted in the capacity to optimize hypergamy for women (a biological imperative) as well as having implications and purposes for other social conventions.

If there is a problem in really understanding a red pill truth, if there is a resistance (willful or otherwise) to that understanding, or even if there is a some doubt about a social dynamic that needs testing to explain, there is usually either a denial of, or a lack of connection to, a realm in this progression. With regard to blue pill critics and those with ego-investments in their mindset, denying or downplaying the importance of certain aspects of these realms is necessary to protect those mindsets. Sometimes one realm may be discounted altogether in order to maintain an ego-investment.

So it’s with this progression in mind that we have to really deconstruct the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic, as well as it’s male-specific counterpart the Madonna / Whore dynamic.

Alpha Fucks & Beta Bucks

From a biologically imperative starting point the AFBB dynamic is easily provable in women’s pluralistic sexual strategy. If Aunt Giggles or any other doubter needs evidence of the biological motivators of AFBB, look no further than the provable behavioral prompts of women’s menstrual cycle. I covered the more Game-tactical aspects of this in Your Friend Menstruation, but study after study prove that women’s behaviors, sexual appetites and mate preference selections coincide with the particular ovulatory phase a woman happens to be in and how best to satisfy it at that stage.

As a feminine social directive, Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks, is the social extension of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy. This strategy is literally encoded into women’s neurological firmware and endocrine systems. This ovulatory influence in mate preference that describes this pluralism is well documented, as are other manifestations such as:

Changes in women’s feelings about their romantic relationships across the ovulatory cycle

Body odor attractiveness as a cue of impending ovulation in women

Ovulatory Shifts in Women’s Attractions to Primary Partners and Other Men

Females Avoiding Fathers When Fertile

Menstrual Cycle Shifts in Women’s Preferences for Masculinity

Vocal cues of ovulation signaling

Changes in Women’s Choice of Dress Across the Ovulatory Cycle

Ovulatory shifts in ornamentation

In a biological realm, there is little doubt that a directive towards a sexually pluralistic sexual strategy would be the most pragmatic reason for these behavioral manifestations. The female biological condition prompts sexual pluralism, which further prompts the social condition of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks (essentially cuckoldry) as the most practical solution to the problem that optimized Hypergamy presents in finding a male who best embodies the ideal of both. Women’s ovulatory cycle motivates for the sexual optimization of the Alpha, as well as the provisioning security / parental investment optimization that (usually, not exclusively) the Beta represents.

Madonnas and Whores

There is a counterpart to this dynamic in Men – the Madonna / Whore dynamic. You might know this dynamic as the Madonna/Whore “Complex” since feminine-primary society likes to repeat the term in an effort to pathologize the male analogy of optimizing his own sexual strategy. This marginalization is of course to be expected if women’s sexual strategy and hypergamic selectivity is to be socially ensured.

Again, Dr. J offers us a good breakdown of the comparison of sexual strategies:

Here is how I conceptualize it… On one hand, there are equivalences:

1) Men prefer “madonnas” for long-term commitments, and “whores” for short-term mating.

2) Women prefer “beta-dads” for long-term commitments, and “alpha-cads” for short-term mating.

3) Both, ideally “want it all” in one person. The male ideal is the “virgin wife who is a slut only for them” – madonna and whore. The female ideal is the alpha stud who settles down and becomes a provider for her – fux and bux.

4) If “both in one” is not an option, then women may get short-term fux from an alpha cad, and long-term commitment bux from a beta dad – alpha fux and beta bux (AFBB). Similarly, men may have a primary, virginal wife to assure paternity, then a “slut on the side” for kicks – virgin validation and slut excitation (VVSE).

Thus, on this level of analysis madonna = beta (long-term commitment) and whore = alpha (short-term mating).

Because the sexes also complement each other, there is also some mirroring. They are not mutually exclusive.

Thus:

A) Male’s are primarily rated for their provisioning value, women for their sexual value, in long-term commitment.

B) Either are perceived to be low-worth when they give away that primary value too quickly.

C) Thus, “virgins” and “alphas” are often perceived as high value, while “sluts” and “betas” are often perceived as low value.

This creates a conflict with the four points above when:

I) High value virgins and alphas match up together by similar value, only to find that their mating goals may not line up. Sometimes they commit and have sex, which means they both “get it all”. Other times, they just have sex – which is an unfair trade for the virgin. If she is “smart” she requires commitment for sex – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes her away from that.

II) Low value whores and betas match up based on value too, only to find their mating goals in conflict as well. Sometimes they also commit and have sex, which means they both “get the best they can”. Other times, they just commit – which is an unfair trade for the beta. If he is “smart” he requires sex for commitment – but the “blue pill” usually brainwashes him away from that.

In my post The Threat I wrote:

Women’s shit testing is a psychologically evolved, hard-wired survival mechanism. Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence.

As with AFFB you have to begin in the biological realm to understand men’s sexual strategy and move through the psychological to get to the social. The Madonna / Whore dynamic isn’t too hard to understand when you consider men’s sexual imperative stimulated by the realities of 12.5 times the amount of testosterone women experience. A while back on Sunshine Mary’s blog the topic was an effort in trying to understand (more like verify the fact) that men sexually evaluate a woman within the first glance of a woman. From an intersocial standpoint this fact (dubiously) offends women in that it smacks of some learned (psychological/sociological) tendency to objectify women. However the biological fact is that all men objectify women because it is how our neural firmware evolved. The parts of men’s brains involved with problem solving and tool use are stimulated when we see sexually available women.

Male Hypergamy

I’m often asked if I think there is a male parallel to feminine Hypergamy. If there is it’s the want to optimize a balance in the ideal monogamous wife, supportive mother for his children, and a woman he (mistakenly) believes has the capacity to love him as he believes a woman could, and the dirty, porn star who represents unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Lets be clear this want for masculine hypergamy doesn’t have anything near the biological impetus that women’s physicality prompts them to – we simply don’t have the same plumbing or firmware – and rather his hypergamy is rooted in a rational frustration of trying to balance sexual availability with his potential for investing himself emotionally in a woman.

It’s maybe not so ironic that the same fem-centric critics who so adamantly want to avoid the inconvenient aspects of the biological realm by focusing exclusively on the psychological or social in order to discredit the feminine AFBB / Sexual Pluralism, are the same critics who’ll gleefully endorse the Madonna / Whore “complex” in men because it agrees with their ego-investments and further reinforces the Feminine Imperative as the socially dominant one.

Before I finish up here I wanted to add my take on the husband of the Whore/Prude wife from last week’s post. A lot of guys (and one convenient feminist) said he should’ve seen it coming, or he never should’ve signed on for marrying a woman who didn’t have a genuine desire to fuck him like the secret porn star she used to be. In a perfect world where we have absolute clarity and foresight is 20/20 that maybe, but if I had to speculate, my guess is that he was trying to do what he thought and had been conditioned to think was right. He married a Madonna, and very likely an attractive one he thought he could do no better by, in the hopes she would “come around” and be at least a satisfactory whore for him alone.

How many guys would you advise marry even a borderline slut in the hopes that she’d “come around” to being a great wife and mother? The majority of men are varying degrees of Betas,pre-whipped by the feminine imperative for half a lifetime to eventually be the de facto cuckold for women’s sexual priorities at just the right time. From a red pill perspective we can say he should’ve seen the signs, but we’re dealing with a blue pill man plugged into the Matrix trying to balance the Madonna / Whore dynamic with blinders on.

Late Edit: For further analysis, linked here is the most recent followup reddit post of the (very real) husband of porn tape wife from last week’s post.

132 Comments   |  tags: , | posted in Biomechanics, Hypergamy, Idealizations, Psychology, Social Conventions, The Feminine Imperative, Unplugging

November 20, 2013

The Brand of Independence

By Rollo Tomassi

independence

The archetype of the Strong Independent Woman® has been culturally reinforced over the last half century in virtually every imaginable media. Whether it’s Disney’s capable Princesses ready to save themselves from certain doom – as well as their quirky, hapless but handsome male heroes – or the now clichéd ‘tough bitch’ of action movies and video game protagonists who measures herself by how well she can kick ass and /or swear as the culturally contextual equal of “any man”. Her template-crafted character is strong, confident, measuredly aggressive, decisive (but usually only when shit gets serious so as to prove to the audience she’s ‘digging deep within herself to discover her yet unrealized resolve), judicious, loving to those loyal or dependent on her (immediate family, children and female friends), capable of solving problems with little more than the feminine intuition men magically lack – but above all, she’s independent.

As this cultural archetype is broadcast to society at large, the want then is to find parallels of this Strong Independent Woman® in the ‘real’ world. The media character is only marginally believable now thanks to endless revisions and replications, so we look for the examples of independent women equalling and exceeding the, paltry-by-comparison, achievements of the unenlightened ignorance of their male “oppressors.” High ranking company CEOs are usually the first rock star independent women to nominally shine (often undeservedly) in such a role, but then, by order of degrees, we can move down the economic social strata and cherry-pick or conveniently create the match of any mediocre man. As most men are, or have been conditioned Betas it’s not too difficult.

It really is the End of Men you see. You’re no longer necessary because, well now, there is nothing men can collectively and uniformly do that women cannot find some individual example of matching and / or exceeding. Women don’t need men anymore, they’re independent.

The Branding

If there’s one thing I know, it’s branding. The Strong Independent Woman® caricature has generously earned it’s registered trademark. I sometimes use that ® to emphasize a particularly long-evolved meme; social conventions so embedded into our cultural fabric that they literally have become their own brand. The Strong Independent Woman® is actually one the best examples of this branding. However, to really understand the gravity of so long a cultural branding, you must go to the root of how the brand of the independent woman was originally intended to evolve by the 2nd wave cultural feminists who spawned it. In a way it’s succeeded far better than any feminist of the period really had the foresight to expect.

An Independent Woman was to be independent of men.

While a lot of feel-good aphorisms like confidence, determination, integrity, and the like became associated with this desire for independence, make no mistake, the original long-term feminist goal of fostering that independence in women was to break them off into individuated, autonomous entities from men. That individuation needed to be as positive and attractive to women as possible, so a social pairing of that independence from men, with a sense of strength and respectability, had to be nurtured over time.

Since the beginnings of the sexual revolution, women were acculturated to believe they could ‘have it all’, career, family, a husband (of her optimal hypergamous choosing) and, if she were influential enough, leave some indelible mark on society to be remembered by for posterity. To achieve this she’d need to be an autonomous agent, strong, and above all independent of men. Women would embody and perfect the maverick individualism that men seemed to enjoy throughout history. If she couldn’t manifest ‘having it all’ then she was still, by male force or by personal choice, not independent enough to realize it. Of course, the irony of all this can be found in the marriages of virtually every ‘high profile’ feminist luminary of the time (all the way up to our current time) to the very powerful and influential types of men their stated independence was to emancipate all women from in order to truly be independent.

The Case Against Male Self-Esteem

Matt Forney’s lightning rod post, The Case Against Female Self-Esteem drew a frenzy of internet hate, but at the core of that post was a question that Strong Independent Women® and their male identifiers don’t like be confronted with; do they truly want independence from men? Do the men they want to be independent from even exist, or are they conveniently useful archetypes; vaudevillian chauvinist cartoons from the 50’s, planted in their heads, courtesy of the feminine imperative?

While I can’t endorse a message that would diminish anyone’s self-esteem, male or female, Matt’s post, even so much as suggesting the idea of limiting female self-esteem, uncomfortably turns a cultural mirror back on over 50 years feminist and feminized social engineering. For over the past 50 years the case against male self-esteem, with the latent purpose of emancipating women from dependence on men, began in earnest — not with some anger inducing blog post, but as a progressive social engineering that would run the course of decades to effectively erase men’s inconvenient masculine identity, or even memory of what that identity ever meant to men. The case against male self-esteem has been the social undercurrent of popular culture since the early 1960’s.

I think it’s important for red pill men to internalize the popular idea of feminine independence. The true message that the Strong Independent Woman® brand embodies is independence from you, a man.

Its latent purpose isn’t the actual empowerment of women, or efforts to bolster self-esteem, strength (for whatever loose definition seems convenient), confidence or any other esoteric quality that might flatter a feminine ego. Its purpose isn’t to foster financial or economic independence (as evidenced by ever evolving fem-centric laws, educational and financial handicaps), or religious social parity, or even efforts to achieve its vaunted social equalism between the sexes. What feminine independence truly means is removing the man – independence from men. Feminine independence’s idealized state is one where women are autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient and self-perpetuating single-gender entities.

If that revelation seems aggrandized and over the top, it should. It’s extreme, because the purpose itself is extreme. When you consider that the sexes have coexisted in relative gender complementarity, to produce our very proliferate species, for a hundred thousand years, the idea and implementation of separating the sexes into independent and solitary entities is extreme. Obviously effecting this independence is an impossibility for a race of social animals like human beings. We’ve relied on cooperative efforts since our tribal beginnings and the species-beneficial psychological hardwiring of that cooperation is one trait that made us so successful in adapting to changing, dangerous, environments.

For most manosphere readers (especially MRAs) I don’t think I need to illustrate the many manifest ways that women are dependent upon the men; if not men’s generated resources and provisioning, then certainly their parental investment, companionship, emotional and sexual interest. We’re better together than we’ve ever been apart – even when the ugly mechanics of hypergamy, or male aggression, or any number of negatively perceived gender dynamics prove useful survival traits for us, there is no true independence between the sexes. There is interdependence.

This is what equalism makes a mockery of. In its striving for a homogenous goal-state of androgynous gender-parity it fails to account for where the species-success that the complementarity of the past 30,000 years has brought us. From a heroic male perspective we generally accept that no man is an island, but feminism and equalism disagree – a Strong Independent Woman® is an island,..or she will be just as soon as a man gives her her due to become so.

311 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in Idealizations, Inter-gender Communication, Psychology, Social Conventions

November 13, 2013

Empathy

By Rollo Tomassi

fracture

Deti, from a recent Just Four Guys comment thread:

Women cannot bear to see a Man experiencing negative emotions such as extreme anger, rage, fear, despair, despondency or depression for extended periods of time. You say you want to “be there” for your Man; but you cannot do it. If it goes on long enough, it kills the attraction; it sets off your hypergamy alarms; and subconsciously causes you to start hunting for a replacement Man.

A woman seeing a Male go through the above will seek to replace that Male immediately.

Women cannot listen to Men talking about or working out their dating/mating/relationship issues or problems. Women reflexively view a Man discussing such issues as “whining” or “complaining” or “bitterness” or “sour grapes” or “well, you just chose poorly, so sucks to be you” or “suck it up, no one wants to hear you bitching about it”.

As to both of the above principles; when a Male is involved, ratchet up by a factor of 5 the disdain and repulsion a woman experiences when seeing a Male do or experience the above.

Around the first week of August this year I suffered what’s commonly known as a ‘dancer’s fracture‘. For all of the risk taking activities I’ve engaged in over my life, I’d never had more than a hairline fracture on any bone in my body before this. This fucking hurt. Like edge of the bed, don’t turn the wrong way or you’re in agony kind of hurt. Forget about putting weight on it for 4-6 weeks, “holy shit I have a 2 story home” and my bed’s upstairs kind of hurt. The Doc explained that there’s really no way to set a dancer’s break so I’d just have to “tough it out” and take it easy. I refuse to take any kind of narcotic painkiller (Vicodin, etc) so it was ibuprofen and Tylenol for the better part of the first month.

After the first week, the pain went from “holy shit” to “ok, ow, ah fuck, yeah I can do this if I grit my teeth.” If a wild animal wanted to eat me, there’d have been no way for me to avoid it; I was literally hobbled for the first time in my life.

Sack up ya big pansy!

Now, do I sound like a big pansy to you? In my time I’ve squatted well over 400 lbs. I have benched 305 lbs. I’ve leg pressed the weight of small cars in my younger days. Most of the guys I know who’d broken a bone, or torn a bicep, or slipped a disc knew, and could empathize with, exactly what I was describing to them in great detail. However, my loving wife of 17 years and my fifteen year old daughter’s first reaction to my pain was “Oh, men are such babies! They all make such a big noise about how much it hurts. You think that’s hurt? That’s not hurt.” It was as if by their dismissing my injury I would get up and say “yeah, ok it’s really not so bad” and go back to mowing the lawn or something.

This has been a pretty consistent theme for Mrs. Tomassi – and every single woman I’d been involved with before her – women don’t want to accept that their Man could ever be incapacitated. Before I was Game-aware, I took this with a grain of salt. My wife has been a medical professional since she was in her early 20’s and she’s seen some pretty gnarly shit in various trauma centers so I had to take that into consideration. There’s a certain disconnect from human suffering in that line of work that has to be made or you lose it – I get that – but that still didn’t account for the default indifference to pain most every other female I know, including my own daughter and mother had ever had with regards to a man in legitimate physical pain.

The Mother-Nurturer Myth

One of the classic perceptions women, and even well-meaning men, perpetuate is the idea that women are the nurturers of humanity. They take care of the children, home and hearth. Theirs is the realm of the private and men’s that of the public – in fact this was one impression that early feminism took as its primary target, they wanted it all, private and public. Despite the statistics about abortion, despite the realities of Hypergamy and the War Brides dynamic, the classic characterization of woman as mother, nurturer, nurse and caregiver have endured, even as a complement to the Strong Independent® characterization feminism would reimagine for women.

Perhaps it’s due to a deeply enrgamatic hard-wiring of the importance of  hypergamy into the feminine’s psychological firmware, but women cannot accept that any man, and in particular a Man worth considering as a suitable hypergamic pairing, might ever be incapacitated. The feminine subconscious refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of this. Perpetuating the species and ensuring the nurturing her offspring maybe part of her pysche’s hard-code, but ensuring the survival and provisioning of her mate is not. This isn’t to say that women can’t learn (by necessity) to assist in her mate’s wellbeing, it’s just not what evolution has programmed her for – it requires effort on her part.

I propose this because women’s solipsistic nature (predicated on hypergamy) necessarily excludes them from empathizing with the male experience – and this extends to men’s legitimate pain. The idea that a man, the man her hypergamy betted its genetic inheritance on for protection and provisioning, could be so incapacitated that she would have to provide him with protection and provisioning is so counter-valent to the feminine imperative that the feminine psyche evolved psychological defenses (“men are just big babies when it comes to pain”) against even considering the possibility of it. Thus, due to species-beneficial hypergamy, women fundamentally lack the capacity to empathize with the male experience, and male pain.

Empathy vs. Sympathy

Now, before I’m deluged with offended women’s binary responses to the contrary, I very specifically used the term empathize rather than sympathize in my evaluation of women’s psychological coping dynamics here. There is a universal and comparative difference between sympathy and empathy:

Empathy is the ability to mutually experience the thoughts, emotions, and direct experience of others. It goes beyond sympathy, which is a feeling of care and understanding for the suffering of others. Both words have similar usage but differ in their emotional meaning.

Empathy Sympathy
Definition: Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes. Acknowledging another person’s emotional hardships and providing comfort and assurance.
Example: I know it’s not easy to lose weight because I have faced the same problems myself. When people try to make changes like this (e.g. lose some weight) at first it seems difficult.
Relationship: Personal Friends, family and community ( the experience of others) .
Nursing context: Relating with your patient because you have been in a similar situation or experience Comforting your patient or their family
Scope: Personal, It can be one to many in some circumstances From either one to another person or one to many (or one to a group).

Sympathy essentially implies a feeling of recognition of another’s suffering while empathy is actually sharing another’s suffering, if only briefly. Empathy is often characterized as the ability to “put oneself into another’ shoes”. So empathy is a deeper emotional experience.

Empathy develops into an unspoken understanding and mutual decision making that is unquestioned, and forms the basis of tribal community. Sympathy may be positive or negative, in the sense that it attracts a perceived quality to a perceived self identity, or it gives love and assistance to the unfortunate and needy.

Women do not lack a capacity to sympathize with male hardship or pain, but they categorically lack a capacity to empathize with uniquely male experiences.

This needs to be made clear to both sexes. While I have no doubt that many a woman may have experienced the pain of a dancer’s fracture they’ve never experienced that pain as a man, and therefore cannot empathize with that experience. Now, extrapolate this pain to other aspects of a man’s life, or his idealizations about how he would want a woman to love him.

I constantly see the term empathy supplant the term sympathy when used by women; as if their feminine character uniquely transcends merely sorrow or compassion for someone in pain, but becomes somehow magically equitable with feeling that person’s pain. As an insulation against the cruel realities that their own hypergamy demands and exacts on men, women convince themselves that their sympathy is really empathy, and their innate solipsism only serves to further insulate them from even having the curiosity to attempt real empathy towards men.

It’s the Just Get It dynamic on a more subliminal level; if a woman has to put forth the effort to truly attempt to empathize with a man, he just doesn’t get it, she marginalizes his experience and continues her hypergamous search for the Alpha who doesn’t force her to real empathy.

This fantasy of feminine-specific empathy can be traced back to the Mother-Nurturer myth attributed to the feminine as well as the mysticism of the Feminine Mystique. If women are the unquestionably unknowable forces of nature that the Mystique constantly batters into popular consciousness, it’s not too far a stretch to accept that the mythical feminine intuition might also stretch to their literally experiencing the pain of others in an almost psychic fashion. If women are the “life-givers” (mother-godesses?) how could they not have some quasi-psychic connection to that which they’ve birthed?

That all makes for good fiction, but it hardly squares against the “oh, men are such big babies when it comes to pain” trope, or does it? If women are granted the authority to define what really hurts and what doesn’t for men – due to a socially presumed ownership of empathy – then this puts them into a better control of which men can best qualify for feminine hypergamy. In other words, women own the selective-breeding game if they can convince men that they know, by literal experience, what really hurts a man and what doesn’t, or what shouldn’t.

 

144 Comments   |  tags: , | posted in Biomechanics, Hypergamy, Psychology

October 23, 2013

Not All Women Are(n’t) Like That

By Rollo Tomassi

On many an occasion I’ve been confronted with what I’ve observed to be the most common retort / rebuttal / “oh no you di’ int!” response to anything I propose about the nature of women. Oh, what the hell I’ll just let female commenter LivingTree illustrate it for you. From my Shallow post:

RM, did you actually mean what you said, “The single most common shaming tactic that women use against men is “shallow””? And you are upset about that? Thank god for that! What I wouldn’t do to be in mens’ shoes if that is the case.

The list of shaming tactics men use against women is so incredibly hostile and hurtful that I can hardly even repeat them, and it embarrasses me you’re even complaining about being called shallow. What I wouldn’t do to be called shallow instead of an fat ugly angry bitch gold-digging selfish feminist whore whenever I speak my mind about something controversial.

You guys have no idea how good you have it, if being chastized for being shallow is the biggest of your problems.

I’ve illustrated examples of feminine solipsism in many a post, but to really understand it, you have to read the responsive comments of women when they are presented with an objective observation, critical of women in General, how they solipsistically interpret that “attack”, personally reinterpret it in their personal experience, and then re-offer their interpretation as a generalized (i.e. universal) truth. I’ll let LivingTree continue to spell this out a bit more succinctly for you:

Oh, and incidentally, as a woman, I make my selection of relationship companions not based on looks, or money, or ambition, or how much they want me.

All those things are nice, and sometimes its enough to get a first date, but I my decision to continue dating someone based on one factor alone: does he have class?

Sadly, this means I don’t find I date much. They get weeded out really quickly. I suggest you guys do the same. There really isn’t much out there to choose from, among men or women I’m afraid, but if we are all making our mating decisions based on…looks, or money, or ambition, or how much they want us… well, then we are fostering bad character in each other.

Well, you get the picture. If you haven’t read Shallow yet, the real objective of that essay can be found in the first paragraph:

[ ]terms like “shallow” and “superficial” are contextually defined from a feminine perspective and, through shaming, serve to enforce feminine primacy.

Of course, nowhere in this article do I personalize my take on this particular shame; I’m only outlining a process and observing a feminine social convention. Obviously I don’t have to defend the observation, but LivingTree’s response highlights the typical female reaction to, an ego-invested, gender-specific offense. Process the objective in a personalized context, reinterpret the intent of that objectivity (imply bias), defend the feminine, defend the ego and then re-generalize the corrected universal interpretation in as feminine-positive a way as possible.

Oh, and if you can add a bit of masculine shame into that re-generalization (for daring to have been critically objective about the feminine in the first place), all the better.

NAWALT®

Anyone who’s spent more than a month reading comment threads on manosphere blogs understand the reason NAWALT has become a trope worthy of its own acronym. “Not all women are like that,..” is the most common, default, go-to response for feminine personal offenses. You’ll have to forgive the $10 words I used in the previous paragraph, but they were necessary to describe a process that leads to NAWALT. Obviously women’s minds (or humans in general) don’t run through a mental algorithm step by step like this until they repurpose objectivity into a subjective universal truth they find more palatable. They don’t need to when the work is already done for them with the NAWALT response.

Just as with other feminine social convention like JBY (“Just be yourself”) or the classic LJBF (“Let’s just be friends“), NAWALT is a mental process that’s already been socialized by the feminine imperative for ease-of-use for women. Even when women are forced by incontrovertible evidence to concede an objective observation that is damaging to the feminine, NAWALT is useful.

It’s usually at this point of concession that the “ooh, ooh, men do it too!” reaction is enacted. If at some point during the process of personal reinterpretation a woman has the spark of real introspection, or is forced to acknowledge a not-so-flattering aspect of female nature men make in the objective, the next natural default is to compare that aspect to another male aspect – much as LivingTree attempts in her Shallow responses.

The rationale is one of “well, we women are bad, but you men are worse”, and simply sidesteps the original, objective point being made. Distracting the issue is  just Bad Debate 101, but it’s interesting to see the natural fluidity (sans a real awareness of debate) with which feminized minds will resort to it. The issue isn’t the issue, the issue is that men do something similar so the offensive point is invalidated. Needless to say this does nothing to address the original point.

Not All Women Aren’t Like That

The usefulness of NAWALT really extends beyond just a defensive measure though. NAWALT is used and personalized in the hopes that women will generate sympathetic opinions of themselves (through personal anecdotes), and by extension women on whole, in defense of feminine perspectives. However, not all women are like that,..until all women are like that.

If I were to debate the uniquely feminine merits of feminine social conventions that cast women in a positive light (i.e. one that compliments the feminine imperative) then, all women are like that, and what’s better is that no man is ever like that. For example, if I were to bolster the myth of the feminine mystique on a forum or blog praising the aspects of women you would never read “yeah, but not all women are like that” nor would you read “yeah, but men do this too.” If I find something laudable about the feminine then no woman has an objective problem with “all women are like that” and there will never be a sympathetic counter-element that finds a corollary with anything men do. In other words, NAWALT (until they are), but men are always like that.

71 Comments   |  tags: , | posted in Inter-gender Communication, Operative Social Conventions, Psychology, The Feminine Imperative

August 5, 2013

Dominance

By Rollo Tomassi

Dominance

I’ve been watching with some interest the proceedings of the Ariel Castro kidnapping case. As more of the details come to light and the media aggrandizes the victims (virtually insuring a book or TV deal), there’s a lot of uncomfortable questions that need to be answered.

“Most of the sex that went on in that house, probably all of it, was consensual,” Castro said. “These allegations about being forceful on them — that is totally wrong. Because there was times where they’d even ask me for sex –many times. And I learned that these girls were not virgins. From their testimony to me, they had multiple partners before me, all three of them.”

I covered this a bit in He’s Special, making modern comparisons to the War Brides:

,..there’s been a lot of discussion on the forums I frequent about  Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus being held captive by Ariel Castro for a decade. Let that sink in a minute, a decade. That’s 11 years. That’s a lot of life to live. That’s a lot of normal to get used to. There are other cases like this; Jaycee Dugard and  Elizabeth Smart come to mind, but are all of these instances the results of a hard-wired Stockholm Syndrome in women?

Just for the record here, I wouldn’t dream of trying to defend Castro, but in eleven years time a lot can become normal. I have no doubt that Castro held these women captive for 11 years, and the media would have us believe they endured sex dungeon conditions living like the Gimp in Pulp Fiction, but there comes a point of normalcy in ones daily routine life.


“I am not a violent person. I simply kept them there without being able to leave.”

“We had a lot of harmony going on in that home,” he said.

In our lives there is a certain degree of routine and structure most people become accustomed to. I get up at 5am most mornings, I’m at the gym until 7:30 and I’m off to work until 5pm. Somethings change every day but I live in a set of patterns and I know what to expect most of the time. The more I read about Castro the more I’m thinking the guy settled into a state of normalcy with these women and they with him. In 11 years they made no reasonable dramatic effort to escape? They endured a forced abortion and a homebirth (not unlike Jaycee Dugard) and still no collaborative plan they could come up with was effective for 11 years until one day Ariel left the door open? None of these girls were malnourished, and they could stand to lose some weight.

Naturally the feminine-primary meme is that Castro was “blaming the victim“, but I don’t think that was his point. He knows he’s going to prison for life plus 1,000 years, why not just shut up and go away? There was something of a normal life that became a routine for them all for 11 years. That’s 11 Christmases, 11 Easters, 11 independence days. The MSM will spin the story of their heroic support of each other and I don’t imagine the girls wanted to be there, but at some point living with Ariel was their ‘normal’.

Ariel, got sloppy. He got comfortable in that normalcy. Even if he was abusive, after 11 years my guess is he expected for that normalcy to continue and this was what his plea was really about. He actually thought they “had a lot of harmony going on in that house.” It’s easy to pass off his words as insanity, but here was a guy who at least wanted ‘harmony’. At the end of it all, all he wanted was what most men want – his means were evil and reprehensible, but wanted harmony.

Domination

A week back CH had a study and post regarding the importance of dominance and how it’s ultimately dominance that attracts women to men. Of course Roissy would like for looks to play a lesser role in attraction, and my perspective is that arousal is based on the physical to a much greater importance than women can afford to let on, but dominance is a key factor in attraction. I would also argue that an elite physique is the most obvious environmental cue for male dominance. The best form of peacocking is a good build.

However, all of that breaks down if the guy lacks a dominant Alpha mindset. Without that self-confidence and competitive spirit, the best looking guy becomes a foil for a more dominant one. Conversely, enough bravado and fearless genuine Alpha dominance can make even the ugliest of guys attractive by order of degree.

Ariel Castro was one ugly motherfucker, my guess is he never had the Game needed to even sniff at the women in the porn he claims he’s addicted to, but what Ariel had in spades was dominance. Raw forceful dominance he used to enslave not one, but three captured women. Capturing  and physically coercing them to be his prisoners was an act of dominance, but the want, and the expectation that he could have a harmonious normal life with these women was a testament to his (delusional) sense of self-importance.

Irrational self-confidence is the cornerstone of attraction.

When we contemplate male dominance it’s important to remember that to whatever degree we can actualize being dominant – at work, with women, in competition – our own personality, both flaws and attributes, will be manifested in our dominant actions and our beliefs. Castro is a piss poor example of a human being, but he’s an excellent illustration of how his frustrations and his personality were transferred into his actions.

He’s the negative side of that coin, and much of what is termed the Dark Triad of personality traits might also be considered dominant self-importance. However, that same sociopathy that makes for the bad examples is also the root of the positive ones. It really comes down to the individual, their sense of purpose and how they choose to direct that dominance.

If all this sounds like a pep talk to get you to adopt a more dominant mindset it wasn’t really my intent. I’m asked a lot, “Rollo if confidence is the key, then how do I get more confident?” This is a common deductive argument, as if they sold confidence in bottles at the drug store and all you had to do was buy the right brand. It doesn’t work this way. You have to believe it.

It’s fine for me to tell you act irrationally confident, and hope that the act becomes a permanent fixture in your personality, but most men don’t feel confident even when they’re acting confident. Confidence, and dominance, come from real established options and the knowing that you can successfully generate more. This is what makes confidence attractive, it’s the unspoken message to a woman that this guy can, has proven before, and potentially will again, produce more than he needs and other men aspire to do so.

33 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Alpha, Psychology

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,282 other followers