Category Archives: Social Conventions

Trophies

trophy

Hypergamy is seen 90+% in men while “upgrading” their wives; and only <10% in women for “upgrading” their men. Yet it gets called out disproportionately as a thing women do… Geese and ganders. Geese and ganders.

I got this comment on Hypergamy Doesn’t Care a little while ago. It’s about what I’ve come to expect from women who find revealing the secret of hypergamy offensive. These of course are the women who’s sexual strategy relies on men’s unawareness about hypergamy in order to consolidate on long-term security, but I find it entertaining that when a Man exposes that truth there is a ready social convention to shame him with, rather than the prideful embrace of an ‘empowered’ woman revealing exactly the same truth.

What commenter CV’s proffering here is the Trophy Wives convention. A lot has been made of this recently and it’s brought to my attention that this is a feminine operative social convention that I haven’t covered as of yet.

There was a time when this social convention was a very functional shaming device for women. Right around the mid 1980’s to the late 1990’s the notion of men becoming bored with their wives and “upgrading” them for a newer (younger, hotter) model was a very popular trope. There were romantic comedies based on the convention as well as an underlying presumption that men would just be biologically predisposed to this upgrading.

In the popular media, movies and sit-coms of the period, we could tell the measure of a man’s character by the way he would or would not fall to the temptation to ditch his ubiquitously loving and devoted, but SMV declined, wife in favor of a hot young (usually mid 20s) woman who was stereotypically vapid, immature and shallow. It was fun to ridicule (and pathologize) men’s sexual response while fostering an endearing sympathy for the poor, unjustly served wives who, through no fault of their own, fell victim to so many men’s base urges to wantonly discard her for a hotter, tighter blonde with fake tits.

Naturally the caricature wouldn’t be complete without accounting for a Trophy Wife’s character – always vapid, usually gold digging, and uniquely incapable of relating to him on the same level of intellectual and emotional maturity his discarded wife had so selflessly devoted herself to.

To further the mythology this want for a young ‘Chippy’ was almost always paired with the ‘infantile and ego-bruised’ man’s mid-life crisis, selfishly attempting to recapture his youth in a sports car and a new ‘bimbo’ wife.

This was an effective convention then because it played on women’s fear of the Wall and built upon their, feminine-as-correct, moral / intellectual superiority of men, who could only be counted on to reason with their penises rather than consider the relational equity women would necessarily invest into a marriage with only the best of intentions. In a sense it was the female flip side of the Relational Equity fallacy found predominantly in men today.

As with most of its social conventions, the Feminine Imperative got a lot of milage out of the Trophy Wife fear – not the least of which was due to the perception of men’s more prominent role as financial providers. But with time and a new global degree of connectivity this trope is no longer as tenable as it was.

Dead Conventions

From about the turn of the millennia, the concept of “Trophy Wives” has been a dead feminine social convention.

Whereas most long held feminine social conventions can be socially rejiggered to accommodate new circumstances or even directly proven contradiction as time and society progresses, the Trophy Wife canard simply doesn’t hold water the way it used to. In fact, for men aware enough of it, it’s really a cruel reminder of its original intent now.

You see, when it’s statistically 70+% women initiating divorce, detonating marriages because of an Eat Pray Love script and a “I coulda done better than this Beta” commercialization effort of women’s innate hypergamy, it’s kind of hard to float the male-shame of “men divorce their wives because they want a newer model” trope. At present, there’s enough connectivity and enough shared male experience, even from the female side, to make the Trophy Wives convention an embarrassing holdover from when it was useful.

Oh I still get it occasionally in my comment sections, but now it’s just the “ooh ooh men do it too” script that falls flat, and I think even the hard-sell women are realizing this with such readily available divorce stats online now.

The Trophy Wife convention worked in stupid 80′s movies plots as a vehicle to infantilize men’s commitment to women’s long-term security, but when Stella heads off to Jamaica to ‘get her groove on’ it’s called female empowerment.

Trophy Wife may not be a functional convention anymore, but it’s certainly a good illustration of the Feminine Imperative at work.

Smoking Guns

About a month ago Dalrock did some yeoman’s work in comparing divorce statistics with women’s rate of remarriage. From the Smoking Gun:

I’ve focused on the stats for women because it is women who are driving the divorce rates.  As you can see, divorce rates track very closely with women’s opportunity to remarry.  Note also that the old canard that as women age their desire to be married goes away;  if this were true the divorce curve would slope upward, not downward.

Rather than lift Dal’s charts I’ll refer readers to have a look at his original post. For the purposes of comparing these stats to the old model of the Trophy Wives convention, it’s fairly obvious that the actual trend was never a mythology of discontented men jettisoning their wives for younger ones, but rather common, average women discontent in their hypergamous “Assortive Mating” detonating their marriages for the promises of a guaranteed security and a second chance at optimizing hypergamy “before their looks run out.”

From a legal and social perspective, a feminine-primary society has undeniably made the cash & prizes incentive for women to Cash Out of their marriage a realizable and socially acceptable option.

I may ruffle some feathers with this proposition, but I can’t ignore the prospect that, for some women, this ‘detonation’ may have been part of, or became, their long-term security strategy once she’d ‘settled’ on her post-Wall Beta male provider. Even for women with whom this wasn’t a conscious plan the failsafe of post-divorce social and financial support represents is always present.

Whereas the Trophy Wife convention primarily revolved around elite men with the capacity, status and affluence (if not the intent) to discard their wives depended on suppressing the Apex Fallacy (only men of extraordinary means could entertain it), for women the Eat Pray Love schema can be realized by virtually any western woman – and statistically we see this played out in reality.

High profile men, who took up with a stereotypical Trophy Wife are statistically insignificant compared to women’s divorcing their Beta providers, assured of his support in the long term, and either return to their ‘party years’ model of short term fulfillment, or take up with another provider. The old male-shame Trophy Wife social convention has been replaced by a feminine-primary, feminine acceptable, form of hypergamous optimization.

Assortive Mates

This reality is a fairly ugly one to confront for women and a feminine based society at large. For the most part Beta men are more prone to get along than make waves in a marriage or LTR. So conditioned and prepared for this self-sacrificial monogamy and support, few will consider women’s sexual strategies, much less question their sincerity of their reasoning for wanting out of their marriages later.

Still, that ugly truth is becoming increasingly more unavoidable as men share their experiences with each other. What to do?

As I mentioned there’s a lot of talk about debunking the old Trophy Wives convention. I imagine my readership is already aware of a recent “study” ‘proving’ that men and women tend to pair off according to like interests and attraction – rather than the notion that women would in any way be opportunists and motivated by hypergamy:

Here’s some bad news for men with highly successful careers and fat wallets: You probably will not end up with a “trophy wife,” a new study suggests.

When researchers compared qualities such as level of attractiveness and socioeconomic status within couples, they found almost no evidence of the trophy wife stereotype, which suggests attractive, young women tend to marry rich and successful men.

Instead, couples are far more likely to end up together because they share similar traits. For example, attractive, wealthy or highly educated people are more likely to choose a partner with the same qualities. The same is true for less attractive, low-earning or less educated people. Trophy wife marriages still happen, but not nearly as often as expected, the study revealed.

Obsidian over at JustFourGuys has done an admirable job of picking this study apart. Needless to say the study begins from a point of error, relying on a sample group of early 20s couples to determine the overall social “trend” of assortive mating. Commenter John Albertsen makes the old model Trophy Wife observation:

Trophy wives are, according to the generally accepted definition, not only attractive, but considerably younger than their husbands. Limiting the study to “couples in their twenties”,eliminated the older guys with younger wives, as the difference in the ages of the pair would be a maximum of 9 years. Further, very few highly successful men reach those heights by 29 and of those that do, how many would be married at all?

The sample used in this study seems to eliminate the very people who would need to be included to accomplish it’s stated goal. Studying married couples in their 50s would be just as invalid as it would still not include a fitting age difference.

It would be better to study couples where the MEN were in their 50s to see how their attractiveness and financial success compared to the age and attractiveness of their wives. I suspect that you will find very few such ‘elderly’ gents paired up with young cuties unless they were loaded. In other words, what the young women find attractive about the guy is what’s in his wallet.

After considering this, an astute Red Pill Man needs to question the true underlying motive, not just for the study itself, but the reason for it being popularly reposted and relinked in a feminine-primary cultural bubble.

In western society it’s a statistical rarity for early 20s men and women to be married (or seriously monogamous enough to consider it) at all. Feminine-primary culture can’t seem to make up its mind; why would men need to Man-Up, stop being ‘kidults’ and accept mature marriage responsibilities at 29 if so many early 20s men (like those in the study) are pairing with their equalist approved fiancés?

Any number of studies and polls empirically show that women not only want their husbands to be older (5-7 years), but also wish to marry at or around 28-30 years of age. Furthermore, there’s no shortage of articles and blog posts relating how women are postponing marriage to pursue professional goals or are frustrated in being forced to ‘settle’ for monogamy with men they consider beneath their status, financial and educational levels later and later in life.

What the McClintock study was trying to prove had nothing to do with Trophy Wives, but rather the intent was to disprove and distract from the realities of feminine hypergamy – while conveniently shaming older men that feminine-primary culture largely still believe harbor plans to marry younger women once they consolidate their fortunes.

The intent isn’t to disprove the Trophy Wives social convention (created by the same influence attempting to disprove it), but rather to prove that women aren’t actually the opportunists an innate hypergamy would have them, by necessity, be. The intent is to distract men’s increasing awareness of women’s opportunistic, strategic sexual pluralism.

As I illustrated last week:

…hypergamy does not seek it’s own level. An ever pragmatic evolution drives hypergamy to seek a better-than-equal pairing. This is the evolutionary jackpot: to combine and send one’s genes into future generations with a (at least perceptually) better than equitable genetic match – and ensure one’s progeny with a better than SMV equitable provisioning.

Assortive mating (Alpha Fucks) is not the same as Assortive pairing (Beta Bucks). The conflicting sides of feminine hypergamy ensures that the prerequisites of satisfying both are met with different qualifiers. McClintock’s efforts here (besides her own professional aggrandizement) are yet one more attempt to sweep the unpalatable truth of hypergamy under a rug she’d rather men not have the curiosity to look under. This is simply an obvious effort in keeping hypergamy a secret, and to inspire men to shame for even being curious about it.


Madonnas and Whores

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.


The Brand of Independence

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.


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.


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.


Left Behind

left_behind

I’m going to relate a real story of a good friend of mine here as an illustration of a larger dynamic.

My friend Rob was what most guys would call a ‘natural Alpha’ in his younger days; fit, smart in an unlearned kind of way, and to the guys who couldn’t appreciate his straightforwardness, he had the Alpha ‘attitude’ that made him kind of an asshole to the people who didn’t know him. He was in the military for a bit right out of high school and that seemed to work well for him since he learned to be a damn good airframe mechanic and parlayed that into a pretty good career for a while.

Although he was a natural Alpha, Rob’s approach to women was very much conditioned by the influence of the feminine imperative. He had girls who were attracted to him, but he had a tendency for ONEitis so once he’d locked on to Kim that was his focus. He would say “I would do anything and everything for the right girl” because that was his belief, sacrifice and support were his mandates before they’d even met. Eventually she ‘accidentally’ became pregnant when they were both 19.

Rob’s ONEitis took on the predictable sense of masculine purpose to “do the right thing” when she told him the news. They were young, and even 20+ years ago he was aware that couples married young had a very low ‘success’ rate, but as expected he believed he and his soon to be wife would be the exception to that rule. Whether it was his predisposition for ONEitis or his righteous ‘natural’ Alpha stubbornness, at 19 he was determined to be a good father and husband.

Kim was always the less enthusiastic partner in the marriage, but she wasn’t going to have an abortion, and while she was uncertain about Rob’s future potential at 19 she married him. 5 years later they had two daughters and then a son 2 years after that. I would describe their marriage as one of convenience except that Rob genuinely loved Kim and the kids. His Alpha attitude only drove him on that much further as a good provider, but as Kim and he entered their early 30’s and their older children became more self-sufficient it was becoming clear that she was subtly and indifferently distancing herself from Rob.

At about 29 Kim went to work in a middle management position. Up until then she’d been a stay-at-home mom, but with the kids in school (except their youngest) she wanted to get into working. For having 3 children Kim was in exceptionally good shape (too good of shape in hindsight), Rob had put on a few pounds, but still had his upper body muscularity. Kim was at the gym and work more than she was at home now, and it was something that even heroic-ONEitis Rob was beginning to be annoyed with.

Kim had new friendships at work now, mostly single women in their mid to late 20’s while Kim was almost 31. All of her new work girlfriends were single and wanting her to come out with them for drinks after work. They didn’t call them GNOs (girls night out) but this is what they were without calling them such. Dutiful Rob would look after the kids and content himself with beer and movies at home. Even as this became a more common occurrence Rob still clung to the heroic, supportive, father/husband/provider role. Rob still wasn’t what anyone would call a Beta, but in his ONEitis devotion and his increasing domestic role this is what Kim saw in him.

Kim went from living vicariously through her 20’s girlfriends’ weekend stories, to watching them from the sidelines at the clubs, to actively engaging in their escapades. I’m sure most readers know where this is going, and yes Kim eventually cheated on Rob. I had the dubious, but serious, honor of talking him out of murdering both Kim and a co-worker guy she’d hooked up with at 4am after he’d tracked them both to the motel they ended up at that night. He had the kids in the car with him the whole time we were on the phone.

Missing Out

I’m presenting this story, not as some precautionary tale to scare you into not marrying early so much as to better understand the other side of doing so. Anyone who’s read my blog long enough knows I advocate men not even becoming seriously monogamous until after the age of 30. I realize that for most men this is a pretty tall order, and for most guys untenable, but the principle is that men need to realize and actualize their SMV potential before they can accurately assess their true role in the SMP, and then, evaluate the quality of any woman they’d want to become monogamous with according to their Game awareness.

My friend Rob never made that connection and lived (and still lives) by what an adolescent social skill set and his feminized conditioning had taught him. Rob was enraged about the infidelity, but he took Kim back, they went to the ubiquitous marriage counseling, and attempted the typical negotiations of Kim’s genuine desire for Rob. Rob was still playing by a rule set he believed Kim should recognize and should appreciate (i.e. Relational Equity fallacy), but after 3 kids and “missing out on her 20’s”, Kim’s Hypergamy didn’t care.

At this point, Kim’s leaving Rob was just a formality, but the end came when Rob had an on-the-job injury to his back and he could no longer perform his job. He got pretty good disability, but it wasn’t what Kim had built up to making. Blood was in the water, and Kim went feral. Eventually she took the kids and left Rob to his own means, while she moved half a state away to “find herself” and get into the scene she missed in her 20’s.

For the men in the manosphere who want to use Game as a means to locking down an idealized wife, a lot gets made about marrying (or becoming monogamous) with a woman while she’s young – preferably in or just before her peak SMV years (18-24). Generally the idea is that if you can get to her early enough – before she rides the infamous cock carousel – and she’s cut from the right cloth for monogamy, then by way of a guy being the (hopefully) first Alpha she’s encountered, she’ll solidly pair-bond with him – bearing him healthy children in her fertilely prime years and remain his emotionally bonded, loyal and devoted wife for a lifetime.

I like this fantasy, as I’m sure most idealistic men would. In fact it might even be realistic for a guy in his peak SMV years (30-36) to pull this off with the right amount of status and Amused Mastery if his own value is well established. However, as per the story of Rob and Kim here, there is another risk to the ‘marry young’ scenario and that’s what I call the Left Behind dynamic.

Left Behind

In contemporary western society, even the most farm-raised, home schooled of girls are still going to be incessantly bombarded by the ‘be all you can be’ (previously ‘you can have it all’) social advertising the Feminine Imperative has for girls. Raising a daughter in such times (and I speak from experience) is fraught with risks of appearing to be limiting her potential while attempting educate her about the real limitations of women’s fast-burn SMV and the choices she’ll have to make very early in her life that will affect her later life once she’s past those peak years. I should add that for a father to even hint at these limitations publicly makes him instantly guilty of misogyny, patriarchy, male privilege oppression and every other male-crime the Feminine Imperative has a long established name for. However, even mothers will be accused of being domineered by that patriarchal mindset for attempting to educate their daughters about the real limitations of being a woman today and choosing between different life paths.

With this as the foundation, the inherent risk of finding, not to mention wifing-up, the ideal young girl, predisposed to marriage (unplanned pregnancies not withstanding) is that as a she matures, a woman begins to question the choices she made. While it’s almost a cliché now to breakdown the life path that led to the regret of never-married or divorced aging spinsters in the age of career women, the other side of that coin is the early-married woman contemplating ‘her life that could’ve been’ and the motivation to change her path. It’s easy to find fault with women who delayed accepting a marriage proposal for their own SMV convenience or self-interest, but it’s the early-married Kim’s of the world who are far more susceptible to the Eat, Pray, Love script as they approach the downslide of their SMV.

Ironically it’s the same feminine-primary social influence that encourages ‘be all you can be’ (and demeans her for not living up to her girl-power potential) that also embraces her when she re-plots her life course after leaving the husband of her youth. Mix in her single and divorced friends’ encouragement with fem-centric social promptings and top it off with an innate Hypergamy that never stops subconsciously asking “is this guy the best you can do?” after 12 years of marriage and you can see why she’d feel left behind.

As a Game aware, red pill Man it’s imperative that you consider both sides of a woman’s choices and adjust your Game accordingly. Half the reason I made the rough attempt at graphing the SMP and men and women’s SMV’s respective to each gender’s age is so men could predict and expect the behaviors, mindsets and social variables women will be susceptible to at various phases of their lives. It is, however, important, to consider the choices women have made in the lives they led before and after they meet you. It’s becoming increasingly too easy for men to think, “damn, if only I’d have met her when she was younger and inexperienced, she’d be more attached to me now.” This isn’t always the case.


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.


Hail to the V

I’m not sure if Mark Minter had plans to submit his essay of a comment on Hypergamy Synthesis to Return of Kings or some other manosphere collective blog, but I felt it was too important a post to allow it to slip into the obscurity of a mere comment thread. Yes, it’s long, but it has to be and it’s well worth the read. Set aside half an hour to read it through in one go. It’s really not as cerebral as you might expect and very ‘illuminating’ to say the least.

In several posts and on various other blogger’s comment threads I’ve debated that the social paradigms of chivalry and feminism are cultural engineerings of the feminine imperative. I delved into the history of chivalry in The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300 and made my best attempt to outline the history of chivalry, the feminine bastardization of it and how it was the cultural parallel and precursor to feminism. Naturally the more romantic leaning of my critics chose to keep their noses in their holy books and epic poems rather than take the time to consider the historical underpinnings of what we now consider chivalry and monogamous romantic love.

So it pleases me beyond what I think Mark will appreciate to have him provide such an in depth and insightful detailing of the history of courtly love and how it influences our social consciousness, our gender expectations, even the frustrations we experience in today’s gender landscape.

________________________________________________

I continue to explore the concepts of things I learned at this blog. I am bouncing around sporadically from idea to idea and am having trouble staying focused on any one idea. But I keep getting pulled as much as being due to any lack of mental discipline.

I was searching for a study about the lack of congruence and dissonance between physical indicators of arousal in women and their mental perception of arousal. The whole Testosterone thing drving women’s sexual choices.

I was actually searching for “Chimpanzee Porn” because the article I was looking for used it. The researcher had imposed the sound of Bobono monkeys over the visuals of Chimpanzees having sex because they were more “vocal” during sex and the researcher noted that women display measured physical arousal even though they didn’t recognize being aroused.

And one of links in the search phrase I was using came back with this imbedded in the text:

“Cultural historians believe that romantic love was created sometime in the 14th century”.

Google is the most wonderful thing ever created by men. How this linked got included with a search phrase on “Chimpanzee Porn” is a particularly unique result that would prove it relevant only to my particular “Googling” habits. But I guess Sergei felt I needed to see it. And I did.

OK, we moved down this line of thought at some point on Rational Male a few months ago in the discussion of the beginnings of “chivalry”, so I bit on the link that came up.

The link stated that the idea of “Romantic Love” was created by troubadours in verses by the idea of “Courtly Love” that arose in its beginnings the the end of the 12th century. So I started going back,back,back,back, back (-Chris Berman) and I found this:

http://kalpen.myweb.uga.edu/Capellanus.pdf

The book is important. The foreword by John Jay Perry was written in 1941. The title of this book is “The Art of Courtly Love” but it is actually a Victorian Era title imposed on the work that has several other different titles as a function of the era when the translation was performed, country where the translator lived, and particular social attitudes prevalent when and where the translator produced the translation. I think the “Romantic Era” was when these ideas of “courtly love” finally percolated up into mainstream thought, well, actually women’s mainstream thought, and defined love as we believe it be today, or at least defined it as women wish that definition to be imposed on men.

The title I generally use is “Treatise on Love”. Andreas Capellenus was the Chaplain of Countess Marie, and the preface goes into all of this history and I don’t want to get it into it. Read it.

It is the seminal work on the subject and there is no earlier work by a European. There is reference to Ibn Hazm, an Islamic writer from Spain, who began to define the idea of “love” in Islamic cultures. It went through a series of other writers in the 13th century and orally communicated through verse and song during the 14th century and made its way into the consciousness of western thought from the 14th century on.

The key thing is that these Troubadours were not some “traveling band” singing for their supper. Maybe later, but at this time, they were major nobles, from both the nobility and the higher noble classes. The first major one referenced was Duke William of Aquitaine, who was Marie’s grandfather. These were important people of the time. This would maybe be like, God forbid, Senator Harry Reid, breaking into a song after dinner about the importance of passing spending bills to ease the particular issues about the “sequester” that are key issues to Democrats or Ben Bernake letting loose about the Quantitative Easing. Ok, maybe not exactly.

The issue at the time, was that, as the historians state, that “Love as we know it did not exist. Marriage was as much as about land and politics as anything else”. It was said you “Married a fiefdom and a wife got thrown in the bargain”. Imagine a time where firelight and sunlight were practically the only light, when people rarely traveled more than 12 miles from their place of birth, when nothing, and I mean nothing, changed. The major cathedral built in Nimes took 38 generations to complete. The skyline never changed, towns remained the same. There were no books. None. All knowledge was conveyed orally and generally died with a person. The only cultural conditioning was what you got by watching the people you saw. And you saw very few people. Even at the peasant level, most marriages were the tossing together of two available young people, and that was that. But particularly at the noble level, all marriages were entirely based on practical considerations and nothing to do with “love” as we know it.

And the major church writers the time, just skewered women. The preface named several, and while I can’t find actual text of the writers specific to women, Bernard de Morlaix, John of Salisbury, I can find overall references to what they said about morality in general. They were a group that very much about self control. And it was thought that due to the “wickedness” of women, it was probably superior to remain a virgin. And thus the idea of the “celibate” priest was born. He could not be “godly”, and should be suspect, if he allowed himself to come under the temptation of women.These guys were definitely the “Red Pill” writers of the time. The general idea was not so much that sex was bad, but women were so bad, and sex was lure, the hook, so they damned sex as a means to keep men from getting ensnared in the traps and wickedness that women lay for men. And the thought has a little bit of merit, I must say.

So, think about this. The men in power at the time, saw some of the stuff we see, and they gave a huge “thumbs down” on women. Huge.

Now, heading into the second 500 years of Christianity, throw a “rubbing elbows” with Moslems in Spain, and this idea of “love” starts to percolate about, sort of this “counter-culture” idea of the time. It did not exist at all before in European culture, this idea of “soul mates” and “intertwined” spirits and “the ennobling qualities of love”, love as the be all and end all, the very reason to live.

And it was made up.

By women. Duh?

So there were moments, during this period 1170-1250 were in certain places the women got control. It the case of this Marie, she got control of this region “Troyes” in southern France when her son was named to be noble over the region and he was 11 years old. So she accompanied him down there and was the defacto “regent” during his “minority”. Her husband became King while she was down there. So this was a woman of major influence. And her sister was married to someone that also became King of someplace else. Their mother had been both Queen of France and then Queen of England after she divorced the King of France. This was a powerful woman who got what she wanted. And two of the chief architects of “love” were her two daughters, who married extremely high status men.

The same thing happened at the same time in about 3 other major places in the area, and these women, began to “flirt: with idea of “Courtly Love”. Flirt maybe is a little weak of word. But the general idea of most writers about the theme is that they “Proposed it as countervailing religion or thought to Christianity.” Christianity had so vilified women during the past 200 years, and this “love” stuff was really one of the first “feminisms”.

And near I am can tell, it was literally the birth of the Feminine Imperative. At least, the birth of the version that we know today.

The general idea was this.

“Women are the love. Women give praise to men and the power of that praise is the driving motivator of men. All good things that men do are only done in the true spirit of love to earn the right to the love that the woman confers to the men. Women define what is good. Women confer status on men by allowing them to receive the love they receive from women as a result of high character and accomplishment”.

Sound familiar.

So that was why some “Sir Goodguy” white knight would tie the scarf of the woman around his neck during some contest. It was his sign to her that he was doing this brave dead for her love and his recognition that she saw him as good and worthy.

They actually created these things called “The Court of Love”. And these men and women, and you can imagine the men in those courts were the 12th or 13th century equivalents of Manginas, would literally “rule” on love. They would debate questions, actions, and then determine is an act was good or bad and then that further defined “love”. Remember again, this was not idle chit chat after dinner. These were the major movers and shakers of the time. This was the court that would go on to exert cultural and intellectual control over Europe until 1914. And really even later than that. For nearly 1000 years, the French held sway in everything and Paris was the center of the world. Except at this time, this part of France, the south was the big deal.

One example I saw was letter written by a man that said, he and a woman were having heated discussion of two points, (1) Can true love exists in a marriage. (2) Can there be jealousy between the married partners. The Countess, the Queen of Love, at that time wrote back and said “No, love cannot exist in a marriage. Love is freely given and asks for nothing in return. Marriage is a contract of duties. So there is no love in a marriage. And Jealousy is a prerequisite of love and since only lovers could be jealous and since married people were not lovers, then their could be no jealousy in a marriage. ” And that was that. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Love had issued a ruling. And its weight was everything.

And needless to say, it was a mighty convenient development for women that were traded off into marriage as pawns attached to land. So it conferred the key power of social definition and the final say of what is good in men, and good in society, and that women should and will be the definers, and the arbiters, and the judges of all of that.

The translators, and this particular author John Jay Parry, mention that was nothing particularly distinguishing about Andreas Capellanus that would make it seem like he was the person to end up as this great literary figure that wrote a work that is “One of those capital works that explain the thought of a great epoch, which explain the secret of a civilization”. Parry said often, some of the prose was different in style and “meter”, such that it seemed “dictated” to him.

And frankly I am sure the whole book was “dictated” to him. That he was, in fact, as chaplain, the mouthpiece of these women, and his position as Chaplain allowed the viewpoints expressed to be accepted in a way that a work created and made public by women, given what it expresses, would have viewed more critically by readers. Keep in mind that it was written in Latin, and only those who were either Clerics or the nobility could read the thing. What wasn’t literally dictated, was more or less, transcribed thought, and he knew that Marie was final “editor” in the content. And his position, both as Chaplain, and his very livelihood, depending on her being happy with the finished product.

So let me make an analogy, and step just a little bit in time. Things are little muddled today cultural to make a similar one from a very current example.

Consider Hugh Hefner. And consider his show called Playboy After Dark. This was a time of much “friction”, the early 60s. Civil rights and racism are extreme issues. Sexual “freedom” is coming about. The “rights” of just about everyone are much talked about. The setting which was sort of this contrived “salon” from Paris. The set looked like a large living room in a swanky spiffy Playboy bachelor pad. All these “cool”, meaning avante guarde, “open minded”, intellectually superior, artistically superior, liberal people are just hanging out, having a spiffy party. Hef does more for civil rights in a minute than 50 writers do in 10 years by having Sammy Davis Jr on the show. Hef did more for women’s liberation by having a “guest” on the show to talk about it and the camera sees Hef nodding approval, than 50 screeching female professors could ever do.

So then that “cool” boy, that wants to be like Hef, all through the 60s and the 70s, the “cool boy” believes in Equal Rights, Racism, Feminism and this idea of “gender” and “race” being a culturally imposed concept. And that “cool” boy does it exactly because it is “artistically and culturally superior” than the conservative ideas of the time. So then imagine how pervasive both of those viewpoints on Racism and Sexism are today and how “religious” both have become in such a short time, historically. All of us have experienced the reaction of people to our Red Pill beliefs that border on religious arguments. And some of the biggest fighters of what we propose are men. So a philosophy can quickly move from the fringe and become core if the “right” people get behind it and push it.

So then imagine the same thing back in 1200, the “cool” boy, the son of the nobles, that reads latin, has a little bit of education, he thinks the Catholic church is a bunch of sticks in the mud. He is literally built, wired, for sex, to want women. And this idea of “love” makes absolute sense to him, or at least he wants it to make sense, because the top of line, highest status women, those noble women in that area between Barcelona and maybe, Bologna, were all giving approval to those men that bought into it. So by saying “I believe in Love” or “I am in Love’s army”, or “I am a soldier of love”, what he is saying is “I’m cool, man. Please like me.”

And just like today, any guy that goes against Feminism or attacks the behavior of women is shunned. I hurl some attack on women in comments to an article, and some woman comes back with “Oh, I be you just get you tons”. So in 1200, It is “No ‘Love”, then no ‘love’”, you were ostracized by women, at least the cool French Chicks who were the celebs of the day.

And so it takes hold, and as Feminism has co-opted the church, today’s women have imposed their viewpoint on church acceptance of divorce, premarital sex, with the whole idea of the “magic vagina” of women compelling those men into better behavior and better performance, and the woman has the right and the duty to punish him for failure to live up to the love that the woman has given him as a gift that he must continue to earn, the same thing happens with “love”. It co-opts the Catholic church of the day, and throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, “love” creeps into the morality and consciousness of the people at the time. The “love” thing is dominating the “court” and is leaks into the church in the relationship of accomplices that they first and second estate have which each other. It catches on and becomes the dominant aspect of the culture and women are “rehabilited”, seize control, and never let go. They have the “authority” because they have the “morality”, and they drive the course of society by controlling what is “moral” and what is “honorable”. And what constitutes both, from that point forward, are generally what is in the best interest of women, given their situation, given the time.

So why is this important to us?

First, the whole idea of “Courtly Love” was entirely hypergamistic. Entirely. The Capellanus book has as the heart of the second part, 9 dialogues. These dialogues define the Feminine Imperative.

Keep in mind, at this time, there might have been maybe 500 books floating around in total. And this is the only one on this topic available for a 100 years. The only other referenced work before this was Ovid “The Art of Love” and most scholars really see Ovid as more of a satire on the “treatises” written during his day, and not as a REFERENCE MANUAL that people today, including myself (pre-Red Pill) , see it.

I took it as “how to” book. And what it should be titled is “How to be a AFC Beta”. Also keep in mind that books were so rare, that everything thing was relayed as an oral tradition. Even as late at 1513, Luther said he had been a priest for 3 years before he ever even saw a Bible. And that’s the effing bible.

So here you are somewhere in 1200, and this major Noble dude guy, or high status babe, gets up and starts talking or singing about this new “love” thing, and everyone is nodding and agreeing. And if they don’t nod and agree, then they don’t get to be in the group, they’re fired. The High Status women turn on them, and they are ostracized.

So in the 9 dialogues, there are a series of conversations that men of one of three statuses would have with a women of one of the same three statuses. Those statuses being “commoner, noble, high noble”. And these dialogues set the ground work, the rules, of what both men and women of all three classes should, do, feel, and think about “love”. And “love” is only between those classes. Peasants don’t love. They need to stay on the farm and work it. They have no time for “love”. And love is only between people that aren’t married.

And there you go right there, with anachronistic thought. You probably thought, single people. No. Single people weren’t dating and marrying. No way. That was decided by someone else. You were probably going to be part of some arranged marriage. “Love” was between married people, at least married women and a man, but not married to each other. You can already see the way hypergamy is influencing the idea of “love”. Girl gets pawned off as a 14 year old or 15 year old as part of some arrangement between older family members. She probably didn’t like her husband very much, given what we know about women today. And he probably didn’t like her much either. I am sure there were just as many men when they first saw there “betrothed” thought, “Oh fuck, you have got to be shitting me. I have to marry this bitch?”

And in these dialogues, pure hypergamy is enforced and codified. The dialogues enforced class, at least enforced it for men. Men could try and love “up”, but most likely they couldn’t unless they displayed such extreme good character that their character was better than all of the available men in the class of the woman he was “hitting on”. But it also set a nice set of rules for women “move up”. But the women were the ones, in every case, to judge the men, the determine that even though the women were “moving” up, they still were to ones to say “OK, I’ll take you You are worthy of my love”.

And then it also codified acceptance for women to be able to “cheat” on their husbands. “Courtly Love” was only between people that were not married. They got around the 10 commandments, by stipulating that the true lover never asks for sex in return for his love. He loves merely for the purity of his love. And that the whole endeavor was supposed to remain entirely secret. That if it became public, then the “love” was dead. Over. At best he got a kiss, maybe an embrace. Gentlemen in the army of “love” never tell. And Gentlemen never demand sex. Which of course, all of this was bullshit. But since “Courtly Love” was “love” for “love”‘s sake then those husbands couldn’t get jealous, and nobody loves their husband anyway. So it gave a socially acceptable way for this woman that had this beta forced on her by marriage, then get out their and have exposure to the alphas that she truly wanted. And it gave her a social means to circumvent the church. And since everyone, at least everyone who mattered, was married to someone they didn’t like, then it was an early version of “Don’t ask; don’t tell”.

This also forms the basis of monogamy, as we know it, codified by women, in that the definition of it truly benefits women. “The true lover that truly loves only loves the one. He cannot love two. The sight of other women do not affect him because he has true love for his true love.” Notice that there are a lot of “he” and ‘his” words used. The book asserts that those men that would want sex with lots of women and have passion for someone other than “the one” under the guise of love is an an “ass”, mule, dressed up in the finest livery, but still an “ass”.

Schopenhauer said “Love! If you would have thought it up, your fellows would have thought you daft. The mere idea that because a woman allows you her favors, that you should support her for life.”

Well, it was thought up, by these women in the south of France, and it curled around and snaked its way into the current consciousness of people like it was something that people have done since the dawn of men. And it wasn’t.

When you read Capellanus’ statement of what “love” is, it is the seminal definition, the very “jump street”, the Genesis of the codification of “OneItis”. And when you read the dialogues, and then this list of the “Rules of Love” which is the part of the book that is most public, you see the fingerprint of the Feminine Imperative.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/rules_of_love.html

I think at some point in my reading, someone had described Capellanus as being very “Copernican”,as in Copernicus, and astrology, threatening the religion and the concept of the world.

I say we use him again in a Copernican manner, as the very argument that the Feminine Imperative is an entirely contrived ideal.

And we reject “love”, as in the definition of it by Capellanus. We see it as the social manipulation that it was to orchestrate the emotions of men, and actions from those emotions, entirely for the benefit of women.

Churchill said “In England, it is permitted unless it is not permitted. In Germany, it is permitted only if it is permitted. In Russia, it is not permitted even if it is permitted. And in France, it is permitted, even when it is not permitted.”

To some degree that combination of all four “permitteds” describes the Feminine Imperative. It is permitted when they want it to be permitted and not permitted when they do not. Even if it is not permitted then it is permitted, if it is in the benefit of women. And especially, it is not permitted even when it is permitted, in the case where it might benefit men at the expense of women.

They only way to put a brunt on the Feminine Imperative is make them pay a cost for their behavior. And the best way for men to do that is the rejection of “love”.

In the words of YaReally, “The manosphere is the new counter-culture”.

We are the new “cool boys”. We are the new “rebels”.

And you need to read Capellanus, and as you read it, to see the manipulation in the pages. Maybe it was adopted because it had social value to blunt the negative behavior or the men of the time and turn it in a constructive direction.

But today it is only something that is used to provide advantage for women. And that advantage is often used at the expense of men, and furthermore, for the punishment of men, the social shaming of men, when women deem the men’s behavior or actions to be at the detriment of women. And they are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner of their verdict. And no one ever challenges them.

And we begin by rejecting unilaterally, out of hand, “love” for the pack of lies it is.

So I say we use our position as influence peddlers, taste makers, of our day and time, and shame men, Mangina men, and White Knights as fools; toadies for women and their “love”. And make no mistake, that whole White Knight shit comes exactly from this book. We all should read “Treatise on Love”, deconstruct it, and expose it for the bullshit sham it is.

I have ranted this in the past. It is time for men to gain an entirely new consciousness, a new awareness, a entirely new set of constructivism abstracts on which to frame their thinking.

The constant whine, complaint, criticism of the manosphere is that is attacks “love”, it makes “love” impossible, it kills “love”.

And I say, no it doesn’t. It exposes the reality of the impossibility of “love” because “love” is entirely a manufactured ideal. And modern Feminism has brought about the recognition of the impossibility of it and rubbed it in the face of men. If you pine for it, it you whine about it, the end of it, the lack of it, then you deny the truth of it.

Modern life is entirely developed as a means to blunt the natural advantages that men have. This “love” is a further handicap, a weight on your shoulders, that limits your ability to use your advantage, physically, mentally, by women exploiting the emotional advantage that women have over men. She only has this advantage if you allow her to have it.

So discard it. It is religion in you that does not work to your advantage.

So yes, “They have a right to do anything that we can’t stop them from doing”.

But we have the capacity and the ability to make them pay for it.

In the end, and my life right now is living proof of this, they need us more than we need them. We want them; they need us. And the things that most women want, they get from us. And without the handicap of “love”, you can make them pay, and pay, and pay, until they fucking cry uncle.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,069 other followers