Category Archives: The Feminine Imperative

Don’t Hate the Beta


A common refrain I hear from even some well meaning Red Pill aware men is that there is some degree of disdain for the “Beta” man in the sphere. There’s not so much a rejection of apparent Red Pill truths as there is a schoolyard mentality when it comes to characterizing a guy as Alpha or Beta. This is where where a lot of guys turn themselves off to the Red Pill in a community sense.

In a way I suppose it becomes reminiscent of guys having been bullied in their formative years by the guys they now have a mental image of being archetypically “Alpha”. So it follows that concepts like AMOGing or running a ‘Boyfriend Destroyer’ script is distasteful; a lot of men, that is to say the 80%+ Beta men, have likely experienced this disqualification in direct or indirect ways in their youth. Sometimes that may simply be a girl he had his ONEitis sights set on opting for a more Alpha guy after telling him she wasn’t ready for a relationship, or it may be a more direct experience of having sand metaphorically kicked in his face.

Thus it becomes a matter of course to entirely dismiss the nuts & bolts understanding of how abstracts like Alpha and Beta are used in the sphere. The default understanding goes something like this, “Those Red Pillers just hate on Betas to build themselves up” or some other version of this where the Red Pill becomes a Machiavellian free for all at the expense of other, ‘lesser’, men.

It’s either this or the abstractions of Alpha and Beta are reduced to absurd binary interpretations; Alphas become ridiculous ‘douchebag’ parodies and Betas become pathetic, simpering doormats for the world to tread upon. In either case the purpose of reducing these abstracts as such is an effort in dismissing the uncomfortable, as well as evidently observable qualities and truths of the intersexual environment that plays out around us.

For the record I think it’s important for Red Pill men to remain as objective and disinvested from making qualitative assumptions about what constitutes the Alpha and Beta abstractions. I don’t hate, pity or resent Beta men. Neither do I embrace the idea that Alpha archetypes as necessarily positive or negative. For the moment however, I’m going to focus on Beta men.

The Presumption of Control

As I mentioned above, one of the primary dismissals men have when they encounter Red Pill thought is to blow it off because “it’s all just a bunch of hating on Betas.” And that presumption comes only if a guy is willing to consider the abstracts of Alpha and Beta in the first place – most simply don’t want to recognize specific ‘statuses’ or defining characteristics of men or women, and just fall back on the “all is relative, all is subjective” mindset they’ve been conditioned to. People are People, there is no human “nature” so there is no male or female “nature”.

But for the guy who at least accepts the idea of human natures, I can certainly understand the reservations of men whose identities were conditioned to a more Beta role. There’s not much positive to characterize a Beta mindset with beyond the utility that conditioning serves to society and women’s sexual strategy. Betas do in fact get laid; the terms on which, and how their sexuality fits their utilitarian role in women’s Hypergamous plan is the real question.

I was recently asked if I thought Beta men employing Beta Game was a successful strategy in the larger scheme of things. If success means that Beta Game will get him laid, I’m incredulous about it. The presumption is that the Beta man employing that ‘game’ is in some way directing and controlling the outcome of his ‘success’. I’d argue that what he believes is ‘game’ is simply his utility to a woman coming into an optimal window for her necessity of him. So is his ‘strategy’ really successful, or is he simply the best ‘Plan B‘ a woman has available to her while her own SMV decays to the point where he’s her best option?

Is that Beta really in control? Or is he simply situationally useful?

I think a lot of what guys new to the manosphere perceive as Beta hate is simply the presumption of control they believe they should be able to exercise with women. After having been told for the the better part of their lives that the more accommodating and identifying with women they are will lead to them being accepted by women it’s a presumption that this is some means of socially acceptable control for them.

It’s very galling to have men place fault on a guy for things he knows are out of his control. I fully understand the angst and frustration that leads to things like Beta Uprising and men frustrated with intersexual dynamics taking it out on the whole of society before they swallow a bullet themselves.

It essentially amounts to victim blaming; Betas are hapless and hopeless mules brainwashed and indentured to serve not just the Feminine Imperative (which would be galling enough), but also to have the pains and strivings that society demands of them be rewarded with women’s genuine intimate interests focusing on Alpha men.

That sucks.

PUAs telling a guy it’s on him as to why women are boring to him, or uninterested in him sexually, only reinforces that angst. It’s like a pastor telling you that if you’d only prayed harder or more earnestly God would have cured your Mom of cancer. So they hate the Alpha, they hate the PUA, they hate the hotchickswithdouchebags guy, but they also hate women and the social/biological mechanics of the position they’re placed in. It presumes a control that he believes he’s never had, nor ever will.

So there comes a point where that Beta wants, sometimes adamantly insists, for his own burden of performance to be replaced, or at least handicapped, by a woman meeting him half way. This want is rooted in his Blue Pill presumption that people are people and in the equalist notion that women’s hindbrains can (willingly) be overridden when it comes to arousal, attraction and intersexual dynamics. Again, if there is no human nature it should stand to reason that a woman could potentially choose that Beta for all the reasons he’s been conditioned to believe she should choose him for. If there is a female nature, and that nature follows (with some degree of consistency) Red Pill aware truths, then his frustrations are founded on his own lack.

But these guys aren’t Blue Pill oblivious men, they are Red Pill aware. They see the truth and that leads to their awakening to the cruel reality that they’re in. So when these guys are put into that place they have a few choices: Snap and take out themselves and as many others as they can, go isolationist MGTOW and retreat to minimal societal investment, go MRA and impotently try to enact legislation that they think will even the social playing filed from the top down, or they can take a realistic look at themselves and reinvent themselves to better play the Game.

The Burden of Fault

Whether it’s fair or not, by virtue of being a man, you’re going to have to accept your burden of performance. That burden includes your liability of accepting fault even for things that aren’t your fault per se. It’s not your fault that you were born and raised into a feminine-primary social order that conditioned you to be an accommodating utility for it – but irrespective of that, you will be held liable for not complying with it or resisting it. You are a man, you will always be accountable.

Is that fucked up? Yes. So with that in mind it is up to you as a Red Pill aware Man to decide for yourself what is worth your investment. Yes my friend, women can be amazing, interesting vivacious and fun, but they can also be fucked up and stupid and absolutely not worth your time, money and effort. It isn’t your fault they are the way they are, but it is your fault for investing yourself in something you’re not enjoying or profiting by.

With all of the railing against women not being worthwhile one would think that would prompt these men to being indifferent to women – but they aren’t. Even the most ardent MGTOW and hapless Beta Red Pill denier still wants women; he simply wants her in his context and his frame on his terms – and to genuinely want to be a part of all that. There’s nothing wrong with this desire, this is precisely what I advise with regards to Frame control, but the disconnect comes in how men go about establishing a Frame women want to be a part of.

Get Out There

I may debate with other men’s takes on how the importance of looks plays in to a man’s overall Game and appeal, but one thing I won’t argue with is the importance of men putting themselves out there and into situations that will most certainly take them out of their comfort zones.

For almost 20 years I have made a living doing exactly this. I have worked in gaming, liquor and brand development ventures that have put me into venues that range from Goth/Alternative/Hipster sets to LGBT events, to mixing with men and women who have the type of wealth that most people don’t even know exists. My career, family and personal life has been my Red Pill classroom and laboratory for all this, and in all of these contexts I have found a way to enjoy myself and/or learn from these interactions.

One reason I will never look to writing Red Pill books as a career option is because it would remove me from the very source of my observations. Living it is the only way keep learning from it. On my own time, I would very likely prefer to lock myself in my studio and paint or sculpt, or to create something new to work into a brand, often to the exclusion of my wife and family and the many friends I have. I’m a very social guy, but I would probably not feel compelled to head off to a night club or any of the events I involve myself in professionally on a weekly basis.

When I’m doing a promo, I know I’m not going to hook up, so I find enjoyment in watching and learning from what I see going on around me. I can’t drink when I’m on a promo or doing a trade show, so even that can’t be a source enjoyment. So why fucking do it right? I make money at it, and it beats living in a cubicle, but I’d much rather be creating new things, new brands, new ideas than interacting with half-buzzed hipsters who think they’re too cool to be there or obnoxious 40 something divorcés ‘sampling’ vodka and hoping to drink their spinsterhood away.

I enjoy what I do and it helps me help other guys. I put myself out in the wild because it’s part of my job(s), but I honestly enjoy interacting with even the dullards and the drunks. It’s what I invest myself in. That may sound like torture to you, but it’s really contextual. I have friends I’ve made at underground Goth events who would blanch at the thought of what I do at a golf tournament. I’m not saying you need to be a social chameleon, but understand that your social education will always be domain dependent if you stay in the settings that make you the most comfortable.

Don’t Hate the Beta

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t hate Beta men. For a long time in my Blue Pill past I was one of them, and I can fully understand the want to mischaracterize an Alpha mindset in order to preserve a sense of self-worth. Beta men don’t warrant pity or disgust, but rather they need a tough harsh awakening to the reality of the situation they find themselves in.

I don’t think Beta men are hopeless, but they will remain in a state of hopelessness so long as they subscribe to a want of making things easier for their condition rather than improving themselves to better play the Game. That’s hard to hear for most Beta men and I understand the protective need for denial in this, but I know of very few Red Pill men who really despise Beta or Blue Pill men. They despise his indentured state, they despise his willful obliviousness to his conditioned uses. They despise the lengths to which Blue Pill men will go in their hope to be appreciated by the system that made them what they are.

The Purple Pill


Four years ago I wrote a post titled Could a Man Have Written This? I opened that post with a short, I thought positive, critique of an article by Mona Charen in which she in turn took a then relatively unknown Kate Bolick to task over her All the Single Ladies article. You can read the whole post; it was one of my earliest essays on this blog and, as I’ve come to realize, one of my more prophetic ones too.

My intent in that essay wasn’t to call Charen to the carpet, but rather to illustrate the point that only women are allowed to write an article that criticizes issues specific to women. It is an indictment of, and evidence of, the feminine centric social order we find ourselves in today that any man brazen enough to write verbatim the same offering would be dismissed and passed over as a misogynists at best – lose his long career and personal life at worst.

No man could write this critique and be taken seriously, and therein lies the danger in women co-opting the message the manosphere has been compiling for 12 years now. The environment is such that anything remotely critical a man might offer is instantly suspect of misogyny or personal (‘he’s bitter”) bias, however, couch that message in a female perspective, play Mrs. Doubtfire, and you’ll at least reach the audience beginning with something like validity.

Not surprisingly this element of message delivery is lost on most women. Adopting the male perspective seems novel, something that might set a woman apart in a sea of common fem-speak, but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

I daresay this last part is exactly what the manosphere is seeing now. Like any other Male Space the Feminine Imperative makes it its business to ensure that ‘overseers in the locker room’ – in this case the social awareness of the Red Pill –  are emplaced to control a narrative and a condition to suit its purposes. That may sound conspiratorial, but there is no need for a concerted effort when women’s natural, fluid interest in attention and indignation will motivate them to co-opt the narrative of Red Pill awareness.

From Male Space:

Overseers in the Locker Room

The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

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

Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; According to their proper feminized conditioning, they embrace the opportunity to impress these ‘trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their feminine overseer(s), or they become easy foils of an “out moded” way of thinking that the new ‘in-group’ happily labels them with.

Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ‘feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space, while in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on out-group men’s failure to comply with, or the rejection of, the Feminine Imperative’s ‘correcting’ influence on the in-group.

It’s very important for Red Pill aware men, manospherean men, to keep this dynamic in mind when they are assessing and evaluating the various messages and intents of the men from whom they’re considering taking advice from.

The Purple Pill

In the community, The Purple Pill is a euphemism for men who’ve become Red Pill aware, but for a variety of insecurities have decided to temper the uncomfortable truths of that awareness with their previous Blue Pill hopes. The harsh, ugly truths that the nature of women, the nature of Hypergamy and the natural selection process of intersexual dynamics presents to these guys becomes too much to bear. It’s all encompassing; when a man begins to see his surroundings with a Red Pill lens the difficult truth needs for an optimistic solution to counter what would otherwise be nihilism.

As I detailed in A New Hope, there’s a want for some sort of Red Pill solution in achieving Blue Pill fantasized goals.

Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context with red pill awareness.

I’ve included as my blog picture the first and last book covers published by former Frat Boy PUA Tucker Max. I could just as easily have used Neil Strauss’ most recent book, or Athol Kay and Married Man Sex Life as an example, but I think Tucker’s covers tell the story better than a thousand words. When women, women’s interests and women’s sexual strategies become an endemic part of that man’s previous message or a male-specific social movement, the fundamental, underlying impetus becomes compromised. It becomes a tool of the Feminine Imperative.

The present condition of the Mens Human Rights movement is a glaring example of this insaturation of feminine influence. At some stage along the evolution of this otherwise laudable movement its leaders recognized that their best messengers – really their only options – for their grievances were women. Our feminine-primary social order only allows women to be critical of other women, thus the only avenue became investing their message in the women who would voice it for them.

Although I’m cautiously optimistic about the production and release of The Red Pill movie in the coming year I have to temper that with the knowledge that a documentary about the MRM will, once again, owe its credibility to a self-identifying feminist, Cassie Jaye, to tell the story for them. For all of the reassurances and promises of objectivity on her part, the subplot of the documentary prominently features her self-doubt and questioning of her own feminist beliefs during the process of her making the documentary.

On the surface this female self-discovery probably seems like a confirmation of purpose to the men of the MRM, but from a Red Pill perspective – the true Red Pill awareness neither she nor the notables of the MRM are willing to acknowledge – this is yet one more example of the innate feminine solipsism we’ve dissected for a decade now. From Eat, Pray Love to Gone Girl, the female self-discovery script is almost cliché now, but I expect that the bulk of the publicity and interviews of Jaye that follow this film will be less about the MRM and more focused on her very predictable “personal growth journey”.

As I stated in Male Space, the purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. This has been a constant bugbear for the Mens Rights Movement, and is the primary reason they must maintain an inclusionary egalitarian / equalist aspect to their message.

The present state of the MRM is just one of the more apparent examples of men’s groups inviting this feminine influence to ostensibly validate their message. There are others. Tucker Max’s most recent venture appears to be selling himself as a reformed cad who followed the romantic comedy script and is now appeasing his wife’s influence by helping men better understand how to better accommodate Hypergamy.

From The Script:

For women, the only thing better than experiencing this script vicariously through movies and stories is to see it happen live. David D’Angelo, Tucker Max are a few manosphere notable who’ve played the come-full-circle surrender to the script. There are far more guys who play it in a more visual sense (the repentant ‘Womanizer’ episodes on the Tyra Banks show comes to mind), but no one really remembers them, and certainly not in the ‘sphere. While there’s a sense of vindication for women to have a guy surrender his anti-social (i.e. anti-feminine primary) lifestyle and beliefs in favor of a feminine paradigm, and “settle down” into a feminine framed, normalized monogamy, surrender is still surrender. Essentially the strong vibrant man who posed such a challenge to her, the one who’s steadfast determination and conviction made him a man she was hot for as well as one she could respect, loses his status.

He’ll say, hey, you don’t know where I’m at in life, you don’t know the experiences I’ve had, life has taught me the value of compromise. Women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate a feminine reality, but if there’s one thing women outright despise, one thing men foolishly believe women should be able to appreciate, it’s a man willing to compromise the beliefs he’s established his reputation and integrity upon in order to facilitate her feminine reality. That’s the definition of a sell-out.

As I said there are many other examples; Athol Kay and the revenue dependence he now has on his pandering to a female audience (and the inclusion of his wife and other women in his message). Evan Mark Katz’s pandering almost exclusively to upper middle class women bemoaning the same tired tropes of  “no good men” that led them to their spinsterhood in the first place. There are more, but in all these cases these men’s financial livelihood depends on their capacity to include a feminine-primary influence into their dubious male space.

This Purple Pill dynamic has also found its way into mainstream religion for much of the same reasoning these ‘Dating Coaches’ find it necessary to cater their message to a feminine-primary audience. Most will season-to-taste just a bit of whatever they’re peripherally aware of about Red Pill truth, but only enough to appear in touch with the burden of men’s performance owed to the women that make up their audiences. Like the Dating Coaches, the Purple Pill Pastor understands that his revenue depends on hold women’s attention and usually this comes in the form of playing to women’s inherent need for indignation.

And finally, there are the apologist,…

This is an old video, but it’s brought to you by the same faction that’s now fronting conferences like the Conscious Men Summit. It pains me to see Dr. Warren Farrell speaking/endorsing this new age masculine apologist movement, especially since he’s a featured interview in The Red Pill movie for the MRM. Farrell has always been an adherent of the same gender-equal fantasy he learned from 70’s feminism, but I do credit him with aiding in my own unplugging when I read Why Men Are The Way They Are.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too shocked, but the masculine apologists of this century also have a need to mix in just enough Red Pill awareness to appeal to, what they hope are the more dominant sensibilities of men. New age (really reheated 70s) masculine apologist still cling to the fallacies inherent in gender equalism, but they transition this into a restitution script they believe women will appreciate in an age where women despise their pathetic acquiescence to the Feminine Imperative they’re oblivious of.

If these guys’ message makes your stomach turn, well, I share in your disgust, but it’s important to remember that in the coming years men like this will attempt to co-opt into their message just enough of what the Red Pill as a collective has developed for the past 13-14 years.

After Roosh decided to set fire to the Red Pill community in an effort to create his own brand in neomasculinity he put out a video in which he laid claim to having ‘fathered’ the Red Pill. Now we have the MRM making similar claims of ownership to this collective with their upcoming documentary. The cover story is of course “only in name, because no one can really ‘own’ the Red Pill”, but their notables understand the conflation all too well. Furthermore we have the influences of the ‘overseers in the locker room’ effect with the likes of Tucker Max and other half-measure Purple Pill fence riders.

Back in 2011 I anticipated women writers co-opting the Red Pill and acknowledging what of it that serves their sexual strategy (Open Hypergamy) and in claiming authorship of the Red Pill they also claim the authority to define it in the ways that most fluidly serve the Feminine Imperative. The Purple Pill pushers will use what ever conveniently complements and reinforces their Blue Pill insecurities while sweeping the ugly, harsh, unflattering truth of the Red Pill aside or disqualifying them as the negativity of misogynistic complainers.

While I am humbled to be accounted as one of the Red Pill’s prominent writers I will never lay claim to having created it. The Red Pill in its truest sense belongs to the collective that has contributed to it as a whole. It belongs to the men who’ve fostered it, who’ve risked their livelihoods and families apart from it to make other men aware; it belongs to those who understand that its objectivity is what’s kept it open and honest, discussable and debatable.

At the Man In Demand conference in Vegas I opened my talk by asking those seated what they believed the Red Pill was. I did so because I believe that in the coming years there will be a concerted effort to claim authorship and definition rights to the “Red Pill”, and it’s important for anyone identifying as being Red Pill aware to acknowledge that what we’re a part of is a collective experience. We are, we become, the developments of a totality of men’s experiences across the world.

Beware of any man or woman attempting to lay claims of ownership of the Red Pill. Beware of anyone defining this awareness, distorting these truths, to accommodate their narratives.



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

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

Guy starts us off:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talents and Deficits

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

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

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

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

Fighting Nature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

A Crisis of Manhood

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

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

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

From Vulnerability:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tail Chasing

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caricatures of Masculinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Pill Parenting – Part I

Red Pill Parenting

“If I’m not going to have children, she told herself, then I’m going to have lovers.” – Robin Rinaldi, The Wild Oats Project.

In last week’s essay I put an emphasis on men’s understanding women’s rudimentary doubt of their Hypergamous choices with regards to rearing children and the overall health of a family. There are a great many social factors in our westernized feminine-centric social structure that encourages women to delay both marriage and becoming a mother well past their prime fertility windows.

In the Myth of the Biological Clock I detailed the misconceptions women hold with have with regard to their own capacity of having children later in life:

Popular culture likes to teach women and, by association, unenlightened men that there is an innate biological clock inside each woman that slowly ticks down to a magical period where her maternal instincts at long last predispose her to wanting a child. Perhaps, not so surprisingly, this coincides perfectly with the Myth of Women’s Sexual Peak as well as conveniently being the age demographic just post or just prior to when most women hit the Wall.

[…]I wont argue that women actually possess maternal instincts, I will argue that their understanding of when they manifest has been deliberately distorted by a feminine-centric cultural influence. If women are “angry” about the revelation their inability or difficulty to conceive in their post-Wall biological conditions presents, their anger is misdirected. Rather than come down from the heady pedestal of ego-invested female empowerment psychology, they’ll blame men for not being suitable fathers, or lacking a will to “play-by-the rules” and satisfy the dictates of the feminine imperative by whiling away their time in porn and video game induced comas.

The “have it all” mentality popularized by feminism has led to some very bad social effects for women on whole. While a great deal of “having it all” is couched in messaging that appeals to enabling ’empowered®’ women get a similar deal from career life that men are supposedly enjoying, the subtext in this message is one of never settling for a less than Hypergamously optimal (better than, not equal) monogamous pairing with a man.

The “have it all” advertising is about life fulfillment from a distractingly equalist perspective; meaning an ostensibly equitable or better fulfillment than the Feminine Imperative would have women expect that men are getting from life. Women want to be men. Thus the push for female college enrollment that imbalances men’s enrollment, etc., but in so doing the life course women are directed to by the imperative also limits their Hypergamous optimization efforts by putting unrealistic expectations upon it.

As a result women either delay childbearing until ages that put them and any offspring at a health risk, or they simply forego marriage altogether and birth a child with the foreknowledge that the father (though maybe an adequate provisioner) will never be a contender to quell her doubts of his Hypergamous suitability.

If Momma Aint Happy, Aint Nobody Happy

I’m fleshing out this aspect of Hypergamy here because I believe, as with all thing female, that a broad understanding of Hypergamy is essential to a man’s life and has far reaching effects that go beyond just learning Game well enough to get the lay on a Saturday night when a woman is in her ovulatory peak phase.

A byproduct of the societal embrace of Open Hypergamy is the degree to which women are largely disposed to delaying commitment until what I call their Epiphany Phase and then transitioning into a need for security once their capacity to attract and arouse men decays and/or is compromised by intrasexual competition (a.k.a. The Wall). I detail this child-birth postponement process in Preventive Medicine where I outline women’s Party Years through their Epiphany Phase, however it’s important for men to understand that this phase is largely the result of women believing they should have a similar window as a man in which they can have both a career and find the “right guy” to partner in parenting with.

Equalism’s fundamental flaw is rooted in the belief that men and women are both rational and functional equals, separated only by social influence and selfish imperatives (uniquely attributed to men). The grave consequences women accept in this belief is that their sexual market value declines with age, both in terms of intrasexual competition and fertility.

As such, we entertain the bemoaning of generations of women frustrated that they were unable to consolidate on a Hypergamous ideal because they believed they had ample time to do so while pursuing the Alpha Fucks aspect of their Hypergamy in the years of their prime fertility window.

Furthermore, they believe that the men who are available and ready to fulfill the Beta Bucks aspect of Hypergamy simply don’t measure up to their socialized, overinflated, sense of Hypergamous entitlement (and particularly in comparison to the men who made them Alpha Widows in their Party Years).

So distressing is this prospect, and so keenly aware of it are women that they are beginning to mandate failsafe measures in anticipation of not being able to optimize Hypergamy – such as preemptive egg freezing and legislating that men pay for their infertility while married in alimony settlements.

It’s come to the point where the ages of 29-31 are no longer being considered a crisis point for women with regard to child bearing. With the cultural popularization of the false hope in frozen ovum extending a woman’s birthing timeframe, now, even 35-38 years old seems to magically grant women some bonus years in which to secure a man for parental investment. The question is no longer one of a woman making herself suitable for a man’s parental investment (by his late 30’s no less) – her default suitability is inherent in her femaleness according to the Feminine Imperative – but rather, she believes, a magical-thinking proposition of waiting out the Hypergamously right father for her children.

Parental Precautions

I’m stressing these points here before I move on to Red Pill parenting ideology so men who are, or want to become fathers, husbands, LTR boyfriends, understand the import that Hypergamy plays in any family arrangement they hope to create.

Just to head off all the MGTOWs reading first; don’t get married. Under contemporary western circumstances there is no advantage for men in a state of marriage and 100% advantage for women. Unfortunately, as things are structured, marriage will always be a cost-to-benefit losing proposition while women insist on making marriage a legalistic contract of male-only liabilities.

That said, also remember that an entire world steeped in feminine-primary social imperatives is arrayed against your efforts in being a positively masculine father to your kids. Those anti-father efforts start with women’s own fem-centric conditioning that leads them to both manically push for Hypergamous optimization personally and societally, but yet they will delay that optimization until all opportunities for her have been exhausted. If you are considering marriage and starting a family with a woman between the ages of 27 and 31, statistically this is the situation and mentality that woman is likely experiencing.

I’m presenting these things to you as a father or potential father, because it’s important for you to discern what women have been conditioned to believe and expect from men and for themselves. In the coming weeks I will post an essay on the complementarity both sexes have evolved for to make our species what it is today; and that conventional complementarity is something idealistic equalism would distort. However, for now it’s important to realize that women have been thrust into this zero-hour, jump-at-the-last-second, cash out of the sexual marketplace schedule of mating that their very biology rebels against.

Single Moms and “Good” Fathers

It’s also important for men to understand that, while there is a constant ‘Man Up’ beratement of fathers for their lack of willing involvement in a child’s life, men are simultaneously presented with the female ’empowerment’ meme. That meme proposes these fathers’ parental involvement is effectively superfluous to that child’s maturation because Strong Independent Women® can reportedly fulfill a fathers’ role equally as well as any man (the equalist narrative).

For all the public awareness campaigns extolling fathers to be fathers, the message is always one of being “better” fathers and placing them into a default position of being less than ‘good’ by virtue of their maleness. In fact a ‘good’ father is a rarely appreciated commodity because that ‘good’ quality is always tied to a man’s never ending and ever shifting burden of performance.

On the other side, the single mother empowerment meme is endemic. However it’s important to use our Red Pill Lens with this meme because the message is one that forgives women of their inability to make themselves appropriate prospects for men’s parental investment. At the same time this meme also foist the blame for men’s unwillingness to parentally invest squarely on men’s presumed responsibility to women optimizing their Hypergamy to their satisfaction:

I’m Stupid Picky.

In my 15 or so years of dating, I’ve been around. I don’t mean that to sound skanky, but … it’s not like I haven’t given love a chance. The problem? Out of all the men I’ve ever dated, there has only been one or two that I felt a genuine connection with. It is a rare thing indeed for me to meet someone I feel like I could picture spending forever with. Sadly, I can’t even remember the last time I met a man who gave me butterflies. It’s definitely been years.

I Want the Fairytale.

There are very few relationships I’ve witnessed in my life that I would actually want for myself. Which begs the question, what do I want? Well, I want a man who is great with kids and totally open to adopting a houseful with me. I want a man who is smart and driven, sexy and hilarious. One who gets me, and who challenges me, and who makes me weak in the knees. Basically … I want everything. And I’m not sure the image I have in my head of what love should be is something that actually exists in real life.

My Daughter Will Always Be Priority Number One.

If you think my expectations of what I want for me are implausible, we probably shouldn’t even discuss my expectations of what I want for the man who steps into that paternal role for my daughter. Truthfully, as much as I want that father figure for her, I am also absolutely terrified of choosing wrong, of messing up our dynamic by choosing a man who isn’t worthy of being her father.

This article’s entire checklist reads like a manifesto for the Strong Independent® single mother with no consideration given to how men, potential fathers or husbands might interpret it. As expected, Campbell perpetuates the ‘put your kid first’ religion of motherhood here, but after reading through her single-mom rationalizations, and then combined with men’s presumptive servitude to the beneficiaries of the Feminine Imperative, it’s easy to see why most, if not all men, might be hesitant to sign up for their expected duty.


My point here isn’t to dissuade men from wanting to be fathers, but rather that they enter into being a parent with their eyes open to how Hypergamy, and a cultural imperative that’s built around it, influences women’s life choices today. I mentioned earlier in this essay about women between the ages of 27 and 31 experiencing the first harsh realities of the consequences their choices have predisposed them to. Understand, as a man, your desire, your potential, for parental investment puts you into a position of being very sexually selective. So much in fact that the Feminine Imperative has long-held social conventions to pre-established with the purpose of convincing men they are not only obligated to fulfilling women’s Hypergamous strategy, but should feel lucky to do so.

The truth is that it is women who are at their most necessitous of men during this phase of their lives – thus placing men with the means and desire to become a parent into a prime selector’s position. Feminine social conditioning has done all it can to predispose Beta men to wait out and forgive women their short-term Alpha Fucks indiscretions during their Party Years, but as Red Pill awareness becomes unignorable the pressures of maintaining the image of being the prime selector will wear on women.

That said, I’ve had many men ask me how best to go about becoming a Red Pill parent. I’ve had many men express that the only advantage to marriage is in creating a healthy, hopefully complementary, environment in which to raise children. However, I’m not sure even women would concur with this assessment in the face of a social narrative that tells them they can raise a child as well as any father can. Yet, by the definition of the Feminine Imperative, a ‘good’ father is one who will sublimate his masculinity and assume a feminine, subservient gender role, thus making his superfluous whether he’s available or not.

In the last essay I emphasized establishing a strong, dominant, yet positive masculine Frame. This is the vital starting point for any long term relationship a man might hope to raise children in. The next imperative a man must confront is the Herculean obstacles he faces in a western culture that devalues him as a father, but obligates him to be an involved ‘good’ father who can only ever qualify himself to the mother of his children (who should place them above his interests) and qualify himself to a society that’s been conditioned to hold him to her standards.

Finally, a potential father needs to understand the circumstance in which women’s never ending quest to satisfy their Hypergamous doubt places them in at various phases of their maturity. For Red Pill men, a lot gets made of ‘vetting’ women for personal attributes and character to make them contenders for being the mother of their children. While this is important, I can’t stress enough how important it is to account for the Hypergamous choices women make prior to his consideration, as well as the consequences she should be held accountable for, yet attempts to avoid by his obligated graces.

In Part II I will expand on what to expect when raising sons and daughters from a Red Pill perspective.


27 Shades of The Modern Man


We interrupt your regular Rational Male blog reading for an important news bulletin. TRM sources confirm that a comprehensive list of aspects of the “Modern Man” has at last been identified by Brianna Brian Lombardi for the New York Times. Yes, you read that correctly, click-bait reliable sources have indeed confirmed the recognizable traits of the Modern Herb Man.

After a preschool upbringing replete with Cailou, heavily steeped in feminized gender self-loathing during his tween years, and topped off with a healthy dash of transgender reassignment therapy, a list of traits has finally been compiled to aid in women’s identifying an adult ‘Modern Man’.

I know, I know ladies, it’s a very difficult task to identify an acceptable guy for your Epiphany Phase necessities. What with ‘dating’ ALL “the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys“, it can be a daunting challenge to remember the characteristics that made all of the Nice Guys you blew off in your youth such a great catch,…timing is such a bitch, but now you’re ready to do things “the right way this time”, right?

The good news is they’ve all been waiting for you, like you asked them to way back when; and while their feminine conditioning has finally made them desirable for your just-pre-Wall long-term security necessity, they have gotten older and a bit more peculiar. No worries, Brittany Brian Lombardi has compiled a list for you so you can better discern he and his fellow ‘Modern Men’ today from the guys you proposed “lets just be friends” to ten years ago.

Lets have a look shall we?

1. When the modern man buys shoes for his spouse, he doesn’t have to ask her sister for the size. And he knows which brands run big or small.

Yes ladies, you’ll no longer be troubled with that hot club guy being callously indifferent to remembering your shoe size. The Modern Man is so identifying with the feminine, so in touch with it, he’s made a hobby of picking up women’s shoes and memorizing the sizes and brands in your ever growing collection. In fact, you’ll no longer be troubled with the joy hassle of shopping for cute shoes, the Modern Man will do it for you. Now you can get back all the ‘rewarding’ work of advancing your career.

2. The modern man never lets other people know when his confidence has sunk. He acts as if everything is going swimmingly until it is.

You see gals, the Modern Man knows women are far too burdened by the Patriarchy to ever consider a man’s acknowledgement of his own degree of self-confidence. In fact, his feminine conditioning has taught him well that no one is really concerned with his ‘privileged’ cis-centric concepts of male confidence. He knows the preconceptions of confidence only leads to actualizing his potential for violence. Far better to put a smile on his face and tangle with his inner demons without his concerning you overly much, don’t you think?

3. The modern man is considerate. At the movie theater, he won’t munch down a mouthful of popcorn during a quiet moment. He waits for some ruckus.

Walking on eggshells around women is the hallmark of a Modern Man. Rest assured girls, he knows the personal repercussions women will mete out should he commit a social faux pas. Not to worry though, the Modern Man wouldn’t so much as cough during the chick flick he suggested you both see on opening night.

4. The modern man doesn’t cut the fatty or charred bits off his fillet. Every bite of steak is a privilege, and it all goes down the hatch.

Would you look at that ladies? The Modern Man can still prompt a tingle by getting back to his caveman roots! You’ll just have to forgive him one uncouth vanity. He’s his own man when it comes to animal fat. That steak and the full beard he’s growing to go with his new flannel shirts (in between shoe shopping for his lady) are his privilege of being a man. Wait, did I say “privilege”? Oh, what a scamp he is, but he’s happy to accommodate you if you want to join his male space. Burp.

5. The modern man won’t blow 10 minutes of his life looking for the best parking spot. He finds a reasonable one and puts his car between the lines.

The act of parking a car might seem mundane to you, but au contraire. A Modern Man bucks the trend of spending 10 minutes (?) seeking the most perfect parking spot,…unless his lady is riding with him and then it’s a precious gift of the parking lot gods if he can manage a spot by the front entrance to WalMart. He may even do you the courtesy of dropping you off at the entrance and then forages for just the right spot.

6. Before the modern man heads off to bed, he makes sure his spouse’s phone and his kids’ electronic devices are charging for the night.

Because, God forbid, his wife or kids might be without their mobile device or social media accounts when they awake the next day. My God! How would they find out what occurred on Instagram while they slept? The Modern Man is so evolved, so limbicly in touch with the feminine mind that her unthought of needs become an obsessive compulsion for him.

7. The modern man buys only regular colas, like Coke or Dr Pepper. If you walk into his house looking for a Mountain Dew, he’ll show you the door.

You’ll just have to accept it gals; in addition to his women’s shoes fascination the Modern Man is an aficionado of processed sugar and high fructose corn syrup. So dedicated is he that his palate has become sensitive enough to disparage other men for not appreciating ‘real’ soft drinks. But, heheh, that’s just him “being a guy”, they’re soooo odd aren’t they?

8. The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say “helicopter,” not “chopper” like some gauche simpleton.

The Modern Man has rarely served his country in the military, so you’ll have to pardon his not understanding the distinction between a ‘helicopter’ and a ‘chopper’. However, beside a slight lisp and some feminine ‘vocal fry‘, the Modern Man’s vernacular is carefully chosen. He uses words like “gauche” and “simpleton” in casual conversation. See this link for more spoken examples.

9. Having a daughter makes the modern man more of a complete person. He learns new stuff every day.

Being a Modern Man requires you to identify more with the feminine, thus having a daughter completes him in ways a son would ever have the capacity too. In the back of his head he feels the nagging third-person guilt for China’s selective breeding practices of the past and hopes to “be the difference he wants to see in the world” by fulfilling the false narratives of the Feminine Imperative by personally investing himself in the ’empowerment’ of little girls at the expense of boys. It comes naturally to the Modern Man after being medicated himself for ADHD in his youth.

10. The modern man makes sure the dishes on the rack have dried completely before putting them away.

Lucky for you ladies, your Modern Man believes in the fantasy that is Choreplay so thoroughly he’ll forego using a modern dishwasher to wash the dishes by hand so you’ll notice how evolved he is. Because everyone knows the “unbridled lust” women feel when they see a man washing dishes by hand. Women agree, he’s practically owed sex at that point.

11. The modern man has never “pinned” a tweet, and he never will.

Because while the modern man is self-absorbed enough to use Pinterest, only a real solipsist narcissist pins a tweet.

12. The modern man checks the status of his Irish Spring bar before jumping in for a wash. Too small, it gets swapped out.

Ha! How cavalier! Isn’t it nice to have a Modern Man who’s indiscriminate enough to eat the fat and burnt parts of his steak, but is particular enough to toss out a bar of soap when it’s too small?

13. The modern man listens to Wu-Tang at least once a week.

Because how else would he remain in touch with his roots?

14. The modern man still jots down his grocery list on a piece of scratch paper. The market is no place for his face to be buried in the phone.

Yes ladies, you’ll find the Modern Man so engrossed with stereotypically feminine tasks (in an effort to buck a trend he still thinks earns him points with women), he’ll raise grocery shopping to an art form. He’s rustic enough to still use a pad and paper to scribble out his carefully planned grocery list (which of course implies he’s also become an accomplished cook in order to add some value to his SMV). I’ll bet you can just taste the artisanal lasagne from Whole Foods now.

15. The modern man has hardwood flooring. His children can detect his mood from the stamp of his Kenneth Cole oxfords.

The Modern Man loves the sound of his shoes on locally sourced woods beneath his feet so long as he’s not the one who had to install it. Remember, the Modern Man is defined by his shoes (again).

16. The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.

Ladies you can sleep better at night knowing your Modern Man has spent the mental energy to position himself between you and any home intrusion. He’s carefully thought it through and accepts his disposability in the light of the odds he’d be easily incapacitated and left to bleed out while watching you be gang raped as his dying memory.

17. Does the modern man have a melon baller? What do you think? How else would the cantaloupe, watermelon and honeydew he serves be so uniformly shaped?

So in touch with his feminine animus is the Modern Man that he often becomes indistinguishable from Martha Stewart in his zeal to entertain his dinner guests. Perfectly shaped melon balls are just one more social anxiety you’ll be freed from with your Modern Man girls.

18. The modern man has thought seriously about buying a shoehorn.

The Modern Man’s obsession with shoes (for either sex) will not be restricted by size discrepancies.

19. The modern man buys fresh flowers more to surprise his wife than to say he is sorry.

The Modern Man is a virtual florist ladies. His mother and even his female co-workers will never be left out of his boundless consideration. Flowers never come as an apology since there is never a reason for apology with him. Rest assured his niceties come from actually being a Nice Guy and never with the ulterior motive of expectations of intimacy.

20. On occasion, the modern man is the little spoon. Some nights, when he is feeling down or vulnerable, he needs an emotional and physical shield.

Never forget gals, your Modern Man is a sensitive soul, prone to fits of crying when the movie’s sad enough. Should you ever spare an afterthought, remember, that smile on his face is just a placeholder until things are going along swimmingly. Just be sure to remember, when you’re spooning him like a toddler afraid of a thunderstorm, be sure he’s still facing the door side of the bed so he can interpose himself between you and the home intruder.

21. The modern man doesn’t scold his daughter when she sneezes while eating an apple doughnut, even if the pieces fly everywhere.

This should be a no-brainer considering the completedness-of-person he derives from empowering her to the exclusion of boys.

22. The modern man still ambles half-naked down his driveway each morning to scoop up a crisp newspaper.

Yes, gals that rugged individualism is not only expressed in his lack of self-consciousness (unless it’s shoes), but also in his rustic dedication to actually subscribing to a newspaper as it dies a slow media death. That damn paper boy better make sure it arrives ‘crisp’ or no Christmas time tip!

23. The modern man has all of Michael Mann’s films on Blu-ray (or whatever the highest quality thing is at the time).

Because, God knows where the Modern Man would be without the ability to re-watch classics like Hancock and the Miami Vice remake in 4K resolution.

24. The modern man doesn’t get hung up on his phone’s battery percentage. If it needs to run flat, so be it.

Sorry ladies, the Modern Man often becomes so overly conscious about your own mobile devices being charged throughout the night that he cavalierly forgets his own cell phone might run flat. You’ll just have to deal with his forgetfulness, but it is for your benefit. 1st World problems, what can you do?

25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.

Well, at least you can be confident that he’s dedicated to making sure his inevitable death will give you the time needed to escape that home intruder’s malicious intent when the time comes. Just be sure to give him the proper push towards the bedroom door if he happens to be the ‘little’ spoon and feeling vulnerable that night.

26. The modern man cries. He cries often.

Well, finally ladies, you’ve got a guy who can cry on demand,…or is it by demand? But remember this is the next state in men’s evolutionary progress; a response to women’s crying eliciting sympathy and concern. Men’s facility with crying as a go-to response (he cries often) is just evidence of his closer identification and affinity with the feminine. It’s your dream come true! Now your Modern Man can relate to you as well as your closest girlfriends.

27. People aren’t sure if the modern man is a good dancer or not. That is, until the D.J. plays his jam and he goes out there and puts on a clinic.

And finally, you’ve got a new, modern, evolved man who can turn physical spasms into an art form, and have so little self-awareness that the laughter he hears is affirmation instead of ridicule.

Well, there you have it girls, you’ve finally got the men you deserved, the men you helped create, the men who are so in touch with their femininity that you’ll have little use for your gal-pals any more. But that’s OK, right?

The Modern Man has been patiently waiting for you to get the Bad Boys out of your system and he’s evolved enough to accept his retroactive cuckolding forgive your youthful indiscretion. The Modern Man understands that you were “so crazy back in college” and you want to do things right with him. The Modern Man is so in touch with the feminine, so evolved that he’s ready to look past your previous hesitations with him, look past the ease with which you gave it up to the ‘crazy boys, the commitment-phobic boys’; the greater degree of qualifications and your reluctance to jump into bed with him as quick only proves how much you’re changed and how much better he, the Modern Man, must be in relation to all those ‘other guys’.

Just be sure you’re sleeping on the right side of the bed when you do.

The Red Pill Parent


This week I’ll be exploring a new angle in the Red Pill: how parenting and family relations influence and direct the Blue Pill conditioning of a generation, and what Red Pill aware men can do to redirect this. It was encouraging to see fathers and sons together at the Man In Demand conference. I honestly wasn’t expecting this, but it was a humbling experience to see fathers and sons coming to a Red Pill awareness together. I also met with a few men who told me their sons had either turned them on to my books or that they would be required reading for their sons before they got out of their teens.

One of the greatest benefits of the conference was the inspiration and material I got from the men attending. A particular aspect of this was addressing how men might educate and help others to unplug and in that lay a wealth of observations about how these men’s upbringings had brought them to both their Blue Pill idealisms and ultimately their Red Pill awareness.

I’m beginning this series with some of these observations, but I plan to break protocol and be a bit more proscriptive in the last essay with regard to what I think may be beneficial ways to be a Red Pill parent. In The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine I included a chapter which outlined how men are primarily conditioned for lives and ego-investments in a Blue Pill idealism that ultimately prepares them for better serving the Feminine Imperative when their usefulness is necessary to fulfill women’s sexual (and really lifetime) strategies.

That chapter is only available in the book, but if you have it, it might be helpful to review it after you read this.

Reader (and MiD conference attendee) Jeremy had an excellent observation from Solipsism II:


The only thing I take issue with is the advice, from the book that his wife read, which told her to place her husband above her children. Children come first for a mother, and they should for the father too. I’m not advocating to neglect her husband, but he needs to accept some biological facts and not be hurt because of it

What you’re repeating there is actually the first steps of a hostage crisis. That is first-wave-feminism boilerplate response. It is the first redirection in a misdirection perpetuated by women in order to sink any notion that men should have some authority on matters. Think of the children. It’s been repeated for so long, it’s a cliche…

It’s typical crab-basket behavior. Women seek power over their lives and somehow instinctively believe that the only way to achieve power is to take someone else’s power away. So they attack male authority by placing children above the man. This then becomes a stick with which to beat male authority into submission, as the woman is allowed to speak for the needs of the children. This is literally textbook subversion, and plays out on so many levels of human culture it tends to make one consider how boring humanity must look to any alien life that happens to stumble across our unremarkable corner of the universe.

When the children’s needs become the “throne” of the household, and the wife is allowed to speak for the children’s needs, then the authority of the household becomes a rather grotesque combination of immediate child needs and female manipulation. Worse still, the children are now effectively captives of the wife, because at any time she can accuse the husband of anything the law is forced to throw him in handcuffs for, and take away the kids.

What you’re repeating is the first steps in that hostage situation. Equalists will try to convince you of the logic that children come first, that children are the future, that all of that which makes them better is more important than anything else. This is bullshit.

Do you think cavemen sat around in caves all day playing and socially interacting with their babies? Do you think they had some kind of fresh-gazelle-delivery service that allowed him to interact with the children directly? Do you think the mothers were not under exactly the same survival condition, needing to forage for carrots, potatoes, berries, etc, while the men hunted and built structures? Do you think the “children” came first in any other era of humanity? If so, you are very sadly mistaken.

Children are more than capable of getting everything they need to know about how to live simply by watching their parents live a happy life together. This is how humans did things for eons, changing that order and putting the “children first” is frankly perverse and the beginning of the destruction of the family. Children are more than information sponges, they are blank minds that want desperately to be adult. Children want to understand everything that everyone around them understands, which is why a parent telling a child that you’re “disappointed” in them is more effective than a paddling. If you focus on children, you are frankly just spoiling them with attention that they will never receive in the real world. If instead you focus on yourself and your spouse, you will raise children that see you putting yourself as the MPO (as Rollo calls it), and your marriage/partnership as an important part of what you do each day.

Don’t put the children first. That’s essentially like negotiating with a terrorist, they’ll only make more demands on you until the cops storm the plane and lots of people get shot.

Your Mental Point of Origin should never waver from yourself.

American Parenting is Killing American Marriage

Of course, Ayelet Waldman’s blasphemy was not admitting that her kids were less than completely wonderful, only that she loved her husband more than them. This falls into the category of thou-shalt-have-no-other-gods-before-me. As with many religious crimes, judgment is not applied evenly across the sexes. Mothers must devote themselves to their children above anyone or anything else, but many wives would be offended if their husbands said, “You’re pretty great, but my love for you will never hold a candle to the love I have for John Junior.”

Mothers are also holy in a way that fathers are not expected to be. Mothers live in a clean, cheerful world filled with primary colors and children’s songs, and they don’t think about sex. A father could admit to desiring his wife without seeming like a distracted parent, but society is not as willing to cut Ms. Waldman that same slack. It is unseemly for a mother to enjoy pleasures that don’t involve her children.
There are doubtless benefits that come from elevating parenthood to the status of a religion, but there are obvious pitfalls as well. Parents who do not feel free to express their feelings honestly are less likely to resolve problems at home. Children who are raised to believe that they are the center of the universe have a tough time when their special status erodes as they approach adulthood. Most troubling of all, couples who live entirely child-centric lives can lose touch with one another to the point where they have nothing left to say to one another when the kids leave home.
In the 21st century, most Americans marry for love. We choose partners who we hope will be our soulmates for life. When children come along, we believe that we can press pause on the soulmate narrative, because parenthood has become our new priority and religion. We raise our children as best we can, and we know that we have succeeded if they leave us, going out into the world to find partners and have children of their own. Once our gods have left us, we try to pick up the pieces of our long neglected marriages and find new purpose. Is it surprising that divorce rates are rising fastest for new empty nesters? Perhaps it is time that we gave the parenthood religion a second thought.

I think these quotes outline the dynamic rather well; a method of control women can use to distract and defer away from Beta husbands is a simple appeal to their children’s interests as being the tantamount to their own or their husbands. If the child sits at the top of that love hierarchy and that child’s wellbeing and best interests can be defined by the mother, the father/husband is relegated to subservience to both the child and the mother.

This gets back to the preternatural Empathy myth that women, by virtue of just being a woman, has some instinctual, empathetic insight about placing that child above all else. That child becomes a failsafe and a buffer against having to entertain a real relationship with the father/husband and really consider his position in her Hypergamous estimate of him.

If that man isn’t what her Hypergamous instinct estimates him being as optimal (he’s the unfortunate Beta), then “she’s tolerating his presence for the kids’ sake.” Jeremy was responding to a comment made by Capper about an incident where a woman was being encouraged to put her husband before her kids in that love hierarchy priority. The fact that this is so unnatural for a woman that it would need to be something necessary to train a woman to speaks volumes about the facility with which women presume that their default priority ought to be for her kids.

Most men buy into this prioritization as well. It seems deductively logical that a woman would necessarily need to put her child’s attention priorities well above her husband’s. What’s counterintuitive to both parents is that it’s the health of their relationship (or lack) that defines and exemplifies the complementary gender understanding of the child. Women default to using their children as cats paws to assume primary authority of the family, and men are already preconditioned to accept this as the normative frame for the family.

As with all your relations with women, establishing a strong Frame is essential. The problem for men with even the strongest initial Frame with their wives is that they cede that Frame to their kids. Most men want the very best for their children; or there may be a Promise Keepers dynamic that guy is dealing with an makes every effort to outdo, and make up for, the sins of his father by sacrificing everything, but in so doing he loses sight of creating and maintaining a dominant Frame for not just his wife, but the state of his family.

It’s important to bear in mind that when you set the Frame of your relationship, whether it’s a first night lay or a marriage prospect, women enter your reality and your frame – the same needs to apply to any children within that relationship. Far too many fathers are afraid to embody that strong authority and expect their wives (and children) to recognize what should be his primary place in the family.

The fear is that by assuming this position they become the typical asshole father they hoped to avoid for most of their formative years. Even for men with strong masculine role models in their lives, the hesitation comes from a culture that ridicules fathers, or presumes they are potentially violent towards children. Thus the abdication of fatherly authority, in as positive a tense as possible, is abdicated before that child is even born.


At the Man in Demand conference last weekend I had a young guy ask me what my thoughts were about a man’s being interested in becoming a single parent of his own accord. I had this same question posed to me during my second interview with Christian McQueen and essentially it breaks down to a man supplying his own sperm, buying a suitable woman’s viable ovum to fertilize himself, and, I presume, hire a surrogate mother to carry that child to term. Thereupon he takes custody of that child and raises it himself as a single father.

In theory this arrangement should work out to something similar to a woman heading off the the sperm bank to (once again Hypergamously) select a suitable sperm donor and become a single parent of her own accord. It’s interesting that we have institutions and facilities like sperm banks to ensure women’s Hypergamy, but men, much less heterosexual men, must have exceptional strength of purpose and determination to do so.

Despite dealing with the very likely inability of the surrogate mother to disentangle her emotional investment in giving birth to a child she will never raise (hormones predispose women to this) a man must be very determined financially and legally to become a single father by choice. In principle I understand the sentiment of Red Pill men wanting to raise a child on their own. The idea is to do so free from the (at least direct) influence of the Feminine Imperative. However, I think this is in error.

My feelings on this are two part. First, being a complementarian, it is my belief that a child requires two healthy adult parents, male and female, with a firm, mature grasp of the importance, strengths and weaknesses of their respective gender roles (based on biological and evolutionary standards). Ideally they should exemplify and demonstrate those roles in a healthy fashion so as a boy or a girl can learn about masculinity and femininity from their respective parents’ examples.

Several generations after the sexual revolution, and after several generations of venerating feminine social primacy, we’ve arrived at a default collective belief that single mothers can perform the function of modeling and shaping masculinity in boys as well as femininity in girls equally well. The underlying social message in that is that women/mothers can be a one woman show with regard to parenting and thus men, fathers or the buffoons mainstream culture portrays them as, are superfluous to parenting – nice to have around, but not vital. This belief also finds fertile ground in the notion that men are obsolete.

Secondly, for all the equalist emphasis of Jungian gender theories about anima/animus and balancing feminine and masculine personality interests, it is evidence of an agenda to suggest that a woman is equally efficient in teaching and modeling masculine aspects to children as well as any positively masculine man. With that in mind, I think the reverse would be true for a deliberately single father – even with the best of initial intents.

Thus, I think a father might serve as a poor substitute for a woman when it comes to exemplifying a feminine ideal. The argument then of course is that, courtesy of a feminine-centric social order, women have so divorced themselves of conventional femininity that perhaps a father might teach a daughter (if not demonstrate for her) a better feminine ideal than a woman. Conventional, complementary femininity is so lost on a majority of women it certainly seems like logic for a man to teach his daughter how to recapture it.

Raising Betas

This was the trap that 3rd wave feminism fell into; the belief that they knew how best to raise a boy into their disempowered and emasculated ideal of their redefined masculinity. Teach that boy a default deference and sublimation to feminine authority, redefine it as respect, teach him to pee sitting down and share in his part of the choreplay, and well, the world is bound to be a better more cooperative place right?

So it is for these reason I think that the evolved, conventional, two-parent heterosexual model serves best for raising a child. I cannot endorse single parenthood for either sex. Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the complementary relationship between a mother and father.

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

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

I’ll admit that when I got the question of single fatherhood I was a bit incredulous of the mechanics of it. Naturally it would be an expense most men couldn’t entertain. However, as promised, I did my homework on it, and found out that ectogenesis was yet another science-fiction-come-reality that feminists have already considered and have planned for:

Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.

Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important.  Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.

Women already have the power to eliminate men and in their collective wisdom have decided to keep them. The real question now is, will men, once the artificial womb is perfected, want to keep women around?

[…]“We may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain,” she writes. “We have to ask, if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete?”

This was a great article and it came at an auspicious time – the time we find women sweating about having their sexual market leverage with men potentially being undercut by sex-bots and/or immersive virtual sex substitutes.

Planned Obsolescence


The mainstream loves a salacious story about the sexual misconducts of men. With the recent Ashley Madison data leak the narrative was one of blaming and shaming the overwhelming majority of men who signed up for an account to cheat in their spouses. This has resulted in more than one suicide. A topic of the Man in Demand Q&A session I fielded was how the Red Pill lens isn’t limited to just scoffing at the Blue Pill in popular media, but that it also gives men a sensitivity and awareness to better understand the motivations for social narratives like this.

Red Pill aware men understand that if there is an opportunity to cast blame or doubt on a man over his sexual impulse, or the consequences for allowing it to lead to behavior that conflicts with a feminine-primary social order, shaming will always be the go-to, socially acceptable strategy. Sex will always be a clichéd thumbscrew to gauge men’s personal resolve, and this is a built-in failsafe of control for the Blue Pill’s conditioning of men.

Red Pill men understand the motivating incentives for this “cheating” and that in a westernizing culture, 50%+ of marriages are clinically and practically sexless, it’s not hard to understand the want for a man to find some temporary sexual release in infidelity, porn or delusions of emotional infidelity. It’s also easy to understand how the paradox of commitment would drive such men to suicide.

This is simply one data point of many in a larger Red Pill awareness that indicates some very uncomfortable truths women need to confront; whether single or married, men will actively seek a practical solution to their sexlessness. And it is just this sexual problem solving that will ultimately challenge women’s unilateral, social and personal power over their own Hypergamy. On a limbic level women and the imperative are aware of this challenge. Thus, it’s controlled for by investing in conditioning men to feel guilt or shaming for ever embracing their masculine sexual nature. It’s a threat.

Keep this fact in mind as I explore today’s topic. Women and feminine-primary culture have done an amazing job at commodifying women’s singular, primary agency with men – their physicality and sexual availability. It’s de rigueur in the manosphere to write articles about women reducing themselves to being next to valueless to men beyond their sexual attributes. I’ve written in the past about women’s commodifying love and sex, however recently women are being forced to face the realities of making their sexuality a commodity.

What women, both prominent and insignificant, are coming to realize is that the ultimate plan of feminism (destroying the evolved, complementary family structure of parenting) is really a planned obsolescence for womankind. As I was coming to this realization I found it rather ironic that only 5 years ago we had the likes of Hannah Rosin profiting from the idea that men were (or were becoming) obsolete. Five years later it appears the fear now is that it’s women who will become obsolete in the most literal, commodified sense. That fear is beginning to show.

In the Future Sexbots will Drink Feminist Tears

If you follow me on twitter or you’re even peripherally aware of MSM gender sensationalism in a Red Pill context you’ll know that the topic du jour this week is the coming, realistic, availability of robotic sex partners and the efforts being made to legislate against their development by ‘concerned’ women. Heartiste and many other manosphere writers naturally picked up on this. I particularly enjoyed Milo Yiannopoulos’ piece Sexbots: Why Women Should Worry.

But male sexual appetites are easily satisfied, despite what women will tell you. Blow jobs really aren’t that difficult, and in any case most blokes are fine with a pizza and a wank. For many men, sex is a nice bonus, but it’s not essential. When you introduce a low-cost alternative to women that comes without all the nagging, insecurity and expense, frankly men are going to leap in headfirst.

One of the primary and evolved differences in men and women’s neural firmware is that men are natural and intrinsic problem solvers. I’ve pointed it out in many an essay; men are wired to solve problems with a rudimentary, deductive logic process. It’s one of the reasons we get ourselves into such horribly misled predicaments with women; we expect a binary, A to B to C level of reason with women (reinforced by equalist ideology) and deductively try to solve a sex and intimacy problem with them.

Improvisation and innovation are what we do to live better; one reason men naturally view women as sex objects is literally due to wiring in our brains that predispose us to using tools. So it’s really not much of a stretch to see how men will use this inventiveness to solve a need for sex. And in an intersexual social environment that’s predicated on the commodification of sex, well, you can see how the advancement of sexual substitutes and virtual sexual experiences would be driven by supply and demand.

It’s science fiction at this stage, but the ball is rolling and this is causing the Feminine Imperative to confront uncomfortable possibilities with just the proposition of having a sexual monopoly disrupted be the innovations of men.

Do Robots Dream of Electric Sin?

As might be expected, Dalrock took a shot at this story from a Christian moralistic angle – would sex with a convincing facsimile of a woman qualify as sinning?

InnocentBystanderBoston had a good comment in that thread:

Aside from the purely moral question, there is another risk regarding sexbots. Our economy is built on the expectation that men will be motivated by marriage to produce in excess of their own needs. As we continue to degrade marriage, sexbots will be there to fill the gaps.

…with unilateral divorce law and the accompanying cash and prizes awarded to the female courtesy of judges immersed in the feminist imperative, I think s-xbots pretty much end marriage. If marriage isn’t completely destroyed forever with version 2.0, the s-xbot will most certainly destroy it. And why? The s-xbot will always give you s-x on demand. It will stay at home, faithful to you. It will not spend your money and ruin your credit rating. It will not get a judge to sign a restraining order against you. It can’t divorce you and take cash and prizes. It will never age maintaining its peak SMV forever (if you believe in Rollo’s charts.) So that will pretty much be it for feminism. Without the surplus wealth created by men to subsidize the parasitic nature of feminist centric Marriage 2.0, there can be no feminism. Women are net wealth consumers. Without husbands, there lives will ONLY be in decline. The feminist imperative can NOT allow these s-xbots to be made.

On a rudimentary level feminism has always recognized that women’s only real agency with men is sex. We can see this in the feminine-centric commodification of sex, and we can see this truth in (third wave) feminism’s embrace of sex positivity – but again, only within the confines of a feminine-centric and unilaterally feminine controlled context for that sex to happen in.

The increasingly more accepted Yes Means Yes legalistic checklist that underwrites sexual relations (for what feminists know will always be defined by ambiguous circumstances) is a glaring example of this litigious overreach in an effort to lock down unilateral control of Hypergamy for women. This is the degree of paranoia that the doubt of Hypergamous insecurity inspires in those women less capable of intrasexual competition with their sisters to secure it.

When granted the social facilities to do so, women will always base their personal choices, their personal ideologies, their social order and their legislative doctrines around relieving themselves of Hypergamous doubt and insecurities. In truth, women’s evolved socio-sexual filtering ensures that there is no practical relief from this. There is no 100% assuredness of Hypergamous choice; Hypergamy doubts optimization even after the best of choices, but if given the power, women will build a social order around an attempt to mutually allay that doubt, allay that sexual competition anxiety, and all at men’s expense and disempowerment.

Becoming Obsolete

If you ever need an example of the duplicity with which the Feminine Imperative really aligns itself with equalism, look no further than how that “equality” is expressed with preferring pro-feminine solutions to social problems.

There is a fundamental fear women experience in just the prospect of not having 100% control over their sexual selection, sexual strategy and ultimately optimization of their Hypergamy. Anything that challenges women’s unilateral control of their Hypergamous power – such as prostitution, male hormonal birth control, female viagra, DNA testing for paternity and now sexbots – must be ruthlessly and preemptively legislated against if feminine social primacy is to be maintained. Even the idea of sexbots destroying women’s monopoly on sex, however fantastical, must be eliminated before it becomes a threat.

Kathleen Richardson, a professor at De Montfort University in England, serves as an excellent example of this axiom:

“Sex robots seem to be a growing focus in the robotics industry and the models that they draw on — how they will look, what roles they would play — are very disturbing indeed,” she told the BBC.

She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.

“We think that the creation of such robots will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women,” she said.

I would agree that it is detrimental in these terms, but the fear of losing feminine primacy is evident in just the prospect of sexbots.

The squid ink here is the concern for reinforcing “traditional stereotypes” of women for the almost unanimously male demographic who’d buy a sexual substitute (notice there is no call for creating morbidly obese variants of sexbots). The real fear is that men prefer that stereotype and it would force women to confront the truth that if they don’t accommodate men’s physical and psychological preferences (conventional femininity) they will progressively devalue women’s sexual agency over them by opting for the sexbot.

And that is a very pressing threat to women’s control over Hypergamy.

What were witnessing here is the acknowledgement that shaming men for their inventiveness in resolving their sexual needs isn’t working. Thus the social and legislative power the Feminine Imperative wields has to be invoked. Naturally there will be “think of the children” appeals and the admonishments of dehumanization on the part of men, but the binary truth is that women’s prime commodity (sex) could be reduced to making women obsolete.

The following is an exchange between Vitriol and YaReally from the last post.

“However, the biggest secret they all want to hide is that using money, whether doing something like you described or paying for pussy outright, is the most efficient way to get laid. If your main goal is to get laid as much as possible, does it matter whether you followed some arbitrary rules that some guy posted on the internet along the way? ”

lol brb taking a helicopter to the top of Mount Everest because it’s more efficient than those dumbasses who actually CLIMB it. It DOES matter to men who’s goal isn’t “to get laid as much as possible” but is “to get laid by girls who are legitimately into me, as much as possible”. To each their own.

If we accept the Pareto Principle as a rough guideline, 80% of men are Betas who simply don’t care to, or accept that they don’t have the capacity to, concern themselves with learning how to “get laid with girls who are genuinely into them.” They’ll create every manner of rationale to convince themselves that the girl who solves his sexual thirst is genuinely into him, or he’ll opt for the most available, most feasible, means to resolve that sexual deprivation. The ubiquitousness of free, easily accessible, streaming hi-def pornography is a testament to this dynamic.

Whether the reality of convincing sexbots is ever achieved isn’t really relevant in this equation, the fear of losing primary control of Hypergamy is what’s at stake. We see this fear manifested in criminalizing prostitution and the shame of men seeking sexual release via pornography and Ashley Madison accounts.

Recently I was asked about my take on the legal pushback on the part of women to regulate or outright ban the FDA approval of the female form of Viagra. From the socially acceptable perspective the fear is that the drug might be used as another (more effective) date rape drug. From a Red Pill perspective the fear is, once again, rooted in women’s fear of men circumventing women’s sexual strategy by chemically influencing their arousal process.

It’s one thing to forcibly rape a woman and thereby take control of her Hypergamous choice, but it quite another to prompt her into engaging in sex she is influenced to by some extrinsic means. As such, women’s sexual selection and Hypergamous optimization is effectively mitigated if not removed from the sexual equation by an invention of men. So once again we see the nervous efforts of the Feminine Imperative to ban any prospective attempts by men to exercise even a marginal control over Hypergamy.

Women have access to safe and legal abortion (a Hypergamous control), but a drug that might influence their libido and thus lead them to sexual choices they might no otherwise control and make, even the idea of that innovation needs regulation. Remove women from the sexual selection and arousal process and you make their only value – the value westernized women have systematically established for themselves – effectively obsolete.

That’s not a judgement call. Women tend to conflate their personal, intrinsic value with their sexual market value. However, in the SMP that is predicated upon women’s only value to men being sexual (not as life mates, mothers, or personal worth), the monopoly of sexual leverage becomes toothless.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,567 other followers