Tag Archives: feminized men

Suck It Up

suck-it-up

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

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

Just because he said this :

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

The top reply was this :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suck It Up

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

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Anger Management

anger-management1

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

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

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

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

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

Anger is a Gift

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


As Good As It Gets

goodasitgets

On several occasions I’ve gone into the pro’s and cons of marriage. I tend to get a couple of standard reactions to my take on marriage; the first is usually the binary, all or nothing response that virtually all women, and a significant number of feminized men, will throw at me after having only a cursory skim through a few of my articles. It usually goes something like,

“WTF?!! You misogynist asshole! So ALLLLLLL marriages are one-sided affairs for men, doomed to failure once a woman gets fat after pregnancy, greedy or bored and her hypergamy kicks in? My folks, grandparents, aunt & uncle et. al. are still together after ___ years so that proves that love can conquer all and you’re fulla shit.”

This is the usual response I get from deep blue-pill men and women still relying on their, feminine conditioned, ready dismissals so as not to have to actually dig any deeper into what I’ve  written about the truths of contemporary marriage and have their precious (and fragile) idol of a loving marriage challenged, and possibly destroyed.

Frames of Reference

The other reaction I get is the one I covered in Fidelity, which usually goes something like,

“Dude, how can you be a red pill Man and be married? It’s contradictory to everything you write, fuck you charlatan, I’m going back to (insert URL of PUA, MRA, MGTOW, christo-manosphere, etc. etc. site) and read up on the latest approaches.”

Again, this is usually the result of a guy without the patience to really read what I’ve posted here for the past two years, and developed in my writing over the past ten. If it seems like it’s TL;DR material  it probably wont resonate with an attention deficient reader.

Obviously in both these instances the responses come from a lack of understanding the totality of my personal history, life, Game and female experiences – which of course is what I hope readers will get a better grasp of when the book is released. I’ve had sex with over 40 women in my past, during a time when there was no such thing as formalized Game. I apply elements of Game in my line of work – the liquor, nightclub and gaming industries to be specific – and use it to my professional advantage with the women I work around and who work for me. I use aspects of Game with my daughter (Amused Mastery) and set myself as an example of the type of Man she should associate herself with – of the boys she likes we both make a point of distinguishing the chumps from the more confident and dominant guys. I observe elements of Game while reconditioning greyhounds. I’ve even recently used an AMOGing technique to get a better interest rate and price on a new car I purchased this year – and I only did it to see if it would work.

The Measure of Game

There is an element in the manosphere that will tell you that the only real form of Game, the only legitimate, measure of Game is how many women you’ve successfully banged in your pursuit of perfecting Game for yourself.

I agree with this assessment.

The real measure of Game is only truly tested by how well it gets you laid. You can use your understanding of Game to improve your life, your career, your family interactions, etc. You can use your grasp of Game to destroy a feminist’s arguments and you can use it to literally save a man from suicide, but the real test is in how well it provably functions in getting you to intimacy with a woman.

Roosh recently had a series of articles and tweets regarding the present legitimacy of Game. Among his concerns is the claiming of Game authority by men who have never really used Game to get laid. A couple years ago Matt Forney had a similar post on the old In Mala Fide site titled something like “Never trust the advice of guys who aren’t getting laid”. In the years I’ve spent on the SoSuave forum I’ve seen this concern come and go; it’s interesting to see these sentiments get recycled, but the concern is the same. When late-term virgin men feel they have the Game savvy to authoritatively give other virgins (self-inflicted or not) Game advice it delegitimizes Game as a whole.

On the internet we are who we say we are. I’ve been getting laid (and for the better part the old-fashioned way) since I was 17. I’ve also been married for the last 17 years. Both my sexual and relationship past, as well as my marriage have benefitted me with a comprehensive understanding of Game principles. Furthermore my studies in behavioral psychology and over a decade of involvement in the manosphere have made me a pretty good connector of dots when it comes to behaviorism, sociology and psychology with regards to gender dynamics. I’m not trying to prove my pedigree here, what I’m driving at is that while Game has more to it than just getting laid, if you aren’t getting laid (or laid more with your wife) then your Game is untested and not as legitimate as someone who has put their own Game into successful practice.

The New Monogamy

I recently got a PM from a reader, Emperor Lu Bu, wanting some input from me on a blog post he’d written contrasting the modern ‘horrors’ of marriage and the white knight apologists’ rationales for endorsing marriage:

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on that piece, primarily because I seem to recall you saying that you were yourself married (employing some sort of complicated “marriage Game” to remain so).

I must admit, I’m curious as to whether you found an Eastern wife, or whether you just rolled some particularly dangerous dice and took a Western one for yourself.

As I stated in Fidelity, I’m not anti-marriage, I’m anti- uninformed, pollyanna, shoulda’-saw-it-coming, ONEitis fueled, shame induced, bound for bankruptcy, scarred my children for life, hypergamy’s a bitch, marriage. I could very easily detail the aspects of my 18 year relationship with Mrs. Tomassi that would sound like my marriage is a one-of-a-kind white knight miracle, but it will only come off as some naive rationale similar to the social conventions Lu Bu lists in his post. However, I assure you Mrs. Tomassi is a pretty, thin, blonde American, any Game I do run has long passed the point of being a very uncomplicated subconscious part of who I am, and I’m well aware of how hypergamy, the feminine imperative and western matrimonial laws collude to make marriage a dangerous prospect. Caveat emptor.

In contrast with this, Dalrock had another post from the other side of the divorce spectrum this week in quoting an interview with Kate Bollick:

…for people who want to have kids and raise them with someone else, I wonder what the next alternative for love/sex/reproduction is. Because it seems like for women there’s currently two options: Option A, which is dating, marriage, kids (and divorce and remarriage, etc.), or Option B, which is every other nontraditional alternative, where it’s everyone for him/herself, trying to figure out what fits. Option A being pretty clear, and Option B being wide open.

As you can see the future looks pretty bleak for anyone rooting for team marriage. From the extreme manosphere perspective marriage is akin to Russian roulette with 5 rounds in a 6 shot revolver. From the Jezebel / Bollick side of the equation, the SMV navigation plan is no longer in need of any pretense or concealment; women are now comfortable in admitting the plan actually is to cash out of the SMP casino between 27-28 years of age and to take the beta provider schlub to the cleaners for future cash & prizes. Even for Athol Kay, his MMSL is an effort in after-the-fact marriage damage control.

As Good as it Gets

So where does that leave us? Back in 2003 Tom Leykis once had a great rant about how being an unmarried man, spinning plates in his mid-twenties to mid-thirties, was as good as it gets. I’m beginning to think this was more than a bit prophetic. I’ve written six individual post about the various aspects of Plate Theory, and although I presented the options for both a continued plate spinning plan and a path, at least, towards monogamy from plate theory, I’m starting to wonder if a continued, indefinite, commitment-ambiguity isn’t simply as good as it gets for men today.

For as much as Aunt Giggles would have anyone believe that both men and women want to be married – “want’s” got nothing to do with it. A desire to be married and live in an idealized and secure state of mutual love and respect with someone is really a no-brainer. The whole Minter affair (literally and figuratively) in July superimposes the idea that even the most anti-marriage guy still wants to be married, but it’s not the getting where the problem starts, it’s in the having.

I have no doubt that the idealization of marriage, enduring companionship, mutual love and respect are very strong desires for men, but as I stated in my love series, men love idealistically, whereas women’s love is rooted in opportunism. Women get very upset at this proposition because they tend to conflate an unrealistic desire for unconditional love with a love based on a man’s performance for her in order to earn  and keep it. It’s not that men expect some childish form of unconditional love, it’s that a man must continue to maintain that love through performing and meriting it – this is what I mean by women loving opportunistically.

Whether a man comes to terms with how women love them, they still want to get married because they believe in the dream. Despite all the risk, despite every red flag a woman waves, and even despite the bitter disaster of his previous marriages, men still want to be married – they desire the ideal union.

But what if as good as it gets is simply entertaining a succession of non-committed, non-exclusive relationships? In essence, a sustainable plate spinning until such time as a woman demands committed monogamy, and then she’s replaced with a new plate and the cycle continues. I’m sure this would seem manipulative and horribly selfish to women, and furthermore it might contradict what I’ve just written about men’s general want for marriage (or at least an idealized union), but contrast this perpetual plate spinning strategy with the perspective extremes of both the raw deal men and women I mentioned in Lu Bu and Dalrock’s posts.

Rather than a deliberate or unintentional “marriage strike” perhaps the direction we’re headed is a sustainable series of modular monogamy or perpetuated singleness? Maybe that’s as good as it gets?


The Surrogate Boyfriend

From a soon-to-be-unplugged 30Darren from the SoSuave forum:

I made a big mistake and got involved with a coworker. We dated for a little about a year ago but it never went far. Never slept with her. We became close friends though. We would hang out, Go to movie, Get dinner go for drinks and just hang out. We always talked even late with text and everything. I liked her a lot and she seemed comfortable with me.

I guess i felt i always had a chance with her because when we hung out she always flirted with me and having sex with each other seemed to be the topic we most talked about. She even mentioned shooting a porno with me. I don’t know if it was just mind games or if she was serious. Right now i don’t know what i was thinking, i should of let actions speak louder than words. But i really felt for her so i grasped on anything that made me feel like she was interested in me. This went on for about 8 months.

We had up and downs. I’m not completely stupid, there were times where i was trying to leave her alone and let each other move on but then she would get this increased interest in me and id fall back in line. I would leave her alone when she would have her little flings but eventually she would gravitate towards me again.

This week was a crazy week though. We went out had she took something i said completely the wrong way. We decided to give each other space (which i did) but then she was all over again when i gave her no attention. She started telling everyone i was her best-friend and then when we went out for drinks with co-workers she started calling me her Man. I didn’t play into and give that too much attention because i felt it wasn’t real. Two days later she is completely ready to end it with me. Said she was blocking my number from her phone and to not expect to hear from her again. she said it was “time for her to spend energy talking to a guy she actually likes more than just friends and that she’s not attracted to me and cant force herself to be, good-bye”. Ill admit. That really hurt. So abrupt and harsh. And remember i work with her.. What am i to do and how do i act. Is it a power game or is this is.

Women have Girlfriends and Boyfriends. If you’re not fucking her, you’re her Girlfriend.

One of the more heinous crimes inflicted upon the men of Generation AFC is the curse of the Emotional Tampon. Hapless Betas being cast into the role of perpetually having to be “supportive” and emotionally available for a woman he’s enamored with all in an effort to prove himself the ideal boyfriend is an 80′s Brat Pack movie plot cliché now. Oh, if only she could see past the hot jock jerks and find the true love that’s been here all along,…swoon,…

Typically when I read classics like this it’s on the high school forum at SoSuave, and for good reason; usually all it takes is one or two passes at this experience for young men to come to an understanding that they’re being manipulated. As we progress through adolescence and into early adulthood (if all goes as it should) there are a series of valuable learning experiences that teach us (albeit harshly) a mature adult set of social skills. This is generally where I begin when I assess particular intergender situations – are the participants using an adolescent social skill set? Has some factor retarded this maturation (such as premature monogamy, or a stubborn clinging to Disneyesque ideals) into an adult social skill set?

What makes Darren’s situation interesting is the pseudo-relationship he’s entertained with this girl for 8 months. For all the shit slinging about Three Strikes or the sex never being worth the wait for a Wait for It girl, it amazes me how readily and willing a majority of Beta men will be to entertain a sexless, quasi-monogamy. I’d like to blame the girl for her playing along, but I can’t – she’s only doing what women do when they pursue their pluralistic mating strategy. Don’t blame the Doberman for eating the juicy steak. It’s Darren’s failure to consolidate, and consolidate early, on ratcheting up his sexual interest in the girl that’s the primary issue.

In addition, Darren still doesn’t want to acknowledge that he never had a relationship with her, instead wondering if her ‘abrupt’(?) rejection is some kind of power game, and hoping against hope that he can salvage a monogamy that only existed in his head. What his part really amounts to is a Buffer against the very real rejection he could potentially experience by putting himself out into the real world by spinning plates. The longer her perpetuates his pseudo-relationship, the longer he forestalls having to face potential rejection.

The Surrogate

Darren was playing surrogate boyfriend, voluntarily accepting and internalizing all of the responsibilities and accountabilities of being a woman’s exclusive, monogamous partner with no expectation of reciprocating intimacy or sexuality. It is the ideal situation for a woman in the same manner a Booty Call is for a man – all sex with no expectations of monogamy, commitment or emotional investment.

You essentially become a surrogate boyfriend for her – fulfilling all the emotional availability and security needs the Jerk isn’t providing with no expectation of reciprocating intimacy on her part.

How Cruel?

From the standpoint of a guy who’s aware he’s become a surrogate boyfriend, and those who can objectively see that he is, it seem incredibly manipulative and deliberate for a woman to put a guy whom she knows has a definite interest level for her into that role. I would argue that, more often than not, a woman doing so has done so repeatedly in the past so often that it becomes normalized for her.

Is she aware of it?

On some level of consciousness perhaps, but it’s comfortable for her to do so because she’s unable to have both her emotional / security needs paired with her physical needs in the same guy. So her coping mechanism is to entertain a Nice Guy (sometimes multiple Nice Guys) from whom she gets emotional support and a security response from, while wallowing in the physical rush and the resulting drama caused by the Jerk. I go into this splitting of needs in Schedules of Mating:

There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this.

Maintaining a series of surrogate boyfriends is one of the most directly observable manifestations of women sexual pluralism.

Women get off on perfecting a gestalt boyfriend from both the Nice Guy and the Jerk, but relatively few are aware of it, and among those who are, even fewer will expressly admit to it. They’ll quite happily allow a surrogate to continue in his qualifying himself to her in his efforts to “be a good listener” and “be there for her” until such a time as he grows frustrated and he becomes a liability in his own right, or a liability to her Jerk sex / drama interest. The hot guy who uses her up and leaves her on the bed wanting more will always take precedence over the emotional surrogate because they’re so easily attracted and entertained.


The Curse of Jung


The sexual revolution represents a far more significant turning point in human events than I think most people living post-sexual revolution will ever fully appreciate. I was born after it, and I would presume most of the influential participants involved in our current gender discourse today were also products of a post sexual revolution acculturation. The vast majority of authors dutifully typing away on both manosphere and feministing blogs are, for the better part, results of the social-gender restructuring that occurred in the late 60s. With this in mind I think it’s important to reflect on the era prior to this to really grasp the significance of that change, and to understand how we’ve come to take certain aspects of our new gender reality as simply matter of fact. It’s hard to believe there was a time when we didn’t need to ask why men were Men.

1950

A lot of critics of really anything pro-masculine today will always fall back on the canard that the ‘misogynist’ author would “love to return to the 1950′s”. The epithet “misogynist” is as useful as “homophobe” for the same reason that it’s an easy throw-away label to help disqualify a dissenting point of view. If it’s hurtful or forces critical thinking that challenges an ego investment it’s far easier to categorize the offender as holding to outdated modes of thinking. Make your opponent’s views an anachronism and your perspective appears more valid simply because it seems the more novel and developed. But were the 1950′s some gilded age of masculism? What about the 30′s or 40′s, or even the 19th century? Feminists and feminized men fondly resurrect the specter of the 1950′s as if the decade were some apex turning point in women’s enslavement; like the Hebrews under Pharaoh’s yoke yearning for the promised land. All the men who held any sway over society are caricatures of white, middle class boors – more Archie Bunker than Ward Cleaver, but even Ward’s benevolence and bearing would be suspect of passive-aggressive patriarchy.

What’s tragic in this silly dismissal of a masculine mindset is that it presumes any man in this, or the past three generations could ever have any realistic frame of reference for life in the 1950′s. This is doubly true for contemporary women using this shaming association, but in recognizing this we have to open up a new pandoras box. What else is the feminine imperative using (deliberate or unconsciously) as “common sense” to rise to prominence?

Modern feminist understanding of gender, and really our feminized society as a whole, is based to it’s very foundations on an anachronism even more outdated than some mythologized chauvinist era when “men had it so good, while women were their doting, unwitting slaves.”

The Curse of Jung

I go into a lot of detail describing feminine social conventions on this blog. Some people think it’s unfair to target just female conventions; there are after all many other social conventions that apply to men as well. I’d agree with this of course, and besides this blog’s focus being given to the social/psychological aspects of Game,  those male conventions have already been (and still are) the subject of, literally, centuries of analysis and scrutiny. However, I’m going to focus on one to illustrate the progression of  the cultural shift that was prompted by the sexual revolution.

Among the many archetypically masculine traits is a man’s reservations of emotion. For various biological and neurological reasons, men are the more rational of the sexes. This isn’t to deny them an emotional element. Indeed I’ve described men as the true romantics, however, classically men have to a better degree than women, been the more reserved gender when it comes to expressing emotion. What I’ve just described here is one of the base tenets of Carl Jung’s school of psychological theory. It’s kind of ironic that Freud would be so vilified by modern feminism, yet find his protege Jung would contribute so much to the fundamentals of the feminization of society.

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 societies collective consciousness. So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back it’s 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.

Whether or not there’s merit to Jung’s ideas, there’s little doubt of the impact they had on fem-centrism. Early feminists saw Jung’s theory as the perfect springboard to further a pretense of ‘gender equality’; thus making individual gender balance (i.e. androgyny) a new idealized goal state. Men simply needed to be perfected by exploring their ‘feared’ feminine natures, and women needed to be allowed the opportunity and freedom to masculinize themselves in order to perfect that androgynous balance. Introduce convenient, feminine controlled hormonal contraception and viola, gender equalism was born.

Dangerous Thoughts

I’m going to introduce a radical thought into the gender landscape that’s been manicured by the feminine imperative and Jungian theory for so long; what if it’s a good thing Men should be masculine and women should be feminine? What if it’s beneficial to our species survival that our very biologies are complimentary to our gender? What if we should be teaching our boys to get in touch with their masculine sides? What if gender is actually more nature than it is nurture? What if Jung got it wrong and we’ve allowed the feminine imperative to standardized our perceptions of gender for over a century based on an incorrect presumption?

The prevailing feminist wisdom clings to the Jung inspired notion that gender is a just social creation and one that sustains a Patriarchal hierarchy. All we need do is dress our children in as neutral an environment as possible and society will progress towards a more idealized, more humane, androgynous norm. But this is counter to the new data we find with ever increasing regularity, both in clinical studies as well as a better scientific understanding of neurology and endocrinology and their relation to sexuality and gender identity. In the early 1900′s Jung lacked even a fraction of the knowledge we’ve studied and proved about the human animal in 2012. In addition to this we have over 100 years of advances in fields of psychology that didn’t even exist in Jung’s time. We’ve seen the social impact of over 40 years of feminized Jungian theory – are we seriously going to continue this ideology, oblivious to the long outdated legacy it has on contemporary culture? Are we going to allow the originator of Beta Game to continue defining what constitutes masculinity and femininity in our society?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,649 other followers