Tag Archives: intergender relations

Beta Fucks

beta_fucks

I had an interesting experience last Friday. I had finished a good workout and was on my way home when Bebé Tomassi texted me asking if I would pick up a sandwich for her from Subway and bring it to her at a school function. Sure, why not.

I get into the local Subway at around 6:30 pm and it being a Friday night and Subway isn’t the most happening place to be on a Friday, I’m there with only a couple ahead of me in line. The woman looked to be late 20′s, I’d guess 27-28, and not too bad looking – 5′ 9″-10″, blonde – if she’d been dressed better she might rate a 7 on the Tomassi scale. The guy she’s with was thin, short mop of hair, about the same height, maybe around her age.

What made them notable was the gender dynamic between them I picked up on immediately. Within the first 3 minutes of coming up behind them in line the guy had made every Beta tell I think Roissy has a term for. When I got in line he was hugging up on her from behind, leaning in and she stood there like a tree. His posture and body language, as well as his attitude instantly told me this couple’s relational dynamic – he was the qualifying Beta and she was the mouthy, hard-to-please Hyena.

She noticed me when I came up. I was the only other person in Subway and I still had my gym clothes on. Some top 40 crap song came on the overhead and she blathered out, “I hate this shit music. They should put Metallica or Slayer on, that would be funny.” as if she expected the Beta to ask the management to switch stations. She gives me a glance as if offering an opening after that comment. I order my daughters sandwich.

“No! Don’t get me lemonade, it’s too syrupy here, get me diet Dr. Pepper.” she belts out to the Beta dutifully getting their drinks. The sandwich artist asks here what she’d like on her sandwich – reaches over and touches my forearm (IOI, kino) “This might take a while, I’m very choosy”, she says to me in her ‘tone’.

“I’m not in a hurry.”

Sandwiches get made, Beta pays. My girl’s sandwich is done at the same time (she’s not too choosy), and as Alpha Girl and Beta Boy are about to leave she grabs both their sandwiches and mine ‘by mistake’. The Subway cashier stops her to tell her she picked up my sandwich (remember, we’re the only people in the store), Beta puffs a nervous laugh, she looks at me, “Ohh, sorry,..” hands me the bag and holds eye contact just that beat longer than normal.

“Come on we gotta go.”, Beta reaches around her waist, and like the cane that pulls a bad actor off the stage, they exit.

Passive Game

I did nothing to actively Game this girl, she was Gaming herself. I’ve seen this before. There’s a branch of Game (I think Roosh mentions it) that speculates that sometimes girls will Game themselves and all you need to do is not fuck it up. Sometimes less is more; when a woman is already attracted to you, Game becomes remaining aware of the indicators, allowing the proper flow and just presuming the sale.

I preface today’s post with this because it ties in nicely to a particular discussion last week’s post sparked. I’ll admit, being married kind of puts a Man in a ‘nothing to lose’ perspective. A lot of guys like to speculate that a wedding ring makes a man more desirable – it doesn’t. If married men are at all attractive to women it’s not due to some fantasy of preselection by his wife making him more attractive as a long term prospect; it’s because, generally, he’s not actively pursuing women. There’s a certain power in indifference – you’re far more desirable when you aren’t qualifying yourself to women, and no guy is more indifferent than one who knows with all certainty who he’ll be banging that evening.

However, there is also an amplification of attraction and arousal for a more Alpha man when a woman is in a relationship with a man she perceives as Beta. A similar amplification also becomes heightened when a woman is the focus of one or more Beta orbiters. The persistent affirmation by, and supplication of, Beta men puts that Alpha in a spotlight. A constant atmosphere of Beta attention and concern has an effect of preselecting that (more) Alpha Man for a woman. A common complaint many Beta men share is being an emotional tampon for a woman, listening and commiserating with her about the ‘asshole boyfriend’, only to have her desire for him become more amplified and off she goes for her desired sex with him again. The Beta(s) rationalizes this as ‘a moment of weakness’ for his special girl, but is unaware that his constant Beta affirmations contribute to her attraction to that Alpha.

As I stated, I wouldn’t have had to apply much Game to the Subway girl – the Beta boyfriend had already done a lot of the heavy lifting. This particular dynamic is something to remember if you’re Gaming a girl with a boyfriend or a girl who drops a boyfriend disclaimer into casual conversation. A girl’s boyfriend may not be the Beta this guy was, but if he is, let that form the basis of your Game. I should also add that this ‘Beta does the lifting’ dynamic is the root of AMOGing and running boyfriend destroyer Game. You should also be aware when this tactic is being run on yourself.

Husband = Beta

Now before you think I’ve gone completely mercenary, this incident made me think of this comment from last week’s post from Lucas Bly:

So essentially, I’m reading the last four paragraphs of your essay to read:

“She married you because you are a provider, not because she was attracted to you. She’ll never be as attracted to you as she was to her previous Alpha Fucks.”

That’s a tough pill to swallow, my brother.

The issue being, of course, what to do with yourself, and with her, after you discover you got gamed into that kind of marriage.

Here’s a tougher pill to swallow, she’ll never be as attracted to you as she is of the guy’s she sees as Alpha after you’re married too.

In the interests of full disclosure, Lucas had petitioned me earlier about his particular situation being similar to the guy in Saving the Best. What the kid in the Subway made me think of was a wondering if he had at one time been relatively Alpha enough to attract this dominant woman, or if she perceived him in a good provider role. She certainly fit the script of the 27-29 year old woman looking to cash out of the SMP before her attractiveness capital (such as it was) expired. But on the other hand, she wasn’t averse to giving a perceptual Alpha IOIs right under his nose. It’s an interesting passive cuckolding effect.

Lucas’ musings prompted the question: Does an Alpha (perceptually) drop in status for a woman once he’s committed to monogamy with her?

One common situation I get from newly red pill men is that after a few years they find themselves trapped in a sexless marriage or living arrangement and they want to know how to get back to the hot monkey sex they had (or their wives had with previous lovers) in the early stages of their relationship. Once they become red pill / Game aware and realize what they are and how they got there, the next question is how to get back to what he had before.

The question is usually along the lines of “Help Rollo, I used to be really Alpha back in the day, but now my wife sees me as a Beta provider, what do I do?” Virtually every man on the Married Man Sex Life forums looks for a solution there for some variation of this situation, but is it that marriage itself, by it’s very nature predisposes a woman to view her husband in a Beta status? The go-to definition is Beta Provider, not Alpha provider.

Hypergamy being what it is, it’s Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks; if a woman, being the arbiter and decider with whom she will pair-off with in the long term, has agreed to commitment with a man, it would follow that on some level (whether true or not) she believes this man will be a provider and parent for her and future children. So the question then isn’t so much about a man backsliding to Beta after having been considered Alpha enough to fuck the woman who would be his wife, that may be, but rather it’s the familiarity and provisioning that define marriage makes a woman consider him Beta-provider by default.

Dr. Warren Farrell explored this in some of his writing. He posited that the familiarity of marriage predisposes women to consider their husbands as family members, thus the concept of sex with a family member is repelling for women. This is further complicated by parenthood; when boyfriend becomes husband, and then husband becomes Daddy, the family familiarity dynamic makes having sex less and less appealing.

I think there may be something to this, but when you combine it with a fattening and less appealing Daddy, and Mommy, the complex worsens. Thus any strange, outsider, Alpha becomes the stuff of fantasy for women.

Burninator picks up the narrative:

“After the marriage, sometimes just a few short years, then we hear of the sexless husband, fully betatized, begging for sex. But based on his previous experience with the woman, what should he have been looking for to tip him off?

My question is pointed more towards the men who are alpha who get duped.”

He’s referring of course to the husband in the Saving the Best post. I’m not entirely sure most guys, and especially men with a Beta mindset, are very receptive to the red flag warnings telegraphed by women, but Deti makes a good stab at it:

1. A guy in that situation should take note of the kinds and types of men she was attracted to/fucked before. Huge red flag if you are markedly different from those kinds of men. For example: She used to date guys in shitty bands and small time pro athletes. But she’s now taken quite a shine to mid level business managers and guys with steady jobs. Indicates she’s changing lanes; going for the beta bucks. This woman is for dating; not for marriage.

2. She was a slut with other guys; makes you wait; then when she finally does take the plunge, the sex is of pornstar quality. Seems to be putting on an act; a performer on stage.

3. Entitlement mentality surrounding sex. To her, sex is a commodity which she uses as a currency for exchange. She expects something in return for giving you sex.

4. Firmly controls the sex. Won’t do certain things; will have sex only at certain times; doesn’t like certain sexual acts because “only sluts do THAT” and “I don’t want you to think I’m a slut”. Immediately gets up after sex to expel the semen because “I don’t want to get a yeast infection” or to take care of the wet spot.

5. Closely related to this is that she remains in control of herself during sex. Never seems to be completely free or enjoying herself; always assessing her own performance and your evaluation of her sexually.

6. Wants to move rapidly to commitment. Puts out overt and subtle hints that she expects ever increasing investment and commitment in exchange for the sex she’s doling out.

These are pretty good tells for a woman looking to cash out of the SMP with a provider, but again, I’m not entirely convinced that women in the Epiphany Phase of life are reserving these tells exclusively for Beta men.

Validational Sex vs. Transactional Sex

Commenter jf12 brings us to the heart of the matter:

At J4G we were discussing validational sex vs transactional sex. I pointed out it was really primate alpha sex vs beta sex. In alpha sex, the female gladly services the male, and she gladly pays him (bananas and grooming). In beta sex, the female ungratefully requires servicing from the male, and demands payment from him (bananas and grooming).

It should also be noted that when a female primate does engage in a transactional sex exchange with a Beta male, it’s during the down cycle of her menstruation (point of lowest potential fertility). As with female primates (including humans), when she is in the proliferative phase of her menstrual cycle (just pre-ovulation, and the highest potential fertility) her biochemistry predisposes her to seek out the sexual attentions of more Alpha (masculinized) ‘good genes’ males.

I covered this fundamental at length in Schedules of Mating. Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks is the behavioral manifestation of feminine hypergamy and the dualistic nature of women’s sexual strategy as prompted by female biology. From an evolutionary / adaptive species-survival standpoint, women’s sexuality is nothing if not pragmatic and often opportunistic.

Most often when I’m asked the “How do I get my wife to fuck me again?” it’s coming from a man who once thought he had the best his wife had to offer, sexually, emotionally, etc. only to discover she had or still has the potential to be much more than he can coax from her or she’s willing to give to him. Again, I have to come back to the question, does his being her husband make her impression of him Beta by default?

I’ve had the premise that only Beta men consider getting married thrown at me on occasion. I think this presumption may be putting the cart before the horse – maybe, eventually, a man cannot help but be perceived as a Beta by his wife because he is her husband, a parent and provider (or should be). Many divorced men express disbelief when they discover just how wildly sexual their ex-wives can be with their new lovers. They take it as some personal failing that they were unable to bring out the slut in their wives when they were married, but I might argue that their position as husband and father made this impossible for them.

There’s a lot more I could write about this. What do you do if you find yourself in this situation? Leave, divorce, cheat on her? That may be enough to push past that comfortable familiarity. I can think of one married blogger who’s husband cheated on her with the result being her unconditional submission. Dread Game, both overt and soft dread, might cut through that familiarity. Strong Frame control is the lynchpin to a good relationship, ensuring that your SMV is above that of your wife or LTR, and knowing the power this has can keep an Alpha impression functional.

However, in the end, you have to evaluate the worth of changing yourself in order to reestablish that Alpha sex connection. If divorce isn’t an option for you due to religious convictions, then you’ll have to factor that into your evaluation. If not, then you’ll have to consider the depth and importance your commitment means to you versus the effort (or even having to make an effort) you’ll make to reestablish yourself. You’ll need to consider this with all the logic and rationalism at your disposal, divorced from emotional considerations – most times that’s the most difficult part. You’ll want to couch your decision making process based on Relational Equity, but you have to set aside that emotionalism and use cold pragmatism.


The Gift

logic

After reposting my seminal essay on Vagintine’s day last week an interesting topic arose. One of my assertions in the V-Day post was that a man ought never to buy his wife or girlfriend lingerie as a gift for Valentine’sDay, and, by extension, any other occasion, special or otherwise. As I considered the input from both Sunshinemary as well as commenter ‘Lingerie’ (odd for a male commenter, OK) I began to come to a better understanding of why I’ve always promoted this principle.

This is Lingerie’s take:

This is nuts:

“Note: Never buy a woman lingerie, she will never be happy with it. A woman has to do this on her own to “feel sexy”, make sure it fits her right, and it’s HER IDEA. When you buy it for her it’s contrived and it is overt and overt is often the kiss of death for a try-hard guy.”

Women in my home wear what they are commanded to wear. It’s not a decision left to them. In the beginning of a relationship I have to train them on proper apparel, which means taking them to the store and having them model garments for me so that I can show them what works and what doesn’t work, and why. After that, they know what clothing for themselves to buy for me so that I don’t have to go shopping with them.

This was Sunshinemary’s (albeit christianized) take:

LOL. Of course you should buy your wife lingerie. So what if she thinks it’s “really a gift for you”? Isn’t her body supposed to be a gift for you per 1 Corinthians 7:3-5? She should be happy you still want to see her in it.

In the interests of full disclosure, in the past, I have bought lingerie for both past girlfriends and Mrs. Tomassi; and I have learned my lesson. This is a lesson in genuine desire versus mitigated, obligated desire. If a woman doesn’t take the prerequisite effort on her own part to want to make herself more desirable and more sexy for you as your fuck-buddy, your girlfriend, your fiancé or your wife, you are not her first sexual or mental priority. It’s a simple as that.

Whether it’s the result of a prior ‘training regimen’ as in Lingerie’s case or the gift giving scenario Sunshinemary alludes to, the effect is the same – a genuine desire to please someone is always preferable to a coerced obligation to please them.

As I’ve stated before, a woman who want’s to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. If a woman needs to be ‘trained’ to be more sexual and less self-conscious than it takes for her to take the minimal effort to buy something to make herself look and feel more sexually appealing and less self-conscious to fuck you, then you’re dealing with a woman who (at least subconsciously) believes herself to be of a higher SMV status than yourself. In other words, if she has no desire to buy things, or prepare herself to be sexy for you, to entice you, to make your sexual experience with her more memorable than her prospective sexual competitors – you do not merit the optimization of her hypergamic interest, and her involvement with you is predicated upon something other than your genuine sexual appeal to her.

As I’ve elaborated before The Medium is the Message; when single women painstakingly prepare themselves primping and preening before a night out with her girlfriends to meet random guys – that medium is the message. When every look, every clothing option, every makeup and accessory selection is carefully considered to draw potential sexual attention to herself, the message is pretty clear – she’s making an effort to be more attractive for what she values as a reward. Women who are experiencing the hormonal changes associated with the proliferative phase of their menstrual cycle (just pre-ovulation) have a psychological predisposition to want to fuck the ‘good genes’ Alpha. This phase-condition also triggers shifts in female ornamentation; in other words, when women ovulate they dress to impress.

When a woman will put forth this concerted effort to achieve a socio-sexual reward, yet later fail to, or discontinues her previous efforts to, make the same effort to sustain your socio-sexual interests in her, that medium is also a message she’s broadcasting; she perceives your status (SMV) to be less valuable than the effort necessary to sustain your interest in her.

That isn’t to say every sexual instance you have should always be this side of professional porn, but it is to say that sexual spontaneity and her maintained effort to please you of her own volition are indicators of her perception of your sexual market value (SMV) as well as the biological dictates of her menstrual phase. In other words, (perceptual) Alphas get the ornamentation and enthusiasm of women who want to impress, Betas get the comfy, phone-it-in sex, after doing the convincing.

A Gift Must Be Given

Isn’t her body supposed to be a gift for you?

Yes, but a gift must be given, not taken by force or by due, else it’s not a gift anymore.

One principle I always suggest for Men spinning plates is that they make their attentions and interests in a woman a reward for that woman’s efforts and investments in him. From a PUA perspective this a flipping of the feminine script of qualifying for her rewards, but it’s a very important principle to understand and internalize on your own. Dread Game is founded on this principle, but it goes beyond just this utility – your merit, your attention and what it’s worth for a woman to invest herself in it will set the frame for any future relationship you have with her.

When that attention is given too liberally or a guy, as the result of his feminized conditioning, thinks women want full disclosure of feelings and a man gives his attention away without some kind of earning it dynamic on a woman’s part, his attentions become effectively worthless to her.

I’m prefacing with this because it’s important to recognize the value a Man’s attention has for women when you are assessing her real estimate of your personal value. Generally, women aren’t going to overtly give a man she’s involved with an honest assessment of his value to her. This is part of him Just Getting It and the unspoken understanding that he does get it, and on some level does understand what his value is to her. An Alpha doesn’t ask direct questions about his own status with women, he intrinsically understands it as reflected through women’s behavior around him.

However, women rarely disclose a Man’s impression on her – in fact the only time a woman is prompted to reveal ‘what she really thinks’ about a man is during or after a breakup. Rather, her continued assessment of him in a relationship (long or short term) is expressed in her attitudes, behaviors, physicality, ornamentation, and her willingness (or reservations) to want to please him.

I have a real tough time with the concept of a woman’s sexuality being a gift to give to a man. When a woman perceives a man’s SMV (or Alpha assessment) to be less than what her hypergamy could merit (realistically or not) for optimization, that is when the gifting-of-sex social convention becomes the dominant psychology for her. For a man who doesn’t merit it, or a Beta provider unused to the ‘reward’ of sex, this gifting becomes a situation of intermittent reinforcement of desired behavior (your continued Beta provisioning and comfort).

One, feminized, social indicator of this dynamic is a constant, male-psychological condition of self-deprecation. For example, I mentioned in last week’s post, most Valentines Day card’s messages from men to women is one of an unworthiness of her divine love, sex and patience with him. Essentially it’s a precondition of never meriting her intimacy. When this is a man’s operational psychology with respect to women, it only serves to perpetuate his qualifying for her gift and telegraphs his status of (at least mentally) being Beta. Men often ask me where the dynamic of pedestalization comes from and why it seems to be men’s default psychology with regard to women, its root is in this gift-to-merit social/psychological dependency.

Alpha Fucks & Beta Gifts

As with the woman in my illustration in Good Girls Do, Alpha men, or men that women preselect as possessing Alpha traits and attitudes, aren’t “given the gift’ of her sexuality, she simply has desired sex with him as opportunity and environment allow. The conditional reward, or sex-as-gift dynamic isn’t even a consideration, only sexual urgency and opportunism as buffered by the filters of her conscience, convictions or emotional barriers (or lack thereof). Alpha fucks isn’t a gift, it’s desired sex of opportunity and urgency.

I think it’s worth pointing out the obvious contrast this gift dynamic has with regards to the man who’s wife was provably more sexually adventurous in her past than she ever was with him for the duration of his marriage – Saving the Best. That post, and the 700+ comment thread that followed were cause for a lot of righteous indignation from men who’d also been on the receiving end of being sold one sexual personality, but later discovered his wife (previously or concurrently) had quite another.

As callous as this is going to sound, while I can understand feelings of betrayal at the duplicity, I also understand the mechanics behind women’s dualistic sexual strategy. The most common criticism of this husband was that he was a fool for ever having married a woman unwilling to give him her best sexually. He should’ve seen the red flags and avoided investing his life, and the life of a child, in a woman with sexual hangups,..with him.

It’s very easy to be an armchair life-coach after the fact, but I’m not sure most men realize what those red flags are when they see them. Most men, by way of a lifetime of feminine sensitivity training, take women at their word rather than see the message in her medium. They never have the opportunity to truly grasp the socio-sexual strategy women employ over the course of a lifetime to optimize hypergamy and Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks. And even after he’s been on the sharp end of that equation, most guys still don’t want to believe her medium was ever the message.

If a woman is reserved with you sexually, if her conditions for being sexual are based on a perceived reward or a gifting mentality, that is the message. If a woman needs convincing to be more sexual with you, that is the message. If a woman is sexually aggressive with you, if she exhibits behaviors that indicate she’s planning to create an environment that would facilitates your having sex, that is the message. Women who are into you won’t confuse you. Understand the mechanics of how her sexual strategy works, how the particulars of it are manifested in her words, attitudes and behaviors, and how to leverage it to your advantage or see the warning signs in it, and you will be better prepared to see those red flags before you invest yourself in a woman worth or not worth investing in.


Secret of the Red Pill

B3FXCT conspiracy

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

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

Synergy1 adds the most common response:

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

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

Joker79:

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

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

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

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

Women want a guy who Just Gets It.

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

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

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

Play with her, and play with her.

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

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


Nursing Power

matriarchy_rome

Needless to say, last week’s post sparked some interesting, not to mention predictable, conversations and response. After sifting through all of the ego-invested brinksmanship by the token feminist reader of RM, the takeaway was actually a better understanding of the latent purpose of feminism.Perhaps not the understanding she intended, but certainly a confirmation of premise.

A handful of my male readers often ask why I don’t moderate comments, or that the message of Rational Male would be better served if I banned certain commenters. I’ve mentioned on several posts and threads as to why I won’t ever do that (except for blatant spamming), but in a nutshell it’s my fundamental belief that the validity of any premise or idea should be able to withstand public debate. People who aren’t confident of the strength of their assertions or ideas, or are more concerned with profiting from the branding of those weak assertions than they are in truth, are the first to cry about the harshness of their critics and kill all dissent as well as all discourse about those assertions.

That’s the primary reason I’ve never moderated; if people think I’m full of shit I’m all ears – I’m not so arrogant as to think I’ve thought of every angle about any idea I express here or on any other forum. However, the second reason I don’t censor, ban users or delete comments is that I believe it’s useful to have critics (usually women or fem-men) provide the gallery with examples of exactly the mentality or dynamic I’m describing in an essay. With a fair amount of predictability, a blue pill male or an upset woman will just as often prove my point for me and serve as a model for what I’ve described.

I never intentionally try to make rubes out of the critics I know will chime in about something, but I will sometimes leave out certain considerations I may have already thought about something, knowing it will get picked up on by a critic. I do this on occasion because the I know that the “ah hah! I got him, he forgot about X,Y, Z” moment serves as a better teaching tool and confirms for me that a critic does in fact comprehend what I’m going on about.

Take the Power Back

So it was throughout last week’s commentary about the branding of the Strong Independent Woman® social template offered and reinforced by the feminist mindset, and endorsed wholesale by pop-culture and popular media. Considering the new outside awareness the manosphere is receiving courtesy of Return of Kings these days, I expect we’ll see more of the point-and-sputter, dismissive ignorance of offended egos, or we’ll see more cathartic overwritten mission statements repeated by feminists confronted with logical arguments that contradict their comfortably solipsistic world-view.

Doctor Jeremy actually started me back on considering gender power dynamics with his comments here:

As always, your article is insightful. I get concerned with the limit to the progress the manosphere can make, however, because I think the discussions are missing a central concept – power. The goal of this branding, social engineering, and gender-role change you identify is the redistribution of various forms of power and influence within our society. For some reason, however, much of the manosphere’s writing and discussion does not seem to include that level of analysis. This is unfortunate, as feminist and women’s discourse is often focused on redistribution of power – and quite successful as a result of that focus.

As support for my point, please review the quotes I have extracted from livingtree2013′s various comments [emphasis mine]:

“But it is not because women want to eliminate men from the equation. It is because women have historically been entirely dependent on men for their survival, which gave men far too much power over us, and we have worked tirelessly to extract ourselves from that position of inferiority.”

“So why would you expect anything different from us? Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will, which truly, I can see coming in the near future.”

“Unfortunately, you guys didn’t want us doing those things because it negatively affected you in the power balance, but that didn’t stop us from needing it.”

She is not talking about independence. She is not talking about self-esteem. She is talking about who has the power to control the interaction and call the shots…

As far as power is concerned I think anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a few posts knows I quote Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power more often than any other resource here, and regularly use those laws to illustrate how they apply to intergender relations. That said, I have dedicated posts to the influence power has in personal dynamics, and I certainly recognize, if sometimes indirectly, the power dynamic in Frame, Dread, and certainly in The Feminine Imperative.

I fully understand the redistribution of power in our gender landscape from a social perspective, but the fundamental question about any form of real power isn’t about who has it or not, but to what ends they apply it.

I felt so strongly about the Truth to Power essay that I included it in the Rational Male book. The salient point in that post was this:

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.

I expect that would align with what our token, self-identifying feminist LivingTree was repeating, but the underlying question is what are women using that power to achieve?

As I stated prior, feminism as a social influence, has never been about its stated goal of egalitarian equality between the sexes, but rather it’s been about restitution and retribution from the masculine it perceives as its historical oppressors. This was the original intent of feminine independence (before it became the brand it is today), a separation from the dependency (perceived or actual) of women on men. However, the problem inherent in that separation is that in creating a new, autonomous sex role for women, the innate differences and deficits that the former complementary interdependence with men satisfied had to be compensated for.

All of the inherent weaknesses of the feminine that were balanced by the masculine’s inherent strengths had to be provided for in order to achieve this new independence from the masculine. I should also point out that in this feminist separation the masculine is also left in a deficit of having its own inherent weaknesses balanced by the compensating strengths of the feminine.

Power Slaves

I’ve quoted that feminism is the mistaken belief that a more equitable society can be achieved by focusing efforts solely on the interests of one sex.

Sarcasm aside, this is exactly the use to which women have applied the power that feminism and the feminization of society has afforded them since the sexual revolution. Feminism is not, and has never been about leveling a playing field or equality amongst the genders, it’s been about power and applying it to separating from, marginalization of, and eventual eradication of, the masculine influence that the feminine imperative wants restitution and retribution from. LivingTree illustrates this for us here:

Independence for women meant we didn’t have to tolerate abuse anymore because we had the option to leave. It meant that if you left us, we wouldn’t be completely desperate. It meant we didn’t have to cling to you guys for support. It meant we could make decisions about our own lives. It meant we didn’t have to be “seen and not heard”. It meant we didn’t have to be a slave to a stereotype anymore. It meant we could be self-actualizing if we wanted to. It meant we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with. And it meant we could admit we had sexual desires.

Tucked into LT’s recitation of feminist boilerplate is the true application and intent of use of the power women’s emancipation from the masculine wants to achieve – direct control of the conditions dictating their innate hypergamy.

The gist of LT’s reasoning for women wanting power, and “Independence” (as a brand or otherwise) from men is due to women’s innate need for security. This need for security and certainty is literally written into women’s DNA, their neural wiring and hormones. As the ‘nurturers’ of the next generation of humanity, evolution selected-for, and reinforced the biological and psychological mechanisms of women with the best capacity to filter for situations that would provide her and her offspring with the best possible security in a chaotic and insecure world. This drive for security is what’s at the root of hypergamy, and in all fairness has been a successful survival mechanism for the human species.

Hypergamy’s constant, limbic, survival-level question for women is “Is this the optimal condition I can secure to ensure my wellbeing and my (future) children?” Whether she’s been married for decades or is out on the town with her girlfriends, that question nags a woman in her hindbrain from childhood to death. Hypergamy’s question and doubt is at the heart of every unconscious shit-test a woman will ever deliver. Hypergamy’s unrealizable quest for optimization extends from the individual woman to women’s social influences. From the micro to the macro, Hypergamy’s constant want of an unachievable contented security defines the Feminine Imperative.

Rigging the Game

In terms of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks) that question extends to who she selects as a sex partner to breed with, as well as whom she selects to be the provider for her long term provisioning. At the heart of it, women’s desire for independence and the perceived power they believe it should give them is an effort in controlling the conditions that they believe will satisfy Hypergamy’s question. Every popular woman’s issue you can list will find its way back to the want for control of the circumstances that dictate how well a woman can satisfy her Hypergamy.

Fat acceptance, the right to vote, child custody and paternity laws, divorce laws, slut walks, accusations of rape culture, more women in the boardroom, feminization of men and culture on whole, hell, every item LivingTree mentions in her comment, just name the issue and underneath the social or personal veneer is the clutching after of some usable power to control the conditions that will satisfy her need for security and optimize women’s Hypergamy.

LT is correct, women don’t want to eliminate men, they simply want to control them, both directly and indirectly, socially and personally, subtly and subconsciously as well as overtly when necessary, to comply with satisfying their innate hypergamy. They want independence from men’s influence in the process of satisfying hypergamy – they want to rig the game by replacing his genuine desires by forcing him to comply with her control of his conditions. Women want the power to control men’s desires, their ideologies, their sexual response, their individualism and the decisions that result from them all in order to optimize hypergamy

The problem in all this effort for control is that nature stagnates in homogeny. Androgyny, homogeny, are the first order for inbreeding. For as much as women make efforts to emancipate themselves and change the rules of the game to better fit their deficiencies, they are always confounded by the innate drives and desires of men. They get frustrated with men who wont play their version of the game, or worse, the ones who play it more poorly than they themselves do. So they jail them, they shame them, they pathologize his sexual impulse, they condition feminization into them from their earliest development, they punish them for not playing the game that should  always end with them optimizing hypergamy’s nagging doubt – in spite of falling short of it under organic circumstances. For all the delusions of independence, autonomy and the fantasy of some form of control of the process, they find men will simply not cooperate. They wont give them the satisfaction of optimizing their solipsistic hypergamy, because the Men who have the capacity to do so, the ones women want to be satisfied with simply aren’t playing their version of the game.


The Brand of Independence

independence

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

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

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

The Branding

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

An Independent Woman was to be independent of men.

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

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

The Case Against Male Self-Esteem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Anger Management

anger-management1

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

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

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

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

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

Anger is a Gift

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


First Man Awake

As most readers know I rarely engage in political discourse unless it has relevance to intergender dynamics. This video is an exception. If you need a clear example of a feminist controlled state, this is it.

I actually went through Women’s/Gender Studies course when I was in college. The main reason I took the class was because there were only 2 classes being offered on campus that completed a Capstone, Humanities and Diversity requirement in a single class – Holocaust Studies and Women’s Studies. That’s basically the estimation most women want you to think their ‘sufferage’ is on par with; the Holocaust. I chose Women’s Studies because I basically wanted to put my money where my mouth has always been (literally and figuratively ) and also get inside what popular media, and the feminization that it’s gone through for the last 40+ years, has been selling both men and women. I enjoyed debating these ladies as I was one of 2 guys in the Women’s Literature class.

I didn’t know it at the time, but one of the beacons of positive masculine hope I had back in the days before the internet, before understanding Game and even the term ‘red pill’ was reading Why Men are the Way They Are by Dr. Warren Farrell. It opened my understanding of intergender relations in a way I’d never understood. If I had a red pill moment in my past reading this books was it. It was published in 1986 so the specifics might be a little dated for a modern reader, but for an overall perspective of how our gender landscape has evolved it will always be on my ‘must read’ list for guy just now taking the red pill.

My phone-it-in feminist stepmother and beta-confused father had picked up the book in order to eviscerate it in some proto-SWPL home book club they belonged to at the time. Oddly enough it ended up on their bookshelf after that (replete with my stepmother’s penciled in margin notes), and I remember picking it up in the hope that it would give me some self-effacing insight into how I could be a more accommodating beta schlub for my BPD girlfriend who was slowly eroding the last vestiges of my former Alpha self.

What it did was enlighten me.

Farrell is anything but a rape apologist, I would compare him with the first man to wake up in the Matrix. Most of his insight, research and writing were prompted by his involvement in the early 70′s feminist movement. He even self-identified as a male feminist back then, but it was this experience that brought him to a fuller understanding of the feminine imperative.

Intellectual Lethargy

What offends me about this protest isn’t the actual protesting, but the sheer ignorance behind it. If it were the easily digestible blatherings of Rush Limbaugh they were protesting I could understand it, but Dr. Farrell isn’t even in the same universe. All this is is an example of intellectual lethargy, which is really a shame because I would expect that the young men and women involved in the protest, all students at U of T, would be acquainted with research and critical thinking skills necessary before formulating such strong opinions and visceral reactions.

To be educated takes a constant effort. Most people in modern society simply do not have the time, inclination or motivation to be in any way knowledgeable about more than a peripheral understanding of the world around them. The ridiculously ironic part is that we live in an era when communication of information has never been more easily accessible to us.

Now add to this that we’re expected to be at least somewhat well informed due to this access. Our ego-investments with regards to politics, religion, social dynamics, gender relations etc. all depend upon a belief that we’re actually well informed enough know what we’re talking about and draw our own conclusions. We would have to be, right? It’s expected of us as intelligent human beings.

The truth of the matter is that unless we are immediately benefitted by educating ourselves about a particular subject (i.e. as short term a profit as easily manageable), for the vast majority of modern society, educating oneself is a hobby at best. We live in a fast-food, fast-information society. We can’t be bothered to, or in some cases really afford to, develop critical thinking skills – particularly when they might challenge our own ego-investments. This is why the feminine Matrix flourishes today, it’s easier not to think about things that are counter to our social conditioning.

But we want to be right, and to be right we have to believe that we have these critical thinking skills. In fact our personalities and well being depend upon being correct in our beliefs. This is an age of ego-investment. Ego investments are beliefs we associate with, and internalize, so strongly that they literally become elements of our personalities. So to challenge that belief is to literally attack the personality of the person with that ego-investment. It would make no difference how empirical your evidence to the contrary of that belief might be; you attack the belief and you attack the person. Religion, racism, political affiliation, gender dynamics, social dynamics, world view, all find their roots in individual ego-investments in those beliefs.

Needless to say this has an extremely polarizing effect upon lazy people who’d rather not put forth any effort to objectively educate themselves in ways that would ever challenge their core ego-investments. So we see a factionalizing of people into camps where those ego-investments are reinforced in spite of any controverting evidence. Thus a team mentality evolves; our red team is better than your blue team irrespective of any factor that might be contrary. So long as my team wins and your team loses my ego-investments remain validated. It becomes a clash of who’s ego-investments get validated and any value the “other’s” might have had are never acknowledged.

This is a shame because Dr. Warren Farrell has dedicated his life –most of it spent in the feminized cultural wastelands of the late 80′s and 90′s – to researching, understanding and revealing the uncomfortable truths of intergender dynamics. He’s the godfather of the manosphere that most red pill men aren’t even aware of.


(Don’t) Be Like Mike

If you haven’t seen the movie Swingers I highly recommend it. It was one of the first real attempts to reveal the rudiments of Game in the mid 90′s, and considering this decade was the apex period for the feminine Matrix it’s all the more notable.

Not only did Swingers capture the character of the Alpha and Beta mindset, it also contrasted the two by casting both its main protagonists as such. Looking back from 16 years ago this is remarkable considering the almost complete absence of anything resembling the manosphere or a greater understanding of intergender relations, much less the awareness of the society feminization had created.

In the embedded clip we watch Mike epically fail to consolidate on a number close. It’s funny because we see our blue pill selves making the same mistake. It’s uncomfortable humor watching this from a red pill perspective; like watching Titanic, you know the ship is going to sink, you even know how the ship goes down, but you can’t help watching anyway.

I get this feeling a lot when I’m doing a consult, or I’m audience to some guy making the same mistakes my unenlightened blue pill self made. You couldn’t tell me shit back then; it was all blind emotion and bewilderment with the expectation that women would be more understanding, more forgiving of even a marginal error in judgement. It’s with great difficulty that I force myself to allow guys like Mike to make their own mistakes.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,667 other followers