Tag Archives: social conventions

Just Shut the Hell Up

Hello, I’m author Rollo Tomassi.

As one of the 3 ‘R’s of the manosphere, it’s important for me to encourage more men to unplug from the Matrix that is our present feminine-primary social order, but equally important is encouraging more women to sometimes just shut the hell up.

It’s not that men don’t value your thoughts (unsolicited, they often prove our points), it’s just that we don’t value all of them.

The world doesn’t need your opinion on everything. For example, what men should do with their provisioning and catering their lives by ‘Manning Up’ to fit your overblown sense of entitlement after you’ve exhausted your prime fertility window on the Bad Boys and criminals in your 20s. Hush!

Your contrived cries of sexism over the sexiness of who the next popular video game protagonist should be. Zip it!

Whether or not the color of your foundation is called “Sunset Earth” or “Neutral Beige”. Shut Up!

So as a public service I’ve made the following list of things men no longer need to hear women’s opinions on. Please take a moment away from Instagram to jot these down:

  • 50 Shades of Grey
  • Yoga pants
  • The thoroughly disproven 77¢ on the dollar ‘Wage Gap’ lie
  • Giggling about ‘Dad Bods’ being “sexy”
  • Your confusion about where all the good men have gone
  • Fat Acceptance
  • Red Pill Truths
  • ‘Designer cupcakes’ and hand-baked dog treats being examples of ‘female entrepreneurship’
  • Christian patriarchy in an age of feminine assimilation of religion
  • Any sentence that begins with, “As a woman I,…”
  • Pleas for men’s aid in advancing your feminist ideals at the United Nations after claiming not to ‘need’ men
  • Any form of flavored martinis (or boxed wine)
  • 50 Shades of Grey (again)
  • Whether or not your feminine responsibility to engage in traditional Holiday ‘cheer’ is un-feminist
  • And the complete lack of ethics in all forms of journalism

If you can control yourselves and hold back from further expressing your opinions on any of these topics we’ll let you keep weighing in (uh, heh) on important topics like blow job techniques and pole dancing classes for housewives in shape enough to pull it off.

But that’s a huge, big “if”.

Thanks, so much.



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

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

Guy starts us off:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talents and Deficits

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

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

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

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

Fighting Nature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

A Crisis of Manhood

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

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

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

From Vulnerability:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tail Chasing

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caricatures of Masculinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red Pill Parenting – Part I

Red Pill Parenting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Momma Aint Happy, Aint Nobody Happy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parental Precautions

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

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

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

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

Single Moms and “Good” Fathers

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

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

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

I’m Stupid Picky.

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

I Want the Fairytale.

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

My Daughter Will Always Be Priority Number One.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


27 Shades of The Modern Man


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

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

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

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

Lets have a look shall we?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26. The modern man cries. He cries often.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solipsism II


A comment from Truman gets us started today:

Rollo, it would be great if you could provide some evidence for female solipsism beyond a few examples. From my own experience I could name a few solipsistic women, but I could do the same for men as well, and I’m far from convinced that the trait is universal in women, or even that it’s more prevalent in women than in men.

I will admit that the main reason I split this post into two was because I anticipated this example-seeking. And to their credit my more vocal female commenters didn’t disappoint me with (sometimes over the top) illustrations. If you haven’t had enough of the hamster spinning goodness yet feel free to sift through the comment thread from part one.

However, to begin to work out Truman’s request Voverk from the TRP forum had this example:

One of the most eye opening of the solipsistic world of females was when a plate of mine was giving me directions on where to pick her up. It went something like this:

Her: “When you come to that traffic light, turn over to me.”

Me: “What do you mean?”

Her: “Just turn here towards me.”

Me: “How the hell am I supposed to know which way is that? Left or right?”

Her: “I don’t know. Just turn my way”

She eventually gave directions, but it amazed me how hard it is for a woman to put herself in someone else’s shoes, even if she wants to.

Women’s mental point of origin (solipsism) presumes the entire world outside of her agrees with her imperative and mutually shares the importance and priorities of it.

Just like The Red Pill Lens, it takes a sensitivity to it, but you will begin to notice instances of that solipsism all around you if you pay attention. An equalists, feminine-primary upbringing and acculturation predisposes men to accept the manifestations of this solipsism as ‘normal’, so we blow it off or nod in agreement without really considering it. Most plugged-in Blue Pill men simply view this as a standard operating condition for women to such a degree that this solipsistic nature is pushed to the peripheries of their awareness.

It’s just how women are and women are more than happy to have men accept their solipsism as intrinsic to their nature. It’s excusable in the same sense that women hold a “woman’s prerogative” – she always reserves the right to change her mind. When your default is to accept this social imperative any greater inconsistencies fall into line behind it.

We are conditioned to accept that what best benefits women’s sexual strategy is necessarily what benefits men. On both a social and personal level women’s solipsistic importance presumes, by default, that what best serves themselves automatically best serves men – even when they refuse to acknowledge it. Remember, nothing outside the female existential imperative has any more significance than an individual women will allow it. So, perceptually to women, if a man suits a purpose in her self-primary requirements he must also mutually share in that awareness of his purpose. Thus, she maintains that his imperatives are the same as her own.

Societal Reinforcement

Social reinforcement of women’s solipsistic nature is a self-perpetuating cycle. A feminine-primary social order reflects in itself, and then sustains, female solipsism. For most Red Pill aware men this cycle is apparent in women’s overblown self-entitlements, but there’s far more to it than this.

When men accept and reinforce this socially, we feed and confirm women’s solipsistic natures. When men are steeped in a Blue Pill acceptance of what they believe should be men’s condition, and defend (or ’empower’) women’s solipsistic behaviors or manifestations of it, thats when the cycle of affirmation of this solipsism comes full circle.

Recently I called commenter InsanityBytes to the carpet about her first priority being to defend the Sisterhood when Dalrock published a post critical of a woman’s abortions and another who’d joined Ashley Madison then rationalized it away because she was in a loveless marriage with a man who was in his last days.

This is another instance of solipsism; that a woman’s first directive is to defend her sex’s imperatives even above considerations of religious conviction, marriage vows or espoused personal ideology. That’s the depth and breadth of feminine solipsism, and again, this reinforces a cycle of affirming it in women.


One of the easiest ways to identify women’s solipsistic nature is manifested in their communication style, and as fate would have it I received a fresh comment from a new female commenter on my interview with Niko Choski. I wont bore you with the histrionics of most of it, but her ending comments serve a purpose here:

I’m not lonely, I enjoy solitude…
I am a whole person who needs no other for my own completion.No man, no woman. The qualities identified by different cultures as male and female…are all mine.
Your obsession with division….iis absurd.

I’ve dug into women’s communication styles on more occasions than I can account on this blog, and with regard to how women defer to their solipsistic nature there is no better way to identify it than in the priorities they give to communicating with men and other women.

From Duplicity:

It’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their personal anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves a universal opposite. By order of degrees, women have a natural tendency for solipsism – any dynamic is interpreted in terms of how it applies to themselves first, and then the greater whole of humanity.

Men tend to draw upon the larger, rational, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experience and cling to it as gospel. If it’s true for her, it’s true for everyone, and experience and data that contradict her self-estimations? Those have no bearing because ‘she’s’ not like that.

This personalization is the first order of any argument proffered by women just coming into an awareness of long standing conversations and discussion in the manosphere. It is so predictable it’s now cliché, and each woman’s first retort invariably responds with personalized anecdotes they think trumps any objective, observable evidence to the contrary.

It might be entertaining for Red Pill men to count the instances of personalization in a woman’s rebuttal comment, but it’s not about how many “I”s or “me”s a woman brings to any counterargument – it’s that her first inclination for a counterargument is to use her personal experience and expect it to be accepted as a valid, universal truth by whomever she is presenting it to.

I’s, Me’s and Myself’s are simply the vehicle and manifestation of women’s first directive – a solipsistic mental point of origin; any challenge to that self-importance is invalidated by her personal self-primacy. This mental origin is so automatic and ingrained to such a limbic degree that consideration of it is never an afterthought for her.

This is common to feminine communication preferences (and men who’ve been conditioned to opt into a feminine-primary communication mode). Women focus primarily on the context of the communication (how it makes them feel while communicating), while men focus primarily on the content (the importance of the information being communicated). This isn’t to exclude men from using personal experiences to help illustrate a point, but the intent comes from a different motive. That motive is an attempt to better understand the content and information of that issue, not an exercise in self-affirmation that feminine solipsism requires to preserve a woman’s ego-investments (usually her solipsistic mental point of origin).

The most visible manifestation of women’s rudimentary solipsism is the priority with which they expect their personal, existential, experience to be considered the most valid, legitimate and universal truth apparent in any debate.

Middle of the Story Syndrome

One thing I’ve been frustrated with by virtually every woman I’ve ever known in my life is their tendency to begin a conversation in the middle of a story; all the while expecting men to understand every nuance and be familiar with minute ‘feely’ detail that made up the backstory that’s never forthcoming.

I swear, every woman I’ve known has done this with me at some time. The presumption is that their story is of such importance that bothering with any pretext, or outlining and describing the events and information that led up to that mid-way vitally important element that made them feel a certain way is all that  should matter to a listener.

Women have an uncanny way of accepting this when they relate stories among themselves; gleaning incidental details of the backstory as the teller goes on.

There’s an ironic feminine-operative social convention that complains that “men aren’t good listeners” or “men don’t listen” to what women are telling them. This convention is really another manifestation of a solipsistic mindset with regard to communication.

It isn’t that men don’t listen, it’s that our communication styles focus on content information, not the contextual ‘feel’ of what’s being communicated by women. Women, above all else, hate to repeat themselves. Not because of the inconvenience, but because men ‘not listening’ and requiring a repetition of that information conflicts with her own self-primary solipsism.

The want for a ‘good listener’ is really the want for a man who affirms her self-priority by not needing to be told something that confirms that priority more than once. And this confirmation should never require explanation or and understanding of the backstory of events that made it feel important to her.

Women have an inherent pretext in communication that always begins with themselves. In fact, most are so sure of their solipsistic, personal truth that glaring objectivity never enters their minds; at least not initially. As I mentioned in the first installment, women are entirely capable of applying reason, rationality and pragmatism as well as men, it’s just that this isn’t their first mental order when confronted with a need for it. Just as a girl can be taught to throw an object as well as it comes naturally to a boy, a reasoned transcendence above her solipsism, one that considers the individuated existences of others’ experiences takes a learned effort.

Ladies First

Luxocrat had a great illustration as well:

I asked my ex that last month, if her kids came first or if I did. She paused and said “I really don’t know. That’s a hard one.” I replied “Then it’s your kids.” I recall my ex-wife reading one of those save your marriage books right after I made it clear I was leaving. She read me a line in it and said she sees how she was wrong. The line went something like this: “If you want to have a strong marriage, you need to understand your husband comes first, even before your children. They must be taught by you, their mother, that he is head of the household and respect must be given. The only way they’ll see that is by your demostrating by your actions that this is so.”

I still left though.

The irony in this instance is that for all of the humble deference this seemingly good advice promotes, it still presumes a woman is already the primary source of authority who ‘allows’ her husband to be “the man”. I’ve heard similar advice espoused by evangelical pastors making Pollyanna attempts at ‘granting headship’ to husbands and fathers from their reluctant wives. The inherent flaw is that these men already begin from a perspective that women are in a position of unquestioned primacy and require their permission to be ‘men’.

In a way they are unwittingly acknowledging women’s solipsism (and perpetuating the cycle) as a default source of authority. That a woman would need to be taught to defer authority to her husband belies two things; first, her solipsistic mental point of origin and second, that her man isn’t a man who inspires that deference.

It’s easy to see how a Beta man wouldn’t be someone that would naturally prompt a woman to go against her natural solipsism, but in Luxocrats position (I presume Alpha since he walked) there is a conflict women have to confront in themselves.

In a social order that reinforces the entitlements presumed by women’s solipsism there develops an internal conflict between the need for an optimized Hypergamy and the ego-investments a woman’s solipsism demands to preserve it. As a woman progresses towards the Wall and a lessened capacity to optimize both sides (AF/BB) of Hypergamy this conflict comes to a head. The necessities of long term provisioning war with the self-importance of solipsism at the risk of her losing out on preserving both (and having a guy like Luxocrat simply walk away from her).


Solipsism I


“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” – Hillary Clinton

I had planned on using Hillary’s now infamous quote for an upcoming post outlining the distinction between women’s innate solipsism and an acculturated narcissism, but fate delivered me a much more profound use for this quote last week (we’ll get to that in part II).

Before I dig in here I feel it’s kind of incumbent upon me to point out that I in no way align with, nor endorse Hillary’s political or ideological perspectives, and I think it should go without saying that I diametrically disagree with her feminine-primary social agendas.

That said, if you ever need a better quote to explain the realities of feminine solipsism I think I’d be at a loss to give you one. A lot of men, even Red Pill aware men, have a hard time understanding how solipsism fits concretely into the feminine psyche. The social conditioning and upbringing that predisposes us towards an egalitarian equalist mindset rebels against thinking women and men would have different psychological firmware. Equalism teaches us to expect that men and women’s needs share mutual origins and our impulses are so similar that any difference is insignificant.

That egalitarian frame predisposes us to consider that ‘not all women are like that‘ or to disassociate the idea that men and women could be anything but functionally equal agents. As a result we get convenient distractions to confuse our looking for comparatives to should anyone (or thing) challenge an equalist answer.

Simply put, we get rationales like “Oh well, men do it too”, or worse, or any opposite comparison that leads us away from considering the truth that men and women are psychologically, biologically and sociologically different; with different motives and different strategies which they employ to meet their different imperatives. And often these imperatives are at odds with the best interests of the other sex.

Separating Differences

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

It is the fundamental differences in either sex’s imperatives, acculturation and biology that creates this conflict. Of course, men and women have come together for each other’s mutual benefit (and love, and enjoyment) to create families and sustain our race for millennia, however, this mutually beneficial union does not originate from mutual imperatives or sexual strategies.

When I explain how women hold an opportunistic concept of love, while men hold an idealistic one, the resistance to accept that observable, behavioral, reality is rooted in a blank-slate belief that men and women are fundamentally the same. So, when we read a statement from a woman (to say nothing of a high status one) such as Hillary’s, we either scoff at the oblivious audacity of it because it is so counter to our (male) imperative’s interests, or we nod in ascension in the feminized belief that what best serves the female imperative necessarily is the best interest of the male imperative.

This is an illustration of the fundamental difference in the interpretation of experience between the sexes.

From a solipsistically oblivious female perspective what Hillary is expounding on here is entirely true. From a perspective that prioritizes feminine Hypergamy above all else, these three sentences make perfect, pragmatic sense. The idea that men losing their lives in warfare would make them victims at all (much less the primary victims) isn’t even an afterthought; all that matters is the long term security and continued provisioning of women and their imperatives.

Solipsism, not Narcissism

A lot of newly Red Pill aware men get confused at my using the term ‘solipsism‘ when I refer to this female-specific obliviousness to any concern – or lesser prioritized concern – of anything outside their immediate existential needs. The confusion comes from men who want for a similar justice to the one I outlined in Our Sister’s Keeper. Self-importance or narcissism would seem to be a more appropriate term for this dynamic, but I disagree.

Female solipsism in and of itself is not necessarily a net negative in the larger scope of human survival and evolution. On the surface that may seem a bit outrageous, but it’s only outrageous insofar as women’s solipsistic natures come into conflict with the biological and social imperatives of men. This solipsism is the necessary result of a feminine survival instinct that’s helped preserve women and their offspring in a violent, chaotic and uncertain evolution.

Recognizing the importance of feminine solipsism is not an endorsement of the anti-social, and often cruel, byproducts of it.

No doubt, men who’ve been on the sharp end of this will grind their teeth at the inevitable narcissism that becomes an extension of women’s solipsism. I’ll agree. Socially we’re living in an era of unprecedented (western) narcissism manifested in a vast majority of women.

At no other time in history have women become more accustomed to perceived entitlements of personal security, ubiquitous social control and relative assurances of optimizing Hypergamous imperatives. At no other time have women’s sexual strategies been of such primary importance to society. However, this narcissism is the result of an acculturation and learned social priorities that predispose women to expectations that border on arrogance. Over recent generations that narcissism has become learned and fostered in women to the point that narcissism is openly embraced as a feminine strength – women believe it’s their due after a long suffrage.

Women’s solipsistic nature however is an integral part of their evolved psychological firmware. Solipsism is the evolved, selected-for result of self-preservation necessities that ensured the survival of our species. As men we get frustrated by this intrinsic nature; a nature that puts women’s imperatives as their primary mental point of origin. As any newly aware Red Pill man will attest, coming to this realization is a very hard truth to accept. It’s cruel and contrary to what the First Set of Books have taught him he should expect and build his life around.

Furthermore, it’s cruel in the respect that this solipsism neither aligns with the romantic, Blue Pill hopes he’s been raised to accept, but also the egalitarian, equal and level playing field ideology he’s been conditioned to believe he should alter his priorities to accommodate for women; and in turn he can expect from women. As I stated earlier, coming to terms with men and women’s differing concepts of love is a tough disillusionment, but this difference in concept is simply one of many a man must come to terms with.

When I wrote Empathy I got taken to task about women’s capacity to feel empathy to a greater degree than do men. It’s not that women cannot feel empathically (a shared experience), my argument was that the idea that women feel a ‘greater’ empathy than men was a social convention with the latent purpose of masking women’s innate solipsism.

That wasn’t a very popular idea. The notion that women are the mothers and nurturers was predictably spelled out, but with regards to empathizing and caring for men the primary concern of women was worry over their own and their children’s well being before that of their men should they become incapacitated. Again, this is a cruel truth, but also a pragmatic and survival based one.

Mental Point of Origin

Women’s mental point of origin begins with their own self-importance, and the overriding importance of their own and their offspring’s survival. I’ve had women readers lambast me that they couldn’t possibly be so influenced by solipsism because they put their children’s wellbeing before their own. However it is just this solipsism that predisposes women to seeing their children as extensions of themselves and their own identities. And the good news is that this dynamic is one reason the human species has been so successful.

The following was a comment from Starve the Beast on the TRP subredd:

Women are bad at reasoning, but good at rationalization.

Let that sink in for a minute. One cannot rationalize without the faculty for reason. So are women really bad at reasoning? No, actually they’re great at it.

The difference is that women don’t place as much value on Truth as they do upon self-preservation, and therefore their reasoning processes do not abort when self-contradiction is reached. They’ll just rationalize their way out of that too, if exposed.

Ultimately, the so-called hamster reflects an underlying difference in value systems more than in reasoning ability.

Women can learn to sublimate their solipsism. In fact, cultures and progressive societies have been founded on sublimating female solipsism. Women can and do learn critical thinking quite regularly. Women can learn and function within a society that forces them to compromise their sexual strategies and mitigates the worst abuses that solipsism would visit on men (and themselves). Women can learn to be empathetic towards men as well as live within a social order that looks like mutual justice and fairness.

But the fact that these civil dynamics should need to be something a woman learns only reinforces the biological and evolved influences of female solipsism as women’s mental point of origin. The parallel to this is men’s learning to sublimate intrinsic parts of themselves – primarily their sexuality – to reinforce prosocial interaction in society. 

Women dislike the idea that their experience is colored by solipsism. It sounds bad, and it runs counter to what they believe are sacrifices on their own part to help others. That may be so, and I’m certainly not going to attempt to discount those investments, but they come from a learned compassion that must overcome an innate solipsism. That ‘me and my babies first’ mental point of origin isn’t necessarily a bad thing either – it’s only when that learned compassion and humility are superseded by it that anti-social behaviors and hubris arise.

I expect the predictable criticism will be that men are also self-important, and / or all humans are intrinsically selfish fucks. In part II I’ll elaborate more on this, but for now it’s important to grasp that female solipsistic nature is less about selfish individualism and more about pragmatic survival.

Many a male reader of my Hierarchies of Love series grated against the idea that a conventional model of love would progress from Men to women, women to children, children to puppies, etc. That model is a direct reflection of a uniquely female solipsism that seemingly discards men’s reciprocal emotional investment in women. However it is also the same dynamic that predisposes women to desire men who can decisively control their environment as well as dominate them sexually and emotionally.

In part II I’ll outline more examples of feminine solipsism, how it’s reflected on the individual and societal level and how a man might best use an understanding of it to his advantage.

Jails & Churches


Slut Walkers & Soccer Moms

This picture has been making the rounds on Face Book recently. Last I looked it’d been shared about 89,000 times from the source I pulled it from. For the most part, what passes for some organized debate in most comment threads about this centered on a conflict between two factions of women – the responsible mothers and the ‘Slut Walk’ feministas faction of the femosphere.

Yes, ‘responsible mothers’ and Soccer Moms are in fact a very vocal part of the Feminine Imperative’s sphere of social control. It’s a mistake to believe women of a feminist bent are the only driving factor in influencing a feminine-primary social order. It’s not just grrrl-power demi-lesbians with fuschia hair, it’s that sensibly dressed lady in Target too. As I mentioned in last weeks post, Peak Hypergamy is yet to be settled, but until then the women who’s sexual strategy would best be served by keeping the ugliness of it secret will be at odds with women who proudly embrace open Hypergamy with gusto.

It’s easy to apply our Red Pill lens for such things as TV shows, popular music and media, and see the social undercurrent messaging of the Feminine Imperative, but there are some more subtle instances that need a proper lens focus on them. One trapping of the Red Pill lens is that aware men often overlook the more personal, more localized influence of the Feminine Imperative when they see the most public displays of it.

I’ve stated in prior posts that if you took a roomful of God-fearing traditionalist women and asked them if they identified as feminists the answers would range from “No” to a resounding “Hell no!” However, if you asked them specifics of how a woman’s role in society should be defined, what a woman’s obligations to a man ought to be, or in what way women’s influence in should be expressed in our culture (westernizing), then you would get your real answer.

Most traditionalist women would be appalled to be associated with anything bearing the Feminist® brand name, but still find themselves carrying the same flag when it comes to their rationalized beliefs. The ‘Sisterhood’ comes before all other considerations – be they politics, religion or personal interests – the Feminine Imperative is the common thread that underscores all intrasexual relations with women.

Tribe of the Sisterhood

In a social context, a principle strength of the Feminine Imperative is a presupposed, tribalistic sense of intrasexual belonging amongst women that transcends politics, race identity, religious conviction and ideology. We euphemistically refer to this dynamic as the sisterhood, but this female ‘belonging’ shares it’s roots in our foraging evolutionary past. Thus, women from starkly different cultures or socio-economic tiers still share that common theme of pre-known ‘oppression’ by the nebulous patriarchy.

One problem I have with recent rise of self-styled anti-feminist “Red Pill Women” is that while on the surface it appears that they are “pro-men”, the real impetus is that they are “anti-feminists”. In other words, their primary concern becomes one of opposing the methods and ideologies of how best to assert the influences of the Feminine Imperative they both ultimately serve. The common tribalism of the sisterhood is still present, but the applications of how best to instrument it is the source of that conflict.

This is what I believe we’re witnessing in debates of this nature; it is a conflict between women who’d be better served by keeping men confused and in doubt of the mechanics of Hypergamy versus women who believe they’d be better served in openly and proudly embracing Hypergamy. This is the primary reason women despise other women who are openly ‘Gold Diggers’ or ‘Attention Whores’, or even prostitutes – their method of optimizing their own hypergamous interests reveals their sex’s larger sexual strategy which they’d rather men not fully comprehend (until such time as they are ready to consolidate on men’s commitment).

It’s important that Red Pill men not be fooled into thinking that ‘traditionalist’ women are in anyway less predisposed to the influences of their sex’s imperatives. They’re not unique or better suited to a feminine role because of their ideology, they simply can’t afford to have sexual rivals with different methodologies competing for the same optimization of Hypergamy.

Social Saturation

This may seem an unlikely way to address the core issue of this notice to school administrators, but read me out here. There are two presumptions implied in this message. The first is the presumption that these school-age girls are being shamed by expecting them to adhere to some modicum of dressing to a certain standard – a standard they can expect once they exit school as well I should add.

The second is that these girls wearing shorts that are too short, and bra straps so noticeable as to draw attention from school administrators (God forbid a male teacher make such a judgement call) would be more concerned with the their educational prospects than influencing the boys in their environment is questionable.

And lastly the presumption is that boys of a certain age should be taught to control themselves to counter their synaptic wiring and biochemical responses and not ‘objectify’ the girls who take it upon themselves to dress provocatively.

These are relatively easy assessments to make about the intent of this note, however, what both factions of women debating this presume is a condition of feminine primacy. The feminine presumption is one that this school is nominally founded in male primacy – the girls distract the boys with their advertised sexuality – but the expectation is one based in the male Burden of Performance.

While it’s important for men to have an objective understanding of their burden of performance, it’s equally important for men to realize that women understand the utility of that burden and put it to their own opportunistic ends. In a feminine-primary perspective that burden translates into these boys needing to be taught to act against their biological impetus.

The shaming isn’t about girls having their education interrupted for wearing booty shorts or their tits pushed up by exposed bras; the implied shame is that these boys are not being instructed to understand that their burden is one of controlling the very biology that compels them to distraction. In a feminine-primary context the real “shame” should be on the boys who see girls (who are signaling sexual cues) as the sexual objects these girls are intentionally making of themselves.

The implied prioritization of undistracted education is presumed to be focused towards the males in the class, but the reality is that this education is taking place in a feminine-primary environment that is being inconvenienced by social standards.

The Feminine Expectation of Performance

Instead of adapting to the realities of their environment, women expect men to accommodate their sexual strategies and incorporate them into their accepted burden of performance.

CH maxim: The feminist goal is removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality

This goal is eminently more achievable when men are taught that it is an aspect of their Burden of Performance to self-restrict their sexuality for a feminine-primary purpose. It was recently brought up in last week’s comments that the rise in unfettered, openly acknowledged Hypergamy is (or is becoming) a comparable condition to men’s unrestricted sexuality. The contrast of course was flipping the script and considering what the results would be if it were men who’s sexual strategy was unrestricted to the degree Hypergamy has currently.

In an exaggerated feminine-primary context, women like to believe this was once the case. Granted the apex fallacy is rife in that presumption, but the Feminine Imperative needs to establish a preexisting notion that women must necessarily suffer in a masculine-primary social order. That’s the presumptive social context this note was crafted in. The truth of the matter is that the Feminine Imperative cannot afford for both women and men to believe anything different if it is to remain the primary social influence.

This presumption is what brings women of conflicting ideological bents together in solidarity despite their disagreements; there is always a common enemy, a common opposition, in the belief that it’s men who are calling the shots for them. And as I said, this apex fallacy presumption is universal in that it transcends ideology and religious convictions. Thus we see similar social conventions used to maximally restrict male sexuality in those same institutions.

Holistic Game had an interesting take on this restriction this week:

I was raised Southern Baptist, then moved on to some form of megachurch-style evangelical Christianity in high school. I felt that sex before marriage was sinful, that lust was evil, and that the female body was a source of lurid temptation. It was a constant struggle not to look at porn. I remember being in a men’s young adult service when I was 24 and the pastor asked, with heads bowed, if any man in the room hadn’t looked at porn. I peeked and realized no one had raised their hand – every man in the room had indulged at some point. Though I couldn’t grasp it at the time, I’ve since come to understand that there is no point in repressing natural human desire.

I certainly couldn’t contain my urges forever, and ended up losing my virginity later that year. I was teaching guitar to a hot blonde beach babe a couple years older than me, and we got drinks one night. We fooled around, tipsily, and after a few weeks of on-and-off gropings I finally decided to fuck her. After the act was completed, I sat on her deck and looked at the ocean and searched myself. I never imagined the staining of my chastity happening in such a fashion, but I had to face the reality that it had happened. I tried to be honest with myself, and to my surprise, I found that I didn’t feel guilty. At all. The one thing I’d tried to save, that seemed to matter so much to God and his plans, I’d wasted on a stupid blonde I’d end up dumping. I should have felt overwhelmed by holy conviction, but didn’t feel anything but normality. I felt like I was finally part of the human race. This lack of guilt was the crack in the foundation that eventually led to the shattering of the whole rotten edifice.

Holistic expounds on this experience into doubting the existence of God (which I honestly think is a shame), but it’s important to understand how this presumptive state of male social primacy, and the necessity to mandate chastity as a man’s Burden of Performance has effects that go well beyond a man self-limiting his participation in his sexual strategy.

I think a necessary stage in becoming Red Pill aware is truly understanding not just our preconditioning, but the social environment that condition takes place within. This acknowledgement needs to take place in order to really unplug; it cannot simply be an acceptance that a guy was raised into his Blue Pill circumstance, he must also recognize the social conditions he’s still operating within, and he must recognize how to avoid the pitfalls and make the changes he wants to see in that world.

In a Blue Pill, feminine-primary social order plugged in men are left to participate in two institutions: jails and churches. I can imagine the frustration Red Pill men must feel when they see their friends trapped in those institutions. They see their friends in an endless tail-chasing of a performance of their own doing, but a result of their ‘teachers’ investing it in them. They contort in an endless self-expectation to be better men by self-defeating the essence that make them men. Then they are punished for the slightest infraction of acceding to that male essence, not so much by the women they hope to perform for, but rather a disappointment in themselves for not living up to what they believe are their own self-developed expectations of a standard that only serves the feminine.

Yes I know my enemies, they’re the teachers who taught me to fight me.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,546 other followers