Tag Archives: society

Women Behaving Badly

behaving_badly

This week Black Poison Soul has decided that Hypergamy is less about the well established, biologically sound  and well-studied aspects of feminine Hypergamy and all about women behaving badly. For the most part this essay is so scattered, angst-ridden and poorly reasoned it hardly bears responding to – the author is obviously unfamiliar with the well documented biological, neurological and hormonal influences of ovulatory shift – however he does provide an excellent illustration of how sociological dynamics have also evolved to compensate for women’s inherent mating strategy:

Let’s look at it from a different angle. Let’s say that these characteristics attributed to hypergamy are simply learned bad behavior – or a lack of learned good behavior. Let’s say that these characteristics are becoming more commonly-noted because society has gotten a lot easier on women simply because they’re women (aka we give them the pussy pass).

Take a dog. It develops bad habits. Do you leave it with those bad habits? Shit no! You train it. Positive and negative reinforcement, depending upon what’s appropriate. Eventually you end up with a well-trained and well-behaved dog.

In the old days they had ways of controlling (training) their women. Punishments. Social ostracism which was a force that actually meant something. They were married young before they started messing around, then it became the new husband’s job to train and deal with her appropriately. Even boot her out if she was far too obstroperous, the children (if any) going to him because he had the income and could afford to raise them.

Hypergamy is an evolved sexual strategy that’s worked for women for millennia. The behaviors associated with women’s sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) is a deductive manifestation of Hypergamy. On a societal level, the very fact that men would need to effect social control of Hypergamy validates the inherency of Hypergamy in women.

In the past polygamy, arranged marriages, courting rituals, petitioning a father for permission to marry his daughter and many other traditions that are now characterized as oppressive and antiquated were direct contingencies for men’s ambient awareness of women’s innate predilection for Hypergamy. It’s interesting that BPS should analogize women as untrained dogs without considering a dog is still going to do what a dog’s going to do. The operative condition being that a dog is going to be motivated by what’s been coded into its instinctual firmware as a result of what’s been evolutionarily beneficial to the survival of the canine species. The operant conditioning is training that dog to perform desired behaviors counter to that instinct.

But, I get it, there’s a real want for men frustrated by women’s Hypergamously motivated behavior to effect control by appealing to notions of personal responsibility. BPS makes the common error of (indirectly) appealing to women’s reason, as the rationally independent agents, who should logically want to be personally responsible for their bad behavior, or need some extrinsic correcting of them. A lifelong conditioning of egalitarian equalism has taught them that women should be as equitably deductive as men.

Men shouldn’t need to train women to act in both sexes’ best interests; as rational agents they should want to do this of their own accord.

It just doesn’t make sense that women would publically express a logical interest in, and desire for the comfort, dependability, provisioning and nurturing of a devoted Beta, yet overtly behave counter to that sentiment during the proliferative phase of her ovulatory cycle by directly inviting the sexual attentions of the most Alpha men her attractiveness can afford her.

What BPS has inadvertently illustrated here is the base conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:

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

For the better part of human history, by violence or by social convention, men controlled, and instinctually understood, women’s Hypergamous natures. By rape, religion or resources men effectively made women compromise their sexual strategy. In fact to be a man was to understand one’s social station as being above, and responsible for, directing that of women’s.

Prior to the advent of courtly love, bastardized chivalry and romanticism being promoted to the highest ideal of love, Hypergamy was very pragmatically controlled by men. Dalrock has published some very convincing material on how romantic love has dethroned this old-order practical model.

What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage.  Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage.  This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.

Lifetime marriage, with separate defined roles for husband and wife and true commitment is what makes sex and romantic love moral in the biblical view.  In our new view, romantic love makes sex moral, and the purpose of marriage is to publicly declare that you are experiencing the highest form of romantic love.  Thus people now commonly refer to a wedding as “making our love official”.

The gradations we now apply to romantic love are symptomatic of the problem.  We take great care to distinguish between “pure love” or “true love” and mere “infatuation” or “puppy love”.

[…] Because it is love and not marriage which now confers morality upon sex, sex outside of marriage is now considered moral so long as you are in love.  Thus we have the modern harlot’s defense/anthem “but we were in love!”

When you remove the moral connotations, what Dal describes here is an excellent parallel to the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies. On a meta-societal scale, contemporary men have abdicated any claim to directing the process of how or with whom their genetic legacy will be preserved. And while the Feminine Imperative will expend great efforts to convince men, socially and legalistically, that their involvement in that decision making process isn’t important, on a societal level the fact remains – men must be made to (sometimes forcibly) abandon their sexual strategy and their genetic interests in favor of feminine Hypergamy.

One reason a father would symbolically ‘give’ his daughter away to her husband as part of the marriage ritual was a tacit acknowledgment of his approval of this man’s quality and direction of his genetic potential. Similarly, a suitor asking a father’s permission to marry his daughter was part of the qualification. In both instances, there is a presumption of a male-directed process of directing a woman’s Hypergamy and prospectively directing his involvement with that new family. The presumption was one that men would directly influence feminine Hypergamy.

As human society evolved a precedence for romantic, feminine-controlled Hypergamy gradually supplanted this male-directed Hypergamy. I’ve written in the past of how courtly love’s bastardization of the original intent of chivalry was indirectly designed to be the feminism of the middle ages. By co-opting men’s sense of chivalric honor with feminine social importance, (if not primacy) the Feminine Imperative gradually established the social conventions that would lead to a feminine-primary direction of Hypergamy.

Romantic, feminine-defined love progressively delegitimized the old-order, male-directed definition of love. Marriage ceased to be the condition in which romantic love could be experienced and was supplanted by the prerequisite of a romantic love condition in order for a marriage to be legitimized. In so doing the meta-social dynamic of the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies shifted to feminine control.

At this point, I should note that the socially legitimized definition of love is not the same as each sex’s concept of love which is mirrored in either sex’s evolved sexual strategies. It’s important to remember the latent purpose of ensuring control over Hypergamy is the motive of forcing the romantic definition on a larger social order to the benefit of the feminine sexual strategy.

For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon its own. In the old-order, men controlled  and directed Hypergamy to a large extent and women had to compromise their strategy. In a post-sexual revolution social order, where women have effected a socially mandated, unilateral control over the direction of Hypergamy, a majority of men are forced to abandon their sexual strategy, and even the elite minority must eventually compromise their own. Legally, socially and psychologically men are expected to relinquish any claim to directing their own sexual strategy while deferring to women’s Hypergamy. Today, women qualify men for their Hypergamy with a right swipe on a Tinder profile.

The frustration BPS is writing about stems from the Old Set of Books expectation that women are predisposed to the functional, equitable equivalents of men’s rational based decision-making. The evolutionary nature of Hypergamy makes any notion of equalitarianism a recipe for men’s frustration. Hypergamy isn’t just a label, it’s a useful term for the very real dynamic of women’s sexual strategy.

BPS isn’t the first guy in the manosphere to blame men for their complicity in women behaving badly in their hypergamic interests. He’s lamenting a lack of men’s control over Hypergamy by making appeals to how it was in the good ole days and how men need to put their foot down and demand women to shape up or else they’ll stop playing their game. It’s bad men who permit women to behave badly and raise the next generation of yet more boys and girls who’ll behave even worse.

This then leads to the very appealing concept of personal responsibility – men are responsible for women’s irresponsibility, and exploring the nature of Hypergamy seems to only amount to a “the devil biology made her do it” excusability for that irresponsibility.

 

The Devil Biology Made Me Do It

A large part of the red pill perspective leans on evolutionary psychology. Of course evo-psych isn’t the only factor in red pill awareness, but for the vast majority of Game deniers (people unaware of the origins of their conditions) this poses a problem of convenience. When the revelations of evo-psych agree with our comfortable social models and ego-investments we’re all too happy to embrace the science. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature, the reaction is to either question the ‘science’ or blame the moral conviction, resolve and character of the person/people expressing that aspect of human nature.

[…]Hypergamy (an evolved species-survival schema) doesn’t care about personal conviction, freewill or definitions of moral behavior, it just is.  So in the interests of perpetuating the best interests of one sex (and by extension the entire species) social and cultural norms fluidly evolve around it to accommodate what’s really an uncomfortable aspect of our humanity. Can Hypergamy be controlled? Can men’s sexual impulses be tempered? Of course, but not without the effort of freewill, conviction and social structures. I know of precious few men who’ve blamed their infidelity or sexual impulsivity solely upon their biological makeup. With the exception of the more natural Alphas, more often than not it was a carefully calculated (Game) and coordinated event.


The Remedial Red Pill

feminism-men-300x300

As of this post there are now 400 essays on Rational Male. And if there’s one thing that writing for as long as I have in what’s now known as the manosphere has taught me is the difficulty of having to initiate new readers to old concepts. When we get down and dirty in the commentary on a particular topic I tend to assume most commenters are familiar with at least the core concepts I’ve presented over the years and those who aren’t usually ask me for a link they probably could’ve found just by perusing the sidebar links, categories or a quick term search to see what I’ve post about a particular topic.

Still, this doesn’t seem to placate the disease of attention deficit disorder common to people who want to find whatever fault they can to defend the narrative they’ve invested themselves in. The problem then becomes one not unlike playing whack-a-mole where I’ve got to post links in comments or tweets I can only hope the critic will actually have the temerity and patience to read. Usually it comes back to TL;DR and they never really consider a rebuttal to their ‘Gotcha’ that I covered, in some cases, a decade ago.

As the manosphere and Red Pill awareness go more mainstream I expect this intellectual lethargy to increase on the part of those who are ego-invested in the continuance of a feminine-primary social order. As I’ve posted before,…ahem, the Red Pill is a Threat to the comfort and certainty of men and women conditioned to be dependent on its continuance:

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

I’m proud to say that the comments in the last post reached a record high of over 700. And while I’m appreciative of that it does have the unfortunate effect of burying some really interesting commentary deep in the thread. Towards the 5th page of comments I got the following post from a commenter going by the handle ‘Alpha Female’. The consequent posts were a screed of what even the newest of Red Pill men can recognize as standard Gender Studies Major boilerplate.

I can’t say as I was surprised to see ‘Alpha Female’s’ comment on this week’s post since I was already aware of her previous foaming rant on the Women in Love post under the telling monicker of ‘The Best Thing You’ll Never Have’.

Against my better judgement I’m going to pick her comment apart here for this week’s discussion. Just so you know, I’m fully aware this is feeding a blatant troll. I also understand that Ms. Alpha lacks the critical thinking skills and curiosity to make even a cursory attempt to search for any of the 399 prior posts (a third of which I wrote for SoSuave over a decade ago) that might actually give her pause to think I’d covered them before.

Try not to think of this as a courtesy to Alpha Female, her argumentative style is one of presuming personal truths that fit her ego centered reality are the universally accepted ones. Think of this as more of a remedial lesson in Red Pill theory/ideology/practice and background for those new to Red Pill awareness.

Feel free to pick apart any or all of her initial list below in the comment thread. You can pick up the old thread to see where her rabbit hole goes here, but as you’ll probably expect most of the conversation revolves her own personal experiences and veers off into “ooh ooh, men do it too” and “people are all different, society sucks” tangents. Like most bad debaters, she flits from one issue to another when a snare she wasn’t expecting to conflict with her ‘correct’ reality holds her on that challenge for too long.

1. Equalitarian and “female-primary” social orders are not synonymous nor interchangeable. I assume you know the definition of equalitarian, yet you are using the term interchangeably to mean a female dominant social order. First example of flawed reasoning in this article.

Actually the only error is in AF not having searched the term “equalism” here, but keep that in mind, it’s going to come up often in this post. I’ve covered egalitarian equalism both here and here.

She is correct though, they shouldn’t be synonymous or interchangeable, but unfortunately the Feminine Imperative, and its predominant social arm of feminism, has conflated them both to serve a purpose for going on 70 years now. Universalism and Equalism have been the cover story to sell a feminine-primary social order since the late 60s.

It would be very simple if, as she constantly parrots, the definition of equalitarianism was only limited to a belief in ‘equal rights’ for all. Very few people are going to argue against that ideology, but the fact is that her ego-preferred definition has been contorted to be a useful tool of the Feminine Imperative.

The social veneer of ‘equalism’ was a necessary social convention in recruiting men to disavow their conventional masculinity (which later would be redefined by the feminine for them in later generations to better fit women’s dualistic sexual strategy) as well as their self-interests and adopt the idea that a nebulous ‘society’, and more specifically a Patriarchal one, was the source of gender roles they were told they should find oppressing.

Thus the synonymous association of a ‘faux equalist’ equalitarianism was paired with feminine social primacy. Equalism is simply the religion of feminism because it can hide the more egregious aspects of its agenda (unfettered Hypergamy for instance) behind a social convention that very few people would want to ‘be against’ – those who are are easily ostracized as “backwards” anachronisms by way of that definition. So the “flawed reasoning” really comes down to the semantics of the fluid definition the Feminine Imperative has prepared for women like AF to use and the observable facts of the utility it serves the Feminine Imperative.

Feminism has never been concerned with true egalitarian equality. Feminism has only ever been an effort in retribution and restitution. Our present social state of Open Hypergamy and feminist triumphalism is an indictment of that fact.

2. “The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.” There is evidence that exactly this is true.

This is interesting, because she cites no evidence. That’s because there is exactly zero evidence this is the case and increasingly science is proving exactly the opposite, much to the ideological discomfort of “equalists”. Men and women’s brains are literally wired differently (if she’d had the curiosity to look at this link I provided in the post she found so offensive she’d know this).

But we don’t even need those studies to grasp this most basic of human truths – we already know that men and women’s biochemistry and endocrinology work and affect their respective sex’s bodies and minds differently. Whether it’s the dominant presence of estrogen, progesterone and oxytocin in women or the dominant presence of testosterone in men, the body state – behavioral effects and emotional stimulus of those hormones make us fundamentally different beings – and that’s a good thing.

Complementarianism benefits women and men.

Furthermore, each sex evolved into different gender roles according to these biological predilections. We can split hairs as to which sex should be more suited for higher order vocations based on intellect and personal merit, but the obvious fact that men are more physically suited to certain tasks, and women are also similarly suited to other tasks – yet both complement the other – is inescapable.

Part of the evolved male neurological firmware is a natural aptitude to accurately and forcefully throw an object from a very early age – an evolved behavior necessary for survival and hunting. Yes, girls can be taught to throw as or more effectively than a boy with the right training, but it’s the natural unlearned aptitude boys have that puts the lie to the “we’re all born the same” blank slate trope.

So the question then becomes one of determining which sex’s strategy stands to benefit most from advocating for a belief that all humans are a blank slate, biology is meaningless and all gender is a social construct. Which sex has their interests served in lowering the bar and “leveling the playing field” to become more like the other?

Examine how being transgender impacts someone’s gender. You believe in a heteronormative gender binary which clouds your judgment and makes you incapable of understanding how gender relates to power dynamics in society. Until you can grasp that gender is defined by more than genitals, you will continue to write this complete and utter tripe that disparages women for the sake of helping you feel superior (which a truly superior person would not do).

Transgenderism is a mental disorder:

In the vast majority of cases, children who say they’re transgender and act that way change their minds about being the opposite sex—if you just leave them alone.According to a recent Hastings Center report, gender dysphoria does not persist into adulthood in up to 73 to 94 percent of cases  (citing the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which noted dysphoria continuing in only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls.)

[…] Heyer’s blog cites a national survey of more than 6,500 transgenders that asked the question, “Have you tried to commit suicide?” Forty-one percent answered, “Yes.” That’s astonishingly more than the national average of less than 2 percent. Virtually all people who attempt suicide are suffering from some form of mental disorder or depression. So it should seem clear that blaming society for that depression will not address the dysphoria and depression an individual feels.

The term “heteronormative” is a common trope taught by Gender Studies academia with the latent purpose of canonizing a new definition of the term by demonizing and marginalizing the fundamental truth that gender finds its ‘normative’ condition in an evolved ‘hetero’sexual biology – and yes, that is a binary, one from which you cannot escape. Just ask the 41 precent of depressed and suicidal transgendered people about their attempts to escape it.

The roots of gender are written into your DNA.That hetero normative state is responsible for producing you. Try as you may to convince yourself socially or psychologically it’s otherwise, you will never escape the biomechanic foundation that influences your motivations as a man or a woman.

With regard to how gender influences social dynamics, the Red Pill is the direct result of, and logical contingency to the feminine-primary social engineering the Feminine Imperative has instated into society over the last 70 years. If it weren’t for that foundational recognition of feminine-primary social power by the Red Pill you wouldn’t be reading this blog.

I do agree on this, gender is far more than genitals. Once an ideologically ‘correct’ form androgyny and egalitarian equalism enter the public sphere, the biological influences on gender determines who will play the perpetual victim and who must play the role of victimizer.

3. “It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways.” All people experience life in different ways. You are overvaluing the common experiences that you have with men and undervaluing the common experiences you have with women. The binary that you use to define your superiority is again hampering your ability to understand that you are not defined by gender and your experiences will never perfectly align with any other human being’s experiences and that you share lots of common experiences with BOTH men and women.

AF’s out of context quote only makes my preceding point for me:

I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.

I found this interesting considering that it entirely contradicts point 2 – if gender is self or socially assigned and we’re all alike (blank slate) independent of biology this then precludes independent differences since we’re all supposed to have some ‘enlightened’ higher-self capacity to rise above them. In other words all people should be inherently bisexual and born with the capacity to fluidly transition from one set of arousal cues to the opposite in any given environment. Androgyny should be the normative in that model. Yet we find that in nature androgyny and homogeny lead to evolutionary dead ends

But if that’s true then homosexuals, and heterosexuals aren’t born the way they are, they’re behaviorally conditioned into their sexual alignments and gender roles by “society“, right?

Individuals do experience life in different ways, but each of those individuals are still subject to their biologically determined physical influences and the environments they find themselves in.

4. Hypergamy is conflated in your mind with gender, when it is absolutely normal for people in both genders (and not all people in either gender) to branch swing from one mate to the next based on perceived value or sexual attraction. Males engage in this behavior all the time. Not withstanding the obvious mountain of evidence you have at your disposal to verify the fact that I’m stating, it is indisputable that the incidence of infidelity in males is higher than in females, yet you claim women cannot “love” a man in the same way that a man “loves” a woman.

Hypergamy is the biologically influenced normative state of females to prefer men of a sexual market value above their own perceived sexual market value.

This metric is determined (again) by the inescapable biological realities of the influence women’s hormonal and menstrual cycles, and the evident behavioral effects play on their sexual selection strategies. The influences of women’s innate ovulatory shift behaviors and preferences define the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks sexual strategy on both the personal and societal level.

Remember the usefulness of the “equalitarian” term as defined by the Feminine Imperative we discussed above? Women’s innate, biologically determined and sex-specific Hypergamy is where that conflation finds its purpose. AF makes the same comparison to men’s sexual selectivity being itself a form of hypergamy because she fundamentally clings to her ego-investment that ‘all are equal’ and men’s sexual strategy serves the same purpose as women’s. It is not and it does not, and any basic knowledge of parental investment theory as well as the biological realities of men’s reproductive methods once again put the lie to her assertions. Men quantity, women quality, and no one’s ugly after 2am.

Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time. Neither can they sell Open Hypergamy and the premise of egalitarian equalism – particularly when AF’s feminine-primary boilerplate is refuted by statistics taken after the advent of unilaterally feminine controlled hormonal birth-control.

You see, it’s was a useful trope that men cheat more than women when Hypergamy was more socially concealed, but in an age of unrestricted, socially mandated Open Hypergamy the only question that remains is whether a man will choose to be cuckolded before or after he’s invested himself personally, emotionally and financially in monogamy with a woman who’s looking for an “equal partnership” (now that she’s less able to arouse the Alpha bad boys she’s happy to tell him about).

But, wait, if we’re all ‘equal’ and the plumbing doesn’t matter, wouldn’t men and women cheat equally?

5. ‘“I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.’ And yet asexual men exist, which directly contradicts the anecdotal evidence you use to support your non-fact based argument that men are simply horny all the time and are therefore experiencing a condition that women cannot even begin to fathom. I mean when you write this tripe, you are well aware of the many logical fallacies that you use to justify your beliefs, are you not? I hope you are. And if your response is “Well those asexual men are just exceptions to the rule” or “hyper sexual women are the exception to the rule” is simply to say that “I know my theory has been disproved but I would rather ignore the facts and evidence that do not support my claim in favor of plowing on so that I can continue to demean females with my outdated 15th century mindset.”

Put an ‘asexual’ man in the private room at the Spearmint Rhino in Vegas and we’ll see how ‘asexual’ he really is. Again, ‘asexuality’ is an evolutionary dead-end. Only in our present social state of enlightenment do we entertain the “equalist” notion that an ‘asexual’ person in anyway represents anything significant to human development.

However AF still doesn’t grasp that the ‘anecdotal’ example I give here has been repeated in every woman who’s taken anabolic steroids, and every woman ever proscribed hormone therapy to aid her flagging libido and mood swings after menopause. It’s a good thing gynecologists and endocrinologists don’t share her opinion that we’re all the same except for the plumbing. It’s interesting that we’ll prescribe hormone therapy for menopausal women and transexuals, but we’re expected to accept that ‘asexuality’ is normative and not an ill.

I should also add that AF has very poor debate skills.

6. “So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s.” Your logic is inherently flawed, [presuming the condition] and then you make an assertion that there should be a logical conclusion that the assumptions you have not and cannot prove [already present in the post] should mean that all women experience relationships in exactly the same way [what part of individuated experience did I lose you on?] .

Let me make a correlation. [I reject your reality and replace it with my own] I am reading misogynistic psychobabble from overly emotional men [projecting bias] that demeans women and places them in a position beneath men [implied nowhere in the essay, and in fact I concede that women do love deeply based on their opportunistic criteria] based solely on their genital composition [“equalist’ binary presumption and again not implied in the post] , so I conclude based on this evidence (and my evidence is actually supported so it is very different from your flawed premise [support that is never supplied and expected to be presumed as valid] ) that all men view women as inferior beings that are not worthy of equal treatment. [presuming a truth. treatment is not to be conflated with expectations of stimulus to predicted behavior]

That is the logic you use, and it is absolutely worthless. [straw men always nod their heads in agreement with your reality] The saddest thing about it is that people with this mindset purport to be pseudo-intellectuals and use junk science to support their claims [still waiting on your non-junk science] while men of lower intellect just eat it up because it makes them feel all rough and tough and superior for a while. [yes, because spending hours a day reading a blog is a better high than getting drunk or going out to do something productive]

Group think is a terrible and scary thing, [you’re right about that] as this blog proves time and time again.

Final note: I realized in the time it took to compile this that Alpha Female is really an comment thread attention whore who’s need for catharsis over her sadly Hyena-like marriage motivates her to write stream-of-consciousness diatribes to support truths she needs to support her ego-investments and self-image.


Controlling Interests

controlling

I realize I dropped this quote last week, but it provides us with a unique illustration of the prevailing feminine psychology that’s been evolving since the sexual revolution.

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

In last week’s post I made note that Sheryl Sandberg was blissfully ignorant of her blatant admission of feminine hypergamy, but I felt her ‘advice’ to women here represented so much more than just a display of her solipsistic ignorance.

For as long as I’ve butted heads with many obstinate deniers of hypergamy’s influences, on women personally and society on whole, I’m not sure I’ve read a more damning indictment of hypergamy from a more influential woman. Sandberg’s advice to the next generation of women essentially puts the lie to, and exposes the uncomfortable truth about, women’s efforts deny the fundamental dynamic of female sexual strategy – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

Even if you want to argue the evolutionary (psychology) and biological origins of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, the fact is now socially evident; women have come to a point where they’re comfortable in openly admitting the truth that Red Pill awareness has been drawing attention to for over a decade now.

Courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg, the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks basis of women’s sexual pluralism is now publicly recognized. It’s kind of ironic considering that what the manosphere has been trying to make men aware of for years is now being co-opted, embraced and owned as if women had always practiced an open sexual pluralism – incredulous to any man’s shock over it.

However, the truth is that a feminine-centric social order can no longer hide the increasingly obvious fallout and consequences of a society restructured to accommodate women as the predominant sexual interest.

Last week I speculated that Sandberg was ignorant of the feminine-primary implications that her statements draw attention to – and I’m still of the opinion that an innate feminine solipsism motivates more and more women to this admission – but it’s impossible to ignore the new degree of comfort in which women feel in laying bare their dualistic sexual strategy.

To some significant extent the Feminine Imperative no longer needs to keep the ‘Good Genes’ / ‘Good Dad’ dichotomy ugliness a secret from men.

In last week’s post I mentioned that a new ambient sense of an assured long-term security in the feminine mind was predisposing women to prioritize the ‘Best Genes’ (Alpha Fucks) side of feminine hypergamy. Sandberg’s ‘advice’ is a vital confirmation of this, however, she tacitly acknowledges a window of  opportunity during which women possess a better capacity to pursue this side of hypergamy:

The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner.

In these two sentences Sheryl (and by extensions the Feminine Imperative) essentially confirms women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, my (now infamous) sexual market value graph depicting women’s peak SMV and decay, and the first half of the time line of women’s phases of maturity I laid forth in the first two installments of the Preventative Medicine series.

Selling the Beta

With regards to men, I believe the most salient part of Sandberg’s admission is found at the end:

These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.

For the better half of the time since the sexual revolution it was necessary for the Feminine Imperative to convince a majority of men that their eventual Beta providership for women was not only their duty, but also a prime aspect of feminine attraction. As I mentioned last week, under the (pre-sexual revolution) old-order attraction model this may have been the case to a large degree. However after the revolution, and as women’s hypergamy prioritized towards ‘Good Genes’ short-term sexual partners, the ‘Good Dad’ (Beta Bucks) men needed an ever increasing ‘sell’ of their own attractiveness by women.

This persistent sell was a necessary element of ensuring a future long-term security for women while pursuing increasingly more short-term breeding opportunities as feminine-primacy expanded into society. The future ‘Good Dads’ would need to be patiently waiting out women’s “indiscretion years” during their SMV peak, so the sell became an ever-evolving definition of what women found attractive in men based on that old-order model of dependability, patience, industriousness, and every other characteristic that defined a good provider.

Quoted from Why Muscularity is Sexy:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

Strategic pluralism theory is a pretty good definition of feminine hypergamy, but what this theory hadn’t yet accounted for (at the time it was published) was the necessitousness of women with regards to short-term mating strategies and long-term parental investment opportunities over the course of the various phases of maturity as they aged.

The Beta investment sell was necessary because it ensured male parental investment at a later (usually just-pre-Wall) time in a woman’s life. Thus, Sandberg’s praise of men “who think women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. [Men] who value fairness and expect or, even better, want to do his share in the home” will eventually be sexier than the Alpha “bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys” she encourages women to fuck earlier in life is an excellent example of this sell.

Ironically it’s exactly with this sell that women encourage the very transactional nature of sexual relations with men they’re screeching about recently. It’s the Choreplay fallacy on a meta scale – do more around the house, play into the equalitarian schema women think they need in a provider, support her ambitiousness and opinionatedness and you’ll be considered “sexier” and get her Best Sex she’s been saving just for a guy like this.

Building the Beta

The problem the Feminine Imperative runs into with selling the Beta is that as women’s “independence” expands this sell becomes less necessary and less effective. Less necessary because women’s personal, social and legal long-term security insurances have become almost entirely disconnected from men’s direct (not indirect) provisioning. Less effective because men have become increasingly aware of their disenfranchisement of the old-order provisioning model as being something they might equitably be rewarded for.

As the consequences and repercussions of women’s hypergamous priority shift to Alpha Fucks become more evident and real for men; and as their capacity and comfort with connecting and relating these experiences with other men becomes more widespread, the less effective the sell is for Beta men awaiting their turn to enter into a pre or post Wall monogamy with the women attempting the sell.

Throughout the 70’s, 80’s and most of the 90’s, the sell was effective because men were isolated socially and technologically from each other’s relative experiences. From the late 90’s onward that isolation has diminished while the societal results of feminine-primacy have become more glaringly, and painfully, evident to men.

In its ever-reinventive fluidity, the Feminine Imperative found it necessary to transition from selling men on being later and later life long-term providers for women into building a generation of men who would expect of themselves to fulfill that role when the time came. These men would be raised and conditioned to be the patient Beta providers women would need once they had followed the Sandberg model of hypergamy.

These would be the boys / men who would be taught to “naturally” defer to the authority of women under the auspices of a desire to be an equal partner.

These are the men raised privately and created socially to be ready for women, “when it comes time to settle down, and find someone who wants an equal partner.”

These would be the men ready to expect and accept a woman’s proactive cuckoldry of him in the name of being a pro-feminine equal.

These are the men raised to accept an open form of hypergamy in place of the selling to an old-order Beta provisioning model.

The Hypergamy Schism

The problem this creates for women becomes one of dealing with the men they need to sell a secretive hypergamy to and the men they build to accept an open form of hypergamy to. The increasing comfort with an open admission of hypergamy is relative to a woman’s capacity to get away with it.

A woman like Sheryl Sandberg has the means to decisively ensure her future independence and long-term security (at least in the financial sense) whether she’s married or not. She could very well return to the Bad Boys she found so arousing and advises women ‘date’ and never rely on a man’s direct provisioning. As such she’s very comfortable in publicly revealing the ins and outs of post-sexual revolution hypergamy without so much as an afterthought.

While she publicly affirms the build model of Beta provisioning (under the guise of equalism) and expects “those guys will be awaiting you” this doesn’t hold true for a majority of women. Women with affluence enough, or a physical attractiveness sufficient to virtually ensure their future provisioning are much more comfortable with the build a better Beta model than women who find themselves more lacking in this assurance.

The more necessitous a woman finds herself in the sexual marketplace, the more likely she is to deny the mechanics of her own hypergamy.

A woman less confident in consolidating on her future long-term security (and / or cooperative parental investment) has a much more personal investment in keeping the truths of hypergamy a secret from men. As such, these women will be more predisposed to misdirecting the men becoming more aware of this truth and relying more on the selling model of Beta provisioning.

Needless to say this split between women comfortable in open hypergamy and women reliant upon secretive hypergamy is a point of conflict between the have’s and have not women in the sexual marketplace. The more men become aware of women’s hypergamy and strategic sexual pluralism, through women’s open embrace of it or the manosphere, the more pressure the ‘have not’ women will feel to also embrace that openness.


Women Talk, Men Do

talk

Towards the end of last week’s comment thread there were some very insightful questions about how Men and women communicate.

Jeremy:

Honestly, [Stingray], I’ve never met a woman who actually wanted…”deep meaningful conversations, often.” I think this is another lie that women tell themselves. What women seem to want, conversationally, is an authority figure. They want someone who can talk for hours about things they have no understanding of. They want to be intellectually dazzled more than participate in a “deep meaningful conversation.”

[…] To be honest, and this will sound like I’m being arrogant, most women I’ve spent any time conversing with are poorly-read, lacking creative thoughts, and have an abysmal understanding of politics and the world at large. Having said that, I still can’t stand it when women say nothing on a date.

Yohami:

”deep meaningful conversations” for a woman, means “emotional stuff about how I feel and what I want”, “reaffirmation and validation of my viewpoints” and of course “entertain me with stories that show me your character and make me feel good about myself for being with you”

So of course they want that often.

jf12:

Yohami, deep doesn’t mean just telling her how you feel about her feelings, it means also helping her to uncover her inner goodness in the way that she agonized for almost a few moments when she betrayed one friend at the expense of another. In other words, you hold your metaphorical conch of an echo chamber to her metaphorical ear and its solipsistic otoacoustic emissions, and she can hear what she wants to hear, deeply.

Stingray:

Woman are not good at and hate what men mean by a deep meaningful conversation. The argument and debate, presenting and then criticizing ideas, and the ad hominems (that so often you all can then get up from the table and it is ALL over). That is not our idea of deep conversation at all. Then the feelings are NOT good and most women hate it.

Deti:

And the last thing a woman wants in a “deep, meaningful conversation is for the guy to talk about things important to HIM or, even worse, about HIS feelings. HIS feelings, wants, needs, and desires are the LAST things she wants to talk about because that’s so….beta.

The best male friends I have share one or more common interests with me – a sport, a hobby, music, art, fishing, lifting, golf, etc. – and the best conversations I can remember with these friends occurred while we were engaged in some particular activity or event. Even just moving a friend into his new house; it’s about accomplishing something together and in that time relating about shit. When I lived in Florida some of the best conversations I had with my studio guys were during some project we had to collaborate on for a week or two.

Women, make time with the express purpose of talking between friends. Over coffee perhaps, but the act of communication is more important than the event or activity. Even a ‘stitch-and-bitch’ is simply an organized excuse to get together and relate. For women, communication is about context. They are rewarded by how that communication makes them feel. For Men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the interchange of information and ideas.

Women talk, Men do.

Josey Wales:

Women typically don’t give a shit about world affairs, history, etc. They just don’t seem interested in pondering, learning about, debating the big issues.

There has to be a bio/evo explanation for this, and my best guess is that women’s concerns/interests have always been more provincial, localized and trivial. Picture a bunch of women sitting around a campfire hen party cluck session in primitive societies… Sharing gossip as they threshed the grain or made clothes.

I’m inclined to agree this. It’s no secret that men and women’s brains are wired differently, but what’s interesting is the complementarity between between both sex’s brains. It’s a mistake to think that women’s neural predilections for emotion and intuitiveness is inherently a weakness or a liability, but it’s equally a mistake to think that men’s dispositions towards rationalism, problem solving and inventiveness.

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.”

This pretty much confirms men and women’s communicative methods I outlined in The Medium is the Message:

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that in our hunter-gatherer tribal roles had a hand in men and women’s communication differences. Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort; in fact the earliest cave paintings were essentially records of a successful hunt and instructions on how to do it. Early men’s communication would necessarily have been content driven discourse or the tribe didn’t eat.

Similarly women’s communications would’ve been during gathering efforts and childcare. It would stand to reason that due to women’s more collectivist roles they would evolve to be more intuitive, and context oriented, rather than objective oriented. A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predispositions is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.

Men Like Women

When a man attempts to communicate like a woman (context-primary), women associate him with the feminine (i.e. he talks like a woman). This subconsciously indicates to her that a guy is Beta and making concessions of his maleness to better identify with the feminine. When you read about angry women feeling duped by the Nice Guy, who was only ‘playing nice’ in order to earn her intimacies, that deception is rooted in a guy relating to women as a woman would.

As you’re probably guessing, with the rise of social feminization, post-sexual revolution, men have been socialized and acculturated to express themselves increasingly as a woman would. This is part of boys-men’s earliest feminine conditioning; a calculated effort by the Feminine Imperative to train men to communicate as women do. I call this men’s “sensitivity training”, but in essence it’s a social effort to force men to rewire their brains to better accommodate a feminine-primary society. “Get in touch with your feminine side”, is really a plea for men to contort their natural ways of communicating into a feminine aligned mode of communicating.

The results however are very much the same as the faux-nice guy effect I describe. There is a subtle disingenuousness that the feminine mind perceives when a man communicates as a woman would. Alpha Men wouldn’t care enough to accommodate women’s communication preferences.

Incongruent communication styles is a tough obstacle for blue pill men to overcome when transitioning to red pill Game-awareness. The sincerity they hope to convey to women about their intentions is incongruous with how women’s limbic understanding of male communication style works. Men are men, because they talk ‘like men’ and are concerned with what Men are concerned with. Granted, the socialization of men to be more feminine-oriented doesn’t do a man any favors in unlearning this, but overcoming the fear of asserting himself as a Man and communicating to a woman as a Man would is imperative.

As most of the male commenters above will attest, there comes a point (usually for older, mature men with the experience to know) where forcing himself to relate to a woman on her terms is simply exhausting. It becomes mentally taxing to maintain interest – at some point men will want to speak their own language, feminine-primacy be damned, but it’s when he does revert back to his native gender language that he becomes more attractive.

When a Man drops the pretense of catering to the feminine, this is when he sets himself apart as a truly masculine agent. He is unapologetically masculine, and that is the mark of an Alpha – to not bend over into the feminine to better identify himself with the feminine. There is strength(and tingles) in our differences from women. So if you’re a newly red pill Man, start making efforts to consciously identify where you’re aligning yourself, your beliefs, your personality with accommodating the feminine and start unapologetically shifting them to a masculine-primary purpose.


The New Thin

new_thin

My Reddit Q&A on Monday generated a lot of good questions:

Ever notice on Facebook, when ever an average/fugly/fat chick post’s her picture you have like ten women (only women) chime in with their comments under the picture saying stuff like “HOT!” “you’re so pretty!” “damn you look good” when in fact she isn’t?!

Are women trying to make their not so attractive friend feel better about herself?! Or is there another scheme involved here of setting the bar low in order to boast their own attractive scale up.

I see, hear and read this constantly. What we’re observing however is a carefully constructed feminine social convention, and a feminine-combative one at that. By tacitly reinforcing the “good looks” of an obviously overweight woman with positive compliments, the latent message is that she doesn’t need to improve her looks to attract men. The truth of course is that she could be semi-fuckable after dropping another 15 pounds, but in telling her she’s hot ‘as-is’ the idea, in the form of an encouraging compliment, is to get her to relax and stay fat. Thus the complimenter(s) simultaneously feel relaxed in their fat.

It’s really a socialization attempt by less physically appealing women to regulate the sexual market in favor of themselves.

I can remember experiencing this firsthand long before the advent of social media. In the days I worked in the resort casino industry, I was in the lunchroom with the largely (heh) female advertising department and the conversation came up about how some woman in accounting was “too thin” or she need to gain some weight. I emphatically disagreed; I knew the woman they were going on about and she could’ve lost 10 pounds and still been overweight. The ladies lost their shit when I said she could stand to lose a few pounds and hit the gym more often. The hens practically pounded the table with their fists and the accusations of misogyny, and the old chestnuts about men’s “shallow” desires for the physical all flew wild and furious.

You see all the women at the table were as heavy if not heavier than the woman in question. I had insulted the herd by association.

The funny thing about body image is that most people tend to judge obesity based on their own physique. If you’re overweight and your regular peer group is fatter than you, you tend to think you’re “normal”. It’s similar to eating a donut from a box someone’s brought to work for all to enjoy. If one person is eating a donut it tacitly gives others “permission” to enjoy one too.

I was once at a distillery in Panama with a group of Dutch people I work with and a stunningly attractive Panamanian secretary asked me if I was Dutch. I told her, no, I was American and she said “oh, you don’t ‘look’ American. I laughed at this for a minute and asked her what an American ‘looks’ like and she said, “well, they’re all fat.” I took it as a compliment, but I had to agree with her.

Books and Covers

You can’t judge a book by it’s cover, but more often than not, it’s a good indicator of what the story’s about. An attractive cover should make the reader want to read it.

Women have far more rigid prerequisites for what makes an acceptable man for an LTR than men do for women. Women base their estimate of a man on his confidence, status, affluence, looks, humor, intellect, creativity, ambition, determination, decisiveness,..and the list goes on. Men’s requisites for intimacy? Looks and sexual availability, that’s it. Beyond that, you can make a case for any ephemeral quality that convinces you the girl’s worth your long term investment, but if she’s not hot enough to keep your physical interest, you’re going to look elsewhere to make up for it.

Yet what is the single most common shaming tactic women use for men? Painting them as ‘shallow‘ for requiring her to maintain a good shape and be sexually available. Men have far too much on the line in the long term NOT to be concerned with demanding the highest standard from a woman for an investment that goes beyond anything she could hope to genuinely appreciate or match by other means. For all of the personal investment a man must make in himself to meet women’s ‘attraction prerequisites’, it only makes pragmatic sense that his (physical) standards for women be strict and exact.

It’s really up to you to make the judgement call, but by no means should you allow accusations of superficiality influence your decision in that. As a Man, you are well within your rights to expect a maintained physique from a woman, considering the far greater sacrifices she expects from you. Would you leave her if she got fat? Damn right you would. Would she leave you if you went beta-listless-unemployed-alcoholic? Damn right she would.

All that said, what it really comes down to is the reason why this girl lost the weight. There are plenty of fresh divorcees frenetically working out at Planet Fitness in the hopes of reconditioning themselves enough to attract another husband – only to fatten up again once she finds the guy who “loves her for who she is”. Women who once were fat, who slim down are prone to this. That’s not to say there aren’t women who make a definitive lifestyle change and go from being a walrus to a Fitness America Pageant contestant and parley that into modeling or  personal training career, but these are the most rare and notable exceptions.

I should also point out that it’s a uniquely White Knight habit to publicly defend a woman’s body image insecurities in order to get the identification / affirmation strokes they believe endears them to women. I hear these guys parrot back the same lines women self-affirm when talking about their body shape or trying to disqualify a sexual competitor, in an effort to be more ‘like’ the women they hope to get with. The idea is that they believe they’ll be rewarded for taking the “fat acceptance, love-who-you-are” tact and be perceived as more modern or up with the right conventions, and that guy’s who actually have the temerity to say they prefer a tight body are the neanderthals – again, to disqualify their own sexual competitors.

The Mechanics of Sexual Selection

Whenever the ‘fat is OK’ debate pops up all it does is serve to further illustrate yet another feminine social convention. All of these conventions are sociological and psychological methodologies with the latent purpose of securing breeding opportunities for less than physically optimal women.

  • Point 1: Women know on an instinctual, biological level that, overall, men generally base their breeding selection on the physical conditions of a female. Hips to waist ratio, breast size, facial symmetry, fullness of lips, youthful appearance, etc.

  • Point 2: In order to compete with similar women in meeting the physical standards of a given demographic of men, women must create physical methods in order to compensate for this deficit. Thus they have make up, cosmetic surgery, high-heels, hair dye, etc.

  • Point 3: Failing this, sociological and psychological constructs are necessary to ‘level the playing field’ in the sexual marketplace. Thus, fat, out of shape women attempt to convince men to feel ashamed for wanting a physically superior female by converting that desire into shame. It becomes superficiality. Likewise, older women who’s sexual marketability wanes with every passing year, must create social constructs that praises the sexual prowess of older women.

Women have been trying to convince themselves for centuries that there ought to be more to sexual attraction for men than physical appeal, and for centuries this method has been thwarted by simple male biology. Rather than play the game better, they attempt to change the rules of the game to better fit their own limitations in a variety of ways.

The problem with the idea that “it’s what’s inside that counts” is that it’s what’s outside that arouses. All the “feeling good about your body” that a fat woman can muster is NEVER going to be an aphrodisiac or a substitute for having a great body that men are aroused by.


First Man Awake

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

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

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

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

What it did was enlighten me.

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

Intellectual Lethargy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Savior Schema

“Every time a man is being nice to you, he’s offering dick. That’s all it is. ‘Uh, can I get that for ya? How ’bout some dick? Can I help you with that? Can I help you with some dick? Do you need some dick?’ ” – Chris Rock

The Savior Schema – the beta male expectation of reciprocation of intimacy (usually sexual) for problems solved.

This is a learned/developed behavior that results from men’s natural push to deductively search for the most rational solution to a problem. It’s really a linear logic; I need sex + women have sex + I must discover what is required for me to get sex from women + I will perform/embody/identify with said requirements = woman will reciprocate with her intimacy. Needless to say this is simplistic at best, but men have a tendency to believe that women will respond as rationally as they themselves would in qualifying for her stated desires. The manosphere is full of men who can tell you this simply isn’t the case for any number of reasons, but sadly they still think that women ought to live up to their implied “agreement.”

The fundamental flaw of the Savior Schema (also, Captain Save a Ho) is that it is essentially negotiated intimacy, and negotiated intimacy is never genuine. You can fix a woman’s flat tire, help her out of a financial jam, fix her a nice lasagne, give her the perfect shoulder to cry on, take care of her kids and listen to her drone on for hours on the phone, and she’ll still go fuck her outlaw biker boyfriend because her intimacy with him is genuine, unnegotiated, unobligated desire. She wants to have sex with him, she doesn’t owe him sex.

What AFCs fail to understand is that all the financial, emotional, dependable support you could possibly offer a woman is no substitute for raw, unmitigated, chemical desire. Some of the most irresponsible, unreliable, poverty level washouts often get more sex than any dutiful AFC suffering from a Savior Schema, because there is no obligation.

Reciprocity

In the wild, the law of reciprocity and fair exchange is a fairly obvious one. Most high-order social animals have some innate understanding of exchanging resources. In fact you could argue that pair bonding, family structure and social collectives are for the most part based on this shared exchange arrangement. So it stands to reason that in the course of human evolution we too developed this innate psychological wiring, thus making men prone to seeing it as the shortest distance between what we have and what we want.

The difficulties arise when (perhaps cleverly) women learned to covertly use this  innate psychology of exchange within the context of a social framework that gives them a resource advantage for little or no exchange of their own. Thus women modeled a social norm, that mirrors men’s natural default position of disposability, and put their attentions and intimacies as unassailable resources so valuable that no effort on a man’s part can merit it. When a woman is appalled by the notion that she should be obligated to have sex with a man in exchange for a dinner and a movie (even over multiple occasions), this social convention is the root of that insult.

The Protector Dynamic

Of course the flip side to this argument is the Protector Dynamic which is the natural propensity for a man to want to provide protection for his mate. Over the course of our evolutionary history certain psycho-biological behaviors proved to be beneficial to the survival of our species. Specific hormonal releases prompt different emotions and behavioral reactions as a response to our environments. Women, for instance, produce higher volumes of oxytocin and estrogen thus prompting a natural instinctual feeling of wellbeing and nurturing her children (which also, interestingly enough, is released after female orgasm). The same is true for men. Being generally physically stronger and posessing 17 times the testosterone, men have evolved chemical cocktails of their own and thus feel a natural protection instinct when prompted.

The conflict comes when the AFC confuses this Protector Dynamic with a Savior Schema. The natural feelings derived from his biochemistry only serve to reinforce his Savior mentality and solidify it as part of his personality. Even when a woman’s repeated behavior directly contradicts this notion of reciprocating intimacy for help (or his idea of ‘protection’) the Savior Schema only rationalizes it as being inconsistent with a single, individual woman.

This then is the root of the White Knight schema; exchange protection for intimacy (i.e. sex). And, once again, women cleverly, almost subconsciously so, use this dynamic to arrange a beneficial, but unequal, exchange of resources.


The Pet

One requirement I have of most of the men (and women) I do consults with is that they read The 48 Laws of Power (The Art of Seduction is in the class syllabus as well). In the introduction author Robert Greene runs down the ethical implications of understanding and employing the various laws. If you look at the synopsis of the laws I linked you can get an idea of how uncomfortable some of these laws will naturally make people feel. Many of these laws understandably rub the uneducated the wrong way because for the better part of our lives we’ve been taught to emulate socially acceptable mannerisms and adopt a mindset of cooperation above self interest.

Most people are conditioned to think that deliberate use of power is inherently manipulative, self-serving and sometimes evil. In context this may or may not be true, but in so demonizing even the desire to understand power, not only do we inhibit a better critical understanding of power, but we also make the uneducated more vulnerable to the use of power against them. The 49th Law being: Never educate others of the principles of power, which is itself a form of using power. Never talk about Fight Club.

I bring this up because, just as with the Laws of Power, there will be articles of Game, or foundations of intergender communication – complete with all of the underlying motivators – that Men (and women) will be uncomfortable accepting or employing to the point that it challenges some deep rooted emotional or ego investments. Let me be the first to establish that discomfort is part of understanding; truth is supposed to make you uncomfortable in order to inspire you to action.

I should also add here that even though you may not be comfortable in exercising a particular tactic or don’t feel confident in approaching an interpersonal situation in some way, it is still vital that you do understand the concepts and methodologies behind why those laws, principles, techniques, attitudes, etc. do work. You may have personal reasons for not wanting to involve yourself in some particular aspect of Game, but it’s imperative that you fully acknowledge the mechanics behind that aspect before you decide it’s not something you can employ. Declining to use a particular Law or aspect of Game doesn’t make you immune to the consequences of it, nor does it invalidate that aspect when others use it for their own benefit, and potentially to your own detriment.

Half the Battle

The primary (though not exclusive)  focus of this blog has been devoted to the critical analysis of the mechanics behind intergender dynamics, Game-practice, Game-theory, social and evolutionary psychology just to name a few. I can understand the want for practical applications of this field of study, and while in my line of work I have done my own ‘field testing’ with the majority of what I explore here, I have neither the time, opportunity or resources to develop practices beyond what I offer here. At least not to the degree of which the majority of my readers are able – and that’s the good news.

“This is brilliant stuff Rollo, but how do I use this to make my life better with the next girl I sarge, etc.?” This is a common desire from my readership, and the best I can offer is Knowing is Half the Battle. One size doesn’t fit all for everyone in Game or intergender relations. Anyone hawking a book giving you an instruction manual on how to have a great marriage or how to pick up chicks is still limited by their own individual experience. In other words, they’re not you.

It’s for exactly this reason I spend more time and critical thought on the foundations and functions of gender dynamism than pick up artistry. When I get associated with the “manipulative machiavellian Game gurus” it only serves to highlight an ignorance and lack of any depth of understanding what I focus on here. Game is psychology, sociology, economics, biomechanics, evolution and politics. Game is far broader than simple tricks and techniques. And it’s exactly the latent purpose of these applications (PUArtistry) and the mechanics behind their workings that threatens the ego-investments of those who’s feminized interests would rather see them marginalized and passed off as folly, or usefully ridiculed to shame the curious for fear that the underpinnings might be exposed.

Head in the Sand

Sweetening the poison doesn’t make it any less deadly.

I can remember a time in my mid-20s working as a stage tech for a casino cabaret show. The magic act I set up and struck every night involved a Bengal tiger and a black panther. Both of them were professionally handled by trainers, but even though they seemed the most docile of animals I knew they had the potential to seriously fuck me up under the wrong set of circumstances. The trainers would keep them at  distance from the rest of the cast and crew, only myself and one other tech were able to get close since we were the ones wheeling them out in special cages at their particular point in the show. One trainer told me, “the moment you think of them as pets is the moment they’ll go feral on you.”  They would play with these wild animals, and they seemed to have a special connection (almost like a pet), but when you watched them eat, you knew what they were capable of.

I learned a valuable lesson from this when one night I was wheeling the panther out to the curtain. She was in what was basically a reinforced acrylic aquarium on casters with a velvet cloth draped over it. A few minutes before my cue I’d thought the drape was falling to one side and lifted it to even it out. It was then that I was face to face with this “pet” in nothing but faint stage lights and about 4 inches of transparent acrylic between us. She looked at me with those yellow-green eyes and gave me a very low, almost muted growl and flashed just enough of her teeth to let me know this was not a “pet”.

It’s a mistake (and sometimes a fatal one) to ignore what you know is just under the surface. It’s comforting to believe that you’ve got a special connection, and while the conditions are right, you’ll preserve a relationship based on mutual trust and shared affinity. The flaw is in believing that trust, and kinship is unconditional; that the underlying feral motivators are subdued to the point of being inconsequential. It may be that you do have a special bond that goes beyond just the physical, but that relationship is still founded on physical rules that constantly test and influence that individual.

You know better, but the desire for that connection is so strong that you marginalize the natural impulses into feel-good rationalizations. Every divorced man I know has uttered some variation of “I never thought she was capable of this.” In their comfort they wondered how they dropped the ball, especially after having played by the rules for so long. Some knew about Hypergamy, others made it their “pet”, only their beautiful panther went feral.

Play My Game

It is a far healthier approach to accept the laws of power, the laws of Game, Hypergamy, etc. and fashion a life around an understanding of them than to convince oneself that they are an exception to them.

There are those who seek power by changing the game – by lowering the basketball hoops in order to better shoot a basket – but in ‘leveling the playing field’ they only succeed in changing the nature of the competition to better suit their individual abilities, neither improving the game nor themselves. The temporary change of rules only serves their inadequacies in that game.

Then there are those who accept the game for what it is, they understand it and they master it (or at least attempt to do so). They understand the need for adversity and the benefits it gives them when they reach the next level of mastering the game – not only in technique, but from the confidence this genuinely and verifiably confers.

Don’t wish things were easier, wish you were better.

It’s the aberration who seeks to legitimize her cheating at the game as the new way the game should be played. Shoot the arrow, paint the target around it, and you’ll always get a bullseye.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,189 other followers