Tag Archives: society

Moral to the Manosphere

Putting angel’s or devil’s wings on observations hinders real understanding.

I say that not because I don’t think morality is important in the human experience, but because our interpretations of morality and justice are substantially influenced by the animalistic sides of our natures, and often more than we’re willing to admit to ourselves. Disassociating one’s self from an emotional reaction is difficult enough, but adding layers of moralism to an issue only convolutes a better grasp of breaking it down into its constituent parts. That said, I also understand that emotion and, by degree, a sense of moralism is also characteristic of the human experience, so there needs to be an accounting of this into interpretations of issues that are as complex as the ones debated in the manosphere.

Although I’m aware that observing a process will change it, it’s my practice  not to draw moralistic conclusions in any analysis I make because it adds bias where none is necessary. The problem is that what I (and others in the manosphere) propose is so raw it offends ego-invested sensibilities in people. Offense is really not my intent, but often enough it’s the expected result of dissecting cherished beliefs that seem to contribute to the well being of an individual.

Let that sink in for a moment; the reason that what I propose seems nihilistic, cynical and conspiratorial is because it’s analytical without the varnish of morality. For example, when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.

I always run the risk of coming off as an asshole because in analyzing things it’s my practice to strip away that moral veneer. It challenges ego-investments, and when that happens people interpret it as a personal attack because those ego-investments are uniquely attached to our personalities, and often our own well being. Although there’s many a critic on ‘team woman’ shooting venom from the hip as to my emphasis on the feminine here, don’t think that iconoclasm is limited to the fem-centric side of the field – I catch as much or more vitriol from the manosphere when I post something like Looks Count or Women’s Physical Standards and the importance women actually do place on a man’s physique.

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.


Rationalism in the Matrix

It would appear that I mixed up the proverbial shit pot with last week’s The Gift of Anxiety post, which was itself a response to another post on another blog’s response to yet another post made by your humble author here. If it sounds like a tangled mess, just know that it’s happened before. For my readers, I feel apologies are due, because I think this blog’s purpose deserves more than to be dragged down by the petty machinations of fem-centric Matrix-speak; and particularly the variety that censors any rational challenges to its venerable vulnerable ideologies.

If you find fault in my having even entertained a response to this, well, I can’t say as I blame you. If I’m guilty of anything it was in attempting to logically reddress what amounts to a brick wall of socially reinforced fem-centric ideology that by definition has no margin for any critical analysis of it.

Reader BJ’s comment:

RT, you’re engaging with an emotionally charged being in an analytical argument, a battle whose W.O.M.D are the very tools which make you a man, logic and reasoning, for which there are no comparable counter measures.

However it was reader Höllenhund who really brought this home for me:

By the way, older, experienced MRAs have stated that it’s completely pointless to try to have a rational debate with women about these issues. They’ll always get angry or react in some other irrational way, and you can bet white knights will immediately come to their defense. It’s a waste of time. As Alte said, “if you have a rational argument, take it to the men”.

Guilty as charged, but if there was any benefit to this clusterfuck of idealism vs. censorship it brought to light the necessity to protect the social system that is the feminine Matrix.

Censoring for Affirmation

Reader Umslopogaas wrote an interesting post in reference to just this dynamic that inspired an awareness in me. The feminine social Matrix is a system that was built upon, and depended upon an older social paradigm that never accounted for a globalized connectivity. If men becoming aware of their true SMV was a primary Threat to that system, then the rise of social media and global connectivity was its facilitator. For men, the Meta Game and true unplugging began as a result of meta-connectivity and the free exchange of observations and ideas that followed.

Although I think it’s a bit of a dramatic stretch to compare Aunt Giggles’ censorship with the Gestapo, I do think there’s another, more apt comparison – that of religious figures’ censorship.

The rise of social media has inspired a more open means of discourse in previously closed social arenas. Nowhere is that more obvious than in religious / theological debate. Where in previous times a religious leader’s ‘inspired insight’ was closed to interpretation or discussion, now they must be prepared to defend their position online to the global consortium of the internet.

This globalized marketplace of ideas doesn’t make for a comfortable environment for people with an absolutist mindset used to receiving constant praise, if not acquiescent silence. Now, courtesy of blogs, social media, and the general connectivity of the internet people can voice their criticisms of ideas that, in a ‘real time’ social setting, they would never dream of initiating out of repressed courtesy or fear of ostracization.

For those unaccustomed to a contrary position in their ego-invested beliefs, this proves a to be a challenge. To remain effective in their message they must stay contemporary and use the ‘voice of the age’ – in this case social media – however they also must entertain the risk that some dissenting voice will call them to the carpet on their perspectives. The inherent problem with this is that it necessitates a critical insight that may conflict with that ego-invested belief.

For religious leaders this is a very tough trade off: Posting your sermon on your blog to reach the massess is simply good marketing, and implies certainty in the relevance of that message and/or idea. However the strength of that message must stand up to public scrutiny for it to be considered a strong theory, assertion or  perspective. The same holds true for the religion of the fem-centric society.

Since the apex of feminization in the 90′s, fem-centrism has taken its social positions as articles of faith. It just is because it always has been, and no one questions its purpose or validity. Old ideologies die hard, but are the ones most tenaciously clung to by those whose livelihoods depend on the old paradigms to endure. To preserve this system in the face of a building volume of social critique, a degree of dissociation has to be instituted. Thus we have the professors and pastors of previously unchallenged ideologies selectively filter out conflicting ideas, thus recreating the echo chambers they were accustomed to under the old paradigm, or take the lazy way out and simply brook no audience for any feedback by turning off anyone’s ability to comment on their ideas.

People who have questions don’t frighten me. People who have no questions scare the shit out of me.


The Gift of Anxiety

 

Well since Aunt Sue’s decided to click on the ‘echo chamber’ setting on her blog’s comment filters I thought I’d take the opportunity to retype my deleted response to her (once again) on my unmoderated blog. Aunt Sue has a big problem with competition anxiety, and since she secretly loves me, she can’t make it too obvious that she reads my blog posts regularly for inspiration. Hell, it’s almost a Friday tradition now! It’s OK dear, I’ll entertain you for the weekend. Roissy, Roosh and Dalrock send you their unrequited regards too,…

Dear Sue, you know instead of paraphrasing my perspective on this you could simply quote the bit in my post that set you off (again):

Women don’t want a Man to cheat, but they love a Man who could cheat. Naturally you don’t want to appear to be seeking the flirtation – that would be OVERT – but rather playing along with it. I have encouraged or played along with casual flirtations with my wife present that leave her with the impression that other women find me desirable. When you’ve been together long enough and a strong emotional bond has formed, you will be surprised at how many shit tests and hypergamous evaluations you can avoid just by her perception of you being a commodity that other women are attracted to. Mrs. Tomassi has told me on at least a dozen occasions that she finds it flattering that other women would find me attractive. Always remember that your attractiveness to other women is an associative reflection on your spouse’s attractiveness to hold your sexual interest in the long term.

The trick to this is how you follow up after flirting. She has to be made to feel as though she’s still the one you choose to be with even though you have obvious, provable options. Women are always unconsciously evaluating the men they are with. Her self-worth is associated with his value. This is exactly why women in the stablest of relationships will still shit test. There are precious few ways for a Man in a long standing LTR to establish social proof and demonstrate higher value better than reciprocating a flirt with other women. Nothing stimulates a tired LTR like suspicion and jealousy. Her Imagination is the most important tool in your Game tool box. The hamster doesn’t stop spinning after marriage, but it’s incumbent upon you to make sure it keeps up the pace.

The problem you have with my take on this is that you see it in an absolutist, all-or-nothing in-your-face disrespectful frame. As if every aspect of an LTR would be overshadowed by a malevolent ‘dread’ of loss bordering on emotional blackmail. You might be surprised to know I don’t actually agree with the idea of using the impending doom of ‘dread‘ per se.

If you could get past your taste for the melodramatic you’d realize that returning casual flirtations is actually a compliment to the woman a Man is with. It satisfies that internal, hypergamous doubt as to whether the guy a woman committed herself to years ago is still the Man other men want to be and other women want to fuck.

You see the problem with your perspective Sue is that you view intergender relations from a ‘security first’ priority. This is mostly due to your fem-centric conditioning, but also because you’re in a phase of life now where security means more to you than it did when you were in your 20′s or 30′s. It’s difficult to see the value of adding measured degrees of insecurity into an LTR when your long-term security becomes your paramount concern. After the Wall, women dread the idea of having to start over in a sexual market place in which they are grossly outmatched, so even the slightest deviation from the ‘security forever’ script becomes a major ego threat.

An LTR based on dread, a threat, or an implied ultimatum isn’t one based on genuine desire, and you know enough about my philosophy to understand how important real desire is to me. I think of it more as an ambient understanding that a Man is still desired by other women and this manifests in flirtatious behavior. Obviously if a guy is overtly seeking out opportunities to flaunt his flirtations with his LTR, that’d be indicative of him having other issues to resolve for himself. Guy’s thoroughly underestimate women’s sensitivity to nuance and subcommunication; it doesn’t take much to trigger her imaginings, but most guys think they need to beat her over the head with what he wants her to get; and that of course defeats his purpose – he’s too obvious.


The Code in the Matrix

“You get used to it. I don’t even see the code anymore, all I see is blonde, redhead, brunette,..”

One of the premier posts I wrote for this blog was about women’s propensity to give men advice that is completely counter to anything in men’s interests. The prey does not teach the hunter how better to catch it. Essentially the ‘chick advice’ dynamic is a meta-shit test meant to filter for the guys who ‘get it’ on their own (despite deliberately countermanding female advice) and those who need to be told ‘how to get it’.

I think I addressed this dynamic fairly well (and here too), but every so often I’ll be made aware of an article in which a woman attempts to ‘enlighten’ men not only about how better to achieve success with their sex in general, but also to disabuse themselves of the “myths” they believe men subscribe to that hinder them from a more complete understanding of women. Never mind that dating “success’ to the feminine mind always involves a committed fem-centric monogamy, while men’s definition usually involves lingerie and KY jelly. What’s telling in these particular articles is women’s attempt to explain social dynamics from a male perspective while still defending the social conventions that serve their gender interest. It’s a very entertaining read for the unplugged man – like seeing the code in the Matrix.

The longer you’ve been unplugged from fem-centrism the more sensitive you become to registering the nuances it employs to keep you in doubt of it. However the comedy of it is of the black and tragic sort when you realize how long you yourself subscribed to such now-obvious tropes and flimsy rationales in an effort to identify with women to get laid.

With very few notable exceptions, all women are by default plugged into the girl-world perspective with very little motivation to see past the pre-established constructs that serve them so well. So it’s almost comical to read women encouraging men to retake the blue pill and plug themselves back into their perspective.

Marni Kynris’ Wing Woman article is a mercifully brief example of this. (For the record, no woman will ever be your willing wingwoman, the sisterhood forbids it).

OK, lets run this down point by point then:

Women have baggage, too, especially the attractive ones.

Translation: “I’m fat. In fact at least 66% of my sisters are, or will become overweight too. My BMI is well above the norm and I don’t have the motivation or self-discipline to trim down in order to compete with the physically superior women men are naturally more aroused by. So in order to compete in this realm I need to disqualify these competitors by advising men steer clear of them (and give us fat women a fighting chance) by perpetuating the ‘hot girl = dumb/damaged’ archetype.”

Just because a woman is hot does not mean that her life is perfect

Perhaps, but if she’s fat, you can see she’s less than perfect. Newsflash: Men aren’t looking for perfect women. We’re looking for hot, sexually available women with the baseline of a workable personality.

Women prefer personality to looks.

Translation: “The ratio on which women place the importance of personality to looks is directly proportional to their depreciating ability to draw and maintain consistent male sexual attention. So make sure you focus on staying a nice, safe, sweet and dependable guy, making about six figures and be a little confident about it when you hit 35. When I can no longer hold the sexual interests of the douchebags, criminals and sociopaths who make me hot, it’ll be your ‘personality‘ that finally wins me over.”

Women DO NOT like bad boys.

Translation: “Look, there are far more ‘Plain Janes’ and chubbies in the world than men would ever realistically settle for if they knew any better, and we can’t allow men to think that Alpha Bad Boys are the only demographic hooking up with hot (i.e. desirable) women, so we’re going to appeal to your introvert insecurities and silly notions of chivalry and tell you that even Mr. Nice Guy still has a chance with us. We innately crave being sexually dominated by an Alpha badass (even when he’s incarcerated for murder), but that doesn’t mean we don’t also crave being able to ‘tame the savage beast’. We need the Alpha to inseminate us, and we need the Beta cuckold to provide for us; it takes a constant effort to keep you unaware of this.”

There’s no “right” line, but there’s a right way to say it.

Translation: “When it comes to communication, women care less about content, and more about context. It’s not the information that’s important, it’s the way we ‘feel’ when you deliver it. But please, do go on believing that women are completely rational agents, perfectly capable of relying on deductive reasoning.”

Women want to be approached, as long as it’s by the right person.

Translation: “If you’re cute/hot, you’re the right person. If not, you’re a sexual predator. If I’m attracted to you it’s an office romance, if I’m not it’s sexual harassment.”

Women want you to respect them, not admire them.

Translation: “So be sure you’re respecting us, not admiring us when you’re looking at the millions of our self-shots. Remember, were doing this to garner respect, not admiration.”

It’s difficult to be unplugged and know that you’re living in a society literally immersed in fem-centrism. You’re sensitive to it, you can see the underpinnings of why the canards exist and the utility of the social convention for the feminine imperative, but you know that even in drawing attention to them you risk ridicule and ostracization. That’s the scope of the feminine Matrix.

This is just one, easy to disassemble article written by what I’m sure was a well-meaning author, but think about how fem-centrism permeates just your small, localized social circle. How many times have you overheard your female ‘friends’, coworkers and plugged in men you know prattle off some variation of one of Marni’s gender appropriate aphorisms I detailed above?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,285 other followers