War Brides

Reader Nas had an interesting question regarding female duplicity:

“Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism.”

Can you please expand on this Rollo? I find it fascinating.

OK, baton down the hatches, we’re heading for dangerous waters. What I’m getting at here is suggesting that women’s propensity for solipsism is a psychologically evolved mechanism. In other words, it helped women to cope with the harsh realities of the past, to develop a more focused sense of self-interest. To really grasp this you need to understand women’s brain function and chemistry. I’m not going to get too detailed in this, but suffice it to say numerous studies show that a female brain is hard-wired for emotional response and communication on a more complex level than men. I think this is pretty much an established point for my readers, but if you disagree, well that’s going to have be the topic of another post.

Given the harsh realities that women had to endure since the paleolithic era, it served them better to psychologically evolve a sense of self that was more resilient to the brutal changes she could expect be subjected to. Consider the emotional investment a woman needs to put into mothering a child that could be taken away or killed at a moment’s notice. Anxiety, fear, guilt, insecurity are all very debilitating emotions, however it’s women’s innate psychology that makes them more durable to these stresses. Statistically, men have far greater difficulty in coping with psychological trauma (think PTSD) than women. Why should that be?

On the face of it you may think that men’s better ability to rationally remove themselves from the emotional would make them better at coping with psychological trauma, but the reverse is actually the case. Women seem to have a better ability to accept emotional sacrifice and move on, either ignoring those stresses or blocking them entirely from their conscious awareness. Women possessing a more pronounced empathic capacity undoubtedly served our species in nurturing young and understanding tribal social dynamics, however it was also a liability with regards to a hostile change in her environment. Stockholm Syndrome is far more pronounced in female captives (the story of Jaycee Duguard comes to mind), why should that be? Because women’s peripheral environment dictated the need to develop psychological mechanisms to help them survive. It was the women who could make that emotional disconnect when the circumstances necessitated it who survived and lived to breed when their tribe was decimated by a superior force. This is also known as the War Bride dynamic; women develop an empathy with their conquerors by necessity.

Men are the disposable sex, women, the preserved sex. Men would simply die in favor of a superior aggressor, but women would be reserved for breeding. So it served a feminine imperative to evolve an ability to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism.

Now, here is where I’ll step off the diving board and into the theoretical. It’s my purview that a lot of what men would complain are duplicitous acts of indifference towards them are really rooted in this innate feminine solipsism. That’s a bold statement, I realize, but I’d argue that what men take for inconsiderate indifference in a break up or in ruthless shit tests is really a woman tapping into this innate, self-preserving solipsism. Combine hypergamy with the chronically hostile environments of the past and you end up with a modern day feminine solipsism. Add to this an acculturated sense of female entitlement, social conventions that excuse this ‘duplicity’, and a constant misdirection of intent by women themselves, and you come to where we are now. As if that weren’t enough, throw in the element of hypergamy and the countdown in terms of fertility and long term provisioning that a woman must deal with before hitting the imminent Wall, and now you have a fuller picture of the conditions and stresses that necessitate this solipsistic nature.

Ever wonder why it is a woman can ‘get over you’ so quickly after a break up from a relationship you’d thought was rock solid for so long? Ever wonder why she returns to the abusive boyfriend she hopes will change for her? Look no further than feminine solipsism.

After reading all of this I can understand if anyone thinks this is a very nihilistic observation. Let me be clear, this dynamic is real by order of degrees for individual women. A woman’s conditions may be such that she’s never needed to tap into this reserve. Also, we are dealing with subconscious elements of her personality here, so it would come as no surprise that feminine solipsism wouldn’t be cognitive for most women – thus offensive and denied. I’m not asking that anyone accept this idea as gospel, just that the dots do connect very predictably.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

169 comments on “War Brides

  1. I’ve often thought that women simply don’t understand loyalty to the group, tribe, ethnicity, family, etc. that they’re from. Their only ‘loyalty’ is to whoever is in power. True loyalty has to be tested, you have to remain loyal even when it is inconvenient.
    As a man, I want to believe that there is value in being loyal. But I can see how the reverse is psychologically healthy. It’s difficult to simultaneously ‘move on’ and be loyal. Women are better able to kill their past.

  2. You nailed it here. It appears that any deeply ingrained trait present across broad and diverse societies will show demonstrably strong genetic & evolutionary foundations.

    If indeed these traits are adaptations, it’s a maladaptive response from men to view them in a negative light. As it’s been said, “It’s a feature, not a bug.”

    I would extend this view to the tendency to seek spiritual experiences in both men and women. It does seem that women seek to spiritual experiences, and certainly participate much more in new agey “chick crack” sort of stuff much more frequently than men.

    This is some powerful knowledge, for it restores agency.

    The dictum: Recognize, Accept, and Adapt.

  3. Do you know what this strategy reminds me of?

    The strategy of herd animals, which seem to be remarkably unaffected by their repeated losses to predation.

    It is an extremely effective strategy, but also a sort of developmental dead end.

    Let me elaborate.

    Attachment is the mother of vengeance and territoriality, and because of this, is the true mother of progress. If you look at nature, you will notice that the minority of animals that have a sense of territory also tend to be most advanced within their given ecosystem.

    The reason for this is that the attachment instinct (whether it be over land or kin) necessarily drives animals to confrontation and subsequent violent behavior. Clashes inevitably ensue, and the well adapted survive and breed. On a broad enough time scale, both aggression itself and the physical traits that enable and aid it are selected for.

    The traits that serve aggression include both sensory and and mental capability. In this way, aggression fuels an evolutionary increase in the cognitive abilities of animals that display it.

    Herd animals keep up with some evasive elements, but succeed largely by out-breeding their rivals.

    In this way, the path of development becomes primarily a question of quantity versus quality, with a sense of attachment being the characteristic pushing individual species toward the latter.

    Attachment imbues an organism with the inability to simply accept its cruel fate. It prompts action that actively resists future incursion.

    Lack of acceptance is perhaps a hallmark of the male, and in this manner it also serves an evolutionary purpose. The results of this lack of acceptance find their manifestation in the myriad gender differences which render men both considerably more likely and considerably more effective at aggression and combat.

    What’s more, most of the innovations throughout history seem to have been:

    1. Developed by males
    2. Useful within a military context
    3. Rendered with the preservation of something in mind

    In my estimation, the beauty of sexual dimorphism is that it allows an individual species to pursue a strategy of both quantity (female) and quality (male) at exactly the same time, which is why essentially all of the successful multicellular animals have exhibited this characteristic over the past billion years.

    1. Very helpful, it adds well to Rollo’s points. Thank you.

      Question for me though, how do we apply this knowledge on an individual level? I suppose this propensity for attachment is what causes us men to be so devastated after a divorce or break up even if it doesn’t bring about financial ruin. Should we keep our emotional investment in our female mates at a minimum? Don’t fully love? It would seem that females somewhat do this instinctively.

      1. I suppose this propensity for attachment is what causes us men to be so devastated after a divorce or break up even if it doesn’t bring about financial ruin. Should we keep our emotional investment in our female mates at a minimum? Don’t fully love? It would seem that females somewhat do this instinctively.

        I hope you’ll tackle this one Rollo. Interested to get your thoughts on this question. I’ll likely be entering a second marriage in the not too distant future after the first one went up in flames and left me pretty devastated. Makes me wonder if it always makes sense to hold a little of yourself back, and be mentally prepared for things to not work. I happen to be a trader, and rule 1 of trading is be aware you might be wrong on a trade, and have a defined stop loss in place. Is that how all relationships with women need to be?

        1. This leads to the question of whether a man should marry a woman who loves him more than he loves her. As a woman I have to ask, would men be satisfied with that? would it lead to abusive power games?

      2. First, I recommend channeling one’s sense of passion into something other than another human being (especially a woman). The Game bloggers refer to that misplaced attachment as Oneitis (One- as in “she’s the only one for me”, and -itis, as in sickness) and there are reasons they give hearty admonitions against it.

        Second, I believe that as men, we should acknowledge the tremendous generative/creative power inherent in our propensity for attachment. This is after all, the urge that forms the very foundation for intellectual evolution. It is your prerogative to harness it in a way that benefits both yourself and humanity at large. Devote your self to the intellectual, physical and professional pursuits that you feel passionate about. Realize that the sharp pangs in your heart are actually an extraordinary gift.

        Third, if you do become focused, you will achieve some modicum of success. This can be parlayed into Alpha status and used to help you out in the dating world. I highly recommend reading Roosh V and/or Heartiste for elaboration on the Alpha/Beta model.

        Fourth, understand that your wife/girlfriend etc. is capable of real love, but that emotion is subject to biochemical signals that promote an unattached herd mentality. There are women for whom these signals are defective, and some these types of women have a markedly greater sense of attachment (and not surprisingly, courage). Nevertheless, these signals can be intermittent, and stand a chance of manifesting in some way.

        Finally, because of the reality of the herd mind, understand that each relationship you have is a sort of three-way between you, your lady and society at large (which has a tidal gravitation-like influence on her personality).
        This is why the manosphere devotes so much time to the revolting developments that have occurred within western culture itself. To have a truly rewarding relationship with a lady, it is not enough for you both to be honorable, loving and attached people. You must, I repeat, must be maintaining that relationship within a cultural environment that fosters it – period. Anything else is a much a folly as planting a rose in a sandbox or gravel bed.

        If you have spent any time within the manosphere, you have likely come across some story touting the benefits of marrying a foreign (non-anglosphere – i.e. ladies from outside the USA, Australia, Canada, UK, and Scandanavian countries) woman.

        You may have even been to HappierAbroad.com.

        I can tell you the stories are generally quite true, but whats more, I’ll tell you the reason for it is not the ladies themselves, but the culture they come from. Culture is the bed in which these “flowers” grow, and here in the US, that bed is a desert.

        Much in the same way that you cannot expect a rose that was growing in fertile soil to thrive after transplantation to sand, don’t expect a relationship to remain solid in the wrong cultural and legal environment. Have a foreigner live in the anglosphere, and in one generation or less they will assimilate the toxic values of this place.

        Thus, if you want a rewarding relationship, it is incumbent on you to either expatriate to fertile soil, or help rebuild and revitalize the sandy waste of your home country.

        The later is what many of us are trying to do.

  4. *…..which render men both considerably more likely [to be aggressors] and considerably more effective at aggression and combat.

  5. “I’ve often thought that women simply don’t understand loyalty to the group, tribe, ethnicity, family, etc. that they’re from. Their only ‘loyalty’ is to whoever is in power.”

    Loyalty as we know it is not in a woman’s best interests. Being the physically weaker sex necessitates social and moral fluidity. In other words, women are shady and duplicitous creatures because the have to be.

    Before I understood psychology this used to eat at me. Especially the fact that a woman can turn off her emotions toward you like a bathroom faucet. I believed in “love” until I began to realize that love is only as strong as your ability to meet her needs.

    The best relationship I ever had was with an absolutely sweet and adorable 20 year old who worshiped the ground I walked on. I thought the world of her. We had our problems and I probably didn’t fully appreciate what I had back then but overall we had a good relationship.

    Things started falling apart and eventually she told me she was leaving. I came home a few days later and all of her stuff was cleared out (we were living together). I was devastated that she left but what really killed me was the fact that I was distraught, feeling like I had a piece of me taken away, while she seemed to be absolutely fine. She was in a new relationship VERY soon after we broke up. This didn’t sit well with me. I just couldn’t understand how I could be emotionally attached while she was able to quickly and easily wash her hands and move on.

    It killed me to think that she had never really cared about me. Of course now I realize that women don’t bond with partners in the same way men do. She DID care about me when I was meeting her needs, but in order for her to ensure that her needs were constantly going to be met, she couldn’t afford to chain herself down emotionally.

    This is why you should never fully trust a woman and you should never allow yourself to become emotionally dependent. Your relationship is only as good as her perception of you at any given time. She doesn’t love you for “you”, she loves the feelings you give her and the things that you can provide for her.

    1. “This is why you should never fully trust a woman and you should never allow yourself to become emotionally dependent. Your relationship is only as good as her perception of you at any given time. She doesn’t love you for “you”, she loves the feelings you give her and the things that you can provide for her.”

      THIS. Brutal, but true. This, along with the realization that a wife has within her the capacity to cheat and probably would do so under the right circumstances, is one of the most difficult to assimilate truths I’ve ever read.

  6. ”This is also known as the War Bride dynamic; women develop an empathy with their conquerors by necessity.”

    While reading this i thought about the women in conquered Europe by the Germans in WW2 that would sleep with the enemy.

      1. Yes, not only in France but also in Belgium Holland and so on…
        Even the famous Coco Channel had an affair with a German officer!

  7. Pretty much everyone who’s familiar with my writing over at SoSuave knows my policy on personalizing anything, but I feel like I’ve got to relate the story that brought me to this theory.

    In 2003 my my brrother-in-law hung himself from a tree. He and my wife’s sister been married 20 years at that point since he’d got her pregnant at 17 and married her at 18. He did ‘the right thing’ and they had another daughter about 6 years later.

    He wasn’t the greatest guy in the world, but he busted his ass constantly. He had to forego any idea of ever going to college, and pretty much succeeded in spite of it by sheer determination for 20 years. If he had a fault it was his possessiveness towards his wife. She has always been, still to this day, drop dead gorgeous, and he was just beta enough in his (lack of) understanding women to be insecure to recognize that he’d married well out of his league.

    At the time of his death, she had been planning a divorce. At about 40 this guy had accomplished enough to have a nice house he’d partially built for them once they were empty-nesters. His son was off to college and their daughter not far behind. Now, she wanted to divorce. It was kind of a shock for my wife and I since her sister had always been marginally religious, but here she was making plans for divorce. It wasn’t until after the suicide that I had a better understanding of why.

    Not even a year after he’d been buried her sister had wedding plans with a concrete mogul she’d met at the condo rentals they managed. Her ship had literally come in and she was now marrying a millionaire. She didn’t seem too broke up about the man she’d been living with since 17 being underground and it was all starting to make sense.

    Over the course of a bout a year and a half she systematically extracted herself from all of her former social circles, and to this day is barely connected to her side of the family. Naturally her son and daughter benefited from this arrangement – her son getting hired on at his company and her daughter getting a full ride for a master’s degree. She now lives with him in their recently bought $1.5M mansion; and that property her former husband helped build for their later years? She sold it to buy her new Porsche.

    This was over the course of 8 years. Now she’s become hyper-religious, perhaps as a coping mechanism for what she’s done. She and my wife still talk, but any idea of family get togethers is a struggle now.

    Now all of that probably sounds pretty fucked up, but understand this IS how it is. This is the game that’s being played and that was the ultimate defeat. I use this illustration here because it was instrumental in my ‘awakening’ to the solipsism dynamic. I didn’t know it at the time, but this incident helped me piece together how strong hypergamy could be for women. So strong that it could literally rewrite a woman’s personality, with very little hindsight or remorse, and send a good man to the grave, all with properly crafted excuses and moral rationalizations. And what’s more scary is knowing that it could be my wife, or your current LTR who could follow the same path if the circumstance and payoff was better.

    Gentlemen, it doesn’t get easier, you have to get BETTER. Depending on her conditions, depending upon your own, hypergamy is the stalking butler in the shadows just waiting for you to slip. Every guy in divorce court has the same story, “I never saw it coming.” Could my wife do the same? Not if I stay on top of my Game. I’d like to think Mrs. Tomassi’s commitment to me is iron clad, but I’d be a fool to think it’s unconditional. In fact it’s just this knowledge that inspires me to keep my edge, personally, professionally, creatively, psychologically,..etc. I would expect a wife, your ‘faithful’ LTR, your GF to drop your ass at the call of the next highest bidder.

    1. “Gentlemen, it doesn’t get easier, you have to get BETTER. Depending on her conditions, depending upon your own, hypergamy is the stalking butler in the shadows just waiting for you to slip. Every guy in divorce court has the same story, “I never saw it coming.” Could my wife do the same? Not if I stay on top of my Game. I’d like to think Mrs. Tomassi’s commitment to me is iron clad, but I’d be a fool to think it’s unconditional. In fact it’s just this knowledge that inspires me to keep my edge, personally, professionally, creatively, psychologically,..etc. I would expect a wife, your ‘faithful’ LTR, your GF to drop your ass at the call of the next highest bidder.”

      so this.

    2. “This was over the course of 8 years. Now she’s become hyper-religious, perhaps as a coping mechanism for what she’s done.”

      Wow! This is precisely is what is so fascinating to me. One part of me is morally repulsed but I must admit that I cannot help but marvel at this. They can just rationalize their actions and not feel any guilt?! Females can just avoid feeling these “bad feelings” because of their innate solipsism. I can’t do that. I wish I could. Like your brother-in-law, most of us men too would be concerned with “doing the right thing” or otherwise feel too guilt ridden and end up in a psychologically troubled state.

      1. In southern Italy, where I am from, if a woman even tried this would be dead within a week. Unless she tried it with Berlusconi or a local mafioso, and even then she’d be exposed to his boss’s judgement of the affair should it be discovered. In fact, she’d perhaps face the most danger from other women, who, in parts of Napoli, will have shootouts in the street over their husbands.

        Sounds like a movie plot, but ’tis truly the way of things. Not Sicily by the way.

        There is a lot of construction in my part of the country, much of it through dirty, “mafia”-controlled contacts; this artificial pace of development eats up land and raises costs, lining the crooks’ pockets. So there is ample opportunity, I would imagine, for women to bump into a sharply dressed type at a café or someplace and have an itch to trade up. Yet they do not because of this native pressure to be loyal … or else. As government increases spending owing to EU membership, they expose the people the rough correlation of government spending and the divorce rate, now ~12% there. The departure of Berlu was really a bad day for Italy in that he was, as Roissy understood, a supreme alpha keeping the country weighted toward its patriarchal history against the matriarchalist tendency of the feminizing or even lesbian European bureaucrats from Netherland, Spain and Belgium, who demand that Italy “wipe out corruption” and “the mafia”.

        In fact they are asking Italy to completely neuter its men, allowing women to engage in this American behavior of marrying up. Actually though it is northern European at root, as one will see from the extremely high divorce rates of those countries — as well as their very high government spending.

        The effect is even more plain in still healthy patriarchal societies like India, Japan, and the Balkan states, where divorce is well under 10%. I’ve actually heard from a Mumbai businessman that there’s a joke in India that a Hindu husband is more likely to kill myself for not being able to escape his wife, which would expose him to severe community opprobrium. And if divorce ever comes into a Hindu wife’s head, she takes great pains to never show it.

        So there you have it, gentlemen — “freedom or cohesion”. True patriarchy is cruel and sometimes ugly, like a strong religion, but it keeps society together not like the pretend lovey-dovey “glue” of European imagination, but like a security guard sporting a 12 gauge outside the door.

        Someone will say, “I prefer it this way; game makes me better and my wife happier.” Very well. I understand that point of view. Woman is the most dangerous plaything, said Nietzsche. Just saying, where I’m from, it doesn’t happen.

    3. I’ve lurked here for a while and this is my first post.

      Rollo, I place you as the pinnacle of the Game writers. Both in depth of content and the train of thought I am pursuing. This one is outstanding, and this article will prompt me to read your legacy work at SoSuave now.

      There is bit that NOW strikes me like a hammer. I am transitioning into more sound game, but I clearly recognise my beta ways of supplications. But during arguments, my wife would retort “You make me feel guilty”. I truely didn’t get it, my internal response was “My points are logical, coherent and the overarching framework is that I struggle so our holistic arrangement progresses for the better, if she feels guilty, can she NOT recognise that is pretty much a response coming from her frontal lobes to tell her not to do that?”

      Well, it looks like she can’t. She can recognise it, even an appeal to her ego imparts a red-light, but it appears the solipsistic nature laying in her id can overwhelm reason.

    4. Very true. I’d like to add that we men also have those ancient survival protecting mechanisms deep inside of us. Manifestations can go from Nice Guy Syndrome (so alphas don’t kill me and mommy loves me) to Abusive Jerk (better smack everyone with a bat before they see my weakness). In order to “protect” us our mind creates an image of ourselves, which is false for it does not even dare to tackle our survival part of brain. We end up feeling incomplete, frustrated etc. and seek for a partner to fill the void. Which he or she can’t of course.
      And when these female and male egos meet we have those love/hate relationships ending in tragedy.

      There are three ways to “cure” or evolve ourselves:
      1) External force of law on social pressure, which only post pones the solution and makes lot of damage (Religious/Conservative laws and peer pressure etc.)
      2) Internal pressure – society/religion invoked guilt….tears you apart and stuns you
      3) Reasonable balancing of yourself. Looking through your pain and eventually taking your ego in the open to not let it ever drive you again. – even if your partner is still driven by it, your consciousness or it’s manifestation – commanding presence 😉 can certainly help her.

  8. I can’t dispute the theory here at all. It is very logical and there are far too many anecdotes that track nicely with it.

    One thing I think we are missing here though is that feminism in the Western world has excused women from the civilizing process of growing up under rules and morals like women of several generations ago.

    I believe what we are seeing is a failure of society to civilize women, to teach them to deny their base impulses, and that is why their base impulses have become rabidly apparent for anyone willing to look.

    In the ancient warfare example, not only would a woman see the men in her life (father, husband, sons) killed by the conquerors but a complete rewriting of the rules of civilization. So not only does she have to adapt to the loss of the men in her life but also to the loss of civilization. It may not be a great transition if the cultures are already similar, but it could also be quite different. Solipsism in that case would not only serve to help the woman adapt to the change in mates but the change in culture as well.

    In a proper culture, I really believe women could be raised in a manner that shames their solipsism and hypergamous tendencies similar to the way men are shamed to accept only one spouse. Hypergamy wouldn’t be an issue unless that culture was destroyed by disaster or warfare in which case the woman would revert to a feral state of hyper-adaptability. Think “Lord of the Flies” but with women instead of men.

    The term “feral women” gets thrown around in the Manosphere quite a lot and I believe it is a fair description of the fairer sex at this point. Relativism and the death of shame have given us at least two or three generations of uncivilized women with their base instincts unchecked by morality and indeed even exacerbated by ridiculous concepts like “female empowerment.”

    I submit to you that hypergamy and solipsism have their place in female psychology in the absence or destruction of civilization. We are witnessing yet another consequence of the dismantling of Western civilization in women and their awful behavior. The only way to turn the tide is to strengthen our culture and re-establish morality and shame. Of course, that’s not something that can be implemented in anything less than a generation so we’re all pretty much screwed.

    Honorable women used to exist because they were raised to be honorable women. That’s no longer the case.

    1. Agreed. IMO, this is why men “oppressed” women for so long. Females need some type of external morality and ethics placed upon them, because they lack the ability to moderate themselves based on anything but their own emotions.

  9. Thanks for sharing your experiences Rollo. It’s good to get the perspective from men further down the path.

    The way I see it I’m in this for ‘life’. Like you said there can never be a time where you rest on your laurels. You always have to keep improving yourself and learning into your edge as David Deida says.

  10. I was born a beta but somehow instinctually knew about female solipsism and hypergamy. Now I am MGTOW and am ok. I have ups and downs but don’t need a woman to be ‘fulfilled’. There is no refuge outside of ones own self anyway.

  11. Since both men and women possess traits (both innate and learned) that are counter to a well-ordered society, I am going to say that your statement

    “social conventions that excuse this ‘duplicity”

    is probably one of the largest components of the effect.

    I believe that social conventions develop to act as mitigating forces and “shock absorbers” for society.

    When a convention is very swiftly inverted – feminism and judgment free sexual liberation – the effect will be catastrophic. And it has been.

  12. A+ post, Rollo. Hope you will tackle and do a post on how to deal with a breakup and how to conduct yourself as a MAN in the aftermath. I recently dealt with a breakup and I will say with ease that I couldn’t have coasted through it without you, Roissy Heartiste, VKempire, Roosh, and Tariq Nasheed. Long story short, I have effectively and efficiently made her get back into MY orbit after she exercised herself from it. No calls, no emails, no asking mutual friends ‘how she was doing’, one package sent with something she left at my place, no note inside and put the wrong town as a neg that I didn’t remember where she lived. Must tell: she unfriended me on FB after the breakup. Couple days back, she sent me a friend request with the line: “Confirm if its ok for us to be re-friended. I’M OK NOW. Otherwise, ignore this.” Dig that shit, she’s ok now. Can’t tell you how glad I was to hear that *fucking eyes rolled*. See guys? It’s not about you and what you may go through, its ALL about her – to her. Protect yourselves at all times, don’t trust, spin plates, be the prize, and remember her “love” is conditional upon how you make her feel. Game, embrace it hard if you are in the trenches dealing with women. Thank you, Rollo.

  13. “While reading this i thought about the women in conquered Europe by the Germans in WW2 that would sleep with the enemy.”

    You think that’s bad, what do you think the Aryan women were doing while their supermen husbands were on the Eastern Front?

    My teenage Grandfather and his comrades were POWs during the war and were let out for extended periods on work assignments, during which time they’d bang German women! Some even married and stayed there after the war.

  14. It really seems to be true that women will ruthlessly pursue their own self interests, commitments be damned.

  15. I once read the book Quirkology by British psychologist Richard Wiseman. One interesting finding is how women are totally oblivious to attraction. They can’t tell which personal ads will be successful, whereas men are very good at spotting game. I figure it must be because women are the center of the universe. The solipsistic experience of being hit on doesn’t give them deep insight into what attracts men.

  16. I just made a comment at Chateau Heartiste that relates to this pretty well, though not as brutally as Rolo’s experience. One of the women I’m dating is a solid 8.5-9, and was a 9.5 or better when she was younger. If I prime things right, I can get her to be surprisingly honest at times. Last night, while she was in one of those “being honest to qualify herself” moments, I got this story:

    When she was in college, and for a little while after, she was dating both a model/bartender and an engineer. Both of them thought they had an exclusive thing with her. Each of them caught her more than once. Every time she’d swear that she was going to end it with the other one. Her words:

    “I meant it when I told them it was over. Yet I kept seeing them both after. I still don’t understand why I did that.”

    She ultimately left the model for the engineer, then grew bored with the safe/stable guy and left him. When she was telling me all of this, it was very hard to not start laughing a little at how stereotypical her behavior was.

  17. I usually lurk, but after reading this I just had to post. Absolutely brilliant stuff. I love the emphasis on evolutionary biology as it relates to female psychology. It’s easier to accept the hard facts of women’s true nature when there’s a logical explanation behind them.

  18. You may want to incorporate the “tend and befriend” strategy of females as opposed to the more general fight or flight. It is basically the same as “War Bride” and Stockholm Syndrome. The appropriate research is available online.

    1. they already do, if you actually look at perceptions in most societies on earth and even inside of the US. white dudes are usually preselected a grade higher in most places on earth.

  19. Rollo, do know the names of any studies you’d recommend from the first half of this post? I’m trying to get a reading list together on how men and women evolved biologically and mentally into the current Roles we have today. Trying to break down where biological/evolutionary Influences in those patterns occur and how they interact with the crazy societal pressures and Influences we have today.

  20. Pingback: NEXT «
  21. Pingback: The Disposables «
  22. Pingback: Mrs. Hyde «
  23. Pingback: Women & Regret «
  24. Pingback: Year One «
  25. Pingback: Of Love and War «
  26. Pingback: Generalizations «
  27. Pingback: Yasers hörna
  28. Thank you for being so compassionate with these analyses, and others in general. This is my first visit to the manosphere, and as a woman who cares about men, and about evolving the status quo, I can only appreciate and applaud you as a collective. Thank you very much.

  29. Thank you for one of the most intelligent posts I’ve yet read on the “manosphere.”

    IMHO, maybe if the men who were left had spent more time affirming their wives and/or being not only the “boss,” but the true head of the household in a spiritual sense, they would still be with their wives. Billy Graham preached that the man set the tone for the marriage. if he treated his wife well and followed God’s plan, he would reap great rewards.

    I also appreciate the tone of (most of) the comments. They were intelligent and respectful, a far cry from those posting on Dalrock (one example of many.)

    Thank you again. I find your thesis well reasoned and intelligent.

  30. I wanted to add a comment on this old, but relevant post.

    This weekend I attended a graduation party for a friend/interest at her parents house. I got to meet all the aunts/uncles and grandparents that were available to attend. I actually felt bad that I hadn’t attended a gathering like this in a while, it felt like I was seriously missing some unique social data gathering, but I digress.

    At one point I was listening to Grandma (easily in her 80s) speak about how she met her current husband who was also sitting there (probably closer to 90, dealing with serious dementia). She mentioned, very casually, that she met her current husband only a year or so after her previous husband died. This woman was born in the 30s, and was likely a 50’s housewife at some point. She raised 4 daughters and a son with one man, stayed married to him through her children’s adulthood, and then remarried after only having buried her husband (likely ~>30 years of prior marriage) for 1 year. She expressed how LUCKY she was to have found this man only a year after her previous husband died.

    The actual (dead) dad of the 2nd generation in the household was not mentioned, wasn’t even on the radar. This is a primarily Italian-American household, btw. Meanwhile, the father of the girl I’m friends with, who was the primary host of this party, has been STRUGGLING with the death of his wife, and that was 6 years ago. He only barely started dating again a year or so ago, and not very seriously. His house is still full of pictures of his dead wife and her things.

    Women are, ultimately, the colder of the species. They can take a marriage of 30 years, and leave it behind easily. They even feel lucky they found someone new 1 year later after losing a spouse to death.

  31. Pingback: He’s Special |
  32. OK, the psychological explanation makes sense.
    Genghis Khan invades your country, and kills everyone. If you are pretty, you survive. You have two choices: being constantly angry because all your family has been brutally killed, or adapting. If you adapt, you might not save the genes of your husband, but you might save the genes of both your father and mother.
    If you don’t adapt, you will probably die, or your children wouldn’t survive.

    I suppose it takes a very strong heart to have your family and culture destroyed, to be enslaved, to be raped, to bear children of the people who did it all to you, and still keep on hating. No wonder some of them went mad. Not being able to see reality (Stockholm syndrome) is a form of madness.

    Unluckily, the ones who keeps her mind intact and sees her situation as it is, is the least likely to survive.

    There have been war brides who at least tried to avoid the slavery as much as they could. One of Muhammad’s captives refused to marry him, and would rather be a slave than his wife. Surprisingly, she still managed to bear a son. Another would use anything she could think of to avoid intercourse with her new husband (basically praying whenever he went for her).
    See the case of Maria Goretti. She was loyal to her culture, to her core beliefs. She didn’t survive them:

    And therefore, no man can marry her possibly quite loyal daughters.

    In any case, there were women who refused to accept the slavery and remained as loyal as they could (while enslaved) to their previous culture. The problem is, those women didn’t survive, because the conquerors killed them (just as they had previously killed their men).

    Those weren’t happy times. For anyone.

    In any case, what bothers me a little about this stuff is how no one is mentioning men who leave their marriages and also forget about their previous partners. They probably do so for reasons other than hypergamy, but they do too.

    Of course, in some societies, cheating is wrong for both parties. As of late, in USAmerican media, it seems that cheating is wrong when men do it but not when women do it. Well, and the women are portrayed as hysterical, irrational and completely childish in their behaviour.

    What I mean is… This solipsism you mention, I’ve also seen from divorced men to women. Any human being can justify their actions by “rewriting” the past to justify their actions. Heck, John Lennon basically erased the memory of his first girlfriend, wife and mother of his son.

    Irrational people do things for emotional reasons and then they justify themselves. Women do so for different reasons than men, but men do that too.

    Heck, I knew about a woman who, TEN YEARS after the divorce was still hurting about it and couldn’t stop telling everyone all about it.

    It happens to people of both sexes.

    The problem I see in USAmerica, from an outsider’s point of view and only based on them media I see and read, would be this: The country has gone to extremes. From the 50s and 60s attitude of “men can cheat and it’s normal and proper because their feelings and needs are important”, to the more equal 70s and 80s “no one should cheat”, and from the 90s they’ve gone from “women can cheat and it’s normal and proper but men cannot”.

    OK, some country has simply lost the ethical north. Where I live, if you are in a monogamous relationship, no one is supposed to cheat, there’s no excuse. Those who are in open polygamous relationships do have sex with other people (only it’s not cheating because those were the terms of the relationship in the first place).

    Very good blog. Even though, as a female, I am sad and a bit terrified to read some stuff I get here. Such as the holding sex hostage to a man to get what she wants of him… That’s prostitution, dammit. Or the fact that some women need other women to get to know their man’s worth. I am very sorry that females end up looking as irrational human beings.

    Mind you, I do have irrational impulses. But one thing is having the impulse, and another very different one is acting on it. We all have instincts. We cannot control our feelings or impulses, but we can control our actions. Problem is, teach a human being that feelings are the center of the universe and you can forget about them ever being able to exert logic control over their actions.

    What we could learn from this basic impulse is the need to transcend them. If some people are more prone to be aggressive and end up either in jail or severe trouble (mostly males, some females), and some other people are more prone to be afraid, and end up as very timid or passive (mostly females, some males), knowing this all should help us to transcend our limitations. Not to self-justify bad behaviour.

    Just my two cents.

  33. That is a chilling story – so sad, and yet one of my clients – years ago – on her latest divorce was telling me how her former husband had threatened to kill himself if she left him. She left and he topped himself. She exhibited not so much as one ounce of remorse or pity. Her only disappointment was that as she had hit the wall pretty hard I found her physically repulsive, and thus found I would not jump through hoops for her. This resulted in what I now recognise as an attempt at shaming (belittling me as a man) – nasty bitch!

    It is also worth noting that women get over rape with at worst, mild depression, after no more than four months. ready to go again (Moxon) – yet men (and I include myself) tend to fall for female crocodile tears.

  34. The first time I came face-to-face with this truth was in the military, and my Basic Training instructor’s description of “Dear John” letters. I was in complete disbelief and appauled that women were notorious for dumping their husbands/boyfriends serving over seas, to the point where there was actually a name for it — “Dear John”! This was in direct contradiction to the fairy-tale love concepts that have been fed to me over the years… and yet, here it was.

  35. I do have one problem (among many) with men hailing ‘patriarchal’ cultures some kind of a heaven-state. It isn’t. I am from India, and I have lived in England for my undergrad. Men are fools, they think they have power; but since women are denied power and access to resources, they have covert ways of getting it. That is the essence of Matriarchy. All so-called patriarchal cultures are essentially matriarchal.

    The amount of arse-licking, pandering, begging for sex, supplication that goes around here (and a lot of so-called ‘Alpha’ men do it) gives me nausea.

    I was a liberal, now I hate people. I hate the selfish-gene’s creation and expression. Nothing short of gene-manipulation and post-scarcity will solve this problem once and for all. Although don’t expect this to happen till the 4th millennium.

    I confronted a girl yesterday for leading me on, and the drama ensued. I was cool and calm, but she seems to have ‘moved on’ faster than I could think. I hate her for that, but my aim is indifference, because it’s just the nature of the beast.

  36. Pingback: Dominance |
  37. Maira you are right in agreeing with Rollo about the evolutionary reason for female behavior: survival. Also in noting that there are always exceptions to the Rule: your friend talking about her 10 year old divorce and men also acting solipsistically. But while I’m sure there are some women whose minds and therefore behavior are more reason-based, they are most definitely the major exception to the Rule. Also, you need to come to terms with the fact that Marriage is just another form of prostitution as Rollo’s story of his sister-in-law and Hypergamy itself basically prove. For most women marriage is not based on love the way men experience it, but rather the calculating process that has been hard-wired into them by evolution. This is the very basis and acknowledgment of the “pre-Nupital agreement”. For most women, to paraphrase “The Godfather”, ‘It’s not personal(love). It’s just business.’ And all that I’ve said is true, whether you want to scratch my eyes out for it or not.

  38. I would argue that solipsism is a HUMAN response in times of high stress – a mechanism for coping. However, I suppose that it is only natural for heartbroken men to ascribe solipsism to their former partners. So many men are enamoured with evolutionary theory – it is just so damn neat and cosy and it provides all the answers, right? RIGHT???

    But the fact is most women happen to lust after other men – and when reciprocated by the other man that lust tends to kill the love for her current sexual partner. Again, this – sadly – is only human. Men are understandably confused and bewildered by female indifference because all of your favourite pop psychologists (I’m guessing the grotesque Glenn Wilson – one man who has been lying to himself all his life – is amongst them) tell you that females are programmed to nurture, to seek long term sexual partners, protection, warmth and security blah blah blah. So why don’t they? Well, it just so happens that this may not be the case. At least not since we females have been able to provide for ourselves. You see, we adapt.

    It is very odd and quite disturbing hat so many men accept the War Bride as a natural feature of conflict and yet question how women have been able to endure these hardships and abuses. How dare they survive while the men (supposedly the stronger sex) commit suicide over less? Well, however you seek to explain this anomaly it is a fact that women endure, no matter what. This seems to make some men very angry as is evident in the neurotic and paranoid comments.

  39. In answer to Tom:
    damn right marriage is a business. It always has been. You’ve never heard of dowry?! It is when fathers effectively sell their daughters to the highest bidder, and it was almost universal in the bad old days. I *would* scratch your eyes out but I generally don’t like the feel of vitreous fluid under my fingernails.

    To Scholosis:
    she was probably only ever being nice to you (you know, in a PLATONIC way) but I expect she’s learnt her lesson now! Get over yourself. Learn the difference between signs friendship and signs of lust. And another thing, how would you define Patriarchy coming from a country where eve-teasing is an accepted pastime and where women are raped to death in public? Oh, what a world, what a world!

    To Opus: threatening suicide to get your own way is a low down, manipulative, and dirty tactic. It is not for you to say how she should react – maybe she jumped for joy, who knows? You are unprofessional and too emotional for that job.

  40. Married twenty years to same woman, children, built house, etc., then suicide without personal justice having been served? No way. Six shooter stuck up the cunt and trigger pulled repeatedly. Concrete mogul found swinging from a lamp post with nutsack in mouth. Go out with a bang, I say!

  41. “She doesn’t love you for “you”, she loves the feelings you give her and the things that you can provide for her.”

    Bam. This should be taught to all Junior High School age boys. Why let them go through hell for 30 years before figuring it out? Girls get sex-education; boys should learn THAT.

  42. Pingback: Empathy |
  43. Um during the 1947 partition of Punjab, thousands of women commit suicide to preserve their honor.

    Going past Sikhs, 100,000s Of Rajput children and women burnt themselves. They would rather die horribly than be taken as slaves by homo sexual muslims, if the Rajput men lost in battle.

    Our women are still loyal, despite western society saying men should be hairless. We don’t cut our hair, not all the world is the same.

    It’s matriarchy that causes this; look to the prussians, hungarians, even Russians in villages from warrior tribes. They understand, honor and loyalty.

  44. Lol scho guy you’re from a matriarchy. Hindu india is created by Victorian thought.

    And many men don’t beg the guys who do are losers. I’m from Khalistan very different story, while your men and women were being taken to be sold as slaves we raided at night and brought them home.

    The problem with your nation culture is it has no identity.

    It hasn’t had a chance to develop civilization but it will in time. It will go back to old kingdoms because the India today on the backs of the youth is not sustainable.

  45. “Ever wonder why she returns to the abusive boyfriend she hopes will change for her? Look no further than feminine solipsism.”
    WIth solipsism and the female nature in mind, I’m trying to rationally understand how a woman thinks this going back to the abusive ex (or bad boy ex) would be a beneficial thing to her. But I can’t make sense of it.
    Could you enlighten me on this?

  46. This was very enlightening, although I have a question. I read the wiki page and i basically understood solipsism to mean the idea that you can’t really know anything exists past your own experiences. So as would relate to women, is this to say they are more detached from a given situation? I feel like I’m missing something fundamental about this term and how it relates to women.

  47. This is depressing stuff man. I can’t say it aint true, because, I have seen similar examples in my own environment, but boy, does this make me take a good hard look at mrs. Matatan.

  48. Pingback: The Invisibles |
  49. Even today there are areas where 10% of the wives have been kidnapped. Women had to evolve to accept their new position with a likely superior tribe.

  50. Ann Withaplan

    >>I would argue that solipsism is a HUMAN response in times of high stress – a mechanism for coping. However, I suppose that it is only natural for heartbroken men to ascribe solipsism to their former partners.

    Uh, hello? The human female is solipsistic and highly opportunistic under ALL circumstances. Not just during war and “high stress”.

    >>It is very odd and quite disturbing that so many men accept the War Bride as a natural feature of conflict and yet question how women have been able to endure these hardships and abuses. How dare they survive while the men (supposedly the stronger sex) commit suicide over less?

    First of all, it is the men, surviving and dead alike, that mostly endure the hardships and abuses of war. They are not “committing suicide”, they are being killed! Comparatively, women are not even close to being affected by war death and war hardships the way men are. Even in WW2 Soviet Union, which was a very extreme case of female death, men died at a ratio of 3x to women[1]. This number is from a paper of a feminist professor that is lamenting the hardships of Soviet women after WW2. Why? Because these Soviet women had worse prospects of marrying and having a family. What about the 3x as many Soviet russian men that died? Nobody seems to have a concern for their fate.

    SUMMARY: Ann Withaplan, you are a female supremacists bigot who do not care one bit about the fate of men, and you are as solipsistic and self-serving as they come.

    [1] http://web.williams.edu/Economics/faculty/brainerd-rfwomen.pdf

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: