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

168 comments on “War Brides

  1. Pingback: Sugar Babies |
  2. Very true. When that break up hits and you expect her to fall apart due to the length of your relationship and she just bounces to the next guy in line.

  3. “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.”

    Men want their team(tribe) to win.
    Women just want to be on the winning team.

  4. Everything Ann withaplan said was either wrong or in concurrence with this piece.

    Feminists seem to claim their own strong identity, while acting like men.

    Feminism claims that if women ruled the world then there would be no war, but having done less, who can promise if it it would even be as advanced as this one.

    If feminism was to receive privilege equal to their effort and contribution, then how much do people think they would receive?

    People are tired of feminist implying superiority while still depending on men and trying to take the society entirely from men to stand on the, apparent, patriarchies shoulders. If women weren’t held up by men, where would they be?

    No offense.

  5. “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.”

    No, man. Madness is to see reality without adaptive alterations.

  6. Very interesting read.

    Now consider this: we’re not just our base insticts, we’re moral creatures too. Whether by religious dedication or by societal rules, the hallmark of civilized society has always been to put limits on behavior to the benefit of not only of the individual but also of society.

    1. Now consider this: For all of our pretense of religion and morality we are still motivated and influenced by our innate instincts. The fact that we would even conceive morality is an arrow point towards these motivators.

      Religion and monogamy have long been a hedge against Hypergamy, yet, despite linking this behavior to the fear of justice in the afterlife by an omniscient being, 17 women for every 1 man reproduced as recently as 8K years ago (post agriculture).

  7. … On the level of sexual relationships, marriage has always been an instrument to bond two people together for life with sexual exclusivity, regardless of individual instincts (“for better or worse, till death do us part”). The fairly recent introduction of no-fault divorces has opened the flood-gates and has essentially killed marriage. From this all other modern societal development follows: marriage is to be avoided, or you have to play “game” to try to avoid resurgence of base instincts, sexual promiscuity rises, disappearance of long-term bonds, decrease in trust in society, increased hostility between sexes, and as final step disintegration of society. Well, I have a surprise for you: if you’re going to rely on instincts only, you are always going to loose. That makes the red-pill real bitter to swallow. But red-pill is at best only a half-truth, it focuses on instinctive individual behavior, but fails to address individual and societal morality. Disintegration of marriage IS disintegration of society.

    1. Paul, you’re preaching to the choir. So what is your remedy? go and talk to women and explain them how their natural instincts are bad for society? “hey girls girls girls you need a good beta romantic boy” sort of thing?

  8. Another pastor coming here and teaching us morals. “Hey guys, man up and marry the sluts, we needs to save the civilization”.

    Thanks, but no thanks.

  9. It’s interesting to know that the attack on marriage/family was one of the actual goals of communism, as it rightly understood that the family with it’s incredibly strong blood-bands will be a formidable counter-force against the power of a totalitarian government. It laid the foundation for the rise of feminism in western civilization, to the point that many of the tenets of feminism are indistinguishable from Marxist thought.

    If you want to know what it looked like, look no further than Stalinist Soviet-Union: next to the tens of millions murdered by the government, the ideology lead the way to the biggest number of (registered) abortions worldwide: 290 million for the USSR, 380 million for China, 45 million for Russia, not to mention the various communist satellite states. Interestingly enough, the same foundation gave rise to abortion legislation in the USA, leading to 57 million abortions since 1973.

  10. As for practical advice: you cannot solve a societal problem at the individual level, but it does start at individual awareness. You also cannot solve a moral problem without addressing morality or lack of any moral standard whatsoever. I don’t think there are non-moral solutions for that. It took Christianity 400 years to start influencing Roman society to improve upon its sexual morality and outlook on marriage, and that was a society that already had some implicit safeguards against divorce in that all property except the dowry belonged to the husband. Current divorce law effectively rewards women at the cost of the men. Feminism has quite effectively replaced “Christian” values and the majority of US churches support divorce. At this moment it looks like once marriage and hence children start to disappear, eventually politics need to step in to keep a steady supply of taxpayers. That might be the window of opportunity for men. Alternatively, the government might decide to open the gates and let in the immigrants. In today’s world that means Mohammedans (compare the Syrian “refugee” crisis in Europe), and with them anti-democratic values. Either way, doing nothing will result in a society that will disappear, and men will suffer too.

  11. “As for practical advice: you cannot solve a societal problem at the individual level, but it does start at individual awareness. You also cannot solve a moral problem without addressing morality or lack of any moral standard whatsoever.”

    Of course, that is not actually practical advice. It is ideological advice. What “ought to be”, not what is. The manosphere and red pill blogs are geared toward praxeology at the individual level, while recognizing awareness of what is going on at the societal level. And furthermore is is geared toward being amoral (not immoral). There is nothing wrong with moral standards, but to each his own.

    As such, what you are saying is a bunch of platitudes. Not useful, interesting or thoughtful in the vein of this blog. We have work to do. So you got anything else useful besides that? Like practical inter-sexual dynamics insight?

  12. @Paul,
    “Well, I have a surprise for you: if you’re going to rely on instincts only, you are always going to loose. That makes the red-pill real bitter to swallow. But red-pill is at best only a half-truth, it focuses on instinctive individual behavior, but fails to address individual and societal morality. Disintegration of marriage IS disintegration of society”
    A bit of the cart leading the horse and the wrong cart at that. Feminism unleashed women from societal control (i.e patriarchy) to follow their instincts (i.e hypergamy), which because of no-fault divorce, outdated misandrist divorce laws, incentivized the family break up. She gets the kids, cash, and her new hypergamous up-grade. Win for her instincts and a loss for the family. Redpill was in reaction to the new social landscape that men have to survive in. It’s on the surface a “patriachry” but in reality its a soft matriarchy. So to blame men or redpill just makes you look like a total tool.

  13. “you cannot solve a societal problem at the individual level”

    Flat wrong.

    What’s an Irish revolution for anyways…what have Jews been doing for mellinia?

    Acting like others doing what they want in private.

    All successful change is grass roots with individuals first.

    We talk about this all the time here in different contexts. Put the oxygen on yourself, improve yourself first…

    By all means, continue your virtue signaling. Your comments, Paul, curse the darkness.

  14. Well, doesn’t sound like a ” Christian ” to me.

    So Paul, what’s your deal? I’m intrigued by your totally false narrative that humans are ” moral “.

  15. I do not blame men nor the red-pill for the current state of affairs. I do not offer simple solutions to the bigger societal issues. And yes, change starts at the personal level. And no, humans do not always act moral, but morality shows how humans should act. Most people understand the moral value of “love your neighbour as yourself”. Morality spurs us to act even against our own instincts. “Improve yourself”, if you like.

    As for marriage on an individual level it can only be relatively successful if your spouse has learned the value of morality over instincts. But the lack of support of society to enforce boundaries makes it a risky enterprise, but not doomed to fail, as history has already shown.

    Red-pill might give insight into instinctive behaviors, and this article is a fine example, but it is blind to the role morality can play.

  16. Trite banalities Paul.

    What more you have to offer that works?

    What’s your story? What is your agenda?

    “As for marriage on an individual level it can only be relatively successful if your spouse has learned the value of morality over instincts.”

    As for morality: It has an agenda. And it is fluid. Especially in intergender dynamics. As evidenced by War Brides. And by Open Hypergamy, and by AF/BB and the Female Stages of Manipulation (Google Search that…).

    In order for one of the sex’s strategy to be realized, the other’s must be compromised. Morality is a quaint idea there.

    So it is such with morals.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200804/how-ideology-colors-morality

    Philosophers have traditionally assumed that there is a single morality shared by all people. Some philosophers think that morality has a rational foundation that can be discovered by intelligent reflection, while others presume it is hard wired into human nature. The fact that liberals and conservatives fail to agree, despite their intelligence, moral concern, and access to information, suggests that the traditional philosophical picture is mistaken. There are multiple moralities. Some moral values may have biological roots, but experience determines which values get emphasized, and, as in the case of liberals, some biologically rooted dispositions (such as preferential treatment of the ingroup) never become central aspects of morality. Most likely, we catch values from those around us, through processes of social conformity, emotional conditioning, imitative learning, and mere exposure. Moral values correlate with demographic and geographic variables. If morality reflected something more universal or rational, there wouldn’t be red states and blue states. Once acquired, moral values are resilient to change through argument (when was the last time Rush Limbaugh convinced a liberal?). As a result, liberals and conservatives live in somewhat different moral worlds, and none of the arguments used in political discourse will bring us to total consensus. Failure to appreciate this simple fact leads to confusion and name-calling on both sides.

  17. “morality shows how humans should act.”

    Anthropomorphizing morality doesn’t reify the concept. Morality doesn’t exist outside your grape.

    Instincts exist because nature demanded them for its own reasons. Feel free to reject them.

    We’re not attempting perfection here, but you are, you sanctimonious twit.

  18. A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.

    And: Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

    —Karl Popper

  19. Fresh from Norway. Norwegian PM (female) apologizes to the hypergamous quisling females of the past during WWII that slept with the Nazi conquers for their horrendous ostracization they suffered for betraying their people. Oh yes the men of Norway were conquered, so it’s okay now to sleep with Nazi’s.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/norway-apologizes-to-war-time-german-girls/ar-BBOxLjz?li=BBnb7Kx&ocid=1PRCDEFE

    This is the ultimate clue in that we are feminized world – the cancer of Sweden is spreading in Northern Europe. The open hypergamy of modern females is so unashamed and in your face that they will even apologize to the women of the past that had their hypergamy thwarted.

  20. Rollo… after reading your great blogs for 8 hours straight today (which are delightfully articulating everything I have been thinking about and suspecting for some years), I was suddenly smacked with an incongruity in your story below: You employed a feminized social convention of league tables (in relation to your late brother) as if you owned it. I nearly fell off my chair! So do you argue that league tables do, or do not exist?

  21. Women can change their minds (emotions) much easier than a man can.

    Men obsess over things (which solves problems and creates genius) while women are always focused on the latest drama.

    Very interesting dynamic. Your point about PTSD made me think of it.

    It also makes me think of the fact that women are attracted to male stubbornness. Women in the past who have commented “You’re hot when you’re angry”, because the anger fueled decisive action.

    And I’ve found myself in the past sexually attracted to the histrionics of some women. Beyond my control; it didn’t make any sense. But it felt natural. The feminine, unlike-me histrionic emotionalism was…attractive. It blew my mind, because the histrionics felt so stupid logically. But nature has its way.

    I can see now why maturity is so important before you enter a relationship. Keeping a ship right with a woman is a full-time task. I’ve still got a lot of solo adventuring to do.

    Sexuality is a strange, crazy mystery. But fulfilling like nothing else.

    Your common sense is much needed on the internet today. I hope more men continue to join you.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: