One of the primary ideas I’ve offered since starting this blog is that of the socially insaturating influence of the feminine imperative. I’ve even dedicated a particular category for it on my sidebar. It’s a recurring theme for my outlook on gender relations because I believe it’s the environment we subconsciously accept as the default. Women of course have little reason to question the primacy of their own imperative when it serves them, and men are less willing to analyze the social fabric they exist in if it intuitively means they might be rejected for intimacy, sex and social affirmation. Unplugging from the feminine Matrix takes an act of will.
I euphemise this environment at times when I refer to the details and social conventions of the imperative as “girl-world“, and often I think that readers may interpret the rise of fem-centrism as something unique to the late 20th century up to the present. And while it’s certain that 3rd wave feminism was the catalyst for the present day “girl-world” society we find ourselves in, I don’t think that it adequately accounts for the prime, directive motive that the feminine imperative demands, and has demanded since before our present feminization.
That prime motivation is control.
Risk vs. Security
It’s easy to simply pass off this feminine need for control as a grab for power, and to an extent that may be true, but this would be interpreting that need from a male perspective. Men tend to want power; power over others, and their own lives, to affirm status, esteem, affluence, etc. From a female perspective, there may be a minority of women who crave male power, but the vast majority seek control in terms of satisfying an innate need for their security. For women, security comes in many different varieties, financial, emotional, self-worth, etc., but their need for control is rooted in minimizing the risk and uncertainty associated with achieving that security.
Through a combination of testosterone and evolved neural wiring, Men thrive and grow in risk taking endeavors – we have a propensity for behaviors that are rewarded in risk. We will go to great lengths in order to take risks. Women’s primary impulse is to avoid risk; being the primary vehicles through which the next generation will pass and be nurtured it’s logical that women’s neural software and biochemistry be evolved for risk aversion. In seeking security, women developed their own set of uniquely evolved propensities for security. Ergo, they became the sex with the better developed capacity for communication, after a need for determining the most secure decisions available to them.
With the catalyst of the sexual revolution, the power dynamic shifted to the feminine imperative in a way it never had before in society. Once freed from the old societal norms, women were encouraged by the feminine (and their new found male sympathizers) to pursue their independence as they saw fit, but what generations of women did with this new freedom was more vigorously pursue what hundreds of thousands of years of evolved psychology had designed in them – to consolidate their own security.
Every law men see as blatantly misandrist from marriage to divorce, alimony to child custody, employment to sexual harassment and more, are primarily rooted in women’s inborn need for security. Virtually every feminine social convention is designed for women to consolidate on a long term security for themselves. Security is their reason for control. If they can control for the options, control the risk management, control the preconditions of their decisions-to-be, they can more definitively consolidate on their security need. Girl-world, our modern, fem-centric society molded by the feminine imperative, was founded on making a better environment for women to exercise this control in order to better facilitate their security motive.
Every browbeaten husband who’s abdicated his frame to appease his wife does so because she doesn’t trust him with controlling for her security. Encouraged for generations to be the self-sufficient, independent woman, and combined with generation of masculine ridicule, she predetermines for herself that men cannot be trusted to provide for her security. In order to meet this need she must take the reigns as a precondition for any marriage or pairing in spite of her wanting a man to do so.
Men are shamed for not being the men women expect them to be because they seem incapable of providing for their security. In girl-world this is the preconceived norm, men wont do it so we have to.
However the confounding element in this push for feminine control is Men’s influence and cooperation with their imperative. I took a lot of heat for declaring that Men define what is sexy for women. In girl-world this is an affront; women need to control men’s desires in order to make them compliant to their overall security need. Hypergamy can’t function efficiently if men are allowed to define women’s value in the sexual market place. That need for control is aggravated by men’s biologically hard-wired predisposition to prefer women THEY find sexy. Solution? Rewrite the societal rules for what men are allowed to find sexy. Thus we have a fem-centric societal push to encourage men to care about “what’s on the inside” and define their physical attraction cues as “superficial” and “shallow”. It’s the height of the feminine imperative’s arrogance and solipsism to think that it can rewrite the environmental cues for men evolved over centuries.
Feminine entitlement is a topic of much rancor in the manosphere, but one element I think is lacking in that discourse is the role that the feminine security need plays in it. Feminine entitlement is an extension of this need for control – men should owe women the security that their provisioning affords them, and they’re mad about it. In a recent post on In Mala Fide, Ferdinand details the lastest entitlement push for this feminine control – the new ‘dating’ site,
The basic premise is an overt illustration of exactly the one-sided need for security control women feel entitled to have with men. The premise?
You give the site your name, phone number and email. After getting a code from a robocall, you fill out ten questions — your age, your state, your sex etc. — and upload your photo. Then you select whether you want one match or three (the former costs $8, the latter $15), pay via PayPal, and that’s it. The site’s owners will personally match you to someone based on the info you’ve provided and you’ll get a seven-minute long phone call from them the following Monday.
The kicker is that no woman is expected to tender a picture of herself for the man’s benefit. His interest is dependent entirely on the controlling factor of the ‘matchmaker’ and her determination of his acceptability. And what was the motivation for starting this service?
THE WOMEN ARE IRATE. The women are talking about men, young men, the men they’d like to date and marry, and are they ever pissed. Here’s what they’re saying:
“All they want is sex. They don’t care about relationships.”
“They’re so lazy.”
“All they do is play video games.”
“They aren’t men. They’re boys.”
The women are a little bewildered. They’re good girls. They followed the script: did well in high school, got into college, worked hard there, got out, got jobs, started looking around for someone special to share life with, and …
“I met a guy the other night. Good-looking, smart. Twenty-eight years old. He still lives at home. With his mom.” Young men are now nearly twice as likely as young women to live with their parents; 59 percent of guys ages 18 to 24 and 19 percent of 25-to-34-year-olds live at home. Based on those Census Bureau stats, 64,000 young Philly men have returned to or never left the nest—and they all have mothers, ex-girlfriends, grandmothers, dads and other friends and relations worrying about their plight.
Essentially the site’s founder, E. Jean Carroll, has taken the Kate Bolick / Kay Hymowitz ‘Man-Up’ model of dating in the new masculine paradigm to the next level – simultaneously monetizing women’s insecurities about male ‘Kidults’, reinforcing feminine security entitlement and absolving women of the decisions they made that put them into this new dating paradigm. Bottom line, Carroll is selling hypothetical dates with “real” men with the means to provide the security that women are owed them. And once again the theme repeats itself; men can’t be trusted to provide for your security ladies, so Carroll will do it for you