The Burden of Control

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.

Rewriting Evolution

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

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

38 comments on “The Burden of Control

  1. And yet there is something to be said about the kidification of males, especially in the West. The last 10 years of my life have been dedicated to robbing males from W2 jobs and throwing them into self employment. Time and time again I am confronted by weak risk-adverse males who can’t seem to adapt to the confident behavior required of business owners.

    It’s no wonder that most of these weak males also have terrible sex lives, or worse: the sex dungeon. If they have a woman, it’s typically one who is far more confident and financially strong than he.

    I started doing some small startup consulting in Europe in regions that are inferior to the Western urban hubs, and I found the complete opposite. The men there are less educated but happen to be far more risk ready. I wonder how confidence-robbing the college system is; when you start your adult life with $40,000 in debt, you don’t have the opportunity to sock 2 years of expenses away for failed risk attempts. You’re beaten down into a common group of knowledge seekers and you’re surrounded by high testosterone women seeking the same degrees and jobs.

    That’s not all of it, though. I now firmly believe that video games and porn offer too quick of a “win” for young males, making a high risk win feel less beneficial. I don’t play video games (pinball at a bar, yes) and I don’t watch a lot of porn, so I wonder if the “quick reward” behavior modification of both has something to do with male weakness and aversion to risk.

    Lastly, I’m curious as to how sports enthusiasm changes the reward and individuality centers of thinking… A common flaw of the males I consult with who fail is that they’re avid professional sports watchers, bringing a sense of “ownership” for “their” teams they support. I hypothesize that this has a similar weakening effect as video game wins and porn wins seem to provide.

    Still, I do meet males who succeed at self employment, but it’s closer to 2/7 of the ones who bring me on to help kick start their dream businesses. That’s scary, to think that 70% of males who have a desire for self employment are too beta and risk averse to make it.

    1. Unfortunately we live in a spectator society now, especially in North America.

      Do we go out and socialize and talk to the opposite sex? Nah. Just flip on Jersey Shore and live vicariously through them as they do those things.

      Do we go exploring nature and learn to camp, fish, build a fire, and survive? Nah. Let’s just watch other people do that on Survivor.

      Do we travel the world? Nah, let’s watch other people do that on Amazing Race.

      Do we exercise and keep thin and healthy? Nah, let’s order pizza while we watch other people do that on The Biggest Loser.

      Do we start a business? Nah, let’s watch other people do that on Dragon’s Den and other entrepreneurial shows.

      Do we pursue our dreams of becoming famous singers or dancers or making a living off our personal talents/hobbies? Nah, let’s watch other people do that on American Idol and Americas Got Talent.

      Do we go out and talk to girls? Nah, let’s just read game blogs. 😉

      And then tomorrow morning we’ll go back to our mundane job we hate working for a boss we don’t like, trapped in a relationship we settled for, running out of breath walking up a flight of stairs, and sing in the shower until the next chance we get to escape our shitty lackluster lives when the next episode is on TV.

      It really is a sad state of affairs. Most people are just waiting to die. Cancel your cable, sell your Xbox, limit your Internet usage, quit watching pickup seminars, and go live life.

      1. I gave up my smart phone in November and it was the final anchor that bound me to fake relationships completely.

        I just gave up SMS as well, in February, and now I require phone calls.

        I’m amazed at the response that my voice has in situations where I was otherwise flaked on. You can’t properly text or email dominance, but the voice has amazing powers.

    1. Polygyny exists on some level already (think poor black criminal types with 6 kids from 4 women). I’m a supporter of polygyny actually, and tell my regulars that I can see myself having many kids with a few solid, feminine motherly women.

      The reason why polygyny isn’t happening is because the State takes responsibility for single mothers in excess. It’s part of the masculinization of women in the West and upsets the balance that naturally comes without that safety net in place.

      Over time, as governments grow evermore impoverished, I firmly believe an unregulated style of polygyny will emerge. Not “Big Love” style, but something not far from it.

  2. – I thought it was crazy that Ferdinand posted on the same subject and was going to link to it.

    – I don’t know of anyone who’s so blatantly said “woman are competing for men, this is a problem because it used to be the other way around”.

    – Besides that this was the other eye opener:

    “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..”

    How many times have we heard this from a man mostly a “nice guy”, only for him to be smacked down and told he wasn’t entitled to a woman.

    – As you said woman have decided that they themselves will judge what men will find attractive about them.
    So a woman who’s dismissed aside her looks, parental status & sexual history will now think of herself as someone any man would be lucky (there’s that word) to be with.

  3. This is an interesting spin on the feminine imperative.

    I’ve usually thought of it in terms of framing relationship as requiring commitment/resources, and of women banding together to keep control over rogue males (read males who refuse to commit or who share resources outside of a main pairbond) through social ostracism.

    This puts it at one meta-level removed. The underlying drive of the feminine imperative is not commitment, it’s control over resources, and security. And in the real world we might see that as communist and socialist leanings in females.

    1. I believe it has been discussed in more intimate detail elsewhere regarding the differences between North Vietnamese societies and those of the south: in one, men control the purse strings, in the other it’s reversed. I may be wrong about the country, but what I read years ago was that the female controlled financial areas were more likely to lose wars because of the betaness of males.

      In the US, I recently read that women control something like 75% of spending (no citation, I’m on my iPad at an airport). Even big screen TVs are primarily purchased by women, and disregard clothes and groceries. It’s no wonder the West has become so weak — males can’t even manage their money.

      Women who date me long term must obviously do so because they sense I command my capital resources well and can maintain children when it comes to that. It has nothing to do with current wealth, though, but current power that would allow me to expand my future wealth if more mouths are to be fed.

      Then again, if a woman I’m with asks for fancy dinners or trips, I always come down hard on them that I maintain my nest eggs for the future and won’t flippantly use my funds for anyone but myself until I have made an obligation towards responsibility for others. Spin, hamsters, spin.

      1. “Then again, if a woman I’m with asks for fancy dinners or trips…”

        Which, strangely enough, seems to happen more with older, fatter women than young cute ones. This is one of the perils of being around age 40. If you date anyone close to your own age group, you get some seriously demanding women, not the fun, flirty younger women who can make it a great night going to only the Slurpee machine. Why is it that the lesser the market value of the woman, the higher demands she seems to make?

        And then they actually wonder why “you haven’t returned any of my messages.”

  4. Girls need something controlling their lives. They seek a dominating influence to engage their neuroticism and give meaning to their emotions. In its absence, or when it wanes, they will want for another.

    This is why unattached girls fill their lives with endless activity and schedules to keep busy. For single girls, going to Starbucks with their friends is important.

    Every man is familiar with the 1-2 year mark where your girlfriend starts trying to drag you to more of her things. In the man’s mind, this is a good thing. She’s developing her own life, she has her own stuff going on. Then the day comes when she starts guilting YOU for not wanting to do HER stuff.

    What happened is that your active command has waned and she has started scheduling activities and let them control her life again. It seems non-threatening because you’re not competing with another man. In reality you are now effectively competing with her agenda as the dominant force in her life. When she starts prioritizing her schedule over you– you’ve been cuckolded.

    It’s an especially dangerous fitness test because passing a traditional fitness test means reframing and taking control of the dynamic. Failing means complicity with her submission to another influence, even if that influence is asexual. It also threatens to become habitual over time.

    Even worse, men who comply often do so begrudgingly. This is subversive behavior- it implies you are not in control and is unattractive.

    The omega in your picture is right. Man up and say ‘no’ for an answer.

    1. Yeah, they’ll probably find them even less appealing than the betas they reject by the dozen…

  5. A couple years ago I researched some online dating sites to see what they were about, and “the dating sites that are based on personality” were b.s. (not only because you could say I want X and the site computer system search results would not say X eventhough I said X was the result I wanted as it would incorrectly result in H personality, but the main reason it was b.s. is because it was even trying to base on “personalities and the soulmate myth” to begin with and often would not show any pictures of the women eventhough males primarily base their attraction to women visually on how physically attractive she looks). Most of the women on dating sites have children and are seeking father figures/”security and stability” from a beta provider. I now check out POF/OKC for only 5% of Game just to see if there’s any new prospects in the area, but 95% of my Game is in public places.
    I am done with social “networking” and deleted those accounts and now network mostly in the real world. I like some (non-professionally made) porn, but I rarely go to porn sites anymore (not because I’m against porn) because it is way too time consuming as going to 1 site to watch 1 clip becomes addicting to wanting to watch more clips and that can turn into hours and I just can’t spend that much time a day watching porn so I have to usually avoid porn sites to better allocate this time.
    A man can maintain the frame of control in relationships and in his life by saying in his mind that no other person controls me.
    It’s a society lie to brainwash kids in schools that getting good grades in high school and college will lead to a good job (it does NOT, it often leads to years of paying off college debt). Then, often mortgage and vehicle payments for more debt. Most of the manufacturing jobs have been outsourced to other countries. The Aristocracy (not the majority of average citizens who actually have a lack of prosperity) have put the U.S. and global economies into debt. Many companies have women in Human Resources that hire and promote women over men. Thousands of Alpha men in wars are killed off. Starting ones own business can take financing that’s usually not easy to get from banks or VC and then often takes years to build to profitability (but it is good to make attempts at this). So, I say all men cannot be blamed (like they play video games because they’re just lazy) because in a bunch of ways to begin with (with many men not even being aware of all these issues) the deck is stacked against men (but it’s worth being in and playing the Game).

  6. And if you are wrong about it all being because a woman needs to control her level of security? What then?
    Why is it just now women are in the lime light? The pill gave women the freedom to have casual sex. The freedom for them to do what comes naturally. Men are not the only ones who are naturally promiscuous.

  7. Why should woman want to date or be in a relationship with a controlling person who doesn’t take responsiblity for themselves? Would you date yourself is the only question people need to ask themselves to figure out if the “problem” is them or the other sex. You should get what you give. Risk has both an upside and a downside. The house usually wins.

  8. In some countries today it is expected that the man needs to hit his woman under some circumstances. There is not only no social stigma against it, but the girls sisters and mother will agree with the mans punishment.

    I’m not talking about Iran or Afcrapistan, but SE Asia countries, such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, etc.

    I have rarely hit a woman. It has rarely been necessary. But sometimes you have two choices – hit her, or break up. So yes, hitting her in such an instance really does mean you care.

    It is a travesty the way this required discipline is criminalized in the west. A sign that something is deeply amiss. One reason I would not want to live in the west, at this point. A man needs counterbalances of control against a woman, and if those are taken away by force of law, domestic sickness and then cultural sickness will certainly ensue.

  9. This kind of one sided babying of women through protection used to make me laugh. How could any woman that needed such treatment ever think she could be seen as ‘equal’ to the system that is protecting her and was put in place by men?

    Now this kind of thing just pisses me off. The idea that an old, washed up woman can decide that men aren’t ‘worth these women’ is insulting.

    I wonder if it was a difference in where I’m at in life, if it was the red pill, if it was a matter of degree of transgression, or all of the above.

  10. well, how about building a dating web site based on the principles of pre-qualifying the women instead? do you guys think something like this will fly, commercially speaking? i have the means of production and marketing. ideas of letting only manosphere men in is swirling in head right now. just for kicks.

  11. If women have any power at all it is only because men collectively gave it to them

    Historically women were not educated, could not work and had no control
    over reproduction. Now we are educated, work and use birth control.

    Feminism was created by the men who provided the education,work and birth control to women along with social acceptance of these behaviors.

    If there are problems between the sexes everyone is guilty.

    If men were not inclined to spray their sperm wherever and in whomever
    than women would have to change.

    One egg versus billions of sperm competing for one egg.

    Women have power because men have no self control over their own sexuality so empower women. This is why they try to control women
    so they do not have to practice self control.

    Everything comes down to sex.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: