Chauvinism

chau·vin·ism

1: excessive or blind patriotism — compare jingoism
2: undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3: an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also :behavior expressive of such an attitude. Compare male chauvinism.

I had an interesting conversation over the long weekend about my Shallow post with a few red pill friends. The topic of NLP (neurolinguistic programing) and how select terms are ‘owned’ by the feminine imperative was discussed. It’s interesting to dissect how the terminologies of certain feminine social conventions have entered our contemporary lexicon as the ‘official’ definitions we simply take for granted in our blue-pill ignorance.

The subjective nature of terms like “Shallow” and “Superficial” are easy examples of this feminine repurposing, but then you get to “Misogynist”, “Sexist” and of course “Chauvinist” and you can see how these ‘official’ terms evolved into what they are today. In fact, “Sexism” was so universally defined as male-specific, Websters needed a new word to describe a female form of sexism, “reverse-sexism.” And of course “Misandrist” still gets the red underscore of a misspelled word in my WordPress spellchecker.

Chauvinists

The problem I see is in defining ‘Chauvinism’, particularly as opposed to ‘Misogyny’ – they’re practically synonyms in the lexicon of the feminine imperative. The biggest fallacy I think most AFC guys and all women I’ve read write on Chauvinism subscribe to is that women own this term. It is absolutely possible to describe a woman as a Chauvinist, but in a modern context it has been uniquely defined in the masculine. In fact, to get down to the roots of the term when it was defined as a masculine attribute, the original terminology was “male chauvinist pig” courtesy of Gloria Steinem and the militant feminist movement of the 1970s.

However, more important is how the term has become synonymous with masculinity. For the past 40 years it’s been developed in westernized society that masculine = chauvinism and that any uniquely masculine trait, behavior or characteristic is at the very least suspect, if not outrightly so, chauvinism.

Why is this? Why should a man be labeled ‘chauvinistic’ for expressing his masculinity? Masculinity and the behaviors that are derived from it are no more negative than those expressed in the Feminine depending upon individual conditions. But it’s the masculine that is vilified by both sexes (at least in the last 60 years).

Positive Masculinity

Why can’t the masculine be a positive? The underlying theme for Rational Male is an effort to get back to a positive definition of masculinity. Thatt’s not advocating a wife-beating, caveman ideology, rather it’s a move back to defining the masculine in terms that don’t equate it with chauvinism. The difficulty occurs in attempting to relate to both men and women a need to unlearn this pre-described terminology, that even our own parents helped brow-beat into cultural consciousness. Chauvinism as masculinity has been parroted constantly for so long now that a new generation of AFC sons from AFC fathers now resort to internalizing this doctrine and ego-investing themselves in avoiding anything even remotely construed as masculinity in a desperate attempt to identify with what other women repeating the same ideology (masculine equals domineering opression) have been socially conditioned to accept as what a man should be to achieve the ‘gift’ of their intimacy.

Then men are ridiculed (even by their own) for even prompting the thought that something might not be entirely equitable in gender relations when behaviors consistently don’t match ideology. The man to even subtly point out inconsistencies in women’s behaviors is automatically a Chauvinist for exposing a feminine weakness in their argument. And now we come full circle and hear a constant bemoaning from feminized pop-culture, “Where are all the REAL men these days?” Why can’t we have Superman again? All in complete, blissful ignorance of the history and circumstance that have lead to the decline of positive masculine males.

The only reason men outside the sphere have any impression that the manosphere is based in Chauvinism is because they have no grasp of the true definition of the terem, nor do they understand the engineering which evolved the term to what it is now. It’s far easier to engage in misguided attempts to identify with the feminine; to spit back the rhetoric women say they approve of as a condition for their intimacy while simultaneously contradicting themselves with their own behaviors.

For far too long young men have bought the basic Carl Jung psycho-babble women have repeated since the 60’s – “Men need to get in touch with their feminine side” as if this were the ultimate in female identification and an avenue to their intimacy. In fact the opposite is true – men need to rediscover their masculine sides and be unafraid of the consequences. In my experience the manosphere makes the single best attempt to do this in modern culture, without resorting to actual misogyny.

It’s time to stop buying the lie that masculinity is laughable, ridiculous or definitively negative. The world desperately needs Men. Men with strength of will to pass the meta-shit test of a feminized popular culture when it tells him he’s pitiable because he’s been poisoned with testosterone and the traits that make him masculine are to be controlled as character flaws.

81 comments

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism “A contemporary use of the term in English is in the phrase male chauvinism.”

    I’m in my mid 40’s and I remember being in grade school, probably 4-6 grade (we’re talking late ’70s), when the term “male chauvinist pig” became a popular taunt among the girls. Course, with women becoming so testosterone-infused, the feminine is becoming masculine, so all things will come in a circle.

  2. Maybe it’s just me but if any other guys are noticing the same thing please chime in.

    I feel like since American men as a whole have become so feminized/beta that the way to peacock is to do the opposite and embrace the positive masculinity. Being politically correct and appealing to the femcentric way has become so ingrained that even slight doses of chauvinism seem to work pretty well.

    I’ve had more noticeable success and garnered more attraction by embracing the ethos embraced here at RM compared when I used to say what I thought women wanted to hear. For example, busting on a girl for how she’s probably a bad driver because she’s a woman, saying how you’d prefer to have sons because girls are crazy, etc. Shit, I’ve told girls in convo how today’s men seem to have gotten soft and that women deep down don’t like it (http://i.imgur.com/gFD5o.png) and it seems to all work.

    Maybe because I’m not running supplicate and appease game and more just being honest but something is going on.

    Maybe deep down women yearn for it, maybe they’ve gotten tired of the games herbs run. It’s like showing up to a tuxedo ball in a biker jacket and Timbs. Society has made men wear the tuxedo (and so many men can’t wait to put them on) that if you show up with something different it is a lot more refreshing.

  3. For the past 40 years it’s been developed in westernized society that masculine = chauvinism and that any uniquely masculine trait, behavior or characteristic is at the very least suspect, if not outrightly so, chauvinism.

    Sure, because if women cannot do it or have great difficulty doing it, then men are wrong for doing it so easily and well.

    Why can’t the masculine be a positive?

    It IS positive and that is the problem. Feminist are gone the minute men realize this. These words you describe; misogynist, chauvinist, shallow, etc are simply weapons. You take away these weapons and you will have made astounding bounds.

    The difficulty occurs in attempting to relate to both men and women a need to unlearn this pre-described terminology, that even our own parents helped brow-beat into cultural consciousness.

    In fact the opposite is true – men need to rediscover their masculine sides and be unafraid of the consequences.

    Yes. Masculinity in itself is the path to leadership. The most masculine men are those that both men and women will follow. Men will strive to act like them and women will want to be with them. These men will need to own every ounce of their masculinity without shame or embarrassment. Rather they will need to proudly embrace it and demonstrate it to the world. The problem is finding the best way to demonstrate it as PUA’s and most MRA’s will not be accepted as actual strength.

  4. Also, I have this routine where talk about how I lament the fact how my two good friends have moved in with their gfs and how it totally emasculates them (They can’t sneak around, no more guys night out, always watching rom coms, etc).

    How one friend is getting married and it’s the worst mistake he can make. I go anti-marriage a bit too and decry how my buddies have given themselves 100% to the idea of love. It’s worked well in convos on first dates for some reason. Maybe the girls I’m going on dates with get the “Get Married by 30 or Bust” herbs or maybe it’s some kind of disqualifier because I’m flashing disinterest in marriage or LTRs from the get go.

  5. Interesting.

    Beta-Game is really anti-game, but then anti-anti-Game is the contingency.

    It’s like running a boyfriend destroyer routine, only you get to define the character of the boyfriend and DHV against the character you create. Brilliant.

    Straw Man Game FTW!

  6. Rollo: “The world desperately needs Men.”

    Not complete. The world desperately needs men if it is to be a certain way which requires ‘Men.’ The new kind of world emerging before our very eyes seems not to require ‘Men’ so much, and it’s muddling through nonetheless. The world which Men have built is analogous to the political system set up by Augustus; so well-designed that it can withstand bad leaders (in our case, women and feminized men) for centuries before it finally collapses.

  7. I’m a bit drunk at the moment, and I consider what I just posted to be really quite brilliant. But like the ancient Persians, according to Herodotus, I will try to consider things twice: once when drunk and once when sober (or vice versa). If I still consider it brilliant tomorrow morning, perhaps I’ll celebrate by having a drink.

  8. Be very careful of drinking the “x is real masculinity, y is not” kool-aid.

    Society will define masculinity in a way that benefits society first, the individual second (if you are lucky).

    Actually its better to just let go of the whole idea of trying to “find masculinity” to minimize manipulation. Do whatever works. When it stops working, try something else.

    If you’re happy, you’re the man.

  9. Strangely enough, “chauvinism” originated as a word having nothing to do with sex relations but with extreme and blind patriotism. It comes from the name of one of Napoleon’s soldiers, Nicolas Chauvin. Interesting how words evolve, and just how many of them have been hijacked by feminists.

  10. Cheers bro.

    Your comment is “right” from a pure logical point of view, but its factually wrong.

    “The world which Men have built is analogous to the political system set up by Augustus; so well-designed that it can withstand bad leaders”

    And how long did that last?

    You can automate a house to run so perfectly it can hold your kids without adult supervision – until an accident happens, until the kid does something stupid, until something breaks, until…

    The world is set up in a way it doesnt require “men” but agendered slaves – but making everything worse for everyone involved, and getting worse the more it pushes in that direction, thus, it’s a machine poorly designed, and it will break, collapse, fuck itself up. The more it fucks itself up, the more it pushes in the same direction that is fucking things up. Far from running smoothly, it is precipitating.

    Men are needed to stand up to that and fix things, men will rise when a critical point is reached. It’s just a matter of when and how.

  11. “It’s like running a boyfriend destroyer routine, only you get to define the character of the boyfriend and DHV against the character you create. Brilliant.”

    Rollo thank you for defining that dude. I think that’s exactly what occurs when I do it. Easy to speak about it convincingly when your friends are actually going through it.

    I think it also sets the frame (at least for something longer term) that the girl I run this routine on sees me as damaged(?) and wants to turn me around to fit the “ideal” pursuit of love that my friends are going for. “Logic” says that decrying LTRs and love would push the girls away but it’s not what reality has said this past year.

    Also, thank you because without your writings I wouldn’t realize the predicaments my friends have put themselves in and why.

  12. One of the best lessons in taking the red pill…

    Stop apologizing for being a man. Stop apologizing for your desires.

  13. Great if that kind of thing works for you, but I wouldn’t. With a new prospect, I still subscribe to the be mysterious about your intentions school of thought. The less you signal in the early stages about whether you’re up for LTR or marriage or just keep it casual, the better. Before I got into my current LTR I had only one main answer when asked the where is this going question: Wherever/whatever comes natural for us. When pressed on what that is: I don’t know yet. I regard it as a sh*t test because she’s trying to ask me to make a choice when any one usually seemed to tank her interest level (of course not saying she’s intentionally doing it, it’s just something I noticed would happen). Maybe an exception to that might be the secret lover relationship, you’d likely have to frame it that way right from the get-go before she blabs about you to her friends and mom, but still you can dance around the question of whether it ever goes public. (Apologies for the tangential content.)

  14. as always well written and educational.

    modern western ideology touts this nonsense. people are indoctrinated en masse as if it is a basic fact of life. as if we are just now understanding the gender relation ideal and all of mans past was tainted with a flawed social dynamic.

    but look now, the men are unhappy with the women and their prospects and the women are unhappy with the men. and the reason, as most of you know: gender is not a social construct. take your pants off and tell me gender is a contrived notion designed to keep one group in control of another. that idea is absurd.

    fact is that masculinity is associated with power, strength and control. terms so associated with the negative when they are in fact positive, foreward-driving traits. but currently that negative association leaves people fearful and defensive of the masculine, even men are afraid of it, and will not foster their own power in themselves. its like castrating yourself because school taught you it was proper.

    one of my favorite jokes i leave you with: the only things women do better than men are getting prregnant and having babies; both of which require them to lay on their backs while a man does his job.

  15. 1. Hit the Iron
    2. Join a Jiu-Jitsu Academy
    3. Grow a Beard
    4. Hunt or Fish
    5. Spend a couple nights in a forest, alone, without any gear or link to the outside world

    Do all that, and you’ll be well on your way.

  16. It’s funny that being masculine isn’t really rediscovering anything…it’s just finally saying no to the lie. Once you realize that woman have no power over man other than big daddy government and mommy court system…there is nothing to fear. If those two institutions fail (and with Obama let’s hope they do), feminism will die a quick painful death.

    And if a woman puts you down for being a man…let her enjoy her retirement in a cat shelter.

  17. Rollo, your last sentence rang so true for me.

    “…he’s pitiable because he’s been poisoned with testosterone and the traits that make him masculine are to be controlled as character flaws.”

    I’ve often thought this but could not have expressed it so succinctly.

    I think it sums up the whole double-standard.

    Masculine traits = character flaws

    Whatever a woman does, says, writes, thinks. = ‘You go grrrrl!®’ empowerment.

    [This is the essence of the Feminine Imperative]

    @taterearl – “…finally saying no to the lie.”

    Yes, just internalizing that concept makes a huge difference.

  18. In re. gender and courage/strength/integrity/character, google Maria Santos Gorrostieta (RIP).

    A good example of society programing individuals to sacrifice themselves for society. Soldiers also come to mind.

    It’s funny that being masculine isn’t really rediscovering anything…it’s just finally saying no to the lie.

    Agree. Reaching masculinity for a man is about removing stuff, not adding. When you have removed all lies, what’s left is “pure you” which is the most potent man you will ever be. “The man” is within.

  19. A good example of society programing individuals to sacrifice themselves for society. Soldiers also come to mind.

    I disagree. Santos Gorrostieta acted from her own free will, not from social programming. If people were programmed to do this, there would be hundreds if not thousands more Santos Gorrostieta standing up against the drug cartels and the horror they have wrought.

    What Santos Gorrostieta represents is a rare person of unspeakable moral courage, physical courage, and selflessness, who defied the apathy of the society around her–which programs its citizens for consumerism, individualism, and self-indulgence–in order to do what she felt was right, regardless of the cost. Few people deserve the word hero, but she is one.

    Finally, somehow, I don’t think solipsism or hypergamy were very high of this beautiful and courageous young medical doctor’s list of priorities.

  20. Great post and comments again, but I have two questions that have nothing to do with anything.

    First, I’m finding that as the Pill sinks in that “nice guys” are causing me to feel a vsiceral sense of disgust. There’s a guy behind me at work who laughs like an Herb all the time, and it’s taking huge amounts of strength to not turn around and pound him. Is this normal?

    Also, can anyone point me to a good place for guidance on approaching in the gym?

  21. Most mexicans are neither standing up against the cartels nor joining them because they are not dumb. Thank god.

    Social programmng is not supposed to work on all or even the majority. Just enough to serve its purpose. Get a few to take the bullet for the others. In return society then calls them heros and praises them for having courage, selflessness etc yet will never follow their footsteps.

    Getting killed and endangering your kids for “society’s benefit” is foolishness of the highest order.

    Apathy is good, it can save your life. Letting society sleep in the bed it made is the wise choice.

  22. “For far too long young men have bought the basic Carl Jung psycho-babble women have repeated since the 60′s – “Men need to get in touch with their feminine side” as if this were the ultimate in female identification and an avenue to their intimacy. In fact the opposite is true – men need to rediscover their masculine sides and be unafraid of the consequences.”

    Awesome!

  23. “First, I’m finding that as the Pill sinks in that “nice guys” are causing me to feel a vsiceral sense of disgust.”

    Me too. That’s probably me getting in touch with my feminine side.

  24. I got voted down when I made some comment under an article where I pointed out that society as we know it would not exist if it weren’t for men: everything you see and touch was conceived, built, and delivered by a man.

    Since this was considered “chauvinist” we need to conclude that merely point out reality to women is offensive. And from there, we need to conclude that Franklin, Jefferson, the Victorians, Freud, etc. we correct when they claimed women were irrational children, not fully-formed adults. If you view them from this perspective it’s easier to deal with them. I’d also recommend reading Schopenhauer’s essay on women.

  25. When I saw the picture of Jessica Wakeman, I was just dumbfounded in that Frisky article.

    Why is it that the ugliest women that should doubling down on being ultra supportive and super sweet in order to snag some type of decent guy the worst angry femicunts the world has ever seen?

    If I looked like her, I would be rah rah dudes. At the first chance a decent beta provider I would be on that like flies on shit all the time being sweet hoping that he overlooks my sub par looks. I mean she’s the female omega of obesity, so she has some chance but she fucks it away.

    I also understand that their egos prevent them from seeing how ugly and unattractive they actually are and towing the feminist lies comforts them with the hope for their alpha but it’s tragic and funny at the same time.

  26. i remember on my first day at school, the first thing our teacher (mrs. tinker..) told us were the class rules, the one that stuck in my mind and can still hear her telling us is ‘keep hands and feet to yourselves’ obviously just talking just to the boys- and that formed the base for many of them to ‘keep your masculinity to yourselves’ ever since. it is inconvenient to deal with boys who like to throw sand at each other and smash their building blocks against each others’, but that is a small price to pay for raising a generation that has not learnt the things that men are wired to learn, its pretty tragic.

  27. Rollo. As always thanks for the article.
    @Team-Red. Long been on 1&3, I 2nd rec them for everyone. 2,4&5…i’ll do those. Esp like the idea of 5.
    @taterearl. Just my opinion but though rumors abound, I don’t think the feared and talked about collapse will happen any time soon. MUCH is wrong with this system, but hose predicting near term let alone imminent collapse generally seem to suffer from the cognitive condition where their own lack of understanding is replaced with fear. A lot of assets and strategies will have to burn out before this system turns in on itself. Again, just my opinion. Stock supplies for solar flares, take a raincheck on the fall of the west. And hell … it just may be that by the time all conventional strategies and underlying assets have been burned out preserving the status quo, the foundation overhauling effect of work like Rollo’s may come in from below and catch the ediface before it falls in on itself.
    @Yohami. At first I was going to ask what your beef was with OlioOx’s remark then saw your second comment. I get it, but I can see a way a feminine supreme corporatized systematized and highly automated society could work: semi integrated but largely autonomous colonies. When they thrive they thrive. When they suffer they move. When they cannot thrive because conditions are outside systemmatized parameters, they collapse, but that’s ok as long as a plurality of colonies survive.

  28. Case, yep, but you still need men to create the automatized colonies, to build the machines, to get the stuff done, etc. Women aint gonna do it.

  29. You need men to create a society that can run without men, even without men maintaining it.

    But there’s no incentive (pussy) for men to build such society.

    The less incentive (pussy) there is, the more men fail, the more men are pushed low and outside of society and the more those men are unwanted – therefore the more society wants these men to build a society where themselves are not needed… but there’s no incentive.

    You can push that model for so long but eventually the dog bites it’s tail.

    The promise for women was to have it all – and now they dont have anything. The promise for men was to have pussy if they allowed the women to have it all. Now everyone is empty handed.

    A revolution is likely to happen before anyone can automatize a model that cannot work. There’s no man force to build it nor capital (pussy) to fund it.

  30. Lol got called “chauvinist pig” for even questioning the entitlement culture of women. It started with my q “Why should they get preferential treatment”…oh boy, I was just amazed at the fervor that it induced.

  31. “When I saw the picture of Jessica Wakeman, I was just dumbfounded in that Frisky article. Why is it that the ugliest women that should doubling down on being ultra supportive and super sweet in order to snag some type of decent guy the worst angry femicunts the world has ever seen?”

    Because women like this are invisible to men and they’ve come to hate and resent men for ignoring them. Women like attention and this is the only way the nasty-looking ones can get it. I’m not going to even Google her pic, but from your description I’m gonna assume she didn’t get asked to many school dances. That shit builds up resentment.

  32. Jesus fucking Christ that picture, suddenly I need to go punch something or someone.

    How to Piss off a Feminist twice? Fuck her in the ass and wipe your dick on the drapes.

  33. “In fact, to get down to the roots of the term when it was defined as a masculine attribute, the original terminology was “male chauvinist pig” courtesy of Gloria Steinem and the militant feminist movement of the 1970s.”

    Close, but…

    Mary Inman was an ardent feminist and Communist in the late 1930s and early 1940s. During that era, the Communist Party of the USA often used the phrase “white chauvinism” to refer to racial prejudice. It was Inman who reworked that phrase to coin the term, “male chauvinism.”

  34. “”First, I’m finding that as the Pill sinks in that “nice guys” are causing me to feel a vsiceral sense of disgust. There’s a guy behind me at work who laughs like an Herb all the time, and it’s taking huge amounts of strength to not turn around and pound him. Is this normal?””

    Perfectly normal, I’ve imagined strangling thousands of herby herbs over the years. Listening to this half man banter literally causes my head to feel tension, seems to be the side effects from long term red pill dosage. I find myself just walking away from many conversations now, obviously the T.V also disappeared years ago (doco’s aside)

  35. Women may not be able to run an advanced society without any male help, but they could do it with the assistance of a large number of ‘nice guys.’

    Hmm, doesn’t that pretty much describe current conditions?

  36. Biological role of the man is to be the tool for women. He is here for her to enable her to procreate and work his ass off for her offspring. He is here to proctect and provide and if necessary, to sacrifice his life for her. His very body AND BRAIN is made that way. It is up to him to realize it and master his body and emotions so that HE CAN control women, not the other way around.

    Men have forgotten this, they are no longer taught that they have to RULE women. Majority of them are slaving their lives away in marriages. Chauvinism, misogyny, etc. are nothing but meaningless words used by women in their shaming tactics, so that men remain unworthy BLIND slaves and do not see where the real problem lies. It is no use discussing them. Of course men are trying to “defend” themselves so that they will seem “worthy” of chick. How pathetic.

    Mature man does not argument or discuss with women. He knows that women are like his little bratty sisters, the are not able to discuss/understand abstract ideas as – justice, freedom, broterhood, clarity, character, higher goal, etc. He rules them by force, fear and emotions. If they do not obey, he punishes them. He withdraws attention – he shames them. Like children. He does not enter into any form of relationship in which women can have power over him. He preserves this master – servant relationship with him as the master and women as servant. This is only system that works. Heck, it worked for thousands of years until we decided that we no longer need it. This “modern” woman, aka useless whore, is the result.

    Unless men regain the control of women again by enacting laws and enforcing them by fear and necessity, men remain slaves all their fucking lives. There is no other way.

  37. Slightly OT, and forgive me for asking the obvious, but how does one avoid being misogynous(not in the shaming sense of the word)?
    How does one strike the middle path between pedestalising women and being misogynous?

  38. Yohami also describes why polygamous societies can be so destructive. Alpha males get 22 wives, and thousands of omegas get none. Therefore you’ve got thousands of men with no incentives to create or advance. They become violent, turn on each other, and nothing but a giant drain.

    The only potential benefit for such a society is to become massively militaristic so as to kill off the excess males.

    Although it’s not polygamous, China’s one-child policy has resulted in tons of excess, unmarraigeable males. Not only does this accentuate the virgin/whore dynamic among females (their either prized at birth and used by their parents for the highest bidder or they get shared around), it leads to societal unrest. We don’t hear about it in the news much, but there are riots in China nearly every day.

    China may “solve” this problem by becoming even more militaristic and aggressive.

  39. ‘How does one strike the middle path between pedestalising women and being misogynous?’

    Being true misogynst is hard my hard. I very much doubt many men in the middle class plus are misogynsts.

    Misogyny is the hatred of women along with abusing them. Like if you trip a woman and cause her to fall to the floor simply because she is a woman and has done nothing else. You take glee in making their lifes miserable simply because they have a pussy.

    Misogyny is NOT having control over women.

    Misogyny is NOT having casual sex with women

    Misogyny is NOT having restrictions on what women can do in a society.

    Misogyny is NOT not supplication and putting up with women bullshit.

    That is called being a man and the feminist have equaled that to being a horrible immoral person, a ‘misogynist’.

    Don’t worry about being a misogynist, you’re not.

  40. Kudos, Ferret. Actual misogynists never ask themselves, “Am I a misogynist?”

    There are plenty of misogynists I’m sure in the Crips and Latin Kings, but I doubt many in forums like this one. We’re here because our natural tendency was too much pedestalization. It’s really hard to go from that to genuine hatred of women.

    I’ve also seen more misogyny among some of the Men’s Rights types who’ve dropped out of society.

  41. “Misogyny is the hatred of women along with abusing them. Like if you trip a woman and cause her to fall to the floor simply because she is a woman and has done nothing else. You take glee in making their lifes miserable simply because they have a pussy.”

    Feminists are the true misogynists. Just replace woman with man and you see what I mean.

    When I correct or disagree with women…it has nothing to do with hatred of them. If anything, it’s to prevent them from doing something stupid. If I hated them I’d beta up and tell them everything they do and say is right.

  42. I think it’s also a question of results. Feminists say they want to get women what they want and it makes women miserable. We want what we as men want, and we make women happy (after some annoyed grunts and squeals, of course).

  43. You think it’s bad here? Here’s the latest news from Sweden- http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/gender-neutral-toys-swedish-kids-article-1.1208711?localLinksEnabled=false

    You think it’s only THAT bad in Sweden? Here’s the latest from the good ole’ USA- http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/27/time-nominates-sandra-fluke-for-person-of-the-year/

    One thing I do find interesting is that the comments sections of most of these articles (even the one from thefrisky linked to earlier in these comments) show that there are a LOT of people out there who are buying this BS. Even women.

  44. Oops….comment in moderation might sound a little odd. Didn’t go back and re-edit what I edited…..

  45. I always rebuke any woman that calls me a misogynist. I am not misogynist.

    Misogyny is a pejorative label that feminists peg to a man or institution that would resist the aims and goals of feminism in any way that women might deem functional and useful to peg that man or institution with that label. I am not a misogynist.

    I am a Woman Hater and there is world of difference in being a Woman Hater and a Misogynist. I hate them as they are and what they do, how they act, their arrogance, their conceit.

    To insist that a woman could not be as good a surgeon, executive, chef, sculptor, or governor is entirely chauvinistic.

    To insist that women compete with men on equal footing at work with no concern for her duties in childcare is misogynistic. To not accept that a woman’s need for healthcare is far different and far more extent that those of a man and that insurance should not compensate for that biological reality is also misogynistic.

    But to state that women are duplicitous, inherently calculating, conceited, self-centered, entitled, unaccountable, untrustworthy in relationships, often unintellectual, often uninformed, that they rely on intuition, no matter how flawed, over rationalism, are facts that I have determined by experience and by empirical observation.

    And I state that any man that would invest his life in a woman and to trust that she would honor her commitment is entirely foolish and that no man should ever enter into that form of agreement with any woman.

    And that the wise man undertakes all forms of lifestyle that enhance his ability to resist being forced into those types of agreements.

    The wise man listens but doesn’t believe, kisses but doesn’t love, leaves before he is left.

    And it through those experiences and observations that I stake my claim at being the indisputable, number one, “Woman Hater” in the whole internet. Yet I continue to rebuke and defy anyone that would call me a misogynist or chauvinist.

    I have stated before that I am not against the advancement of women’s causes and actually welcome the changes that it will bring to society and into the lives of both women and men. I firmly believe that “Women’s Liberation means Men’s Liberation”. That as they advance, fewer and fewer men will be shoehorned into the inherent slavery that is imposed on them by a life with women.

    I can spend more and more of my life with them on one side of the fence and me on the other.

    Yes, this is what Red Pill Feminist looks like.

  46. @Yohami on 815 above …
    sorry been away didn’t see reply.
    I agree with the fellow earlier who said that’s kind of happening. Betas giving it up for free, so to speak. Also, to get really mad max on things, numbers could be culled.
    When driving by a strip mall with the same garden variety set of corp stores, think “replicant emergent colony”. When driving by a closed down strip mall with the same think “failed emergent colony”.
    It would be a different humanity and not one many would want, but I can see it.

  47. Boys will be boys, but a lot of em need some help so they don’t hurt themselves, the people around them (like their future wife) or unknowingly supporting something incorrect e.g politicians ruling with beta motives, or the fool paying for sex not knowing he’s fueling the sex trade.

    C’mon Rollo write a post that looks at this stuff on a global scale and at the darker side of the beta mind set, for instance, a post on how scarcity (or believing what you want is out of your reach) leads to desperation, this leads to irrational acts e.g paying for sex, this leads to there being a market for it e.g prostitution, this leads to some really fucked up shit e.g sex slaves and trafficking.

    There’s a world outside America and all the posts I’m seeing focus on that area. Obviously most RM readers are from there, but the rest of the world should get at least one post outlining the male situation overseas, especially since I doubt all of your readers are from the US, therefore their situation will be slightly different.

  48. Misogyny is NOT having control over women.
    Misogyny is NOT having casual sex with women
    Misogyny is NOT having restrictions on what women can do in a society.
    Misogyny is NOT not supplication and putting up with women bullshit.

    @FuriousFerret
    Great points…

  49. thebloggerssililoquy,
    “C’mon Rollo write a post that looks at this stuff on a global scale and at the darker side of the beta mind set, for instance, a post on how scarcity (or believing what you want is out of your reach) leads to desperation, this leads to irrational acts e.g paying for sex, this leads to there being a market for it e.g prostitution, this leads to some really fucked up shit e.g sex slaves and trafficking.

    There’s a world outside America and all the posts I’m seeing focus on that area.”

    You must be new to the Manosphere. They totally support the sex trade, if not financially, at least morally. In fact, American MRAs are totally jealous that Dutch guys in Holland, oh excuse me, “The Netherlands”, have such easy legal access to it and they think its only because of “teh evil womminz/feminazis” that it is not similarly legal in the States.

  50. If the guy in the photo doesn’t want to carry the woman’s bags he can just put them down, turn around, and walk away. He carries them because he wants to eat her pussy later on.

    Suck it up, boys!

  51. @Hopeless Romantic American MRAs are totally jealous that Dutch guys in Holland, oh excuse me, “The Netherlands”

    What’s American MRAs? Is that male rights activists? Being jealous about that contradicts the whole point of learning game, so you don’t have to be sick enough to pay for sex. In my eyes anyway. They can’t honestly want to sleep with a ten year old girl, or a woman that’s been hooked on heroin and forced into it (which some women around the are btw)

  52. Quite frankly, Rollo, you often enable the female imperative by just addressing it.

    Sunshine Mary, for example, just banned me from her blog for suggesting that her flaunting of her panties is not just “innocent.”

    Yet, you show up at her blog sticking your tongue in her unmentionables simply to “justify” your position in the sexual dynamic.

    Surely you, of all people, Rollo, understand why SSM’s blog has become so instantly more popular than your own blog. It is because there is a woman behind the voice, and men find this acceptable, because the female imperative has given its approval.

    And yet, you support these women that have nothing but contempt for men, and, I have to say, it puzzles me deeply.

    Why do you do it, man? Is it because you are married and have to succumb to this bullshit, or what?

  53. Ferdz, I’ve been blogging in the manosphere for just over a year now, but most of what I offer here is the culmination of more than a decade of interaction and discussion on various forums and doing peer counseling with men who seek my advice.

    Prior to launching the blog I had no idea who Susan Walsh was and in fact I only discovered her because she took personal issue with my Wait For It? post on HUS and linked back to. This then began an exchange over other posts and my evaluating her propositions and advice as little more than the want of an aging mother to build better betas to marry women like her daughters rapidly approaching the Wall.

    Similarly I had no idea who SSM was or that she’d even started a blog until she linked back to my posts being critical of the concept of the feminine imperative. Once again I made the attempt to set her understanding straight over the course of 3 posts she’d made. That is until she took it upon herself to canonize some definitive terms about the Feminine Imperative. It was at this point I began to see the Susan Walsh theme being played out as it had before. Which then led to my most recent (Friday’s) post about women’s attempts to control the messaging in the manosphere.

    It’s apparent to me now that SSM is fishing in the same waters as Aunt Giggles (and employing her same policing of her blog), I half expect she’ll sign on with the BlogHer network before the end of January.

    That said, and as upset as you may be for having her censor you, I’ll remind you that isolation is dangerous. If nothing else this experience has only reinforced the perception that women will fluidly attempt to redefine red pill truths to cater to their imperative. An untested principle is worthless. I can sit in my ivory tower and not engage with opponents and theorize to my heart’s content, but it does nothing to validate the concepts I come up with.

    Aunt Giggles virtually never engages anyone beyond her own blog because she knows she lacks the popular support her echo chamber provides her. SSM at least ventures off her blog to engage others at my blog and Dalrock’s. If you feel like I’ve been kissing her ass, I’ll point you towards my most recent post calling her to the carpet. I’ll also point out that you yourself participated in her discussion often enough to pose a threat to her ideology – enough so to ban.

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/sanitizing-the-imperative/

    I realize that acknowledging a gnat only places more significance on it, but likewise, you must engage and test your ideas by criticism and opposition to validate them.

  54. Can’t we just acknowledge the only reason we’re all fighting so much is because we all want each other so much? New Year’s resolution: less fighting, more kissing 🙂

  55. Rollo, the few times Susie has ventured out of her own echo chamber, such as to Badger’s or Dalrock’s, she’s found the experience not to her liking. Some mean man or other dares to challenge her emotional impressions with facts, and demands she support her claims with evidence.

    This leads to behavior rather like a squid or cuttlefish – spray of ink to cloud the waters, that covers a hasty retreat to safety.

    SSM at least can stand up to debate. But let’s bear in mind, as Rollo noted, the inherent limitations in women’s thinking, when the topic is “women’s thinking”.

    And Ferdz, I’m quite annoyed at a ban hammer on you, because your reply to Clarence on the topic of cheating is very well thought out. I was kinda sorta groping towards some of that, and here is the bottom line that occurred to me while reading that interchange between you and Clarence. I’ll post it here, rather than over at SSM’s.

    Cheating:

    Women’s cheating must have an emotional component, axiomatically, and therefore an emotional affair, even with no sex, may be just as satisfying to a woman as a sexual affair with no emotion is to a man.

    To flesh this out just a tiny bit: women have emotional needs, and they may not get them met at home, especially if a man has become betaized due to external events (childbirth, extra hours at work, loss of job, ddeath in family, etc.). She may gravitate towards some man who will fulfill those needs, at work, or some other place. Not out of a sexual need, but out of an emotional need. If he presses for sex, it might happen. But if he doesn’t, she still gets to respect a man who shows some degree of affection for her. However, this will affect her relationship with whats-his-name at home; he will pale by comparison, her respect will dwindle and may even become contempt, and the sex will dry up leaving him in the all too common AFC state.

    The emotional affair of a woman, even if there is no sex involved, therefore is just as dangerous for a marriage or LTR as a sexual affair by a man. But since it is covert – who can object to a woman that serves her boss well, and is never seen in any sort of compromising situation with him – it is not seen as “cheating”. Because, as Ferdz pointed out, “cheating” is defined only in the terms that refer to men’s form of cheating.

    Good work. Ferdz.

  56. For most people in our “civilized” society, the slaughter of a young lamb would be shocking, unpleasant to watch and maybe even offensive. To witness the slaughter or execution of a human being would, of course, be even more disturbing.

    Other than those who have served in the military, and except for the occasional news videos or photographs of executions or assassinations, most of us have not seen real, violent human death firsthand. To some, the simulated violence and death in a television program or movie is so troubling that they want it banned or extensively curtailed. It is certainly unpleasant to watch anyone die, even a relatively peaceful death.

    Have you ever seen a person die, perhaps a close relative? I have not. Although I was with some of my loved ones during their last hours of life, for some reason, God did not allow me to be present at the actual moment when my baby son died, when my mother died, or when my wife’s mother and father died.

    Somehow, human death does not seem quite as unacceptable when the person is very old and has enjoyed a good, long life, or when his death is peaceful and nonviolent. On the negative side, we normally do not question a person’s death when he has flagrantly and selfishly abused his health or is guilty of a violent crime. Human death seems so much worse when the person is young—a child, a youth, or a young man or woman in his or her prime of life; when the person is either relatively or absolutely innocent; or when the death is painful, traumatic, or violent.

    The Lamb of God (Jesus), whose life was of an infinitely higher value than the sum of all human life, was just thirty-three years old when He sacrificed Himself for our salvation. He was in the very prime of His physical life and, like no other adult human before or since, He was one hundred percent innocent of sin. Yet He suffered the most painful, traumatic, violent and shameful death that the human mind could invent. Jesus died for your sins that you may be free. Will you believe on him today and accept him into your heart?

  57. This opinion falls short by mistaking the terms “masculine” and “chauvinist” for synonyms. Chauvinism requires the presence of superiority whereas. masculinity is a neutral quality. By neglecting that difference, the author is displaying male chauvinism. Masculinity is not superior to feminity, but the belief that it is is, by definition, chauvinist.

  58. “For far too long young men have bought the basic Carl Jung psycho-babble women have repeated since the 60’s”

    That’s not really what Carl Jung says. While he says that there is a feminine side in men, it’s more about using this mental construct to access the collective unconscious than actually turning into an emotional man or something along these lines.

  59. Jung had nothing remotely as accessible to the biological, archeological and evolutionary information we possess today.

    Most of his theories were the result of an attempt to identify better with the feminine so as to facilitate his banging his female subjects (with his wife’s blessing no less).

    Game recognizes Game. Jung was just the Hugo Schwyzer of his time, and a man that 2nd and 3rd wave feminism embraced because his universality of genders and them being social constructs gelled with the egalitarian equalism narrative.

    “Women are a magical force. They surround themselves with an emotional tension stronger than the rationality of men…. Woman is a very, very strong being, magical. That is why, I am afraid of
    women.” Carl Jung; (From an interview in 1941.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

    Though he was a practising clinician and considered himself to be a scientist,[7] much of his life’s work was spent exploring tangential areas such as Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, and sociology, as well as literature and the arts. Jung’s interest in philosophy and the occult led many to view him as a mystic, although his ambition was to be seen as a man of science.[7] His influence on popular psychology, the “psychologization of religion”,[8] spirituality and the New Age movement has been immense.[9]

    http://www.nndb.com/people/910/000031817/

    It seems ironic that while Freud struggled to understand the impact of people’s repressed sexual longings, Jung was indulging in a string of satisfying and meaningful affairs (his wife had to tolerate one such woman, Toni Wolf, being a regular fixture at Sunday dinner) whilst forging ahead to more mystical aspects of the mind.

    He was a whack job, but many Alphas are.

  60. I don’t that’s too much about game, Rollo. Jung was a trying to understand esotericism from a psychoanalytic perspective, did you ever seen his comments on the I Ching? It has nothing to do with game whatsoever.

    Now, about his relationship with women, his “Man-Eater dream” tells alot about it. He was sexually repressed, no doubt, but his idea of union with the anima/animus is more about the unification of the duality in one’s mind.

    You can see more about this unification in alchemical and gnostic texts. It’s not about sex, but it can be understood through sex. It’s more about the passive and active (weak and strong) aspects of the universe that are present in everything. I’m not sure if it’s in this text, but you actually speaks about that somewhere in this blog.

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s