It would appear that over this (and last) week the manosphere topic du jour has been defining the Feminine Imperative. Sunshinemary started off the hit parade with her post The feminine imperative, fact or crap? and then followed up How doth the feminine imperative grow and then this week’s seminal effort in redefining the Feminine Imperative into more fem-friendly terms with The Feminine Imperative vs. the Feminist Imperative. All of this is amounting to what’s really the feminine equivalent of a circle jerk debate over semantics.
The recurring theme in all of these posts isn’t a want for a concrete definition of what the feminine imperative is, but rather an effort to dissociate the uglier aspects of the imperative away from blaming women for the negative consequences that result from the feminine imperative. Both for Aunt Giggles and Sunshinemary the overarching concern is the default scapegoating of the feminine imperative for any inter-gender woe a man might complain of.
If this feminine ‘concern’ sounds familiar it should; it’s just a new derivation of the “Devil biology made me do it” Red Queen / Selfish Gene biological determinism reasoning they feared would end up being men’s go-to explanation for excusing their bad (i.e. non feminine compliant) behaviors. Only now the narrative isn’t about the worry of men saying “my selfish genes made me cheat on my wife” the message they hope to control is men complaining “the feminine imperative is what makes me a sexless loser.” That control comes in an interesting form of blaming the victim for his lack of performance in the face of the feminine imperative. The Feminine Imperative can’t be held responsible for men’s social ineptitudes so the Male Catch 22 is effected – as a man you’re a whiney beta if you complain, but you’re less than a ‘man’ if you don’t stick up for yourself by saying something.
While I will admit that Sunshinemary’s point of origin probably started as an honest inquiry into the nature of the feminine imperative, her want of a feminine friendly definition stems from the same desire Aunt Sue or any other female writer in the manosphere seeks when confronted with the harsh truths of Game, Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative and contemporary understanding of intergender dynamics – feminine absolution of acknowledgement of them.
The solution to acknowledging the Feminine Imperative follows the same formula as with other aspects of men becoming aware of intergender dynamics; dissociate (or dilute) feminine accountability, redefine terms and sanitize those redefinitions to fall back into accordance with the Feminine Imperative. I predicted exactly this process of Game sanitization when I wrote Could a Man have written this? Only women are allowed to be self-critical, which of course is yet one more social extension of the feminine imperative.
Suck It Up Guys
The primary fear Sunshinemary has is that men will see the inherent amorality of the Feminine Imperative (hypergamic warts and all) from both an evolutionary and social perspective, and that this would become some self-defeating source of anger for them.
The feminine imperative isn’t something to be angry about, it’s something to be aware of and planned for accordingly. Up until recently the issue has been about the awareness part of that equation, now it’s the contingency part that men are having to deal with, and by extension so are women. The real fear isn’t about anger issues, it’s about the contingencies men will develop with their new awareness to circumvent the more egregious aspects of the Feminine Imperative, and its effect on women. Some men, understandably, get mad for having invested themselves for so long in a set of social rules they believed everyone was (or should be) playing by, only to become aware that the game’s been rigged all along. No one’s actually been playing by the “rules” that the imperative sold them and they’ve lost a lot of personal investment as a result.
Hypergamy and many other evolved aspects of the feminine imperative are (or were) certainly instinctual, largely unlearned, survival factors that contributed to our species’ success. However, the uglier, intrinsically unfair, dynamics like concurrent cuckolding, violent mate guarding, the War Brides dynamic and even women’s inborn sexual pluralism (rooted in her menstrual cycle) are aspects most men wouldn’t voluntarily sign on for if they knew the machinations behind them, or they had an inclination of how their SMV will progressively mature.
Solution? Develop feminine operative social conventions to ensure those unpleasant realities become more palatable duties for men.
For Feminine Imperative redefiners, the basic confusion stems from separating the feminine imperative from the social conventions that evolved to better effect it. They don’t see the fundamental separation of the two. Simply put, the feminine imperative is the totality of the framework – social, biological, personal, etc. – that implicitly benefits the feminine. And while they are correct that the social conventions of the feminine imperative are (for the greater part) learned and acculturated, they are the social tools used by the imperative, not the motivating imperative itself.
To Serve and Protect
Sunshinemary, in her effort to dissociate feminine accountability to the overall Feminine Imperative, attempts to separate the social implements of the Feminine Imperative from the naturalistic (evolutionary) side of the imperative. Thus she attempts to split the definition into two camps; one the good, natural, sometimes ugly, but species beneficial Feminine Imperative, the other, a monstrous social reengineering push responsible for the evils men endure under the Feminist Imperative:
The feminine imperative: protection and resources are preferentially and willingly provided to females by related males (related by family or by marriage), which benefits both sexes due to the increased survivorship of offspring; this is primarily an evolved biological construct. Resistance is useless due to differential survivorship of offspring.
The feminist imperative: protection and resources are preferentially but unwillingly provided to females by all males regardless of relationship, with no concomitant benefit to males; this is primarily an artificially imposed social construct. Resistance is useful.
Beyond the fem-positive spin of Mary’s redefinition here, the problem is that feminism is itself a social extension of the Feminine Imperative. Feminism is essentially a social reengineering project with the express purpose of benefiting the Feminine Imperative. On a base level hypergamy IS the feminine imperative. Hypergamy and women’s sexual pluralism is literally written into women’s genetic code. In her proliferative phase, women’s hormonal predisposition is for Alpha seed, after ovulation and menses the hormonal predisposition is for Beta need. Feminism, and all of the operative social, political and psychological conventions that are derived from it serve a solitary purpose – the advancement and consolidation of the Feminine Imperative as the dominant socio-sexual frame for our species.
All one need do is consider the socio-sexual effects of feminism over the past 40+ years. Remove the necessity for male provisioning, remove the pre-sexual revolution resource dependency, enable women with unilateral control of their birthing schedule through hormonal birth control and what do women default to? Their innate Hypergamy, the prime directive of the Feminine Imperative.
Hypergamy, while inherently cruel, is in fact a proven species survival schema. However, because of women’s place in our biological order, they must be the filters of that hypergamy. Ergo, the necessity of a dominant socio-sexual framework defaults to the feminine.
By sheer force men can and have taken control of that dominant framework, by rape or religion or any other moralistic social constructs, but women’s fluid, social reengineering of those constructs circumvents and repurposes them. If you need an example just study the history of western civilization; we’ve ‘progressed’ from a society that owned women as property to women’s default ownership of men’s progeny, property, their future property and even the means for them to acquire it all through the same social convention (marriage) that was intended to prevent women from engaging in their evolved propensity for sexual pluralism and proactively or retroactively cuckolding men.
Sunshinemary’s hope is that men will refocus their (perceived) anger on the evils of the Feminist Imperative as a distinct and separate force, and accept (preferably embrace) the Feminine Imperative for being “it is what it is”. Her impression is that the Feminine Imperative is amoral while the Feminist Imperative is immoral – an impression, I might add, that trad-con feminized-church women would like to perpetuate – focus on those deplorable feminists while we functionally serve the same purpose they do. The main disconnect here is that there is no Feminism without a Feminine Imperative. Feminism doesn’t exist without a Feminine Imperative to serve.
Agreed.
I give up. I’m just going to stick with posting pictures of my handguns and panties on my blog from now on.
I’d love for Jezebel or Slate’s XX section to pick up on this. I strongly suspect that these kinds of discussions are certainly on their radar but they are mortally terrified that your excellent description of the feminist imperative will become more public. Also, that bunch lacks the intellectual horsepower to actually think through what you’ve described. Imagine Lindy West’s weak brain trying to grasp this concept. She’d only manage to cough up some unoriginal snark.
But, my dear Rollo, in all fairness to me, do notice that I had already discussed whether or not I’m just trying to sanitize this to protect women who are trying to play by the rules. I’ve also warned readers myself to be wary of my (and all women who write about these issues) motivations. I may be wrong or right about any given issue, but I am not Aunt Sue; I will admit that I must have a priori biases and advised readers to be aware of that.
All this means is that to live for women’s desires and wants is worthless and leads to ruin. A man should control his own destiny and if a woman wants to come along for the ride, great. However, she is not the prize. She is not the leader but must be a follower. If you wants to be the be the leader then she can kindly be shown the door. I can understand why modern women would hate this concept and if men as a whole accepted this as the paradigm to follow they would be straight up screwed. Describing… Read more »
I should add here that Aunt Giggles has made exactly these redefinitions, and using the same process, with regards to Feminine Solipsism and Hypergamy.
I expect she’ll do the same with the Feminine Imperative – deny it exists, accept it as a new term, reinvent and redefine it to fit her narrative, and then claim responsibility for coming up with it.
As one who’s gotten involved in those discussions both at Sting’s place and at Mary’s, I have to agree. The more Mary has talked about this, the more the effort is to distinguish the unsavory from the practical; the seedy and dark from the honorable and virtuous, and to deflect responsibility from women to feminism.
Rollo Sunshinemary’s hope is that men will refocus their (perceived) anger on the evils of the Feminist Imperative as a distinct and separate force, and accept (preferably embrace) the Feminine Imperative for being “it is what it is”. Her impression is that the Feminine Imperative is amoral while the Feminist Imperative is immoral – an impression, I might add, that trad-con feminized-church women would like to perpetuate – focus on those deplorable feminists while we functionally serve the same purpose they do. Rollo, I believe that SSM is honestly attempting to investigate the phenom of the FI as well as… Read more »
I’m not quite ready to give up yet, although I’m still not convinced that I shouldn’t just go take some more pictures of my new SCCY 9 mm and my lingerie. At least people won’t be handing my rear to me all over the ‘sphere that way. 🙂 No, I’m not meaning to sanitize this. That doesn’t mean I won’t inadvertently try to do so. I have a love/hate relationship with Rollo’s blog because he’s so freaking perceptive that I can’t stop reading it even though I despise the things he points out. That’s why I’m fairly willing to consider… Read more »
Gawd, could I have put anymore typos into my last comment? I’m obviously upset and need to take a break now, since I can’t even write properly.
What really should be pointed out is if ‘feminism’ was EVER about equal rights why did they pick an obvivously biased name? Why not equalists, or humanists?
From the beginning the bias was obvivous.
I disagree. She may be mouthing the words differently, but the effort is the same; disavowing feminism while attempting to make the Feminine Imperative ‘holy’ and ordained. As I mentioned in prior comments on her and Dalrock’s blogs, romanticized Chivalry, Victorian era prudence, Feminism and a host of other social forces are the implements of the Feminine Imperative. Just because the notion of Chivalry makes us feel warm and fuzzy, and Feminism makes us want to spit on the floor doesn’t change the fact that they both serve the same master. Feminized churchianity is just one more branch of the… Read more »
SSM
I’m still not convinced that I shouldn’t just go take some more pictures of my new SCCY 9 mm and my lingerie
You should post an image of the 9x19mm pistol and the lingerie resting on an IPSC target with a nice 3″ group in the center of mass, next time.
This is a hint. Here is another, paraphrasing from someone who knew far more about this than I ever will:
Owning a firearm doesn’t make one automatically able to fight, any more than holding a guitar makes one a musician.
This is ground breaking stuff. The manosphere will someday change the world, there will be much resistance first, both overt and covert.
I wonder if there is a way to stop this redefinition of terms. When this all becomes too big to ignore then all media, in all forms, will attempt to redefine and obfuscate the truth. I cannot wait to watch this all play out.
Rollo As I mentioned in prior comments on her and Dalrock’s blogs, romanticized Chivalry, Victorian era prudence, Feminism and a host of other social forces are the implements of the Feminine Imperative. Just because the notion of Chivalry makes us feel warm and fuzzy, and Feminism makes us want to spit on the floor doesn’t change the fact that they both serve the same master. ^^^^^^^ You misspelled “mistress”. Of course Chivalry, Victorianism and Feminism all serve the same mistress. As I pointed out on Stingray and SSM’s site, the last 150 years of Feminism has been all about increasing… Read more »
Nobody, redirection of terms is to be expected, it’s part of deflection, a standard passive-aggressive technique. One proper response to redefinition is amused contempt.
I think I manage that pretty well.
@ Rollo, regarding your last comment There is one thing you’re maybe missing. You are writing from a secular perspective for a primarily secular audience, and I am writing from a Christian perspective for a Christian audience. Some of what you are ascribing to me and my wants are not things that I made up: they are commands in the Bible to those of us who are Christians. Biblical sexual morality is not something I devised, but it is something I espouse. It curtails both the male and the female preferences. I know it’s different than what you are advocating… Read more »
Actually, I have no problem with Christian men being armed with this knowledge either (hence why this site is in my blogroll). I generally trust that Christian men will figure out the moral application.
In a fundamental way, we are our biology. The masculine imperative is to accrue resources and status within a male hierarchy to have as many successful children by as many women as possible. Tomcatting is seen by just about everyone as an intrinsic drive in all men, and, despite all the derision directed by women at promiscuous men, it remains an object of pride and status. Men’s biological imperative underpins much of the competition that defines the culture surrounding masculinity. The historical reason many men defended the feminine imperative was that it gained them status within a male hierarchy and… Read more »
Rollo on amused contempt:
I think I manage that pretty well
I wrote that advice to Nobody, not you. I won’t be advising Mr. Bolt on how to run 50 meters really fast, either.
An excellent post Rollo
I read history of the western world, didn’t detect any men owning women as property yet. There were slaves sometimes, and sometimes serfs, but women, from my impression, were not men’s serfs.
[T]he effort is the same; disavowing feminism while attempting to make the Feminine Imperative ‘holy’ and ordained.
Rollo, is this really accurate? I don’t remember SSM calling it ‘holy’ or ordained by any means. Maybe I missed something.
Are you, on the opposite side of the fence, framing the feminine imperitive as strictly immoral? This seems extreme to me, and impractical within the normal human experience.
Are we looking for pure altruism, devoid of any self-interest?
“aspects most men wouldn’t voluntarily sign on for if they knew the machinations behind them”
This is what they fear most of all.
Imagine a world where are all the men were aware of hypergamy, the imperative and everything.
You’re starting to see it in the wholesale withdrawal of the younger men from society and work.
Christianity has been serving the feminine for a long time, far longer than men realize.
@Alan, last week I caught this amazing quote from a commenter on Dalrock’s blog: Most Christians aren’t aware of it (though it’s infiltrated our churches to a dangerous extent) but New Age pushes the idea that intuition (which mostly means women’s intuition, of course) is a sort of divine guidance. To which my response was,.. Excellent observation. This is the culmination of what I was getting at initially, a woman’s mythologized “intuition” (i.e. her hypergamous instinctual impulse) is now conflated with the Holy Spirt or some divine gifting God has ordained uniquely for women. We constantly hear this placation repeated… Read more »
Emma:
In western history women might not have been “property” but they were usually treated as such. Up until the late 19th century women had few rights. Women could not:
1. Sue in their own name
2. Own real property
3. Vote
4. Work and earn money without a husband’s permission
5. Marry without permission from a father or other responsible man
6. Enter into legally binding contracts
7. Refuse to have sex with her husband (a married woman was held to give standing consent to sex with her husband at all times)
“Christianity has been serving the feminine for a long time, far longer than men realize.” I think the straw that broke the camel’s back in this one was that church girls started shunning all the church guys and either waiting for God to deliver their alpha to them or going out and slutting it up with the alphas despite religion. Also the most grevious of insults was the women in their late 20s/early 30s that come back to back to church to snag their beta male provider. People are starting to get wise to this scam. I’m glad I left… Read more »
@Spoos In August. The “Rape” of the Sabine women was not rape at all. It is called such because the Roman men took these Sabine women as their wives against the Sabine fathers’ permission (see Deti’s #5 above). The Sabine men wanted to kill the Roman men for this, but the Sabine women emplored their father’s not to do it, because they were happy married to the Roman men. The Sabine women weren’t raped, they were wisked away by Roman badboys they wanted and secured provision and protection from them.
I keep thinking the X chromosome is the self destruct gene. The Y is what keeps everything in check.
Rollo: “I should add here that Aunt Giggles has made exactly these redefinitions, and using the same process, with regards to Feminine Solipsism and Hypergamy. “I expect she’ll do the same with the Feminine Imperative – deny it exists, accept it as a new term, reinvent and redefine it to fit her narrative, and then claim responsibility for coming up with it.” I doubt it, unless she feels cornered into it. She denies there is any such thing as a feminine imperative. She believes it is simply a canard invented by men to excuse, explain or rationalize away their relationship… Read more »
“Actually, I have no problem with Christian men being armed with this knowledge either (hence why this site is in my blogroll). I generally trust that Christian men will figure out the moral application.”
Christian men do have the knowledge…take 5 minutes to read the fall of man or read what St. Paul had to say about marriage and that is all you need to know.
Problem is the women spinsters only highlight what men are supposed to do and conveniently forget or induce shame when their role is brought up.
She also emphatically stated that hypergamy was defined as a woman’s tendency to ‘marry up”, nothing more, nothing less.
A year later, Hypergamy means what everyone’s been telling her all along, she hopes no one notices her about-face and she passes herself off as a relationship luminarie for having conceived it.
She denied feminine solipsism for a long time too, now it means that women are positively self-concerned and men ought to thank their lucky stars for it.
@Rollo: As I’ve written before, I don’t think of the FI or Hypergamy as having any moral compass in and of themselves. It’s really about the individual application. I think it’s incorrect to deify or demonize either. Agreed. Completely. In my view, SSM is trying to recognize the basic natural impulses at work, and then deal with the fallout. Separating the urge from the action allows us to choose our course through enlightened self-interest, instead of being swept away by, ‘The Devil, my nature, peer pressure’ made me do it. That is the toxic rationalization. As you discussed previously, the… Read more »
This is why I do not believe there is such a thing as a true Red Pill woman. The imperative is always there, lurking below the surface, and just needs the right combination of factors to show itself. Also, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2249144/Vasectomies-60-decade–husbands-refuse-make-ultimate-commitment.html 1. “My body, my choice” obviously applies to only one gender. 2. The (older) wives want their (still viable) husbands to get a vasectomy to imply their unending commitment (and to handicap them should the husband decide to leave), yet if no-fault divorce was made illegal with similarly severe penalties, these same women would be screaming their heads off. “Until… Read more »
“But, my dear Rollo, in all fairness to me, do notice that I had already discussed whether or not I’m just trying to sanitize this to protect women who are trying to play by the rules. I’ve also warned readers myself to be wary of my (and all women who write about these issues) motivations. I may be wrong or right about any given issue, but I am not Aunt Sue; I will admit that I must have a priori biases and advised readers to be aware of that.”
This is very well done!
If you assume that 99.99% of women are plugged into this feminine imperative, then: -In fairness, the other .01% of the likes of SSM are perfectly welcome to join the discussion. -In judgement, the other .01% of the likes of SSM are simply rationalizing that they are special snowflakes and NAWALT. The MANosphere is valuable because it allows male voices to ring clear and true underneath a PC fem-apologist society where they would face excommunication for doing so. Consider that the entire feminine strategy is empowered by an appeal to being fair. “Men and women should have fair rights, and… Read more »
Oh, but Grit, I welcome the other 99.99% with open arms on my comments and the SoSuave forums. It’s only through them voicing their ego-investments that I can make graphic examples of the dynamics I explain.
It’s one thing for men to hear me in a closed room, it’s another to hear me in the marketplace.
Mostly agree.
Women have two primary imperatives wheras men only have one (has sex with lots of fertile women).
Women’s two imperatives are really not that complicated :
1) The need for the alpha male
2) Hypergamy
With hypergamy being the root cause of everything from the need for the provider (typically beta) male, marriage, prostitution and what I term type 2 feminism (modern feminism).
Yup, I said it, the root cause of modern feminism and prostiution are the same.
PS the reason I only mostly agree is because this article seems to imply that hypergamy is the more powerful of the two and it’s not. The need for the alpha is more powerful due to the fact that marriage, prostitution and modern feminism are not possible without the invention of property which is a relatively recently invented thing (only about 10,000 years old) which is only 5% of the last 200,000 years The need for the alpha male has reigned for 100% of the last 200,000 years and still reigns today. That’s why men did not develop a 2nd… Read more »
PPS I wrote about this a year ago here :
http://sexthreepointzero.com/2012/02/11/the-sex-2-0-genetic-imperatives/
“as a man you’re a whiney beta if you complain, but you’re less than a ‘man’ if you don’t stick up for yourself by saying something.”
This is one of the things that I’ve never been really sure how to combat. IS there a good way to…”put the hammer down” on a woman without coming across as needy or out of control? If so…how? Is nexting the only real solution?
It is a beautiful thing, the destruction of hamsters.
Unfortunately their lack of logic makes their destruction much more resistant to truth.
Brilliant post!
Has Rollo discussed of female sexual partner count and why men feel bad (at least some) about high numbers?
I had heated discussion with one my friends (female) about partner count and I could not tell why numbers matter or why they do not matter.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/why-sluts-make-bad-wives/
I’m reading a lot here about a woman’s desire for a typically “beta male” provider who comes in after she’s being plowed through left and right by many other guys in the past. I guess what I’m trying to bring up is 2 things: How can these “beta male” guys who worked their whole 20s to suddenly come into wealth in their 30s not see the swindle? How can they not see that this woman’s financial security only benefits her and that he’d actually be more secure if he didn’t marry at all? I appreciate the writing from Rollo and… Read more »
@SunshineMary “You are writing from a secular perspective for a primarily secular audience, and I am writing from a Christian perspective for a Christian audience.” You can’t make any assumptions about Rollo’s intentions. He writes for the Manosphere, which I suspect includes as many Christian men as it does secular men. In 4 years of voracious reading in the Manosphere, I see something happening that has rarely, if ever, happened in society (certainly not in church)- men of all stripes uniting against a common enemy. That enemy is not women, but the Feminine Imperative, otherwise known as Eve’s Original Sin.… Read more »
SSM has given us an example of the feminine imperative in this comment section, but appears unaware of it. After being challenged by Rollo in this post, in her comments she reverts to the use of emoticons, mentions her panties/lingerie more than once, appeals to women’s emotionality as an excuse, and highlights her supposed ineptitude at typing as yet another excuse. No doubt she now harbors in her womanly mind an inchoate, not-completely-formed feeling that we are meanies for not responding to her feminine appeals for mercy, her resentment building as we hold her to the same standard as men.… Read more »
I need to present a real life example of what I think this is. An ex of mine asked some advice of me, then did the opposite of what I said (wasting days of my time in the process). When she called again for “advice” I told her “no” and gave her a piece of my mind about wasting my time and not listening to what I’d said (all of which turned out to be correct). She then completely freaked out, whining “We’re friends, so you’re supposed to love me unconditionally!!” To me, that’s basically the feminine imperative in a… Read more »
@ Mr Strangelove
“I had heated discussion with one my friends (female) about partner count and I could not tell why numbers matter or why they do not matter.”
It matters because it is your primal brain telling you not to commit energy and resources into a potential mate who most likely wont be carrying your baby.
Was on a popular local hiking trail today. Came down behind two young ladies, neither a day past 22. One, raging hotness. The other, squandering her youth on to many munchins. Anyway, we’re all hiking, so the process of coming down the hill from behind, catching up with them, then passing them takes a few minutes, enough to be in earshot of their conversation. It goes something like this: Munchins: Oh yeah, I’m going to that so-da-de-so blah-da-de-blah event Hotness: Whaaaat? Oh I totally wanted to go to that why didn’t you tell me? Munchins: Well you were invited Hotness:… Read more »
@ Ace Haley
Chumps have been told (often when they’re complaining about their lack of a love life) that “one day” that’ll get the girl, also they’re told that woman screwing “assholes” is just a phase that they’ll get out of
when they’re older.
So the chump will happily wait for the woman who’s done dating assholes and wants a “nice guy”.
deti,
You’re right about many of these things, but I’m still reading these books and it says women could own property and many did. Usually happened when the husband died and no one could take over. It wasn’t the same as for men, but to say no women owned any property is wrong. I’m not sure who chose whether a woman worked or not, if she had no husband (I admit I’m a beginner student at history), but work outside the home was possible, often for the unmarried ones. It’s just that being a wage worker sucked.
Clearly FI is bullshit, where is the ‘expert’ testimony? Where are the peer reviews? How come its not listed in the DSM?
Huh! Show me the evidence.
@Johnycomelately
I see what you did there.
Part of the reason women can’t acknowledge, or at least have a harder time acknowledging, the darker side of their nature is the fact that they’re not equipped psychologically to handle discomfort directly related to their survival. They can handle loss well (see the War Brides post), but the discomfort of admitting their dark side to men is akin to Achillies having a big sign pointing to the back of his heel. In other words, they can’t handle self-defeating discomforts. Women’s propensity to survive is much greater than mens’, and therefore they have little wiggle room for anything self-defeating. This… Read more »
@Jacob Ian Stalk
Are you like a King A Jr or something?
@Case: Well illustrated. Hypergamy (partial definition)… the trade of access to high quality female genes (be seen with her, have sex with her, have babies with her) for access to higher social status, wealth, security, comfort. This facility to jostle and manoeuvre, to coldly ditch what they have (as your trail-hopping hotness would do her boyfriend in a heartbeat for the CSI C-lister) all for a chance at an up-move in the eternal game of snakes and ladders. Why can’t feminism see this and address it? Aren’t these women traitors in their midst? Don’t they need to be made aware… Read more »
@Johny
I giggled.
@Ace Haley “How can these “beta male” guys who worked their whole 20s to suddenly come into wealth in their 30s not see the swindle? How can they not see that this woman’s financial security only benefits her and that he’d actually be more secure if he didn’t marry at all?” Hope is not lost, as many of us did precisely realize the swindle indeed around that age, and since then I’ve lived completely on my own and have nothing whatsoever to do with women for decade+. I don’t hassle them and they don’t hassle me. I came to the… Read more »
@ Ace “How can these “beta male” guys who worked their whole 20s to suddenly come into wealth in their 30s not see the swindle? How can they not see that this woman’s financial security only benefits her and that he’d actually be more secure if he didn’t marry at all?” Because men often do very dumb things when they are in love, horny, or under the influence of feminine wiles. Like commit financial suicide. Keep in mind also that a lot of those guys went through a sexual desert in their 20s, getting lucky once in a blue moon… Read more »
@ Ace…betas go through being subjective with females.
Men should stay mostly objective with women…at least until the woman provides a little proof she has some basic concepts of human decency. We all know what happens when you put too much stock in your feelings when you are with a woman.
@FuriousFerret
OK, I’ll bite. What’s a “King A Jr”?
This is a big reason why a lot of women hate men learning about game, hypergamy, alpha-chasing and all that. It’s harder to get beta guys to play Captain Save-a-ho when they figure out how to get those “hos” without investment or commitment. And even men who might not be able to pull that off will still be less willing to wife these women up if they know what these women did in college (and with whom), while they were sexually frustrated and busy studying for finals.
@Jacob
Did you discover the manosphere yesterday?
Stick around he’ll pop up.
@ Jacob
Or just check the archives here. He’s left comments on many of Rollo’s posts.
D-man, my own guess is that feminism is all for Hotness’s behavior here. It isn’t so much an equal rights movement that would hold high expectations on female agency as it is a female advocacy movement that promotes the interests of women, men’s interests be damned. Feminism would high five hotness, you go grrl her for plotting the scheme, double high five her if she beds CSI C-lister, triple high-five her if she achieves any resource tradeoff for the effort, all the while work its magic to be sure that older betas are ready to take care of her when… Read more »
Jacobe, howst dareth thy knoweth not thy own nature? I find your indolence common among the inane rabble that plague this dying Earth. Your sins of ignorance shall be your downfall, and your obsequious sycophancy in response to mild chastisement bespeaks a certain wanting in regard to your intellectual character. Blah blah *fire* blha blah *brimstone* blah apostates blah blah blah transmogrify blah immaterial convictions blah blah false erudition among scribblers of esoteric blah blah vociferous reconstitution of ancient wisdom blah blah blah proselytes of Satan blah blah little fag bitch blah blah blah blah inveterate sham of contemporary discourse… Read more »
Hotness is doing her part!
@Jacob,
He’s a prick who did his part to try to expand the irreemably blighted newark ghetto that has become Chateau to these much more honorable and decent parts. Rollo did a take down on him yesterday and being one to care greatly that this neighborhood retain its distinction, I personally won’t be missing him any. The manosphere already has one virtual ghetto for those who feel most comfortable in the company of self identifying Omegas, no reason to let the whole metropolis go to shit.
Seriously, you are the star of the manosphere. I just shared a taxi with a 37 year old guy who is red pilling, 45 minutes later you express better what I feeel I need to express to him about every topic I can think of. **->MEN<-**, anyone born with testicles need you to be their voice. F*ck giving donations to abadoned greyhounds, every man alive needs you as our voice so many of us can reach their potential. You have got to the stage where your voice being absent from the MSM is doing us harm. I _IMPLORE_ you to… Read more »
I just read the whole thing again, and the comments. Aurini asserted something which I believe forms the basis of ‘positive masculinity’ superceding ‘game’… testosterone formulates teamwork…. but under ‘game’ this is beta. It isn’t, it is civilisation. Under ‘game’ rules, enduring a beta existence is accepting second best. None of us will accept second best if we now the rules. But under accepting ‘teamwork’, we have a greater goal in mind which is the advancements of civilisation. Rules which are less than optimal, which is women picking the rules, leads to men becoming naricisstic knob-ends. If they are they… Read more »
“Can your readers assist in propelling this voice in a broader fashion?”
Rollo is putting together a book. The best thing that anybody can do is buy multiple copies of the book when it comes out and then distribute those copies to certain friends. Just start a grass roots kind word of mouth.
At whoever noted that the Rape of the Sabine Women was not about non-consensual sex, yes. It’s a story, however, about men doing why they want, breaking the rules, and obtaining the desired result. And while Rome eventually built a great civilization, in the short term there were a whole lot of pissed wifeless young Sabine men, and very nearly a war.
Young men starting conflicts by whisking off impressionable women may be easy to romanticize, but it is absolutely incompatible with the fragile edifice that is contemporary civil society.
Rollo, I just read your post(s) on moral relativism. I have to say I reject it. Taking the materialist view that we are all slaves to our drives and there is no point moralizing about it reduces us to animals. All of us have a need to transcend our animal instincts. To do things not because they are some evolutionary strategy but because they are good and right. Even when they conflict with earthly happiness. Everyone seems to understand there is a qualitative difference between happiness (making your brain release the right chemicals by doing things evolution likes) and joy… Read more »
Nek: “What’s this “retroactive cuckolding” you speak of?” Didn’t see anyone else answer so I will. Retroactive cuckolding is marrying a woman with kids from a previous father and raising them/ spending your financial resources on them. If you think about it society really pushes how noble this is. Betas, if they get married, are doing this more and more. A woman rides the carousal and gets pregnant (the single mom rate is at least 38% now if not higher) then settles down with a beta male that asks as the father. The successful male reproductive strategy currently in society… Read more »
Morality is indeed relative. Stop preaching and accept it.
And here is Prof. Meade’s take. Very interesting if you are a christian. {The message is or ought to be clear. I will come back to the Virgin Mary later; she’s one of the great enigmas of the Christian religion for many contemporary Americans and it’s hard for many of us to see just what she means or can mean to people today. But for now, on this third day of Christmas, it’s enough to understand that when Christians say that Jesus was born of a virgin, there are two main points they are making: that Jesus is the son… Read more »
Hey Jacob Ian Stalk, can you reference this please –
[ The Bible teaches that Christ crushes the Feminine Imperative under heel, undoing the damage first caused by Eve and then Adam.]
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html Rollo, All you are really doing is advancing through the stages of nihilism. First we question if there really is a revelatory truth from above (liberalism). Then we seek to create our own truth from the world because we know there is “truth” in our bones (materialism). However, that is a dead end. Having failed to find truth from above or below we embrace vitalism (strong emotion and vitality as truth). Finally when this fails we embrace destruction of self or others (pure nihilism). Most of western society suffers from all four of these kinds of nihilism. In fact… Read more »
@DeNihilist
Some of this shit is just ridicilous. Yeah man Jesus was feminist. Straight up bullshit. Yes in terms of one’s everlasting soul we are equal but in the temporal realm, no way. You have to remember woman’s pure originial role is ‘helpmeet’. That’s her natural state to be the helper. That doesn’t sound like equal to me. It sounds more like an assistant.
FF – equal may not mean the same. It might actually mean complimentrary. The pigs in Orwells’ Animal Farm even went as far to say that all are equal, but some are more equal.
Prof. Meade never stated that Christ was a Feminist. He stated that God Himself, approached Mary in a way to ressurect the fallen nature of woman, from the mistake that Eve committed. That half of His creation was languishing from the sin of Eve was no longer bearable, and through the Virgin, He stated that Women’s VALUE to Him was equal to that of men.
“”In western history women might not have been “property” but they were usually treated as such. Up until the late 19th century women had few rights. Women could not: 1. Sue in their own name 2. Own real property 3. Vote 4. Work and earn money without a husband’s permission 5. Marry without permission from a father or other responsible man 6. Enter into legally binding contracts 7. Refuse to have sex with her husband (a married woman was held to give standing consent to sex with her husband at all times)”” Deti, there was only a time frame of… Read more »
@asdf You have it all wrong. Religion and the belief in it are the source of nihilism. Religion is the very strange belief that meaning and value can only exist if a divine being wills it. There is no difference, on first principle, between a nihilist and a religionist. The disagreement is on second principle: is there a divine being so willing? If the divine can endow meaning … the divine, quite frankly, has nothing that you are not already endowed with. So get started making your own meaning and living a life of excellence according to it, and maybe… Read more »
asdf: I reread the Rollo post you’re referring to, and I strongly believe that Rollo is most definitely NOT a nihilist. I despise moral relativism and the nihilism that invariably results from it, but that’s not what Rollo is. We often get two extremely important principles mixed up: A is A, and God is what God is. Included in A is A is human nature, the good, the bad, the ugly. Rollo’s focus (as well as much of the Manosphere) is this principle. People are how they are. They act based on instinct. Guys want hot tail. Women are hypergamous.… Read more »
@FF, re: 10:38 am
Very nice.
Fist bump.
@Martel, re, “reread the Rollo post you’re referring to, and I strongly believe that Rollo is most definitely NOT a nihilist” … I agree. Considered taking point on that but chose another tact, glad you mentioned that though. I think asdf misunderstood the thrust of that article. High level I take it to mean that you can’t infuse evolutionary totems with humanistic meaning, something that comes fairly close to what Aunt G seems to be trying to do. The evolutionary totems exist. There are giraffes to awe, dolphins to play and: “All things scabbed and ulcerous, All pox both great… Read more »
I’m sure this isn’t what RT had in mind when he wrote this post but I feel compelled to respond to DeNihilist and his/her feminist distortion of the biblical message. Please forgive the long response, especially those who don’t like this sort of thing. If this is being too much like King A Jr, please say so in a mature fashion. I respect this blog and don’t want to detract from its quality. @DeNihilist [“Hey Jacob Ian Stalk, can you reference this please…”] Genesis 3:15, then Romans 16:20. Moving on… Your arguments are full of distortions. I don’t know whether… Read more »
Apologies…am referring to Professor Meade’s arguments.
Martel,
The problem of evil and fallen man is a concept that has already been addressed by theologians before. You state it roughly, “we are fallen, but we shouldn’t act like it.” Which is good, but its not how Rollo’s posts come off. They come off as, “we are fallen, so be fallen.”
Your blog claims to be Christian but it sustains and promotes the wrong-headed notion that the Feminine Imperative is somehow acceptable to God SSM never said the FI (redefined or not) was ‘good’ or even palatable; just that she agreed there was a socio/biological component. Where she does tread dangerous ground is by suggesting the FI (with slight redefinition to expel the feminist agenda component) is equally beneficial to men and women, by positing better survivability for offspring. While the FI does increase individual survival rates for the children of one mother, we could also posit that the masculine imperative… Read more »
whoo hoooo! jacob “The Bible teaches that Christ crushes the Feminine Imperative under heel, undoing the damage first caused by Eve and then Adam.]” exactly e.g. — Jesus uses the words of the o.t. prophets as weapons during attacks by religionistas, satan, etc — this is a “pre-redemption” of Fallen Humanity b/c, of course, the o.t. prophets were flawed (fallen) too each instance that Christ suffered to live out the words of the prophets, human beings came a little bit closer to Father, i.e. the opportunity, and a little more of the edenic wound was healed lol “professor” meade musta… Read more »
@Days of Broken Arrows – “She then completely freaked out, whining “We’re friends, so you’re supposed to love me unconditionally!!””
Hahaha! Has anyone else noticed this “unconditional love” bullshit? Always from some female trying to take you for something. As if we are retards who will never learn.
My friendship is conditional. My affection is conditional. My love is conditional. Treat me badly and they are gone, gone, gone. All take, no give, you don’t get the chance to take again.
But then, we already know that some people do not understand the whole “actions have consequences” thing.
“We’re friends, so you’re supposed to love me unconditionally!!”
Translation…you should love me like your mother.
There is only one woman who gets that love from me…the one who brought me into this world and nutured me.
“We’re friends, so you’re supposed to love me unconditionally!!” All non written “rules” should be understood as rules for your own conduct. I’m a golfer and etiquette is very important in golf, but you’re supposed to follow the etiquette and never tell anybody that they are not following the etiquette, since that is a worse breach of etiquette than any other breach of etiquette. I think Sir Humphrey in “Yes, Minister” said something in the line of “A good chap does not tell a good chap what a good chap ought to know”. So if someone criticizes you for not… Read more »
@ peoplegrowing
nope
The last few posts have mentionedf the “you’re supposed to love me unconditonally”. It would conclude the observation is a view that it is a central tenant of the feminine imperative. To me, it’s more aligned with an overtly individualist culture and individual exceptionalism. I would agree this can be cast as solipsism, and its place within the feminine imperative. Intuitively though I can’t reconcile them, I don’t know why. My observation of women in collectivist cultures doesn’t have them behaving as ‘the gift’, which a self-view of individual exceptionalism would imply. Can anyone else add to this? Would the… Read more »
The concept of love has become such a scam nowadays.
Anytime a woman starts talking about your love for her etc, know one thing for sure. She’s not in love. (Real love does not care about being loved back)
You have a player on your hands.
(Double post. Meant to put this comment under this article, not Shouting in the Wilderness) Excellent. Rollo, my guide. Sidestepping some of the discourse I’m seeing in the comments as of late (Not sure why I’m seeing any if it… I respect the personal philosophies of YaReally, Xsplat, and King A) Why a girl (read: the author of the article) cheats. Written from the female as primary perspective. Not sure there’s much new about it, but something in the thought processes of the woman is tingling the spidey sense. A quick glance can’t place it. http://m.askmen.com/dating/vanessa_60/83_love_secrets.html Seems no matter how… Read more »
“We’re friends, so you’re supposed to love me unconditionally!!”
Translation…you should love me like your mother.
and that would be a good response.
her: we’re friends, so you’re supposed to love me unconditionally!!!
you: ok mom
T & A: “Would the desire to be loved unconditionally always be part of the feminine imperative, and only amplified within an individualist culture, and/or supressed within a collectivist culture? Or would it be entirely cultural conditioning?” The desire among women to be loved unconditionally exists in all cultures, but such desires are AMPLIFIED in a collectivist culture, or at least under a collectivist government. A woman always wants whatever she can get. However, in a culture that values individualism, any extra princessness she may feel is counteracted by the emphasis on the individual freedom of any man in her… Read more »