Sanitizing the Imperative

sanitize

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.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
itsme
Guest
itsme
Offline

“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

Martel
Guest
Martel
Offline

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 »

OlioOx
Guest
OlioOx
Offline

KingA is a funny kind of Christian: (My bolds added to King A’s quotes) I am here to baptize you by fire, purely incidental to my presence, or incinerate you in the attempt. It makes little difference to me whether you burn So you are here to help people, but are indifferent to their possibly burning in Hell, which can only mean that you also don’t really care about unplugging men from the fembo Matrix. Such charsima! Such leadership! No wonder people are flocking to your brand of tough love *sound of crickets* But I do know you already live… Read more »

JLT
Guest
JLT
Offline

I ran across this about the FI in a book I was reading: While the behaviour of the men on the Titanic represented to the popular imagination the ‘natural’ order confirmed by the sea, Inez Milholland was a symbol of the increasingly unnatural order of things on land. Aged eighteen, she had made four militant suffrage speeches on a soap box in Hyde Park and paraded the streets of London with a banner emblazoned with ‘Votes for Women’. In 1911, Milholland appeared in barely disguised form as the passionate heroine of Isaac Stevenson’s novel, An American Suffragette. Her presence at… Read more »

AD
Guest
AD
Offline

I doubt that this would be the case if the guy had a debilitating mental illness.

http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-i-fell-in-love-with-schizophrenic.html

DeNihilist
Guest
DeNihilist
Offline
YaReally
Guest
YaReally
Offline

@treylesnorth In both cases her cheating was motivated by needing to get a reaction out of the guy lol In my experience I think for the girls who cheat carelessly and basically want to get caught, a lot of the time they just need their guy to react. Jealousy, rage, hurt, it’s all good, as long as he reacts instead of being a monotone opinionless spineless beta like a lot of long-term relationship guys become. They need to see that their lazy lion laying (lol) in the sun can roar. It’s almost more for the guy’s benefit than her own… Read more »

L.V.X.
Guest
L.V.X.
Offline

Want to know what the manosphere thinks of Yoko Ono. I saw her live at Arthurfest when I was 16. As far as I know she’s the Andy Warhol of Feminism.

3rd Millenium Men
Guest

“Hypergamy, while inherently cruel, is in fact a proven species survival schema.”

The irony is that with a lack of marriage (partly due to women refusing to settle down with ‘Joe Average), fertility rates are dropping across the Western world. Hypergamy is turning on itself. The dramatic decline of birth rates will result in great struggles for Western civilisation.

Erudite Knight
Guest

Females want what is advantagoues to them, and not to males.

Not surprising.

trackback

[…] its impact on the intergender landscape of today, but as I read through certain select comments in Sanitizing the Imperative and after reading the misconception about chivalry on other blogs I felt the idea of chivalry […]

trackback

[…] But what is conducting shaming tactics such as “Racism!”? It’s a flow from the Feminine Imperative. Kind of makes sense when you place it alongside welfare and “Gosh, those cute little […]

trackback

[…] Sanitizing the Imperative […]

trackback

[…] the only reason I am pointing any of this out to you is because I am afraid that men will see the inherent amorality of the Feminine Imperative and so I am trying to rebuild the mound by pointing out that this idea that women cannot love or be […]

trackback

[…] Rational Male (the one who coined the term in the first place) we have the following definition: “Simply […]

trackback

[…] women are where they’ve always been, swimming in the juices of their Female Imperative. Here’s what men, especially newly awakened men don’t yet fully get: none of the Red […]

trackback

[…] like any other male space, the manosphere is subject to all the sanitization efforts of the Feminine Imperative I’ve outlined in this post – by both women and men who still […]

RobertW
Guest
RobertW
Offline

Very pithy article, although I’m not quite sure I’m following your equating the Feminine Imperative and the Feminist Imperative.

“… only to become aware the game’s been rigged all along.”

Tell me about it. Being a dyed-in-the-wool white-knight beta most of my adult life, I didn’t come to this realization until my late 50s after a major breakdown. Now I’m just trying to communicate this to my son, but he is having a hard time accepting it.

trackback

[…] Rollo Tomassi’s “Sanitizing The Imperative” […]

rugby11
Guest
rugby11
Offline

“o 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… Read more »

%d bloggers like this: