Queens, Workers & Drones


As I’ve stated in many prior posts, it is Men, not women who are the True Romantics. It is actually Men who will more readily alter their lives in the most radical of ways to achieve what they think is an idyllic state of monogamy with their ‘Woman of Quality’. I understand how this statement may conflict with women’s (and mangina symp’s) characterizations of ‘typical guys’ just wanting to fuck anything that smiles at them, but this sentiment is only designed to maintain the feminine as the victimized gender.

It is in fact Men who are more prone to wanting commitment from a woman. The operative word here is “wanting” commitment.

Men are now also just as likely to want to get married as women and more likely to fall in love at first sight.

Experts said that the results were evidence of ‘gender blurring’ in which women have become more like men and men have taken on the characteristics usually associated with women.

I doubt that last quote from this article will shock my regular readers. Considering that the overwhelming majority of men are corn-fed betas, raised from birth to be devoted, “supportive”, wives to their masculinized fem-husbands, it’s really no surprise that men would be the ones seeking solace in a monogamy they’ve been conditioned to believe should be their goal-state for so long.

While betas are concerned with qualifying for an idyllic monogamy, Alphas tend to focus more on fidelity – their women’s fidelity, not necessarily their own.

Feminized Commitment

One very effective meme the feminine imperative has cunningly inserted into our social awareness is the feminine ownership of the term ‘commitment’. Calling a guy a ‘commitment-phobe’ is really a 90’s shaming cliché that’s been a retread for the Man Up! generation. There are different variation of this shaming – a guy can be ‘phobic’ because he lacks maturity, or because he’s become bitter and burned by a spurned woman, but underneath all that is the association that the concept of commitment uniquely applies to a man committing to monogamy with a woman.

From the Paradox of Commitment:

The idea is that commitment should only have meaning in a feminine defined reality. Ironically, it’s Men who commit far more readily to ideals, family, military, business ventures or partnerships, and servitude than women have the capacity to appreciate, because recognizing this doesn’t serve their imperative. In other words, a commitment to anything that doesn’t directly benefit the feminine isn’t commitment; answer? Redefine commitment to reflect feminine interests.

One thing that needs to be understood about women’s innate feminine solipsism is how it’s expressed on a meta-scale. It’s very easy to observe and consider individual examples of women’s subconscious sense of self-importance (read any comment from women on a manosphere blog) , but what most men aware of this phenomenon don’t consider is how this solipsism scales up to the larger social narrative.

I’ve written extensively about the Feminine Reality and Feminine Social Primacy, but these have been ‘top down’ assessments with regard to how society follows a feminine primary narrative as the correct premise of origin. Put simply, if it benefits women, it benefits society – society is better when benefiting women’s imperatives are its focus.

However, from a ‘bottom up’ perspective it is this proclivity for solipsism in women that collectively becomes the social narrative (or paradigm if you prefer). Millions of women solipsistically expressing the demands that would ensure a secure hypergamy for themselves makes for a fem-centric social narrative. And from this develops an expectation of, and entitlement to a default, secured commitment to satisfying women’s hypergamic impulses.

Selective Breeding

So powerful is this sense of entitlement, so consuming and convinced of the correctness of their purpose is the feminine that women will literally breed and raise generations of men to better satisfy it. Hypergamy is cruel, but nowhere more so than in the relationship between a mother overtly raising and conditioning a son to be a better servant of the feminine imperative.

But to breed a better worker, the feminine imperative’s queens can’t afford to have any corrupting, masculine, outside influence. On a societal scale this might mean removal (either by disincentives or forcibly) of a father from the family unit, but this is the easy, extreme illustration. There are far more subtle social and psychological means that the imperative uses to effect this filtering – via mass media, social doctrines, appeals to (feminized) morality, the feminine is placed as the correct imperative while the masculine is filtered out or apologetically tolerated as vestiges of an immature and crude reminder of masculinity’s incorrectness.

Yet for all of this social engineering Hypergamy still demands satisfaction of women’s most base imperative, Alpha seed. The queens need physically / psychologically dominant drones – if just for a season and at their ovulatory pleasure. While beta workers are endlessly vetted in sisyphean tasks of qualifying for the acceptance of the feminine imperative, the Alpha drones live outside this shell; their qualifications only based on how well they satisfy the feminine’s visceral side of  hypergamy.

The great irony of this social solution to hypergamy and long term parental investment is that the vast majority of the offspring of this arrangement would be raised to be better workers. Those betas-to-be boys must be insulated from the corrupting influence of the drones lest they devolve into the Alphas they crave yet cannot control. It may seem counterintuitive, to raise what should ostensibly be optimized genetic stock as a cowed, sometimes medically restrained, feminized beta males. However it is through this harsh conditioning that truly dominant Alphas must rise above. Essentially the genetic lottery isn’t won by women in such a social environment – it’s men, or the ones who rise above in spite of the conditioning efforts of the feminine imperative.

Generation AFC

We’re just now seeing the results of almost three generations of this selective breeding effort. While women bleat and bemoan, “Man Up!” over the lack of suitable men to meet both their hypergamy and their provisioning, they only grind their teeth at the results of a social momentum set in motion by women two or three generations before them. While more boys are raised to pee sitting down by women concerned that their sons’ testosterone poisoning will make him a potential rapist, the fewer and fewer “suitable” males present themselves 20 years later.

A lot has been made about men just checking out or giving up on themselves as they reach a projected notion of maturity. The feminine complains about them not living up to the standard set before them by the feminine imperative – women are owed reverence and tribute of an enduring security, why are men not sacrificing themselves on the altar of the goddess? In the face of all the so called social advancements in women’s independence over the past 50 years we still hear a deafening cry for ‘real men’ to measure up, to qualify themselves for acceptance, to be worthy of providing for her and (her) offspring. Despite the refutations of masculinity and claims of independence, women still want Men.

In the manosphere it’s been argued that the reason for this sexual disparity and men’s ambivalence is due to some new awareness among men of the way the Game has been rigged against them. It’s been argued that men are consciously opting out – going their own way – in some new social movement causing a de facto ‘marriage strike’. I think this estimation is greatly exaggerated.

The male crisis of this generation isn’t the result of men’s conscious decision to opt out, but rather due to being forced out by this selective breeding. As exampled in my first link, men want to get married. It’s part of their feminized conditioning to view long term monogamy as a goal state. No, the men that women want to “man up” are the ones they’re already married to, or the ones they’d consider worthy if only they acted (not actually became) more like drones and less like dutiful workers.

It’s not that the vast majority of men wouldn’t eagerly bind themselves to women in monogamy, it’s that they’ve been bred in grand proportions to be ‘less-than-men’ by the feminine imperative.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

134 comments on “Queens, Workers & Drones

  1. Excellent post Rollo, now how do we get all this as a textbook standard for Social studies classes in schools?

  2. @TaterEarl: “Man Daisy really rode the duck carousel.”

    That was by 1950’s/pre-Sexual Revolution standards too. Now, that type of carousel count is pretty average if not on the low side for many women.

  3. “Are you bragging about having a massive bitch shield and that you when you’re attracted to a man you don’t have any feminine charm that you simply approach like a man?”

    No bitch shield, ferrett, just no “signals” – overt or covert. When a woman wants a man she gives off overt signals. When a woman is otherwise open to meeting men in general then she gives off covert signals that men can pick up on in public (I think). I don’t give off either, but I’m not a bitch. I treat people with civility, just no flirting.

  4. I get a real bang out of King A. For one thing, he has a certain recognizable style. This comment is about one of his style’s major and most frequent features; see if you can guess the usual term for this kind of thing, after you read these examples culled from just his last few contributions (my emphases):

    You are engaged in a project of finding secret feminism in the warp and woof of history, like Dan Brown sniffing out selective evidence of conspiracy theories in the Vatican Library.

    The smaller and unimaginative minds in places [i.e., blogs] like these concentrate all their resentment and energy on seeking difference with their brothers, rather than noting what we hold in common and pursuing it together.

    This idea will not scandalize future generations the way it scandalizes you, who live in a moribund culture with a closed horizon.

    The following quotes all come from replies to commenter “Mucius Scaevola,” who expressed some mild reservations about King A’s ideas:

    Of course some find these difficult higher-order inquiries “a mile long” and therefore not worth the slog:

    Without men above your paygrade establishing the frame around your activities, there would be no possibility for uniting disparate forces.

    If you can’t detect my simpatico by my demeanor and wisdom, I don’t have time to set you straight. [A classic!] There are plenty of excellent bloggers who can encourage men at your stage of development with tales of derring-do.

    I have found plenty of dormant manliness eager to find expression in these parts, and yet there is little capacity for self-initiated discipline among the childish manboys who brag about how awesome they are….

  5. Ace Haley.

    That 4% increase of 35-40 “never marrieds” was white women. I got the figure from Dalrock’s never married data. The majority of the unmarrieds are Latinas and Black women. Here is a link to the graphic.


    In growth terms, it’s a 50% growth which makes for an eye popping headline. In data terms it went from 11% to 15.4%. Given the amount ridiculously fat and ugly women I see today, so fat they have to use electric carts to shop, far more numerous today then I can ever recall, I assume that pretty any woman who has an SMV over a 4 can get hooked up if she wants. I think most of the 4.4% growth is from a huge growth in fucking ugly women that have SMV less than 0.

    But there has been pretty signficant drop in the number of marriages per 1000 people. Maybe it is due to aging populations with less young people. One census article said there has a marked decrease in the number of “child-bearing” women since 2000. Almost all states have had a drop in marriages per 100,000 somewhere along 40% since 1990 with an increasing slope since 1999. And there has been a corresponding drop in divorces per 100,000 but nothing like the drop in the number of marriages. One interesting place that hasn’t had a drop in the rate of marriage in 2000 was North Dakota and it has been ground zero for the Fracking Drilling boom for shale oil with one of lowest unemployment rates in the country. The interstate running east west through the state in almost constantly bumper to bumper with big trucks moving equipment and those jobs are pretty high paying.

    But as Dalrock says, the experience and behavior of one 10 year or 5 year cohort of women in no way guarantees the same experience and behavior of the subsequent cohorts.

    But the census data shows that while the white women may be choosing to wait or are forced to wait or forced to compromise, in the end they drag someone down the aisle. I had found the manosphere after searching for “Marriage Strike” and landed on Dalrock’s essay on the “Myth of the Marriage Strike”.

    Dalrock has some very interesting data. One of his recent posts shows that men are still earning more than women. Men still get 90% of stem degrees. Men still graduate more MBAs then women and graduate many more with honors. Also this supposed massive increase in the degrees women earn compared to men are typically among black and hispanic women. Women do get more master’s degrees but men get STEM degrees where there is incentive to get out school and go to work. Both engineering and Computer Science really reward years of work more than years of school. In Engineering getting the Professional Engineer certification happens when you go to work and is far valuable than a master’s degree. Also STEM students are fucking sick of school and being broke. Also male students can’t fuck people to eat like girl students can, can’t fuck professors to get better grades, never have their head handed to them in relationship like male students do. I had two friends at the University of Texas just go to shit when they got dumped in the last year of school by long term girlfriends.

    But I am kind of match site maven. I practically live on them, Millionaire Match, the foreign cupid sites. I must have read 20,000 profiles in my life. It has been a different experience reading them since discovering Rational Male.

    The key headline theme is “Looking for my match” or “Looking for a connection” (meaning gina tingles) or “Looking for my soul mate”. I especially love the “my match” meaning “my equal” on MillionaireMatch where the typical man has a job that pays $250,000 a year and many earn $500,000 and this bitch works at a fotomat and has accomplished little else in her life other than grow tits. And the other big thing I see today that I did not see 5 years ago. Five years ago, it seemed women would get on the site, find someone and then drop off after, at most, a month. And now they stay and stay and stay for years. It is like that everywhere, Russia, Colombia, and especially on MillionaireMatch. And now they seem to connect like every few hours using smart phones. I don’t really mess with Facebook.

    If you haven’t read this Roosh post, I would. “Women who own smart phones loose their ability to love”


    Also Dalrock has some recent posts of “Strip Mining”. He posits that women cannot be attracted to men that actually would be attracted to them given their SMV. They can only be attracted to men of an SMV higher than their own.

    I did some analysis of the Bell Curve the past days. I have this belief that one of key failings of humans is the inability to conceive of exponentiation. The nature of the Gaussian distribution of the Bell Curve dictates some things, 65% of a sample will fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean, 95% within two. So this states that only 2.3% of sample will be more than two standard deviations of the mean and 99.9% will lie within 3 standard deviations.

    So just for instructional purposes, assume that an SMV of 4 is average for both men and women. I think it is lower than that. And assume a standard deviation of 1 (and I also think it is lower than that).

    So that says 65% of all women would be between an SMV of 3 and 5 with 95% between 4 and 6, with less than 2.3% being higher than a 6 and less than 1/2% greater than a 7 (1 in 200). So then imagine that if Princess slaps on her 2 point inflation to her “match” value and she is a 5.5, then she is looking for a 7.5 and is getting into fairly rarefied air.
    And a 6 is getting into very very rarefied air. And a 7, fuck, she’s looking for a one in 10,000 guy, a 9. So she’s pretty fucked until that SMV drops with age back into the more operational segments of the bell curve.

  6. Oh by the way, Rollo, this was really an excellent post. But it might be going a bit far to say that average male behavior today is a result of selection or “breeding.” Culture, environment, education, propaganda etc. are more than sufficient to account for the changes in behavior we see without believing there has been a dramatic change in the male genome in just three generations. Even Cochrane and Harpending would probably say that’s a bit too fast.

    (And I cocked-up a few of my bolds in my previous comment, but I’m sure you’ll all get the idea.)

  7. true, of course.

    Men were created to be slaves of feminine imperative. They are made that way. Sense of manhood of 99 percent men is so pathectically and inexstricably attached to the pussy, that these men really do not have a choice. Given their biology, men are merely drones and slaves for women. On the contrary, women can do perfectly WITHOUT MEN. They only need protection and resources. But they DO need children – they are slaves to. Again – as females, they are made that way. This disparity is the source of BIIIIG advantage of women in dating enviroment. She HAS the value as women withou men, while this poor guy needs his manhood confirmed by her, otherwise he has no value at all. This is subconscious, we are not even aware of it.

    Even all this knowledge about amorality, solipsism and naimal nature of women does not change anything. All this PUA stuff is nothing but another slavery to women. Another “confirmation”..I have dated thiiis HB 10 and thiiis HB 9, so Im …ehm..”alpha”. Now I am da man! Little, stupid drone.There is the same NEED, the same pathetic feeling towards women, the same hole.

    Truly unplugged man – one in million, subconsciously does not need women for him feeling good and manly. THIS is the difference. He somehow defeated his body, his biological slavery.He enjoys women if he wants, but he does no need them. He genuinely FEELS that way. They have no power over him.

  8. “Truly unplugged man – one in million, subconsciously does not need women for him feeling good and manly. THIS is the difference. He somehow defeated his body, his biological slavery.He enjoys women if he wants, but he does no need them. He genuinely FEELS that way. They have no power over him.”

    They are found in your local graveyard.

  9. I get a real bang out of King A. For one thing, he has a certain recognizable style.

    I find Matt’s sermons more readable (and entertaining) when I imagine his diction delivered in the voice of Dr. Smith from Lost in Space.

  10. Rollo,

    ESPN backed down and apologized about Brent Musburger’s rather nothing comments about the Alabama quarterback’s girlfriend. Most of the comments on the site showed surprise that anything was said.

    I wrote a comment about how women have to shame older men for showing attention to any younger women because of dread and that dread over the loss sexual power is a primal emotion in women and is behind divorce laws. Women have to shame any older man that pays attention to a younger women. And they do it because of that dread.

    And the moderators at ESPN deleted it. It said not much more than what I said.

    Every since you had that post about the Chad Johnson and mentioned the NFL and pink shoes, I have been watching those sports networks and realizing just how beta affirming they all really are.

    The manosphere needs to take on ESPN and their caving.

    They are turning into the French as they surrender to any outrage. They are literally the king of cable and the only reason cable even exists today is because men wish to watch live sports. WIthout the sports or if some other technical means to watch them becomes prevalent, households will cancel cable subscriptions and that whole industry would die overnight. ESPN can dictate terms to every cable provider and can even dictate to advertisers, yet they show their pink panties whenever the slightest issue about women comes up.

    You can change the old joke. Two small African tribes exchange gunfire with each other, and ESPN surrenders.

    Men pay their bills. They need to be reminded of that. You should use this episode and go after them with two fold Dread theme and why women got their panties in a bunch over Mussbuger and how ESPN is caving to the Feminine Imperative and bolsters it with Femcentric Approved ads and programming for good little worker bees to spend their wifey queen bee approved beta free time watching wifey and feminist approved sports quietly in their man cave awaiting further instructions.

  11. This post makes my stomach churn but it already reinforces what I know to be true. I just wish my friends did the same as well. It’s amazing how Rollo really gets to the undercurrent and really examines what drives this current SMV. Many people are too concerned with surface pitter-patter bullshit but what lurks in the shadows is too disturbing to ignore.

    One day, we’ll all have flashlights.

  12. The Stinger

    Q. Is there a single, dominant force used by predatory females to hypnotize and control males?

    A. It is a combination of her appearance, personality, charm, wit, compatibility, and sexual prowess. Narrowed down to one thing: raw sexual allurement. Pussy power will ultimately deal the knockout blow. In the advanced stages of sexual hypnosis, the male may subconsciously want to crawl into the vagina and live there. Most normal, healthy men are capable of becoming TOTAL SLAVES to a well orchestrated sexual enticement and THE PREDATORY FEMALE IS ACUTELY AWARE OF THIS (my emphasis added). If necessary, she will stretch that vulva right over his head and smother him to get what she wants. But remember, although a predatory female may truly be fun and fulfilling outside of her skill in bed, this is the most dangerous type. You might let your guard down.

    – “The Predatory Female” by Lawrence Shannon

  13. “Its because I find most people in this country, both male and female, physically unattractive and don’t want to be approached by them.”

    Thank you so much for reminding me why American women aren’t worth my time.

  14. Pingback: Nice Like Me «
  15. The message from women to men is so confusing these days, thanks Rollo, for trying to wade through the muck. Agree on the true romantics being men.

    Quick story: Friend of a friend actually put flowers in a guitar case and played some tunes below his oneitis woman’s window. Instead of pretending to like it, or even laughing and making light of it, she told his best friend how bad it was. The friend AFCed and agreed with her and today regrets it since his friend died of cancer. He said he wishes he would’ve said, “Hey, shut your pie hole. Maybe it was corny and over the top, doesn’t make him a bad guy.” I wouldn’t have done the flowers and things, but AFC/fem-centric society told this guy that’s what they want. (This happened some 15 years ago). Quit saying you want one thing and then degrade it when it happens.

    Women need to be honest with their messages and intentions, which I know is impossible in the female imparative. Man, I’m glad Rollo started this blog.

    I’ll be confused with the female message the rest of my life, but at least because of this blog I understand it better.

    Just speak the truth, sh-t, is it that difficult?

  16. Thanks, Rollo, this, blog is awesome. I’d love to see these essays in a popular book form. Not only do guys like me need it, but the younger generation of boys and men really need this wisdom. I’ve got so many stories of my long-married friends going through hell on the verge of divorce with angry, drunk, eating-disorder women, it’s amazing. And my single friends continue to make bad choices with whom they date.

  17. “Not only do guys like me need it, but the younger generation of boys and men really need this wisdom. ”

    Which begs the question if they (the younger generation) really want to see the intricacies of the situation. Feminism is everywhere, from grade school to the workplace.

    I have a feeling the majority is -or will be- locked in and either unable or unwilling to see what’s going on. Think of Milgram’s seminal work ‘obedience to authority’. Well, in these days and in the near future, feminism is that authority.

  18. Shameful
    If the desire for resources are so strong isnt the logical endpoint forced labor camps full of effectively castrated men? A world where the alpha are risen up to stand aside as breeding stock while the other males are forced to labor for the “greater good” of society.

    Remove the words “labor camps” and insert “cube farm” or “call center” or “food service” or “retail clerk”. Now, how does this read; predictively or descriptively?

  19. Mebus
    Testosterone levels in males in western society continue to drop, and I’m really wondering whether the culprit is just those estrogen analogues (BPA and other) in food and water.

    Never mind estrogen analogs. There’s plenty of estrogen in any drinking water that comes from a surface source in most of the West, courtesy of women’s birth control pills. Search around, and be amazed – from fish in the Rhine to gators in Florida to fish and invertebrates in every major US river, there are male animals displaying female characteristics, because they are literally swimming in estrogen-contaminated water.

    Now, try getting any environmental organization to even touch this. Pollution in the water? Bad! Wildlife being affected? Double bad!

    The pollution is due to women pissing estrogen into the sewage system, that is unaffected by any treatment, and therefore passes right into the local water supply? Er…um….Women’s Right To Choose trumps all that “nature” stuff.

    Estrogen pollution is a real problem, but do not expect any group or government to even touch it. Because it would interfere with the Imperative.

    As for me, I have scaled way back on the tap water.

  20. I usually don’t comment on these blogs but enjoy reading them, but this post really opened my eyes(and my eyes are already opened so that says a lot). I’m blessed with a mother that came from a place(Lebanon) and time(1950’s) where women are loyal to and love their men. And she raised her kids very well. We were raised to be gentlemen to everyone. But, contrary to what men hating and indoctrinated women do with their sons, my mom never taught us to have general kindness toward women, my mom knows what women are like and always encouraged her boys to have “fun” with women but always be careful and not give them too much trust or even respect for that matter. This post hit the nail on the head. Your writing is great and I love reading what you have to say. Keep it up. By the way, I was raised in America mostly and as a consequence, being a beta has sealed through a little bit so I don’t really have much game, yet.

  21. I think this is a wonderful start. Rollo you really deliver next level observation and it’s a joy to read.

    The Red Queen is a form of girl game and I agree that most men have been priced out of their dream world settling for instead a kind of universal hand owned largely by women.

    To regain this kind of universal hand, what kind of life does one lead such that a girl is willing to abandon her dreams (if temporarily) to serve yours?

    I think you can have both. Sort of a red queen pretender game.

  22. A very extreme example:
    Jennifer has her sons circumcised, she has sex with Mexican men.
    Janneke didn´t have her sons circumcised, she has sex with Moroccan men.

  23. Pingback: The Invisibles |
  24. Come on.

    Even on this site — by a man, for men — the comment board gets taken over by responses to and from @kate .

    Solipsists gonna make it all about themselves. Hamsters gonna rationalize. And post-wall formerly cute gals are gonna desperately wiggle & preen for scraps of male attention.

    Any legitimate insight that @kate might generate in her mind isn’t going to make it past those three filters. Any information that we present to her isn’t going to make its way in. Just ignore her.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: