The Brand of Independence

independence

The archetype of the Strong Independent Woman® has been culturally reinforced over the last half century in virtually every imaginable media. Whether it’s Disney’s capable Princesses ready to save themselves from certain doom – as well as their quirky, hapless but handsome male heroes – or the now clichéd ‘tough bitch’ of action movies and video game protagonists who measures herself by how well she can kick ass and /or swear as the culturally contextual equal of “any man”. Her template-crafted character is strong, confident, measuredly aggressive, decisive (but usually only when shit gets serious so as to prove to the audience she’s ‘digging deep within herself to discover her yet unrealized resolve), judicious, loving to those loyal or dependent on her (immediate family, children and female friends), capable of solving problems with little more than the feminine intuition men magically lack – but above all, she’s independent.

As this cultural archetype is broadcast to society at large, the want then is to find parallels of this Strong Independent Woman® in the ‘real’ world. The media character is only marginally believable now thanks to endless revisions and replications, so we look for the examples of independent women equalling and exceeding the, paltry-by-comparison, achievements of the unenlightened ignorance of their male “oppressors.” High ranking company CEOs are usually the first rock star independent women to nominally shine (often undeservedly) in such a role, but then, by order of degrees, we can move down the economic social strata and cherry-pick or conveniently create the match of any mediocre man. As most men are, or have been conditioned Betas it’s not too difficult.

It really is the End of Men you see. You’re no longer necessary because, well now, there is nothing men can collectively and uniformly do that women cannot find some individual example of matching and / or exceeding. Women don’t need men anymore, they’re independent.

The Branding

If there’s one thing I know, it’s branding. The Strong Independent Woman® caricature has generously earned it’s registered trademark. I sometimes use that ® to emphasize a particularly long-evolved meme; social conventions so embedded into our cultural fabric that they literally have become their own brand. The Strong Independent Woman® is actually one the best examples of this branding. However, to really understand the gravity of so long a cultural branding, you must go to the root of how the brand of the independent woman was originally intended to evolve by the 2nd wave cultural feminists who spawned it. In a way it’s succeeded far better than any feminist of the period really had the foresight to expect.

An Independent Woman was to be independent of men.

While a lot of feel-good aphorisms like confidence, determination, integrity, and the like became associated with this desire for independence, make no mistake, the original long-term feminist goal of fostering that independence in women was to break them off into individuated, autonomous entities from men. That individuation needed to be as positive and attractive to women as possible, so a social pairing of that independence from men, with a sense of strength and respectability, had to be nurtured over time.

Since the beginnings of the sexual revolution, women were acculturated to believe they could ‘have it all’, career, family, a husband (of her optimal hypergamous choosing) and, if she were influential enough, leave some indelible mark on society to be remembered by for posterity. To achieve this she’d need to be an autonomous agent, strong, and above all independent of men. Women would embody and perfect the maverick individualism that men seemed to enjoy throughout history. If she couldn’t manifest ‘having it all’ then she was still, by male force or by personal choice, not independent enough to realize it. Of course, the irony of all this can be found in the marriages of virtually every ‘high profile’ feminist luminary of the time (all the way up to our current time) to the very powerful and influential types of men their stated independence was to emancipate all women from in order to truly be independent.

The Case Against Male Self-Esteem

Matt Forney’s lightning rod post, The Case Against Female Self-Esteem drew a frenzy of internet hate, but at the core of that post was a question that Strong Independent Women® and their male identifiers don’t like be confronted with; do they truly want independence from men? Do the men they want to be independent from even exist, or are they conveniently useful archetypes; vaudevillian chauvinist cartoons from the 50’s, planted in their heads, courtesy of the feminine imperative?

While I can’t endorse a message that would diminish anyone’s self-esteem, male or female, Matt’s post, even so much as suggesting the idea of limiting female self-esteem, uncomfortably turns a cultural mirror back on over 50 years feminist and feminized social engineering. For over the past 50 years the case against male self-esteem, with the latent purpose of emancipating women from dependence on men, began in earnest — not with some anger inducing blog post, but as a progressive social engineering that would run the course of decades to effectively erase men’s inconvenient masculine identity, or even memory of what that identity ever meant to men. The case against male self-esteem has been the social undercurrent of popular culture since the early 1960’s.

I think it’s important for red pill men to internalize the popular idea of feminine independence. The true message that the Strong Independent Woman® brand embodies is independence from you, a man.

Its latent purpose isn’t the actual empowerment of women, or efforts to bolster self-esteem, strength (for whatever loose definition seems convenient), confidence or any other esoteric quality that might flatter a feminine ego. Its purpose isn’t to foster financial or economic independence (as evidenced by ever evolving fem-centric laws, educational and financial handicaps), or religious social parity, or even efforts to achieve its vaunted social equalism between the sexes. What feminine independence truly means is removing the man – independence from men. Feminine independence’s idealized state is one where women are autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient and self-perpetuating single-gender entities.

If that revelation seems aggrandized and over the top, it should. It’s extreme, because the purpose itself is extreme. When you consider that the sexes have coexisted in relative gender complementarity, to produce our very proliferate species, for a hundred thousand years, the idea and implementation of separating the sexes into independent and solitary entities is extreme. Obviously effecting this independence is an impossibility for a race of social animals like human beings. We’ve relied on cooperative efforts since our tribal beginnings and the species-beneficial psychological hardwiring of that cooperation is one trait that made us so successful in adapting to changing, dangerous, environments.

For most manosphere readers (especially MRAs) I don’t think I need to illustrate the many manifest ways that women are dependent upon the men; if not men’s generated resources and provisioning, then certainly their parental investment, companionship, emotional and sexual interest. We’re better together than we’ve ever been apart – even when the ugly mechanics of hypergamy, or male aggression, or any number of negatively perceived gender dynamics prove useful survival traits for us, there is no true independence between the sexes. There is interdependence.

This is what equalism makes a mockery of. In its striving for a homogenous goal-state of androgynous gender-parity it fails to account for where the species-success that the complementarity of the past 30,000 years has brought us. From a heroic male perspective we generally accept that no man is an island, but feminism and equalism disagree – a Strong Independent Woman® is an island,..or she will be just as soon as a man gives her her due to become so.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
livingtree2013
Guest

Good point, Tarzan. Questions though…

Why is there no male-pill?
Would any male take it if it were available, knowing that it is going to effect your hormone balance?
Could we trust you that you actually were taking it regularly enough to be effective if it were?
If you didn’t take it effectively, and accidentally got a girl knocked up, would assume full responsibility for it, or would you put 50% of that responsibility back on the baby-mamma who was fool enough to trust you?

livingtree2013
Guest

And as well it should, New Yorker. Its 30 years overdue as a movement, in my opinion. I’ve always been confounded by how willy-nilly men give out their sperm to anyone who’ll have it. Do you really want to get into that much complication in your life with a woman you barely know, let alone let her raise your child. It seems like massively low self-worth to me.

livingtree2013
Guest

Um, sort Cylux? What definition are you looking for exactly? Like are you referring back to my bi-fold definition, breaking it up into moralist and liberalist? If between those two, I’d definitely be of the moralist variety, but I appreciate the importance of the freedom of self-definition, so the liberalist variety has my support. I just wish they were more responsible with it. But there are all sorts of sub- and sub-sub-divisions within feminism. http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/womens/womens/section4.php It is impossible to lump into one stereotype, because like every segmented description in our culture, the segments all disagree with each other about priorities.… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Ya thats true Emma, “garbageman” doesn’t come with status. It’s not so much the status I’m thinking about here though, its the economic value of the job. Garbageman requires no education at all, not even high school, and gets paid usually around $45-50k a year, depending on location, which is a very decent living. Almost exclusively male terrain though, because it (used to) involve heavy lifting. A woman with similar education would be lucky if she could get a job in customer service paying $10 an hour (= $21k). Maybe she could work construction or landscaping or drive truck, but… Read more »

FuriousFerret
Guest

@LivingTree I think you need to read what the Great Pook wrote about the concept of men’s work and women’s work and how smart women make out like bandits by winning the traditional way: WOMAN Feminists (Very Stupid) – Believes men are the destroyers of Earthly Paradise and attack men to ‘restore’ it. Feminists are very stupid because they are attacking the ones who created paradise. Smart women join men in attacking feminists because feminists are a threat to THEIR paradise (of men working for women). Feminists believe if they expel the men, they can create a lesbian relationship which,… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

@Tam, this y-chromosome research is so old, I find it hilarious that its resurfaced again. Yes the y is diminishing (extremely slowly), its been proven many times over, but no men aren’t going extinct anytime soon. The x contributes 80% of the DNA that is passed on, and we both have those. The y has been stable for like 100,000 years.

It is interesting, but it serves no good purpose except as fodder for angry diatribes.

Morpheus
Guest
Morpheus
Offline

Ya thats true Emma, “garbageman” doesn’t come with status. It’s not so much the status I’m thinking about here though, its the economic value of the job. Garbageman requires no education at all, not even high school, and gets paid usually around $45-50k a year, depending on location, which is a very decent living. Almost exclusively male terrain though, because it (used to) involve heavy lifting. A woman with similar education would be lucky if she could get a job in customer service paying $10 an hour (= $21k). Maybe she could work construction or landscaping or drive truck, but… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Of course, Tin Man, you’re absolutely correct – legislated equality isn’t the same as real equality. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along!

And feminists are all too aware of the difference, believe me! But until we have real social equality, which is probably never, I guess we’ll have to settle for legislated equality (so long as the male legislators will still permit us to have it…:) ) in the meantime.

livingtree2013
Guest

@Gurney, that’s a pretty big chip you have on your shoulder. I have addressed that point more than once, you’re just not paying attention. I don’t really know how you can say that the educational system is rigged in women’s favor either, I’ve proven already that it quite clearly is tilted in favor of getting more men to enroll by lowering the standard of acceptance. Do you think that class curriculum is made easier to talk down to women, because we’re too silly to understand the hard stuff? If that were the case, men would be excelling academically, and they… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

@livingtree2013 SO i think, Jeremy, that in spite of all our arguing here, we are all actually talking about the same problem, just from different angles. What a nice way of saying we entirely disagree. I commend you on your silk tongue. Women largely AREN’T actually independent, like the meme says, and like many of them would have you believe. We recognize that, and are attempting to fix that. But a lot of that is because there are many, MANY parameters that reinforce that in our social structure, that just can’t seem to be fixed easily. Not just in the… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

@livingtree2013 *heavy sigh* Ok, it’s actually quite taxing when you contradict yourself… on November 25th, 2013 at 6:28 pm you said: Ya thats true Emma, “garbageman” doesn’t come with status. It’s not so much the status I’m thinking about here though, its the economic value of the job. Garbageman requires no education at all, not even high school, and gets paid usually around $45-50k a year, depending on location, which is a very decent living. Almost exclusively male terrain though, because it (used to) involve heavy lifting. on November 25th, 2013 at 12:46 pm you said: Also noteworthy is the… Read more »

Morpheus
Guest
Morpheus
Offline

I am a professional engineer with advanced degrees, there are women younger than me who have been promoted over me, with greater pay, far less seniority at the company and less education than I have. The reasons this happen are simple, meritocracy is destroyed when young attractive women enter the employment of old-school men who instinctively try to protect women. The old guard promotes them because it protects them from the appearance of sexism, and their instincts tell them to not let the women be outshined by the guys. I probably STILL take more home per year than these women… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Oh why thank you, LiveFearless, for graciously invalidating my argument by childishly reducing women’s economic contribution to “fashion”. You would make Aristotle proud! How exciting to hear that teachers in LA are being so well paid compared to the national average! Does it make a difference to the quality of education? or the male-female representation in the field? http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/Salary Compared to other professions, nationally, public school teacher is not a good choice, with an elementary school teacher earning only slightly more than an admin assistant. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Country=United_States/Salary Not too many jobs you NEED a degree for that pay that badly. None,… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Jeremy, if you want to take a go at me about economics, perhaps we should do it in a different forum. (I’m planning to begin a masters in it next year, just to give you fair warning). For now though, I content myself with public domain research!

livingtree2013
Guest

I completely disagree with you about the concept of rights Jeremy, and i assume Martel will as well, given that he wrote the article (interesting how you directed your comment at me though and not him). Rights and privileges are totally different, as they are from contractual responsibility. Plus, you take into account risk and reward, and public domain. Rights are not something we have “naturally”, it is a construct of human law which we’ve learned to depend on like a crutch. But it is off topic, even though its an important distinction to make here, so lets just agree… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

By the way Jeremy, the conditions you just described in NO way constitute a right of ownership. It is territorial dominance by the strongest party, and plain and simple. Not a right. Ants that do not allow other colonies to merge with theirs are doing so because there will be a war to decide who gets it (which there often is in animal communities, because they don’t have the safeguards of codified law, which is a safeguard at best, but still not a natural right), so for the protection of the species they don’t bother. Plus, they don’t need to… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

My point was not about banning or codifying fairness into law, Martel. It is a matter of personal integrity that I’m more worried about, personal integrity (or lack of) is what creates social constructs that protect unfairness. You value your mother more than the guy who sold you your mountain dew, but if you owned a company and hired your mom and Mountain Dew Guy both to do the same job, but you paid more money to your mom, you would in fact be infringing on MDG’s freedom by way of your partiality. This is what happens in our world… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Morpheus, its a great point you make, and I’m sure that most quality women would define “quality women” quite differently than most men would. I don’t think I can do it in three, definitely not two. What I consider a “high quality woman” is one who: – is not desperate for attention, male or otherwise, but does not shy away from it when necessary – stands by her beliefs and values, and will not be intimidated out of them – is able to, while keeping these two priorities in mind, communicate in a meaningful and convincingly respectful way – I… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Well, sorry you feel that way Ferrett, I don’t know too many (any) men who’d agree with your interpretation of me, and I don’t think I’m being arrogant when I say that.

But y’know, do whatever makes you feel better about yourself, man.

Random Angeleno
Guest
Random Angeleno
Offline

Still the denial of biology… hence still requiring men to go against their biology to prove your point.

Morpheus
Guest
Morpheus
Offline

What I consider a “high quality woman” is one who: – is not desperate for attention, male or otherwise, but does not shy away from it when necessary – stands by her beliefs and values, and will not be intimidated out of them – is able to, while keeping these two priorities in mind, communicate in a meaningful and convincingly respectful way – I would also include, if you will indulge me in a 4th attribute, the ability to humbly admit when she is wrong Everything else is superficial. And yes, to be clear, I did intend my statement to… Read more »

Martel
Guest
Martel
Offline

“You value your mother more than the guy who sold you your mountain dew, but if you owned a company and hired your mom and Mountain Dew Guy both to do the same job, but you paid more money to your mom, you would in fact be infringing on MDG’s freedom by way of your partiality.” Although you could make a case that I’m being immoral, I would NOT be infringing on his “freedom”, insofar as “freedom is defined as “liberty” (the 2nd link I posted). My premise is basically that if somebody else has to do it for you,… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Sorry, I don’t get the point you’re trying to make with that rebuttal Rollo. And again, the point I have repeatedly tried to make here, which, interestingly, the three quotes you included all reiterate, is that the old-school male-based power structures are in decline, even though you desperately cling to them. But that has nothing to do with what I’ve been saying about economic value. The value imbalance still exists, and nothing you’ve said on this article, or anything I’ve ever read or heard anywhere, has successfully debunked that, But this is not a matter of victimization, its just a… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Yes, its true what you say Morpheus, but that balancing happened because we have developed quite a long way since the 50’s. The jobs that USED to be well paid “men’s work” (which was all jobs really except nursing, teaching, and secretarial) of are now gender neutral, and that is really something to be proud of, I think we’ve all come a long way there. The dirty jobs that you have to pay people higher than average to want to do – mining, forestry, oil rigs, heavy manufacturing – are paid more and rightly so, they are grueling and dangerous… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

See Jeremy, I never said women get paid less to be engineers than men do. At least if I did, I didn’t intend to. What I SAID was that male-dominated professions, such as engineering, economics and law, get paid more because they are deemed to be more important than the professions that are gender-neutral or female-dominated, and I don’t believe it’s a coincidence OR that it is merit-based in a lot of cases. Which you then proved by saying that engineers and economists and lawyers are indeed more important than other professions and deserve to be paid more because its… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Well of course physical attraction is important to a sexual relationship Morpheus, I’m not denying that, its a universal law I think. But its something that you want. Its not on the list of what makes a quality woman. They are two different lists, in my opinion, because there are two separate categories of needs to be dealt with when seeking a mate, using separate parts of the brain really which need to be kept separated in order to make a good decision, so that the limbic brain doesn’t take over the decision making process. Because of “biology”, (there, Random… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

And Jeremy, I gather you’ve had a very different experience than I have with unfairness, and I’m sorry for both of us, its not right either way it works out. I just haven’t noticed that much unfair advantage being given to women here in Canada in the workplace, I really haven’t, especially not in the old-school establishments, and not even when they’re hot (only when there’s nepotism or sexual relations in the mix, and that’s not gender specific really).

OK jeez, I gotta get out of here!

livingtree2013
Guest

Indeed, I don’t disagree at all Martel, it may not be a right but I still don’t think its right. lol, I’ve waited so long to be able to use that word play! Anyway, I’m glad you understood the premise of my argument there. Its basically a negative right – none of us have rights or entitlements to anything other than to exist, but in keeping with that, Permitting one person’s success at the expense of another’s is interfering with their liberty, and a fundamentally immoral act. Most things that people consider “rights”, are really just freedoms, basically getting unfair… Read more »

Random Angeleno
Guest
Random Angeleno
Offline

Permitting one person’s success at the expense of another’s is interfering with their liberty, and a fundamentally immoral act. Most things that people consider “rights”, are really just freedoms, basically getting unfair obstacles our of the way of their liberty. Not everything that people whinge about is actually an arbitrary obstacle, but a lot of them are.

Who decides that? Who can agree on a legal definition? Who decides just how far “permitting” can be taken? Someone once said that people cannot be legislated into prosperity by legislating other people out of it.

DeNihilist
Guest
DeNihilist
Offline

LT, here in Lotus Land, about 50% of all landscaping companies “seem” to be o/o by women. This is just my opinion, being in the trades and seeing this almost everyday.

LiveFearless
Guest

Awww LT doesn’t have children. Awww LT refers to HuffPost as a source to prove a point. It’s like the public school systems she complains about – her rant about men forcing women to be teachers… honest men choose not to subject themselves to ‘teaching’ jobs that destroy generations of people by limiting truth, withholding knowledge while intentionally throttling down the processes that would otherwise lead to actual learning), it gets constant funding without havjng to earn profit. So, like the public school system, HuffPost is part of the culture creation industry. Public schools limit thought and create thought and… Read more »

Nimdok
Guest
Nimdok
Offline

Why do you people care so much about what some feminist woman says? It is obvious she gets off of all the male attention you shower her with, and it is also obvious that she is not going to learn. It is already pointless to argue with *ordinary* women due to their crazy logic, endless reframing attempts and the fact that they never shut up, but trying to argue with a FEMINIST woman is downright ridiculous. Feminazi trolls don’t deserve even the acknowledgement of their existence. And besides of that, I love to dream of a scenario where all such… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

@livingtree2013 November 25th, 2013 at 8:05 pm Jeremy, if you want to take a go at me about economics, perhaps we should do it in a different forum. (I’m planning to begin a masters in it next year, just to give you fair warning)… I need no warning, I’m quite certain I’ve solved more complicated math than you’ve seen. November 25th, 2013 at 8:18 pm By the way Jeremy, the conditions you just described in NO way constitute a right of ownership. It is territorial dominance by the strongest party, and plain and simple. Not a right. So you’re saying… Read more »

Nimdok
Guest
Nimdok
Offline

I should also mention that I love your work, RT. This is one of the top Red Pill sites in my book. And I appreciate the fact that you keep your writing away from politics.

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

@livingtree2013 November 25th, 2013 at 10:45 pm And Jeremy, I gather you’ve had a very different experience than I have with unfairness, and I’m sorry for both of us, its not right either way it works out. Here is the problem when you give attention to feminists. They ONLY respect victimization. They do not respect intelligence, or accomplishment, or value to society, they only respect that which has been “victimized”. Of all the other salient counter points I’ve made to LivingTree, she only offered any consideration when I painted myself the victim. This is classic female thinking and it is… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

@livingtree2013 November 25th, 2013 at 5:52 pm OK Jeremy, in answer to your question about the government-guaranteed female independence Answering a question with a question? very poor form. You did not, by the way, answer my question, you are entirely dodging it. So then, if all of that were true, should it really then matter whether that income split comes from a husband directly, or from the government by tax assessment and redistribution? Its the same outcome, essentially, isn’t it? What if, by government order, no women were allowed to carry a baby to term, all babies were instead government-mandated… Read more »

DeNihilist
Guest
DeNihilist
Offline

LiveFearless – “Awww LT doesn’t have children”

Which she should be congratulated for. She has made a decision to live her life the way she feels is most fulfilling to herself. She is not going to bring more mouths into this world, then depend upon others to feed them for her. At the least, she is showing that she abides by her convictions.

DeNihilist
Guest
DeNihilist
Offline

LT, you do realize that engineers are the ones who take the theories, dreams, etc. of others and make them into reality. You do realize this, right?

LiveFearless
Guest

The LT consortium writes, “That’s the kind of shit you find when you look stuff up, my friend.” Is ‘livingtree2013’ plagiarizing Victor Pride? That’s a statement he’d write in a joking way. The LT consortium writes, “And I’ve never heard of Mackelmore either, before I found those lyrics online while I was researching statistics on single dads. That’s the kind of shit you find when you look stuff up, my friend.” I’ve heard of and spent time with Macklemore. IF the LT consortium is a woman, 45, in one of the Americas, unawareness of the influence of brand Macklemore would… Read more »

TarzanWannaBe
Guest

Slight tangent… I find I’m scrolling over one comment-er to get to the sensible/readable ones. My mouse likes the attention though. Haha.

LiveFearless
Guest

LT writes, “Its the ego that’s the issue.” Exactly.

livingtree2013
Guest

Absolutely, Random. Legislation limiting a person’s reach for the good of the rest of the nation is something that should really be agreed to by a significant majority… As if you guys could agree on it though! Just imagine the battles! Anyway, that’s why we have democratically elected governments though. We hire them to represent us in decision-making matters which, in theory, are intended to limit over-reach into another person’s liberty. Like it or not, that’s actually the job our governments are paid to do. Not that I’m saying they’re doing a stellar job of it, just that it IS… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Yes, Jeremy, that is precisely the point of my complete and total argument here with you guys. In your hypothetical test-tube scenario, the ultimate conclusion of our discussion, I will unequivocally state that if men were the party better equipped to raise the children that both genders had contributed to the creation of, I would pay 50% of my post tax income to the healthy upbringing of those children, and I would do it without complaint. Even though I don’t have any of my own, nor do I want them. I would, however, in exchange for the financing, insist on… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Incidentally, Jeremy, the reason I take that stand is because I don’t view children as personal property that individuals (their parent-owners) have a “right” to do with whatever they see fit. A lot of the reason for opposition to discipline in schools is because parents believe that they can do whatever they want with their children, and that the education system should respect that, so eventually the education system becomes weaker and weaker as it tries to please everyone by becoming more neutral and value-less, I did a bit of reading on it last night and found this article, which… Read more »

Dr. Jeremy
Guest
Dr. Jeremy
Offline

@ livingtree2013 You ask the question: So then, if all of that were true, should it really then matter whether that income split comes from a husband directly, or from the government by tax assessment and redistribution? Its the same outcome, essentially, isn’t it? Then you answer for yourself: …I will unequivocally state that if men were the party better equipped to raise the children that both genders had contributed to the creation of, I would pay 50% of my post tax income to the healthy upbringing of those children, and I would do it without complaint. Even though I… Read more »

Morpheus
Guest
Morpheus
Offline

Since the latent purpose of feminism is optimizing hypergamy, it would stand to reason that promoting social and personal acceptance of cuckolding a male provider into caring for her hypergamous breeding efforts (either proactively or retroactively) with better breeding (not provisioning) stock would need to be socialized into beta men. Rollo, I can’t find the article now….think maybe I first saw it linked on Dalrock, but it was an article about “10 reasons to date a single Mom”, and basically playing up all the supposed “virtues” and “advantages” of dating a single Mom over a childless woman. Just in general,… Read more »

Morpheus
Guest
Morpheus
Offline

Dr. Jeremy at 4:51 for the WIN, that is what you call a complete and total deconstruction.

Tom
Guest
Tom
Offline

Someone had to do this. I’m not sure where the pomp in LT’s posts come from, but i suspect it has to do with growing up comfortably middle-class. Alright, let’s get to it… [didn’t proofread, so i hope it reads okay] “Wow, M3…. where do I begin? I usually find it a chore communicating on this forum because the points of view are usually very one-sided, so I genuinely appreciate that you have at least acknowledged the value of “women’s work” in the education system at least.” You begin your supposedly coercive diatribe with such a snooty attitude that it… Read more »

Dr. Jeremy
Guest
Dr. Jeremy
Offline

@ Rollo, Interesting, I hadn’t considered that in its efforts of eliminating masculine influence that feminism would also seek to end men’s personal reasons for parental investment with regard to raising and providing for his own offspring. Since the latent purpose of feminism is optimizing hypergamy, it would stand to reason that promoting social and personal acceptance of cuckolding a male provider into caring for her hypergamous breeding efforts (either proactively or retroactively) with better breeding (not provisioning) stock would need to be socialized into beta men. You have the first half… Eliminating “beta” men’s interest in individual parental investment… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

@livingtree2013 Yes, Jeremy, that is precisely the point of my complete and total argument here with you guys. In your hypothetical test-tube scenario, the ultimate conclusion of our discussion, I will unequivocally state that if men were the party better equipped to raise the children that both genders had contributed to the creation of, I would pay 50% of my post tax income to the healthy upbringing of those children, and I would do it without complaint. Then you are a marxist, plain and simple. We disagree because you want to steal what I have rightfully created with my own… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

@livingtree2013

Anyway, I am quite interested in your response, Jeremy, but I’m just about fed up with the hare-brained insults and invalidation I’m getting here.

hare-brained? I just stopped feeling bad about implying your math abilities are suspect. Your arguments are invalid because you haven’t thought them through. You are considering one perspective only, that of a single woman who does not desire children. You have zero empathy for men and how they are being cut out of society and society’s future by having their reproductive rights shit on.

Dr. Jeremy
Guest
Dr. Jeremy
Offline

@ Rollo Thanks. I appreciate the food for thought as well. I think it might have been lost in the shuffle, but I am also interested in your thoughts to my reaction about power, the Savior Schema, and derb labor: http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/20/the-brand-of-independence/comment-page-2/#comment-25264 Actually…it might all tie together with the above. When men are convinced/brainwashed/forced to give up their resources/rewards to women (as we discuss above), women’s needs are satisfied without them having to perform reciprocal behavior to “earn” those resources/rewards. This makes women unmotivated to meet men’s needs in return (they no longer “desire” men). It also removes men’s power, because… Read more »

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

I wonder whether the other piece is the “Player Schema” – which convinces men that it is in their best interest to give their sexual and reproductive resources quickly, without reciprocal behavioral influence over the woman? Do women still desire the player after she gets pregnant – obtaining his genetic (and monetary) resources? What I see in the behavior of women who mother babies from multiple fathers tends me to think not. So, despite what seems like “genuine desire and intimacy”, perhaps the Biker Boyfriend does not make out any better in the long run. He may indeed get sex… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Empathy? Jeremy, are you trying to be funny? Your case against me is that my arguments are not valid because I haven’t thought about them from YOUR point of view? Is this forum actually satirical…? My very first comment on this article started with: “… I definitely can understand why you might feel like your importance in the world has been diminished since the advent of feminism. You SHOULD feel that way, if you’ve been paying attention, because it has been diminished. I even understand why you might be a little insecure or angry about that.” And then the attack… Read more »

BC
Guest
BC
Offline

The end

Thank god. Does this mean we don’t have to listen to your feminist marxist hamsterish blathering any more?

Jared
Guest
Jared
Offline

I agree with lots said here, but please stop using the word Marxist and somehow equating it with feminism. That word doesn’t mean what many here and elsewhere think it means.

Tam the Bam
Guest
Tam the Bam
Offline

“Thank god. Does this mean we don’t have to listen to your feminist marxist hamsterish blathering any more?”

Amusingly, no. Far from it.
If you check back through the epic page after page of comms, you’ll notice she signs off every handful or so of diarrhetic screeds with complaints of being driven away or shut up. Her bezzy mates are Vic&Tim.

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

Livingtree, your own comments form the case against your perspective. The only people who can’t see that are people who honestly believe that property rights and self-ownership do not exist. I’ve already made the case that property rights exists within nature and should thusly be aligned with human civilization, instead of considering that point of view, you just tried to poke holes in it.

You’re now playing the victim card because it’s the only thing you have left. Have you ever taken a course in logical debate?

Franklin
Guest
Franklin
Offline

@Tom The problem here is that you’re debating a person who has not yet realized how to make a cohesive argument. She will continue to “debate” like this because she is validated for it on her hug blogs and forums. @livingtree Dude. Do you not realize that you are acting hilariously superior for how shittily your arguments are crafted? Take these gems from your last comment: “You clearly have no idea what empathy even is” “men rarely ever bother to try to empathize with women (because real men don’t empathize?)” “you have not bothered to empathize with a single thing… Read more »

Rod Kierkegaard
Guest
Rod Kierkegaard
Offline

This is a brilliant post. Well done.

DeNihilist
Guest
DeNihilist
Offline

” But you’re a retard because the pressure not to empathize comes mostly from females reacting negatively to empathy. Bitch.”

LMFAROTFP!

Tam the Bam
Guest
Tam the Bam
Offline

Tree : ” I work all day every day with engineers Jeremy. It really isn’t rocket science, what they do most of the day, and they do it badly half the time, but they sure do act like they’re doing rocket science.”

Jeremy :- ” As it happens, rocket science is my profession.”

Classiest Retort on the Internet, Ever.
Platinum Award.
I realize it was deadly serious, but I laugh every time I recall it.
And it also handily encapsulates the problem that attempting to communicate with floating-world feminists always entails.

sheesh
Guest
sheesh
Offline

My god women love attention and love to blab. Fucking incessant. Men’s studies room indeed.

New Yorker
Guest
New Yorker
Offline

@LivingTree The simplest way to look at male/female relationships is as a marketplace. Hence, if it is clear that many women can’t find partners that fit their parameters, then that simply means they are outside the market. It is not a fairness issue, but rather a simple fact. I don’t know how this is a cause for a movement. In my mind, to have a movement, there needs to be what I would call a “don’t give a fuck” test. That means, if a person thoroughly applies themselves, takes every chance to learn, get better, and allows no sloth in… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

@New Yorker ~

Gold star. Best comment, ever.

Tam the Bam
Guest
Tam the Bam
Offline

” .. I would rather that we spent more time talking about becoming men who could attract such women.. “
What the .. whu .. why? What the hell for? They got their life, I got mine. Get on with it. Everybody’s happy.

They want to meet me? Fine. On my terms. Otherwise ..

What the fuck is this?
“.. becoming men ..”
“could attract ..”
dafuck?
Y’are or y’ain’t.
Gettouttahere…

Cylux
Guest
Cylux
Offline

I would rather that we spent more time talking about becoming men who could attract such women rather than debating the clearly screwed up.

Be sexy and have lots of money. A full mane of hair doesn’t hurt either.

Since that about wraps up the discussion of ‘becoming men who could attract such women’, shall we return to the topic at hand?

Kate
Guest
Kate
Offline

LivingTree: You won’t get a fair hearing here. Its not personal; its their method. If they were to allow for exceptions or consider other points of view, it would be a crack in the dam of the deluge they are trying to contain. Kudos for being willing to listen to the other side and question and challenge your own ideas. Its far more than most women do.

Tam the Bam
Guest
Tam the Bam
Offline

“Kudos for being willing to listen to the other side and question and challenge your own ideas. “ But that’s what’s exactly what she doesn’t do. That’s what’s so exasperating. Even when she pretends to be responding to a particular post it’s a complete non-sequitur, or a series of them. In my latest (and last) serious attempt I was “rebuffed and reproved” with whatever handy nonsense got scraped up by the first google-trawl. Top of the list as well. As though she hadn’t either read, or if read, hadn’t understood what was being written down in front of her. Almost… Read more »

Kate
Guest
Kate
Offline

@Tam the Bam: I felt she was making some effort, and I see things differently. I also think its a good idea to use positive reinforcement and encourage attempts rather than discourage them. @ Rollo: Just because she was possibly treated better here than a man would on a woman’s site doesn’t mean she was treated well. I don’t know though. Except for my own “missionary” work, I don’t read female writers. But, be that as it may, there are no immediate plans. The relationship we built from a distance has translated incredibly well into our current co-hermitting status. It… Read more »

Tam the Bam
Guest
Tam the Bam
Offline

..and another thing, young madam. “You won’t get a fair hearing here. Its not personal; its their method.” (1) there is no “they”. When I bother to spew something out, it’s just me, saying my piece. I have no “method” (hope I don’t get the reds-under-the-beds fanatics from Dalrock’s joint piling in here, accusing me of being a Feyerabend fanboi. It’s a thing of theirs ATM). (2) “fair hearing” is precisely what this prolix, snobbish poseur (well, poseuse, seeing as how she’s all maple-flavored) and perfervid scold has been given. Couldn’t believe how the 2 Jeremys in partic. went the… Read more »

Kate
Guest
Kate
Offline

I might be tempted to accuse you of being a Feyerabend fanboi…if I had any idea what it meant smile My ideas are all backed up, thanks. I’m not looking for an argument. I’m just saying it wouldn’t kill anybody to admit a woman has a point once in a while, but mostly men of the manosphere don’t out of principle.

Tam etc.
Guest
Tam etc.
Offline

Despite the dam’ trackpad abomination, I actually meant to write “buck”. Must be some retarded dialect thing I’ve slipped into. Again. Means “sharpen” or “improve”. Sorta., The fanboi thing is cross-contamination from flipping between here and D’s. Some folk have been going nuts accusing anyone who doesn’t share the exact same life-experience and cultural background as them of being bearded, gitane-smoking communistical secret agents, or something of the sort. And it struck me just then that the closeness with which these maniacs parse one’s every loose or slack pronouncement for signs of deviation and clues as to one’s secret mission,… Read more »

Kate
Guest
Kate
Offline

Don’t worry, Tam etc. (lol), I’m a country girl. You wrote “buck” and I know what it means. I just enjoy fooling around with words.

I have never found the commenters at Dalrock to be particularly informed, although the author seems to have a grasp of reality and be the go to source for statistics.

Nuts and maniacs, you say? Ask the women there to post their “n”s. I imagine that would be very entertaining wink

livingtree2013
Guest

@Tam etc. (you changed your name??) – You’re on the money. I did not question my assumptions (much) during this conversation, because you did not challenge the assumptions that I came with. What you did was project other assumptions onto me that I do not hold, so you could challenge those instead. I was prepared to be dissected for my assumptions, but no-one bothered. You just wanted to heap feminist cliches upon me, and mock me for anything I said that didn’t comply with those cliches (Marxist? Really? Wow. Just, wow.). That’s not a challenge, its a nuisance. This was… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Thanks for backing me up Kate, I could have used the help a week ago! Where ya been??

I totally get that there’s a solidarity-brotherhood-alliance thing going on here, so to admit any on the part of a woman or contrary opinion would violate the terms of the manosphere brotherhood, so I don’t take it personally. I expected to be the enemy, I was prepared for worse.

I did expect more…(ahem)…rational criticism, though. Oh well, I tried.

livingtree2013
Guest

Well that would be a pretty reasonable assumption to make, Rollo, wouldn’t you think, since virtually every single comment has been directed either to me or at me since my first post? Because for every post I make there are 12 responses to follow it? I couldn’t help notice the deafening lull in conversation after I stopped participating. Maybe that’s what you want? Anyway, I have my settings on this forum directed to email me when there’s a new post on the article. I do that because I post on topics I want to engage in conversation about. I told… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

Look, Rollo, here’s the thing: It is the tendency to drop a bomb in a conversation and think that the topic is settled, so no-one should have any reason to refute it. Maybe you don’t recognize it, but its very condescending. In a professional or academic setting, this is not the style of communication that gets results. You have to ask yourself – what is the intended result here? I suspect that my intended result, and the result intended by your male readers, they are not the same. I came here fully prepared to be challenged. Unfortunately, the good points… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

I read through the comments again, start to finish. It seems the one assumption that keeps coming up over and over, which you all want to make sure that I’ve acknowledged, is that women are forcing their influence on the entire world, by way of “PC feminist claptrap” I believe it was said, to no good advantage. Were you hoping that at some point I would say “Yes, Oh My God, I had never thought about it before, you are so right! Thank you for enlightening me, I will go about my life from this point forward with a completely… Read more »

Tam &c.
Guest
Tam &c.
Offline

” .. sandwiched in between false assumption, personal insult, and the occasionally filthy bit of slag.”
You’re new to the intertubes, aren’t you?

livingtree2013
Guest

Not new at all, I dislike that kind of talk here as much as I dislike it everywhere else. Its just not conducive to productive reasoning. You can see how the pitch escalates, I hope.

Usually why I prefer posting on Policymic in general, that belittling sort of conduct is just “not done” there, its generally a higher level, which is such a refreshing change, real conversation is had, even among people who passionately disagree!

I had high hopes that I’d find it here too, mainly because of the name of the site… smile

Kate
Guest
Kate
Offline

@Living Tree: I don’t read here much anymore, but I encourage you to read and learn all you can. My vacation is over, so you’re on your own.

@Rollo: I am not personally affronted. I was merely pointing out that everyone is speaking at cross purposes and attempting detente.

Random Angeleno
Guest
Random Angeleno
Offline

@LT Because of “biology”, (there, Random Angeleno, are you happy now? I talked about biology) the sensual “physical attraction” part of the brain often takes the lead over the logical “quality assurance” part, resulting in bad decisions, Physical attractiveness easily overpowers the logical brain, because it feels good, and plus its ego-flattering. I can’t even count the number of guys I’ve seen with women who are hot, but total scumbags, obviously awful, and they are so blinded by her looks that they don’t see that they’re being used and abused. Its astonishing to me. Physical attraction should not even be… Read more »

livingtree2013
Guest

@RA…OK fine, you busted me. I am hereby making an academic statement about social anthropology, and it is one which applies equally well to women as it does to men… Even the lower animals make more rational choices than humans do, because THEIR decisions ARE based on biology. Ours are not. An animal judges “attractiveness” on a need that is directly tied to their own survival. Humans do not. We justify our present needs by finding an excuse – “biology” – to blame for all of our irrational decisions, and the excuse, if you dissect it, is really weak. Biology-based… Read more »

Cylux
Guest
Cylux
Offline

Peacocks are a very obvious example from nature that even animals sexually select on the basis of physical appearance. The more elaborate a peacock’s tail, the more peahens he will be able to mate with, but the more elaborate his tail the more likely he is to be caught and devoured by predators. In short a peacocks tail is often detrimental to his very survival, but because peahens have sexually selecting for them over centuries, if not longer, then that’s what he has to carry about if he wishes to reproduce successfully.

t da b
Guest
t da b
Offline

“I doubt that any man or woman, even a century ago, would have selected a mate by the same criteria as we do now, because their priorities were completely different then – their survival hinged upon good mate selection. “ Now you’re just MSU. Only true for the women, and that barely except in extreme circumstances, transportation to Australia and the like. Either a man had the means and prospects to get a wife, or he stayed on with his mam (dad frequently being deceased by 18, when the church&state permitted marriage (except by license) or lodged with extended family.… Read more »

M3
Guest
M3
Offline

Rollo;

“The question isn’t can we override the impulses nature has hardwired into us but why do we want to? What purpose and to what end does overriding them serve? …There is no achievable goal, because when that goal is met the impetus of feminism’s power ends.”

And the truth will set you free.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/09/the-househusbands-of-wall-street/

M3
Guest
M3
Offline

“We simply haven’t evolved to the point where a househusband is considered desirable, much less normal.”

And hypergamy will never let you.

I swear, after reading that article, i can only imagine how much disdain , loathing and utter contempt those power women must have for their house-husbands, amplified by a factor of a thousand having to work alongside the ultra high powerful men they long for during ovulation.

I would put down good money the amount of women cheating on their househusbands in the corporate boardrooms is 10 times the national average.

M3
Guest
M3
Offline

LT “Physical attractiveness is a status symbol, nothing more” Where is a Picard palmface when you need one.. – Physical attractiveness is a characteristic that suggests fertility and health. http://www.canyons.edu/faculty/rafterm/0%200lli%20Social%20Psychology/Social%20Day%20Pages/Day%205%20Info%20Pages/1993%20-%20Adaptive%20significance%20of%20female%20physical%20attractiveness%20-%20The%20role%20of%20waist-to-hip%20ratio.pdf – Sexy son theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis You know what happens when ugly people mate? They create uglier children. Like making copies of copies of VHS tapes (whoa, just aged myself there), the signal quality degrades until it’s unwatchable. These children will have harder and harder times trying to mate, and become further isolated and retreat from the cruel world and become omega’s who WoW or fat cankled feminists bitching in Jizzy… Read more »

trackback

[…] all want to portray the Strong Independent Woman persona.  My ex wife made a point to make clear to me she was this way when we met up until she […]

Bobb Dobbs
Guest
Bobb Dobbs
Offline
trackback

[…] eminent Dr. J had a very insightful comment in The Brand of Independence. I’ll leave it to readers to read through the whole comment, but it was in reply to one of […]

%d bloggers like this: