Needless to say, last week’s post sparked some interesting, not to mention predictable, conversations and response. After sifting through all of the ego-invested brinksmanship by the token feminist reader of RM, the takeaway was actually a better understanding of the latent purpose of feminism.Perhaps not the understanding she intended, but certainly a confirmation of premise.
A handful of my male readers often ask why I don’t moderate comments, or that the message of Rational Male would be better served if I banned certain commenters. I’ve mentioned on several posts and threads as to why I won’t ever do that (except for blatant spamming), but in a nutshell it’s my fundamental belief that the validity of any premise or idea should be able to withstand public debate. People who aren’t confident of the strength of their assertions or ideas, or are more concerned with profiting from the branding of those weak assertions than they are in truth, are the first to cry about the harshness of their critics and kill all dissent as well as all discourse about those assertions.
That’s the primary reason I’ve never moderated; if people think I’m full of shit I’m all ears – I’m not so arrogant as to think I’ve thought of every angle about any idea I express here or on any other forum. However, the second reason I don’t censor, ban users or delete comments is that I believe it’s useful to have critics (usually women or fem-men) provide the gallery with examples of exactly the mentality or dynamic I’m describing in an essay. With a fair amount of predictability, a blue pill male or an upset woman will just as often prove my point for me and serve as a model for what I’ve described.
I never intentionally try to make rubes out of the critics I know will chime in about something, but I will sometimes leave out certain considerations I may have already thought about something, knowing it will get picked up on by a critic. I do this on occasion because the I know that the “ah hah! I got him, he forgot about X,Y, Z” moment serves as a better teaching tool and confirms for me that a critic does in fact comprehend what I’m going on about.
Take the Power Back
So it was throughout last week’s commentary about the branding of the Strong Independent Woman® social template offered and reinforced by the feminist mindset, and endorsed wholesale by pop-culture and popular media. Considering the new outside awareness the manosphere is receiving courtesy of Return of Kings these days, I expect we’ll see more of the point-and-sputter, dismissive ignorance of offended egos, or we’ll see more cathartic overwritten mission statements repeated by feminists confronted with logical arguments that contradict their comfortably solipsistic world-view.
Doctor Jeremy actually started me back on considering gender power dynamics with his comments here:
As always, your article is insightful. I get concerned with the limit to the progress the manosphere can make, however, because I think the discussions are missing a central concept – power. The goal of this branding, social engineering, and gender-role change you identify is the redistribution of various forms of power and influence within our society. For some reason, however, much of the manosphere’s writing and discussion does not seem to include that level of analysis. This is unfortunate, as feminist and women’s discourse is often focused on redistribution of power – and quite successful as a result of that focus.
As support for my point, please review the quotes I have extracted from livingtree2013′s various comments [emphasis mine]:
“But it is not because women want to eliminate men from the equation. It is because women have historically been entirely dependent on men for their survival, which gave men far too much power over us, and we have worked tirelessly to extract ourselves from that position of inferiority.”
“So why would you expect anything different from us? Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will, which truly, I can see coming in the near future.”
“Unfortunately, you guys didn’t want us doing those things because it negatively affected you in the power balance, but that didn’t stop us from needing it.”
She is not talking about independence. She is not talking about self-esteem. She is talking about who has the power to control the interaction and call the shots…
As far as power is concerned I think anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a few posts knows I quote Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power more often than any other resource here, and regularly use those laws to illustrate how they apply to intergender relations. That said, I have dedicated posts to the influence power has in personal dynamics, and I certainly recognize, if sometimes indirectly, the power dynamic in Frame, Dread, and certainly in The Feminine Imperative.
I fully understand the redistribution of power in our gender landscape from a social perspective, but the fundamental question about any form of real power isn’t about who has it or not, but to what ends they apply it.
I felt so strongly about the Truth to Power essay that I included it in the Rational Male book. The salient point in that post was this:
Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.
I expect that would align with what our token, self-identifying feminist LivingTree was repeating, but the underlying question is what are women using that power to achieve?
As I stated prior, feminism as a social influence, has never been about its stated goal of egalitarian equality between the sexes, but rather it’s been about restitution and retribution from the masculine it perceives as its historical oppressors. This was the original intent of feminine independence (before it became the brand it is today), a separation from the dependency (perceived or actual) of women on men. However, the problem inherent in that separation is that in creating a new, autonomous sex role for women, the innate differences and deficits that the former complementary interdependence with men satisfied had to be compensated for.
All of the inherent weaknesses of the feminine that were balanced by the masculine’s inherent strengths had to be provided for in order to achieve this new independence from the masculine. I should also point out that in this feminist separation the masculine is also left in a deficit of having its own inherent weaknesses balanced by the compensating strengths of the feminine.
Power Slaves
I’ve quoted that feminism is the mistaken belief that a more equitable society can be achieved by focusing efforts solely on the interests of one sex.
Sarcasm aside, this is exactly the use to which women have applied the power that feminism and the feminization of society has afforded them since the sexual revolution. Feminism is not, and has never been about leveling a playing field or equality amongst the genders, it’s been about power and applying it to separating from, marginalization of, and eventual eradication of, the masculine influence that the feminine imperative wants restitution and retribution from. LivingTree illustrates this for us here:
Independence for women meant we didn’t have to tolerate abuse anymore because we had the option to leave. It meant that if you left us, we wouldn’t be completely desperate. It meant we didn’t have to cling to you guys for support. It meant we could make decisions about our own lives. It meant we didn’t have to be “seen and not heard”. It meant we didn’t have to be a slave to a stereotype anymore. It meant we could be self-actualizing if we wanted to. It meant we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with. And it meant we could admit we had sexual desires.
Tucked into LT’s recitation of feminist boilerplate is the true application and intent of use of the power women’s emancipation from the masculine wants to achieve – direct control of the conditions dictating their innate hypergamy.
The gist of LT’s reasoning for women wanting power, and “Independence” (as a brand or otherwise) from men is due to women’s innate need for security. This need for security and certainty is literally written into women’s DNA, their neural wiring and hormones. As the ‘nurturers’ of the next generation of humanity, evolution selected-for, and reinforced the biological and psychological mechanisms of women with the best capacity to filter for situations that would provide her and her offspring with the best possible security in a chaotic and insecure world. This drive for security is what’s at the root of hypergamy, and in all fairness has been a successful survival mechanism for the human species.
Hypergamy’s constant, limbic, survival-level question for women is “Is this the optimal condition I can secure to ensure my wellbeing and my (future) children?” Whether she’s been married for decades or is out on the town with her girlfriends, that question nags a woman in her hindbrain from childhood to death. Hypergamy’s question and doubt is at the heart of every unconscious shit-test a woman will ever deliver. Hypergamy’s unrealizable quest for optimization extends from the individual woman to women’s social influences. From the micro to the macro, Hypergamy’s constant want of an unachievable contented security defines the Feminine Imperative.
Rigging the Game
In terms of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks) that question extends to who she selects as a sex partner to breed with, as well as whom she selects to be the provider for her long term provisioning. At the heart of it, women’s desire for independence and the perceived power they believe it should give them is an effort in controlling the conditions that they believe will satisfy Hypergamy’s question. Every popular woman’s issue you can list will find its way back to the want for control of the circumstances that dictate how well a woman can satisfy her Hypergamy.
Fat acceptance, the right to vote, child custody and paternity laws, divorce laws, slut walks, accusations of rape culture, more women in the boardroom, feminization of men and culture on whole, hell, every item LivingTree mentions in her comment, just name the issue and underneath the social or personal veneer is the clutching after of some usable power to control the conditions that will satisfy her need for security and optimize women’s Hypergamy.
LT is correct, women don’t want to eliminate men, they simply want to control them, both directly and indirectly, socially and personally, subtly and subconsciously as well as overtly when necessary, to comply with satisfying their innate hypergamy. They want independence from men’s influence in the process of satisfying hypergamy – they want to rig the game by replacing his genuine desires by forcing him to comply with her control of his conditions. Women want the power to control men’s desires, their ideologies, their sexual response, their individualism and the decisions that result from them all in order to optimize hypergamy
The problem in all this effort for control is that nature stagnates in homogeny. Androgyny, homogeny, are the first order for inbreeding. For as much as women make efforts to emancipate themselves and change the rules of the game to better fit their deficiencies, they are always confounded by the innate drives and desires of men. They get frustrated with men who wont play their version of the game, or worse, the ones who play it more poorly than they themselves do. So they jail them, they shame them, they pathologize his sexual impulse, they condition feminization into them from their earliest development, they punish them for not playing the game that should always end with them optimizing hypergamy’s nagging doubt – in spite of falling short of it under organic circumstances. For all the delusions of independence, autonomy and the fantasy of some form of control of the process, they find men will simply not cooperate. They wont give them the satisfaction of optimizing their solipsistic hypergamy, because the Men who have the capacity to do so, the ones women want to be satisfied with simply aren’t playing their version of the game.
Simply brilliant analysis.
When the game is rigged, he who plays by the rules, loses.
When the game is rigged, there are no rules.
If women want that kind of battle between the sexes, it is only a matter of time before men oblige them. Enter Game and MGTOW.
“When the game is rigged, there are no rules.
If women want that kind of battle between the sexes, it is only a matter of time before men oblige them. Enter Game and MGTOW.”
And Calvin Ball.
The anger of a person’s rebuttal is (usually) directly correlated with how badly the truth stung them.
[…] Nursing Power | […]
Power is in constant flux, at least from a natural perspective. It is never in perfect harmony, but if it gets too far out of whack, then the system will completely fall apart – and if the system collapses, something comes in to replace it – even if it appears to be nothing. Found the following on Wikipedia (I know, so take it with a grain of salt) about predator/prey dynamics – thought it was interesting: “Predator-prey populations tend to show chaotic behavior within limits, where the sizes of populations change in a way that may appear random, but is… Read more »
Great read.
“When the game is rigged, there are no rules.
If women want that kind of battle between the sexes, it is only a matter of time before men oblige them. Enter Game and MGTOW.”
And Calvin Ball.”
Calvin Ball is exactly how a woman plays the game. Bill Watterson was well ahead of his time.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0-NT1rzFpik/Tpe4sb18gOI/AAAAAAAAAuM/j2BHO_TgLi4/s1600/calvinball.jpg
i went back and read through the exchange. holy mental gymnastics batman.
its pretty clear to me that she (living tree) doesn’t buy any of her own crap, but is pretty logical yet untrusting of her own judgement. so she is looking for a strong, immutable presence to dispel her own bullshit and feel……..normal. whoever said catharsis was right on.
its the turning of women back to women, on full display. if you care enough they all will turn, it just takes time.
women don’t want to eliminate men, they simply want to control them, both directly and indirectly, socially and personally, subtly and subconsciously as well as overtly when necessary, to comply with satisfying their innate hypergamy.
And this oxymoron is one of the reasons so many women report such great unhappiness today. That pill they take is an extremely poor substitute.
Great article and response to the feminist-handbook arguments put forward by LT. In the great game of reproduction, in contrast to the female, the success of a male’s reproductive strategy is almost entirely dependent on what he’s able to do and the apparent power he is able to wield within his given environment. This “masculine” power and “doer” role within the gender power dynamic, is at the heart of his reproductive strategy and, in trying to demonize and purge all the supposedly unwanted traits of masculinity from society, men’s reproductive strategy is effectively crippled. The end result would be (and… Read more »
The manosphere doesn’t talk about power because we’re interested in function: we want functioning families, relationships, and society. Equal power creates disfunction everywhere. Feminism wants to recreate the ancestral female environment of women working communally and noncompetitively while the men were away competing.
The token feminist should read up on what actually happens in patriarchies:
http://owningyourshit.blogspot.no/search/label/patriarchy?updated-max=2012-03-25T18:49:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=3&by-date=false
http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/the-myth-of-patriarchal-oppression-in-iran/
The token feminist also mentioned the pay gap in the last thread. She should read up on why it is 100% fair. Men get paid more for taking on higher RISKS, of things such as unemployment, and BURDENS such as death:
http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/
It is not that women’s work is valued less it is that many male dominated professions pay more in order for anyone to be willing to do those jobs because of the risks and burdens involved.
I remember Chris Rock’s statement that men have a handicap when it comes to arguing with women. Men have to make sense.
For decades now, men have assumed that women are their equals and so they think like men. You are playing their game when you assume a level playing field.
In truth, men have far more power than women do and most women know this. Not just physical but mental power as well. Women know this and try to contain it (the curse of Eve comes to mind) but Game is all about asserting that power.
[…] is some of the most elegant I have seen in the manosphere and his latest offering is no different. Nursing Power | The entire entry is well worth reading but I'm going to just post the last two paragraphs here as […]
I can’t speak for how others took her, but her quick resort to basically implying/saying “you’re all bitter” and starting in with the normal and expected shaming by the second page of the article confirms pretty much the entire power dynamic and frustration on her part (and by extension, feminism) with men who will not fall in line with the diktat of emotions, tears and appeals to fantasy that make up the bulk of feminist thought. Rollo’s nailing of her expressing the prime directive of hypergamy is spot on, and I only regret that I didn’t latch onto it immediately… Read more »
Interesting use of Romulus and Remus as an illustration for the article. Not sure if it falls under subtle-message or irony.
Well… we gave them what they want and now they have to face the consequences of their actions… Did they think men would sit by and get screwed over forever? We built society and we are too smart for it.
Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives. I would go further. I would say that real power includes the degree to which someone is capable of leaving their mark on future generations. This is facilitated through the power one perceives they have or can have over the opposite sex. This is why the most destructive criminals in society are the men who are most convinced they will never have a stable job, wife and kids. This is why… Read more »
I thought LT’s inner-solipsism moment was pretty easy to spot. The degree to which society has become focused on female needs is inherently difficult for men to spot, because instinct tells us to protect them. It takes a mind with little-to-no skin in the game to easily pick up on the degree of selfishness. This, to me, explains why Girl Writes What (bisexual) is able to so cogently speak on the topic of female selfishness. What’s scary is, when you consider how hard it might be for the average manosphere writer/commenter/reader to spot the solipsism, it’s probably 10x harder for… Read more »
Indeed, witness the side-step when I pointed out the far-more-elementary proposition that to at least wield true political power, you have to temper your goals and find common ground with coalition partners whose aims might not match yours exactly, and who certainly won’t toe the thought-crime line. This is the roadblock that the hard-core, pure-in-heart women’s activists are now slamming into. You can do only so much in academic circles and consulting, but only up to a point. Like, OK, we have speech codes, on-campus sex conduct rules that make Bob Jones University look like the Playboy mansion, and degree… Read more »
[…] via Nursing Power. […]
“The Rational Male” by Rollo Tomassi has clarity, brevity with elegant genius in its writing. It’s about 300 pages of ‘missing life manual’ stuff for men. If your ex is taking 100% of your income, it’s time to borrow the less than $10 you need to get “The Rational Male” — It changes everything. From Rollo’s book: “I’ve yet to meet the guy who’s told me he’s getting more frequent, more intense sex after his LTR / Marriage / Live-in situation was established The primary reason for this is the relaxation of the competition anxiety that made the urgency of… Read more »
Interesting use of Romulus and Remus as an illustration for the article. Not sure if it falls under subtle-message or irony. It’s part of the double (triple?) entendre with the title, especially since it shows a hyena nursing the twins instead of the traditional wolf. Question: Name the animal where the female has higher testosterone levels than the male and an overgrown clit only surpassed by the size of her nasty disposition and ferocious ego. Answer: Feminists. Oh, and hyenas, too. Rollo is very skilled with his use of titles and images, but this time he has outdone himself. My… Read more »
Straight up 100% truth. Play your game, ignore the noise, and victories will come.
@ Rollo Well done. I personally appreciate your lack of moderation and openness to discussion. Thank you for providing a valuable forum where I can discuss these issues openly. Thank you too for your thoughtful reply on the topic. Having said that, I would like to further discuss one aspect of the analysis: I fully understand the redistribution of power in our gender landscape from a social perspective, but the fundamental question about any form of real power isn’t about who has it or not, but to what ends they apply it. I saw this sentiment reflected in the comments… Read more »
@BC, http://therationalmale.com/2013/03/14/hyenas/
You’re observant, I’ll give you that.
😛
I try not to look at Hyenas, to me they’re literally one of the ugliest animals on earth. No surprise that they’re an analog for a feminist fantasyland.
Independence for women meant we didn’t have to tolerate abuse anymore because we had the option to leave. It meant that if you left us, we wouldn’t be completely desperate. It meant we didn’t have to cling to you guys for support. It meant we could make decisions about our own lives. It meant we didn’t have to be “seen and not heard”. It meant we didn’t have to be a slave to a stereotype anymore. It meant we could be self-actualizing if we wanted to. It meant we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with.… Read more »
Tree :- ” It meant we could be self-actualizing if we wanted to. It meant we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with. And it meant we could admit we had sexual desires.” So, did I get this straight? “Independence” for Wymminz can be nothing less than deep-sixing or exiling all unobliging or non-attractive men, and keeping a few stud-beasts on a leash for when the mood strikes?? I say, go for it, gals. ‘Bye. An actual Canadian Secretary doesn’t want to annihilate men, but is confused as to why they can’t be more like pets… Read more »
The tl;dr version: feminism’s latent purpose is assuming power in order to optimize hypergamy by controlling men’s desires to provide women with the security of long term provisioning and the optimal genetic short term breeding. All irrespective of women’s individual circumstance or meriting that optimization.
Did they think men would sit by and get screwed over forever?
No. Women thought you would thoroughly enjoy taking care of them as you’re “supposed” to do. You’re supposed to be happy while being a “good man”. You’re supposed to find the 40 year old career gal who finally found herself to be irresistible. In short, you’re supposed to be utterly happy playing by her rules and be grateful that she made them. Only, women didn’t count for the fact that they do not get to determine what it means to be masculine.
Rollo, Women don’t accept that because they believe they’ve been victimized. This belief correlates with what their DNA tells them, that is to seek provisioning and protection from all who will offer it. I find it arguable that women will never fully see how selfish their power grab actually was, how blatantly it ignored the sacrifices of men that were occurring on a daily basis for these same women who felt oppressed. My two posts in very late response to LT on the previous thread were attempting to illustrate this. Here we have a society where women by-default expect government… Read more »
Too late though… came has caught on in the mainstream and guys are opting out and just using women for short term pleasure. As the saying goes… ‘Be careful what you wish for you just might get it’… well women got exactly what they wanted but didn’t expect men to react the way they have.
Men change their responses to reframed incentives. In their own way. Do feminists get that? Not without a lot of shrieking and shaming language. Did not have to leave the last thread to find such language.
“Too late though… came has caught on in the mainstream and guys are opting out and just using women for short term pleasure. As the saying goes… ‘Be careful what you wish for you just might get it’… well women got exactly what they wanted but didn’t expect men to react the way they have.” But…the thing is that men are still being strong armed by the state to support hypergamy even if we get a bit of strange on the side from women too stupid to sort their biology from their feminism. Not all alphas are out of work… Read more »
@BC and @Orthodox – men learned Game from women.
Hahah!,..I love how LT hasn’t taken the time to read today’s post and yet yammers on in last week’s comment thread only reinforcing everything I go into here.
Now do you understand why I don’t moderate and encourage women to participate here?
Someone in the previous thread quoted Upton Sinclair saying “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Excellent reference. That situation applies to LT: the necessity of men going against their biology is set in stone from her point of view. Her refusal to understand the arguments against her positions is completely dependent on her refusal to understand the biological differences between men and women and how they complement each other. When one understands the feminist need for men to go against their biology, one then understands the need… Read more »
She is completely avoiding the fairly incisive points I made, probably smart on her part since they have no counter.
Another home run. Rollo and Dalrock are the best manosphere writers.
Too bad people are eager to add “Heartiste” to make a triumvirate…that guy is only interested in the manosphere to enhance white nationalist positions by association.
A curious thing is that much of what Rollo writes about is not intuitive. The “feminine imperative” is a pretty heady concept…so is “hyerpgamy” that manifests itself as a grand strategy of feminists rather than the inclination of one woman. It’s not really easy for individual men to come to these realizations on their own.
This is such an important point. Feminism has been far more destructive than most women fully understand.
“women don’t want to eliminate men, they simply want to control them, both directly and indirectly, socially and personally, subtly and subconsciously as well as overtly when necessary, to comply with satisfying their innate hypergamy”
—
This is Genesis 3:16 expanded upon. My mind has been blown.
Great great great post!!!
@Jeremy “The degree to which society has become focused on female needs is inherently difficult for men to spot, because instinct tells us to protect them. It takes a mind with little-to-no skin in the game to easily pick up on the degree of selfishness. This, to me, explains why Girl Writes What (bisexual) is able to so cogently speak on the topic of female selfishness.” I think Justicar/IntegralMath is another example of this. He’s a gay dude, but he’s lacking the victim mentality that seems to push the average gay person to side with Feminism. Not being interested in… Read more »
“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters . . .” Cato the Elder 234–149 B.C., quoted in Livy’s History of Rome… Read more »
[…] via Nursing Power. […]
I still say, that controlling men is eliminating men. I’m surprised no one has argued with me on that point since I am contradicting Rollo’s post.
I’m beginning to agree with you: http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/The-End-of-Men Read the comments here, they cut to the heart of LT’s ideology. Are men obsolete? This monk debate is organized by: Tim Berners-Lee, an Patrick Luciani This comment is posted on Disqus made by : Daniel Ha and Jason Yan This page uses HTML: Proposed by Tim Berners-Lee The information might be stored in Mysql(Michael Widenius) or Oracle(Larry Ellison, Bob Miner and Ed Oates) or perhabs postgresql(Michael Stonebraker) Does it use PHP? (Rasmus Lerdorf ) Or Java? (James Gosling, Mike Sheridan, and Patrick Naughton) These women use twitter (Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams, Biz… Read more »
“If women want that kind of battle between the sexes, it is only a matter of time before men oblige them. Enter Game and MGTOW.” “Women” don’t want a battle between the sexes. “Women” never asked for feminism. Or did your mother, your sister, your girl friends, ever asked for it? Feminism is a creation of a very small elite, and has very little support beyond the borders of mainstream medias’ reality. Pointing the finger at “women” is feminism the other way around, call it masculinism if you will. And it’s EXACTLY why feminism was created : to promote division.… Read more »
Oh, I am under no delusions of future slavery at the direct hands of women, Rollo. What I’m saying is that distorting the natural expression of either gender is a destruction of that gender. When women propose to “control” men they are in fact saying they want to eliminate masculinity, i.e., eliminate men. This is a perversion of human nature and ultimately self-destructive. Since we’ve evolved to appreciate the natural strengths and weaknesses of both, “controlling men” means women are actually eliminating something they desire whether they realize it or not.
“Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished forever.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
That does seem to be her favorite tactic.
In the comment Rollo left it is asked, “they do look like intelligent women, they must realize that without men all of this does not exist right?”
Most women absolutely do not think about this until a man they respect points it out to them. That iPhone is there and it works. I don’t need to think about where it came from our why, because it’s right there. It’s solipsism.
The promotion of the male worldview is an interesting social project, but one I think that should consider the miserable failure of feminism. I think you hit the nail on the head when you state that feminism is a brand, a co-opted concept used to sell shoes, vibrators and chocolate, a buzz-word with less counter-cultural revolutionary value than rock music. Any attempt at a consistent, socially progressive attempt to improve the place of women has been lost and the project has been co-opted by capitalism to transform women into consumers and flexible workers. There is no solidarity between women, it’s… Read more »
So my key question is this; as a rational male, do you agree with the proposition that a reasoned understanding of the nature of gender politics from the male perspective will never gain traction in the mainstream media or societal consciousness unless the viewpoint of the manosphere can be made to coincide with the interests of capitalism? No, I don’t. But I’m not so self-deceived to think that my own efforts, or even the efforts of the manosphere would be sufficient to do so. True masculinity is nurtured by only one thing I know of. That thing is the existence… Read more »
“Women” never asked for feminism. Or did your mother, your sister, your girl friends, ever asked for it?
bob, I’d have thought you must have a pretty good inside track on how women think?
They may not have asked for it, but the minute they heard about it, they each and every one said “yeah, that makes sense, gimme! Gimme gimme gimme! Faster, better, more and NOW!”.
Oh and the answers to the last question are “yes” (to a quite hilarious and eventually tragic degree), “3 bros, no sis”, and “yes indeedy”, every single one.
Your answer precludes a positive place for men in the civilized, domesticated world of social obligations or social contracts, and yet I would argue that men have always been the forgers of civility and politics for the benefit of everyone. We literally build the homes and skyscrapers. We build roads and industries. We build nations. And we do all this together. I’m talking about fraternity and paternity. Even at the level of the tribe or the street gang, men co-operate and establish hierarchies in which alphas divide out resources including procreative opportunities to betas in order to gain the advantage… Read more »
Your answer precludes a positive place for men in the civilized, domesticated world of social obligations or social contracts, and yet I would argue that men have always been the forgers of civility and politics for the benefit of everyone. My answer does no such thing. I’m stating that masculinity does not take root in the comfort of a warm bed, the safety of OSHA rules, the job security of unions, or the promise of government handouts. Men did forge the civilized world, but we did it for women. Men do not need conveniences, we do not need 90+% of… Read more »
I’m with Jeremy on this one. We’ve had harsh lives until just this last century, and for all of human history we’ve had an escape hatch for men called frontiers/no-man’s land in the event a man got fed up with the stifling conformity of civilization. Now that’s gone, or mostly gone, what few frontiers are left are exclusively the domain of the governments/the wealthy (space and deep sea) and even then they’re not colonizing anything or living off the land, so really, there’s no escape hatch at all. There are lots of men out here who are dying a soul-death… Read more »
“They may not have asked for it, but the minute they heard about it, they each and every one said “yeah, that makes sense, gimme! Gimme gimme gimme! Faster, better, more and NOW!”.”
Not true. Your everyday girl is a paper feminist: she follows a social trend, but wouldn’t defend it should it be under reconsideration. If you have done a bit of pick-up, you know girls have no idea what to think as far as politics is concerned.
Dr. J had a very insightful comment in the last thread: http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/20/the-brand-of-independence/comment-page-3/#comment-25505 I thought this might have more application in this thread. I hadn’t considered that in its efforts of eliminating masculine influence that feminism would also seek to end men’s biological predispositions and personal reasons for parental investment with regard to raising and providing for his own genetic 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… Read more »
Not at all bob, they (Mommy Dearest, and the successive squeezes) were passionate true believers (which is why they sooner or later became insufferable to me). But this was (cough) some time ago, when The Second Sex and The Female Eunuch were new, radicalizing tracts, most exciting to modern young ladies who wanted to have “political” views to give a name to their generalized dissatisfaction with just about .. everything, but couldn’t stomach the contemporary herds of Trotskyites or Maoists (not difficult). I haven’t done PU/gone on the pull in decades, ‘Er Indoors was quite illiberal about That Sort Of… Read more »
Obviously failing in this feminism needed social welfare programs to fill that provisioning gap, but it’s interesting to consider the feminine socialization efforts to make men more feminine from an early age so as to better prepare them to accept that cuckoldry and support role for their pluralistic sexual strategy (alpha fucks / beta bucks) when they reach adulthood. Mostly this. After going red pill, most of my childhood came into serious question. A week still does not go by without recognizing a blue-pill conditioning element from childhood of some kind. Most of what I got was from mom, and… Read more »
@DR. Jeremy. “Or, as livingtree2013 put it, “So why would you expect anything different from us? Its simply not going to happen, at least not until the men in power actually force us to obey their will…”. That doesn’t sound like the current male submissive solutions of being attractive mates or appeals to morality for positive treatment are going to turn the tide with these women – at least not without a balancing power counter force supporting male interest to assure that treatment.” EXACTLY! What are we witnessing here are manSLAVES begging/persuading their womanMASTERS not to misuse their power over… Read more »
Here’s a Peter Zohrab (NZ) link similarly discussing power: http://nzmera.orconhosting.net.nz/1narcism.html#2002
He seems to say the Feminizm does not sit at the center of the power issue, but is just a useful “pillar”. Sorry grrrlz. 🙁 haha
Genesis 3:16
Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”
Just as an aside, I think some of you could find this entertaining and relevant to the smp.
Sorry for the double post….the relevant part start at around 26:00
Sex pheromone cuts insecticide use. “The male either becomes confused and doesn’t know which direction to turn for the female, or he becomes desensitised to the lower levels of pheromones naturally given out by the female and has no incentive to mate with her,” says Dr Vickers http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/16/199218.htm You should be careful what you wish for. Power is a double edged sword and it should be wielded wisely, nature has a nasty habit of reverting back to the mean. These nuggets of truth wont fall on deaf ears, they will eventually coalesce and the eventual reversion to the mean (backlash)… Read more »
[…] therationalmale: A handful of my male readers often ask why I don’t moderate comments, or that the message of […]
ROK has a new post up (Act as if Every Girl is a Slut) that seems to support my “Player Schema” hypothesis (here) http://therationalmale.com/2013/11/20/the-brand-of-independence/comment-page-3/#comment-25520 The author states: Over the past month, I slept with several new girls – girls I saw once or twice. That was it – I doubt I’ll ever get to sleep with any of them again. We had met for a date in each case, and then proceeded to have sex on the first date, or in one case, a second date. When I tried to push it beyond a second date, only a couple were… Read more »
I would agree with you up to a point. While it may seem like this is a coping mechanism (really a workaround) you’re presuming that committed sex is his ultimate goal (or should be his ultimate goal). That may not be the case. It seems like some tactical measure to get laid in the short term, but is it really? Presuming all women are sluts is just pragmatism when you understand the dynamic and mechanics of feminine hypergamy and their pluralistic sexual strategies. The author is just making the best use this understanding. So is it really powerlessness if he… Read more »
@ Rollo, I do not believe that committed sex should always be the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal should be up to each man to decide for himself. In this case, however, given the author’s own disappointment over not having repeat sexual access, it appears his ultimate goal and desire was some type of longer-term sexual commitment. Because he failed to get what he desired and gave up on that desire, I assert that makes his subsequent behavior a coping mechanism, rather than a workaround. Having said that, I do agree that his outlook is indeed pragmatic – and “could… Read more »
This is one of the most brilliant sermons I’ve heard. Here’s the original text by the venerable everend Rollo J. Tomassi http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/soothing-words-for-the-unrepentant-baby-mama/#comment-99607 I thought ‘porn lowers testosterone’ was a great sermon, but Rev. Rollo J. Tomassi has hit the ball out of the park with this! Seriously, one of the latest soul sells (to the devil) Matt Walsh is in over his head. We allowed “Fireproof” and its offspring “The Love Dare” to go global because they’re associated with the embarrassing Kirk Cameron. There are many more advanced, funded culture creation industry streams coming which will be more destructive. Miley… Read more »
About the ROK article, I think you are missing a huge aspect here. To many city college grads, while some men are good enough to fuck they aren’t their dream man so they will simply want ONS. These chicks are so entitled that you might be a guy that they will want to screw but they can’t see themselves LTR/marrying someone that isn’t a traditional big shot in society or actively working for it. I don’t think that the author could have achieved a different outcome without having the qualities she has in her list. He probably just would have… Read more »
Dr Jeremy has a point, if females have a dual mating strategy, getting alpha fux and wealth transfer beta bucks, she controls the power dynamic.
The only rebuttal to this I have seen is Dalrocks assertion that females want marriage as a status marker. Even in this context the male role is supplicatory to her desire for status.
And going by cultural markers even this point is moot.
“When men adopt a “player schema” that motivates them to be indiscriminate and give up their own power over when, where, to whom, and how they “give” sex…they might not really be a powerful stud. Instead, they might just become random women’s beck-and-call gigolos…” True from experience. When your ego has a hard time saying no, you can exhaust yourself. It’s fun for awhile, but eventually you come to realize that your resources (hard-ons, loads) are finite. And (sometimes despite yourself) you will naturally gravitate towards the woman you feel something more with. Just like women have finite resources of… Read more »
Thus, what happens when “as good as it gets” is less than “as good as I want it”? Does the guy cave to the power and control of someone else? Is absolute notch count the only measure of the power of game? Or, is getting repeated sex from a girlfriend or wife – when you desire it – powerful too? Does the guy who has a lot of ONS, with girls he’s not attracted to, when the girls want it and he doesn’t, really “have game”? While we both agree that game “can” be used for power and influence…I would… Read more »
“The fundamental hypocrisy in the manosphere is the push to get laid, while blasting women for being on a cock carousel.”
There’s no contradiction. It’s nothing but the male equivalent of a shit-test. The women who yield to the push for easy sex deserve contempt, those who don’t yield deserve respect. There’s no hypocrisy. It’s more than justifiable to encourage men not to follow a mating script that is no longer culturally and legally enforced, and seek out alternatives instead.
Thank you everyone for your thoughts. I appreciate the discussion. @ FuriousFerret I agree that the author would have more power over the outcome, if he had more value to offer. Nevertheless, the main problem is still being convinced to give that value too quickly, without moving toward what he wants too. If he had a million dollars too – and he spent it all on her on the first date – we all understand she would still be done with him. So, the power is not just a function of having value…but also how you hold onto it, never… Read more »
Well said Doc: “if a guy “ain’t into it”, he’s shamed and told there is something wrong with him as a man” …couple this with wholesale societal shaming towards men’s natural, healthy, unaugmented desires… and the dilemma comes into sharp relief. So let’s get this straight – the fem-centric societal code is: men are creepy for wanting sex (or making it known), and for having sexual thoughts about a woman, because it might make her feel uncomfortable, oppressed and objectified. We are conditioned from infancy to stifle and suffocate our urges, to disconnect from this element of our nature, and… Read more »
Oh yeah, and the REST of the time, we’re supposed to be redirecting those energies into: building, maintaining, and advancing the modern world; producing more than we consume, so those who are unable to provide for themselves have their needs met; protecting those who are unable to protect themselves. And we better not be too proud about it. Oh yeah, we’re also expected to absorb collateral blame for anything shitty done by anyone with a dick and two balls (or one, Mr. Godwin)… whether it’s happening in the world right now or it happened before we were born. But don’t… Read more »
$2.3 million per year as Head Football Coach. Beta Bucks.
Kristi, his wife, belittles him on stage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErFxwJZMKuM
I’d say, D-man, you’ve got distilled there the very essence of all Shit Tests
.. when women want sex, we’re expected to magically reconnect with our natures, unleash the beast within and perform on demand ..
because the second part would simply never occur to an alpha mindset. Not ever.
.. We are conditioned from infancy to stifle and suffocate our urges, to disconnect from this element of our nature, and to view this part of ourselves as shameful.
Instant Fail.
“Say wut bitch? No I knows you like it thataways ..
[Any girl=every girl, of course]
What if game were only used to tease? What if every man who visited clubs, bars, social scenes with the intent on using game, simply didn’t go for the close? What if all they ever did was get a woman so close to closing that she knew it was going to happen, and then those same men simply pretended they were never talking to that woman? Or worse, what if they used the fact that they had brought a woman to the cusp to pretend like the woman acting like a slut? (not that it matters if she is/is not)… Read more »
Oh Jeremy, you bad man. You’ve reminded me that I used to be young and horribly pretty. And this sort of thing used to happen without me even noticing (I was, as I said, very young, under thirty I think) “What if all they ever did was get a woman so close to closing that she knew it was going to happen ..” I’ll tell ya Jezza mate. Eventually they scream. And scream. In public. “You’re Fucking Gay! You gay bastard, you poof ya fucking queer, bentshot bastard! Barry ‘e’s a poof! garn ‘kick ‘is fuckin’ nuts off ..” etc.… Read more »
You know it, Tam
Because they’re spoiled.
@ D-Man Exactly… That is my concern about additional power dynamics at play. I truly respect and appreciate the level of “red pill” knowledge collected thus far. I chat here because I find Rollo’s work particularly thoughtful about how the bigger social picture influences our daily interactions. I just think that that there may be more to uncover, as with the sexual power dynamics we’re now discussing above. That’s not to say I have “all the answers”. But, sometimes my different perspective on these matters leads me to ask different questions. So, it is helpful to share those thoughts and… Read more »
So why not a Manosphere conference? Would it legal to keep the women out? and of course the man-boobz also. Why couldn’t it happen – there is even a potential monetary aspect for those that have books and such. Like any conference, it would have different “tracks” for different interests. I remember the days of the Black Hat conference, when it was underground and wasn’t publicized – they just came together. Could happen here – you could even call it something non-Manospherian so as not draw too much attention. It could happen. Just needs a few Men to decide to… Read more »
I would attend. I think it should be a requirement for all speakers to have a beer during their talk.
@ Tin Man It could certainly be underground. Perhaps an in-the-know invite-only kind of thing. Or, if it is private, I think it might be possible to take applications for admittance and then only select certain people. The biggest potential barrier I see is anonymity. Most of the manosphere greats are anonymous – with good reason. They are professionals with a lot to lose. The guys who go public get a lot of flak, if not worse. From his blog, it looks like even Athol Kay and his wife got pushed out of jobs for this stuff – and, in… Read more »
“So why not a Manosphere conference? Would it legal to keep the women out? and of course the man-boobz also.”
No, and no. What would be the point of such a conference anyway? Knowledge can be spread online. Conferences are normally for the Blue Piller supporters of the Cathedral.
What is the ‘game’?
I’m a woman living my life, I try to be kind to others and respect other people, male or female. I’m a feminist, ie I believe in equal rights and equal pay for men and women. I don’t get your alpha and beta stuff. I don’t hate men. I think you’re being a bit extreme, but you have the right to express your opinion.
But maybe women aren’t the enemy. Just saying.
“Women thought you would thoroughly enjoy taking care of them as you’re “supposed” to do. You’re supposed to be happy while being a “good man”. You’re supposed to find the 40 year old career gal who finally found herself to be irresistible. In short, you’re supposed to be utterly happy playing by her rules and be grateful that she made them.”
Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Mother.
Glengarry’s comment is so spot on. As a single man now who openly speaks his mind, I find women are terrified when I simply say that any relationship will run according to my rules. Even family members assume that I just need to find a girl acceptable enough so that I can then surrender to her domestic imperative. It is still a shock for them to understand that the only imperative that will rule my actions is mine. Rather shocking how the feminine conditioning is ingrained into people.
@keryn ” I believe in equal rights and equal pay for men and women” Now I hope you’re sitting down, this may come as a bit of a shock. So do “we”. (i.e. me, and insofar as I can tell it’s the expressed opinion of the other blokes. I’ve never met a (white) man who disagreed). My father said the same, and he said his dad was of a like mind. ( Relayed to me as “S’ long as thur getten proper rate for t’job, Ah’m no’ agen it”. If they can stand up ti th’work … [sucks on pipe,… Read more »
Feminism is hatred of true masculinity. Enforced equality without merit is actually injustice.
What is the ‘game’?
no need to worry about that, it’s something for young people.
“we could pick and choose which man we wanted to mate with” Women have always had this power – only now, men have the ultimate power since so many women are available, that we do not have to ever settle for any “one” woman. We can have, and use, as many women as we wish – as long as they find us attractive. So the men that the majority of women want, have access to more women then he can “service” and more all the time. I have had sex with every woman in a family – from the oldest… Read more »