Male Space


There’s an interesting discussion that’s been belabored in the manosphere for a while now, that of traditionally “male spaces” being infiltrated by women and / or being redefined by feminized restructuring. The modern, western, workplace is the easiest example of this, but whether it’s the recent inclusion of women in the formerly all-male membership of Augusta Golf Club, or the lifting of the ban on women (and accommodating their prevalent physical deficits) being in combat roles in the military, the message ought to be clearer to red pill men; the feminine imperative has a vested interest in inserting itself into every condition of male exclusivity.

Whether this condition is an all male club or cohort (gender segregated team sports for example) or a personal state that is typically attributed only to the masculine – characteristic strength, rationality, decisiveness, risk taking, even brashness or vulgarity – the Feminine Imperative encourages women to insert themselves, and by association the Feminine Imperative itself, into masculine exclusivity. Scout Willis’ (Bruce Willis’ daughter) most recent ‘activism’ to encourage female equality by going topless in public is an example of this female-to-male parity (google it) – in an equalist utopia, if men can do it, women should be able to as well.

The First Woman

This push into male space is rarely due to a true desire to belong to a traditionally all-male institution or condition, but women are encouraged to believe they’ll make some dent in the universe simply by being the first to push past a “gender barrier.” It’s not about making a true contribution to that male institution or endeavor, but rather a goal of being ‘the first woman to do it too’.

For all of the misdirections of a hoped for equalism, it’s not about becoming an astronaut for a woman, but rather becoming the first womanastronaut – then moving on to being the first woman assigned to a combat role in the military, then the first woman to play at Augusta. If equalism were the real intent, we could expect the desire of the endeavor itself would supersede this, but  the Feminine Imperative motivates women (and socially demotivates men’s resistance) to the first woman goal, not the actual accomplishment or excellence in that accomplishment or endeavor. The trail being blazed is less important than being the first woman trailblazer – in fact it can simply be the same trail men blazed centuries before and still be recognized as a significant accomplishment.

The goal is to be a woman in male space.

The cover story is the same trope the Feminine Imperative (and its social arm, feminism) always finds useful; the never ending push towards gender equalism. The practice however reveals the push into male space serves two purposes – social control and male oversight.

Social control is the easier of the two to grasp. Even when changing the rules of an all-male game to accommodate a lack of genuine female interest in a male endeavor, it fundamentally alters the nature of that game. The first woman allowed participation in that game is novelty enough to extend the Feminine Imperative’s social control into that male space (i.e. “nowadays women do it too”).

An easy example of this would be NASCAR’s embracing a driver like Danica Patrick. It’s not that she’s an exceptional driver, and I can’t vouch for her genuine passion for NASCAR, but the social control she represents is that she is the first woman to (dubiously) be taken seriously in the nominally all-male space of NASCAR drivers. The goal has been achieved, all that’s left now is female oversight of this male space.

Overseers in the Locker Room

The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; According to their proper feminized conditioning, they embrace the opportunity to impress these ‘trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their feminine overseer(s), or they become easy foils of an “out moded” way of thinking that the new ‘in-group’ happily labels them with.

Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ‘feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space, while in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on out-group men’s failure to comply with, or the rejection of, the Feminine Imperative’s ‘correcting’ influence on the in-group.

‘Bro Culture’

When I was writing The Apologists I briefly delved into the topic of Bro Culture. It seems that a constantly self-reinventing feminism loves to attach “culture” to the end of anything it sees as threatening – Rape Culture, Male culture of privilege, and of course Bro Culture. Make no mistake, the concept of Bro Culture is an operative feminine social convention. It may be convenient to think of the stereotype of Bro Culture as a male creation, but this convention is the direct result of the Feminine Imperative’s controlling need to insert itself into male spaces.

There are other feminine social conventions with the same latent purpose, but the ‘Bro Culture’ meme is really a dual purpose shaming tactic intended to restrict and control traditional male bonding while also fostering infighting amongst in-group and out-group men once feminine influence has been established in a formerly all-male space.

One of the most threatening aspects of conventional masculinity for the Feminine Imperative is the cooperative potential of male bonding. When only men comprise an in-group, team building, common purpose and a masculine-primary environment tend to define that group. I would argue that the modern insertion of feminine influence into all male spaces is a concerted effort to limit this bonding and unity in favor of a feminine-primary ‘correctness’.

This limitation may not be directly influenced by a present female; often all that’s needed to foster feminine-primary correctness is a feminine-identifying male in the in-group (anonymous White Knight), or even just a prevailing attitude of not wanting to offend the suspicions that other in-group men may subscribe to this feminine-identifying influence for fear it may get back to a woman they perceive may have authority.


From The Apologists:

This is the hallmark of a feminized Beta mindset – to believe that “guys being guys” is inherently aberrant. It’s something other guys do. I could go into detail about how men giving each other shit is an evolutionary (and useful) vestige of tribalism and how men would use this “challenging” to ensure the strength and survivability of the collective, but this will only grate against his ‘gender-as-social-construct’ belief.

This discomfort with ‘being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual dividends. These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity.

The fact that ‘Bro Culture’ is even a term, or the go-to archetypal examples of it begins with stereotypical jocks, “douchebags” and team sport locker rooms, illustrates the threat to which male-exclusive forms of communication poses to the Feminine Imperative. If male space can be co-opted in the name of gender equalism, it’s far easier to restrict that male communication and influence it to encourage a sense of responsibility towards  feminine-primary security needs. In other words, it’s a much easier task to create future Beta providers if a feminine influence can pervade all male spaces – this is facilitated all the better when it is men themselves who hold other men accountable to the dictates of the Feminine Imperative and feminine sexual strategies.

I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of the way men communicate, test each other, hone each other, give each other shit, etc. being primarily defined in the context of Bro Culture, douchebaggery, team sports, etc. That intra-male dynamic crosses so many social, racial and cultural strata it becomes an overarching threat to the Feminine Imperative.

It’s an easy task to set men against each other when they perceive sexual rivals to be part of an out-group, and feminine influence in male space fosters this passive (sometimes active) infighting amongst men. Disrupting male bonding, or even the potential for it, limits men’s potential to unify in their own interests and their own imperatives. There are many in-group examples of all male space where this infighting and resentment plays out – it’s important to understand that male-exclusive forms of communication, testing, encouragement and shit talking, are in no way limited to just the locker room. Even guys in the chess club will give each other shit – at least until the Feminine Imperative inserts itself there.

Resisting the Influence

I can’t end this post without drawing attention to the all male meta-space that has become the gestalt of the manosphere. The manosphere is male space writ large and a testament to what men can do when they come together, share experience and put their minds to a common purpose. The methods may vary, but the desire to collectivize male experience for the benefit of other men is a meta-scale form of male bonding.

And as should be expected, there will be resistance to that communication and bonding on a comparatively meta-scale by the Feminine Imperative and the men and women who subscribe to it. I should also add that a very obvious attempt on women’s inclusion into red pill ideology, theory and practice is also a move by the feminine into a male space with much of the same purpose I’ve outlined here – social control and female oversight of it.

Even the most well meaning of women involved (however peripherally) in the manosphere are still motivated by their innate security needs – and those hypergamous security needs imply a want for certainty and control. As such the psychological influence of the Feminine Imperative will always be a predominant motivator in their participation in this all male space. This leads women to a want to sanitize Game to fit the purposes of the imperative, as well as oversee the thought processes of the men who come to participate in it.

Just like any other male space, the manosphere is subject to all the sanitization efforts of the Feminine Imperative I’ve outlined in this post – by both women and men who still ascribe to feminine-primacy.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

192 comments on “Male Space

  1. This is why Hillary Clinton will be our next president. Anyone who runs against her will be overshadowed by the “groundbreaking opportunity” of having the first ever female president. Even though this has already happened in other countries, here it will be the primary focus of the media and outweigh any of the platforms either candidate chooses.

  2. Overseers in the corporate locker room = the huwoman resources department

    Resisting the Influence = give zero credibility to anything the feminine or plugged-in white knight says in the manosphere – the evidence is irrefutable

  3. Another great post Rollo. I’m sure you have gotten plenty of e-mails from irate women who like to talk about how they would totally be down with this “Red Pill” stuff if only men were nicer and more accommodating and you get the picture.

  4. Male space replaced with Masculine voice that calls into the most influential radio show in the world: It sounds like it’s just another radio listener calling in, but note how many key words match what you’ve read here and ROK about the E.R. (Elliot Rodger) script you hear in the monologue of the Psychologist. Why does it matter? This show feeds most others that create the global conversation.

  5. It’s just a few years until women demand to be allowed into the NFL, NHL, Premiership and so on, and they’ll be accommodated.

    In my opinion; if you’re watching professional sports, you’re part of the problem. If you pay to see Hollywood movies, you’re part of the problem. If you watch TV, you’re part of the problem.

  6. For men, hanging out with men is about being friends, usually with men who are more or less on the same plane, with common interests.

    For women, hanging out with men – whether it’s one Alpha or a formerly exclusive men’s club – is about demonstrating social proof to other women by hanging out with higher status men.

    Women don’t belong in a men’s club or men’s locker room because they aren’t there to be friends. They are only there for gaining and showing status and as a result, they tend to fuck it all up.

  7. I tried to start a men’s group a couple of years ago. Not an “Iron John” baby boomer group but a place where men could safely rant against what we call the Matrix. The format was each guy gets a minute (with the help of a kitchen timer) to say his piece on a particular topic. We had one session, which was really great, but I did not have enough numbers/contacts to sustain it for long. Guys in a relationships often will take serious shit from their wives for participating in such a group. Guys not in relationships worry about being perceived as gay. For the reasons articulated by Rollo in his post, the Matrix does not want men getting together in male only space to talk about serious stuff (and start mobilizing for political action). Men who do so may be “shamed.” As great as the Manosphere is, it is anonymous and does not have the same power and validating effect as talking to other men about this stuff in person. I am not giving up. We need to figure out a way to create local networks of men who can meet in person in all male spaces to talk about this stuff. If we can get that off the ground, we can bring this Matrix down.

  8. This is why I’ve taken the existence of the so-called Red Pill women with extreme scepticism: they’re just another intrusion of women into a male space. Yeah, try to feminise our spaces, whydontcha. Just so you can claim “first!” or one of the first.

    It becomes a pathetic case of me-too herdism.

    It’s also why I’ve not had much problem with calling them out on their bullshit and ripping them a new one online, too. Even if it might seem cruel to pick on them. They’re in a male space, deal with it, don’t try to play the “poor little girl being picked on by the big meanie asshole man” card: it’s bullshit and just another attempt to feminise our spaces.

  9. I guess the complaint about golf is old hat, but for me it was one of the first wake up calls for me that something weird was going on. It seemed to happen all at once in the late ’90s or early 2000s, like one season a woman golfer was like a unicorn and the next they were sprinkled in like a fun retardant system.

    My friends and I would play public courses, and we would really cut up while we played. It wasn’t uncommon for some curse words to fly, or some raunchy talk, and for someone to be off the side of the tee box peeing, while another guy chugged a beer. It was a time we would all just cut loose and be guys. Lots of shit giving and taking, also competitive in a vicious way at times. Nobody had to leash themselves, and even if we got carried away, and say i was chasing my buddy down the middle of the fairway with my golf cart, screaming, “Git some, git some” as he ran as fast as he could – it was all in good fun, for the most part, and when it wasn’t, so be it. I’ve almost come to blows on the golf course a couple of times – that’s part of it too for me. But not now, not anymore.

    Even worse? They suck at golf. The special tees – it’s not really golf. Put it this way. If you can’t hit a ball more than 200 yards once you know what you are doing, you can’t play golf. I drove the ball as long as 310 and am not a big guy. It’s all technique, not strength. But they suck at it. I can tell. Most of them never even really properly develop a swing. Many have these weirdly optimized club sets that helps them scallop the ball down the fairway 140 yards at a time, if they are lucky.

    You see, it takes a lot of work to develop your swing. I took lessons, I went to the range a lot – I worked at it. As a golfer, if you have a decent swing, you also know what a good swing looks like and even what it sounds like. And very few women have a good swing because I don’t think they take it seriously. When i was at the indoor driving range on Monday night at 9:30, driving balls, I never saw women there. Not that late. Sure, the easy hours, a few of them. But have I ever seen a women come in and hit two buckets of balls? Never. Not once. Me? Done it more times than I can count.

    So I resent them. And they play slow. And God forbid you hit up on them while they are still in the fairway to encourage them to move along, as men have been known to do to each other on the golf course. They whole vibe has changed, and it’s just more docile now. And of course, golf is a metaphor for life in so many ways.

  10. I looked Rollo, but didn’t see an obvious one. On the mobile so I may be missing something

  11. “What is their Endgame?”

    This is a personally theory of mines and while it’s cynical, I’ve seen this time and time again with my own dealings with women.

    I believe their endgame is to destroy.

    Hear me out on this.

    A woman, at her very core, is a self destructive human being. I’ve dated women from all socioeconomic backgrounds and the behavior is always there. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that women crave drama but the extend to which they go to achieve this stimulation, is something most men wouldn’t think about.

    A woman will destroy her family, spouse, child, and herself, just to satisfy this self destructive urge they all have. Not to mention women from all over love individuals who are self-destructive. Like the drug dealer, the junkie musician, the pimp, and the list goes on.

    Now, if she can;t find a man with these self destructive impulses, then she herself will begin to acquire these traits as a form of projection( think: tattoos, piercings, drugs, cutting off her hair, etc…) A while back, I read a poll that confirmed more women have tattoos than men today. That alone should tell you something.

    I’ve read some of Rollo’s archives and I’m surprised that I haven’t read a post that talks about this self destructive behavior directly. I know he mentions this in passing, but he doesn’t, at least to my knowledge, attest to this trait directly.

  12. Ah, I see:
    Yes, All Men


    June 1, 2014

    As I drove my son back to college last week, where he’ll take a summer chemistry course, he said something that struck me: “I believe it’s very important for everyone to be a feminist.”

    Thank you for all your work Rollo

    1. @Nathan, this is the endgame:

      There is unrest in the forest
      There is trouble with the trees
      For the maples want more sunlight
      And the oaks ignore their pleas

      The trouble with the maples
      (And they’re quite convinced they’re right)
      They say the oaks are just too lofty
      And they grab up all the light
      But the oaks can’t help their feelings
      If they like the way they’re made
      And they wonder why the maples
      Can’t be happy in their shade

      There is trouble in the forest
      And the creatures all have fled
      As the maples scream ‘Oppression!’
      And the oaks just shake their heads

      So the maples formed a union
      And demanded equal rights
      ‘The oaks are just too greedy
      We will make them give us light’

      Now there’s no more oak oppression
      For they passed a noble law
      And the trees are all kept equal
      By hatchet, axe and saw


    This is the result of forced inclusion. Millions blown on adhering to the feminine imperative. Never mind thousands of men go through and pass successfully without applause…women sign up, and fail, and are heralded as the second coming of Amelia Earhart…famous for failing, never in history will a man get the same treatment. Trying doesn’t make it into history books, unless you’re female.

    Worth noting, the endeavor has to have some kind of cool attention grabbing cred like firefighter, cop, racecar driver, fighter pilot, marine, etc. You will never hear about female coal miners, semi truck drivers, longshore fisher”women,” oil rig roughneck, shipping dock loader, or any other icky, sweaty, hard labor but critically important to our everyday life job. Not that the others aren’t, but for real…you can bet there’s nothing about coal miner women cuz there aren’t any! Yet. Rest assured you’ll hear about it if there is.

    Fucking joke man, is it no wonder men get so pissed off, feminists? Really? Equality my ass.

    I’m involved in motorcycle racing and the swarm of attention for a girl on track is enough to make your head explode. Overlooking their mediocrity of course. Risk taking wins races and they’re not exactly strong in this area. This sport is not real popular to outsiders so it requires a lot of personal investment to compete. The handful of girls involved get mass sponsorship, regardless of performance

  14. @Nathan @Rollo
    I thought it was the Rush lyrics tweet.
    But first tweet of the morning may be different from my time zone.

    Also, the link posted above is SFW, and shows an attempt at feminist shaming by a “girl” with a couple of unapologetic responses by 4chan b/tards explaining the true meaning of TITS or GTFO. Again, SFW.

  15. @Glenn, re: “they were sprinkled in like a fun retardant system.”

    Thus we have arrived at the non-reproductive purpose of women.

  16. There are still plenty of public, including publically-funded, all-female spaces. These include all-female nursing areas from which bottle-feeding men are forcibly excluded by laws and/or regulation, all-female domestic violence safe areas from which all males are forcibly excluded by law, all-female “family” housing from which all males over the age of 13 are forcibly excluded by law, all-female rest-stop areas from which yadda yadda, all-female fitness centers (including in government buildings) from which ditto, and all-female locker/dressing areas (including in government buildings).

  17. There are 2 simple solutions to preventing female infiltration as far as blogs go.

    Ban women commenters and Ban men who reply to them. All credit goes to roosh for the idea:

    For physical spaces you may be able to use the creep factor of women against them. That is the instant that the women enter, they get swamped by creepy men. Or you can employ a strength test in order to enter. That is: the individual has to be strong enough to force their way through the door and only one person can do it at a time.

  18. I think this whole women into male spaces is just a form of increasing reproductive opportunity for women. Seeing as they love opportunistically, any large group of men hanging around, has ancestrally(tribal times of 50-100 members) had a very high opportunity to find a suitable male. That’s like the whole tribe, with all the men, gathering at once at your disposal. Missing out on such a big reproductive opportunity makes it even more important to apply all the available tactics at your disposal(shaming, misogyny, etc.) just to get in. It’s like missing out on the biggest party on campus.
    Also as their natural inclination is to test to see who the alpha of the group is, their attempts then become the Female Imperative suppressing the beta males who don’t man up.
    I do agree with you that we need male spaces to improve our fitness and we need to keep the women out of them, even if they try to harass us to let them in.

  19. Whatever the motivation to invade male spaces women have just about killed civil society. In the recent past on entering a small town there was the ubiquitous sign “Welcome to Somewhere USA” surrounded by the seals of the civic organizations in that town. The Elks, Moose, Lions, Rotary, Free Masons, etc. were where men gathered to create the local culture and establishing the local hierarchy.

    Today those institutions are all but dead. Killed by the invasion of women, electronic entertainments, and a macro culture that insists upon churning the local population through never ending work relocations. All of those things work in concert to destroy local control and shift the center of gravity to BigGov and BigCorp.

    Today the only socially and culturally approved organizations serve the cathedral and thus the FI. Local civic organizations that once were center of civil society are now replaced by lazy, disinterested, and self serving bureaucrats of the government offices that have replaced them. All services now flow from the state, all power resides with the state.

    This suits the FI as state power is a known quantity and having only one power source eliminates the insecurity of having to keep track of numerous small organizations. Since the state must serve all citizens it naturally serves the loudest first and that would the the agents of the FI who have little better to do than lobby and politic for their aims.

    Gaining access to and control of male spaces is not solely or mostly about reproductive opportunities it’s about ensuring all male resources: time, energy, attention, wealth, sperm, status, and power are directed toward the benefit of women generally, and a chosen few specifically.

    Civil society when organized on the masculine model had a number of small teams that were constantly engaged in a collaborative competition. A hierarchy of order existed where there were numerous opportunities for a man to find rank and status at ever increasing levels of power and responsibility. This too much for a woman’s nature. Too much uncertainty, too much chaos, too much competition, too many choices with too much responsibility for those choices. Too much work. The FI made things easier for women by eliminating the competition, the hierarchies, and the choices. Now it’s easy, civil society has been replaced by the state which can much better oversee the production and fair distribution of male resources. It may not be efficient but it is fair and that feel good. And good feels for women are what matters most, especially if the responsibility resides with men and those men are being properly watched and properly directed.

  20. Just as women SHOULD be allowed to participate in whatever they want, men SHOULD be allowed their own privacy and exclusivity, just like women are allowed.

    The 21stC is rife with examples of female exclusivity; women-only swim sessions; exclusive gyms etc etc. For the sake of not being ogled by red-blooded males.

    The main hypocrisy that extreme feminism appears to assume is that women should be afforded the same rights as men, where men should be denied all rights of exclusivity, just as women have been.

  21. The minute women invade male space, men stop cooperating in their collective best interest and start competing against each other for sexual favor. The more “traditionally male” the space is, the more men there are competing for the woman’s attention. Of course, women love it. Women will find security by aligning themselves with the alphas of the space and by showing him the “special feminine sympathies” he will not get from other men. He will protect her at all costs, no matter how crappy her performance is, or how little she adds to the collective endeavor at hand. Daddy takes care of his little girl. The obvious favoritism makes the other men bitter as they cannot compete for promotion against a woman’s sexual desirability.

    I had the pleasure of interacting with some men that work at an all-male tech startup a few weeks ago. They had incredible vitality and obviously loved their work. They gave each other shit constantly. In a room next door, was an equalist work party for a major corporation of both men and women. The men seemed and looked neutered — no vitality. It was terrible to see. Equalism has taken the very life juice out of men.

  22. White men are too often white women pedestalizers, enablers and pussy beggars. And white women have been used over decades to bring down their men and western society. It is amazing what social engineering through financial incentives can do. Whites benefitted only because their elite saw they were rewarded – not because they were inherently smarter.

    They still Do have privilege when compared to millions of non-whites who suffer from Western economic policies and military inventions. Heck, the culture still enables white men, though their status as a group has been diminished.

    Despite this, no one wants the white race to end. At least not non-whites. We need the diversity and G-d intended whites to exist. The problem is, the white race has gone insane, for the most part. If your leaders do the dirty, is that your fault or their fault – or the fault of both. Most white people have been subverted over the last few decades to be made into the spitting image of what the upper class wants them to be. And any people who did not fit in and sought to alert others were ignored by their peers and were given Vehmic tribunal and slowly removed from society whilst the masses were entertained.

    Never mind bombing other countries to sh-t to enforce the petrodollar and hence bring about their role as the first Beast or Revelation (Z-onism), they also result secondarily in mass Christian deaths worldwide, which is kinda repugnant for a so-called Christian country. Christian Saints die abroad in lands where they are outnumbered, whilst the Churchians in the West support this through taxes and through their ignorance. In addition, the so-called white elite have taught the enemy (all races, but traditionally other whites) his art of war, thereby getting other whites to genocide themselves by mass abortion. This in turn, necessitates immigration.

    Ultimately, we will end up in the days as was in the times of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, where all people of all races will be enslaved to the few apostate leaders who work for the ‘man’ of perdition who works tirelessly behind the scenes, and whilst some will scoff, all will come to discover this to be true over time.

    Whilst ‘fate’ can be factored in, human beings have some responsibility and choice- they always make the wrong ones, irrespective of race or creed. Human beings have never controlled their own destiny and have always fallen to temptations of the flesh, money or power. This is why societies fall; and we are seeing the demise of the West, a slow demise, over the coming decades. It will be replaced with something far worse, hence the FEMA ‘concentation camps’ to ‘help the homeless’- did we not learn the sequence of events from Nazi Germany?

    People need to get G-d. And there is only one maxim in operation in Western society: Make haste to leave, or you will learn to slowly die.

  23. Speaking of all-female areas (which I was), my wife is prolific on Pinterest, in which, I believe, 99.4% of collecting is done by women. However, about half her followers are men, who enthuse about her photos of baked good, or make recommendations about arrangements of figurines, etc.

  24. > and those hypergamous security needs imply a want for certainty and control.

    King Kong (movie)

    It’s about a woman, who controls a superstrong male with the power of her beauty.

  25. True this.

    I was dumbfounded in the early 80’s when I was told by HR that in the race for promotions I would compete carrying a figurative bag of cement. But I took it as a challenge and ran harder. I was passed over several times, but over the years when the really big jobs came up, I got them.

    Today, although the competence of the favored groups has caught up, the handicapping remains. No longer will running harder make a difference.

    No wonder so many of us at best simply give up, or at worst, go postal.

  26. It is a certainty that the feminist movement is a sexist supremacist movement that seeks to pathologize male heterosexuality in order to control males using the law and social pressure.

    Note how feminist and liberal women identity with and support gay males, who are far more openly sexual, but only with other males. When hetero men act towards women like gay men do with other gay men, they are “pigs” and “disgusting” and “only think about getting sex” and “objectifying women as sex toys” and participating in “rape culture”.

    But when gay males do it to other men openly, a la the Folsom Street Fair, it is to be celebrated uncritically, as a human rights issue and as an equality issue. This hypocrisy can be used against them.

    Talk of “hypergamy” and “feminine imperative” goes far too much into the weeds to be effective; instead, use their own language and rule book against them.

    Because at it’s core, it is a common human problem; the need to control others that gives rise to authoritarian ideas, whether they issue from men or women.

    So what the frame needs to be in the counter cultural revolution is to call them out as the sexual bigots and heterophobes that they are. That feminism is merely an effort to privilege females over males and is not about equality or equal rights at all. They are ripe for being “Alinskyed” and the pushback is starting with men suing colleges for their anti-male rules about sexual conduct on campus.

  27. Another funded conversation embedded through the perception management machine: ONLY MEN CHEAT … “It’s a choice to cheat” That’s ‘justification’ for the negation of space – as heard on the show that all popular shows copy:

  28. I’m skeptical of the notion of men’s clubs in popular culture, such as gaming, golfing or whatever the activity is.

    For example, the gaming space isn’t controlled by men, it’s controlled by gamers, gamers in the early days were mostly men so the culture in gaming is just so. If you want to JOIN another culture then you should be respectful of it otherwise that culture will be hostile to you (Looking at you Anita).

    You DO NOT get to stake a claim to something you didn’t build, males built the male gaming culture and we’ll protect it at all costs.

    There’s nothing to stop you from starting your own gaming culture which encourages and enforces conduct that suits delicate female sensibilities. Men don’t own gaming in general they simply went out there and created their own instance of it which suits their needs. What was built by males, reflects our preferences.

    When we see the feminist narrative talk about male spaces, It’s immediately obvious that their goal isn’t to actually take part in that space, it’s to modify the behaviour in males that they do not like. If they simply wanted to play games they like they’d build their own female space, instead they go to great lengths to modify the existing ones.

    Anita Sarkeesian spent $160,000 on making videos to raise awareness about female tropes in games, when she could have used that money to develop an indie game that contained the qualities she prefers, if her ideas are true and worthwhile she would have sold a lot of copies. But she doesn’t want to provide that content for women, she wants to modify male behaviour, and the entire male internet gaming culture gave her a collective “fuck you”, and rightfully so.

    Men are used to building things they want/need, if women want equality then they need to learn the same discipline and learn that if they want something specific it’s up to you to build it and not just try and drag everyone else down around you.

  29. I got this post coming about “Signals”. And a big part of the information that I am using on the subject comes from The Tyranny of Ambiguity by Simon Shepard. It is a massive subject. But Simon lists a long group of Signals emitted by women, particularly in a “sexual” situation in order to elicit an action from a male.

    And the thrust of it all is quite complicated in that the signal is intended to be ambiguous in order to both test the male and to induce a neurosis to increase the difficulty and cost of sex to the male. THEREBY RAISING THE COST OF SEX AND THE STATUS OF WOMEN. And he states that women subconsciously collude and conspire to accomplish this end.

    Now it has been said that “Feminism is one big giant Shit Test for men”. And I propose that crap like this, this invasion of male space, is an example of what Simon calls the “Challenge Signal”:

    “CHALLENGE (M/F). Challenges are expressions of defiance and can take subtle as well as overt forms. One kind of Challenge Signal is exemplified by a girl putting her nose in the air and adopting a posture of playful disdain to her boyfriend, which invites a response. Other characteristic examples are a woman ostentatiously leaning back on a chair while operating a computer, or arrogantly leaning against a photocopy machine which is in operation. The presence of a male is required for the signal to be emitted but in the presence of a perceptive one such displays are usually short-lived.

    Overt Challenge Signals are impelling: they demand a response. They require attention, and secure a relationship by the involvement they demand; they can instigate or perpetuate a relationship. Challenges call for a limit to be imposed, pleading for the boundaries of acceptable behaviour to be made explicit. It may be an unconscious request for subjugation. Overt Challenges can take the form of confrontations of authority such as public demonstrations and subversive acts; they are ambiguous in intention if not in form. A good example of a male expression of the Overt Challenge Signal is knocking off a policeman’s helmet.

    Challenge Signals are a means by which power can be continually tested and incremented when a response is not forthcoming.”

    You could almost consider the entire content of Feminism since the terrorist acts of British Suffragettes in smashing windows, to exploding bombs all to be examples of a Challenge Signals. And the protective and caring instincts of men towards women allow this behavior to persist.

    And as Simon states : “Challenge Signals are a means by which power can be continually tested and incremented when a response is not forthcoming.” ….

    Then the shit just keeps ratcheting up, the demands get ever and ever more screechy, ever and ever more trivial in what is demanded, proving that ….

    Women are never satisfied.

    One of the best responses I read back a couple years ago to the claim from TradCons and women that men should “Man Up” was a comment that contained a simple and singular ….


    And many of the other “Signals” Simon lists can be considered under the category of “Attention Seeking”, some overt and intended to gain the attention of the targeted male, and some designed in provoke or invoke the “Protection and Care Impulses” in men. And Simon lists these types of signals as Honest, Erroneous, Deliberate, and Dysfunctional. The Dysfunctional ones can be both conscious or unconscious but are the result of a potential mental disorder often caused by childhood issues. Think of the woman that perpetually signals yet cannot or does not respond to an approach. And Simon states that signals can be deliberately used merely to gauge her power, just to see that men jump when she does signal.

    And a lot of this horseshit is exactly that, a constant challenge where the men jump as the women wish and thus the self perception and status of individual women and the collective of women is continually ratcheted upward and upward to the point of arrogance and even hubris.

    I have another post in the works, actually mostly written yet I am stuck without a final conclusion. It covers what is called Histrionic Personality Disorder and could be colloquially called “Attention Whore Syndrome”. I make the case that possibly many of these women like Willis actually have this HPD syndrome. It occurs at up to 5% in the general population. I mean clinical HPD occurs at up to 5%. There are probably degrees of it that approach the diagnosis of clinical HPD, yet the person is “functional”. But the kicker is that women have it at the rate of 4:1 compared to men. So where there could be up to 5% in the general population, then that number is far greater among women, 400% higher. Now when you consider who would actually “step out” into the public sphere, what sort of qualities cause a person, and more particularly, a women to decide to put herself out there and endure those things that come with public life ( and I can tell you, for every one good thing, there are two that really fucking suck about it) ….

    Then I gotta wonder if this women has HPD given the incidence of it. If you don’t seek attention then you do not walk through New York without a fucking shirt on, you do not write a blog with an inflammatory title like “End of Men”.

    So frankly I am going with this whole idea that a lot of this crap is a Challenge Signal and also Attention Seeking behavior and it is probably way past time that men said ….


  30. @MM, although I can confirm that women continually emit Challenge signals towards me, I can’t believe Sheppard has anything useful to me to say about that topic.

  31. The appropriate response to women telling men to “man up” is to ask them just what the fuck would they know about being a man?

  32. I took a lot of flak in commenting on ‘The Apologists’; let me try this again with the same core principles but from a different angle, and taking care to comment on specific things you’ve written in this new piece…

    There’s nothing in here that I disagree with. So I’ll also emphasize where I strongly agree. But I think there’s an incomplete picture that doesn’t accurately depict the modern-day landscape of – and I’ll make this distinction – an unfortunately large number of *urban* and *semi-urban* male spaces in the *Western World* (I wouldn’t say that’s true in Latin America, for example, or other parts of the world…there aren’t such widespread cultural memes of broken/perverted/dysfunctional feminized-masculinity there). See my last paragraph for a specific example of what I’m talking about, and how ‘men having honor’ befits a male-imperative.

    This is 2014. There are male spaces that are mostly populated by men raised in feminine-primacy-culture. That means that even some of the (or perhaps, *especially* the) hyper-masculine actors therein have arrived at their ‘hyper-masculinity’ via a deeply fucked-up upbringing. That is something quite apart from a healthy, solidly-masculine paradigm of a man who was raised right. We can’t overlook how this dynamic infects and perverts male spaces.

    “When only men comprise an in-group, team building, common purpose and a masculine-primary environment tend to define that group.”

    …is something I’d like to see a hell of a lot more of in our culture. Unfortunately, even the ‘Sphere can’t even seem to effectively galvanize in pursuit of common purposes – which is a damn shame, because there is great potential for influencing public policy, masculinist advocacy, etc.

    “That intra-male dynamic crosses so many social, racial and cultural strata it becomes an overarching threat to the Feminine Imperative.”

    This is the money line right here. Women want to know what we’ve been doing, what we ‘were up to’ even though no other women were around and no ‘sexual threat’ was in any way part of that time we spent in that male space.

    “It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.”

    OK, but whose fault is that? I’d think that to be fair, we’d rightly blame the men who fundamentally alter their behavior and the content of their words in the presence of these interloper women. Tangentially, you can ‘clean up’ your language just by omitting a few ‘vulgar’ words but keep the brisk, potentially offending message essentially the same. We do that all the time with elderly people etc, it’s called ‘being polite’ – and yes it’s regrettable that due to female infiltration it’s even necessary at all, but the diametrically opposite resulting behavior of many/most men (white knights) is something these ‘men’ choose out of weakness. I say, shame on them.

    “… the Feminine Imperative motivates women (and socially demotivates men’s resistance) to the first woman goal, not the actual accomplishment or excellence in that accomplishment or endeavor.”

    Bingo. That distinction is right on the money – that for women generally, inclusion into the male space is about ‘oh look at me! i’m a trailblazer! i’m rosa fuckin’ parks! i shattered that glass ceiling and i’ve got the selfies to prove it!’. Well said.

    “Just like any other male space, the manosphere is subject to all the sanitization efforts of the Feminine Imperative I’ve outlined in this post – by both women and men who still ascribe to feminine-primacy.”

    Are you ascribing to feminine-primacy by being faithful to your wife, since that benefits her? Or is your being faithful to your wife – insofar as you are acting with integrity – part and parcel of what makes you a leader to other men, to your readers, to your co-workers and even the promo model chicks you interact with?

    Anyone here can say that I’m white-knighting or ascribing feminine social primacy to my overarching views because I want to live in a world where men are generally honorable and worthy of trust. But I’ll finish this comment with a concrete example of why I think this matters to not just women, but also to men.

    Look, Rollo – If John Doe is selling big-ticket widgets downtown, and I know that he’s fucking around on his wife, keeping her in the dark about it, and is generally shady insofar as keeping his word….but Rollo Tomassi is selling comparable big-ticket widgets at a 20% markup on the outskirts of town, a 20 minute drive away – I’m going to spend that extra 20 minutes of my time and that extra 20% of my hard-earned dollars to go buy that widget from you. And it’s not necessarily because I like you better, it’s because if I’m buying an expensive product, I want it to fuckin’ work. Hope that makes sense. -S.

  33. I’m surprised at the level of anti-female comments in the comment section. I really don’t think that women are as predatory, vampiric and Borg like as some fellow readers of Mr Tomassi’s normally excellent blog.

    Women often feel inferior to men, and the suffer in varying degrees with what might be called ‘short-man syndrome.’ Women are trying to elbow their way in to traditional male spaces to allay their constant feelings of inferiority. Just as a small man will strut, bully and brag as a compensatory mechanism, women want to force their way into male spaces. Once membership in elite male clubs, sporting or otherwise opens up to women. You’ll witness in the first year of so an influx of women into the clubs etc. However, once the walls have been breached so to speak, women who have no genuine interest in the club’s raison d’etre will leave, leaving only a handful of women who really do like the sport, political views of the club. These women I would like to think would be valuable members of the club.

    I really like the Rational Male. I think that it is easily the best red-pill manosphere blog on the Internet. I appreciate Rollo’s read-able academic style and his clearly articulated and closely argued points.

    Careful readers may well be thinking at this point that I’ve rather made Rollo’s point for him that women are trying to infiltrate the manosphere to slowly and subtly steer the movement in ways more agreeable to the Feminine Imperative. However, I have two things to state. First I’m a trans-woman, which means that I don’t necessarily see things through genetic female’s eyes. So my purpose here isn’t to subtly undermine the manosphere, but to share the opinions of someone who isn’t a man but isn’t wholly a woman either. Second if you start asking women about the Feminine Imperative, most women would reply: “feminine imperative? What’s that?” Of course this baffled reply that you would get from most if not all the women that you asked could well be near-proof of the fact that we live in such as fem-centric world that 90% of women don’t notice it.

  34. Minter’s post is spot on. A woman is only satisfied when her challenges are rebuffed in non-qualifed fashion. This satisfies her hypergamy. The denial must be stern, calm and resolute without an attempt to appeal to reason. Any deviation from that stance will open the floodgates. Everything still comes down to frame, frame, frame.

  35. Let me state for the record that I’ve never considered this blog or my comment sections an all-male space.

    In fact I’ve always, and will continue to invite female readers to comment here in an unmoderated format because I believe that the strengths of an idea are determined by how well it withstands critical review.

    Most of my regular readers already know this, however, although I don’t delete comments (except spam) it doesn’t mean those comments and the ideas therein wont be subject to critical review themselves.

    This is what I think makes most female readers believe that the manosphere is inherently hostile to women, the feminine and themselves personally. The manosphere on whole IS a male space and when women venture into it their sensibilities get offended because they discover that generally men aren’t pulling their punches with them because they’re girls – as men would in in-person social settings.

    While in principle I disagree with RoK’s female censoring of comments policy I do see the pragmatism of it because of exactly this dynamic. Women are shocked that ‘Men are being Men’ in an all male space that they feel entitled to participate in and have men pander to their sensibilities as they would expect in real life.

  36. @Elle Bee “Careful readers may well be thinking at this point that I’ve rather made Rollo’s point for him that women are trying to infiltrate the manosphere to slowly and subtly steer the movement in ways more agreeable to the Feminine Imperative.”

    Correct. I’m reminded of the influx of women reporters in men’s lockerrooms. The *men* had to change their behaviors to be more acceptable to the women. The *rules* had to change (e.g. waiting periods) to be “fair” to women since the *women* didn’t want to be exposed to right away.

  37. We do that all the time with elderly people etc, it’s called ‘being polite’

    Yes, but the elderly cannot take you to court for “sexual harassment” if you drop “fuck” into your conversations, or tell a dirty joke at work.

    The ONLY reason ordinary men who aren’t pussy whipped defer to female social sensibilities on the job is their enforcement through one sided abusive and sexist laws that favor them over men by catering to their sensitivities as the default standard of societal operation. That’s supremacy, not equality.

    Since women are to be equal, we need to be demanding that they not seek or gain legal privilege simply because they have vaginas and don’t like male culture. And that’s just the beginning of what needs to be addressed openly and honestly.

  38. Sorry, long post, I was gripped by this and so many other posts and stories here and felt compelled to respond in full.

    It’s amazing how every time Rollo writes one of these I am immediately exposed to the FI media that only further brings his argument into sharper relief.
    I agree that the FI has persistently invaded male space, to the detriment of all, and of course it’s utterly hypocritical in that they can have “safe female space” but we cannot have “exclusive male space”. Rollo is dead on with the reasoning that “no this is not some explicit agenda of the Feminist set”, although I am sure it is for some of them, but rather it is part of the meta-mechanism of the FI.
    So after reading Rollo’s post over my coffee this AM, I then listened to CBC news, our NPR in Canada and well spring of all things FI. Today’s first shock and complain story was about the terrifying notion that an increasing number of seemingly well adjusted middle class white males are marching off to join fervent Jihadist organizations in the middle East and participating in wars and in some cases being programmed to come home and foment trouble on our shores.
    Of course the dialogue immediately trended towards more surveillance of these men and better identification of the potential jihadists before they got into trouble. The logical conclusion in the dialogue was of course being to lock them up. No thought was spared as to why perhaps these young men turn to such a course of action.
    To me however it was really a confirmation of the practical implications and outcomes of constantly trying to deconstruct the patriarchy and of the dilution of “”male space” by women and their apologists. This effect is further compounded by the shaming of our own culture due to cultural Marxism as expounded through feminism and political correctness. I am suggesting that Muslim practices of patriarchy are all of a sudden making sense to a great deal of well educated white males, most likely Betas who only see a bloated decaying society that is narcissistic and materialist with no real virtue. Disenfranchised by a complete lack of moral direction within contemporary Western culture and likely denied access to reasonable female companionship due to the forces of hypergamy run amok, I can see how young men who are desperately searching for meaning in their lives, can be receptive to some of the messages preached by various forms of Islam.
    To be clear, I am not slamming Islam. I am of the belief that all religions are simply paradigmatic operator’s manuals for people who don’t have the time, inclination, or reasoning skills to develop their own code of morals and reasons as to what life is all about or how to act in life. Likewise traditionally religion has been an adaptive evolutionary response by cultures that tend to ensure their survival over cultures without a strong religious framework holding them together. There are countless examples of cultures that have failed after they have become decadent, undisciplined, and let their moral strictures in any format go lax and be bent. Almost all these cultures eventually fall apart and fail to reproduce adequately and eventually fade out or get taken over and subsumed by stronger more organized cultural organizations like a younger more invigorated set of religious believers.
    So to me it is no surprise that disenfranchised young Western men can be tuned into a simple set of messages embedded within radical Islamic teachings.
    • We don’t take any shit from women, and if you die working for us, we’ll give you a bonus of many virgins to do with as you please.
    • Join us and you will be part of a winning team.
    • We have strength in numbers, we have discipline, we are obviously taking over the Western world by rear guard action and simply out-breeding you idiots and taking advantage of your generous immigration policies.
    • We will win the demographic war in time, Muslim adherents are younger than any other major group globally, we will simply out last and overwhelm everyone.
    • We have purpose, we have values, we show respect to men of all ages, in fact we show them a surplus of respect, join us and your life will have purpose and meaning. That purpose and meaning will not be denigrated by the cultural institutions you join (Think university and gender studies groups that would have you believe anything with a dick is a rapist).
    • Life with us has far more meaning than following stupid vacuous materialistic ends as they are today in the Western world. Life will mean more than “likes” on Facebook. Life will mean more than having a flashy car and a shit ton of debt to show for your indulgences.
    • If you join us fighting a war you will be joining a great and just project, this will give your life even more meaning than simply accepting and adhering to our religious beliefs, you will be a fighter, you will be fighting for something important. We will have even greater respect for you in both life and death as one of our fighters.
    • What can be a greater adventure than going to war as well and indulging all your male proclivities for blowing shit up, tactics, strategy, use of force, teamwork, danger, action, hardship and most of all, mutual respect between the fighting unit and of course doing the right thing in the call of a higher purpose for the “betterment of all mankind, as long as they are not infidels”
    • In short, we Muslims offer men a space to be “real men” and a way to feel good about that. We don’t have to worry about what stupid feminists and cultural Marxists and liberals say about us, because they are doing our work for us anyhow by talking themselves into a cultural grave.

    If I only look at these basic messages which seem to be on the surface of most extremist and likely also less extreme versions of that religion it is very easy to see how it could be a siren call to many young men today. Just as the red pill is for us here in the Manosphere, this is a beacon, a sharp crisp light of hope and reason where all the shit that goes on in cloud cuckoo-land around us can be called for what it is, downright crazy.

    We ingest red pill and see what the crazy really is, we call it feminism, cultural Marxism, the Feminine Imperative. The extremist Muslims and some moderates call it for what they see it as, decadent Western values and culture. In a way both groups are right in what they see as “truth” and what both groups openly criticize often overlaps a great deal. The difference between the two being the specifics of the “truth” that is revealed to the end user or convert.

    Perhaps it is my own indulgence that I like to imagine that in the Manosphere we see and perceive a meta-truth, that which is above or more expansive that the paradigmatic truth contained within organized religion. We can see society as a whole in the context of many different layers, from basic evolutionary sociology and biology and the imperative of the selfish gene, to the broad cultural effects of the feminine imperative, to the cultural suicide in the West driven by falling below replacement levels of birth rates in all first world countries of their “traditional cultural” populations. Radical Muslims no doubt constrain their critiques and observations of the world to that which serves their stated yet multivalent agenda.

    Either way, when a young man, aimless and ungrounded, in the prime of his life yet seemingly without prospects of being successful or respected in traditional terms is exposed to one of these “truths” the feeling is of course overwhelming. We have all gone through the arc of emotions after having been unplugged and it includes incredulity, denial, bitterness, anger, apathy and eventually a sense of self knowing and personal responsibility. This arc of experience after being unplugged is a time in which young men are vulnerable to being reprogrammed. By the light of the new found truth and revelation they are prepared to throw out everything they know about the world around them. It is a full blown reboot of their value systems. This is the time when these man can easily have new firmware installed in them so to speak and it’s no doubt when extremist recruiters make great efforts to separate these men out from their traditional life and cultural influences. This is the time when they are no doubt pulled into small exclusively male groups with minimal outside influence. This is the time when they are both toughened up and also praised highly for their choice to join the team and for their prowess in learning both the ideas and the tactics of the extremists. This is when the new firmware is installed and they can be easily programmed to hate the culture they grew up in. Their anger and frustration can be seized and then molded into the men or tools that the extremists wish to create.

    Many of us who have unplugged crave time spent with others going through the same arc and as it happens this is the Manosphere where we can learn more about what is going on around us and share tactics and strategies to fight the decay or at least save ourselves amid the muck that our culture has devolved into. Unlike the Muslim or any other extremists we do not have such a set and explicitly defined agenda, it seems to me the only real agenda of the Manosphere is to seek the truth, develop some principals and live by them and to embrace a positive form of masculinity unapologetically. In doing this we need to have space where we can explore the ideas that are central to this way of thinking. The issues and challenges we share are those of broad disrespect for men in our culture and a genuine collapse of traditional Western culture. Our general belief is that the feminine imperative is central to this decay and if we are to make ourselves and in turn our culture great again then we must be able to work together to learn, to organize and to mobilize if we deem it appropriate. It shall do us no good to dilute or derail our conversations due to the inclusion of women and their apologists into the development of these ideas, tactics and approaches. They fundamentally have different concerns, experiences and agendas in the world, weather they know it or not. They cannot be allowed to disrupt the work that is being done for any reason. They don’t need to participate directly anyhow as they make up the very environment we all live and operate in anyhow. There agenda and message is ever present.

    So yes, it is imperative that we defend male space for ourselves be it a forum or a smokey bar. We should also however be strong enough to be men who can openly have healthy debate within our ranks about what is appropriate and not. As I have drawn a parallel between the manosphere and extremist religious groups, so does the media and the social engine of the feminine imperative. They sense that the Manosphere is dangerous because they cannot infiltrate it. They sense the danger because they cannot co-opt it to their own ends and so they shame it, condemn it and seek to monitor it through the state if required. To that end as they already do, the FI tries again and again to paint the manosphere as extremist losers who are just bitter.

    I would hate for them to be able to hijack the message of the manosphere, because that is of course what they always try to do. The irony is of course that the manosphere does not really have any explicit message other than, “what you are told every day by the culture you live in is a lie and that’s not really how the world works”.

    So perhaps it is incumbent upon the Manosphere to work harder to help those around us and to create our own converts. Perhaps we need to learn from the Mormons and the proselytizers that we should be stepping out a bit more in the world to help men in need. Yes we fitness test men naturally and pound on weak guys to see if they can toughen up and be part of the group. This is a natural male behaviour built over millions of years of evolution. But perhaps now is the time where we should be working to rebuild the patriarchy one man at a time. Once we achieve a level of red pill understanding, is it incumbent upon us that we should reach out a hand to those in need? Perhaps you know a Brony, or some other poor Beta who so desperately needs to hear the truth to be able to save himself. Do we have a responsibility to mentor that young man so that he not fall prey to others that would seduce him with their own “truth” such as fundamentalist religious groups? Perhaps once we ourselves have gone through the arc of experience known as unplugging, that we have a responsibility to pay it forward and help at least one other man, who stands on the edge of the rest of his life, seemingly without reason or hope. Perhaps we owe it to all men to help just one man see the truth and to mentor him in a way that his single mom or Beta father never could. Reach out to that man when you know he is lost and searching for meaning in his life. Harness that awesome potential that is there waiting to be loosed upon the world. Give him the red pill and show him some small degree of compassion for his ignorance and some tough love.

    Of course, you cannot do that with a bunch of chicks standing around listening in.

  39. Women often feel inferior to men, and the suffer in varying degrees with what might be called ‘short-man syndrome.’

    Well, if it’s the truth, they are better off dealing with the truth honestly and not being coddled like children. When men feel inferior to other stronger or taller men, they are told “tough shit” essentially and to get it together. IOW, they have to PROVE themselves and not ask for special considerations. The little short dude in the Army Rangers had to meet the same standard as the big tall men. Women should have to as well.

    Why should it be any different for women in an equal society?

    It isn’t so much “anti-female” as it is “anti self-serving, female preferential, double standards posing as ‘equality’, bullshit “.

    You need to get that through your head. In an equal society, women aren’t “special” humans with privileges not given to men. Or you don’t really want equality, but a form of sexual supremacy in your favor.

  40. What is their Endgame?

    Female Utopia, where women are superior to men but all the men still remain attractive to them while serving the women’s needs.

    However, once the walls have been breached so to speak, women who have no genuine interest in the club’s raison d’etre will leave, leaving only a handful of women who really do like the sport, political views of the club.

    While I disagree that this will happen (women will try to change it so that more women will have a genuine interest in the raison d’être and this will then drive the men away as they then have no interest in the femaleness of it), even if true just the simple presence of women changes the whole dynamic. Men do not behave the same when there is even one woman around even if it is perceived that she “gets it”.

  41. I was dumbfounded in the early 80′s when I was told by HR that in the race for promotions I would compete carrying a figurative bag of cement. But I took it as a challenge and ran harder. I was passed over several times, but over the years when the really big jobs came up, I got them.

    I was informed at my last “Full Time Employee” Joe job that I was “the wrong gender” if I was seeking any kind of promotion into management. This was told to me by a (sic) sympathetic female manager who gave it to me in the guise of sharing some insider information. It turned out, she was correct. The men were relegated to doing the actual productive work that earned the company money (and were expected to sit down and be quiet about it), and the women sat around holding endless meeting after meeting and giving each other awards and promotions. Needless to say, the company ended up having to lay off 80% of its employees (thankfully with a nice pay off “get outta here” package), and I believe I’ve heard recently that it closed up shop.

    On another note, I’m fairly certain that it’s not illegal to form a private society as an exclusive member’s only club. It’s how the Boy Scouts kept gay kids at bay until just recently (when they had some traitor effeminate scoutmasters infiltrate and change that). So what’s to stop us from opening a Club RationalMale in real life, complete with a smoking lounge, a bar that does NOT make mixed fru fru drinks (and a male bartender), a library and billiards room, dart boards, etc? Who cares if a few femi-intruders protest, hell in this day and age that might even give the club some street cred.

  42. @Nathan

    What is their Endgame?

    They do not have a conscious one. There is no master plan. However, that’s not an answer, because there’s clearly a direction even if no one recognizes a specific “endgame”.

    What is it that everyone wants? Well, everyone, that includes you and I, want all strengths and no weaknesses. It sucks to get tired every day and have to sleep. It sucks to have to eat or die. It sucks to need to hydrate. Frankly, if you want to be a free man, it sucks to have to breathe, because you’re limited to a thin-skin of breathable atmosphere on a planet, rather than being able to roam space, oceans, etc… Humans have countless weaknesses and few strengths.

    However, you probably never thought about what a hindrance breathing was until I just pointed out how many things you could do if you didn’t have to breathe. You could likely expose yourself to the cold vacuum of space without the gas in your blood expanding and killing you, you could swim to the deepest part of the oceans with a flashlight and explore it without a submersible. Breathing is a weakness of our existence, but we never think of doing without it, because we have no common, ever-present example of how this is a weakness of our existence.

    This is not the case with the opposite sex. The opposite sex is *always* around, in fact humanity couldn’t exist if the sexes did not mingle.

    It turns out, the sexes have complementary strengths and weaknesses. So naturally, the sexes covet what they see. Women, whether they admit it or not, covet male strengths, they want all those advantages because then their weaknesses are something they don’t have to live with. Men also covet female strengths. What man would not love to be able to attract the opposite sex as easily as women do? All men covet the female power of attraction. We don’t necessarily want to be women, but we do want their strengths. If we didn’t want this, game would have never been rediscovered/invented on the internet. The same is true for women. They don’t necessarily want to become men, but they do covet our strengths. If given the option to have the strengths of men, while retaining the strengths of the female, women will be 100% on-board with that option, regardless of cost. This is not a failing, this is human nature. Humans hate their weaknesses, and they hate the weaknesses they see pointed out to them on a daily basis.

    So the end-game of the feminine imperative, of the invasion of male spaces, is the same one that men have, the elimination of the weaknesses that are pointed out to us on a daily basis by any means possible. Only the most emotionally mature humans are capable of knowing their own limitations, accepting them, and moving forward with what they have. The rest of us let our low-level-jealousy of the strengths of the opposite sex influence us on a daily basis.

  43. Feminism thrives in an climate of atomized men, alienated from shared values. Even informal all-male group activities invite shaming. Explicitly exclusive men’s groups (e.g the Mankind project) are so out-there they are considered deviant and are maligned by the MM. Groups of men sharing collective interests are a no-no.

  44. “Women are trying to elbow their way in to traditional male spaces to allay their constant feelings of inferiority. Just as a small man will strut, bully and brag as a compensatory mechanism, women want to force their way into male spaces. Once membership in elite male clubs, sporting or otherwise opens up to women. You’ll witness in the first year of so an influx of women into the clubs etc. However, once the walls have been breached so to speak, women who have no genuine interest in the club’s raison d’etre will leave, leaving only a handful of women who really do like the sport, political views of the club. These women I would like to think would be valuable members of the club.”

    This has NOT been the experience of many organizations, so I am not sure what you are basing this on.

    For example, recent experiences among the Atheist and Gamer communities, for example, show what happens when feminist agitators barge their way in.

    They subvert the original cause/founding principle/community concept of the group, and attempt to turn all of its attention to “gender issues”. In essence, they are invaders attempting to co-opt the membership, energy and cause and use it for their on purposes. They don’t WANT to be Gamers. They do not view Atheism as their primary concern.

    They are feminists and they are there to promote THAT agenda. Any competing agenda at best is a distraction. At worst, part of the problem.

    “Why are there not more female gamers? Why are you guys not making/ encouraging games that will appeal more to women? Why do you promote/make/buy games which idealize ‘rigid’ idealizations of female beauty? Why are you guys so hostile to women who come in here and ask these kind of questions?”

    The original idea for the organization is forgotten as a bunch of infighting is begun over how ‘sexist’ the organization is for not supporting feminist principles.

    “However, once the walls have been breached so to speak, women who have no genuine interest in the club’s raison d’etre will leave, leaving only a handful of women who really do like the sport, political views of the club.”

    More like the invaders leave a garrison of cultural minders behind in the hollow shell of what was once a community of X, to make sure ideologically incorrect ideas (ones not supporting FI) do not once again take hold. The enemy stronghold is neutralized, allowing the next one to be beseiged. With tactics like that, you would THINK they would be more ardent and better Gamers.

  45. @Nathan @Jeremy There IS an end game. Since I literally died this year, I no longer bother explaining that end game to people that waste any life moments watching TV, sports, news and so on. It’s futile attempting to explain the unlimited resources that create cultures, manage perceptions control conversations and the course of human events. Even the popularity of this space is 100% managed and controlled.

    No I do not believe in conspiracy theories, teams script them in similar ways that ‘news’ ”sports’ popular songs and best-selling fiction novels are scripted. Everything you can think of (and what you’ve never imagined) has all been pre-planned and scripted for you… Every possible scenario has been planned for and funded.

    There are simple ways to change most of it, but too few men are willing to receive the paradigms of absolute truth. Just know that when I died much of the embedding of popular scripted concepts with ‘good’ ceased. At this moment it appears the sphere is gaining ground, but I know the scripted future. Unless a few men wake up, the appearance of momentum will be a ray of light overtaken by the kudzu that’s going to cover every tree.

  46. Hey, what if the story of Adam and Even in the Bible isn’t meant to be taken literally, but is a metaphor about a woman got exactly what she wanted, and as a result f***ed everything all up?

  47. Rollo @ 1:40 PM you have it right.

    This is all about controlling male heterosexual desire to female ends.

    Feminism is a Supremacist Hate movement directed at hetero men. You can tell by how they talk about them.

  48. “The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes.”

    Candidly, this is one of the main reasons I retreated from the sphere.

    Primarily, my motivations for being in the sphere were under suspicion by enough posters to offer pause and make me reconsider the value of what I was contributing (I’m not going to justify my own existence, I can spend my time very constructively elsewhere).

    Secondly, having a woman in a manosphere forum ultimately seems very much like getting drunk with the in laws present. It’s never going to be completely comfortable.

  49. Feminism is a Supremacist Hate movement directed at hetero men. You can tell by how they talk about them.

    Yes, quite so. As somebody else above mentioned, we need to ensure that it gets re-branded into exactly this image. Any feminist drivel should get this accusation thrown at them, without pity or remorse. No quarter given nor received.

  50. @Mark Minter – you are giving powerful ammo to the argument that the best weapon a man has against all manner of complex coquettery is a mildly amused, mildly benevolent indifference achieved via certainty of abundant options available to him, rendering him carefree about all manifestations of her baldly-deconstructed neediness.

  51. @Rollo re: endgame. I agree with you and Heartiste about this, and I’ve been saying it.

  52. If the endgame is only about controlling male sexual desire, then why the pretense of women being the equal of man? That’s counterproductive as no man wants an equal, they want their complement. There’s more to it than controlling male sexual desire, but certainly controlling male sexual desire is what they’re best at.

  53. Jeremy – because:

    Because there is no commensurate complement for men when women concurrently become masculinized and are seen for what they really are.

    Layers of deception are built from the ground up. When you get caught in a lie, you lie again, and again, until you forget exactly what was the original truth that ‘needed’ to be obfuscated.

    Add that to Roissy’s point today about how middling to unattractive women ‘needed’ to make communist the SMP – such that 70-80% of women (including, of course, themselves) aren’t excluded from ‘having it all’ as they should otherwise be, and the picture starts to come into focus.

  54. As a rule, I don’t watch television, but I had been enjoying American Ninja Warrior until two nights ago, when Kacy Catanzaro became the FIRST WOMAN EVER to make it up the Warped Wall (along with… 20 men in the same evening, and hundreds before in previous seasons of the show).

    Kacy’s boyfriend Brent Steffensen failed the same course immediately after. The shamed look Kacy gave Brent as he climbed out, dripping wet from the pool of water beneath the obstacle that bested him, spoke volumes.

    In a final ironic twist, Brent was still qualified to move on to the next round of competition in 30th place, until his very own rookie protege and training partner, a younger, stronger man named Dylan Gates, didn’t just complete the course, he scored the fastest time of the night, and simultaneously ended Brent’s chances for the season.

  55. These counter-arguments to my comment seem clumsy and overly-elaborate. Certainly the easier argument is that women covet the complementary strengths of men, and seek to have those strengths given to them with none of the weaknesses. They don’t want to be men, but they wish to see themselves as owning/having the strength of men, while also being in control of the SMP (as they naturally are when young).

    Why pretend women are the equal of men, unless your point is that women do indeed already posess all male strengths? Why legislate all manner of accommodation to hide female weaknesses if your goal is not to usurp male strengths? It happens in all aspects of the developed world now, female weaknesses are painted over with legislation and technology. Creating robotic trash collector trucks has nothing to do with controlling male sexual desire. Writing pages and pages trying to explain that women really are the worlds fastest human depending on how you look at it, has nothing to do with controlling male sexual desire. Forcing athletic departments to eliminate programs until enough women-only programs exist has nothing to do with controlling male sexual desire. Forcing changes to the language so that fireman becomes firefighter has nothing to do with controlling male sexual desire.

    MOST of what the FI/Feminism attempt to do, has little to do with controlling male sexual desire. I totally agree that that is their easiest target, but that is hardly remarkable considering women manipulate male sexual desire *anyway*.

    The FI springs from lizard-brain thinking, it springs from the basic insecurities inherent to all living things, that horrendous thought of, “what if I’m not good enough to survive.”

  56. @SGT – The appropriate response to women telling men to “man up” is to ask them just what the fuck would they know about being a man?

    Another one is an amused: “Tits or GTFO.” At least the attention-whore will be getting what she wants: attention.

    @Rollo – the reason I’m not always over-the-top vs women in here is because this is your space and you’ve always made it plain that women are welcome in it.

  57. @Lucasbly, I don’t watch at all, but I looked at the clips. The petite Kacy looked overwhelmed and awkward and weak and tentative, while the taller Brent looked a lot stronger and more coordinated. For example, Kacy didn’t get on the net thingie unti 1:10 but Brent was on there by 0:35. He was literally twice as good as she was. Maybe he wasn’t supposed to show her up so much, or something.

  58. Jeremy- “They don’t want to be men, but they wish to see themselves as owning/having the strength of men, while also being in control of the SMP (as they naturally are when young).”

    Cargo Cult Masculinity: The feminine desire have claim for themselves those traits of men they find most desirable without the prerequisite understanding of how those traits are obtained, nor understanding that those traits have different meanings and value to men. Women believe by obtaining these traits they can alleviate the inherent insecurity, anxiety, and fear that comes with being a woman. This always fails because:

    1. The masculine traits of forbearance and delayed gratification are not desirable.

    2. Those traits in men allow men to be self reliant, and serve to prevent dependency.

    3.Straight men aren’t attracted in a bonding sense to women who have masculine traits. Neither are most men willing to commit to women who pose as men.

  59. @Bad

    Forbearance and delayed gratification are not inherent male traits (but they are of the masculine). They are learned while growing up under typical conditioning afforded to males. Elliot Rodger is a good example of a male who had no understanding of either of those concepts.

    We (you and I) already understand where FI/feminism fails women by lying to them. What I was trying to discuss is the existence/definition of an “endgame” for the FI. And, repeating myself again, I believe the FI has no “official” endgame, but it does have a direction. I believe that direction is dictated by an element human nature more deeply-seated than sexual desire. I believe this element forces women to bear an overblown sense of their own weaknesses and an overcompensatory set of behaviors to eliminate/hide/undo those weaknesses. As such, women covet male strengths just as any man would love to be able to attract women as easily as they attract men.

    The converse of this is Saudi Arabia, where men have a general overblown fear of their own weakness in the face of female attractiveness, and force women to cover themselves from head to toe at all times in public.

  60. Alphas
    Alpha sycophants

    All the women in the US combined couldn’t build a suspension bridge across my backyard let alone independently invade male spaces.

    Every concerted effort and instance of invading male spaces was backed up by massive institutional funding and propaganda.

    Alphas fear male spaces, they fear the grumblings and discontent of disenfranchised betas. How many coffee houses fomented the French revolution and had the elites heads in a guillotine?

    Sounds silly? I recall reading a UNHCR report complaining about the all male environment of Bosnian coffee bars as potential grounds for future violence.

    In the past foreign satraps were used to control unruly areas of an empire, in todays ‘technocratic’ society that role is replaced by the moral majority (women).

  61. I’m new to the red pill, and after a few months have already begun to regard Rollo as at least a minor deity. But to learn your a Rush fan too! You could be the second coming, but I’m not a believer of fantasy.

    This is related more to last weeks post. In the short time that I’ve taken the red pill (3-31-14 I regard as my awakening/unplugging day) I’ve already reaped major benefits-in fact the rational male very well may have saved my live.

    While I’m not yet reaping the “pussy benefits” of game yet-and I bear much responsibility in that regard, I have experienced its benefits in many other ways. And I’ve been dating, which is significant progress! Anyways, game and the red pill have already enabled me to better connect with my fellow man, withstand and interact with shit-talking and other male bonding, in a much more positive, productive fashion. My interactions with my primarily female bosses have completely flipped, and I now see how I should’ve never had the problems I’ve had with female bosses during my lifetime. Thanks to the advice of the manosphere I’ve sort of remade myself, at least in the fashion that I dress, and talk, and now try to not react soo emotionally. And you know what? It’s like I really have reinvented myself! I’ve taken law #25 to heart Rollo. Most importantly, all of the self-loathing negative defeatist mental chatter garbage that I’ve had in my head most of my adult life is now GONE.

    At first I couldn’t articulate how it is that I can relate to Elliot Roger amongst my friends. Then I read RoK’s take (thanks for the link!) on Elliot, and articulating became possible.

    I was a 19 yr old virgin, too. Thankfully I beat the 20 yr mark with months to spare, but I can certainly relate to Elliot’s urgency. I had a few friends who knew, and was certainly experiencing per pressure. I’ve never had the racist, homicidal, obsessive thoughts, and stalker like behavior or tendencies exhibited by Elliot, but I can to empathize with him in one regard: suicide. As a nearly 43 yr old man who had an over 5 yr sexual dry spell in their recent lifetime, I feel some degree of empathy for Elliot’s sexual frustrations. I have no doubt that if I hadn’t been introduced to the Rational Male, and continued on the path I was previously on, in 5, 10, or 20 yrs from now I too very well could’ve killed myself. I’ve already thought of it in the past way too much to be comfortable with.

    Now nothing but positivity and good mantras abound in my head-rejection beats regret! I savor every moment of life once again and am constantly planning a better future for myself. Yes I make mistakes, but I getting better every day, and I’ve begun to feel that Irrational Overconfidence, and have left behind rational defeatism. I am forever in your debt, Rollo and the Rational Male. Thank you for turning around, and for very well saving my life.

  62. btw, Rollo, more than once lately I’ve heard Stefan Molyneux using very similar terms to ones you’ve used on your blog. I’m not certain if you coined the term AFBB (I thought you had), but in his recent video he just said, “Alpha Lays, Beta Pays”. This is not the only time I’ve heard him use very very similar wording to some of the points you’ve made on your blog.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Stefan is a regular reader. Though based on his past, and his clear thinking it’s also possible he’s just hitting the same path you are.

  63. They want promiscuity while remaining desirable (impossible)
    They want no fault divorce without stigma (completely unreliable, untrustworthy)
    The want to abort their children without judgment for being a killer (psychopathic disregard fur their own family. Infanticide)
    Heartsie is right. It’s perpetual adolescence maximal promiscuity for me, and don’t you dare look at my yoga pants or judge me! They are still 6 mentally

  64. I love equality!
    How about men entering women’s spaces too?

    GBFM would say “GBFM can entre teh wimenz lcoker roomzz. lzzolzzzll”

    Really,though- what about equality in sports?..How about merging men’s and women’s track and field events?? hahaha

  65. Damn .. real talk here. Great post.. Thank you for feeding my rage Rollo

    This clearly explains why ESPN Sportscenter has been infiltrated by woman. I remember growing up and (espn) being the ONLY place where my teammates and I could watch Mens sports (no homo) highlights all day long.. Me and the crew drinking beers cussing, jumping and cheering for M.Jordan in the Finals.
    Now.. nah, I have to listen to some bag, who’s plays lead anchor btw, talk and talk and ask the SAME questions to a guy who clearly knows more about the sport than she does. Soooo why is she even there? It makes me absolutely sick that nearly all shows for Men, about Men, are being ambushed. If that’s not bad enough, we (Men) have to play nice and cant say anything to disrupt the femme or the gay! Fuck it women referees now too? I mean why cant they go and comment on the WNBA? Why here, why Sportscenter? There are NO sports on said channel that support anything about a woman And MOST women I talk to dont even like sports… So why are they allowed to ambush my shit? When thinking further, are there any shows where MEN are the lead anchors to discuss Women sports or topics or fucking anything? Don’t think so.. We aint on The View asking those harps questions about femme topics sooooo…wtf

    Furthermore, if the bag DID know something/anything about the dynamics of the game, wouldn’t SHE be the one answering those same questions she asks the real sports gurus on the panel? It makes me sick how deep the rabbit hole goes…

    Pretty soon, we will see our very first female head coach in the NBA /NHL / NFL..
    I gotta puke.

  66. Great pic too btw Rollo… Case in point. In that movie (Horrible Bosses) Aniston plays role of sex starved nympho dentist, a fantasy of most guys here.
    Whats disturbing is the guy she showed interest in was a complete douche limp dick and didn’t nail her like the slut she was. He even sounded like a girl throughout the movie… Trying to STOP her advances.

    She was the Alpha wolf and he played role of sensitive femme.

    Makes me sick mane. It fucks with your head how they try and reverse roles meant for Men.

  67. Reminds self to think about Head Game, by which I mean intelligent convo Game including discussion of psychology and motivations a feelings and Game. The term has connotations of deception, unfortunately.

  68. @JF12 – and this is OT, Google ‘Lana Del Rey feminism’ and check out the multitude of articles that have been published over the last 24 hours. I told you so, man!

  69. re: LDR. I read this “I had a seven-year relationship with the head of this label, and he was a huge inspiration to me. I’ll tell you later when more people know.” and I think “Oh, so that’s how.”

  70. @Jumungus100, re: “She was the Alpha”. Sometimes I wonder what it would like were a woman to be sexually aggressive towards me, and whether I’d actually welcome it, if I believed. I’ve never even seen it happening towards other men, either, though, so the disbelief would be hard to overcome. The most tenacious female pursuers I’ve seen seem merely to compete to show how submissive and accommodating they could be towards an alpha male; repeating myself I’ve never ever not once remotely seen anything like women forcefully pursuing a beta.

  71. @Rand al Thor

    What is the obsession with sex and losing your virginity? Stardusk in one of his YT videos has said that sex is way over-rated and that he personally if given the choice between great sex and a great meal, he’d choose the meal.

    1. @ Elle Bee – Lol. Stardusk is faux scientist dispensing a lot of nonsense and bad advice based on mostly simply made up evo psych and evolutionary biology ideas that have little connection to what scientists know about sex. He’s adopted an asexual lifestyle that is health for exactly NOBODY. If you don’t understand the need humans have for “attachment”, do some Googling. Also look up the psychological consequences of “social isolation” (hint, Elliot Rodgers was so socially isolated that he alienated himself from humanity utterly). And if you don’t know that Stardusk way overestimates the effects of hypergamy (because he relies on outdated research by Baumeister that was debunked several years) or that there is no such thing as Briffault’s Law, that Briffault himself never called it a law and absolutely no scholarship has ever been done it – well then you and many other people should do some research before accepting what a guy working in a warehouse who never formally studied any of the science he babbles on and on about has to say. I only realized how full of shit he was after reading Sex At Dawn by Chris Ryan. While Ryan’s ideas are not uncontroversial, what the book does as an aside is present a bit of a precis of the current state of research into human sexuality, and what becomes painfully clear is that Stardusk is full of shit.

      Many people attack me in the manosphere for pointing out these simple truths as I have a YouTube channel named ScribblerG1 where I try to bring some sanity to MGTOW conversations. Barbarossa and Stardusk have become like sacred cows or something, when in fact much of what they say is inconsistent or just errant nonsense. Many MGTOWs for example don’t know that Barbarossa dates and fucks women, and has “romantic evenings” – wait, but didn’t he just call all women “beautiful retards”, a sentiment Stardusk has echoed? They also miss that such statements are prima facie examples of misogyny – and when I point this out I’m attacked relentlessly for doing so. I don’t really give a fuck what a bunch of losers spending 50 hours a week on YouTube have to say, but what it indicates is an anti-intellectual and tribal element to MGTOW which I want nothing to do with. Sure, give up romance, chivalry and being a vassal to women in general – but these guys? They are out of their minds and are peddling nonsense to many guys who use what is said on these videos to fluff their rage at women to even higher levels.

      Or put more simply, why on earth would anyone take advice about how to relate to women from a man who would rather have a steak than get laid? And who then runs around wearing that attitude like a badge of honor?Sorry, that’s pathology, not a lifestyle choice.

      As for why men have an “obsession with sex and losing their virginity” all I can say is are you fucking kidding me? Here are a few possible reasons, silly girl. First, biological programming. You do realize that the average man has about 17 times as much testosterone as the average women, yes? And that your sex drive is given to you by testosterone too? Also consider that many a woman will laugh at the Beta virgin boy, and emasculate him for his virginity, and that men will too.

      You seem to also miss basic human nature (not uncommon for modern, western middle class women) in that reproduction is sort of like Star Trek’s “prime directive” for humanity. I mean, it should not shock you that wanting to have sex is normal and not an “obsession”.

      But I differ from some others on this thread encouraging Thor to visit an escort. The problem with this is that’s it’s the ultimate in “negotiated desire” – which can’t be negotiated for in the first place. Better for him to lower his standards a bit and fuck an ugly or fat or socially awkward girl who is beneath his sexual market value. There are no short cuts to Alpha. If he just bangs the class slut or whatever he will have some sense of conquest and he will also have the thing that Rollo mentioned in some of his other posts as the greatest gift a woman can give a man – her unbidden desire. There is nothing like being wanted and its an essential part of good sex.

  72. To all the men reading this who are still virgins, I am going to give you my best advice on how to proceed.

    In this comment, I will take care to use particular words and language such that nothing explicitly unlawful is advised.

    OK, here goes:

    The first time having sex is not that special. The most ‘special’ part about it is the self-satisfaction that you received for having done it, for having crossed that hurdle, for having had that oft-glorified experience.

    After you do have sex, you may have an empty, hollow feeling inside. ‘Is that all there is?’ you might ask. Yes, that is all there is. If you’re like me, you will actually grieve *that*, even though you’ve lost your ‘mystical’ virginity and ‘achieved manhood’ (which is a lie).

    You are probably not going to sleep with a woman you’re extremely sexually attracted to upon your first sexual experience. That really doesn’t matter. Remember, women want a guy who knows what the fuck he’s doing in the bedroom/bathroom/wherever, and will take responsibility for leading the way…

    So, what you need is practice. Practice with any woman you find remotely bangable – in any safe, honest environment for doing so.

    You can do one of a couple things – you can approach women who are a bit older and/or clearly a bit lower-SMV than you are. They will be grateful to have you in their bed (or vice versa). Just casually let them know you are available, don’t deceive them or hurt them intentionally, be mysterious but (overtly) honest when/if you need be…you won’t care all that much about that particular woman because she’s far from the stunning dream-girl you furiously masturbated to as a teenager etc….

    You can also hire escorts, and notice I did not use the word ‘prostitute’. Do not hire prostitutes, that is illegal in the USA. Instead, consider hiring escorts, whom you technically pay for their time only. They will likely ask you what you want to do. Tell them, pay them in full, and enjoy. If they do not do what you want to do, again pay them in full, but simply do not hire them again. You will have a more enjoyable time with the next escort who will agree to do what you want to do. And that accounts for at least 50% of financially-successful escorts.

    Whatever your decision, know that losing your virginity is only step 1, and will not give you long lasting satisfaction whatsoever. It is a monkey to get off your back – so by all means, do so. But understand full-well that the more rewarding sexual experiences you will have as a man will almost certainly come further down the road, when you have this rudimentary experience under your belt, when you can then confidently lead, and when you can attract a higher SMV caliber of women.

    Hope that’s helpful to all of you for whom it is applicable. -S.

  73. @Glenn, although I can’t morally recommend banging anything, I wholeheartedly agree on the recommendation on banging the class slut for the purposes you mentioned and also for preselection. It is a curious fact that for preselection it is *only* the girl’s hotness that matters to other girls and not her sluttiness.

    If the slut has banged the star quarterback then her banging of you increases your SMV to other girls a lot, almost as if the other girls get “exposed” to the star quarterback vicariously through you. I have concocted a theory about this, based on women’s behaviors partly controlled by parasites, but that is kind of far out.

  74. Which had the greater absolute value: banging the class slut or getting rejected by the class slut?

    A virgin with difficultly closing the deal needs to treat it like lancing a boil. Whether he goes pro, slut, fat, ugly, or old he just has to get it over with. Going pro at least he has a very good chance of getting it done with someone who will do more more than play dead. Crappy sex with a woman you’re marginally attracted to is neither motivating nor rewarding. The unbidden desire of someone who plays a cadaver is of no value.

    The old saying you learn more from losing than you do from winning is only true when you win often enough to compare the processes and results of success and failure. If all you experience is losing you learn to be a better loser. In this case buying a simulated win at least demystifies the prize which should reduce some of the anxiety.

    As far as preselection goes if our virgin has failed often enough he’s been preselected as undesirable. He almost has to physically relocate to clear the score board.

  75. I agree with Badpainter. Also if you go old or chubby bar slut e.g., that woman probably isn’t going to lay there like a real doll, she’s probably going to be psyched about banging you. So I agree that this is probably the best route to go.

    Also, adopt the Hank Moody ethos of finding something attractive about every woman, even the older or fatter ones. There is a long explanation as to ‘why’, but take it on faith that it’s beneficial to your overall abundance mentality especially as someone sexually inexperienced as yet.

    If you go the ‘pro’ route, I think it’s crucial how you choose to frame your own inner dialogue to yourself about it. Remember – you earned the money yourself to have the means to hire this professional woman’s time and services. And also – this professional woman didn’t just knock on your door out of the blue – you had to take the initiative to reach out and make contact, you had to take care of sounding normal/reasonable such that she’d accept selling you her time in a one-on-one capacity, and you had to surmount all of the cultural and conditional negativities and adversities that would otherwise shame you from doing what you want, from meeting your own imperative, in just going through with this. Think of it that way.

    1. From You Need Sex:

      I can remember listening to an episode of the Tom Leykis show when he was on terrestrial radio, and he described what sex is like for men. He said, sex is like taking a piss for a guy – sooner or later he’s got to take care of himself and let loose. Now, most guys would prefer to take a piss in a nice clean bathroom, where the towels smell good and he can feel comfortable and unhurried. Sure, he’d love to have the occasion to take a piss in the bathroom of a four star hotel with gold plated faucets and all the trimmings, but when he really has to go, he’ll stop along the side of the road or take a piss at a dirty gas station urinal. Sooner or later he’s gonna have to go.

  76. And let’s keep in mind the difference between sex and seduction. Seduction is one process by which to obtain sex. It is just a different form of work for a reward.

  77. As a member of the target audience for this string of ‘hire a pro’ comments, I want to respond. And it’ll be brief, not a short novel, so here goes:

    To me it feels like standing in line at a lemonade stand where they’re giving it away for free, getting to the counter and being asked for 25 cents. It seems more prudent to just step away and make my own lemonade.

    The logic is sound but personally I might as well cut my balls off and throw them in a dumpster for all that would do for my self image and masculinity.

  78. Zen: I understand. It’s a personal choice, no judgement here if that doesn’t feel right to you. Only you know what is acceptable to you.

    One of the fears I had as a long-past-due virgin was that I would be exposed in the moments leading up to sex by whichever woman happened to be my first…that it would be embarrassing for me and that she’d be put on the spot, possibly walk away or emasculate me at that most vulnerable crossroads, and that the whole thing might be generally a whole awkward mess.

    Let me give you a couple things you can say when that time comes, if it is even necessary to say them in the flow of everything leading up to sex. You can always just pick one thing that resonates as authentic to you, remember it, and keep it in your back pocket for when/if it’s helpful.

    “I’m a little out of practice. I need you to be patient with me.”

    “It’s actually been a while for me. I need you to be patient with me.”

    “I want you to show me – what do you like?”

    “Hey there’s no pressure here. We don’t have to do anything we don’t want to do.”

    “Actually, I’ve been out of the dating world for quite a while. This is great, but I may need a little understanding just this time.”

    “You know what – actually, I want you to teach me everything you know. Can you do that?”

    “You don’t mind if it’s been a while for me, right?”

    Just some ideas…any decent woman will respond neutrally (or better) to these. No decent woman is going to belittle you for saying anything like this. And saying things like this will buy you a bit of grace because they aren’t obsequious, but they’re just humble enough to be considered somewhat courageously vulnerable. HTH

  79. Another good one RT.

    I’ll be prepared to start thinking about equality when I’m standing on the deck of a “Titanic” as it dawns on the captain that the ship really is going down, with only enough lifeboats for 750 of the 1,000 passengers, and all 250 of the adult female passengers spontaneously band together and shout, “men and children first!”.

    I’ll be prepared to start thinking about equality when virtually every significant invention is consistently made by a woman rather than by a man, even though a great many of these inventions tend to improve the lives of men rather than women.

    Switching tack, there is a very simple way to beat an unwanted female challenge in any area of your life. Looking her straight in the eye, praise her if she’s right (yes, praise her), and tell her why she’s right (crucial), but tell her calmly when she’s wrong (don’t flinch from it), and tell her why she’s wrong (crucial). Either way, you are the figure of AUTHORITY, and that’s what she wants!! It’s what Daddy used to do and she secretly loved it, and that’s why she likes recipes, and patterns, and fashion trends, etc. etc. She hates having to make her own mind up for the simple reason that she is risk averse.

    A woman wants to be told what to do, she longs for it, but if you let her be the authority, she’ll remorselessly peck your feathers out one by one.

  80. “It’s what Daddy used to do” several generations ago. Men haven’t been allowed to tell their daughters what to do since the sexual revolution. By law.

  81. A friend in her 40s that’s still attractive, has been the first woman to accomplish _____, ____ and ____. She posted that she knows lots of millionaires and deca millionaires just prior to posting this question: “Mom: I can’t believe you are still single: you are so beautiful, smart, highest degree in our family, won many awards and know more successful people than our whole family combined.
    Me: Thats probably why. Its hard to find a guy smarter than me and I can’t be with someone I can’t talk to.
    Is that true for many still single women?”

  82. Rollo – this is a layup for you, if you wish to take it on.

    The NYT ‘conservative’ op-ed voice writes this, critiquing De Boer, trying so hard to take the ‘sensible middle’ position, utterly refusing to acknowledge that in tossing out – a propos nothing – “And so then for today’s toxic, self-deluded bachelors….” without specificity of naming names or elucidating what comprises the ‘toxicity’ he confers upon those absent strawmen, he is merely buttressing uncritically ad-hominem Nth-wave feminist arguments. Yuck.

  83. mommie always want to be in charge… and men who’ve not properly been severed from their mothers by their father or at least some father figure, will tend to revert to and even actively seek out female authority of the mommie figure…

    the problem is that mommie, is not that smart, is often bossy for no real reason and relies on shame, guilt and other emotional tactics, rather than looking for overall outcome.

  84. “@Liz, a woman’s point of view about men is, I think, always valuable for something.”

    Yeah, it’s so rare and unique. We must nurture these so that valuable voices are not lost. (dabs eyes)

  85. Off topic.

    There is a new book out that I believe would be of some interest to you guys. It’s called Trials of Passion: Crimes in the Name of Love and Madness, by Lisa Appignanesi.

    I reproduce a review from the Literary Review magazine.
    Frances Wilson
    Vice Squad

    In Trials of Passion, Lisa Appignanesi returns for the third time to the theme of women on the verge of nervous breakdowns. She first opened this Pandora’s box in Mad, Bad and Sad: A History of Women and the Mind Doctors from 1800 to the Present, an encyclopaedic examination of the ways in which doctors have understood women’s more extreme emotional states, from frenzies, possessions, manias, delusions and dramatic tics to anorexia, erotomania and multiple personality disorder. This was followed by All About Love: Anatomy of an Unruly Emotion, in which Appignanesi dissected the domestication of the most unpredictable and high-risk emotion of all. How does a feeling as explosive as love operate in a place as controlled as the family unit? How much love is enough, how much is too much and how little is criminally little?

    Trials of Passion takes this line of thought for a walk on the wrong side of town: what happens when love breaks the law? How have medico-legal definitions of desire explained and contained cases of devotion gone awry? Once again, Appignanesi combines historical research with psychoanalytic theory, and her analysis is propelled by a series of rigorous questions. She restricts her scope to the years between 1870 and 1914, and focuses on those criminal trials that gripped the public imagination. On each occasion the expertise of the mind doctors was called upon to help the jury decide whether the figure in the dock was mad or simply bad (it went without saying that she, or he, was dangerous to know). Unless the female perpetrators of crimes of passion were regarded as conforming to an ideal of femininity, they were treated as monsters rather than humans in disarray. The male passion-killers, on the other hand, were seen as knights in shining armour, protectors of innocence. These were, Appignanesi says, ‘trials that educated’. They broadcast our ‘understandings of passion and “insanity” in its many forms both inside and outside the law’.

    The proceedings of each trial are presented in detail. So too is the history of the accused and the context of the accusation, the reputations and attitudes of the lawyers, judges and the witnesses, and the definitions of sanity and insanity that were bandied about. Appignanesi begins with the case of Christiana Edmunds, a middle-class, middle-aged spinster who attempted to murder Emily Beard, the wife of the man she secretly loved; she succeeded instead in murdering a child she had never met. Her weapon of choice was poisoned chocolate creams, one of which she stuffed into the mouth of Mrs Beard. To detract suspicion from herself and suggest that there might be a mysterious poisoner at large, Edmunds then distributed her sweetmeats around her home town of Brighton. This resulted in a good deal of diarrhea and the death of a small boy. Whether her obsession with Beard’s husband was reciprocated is unknown. The jury initially found here sane and guilty (the mark of sanity being the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong), but afterwards the verdict was overturned and she was diagnosed with the inherited disease of ‘moral insanity’. Appignanesi, who tries to get inside the complex emotional state of each of her subjects, suggests that Edmunds’s mind was ‘overturned’ by love and that she performed a masquerade of femininity by robing her own poison in sweetness.

    Edmunds, who spent the rest of her long life in Broadmoor, would have been diagnosed differently had she been born French. Appignanesi’s second case study is Marie Bière, a talented singer who tried to kill her former lover. After he abandoned her, she gave birth to a baby girl who then died; deranged by grief, Bière sought a life for a life. The events took place in belle époque France, where understandings of passion were changing at a dramatic pace, and the trial of Bière – described by a contemporary as ‘one of the strangest of our times’ – was less about attempted murder than the sexual etiquette of the Third Republic. Was ‘gentlemanly Don Juanism’ any longer permissible? And ‘what could passion do to the mind?’ After a sensational trial, the ‘waif-like suffering mother who lost her child … was acquitted’. Passion had toppled reason: Bière was not a monster but a Republican heroine; her criminality was ‘an excess of what is best in virtuous women – their nurturing, maternal souls’. The behavior of cavalier seducers was no longer indulged, and crimes passionnels became the new black.

    The next stop is Madison Square Garden during America’s gilded age, where a delinquent millionaire called Harry Thaw shoots another delinquent millionaire, the architect Stanford White. Thaw, a sexual sadist, was married to the lovely young showgirl Evelyn Nesbit, who, aged 16, had been drugged and raped by White. Immortalised as ‘The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing’, Nesbit had effectively been pimped by her mother before she was ‘ruined’ by White and raped again by Thaw. Meanwhile, Thaw had been ruined by his own mother, who indulged him to the point of taking the tab for a $50,000 dinner at which the only invitees were showgirls. White’s murder initiated the ‘trial of the century’. Beliefs, morals and hypocrisies were openly and widely debated: ‘what constituted masculine and feminine virtue? What did Wealth permit?’ One after another, the ‘bug doctors’, as Thaw described the psychologists, debated the question of his sanity, while his defence presented him as a Sir Galahad coming to the rescue of the family. The media, meanwhile, could not work out whether Nesbit was an angel or a devil. Through her fetishised image, America had come ‘face to face with its contradictory morality’. Thaw was declared temporarily insane, but later had the verdict overturned.

    Trials of Passion is a rich and rewarding work, brimful of insight and wisdom. Lisa Appignanesi does nothing by halves, and what she says about the mind doctors might describe her own book: ‘their profession is an art – an art of understanding the human’.

  86. @Glengarry, re: “Yeah, it’s so rare and unique.”

    In a way it is rare. An honest observation from a woman is rare, especailly an honest observation about men. Hearing women’s voices is not rare, obviously, we agree, but it’s almost always expressions of feelings or dreams or other stuff that’s not observational and/or not honest.

  87. “The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.”

    It’s broader that that. The goal is to give the maximum benefits for women with the minimum costs. The fact that most of these costs are assumed by men is a side effect.

    Removing constraints on female sexuality -> A benefit for women. Restricting male sexuality -> A cost for men.
    Quotas -> Male benefits without male costs. And so on and so forth

  88. Hello Rosso. I’ve got a few questions.

    I bought your book. I want to offer it to my two young brothers. But they don’t know anything about game, the red pill stuff so I think it would not be comprehensible for them. What books do you suggest I buy them with the rational male in order to make it easier for them to understand?

    Moreover I just read the section where you talked about height being the first physical criteria women looked for into a man. I am very short (170cm) and I thought you would give some hints or tips to overcome this “issue”. But you didn’t do it and I felt like my confidence was destroyed. Moreover, I don’t get what you try to explain in this section. You just speak about changes in oneself, how others may do their best to prevent you from changing if it doesn’t brings anything good for them etc.. What’s the correlation with height? I’m not usually defined as dumb so I thought I would pint point to you that your book is not 100% clear here. Or maybe it’s because I am not a native speaker. Anyway, if you could answer my interrogations that would be great.

    Thanks for this book that literraly saved my life (I discovered it when I was about to get engaged as a beta buck).

  89. Jean, not one of us is a perfect specimen of manhood. Becoming fit, fixing one’s teeth, LASIK, corrective (not cosmetic) surgery are within one’s control. Then, keeping clean and wearing modern clothes that fit one’s personality are the most a man ought to do. Height simply isn’t something one can (or should) do anything about. If one can’t control a characteristic one should accept (or even embrace) it and move on. Don’t become Elliot Rodger.

    BTW, unless you are Maasi or maybe Croatian, 170cm cannot be characterized as “very short”. Move on.

    Oh, IMHO a good primer to Rollo’s book is The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: