Back to Basics

basics

 

In last week’s post my intent was to shed some light on how an idealized state of egalitarian equalism and gender parity is always at odds with our ‘feral’ natures which evolved not due to co-equal partnership between the sexes, but from a complementarity between the sexes that fostered the then mutually beneficial imperatives of both.

Any time I suggest the ‘nature’ of how human beings’ evolved psyches influence our personal and social interaction in the now, I’m always going to get resistance from the “rise above our natures” faction of humanistic (and moralistic) hopefuls that insist the instinctual natures which made us such a successful species can (or should) be sublimated by our higher rational (or spiritual) selves.

I can fully relate with those who see the red pill as cynical or pessimistic.

When egalitarian equalism has been the model you’ve been conditioned to believe from birth is the only viable model to base a society and personal relation on, anything different, especially brutal observable realities, is going to smack of cynicism and defeatism.

One reason I believe most guys, either reject the concept of Alpha or want Alpha to fit into a super-heroic ‘leader-of-men’ archetypal definition is because it agrees better with an egalitarian mindset. Most women like to cast Alpha in this way because it serves the public relations aspect of their hypergamy better – Beta men make better, more dedicated resource providers when the only message they hear is what they’re doing is ‘the real Alpha’.

It’s not until men are confronted with the cruel realities in real time that they have an opportunity to learn from experience that, for as much as they want to cling to the ‘open communication / rise above our programming’ memes of egalitarianism, the observable (often painful) reality is one where women’s instinctual natures dictate their behaviors. And, as might be expected of an equalist mindset, those behaviors are then excused and rationalized as forgivable “human vulnerabilities” – and if you don’t forgive them, you risk being judgmental and further fail to live up to the egalitarian equalist/humanist ideal.

The Feral Woman

As loathe as I am to give the HuffPo any link love, I read with interest Why Great Husbands Are Being Abandoned. I’m going to quote some of it here, but I do so because it seems to me that even the bastions of equalist thought are finally, begrudgingly, coming to terms with the inherent failings of reconciling equalism with evolved, conventional, complementarity among the sexes.

In the last few decades women have slowly driven their point home. The millennial men, who are their current counterparts, are freer thinkers and they have responded in kind in their relationships as well. These men like their women strong and feisty, and have willingly accepted the responsibility to connect in a more vulnerable way. They get it that it’s sexy to help make a meal or take the kids away on a Sunday morning so their wives can sleep in. They are the androgynous guys that their women have asked them to become.

You would think that the women in these new relationships would be ecstatic. They’ve got a guy who wants to work out together, share parenting, support their parallel dreams, and make their family collective central to both of their lives. They’ve established an equal relationship of coordinated teamwork, and the guys don’t seem to miss their old need to posture for power over intimate connections.

Well, guess again. Fifty percent of marriages are still ending in divorce, and women continue to be the gender that initiates those endings. In the past, their reasons for leaving most often had to do with infidelity, neglect, or abuse. Now they’re dumping men who are faithful, attentive, and respectful, the very men they said they have always wanted. Why would women who have accomplished the female dream suddenly not be satisfied with it? Why are they leaving these ideal guys, and for what reasons?

I am currently dealing with several of these great husbands. They are, across the board, respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive guys whose wives have left them for a different kind of man. These once-beloved men make a living, love their kids, help with chores, support aging parents, and support their mate’s desires and interests. They believe they’ve done everything right. They are devastated, confused, disoriented, and heartsick. In a tragic way, they startlingly resemble the disheartened women of the past who were left behind by men who “just wanted something new.”

You may think that these women are ruthless and inconsiderate. Those I know are far from that. More often, they still love their husbands as much as they ever did, but in a different way. They tell me how wonderful their men are and how much they respect them. They just don’t want to be married to them anymore.

I read this article after I’d read the plea for Traditional Masculinity in the Jezebel groupthink article I linked in last week’s post and it struck me that along with the societal emphasis on a more overt and open hypergamy comes a need to reconcile it with equalism. This is proving to be a tall order as articles of this nature illustrate.

It’s important to understand that this internal conflict isn’t coming from men trying to square their sexual impulses with their higher-self aspiration of honor, duty and integrity. This conflict is coming from women who’ve been raised with expectations of gender parity, equalism and ‘open communication’ to resolve differences.

These women are now observing their own behavior and trying to reconcile the base feral motivators (hypergamy) with “how things ought to be” in an idealized state of egalitarian equalism.

These women cannot help but see the very observable consequences of open hypergamy now. I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusions Randi Gunther comes to at the end of this article, I just disagree with how he comes to them.

Then things started to go awry. Perhaps these androgynous couples over-valued adopting the same behaviors in their relationship. Maybe the men got too nice and the women a little too challenging. Oddly, the androgynous men seemed to like their new-found emotional availability, while the women began to feel more unfulfilled. Her “perfect” partner, in the process of reclaiming his full emotional expressiveness, somehow ended up paying an unfair price; he was no longer able to command the hierarchical respect from her that was once his inalienable right.

What Randi doesn’t consider is the natural complementary states men and women’s psychological firmware descended from since our hunter-gatherer tribal beginnings. He can’t consider it because it disagrees with the ‘higher-selves overcoming our natural state’ aspect of egalitarian humanism.

But the observable truth is right there in front of him, with his head in his hands, so he can’t ignore it. Naturally the first recourse is to force fit this truth into a more palatable egalitarian framework, but even this falls flat (as evidenced by the predictably dismissive comments). What he and the commenters can’t reconcile is the truth of the androgynous men directly created by egalitarian equalism and the natural and instinctual predisposition of feminine hypergamy.

Red pill aware men see this for what it is because we’re accepting of the truth of women’s feral natures and what it prompts them to, but this is an excellent illustration of the primary differences between a red and blue pill mindset.

There is a primal need women have for natural masculine dominance. Whether this dominance is physical (looks and sexual prowess), psychological (Game) or provisional, women are seeking a dominance that an androgynous man is incapable of providing. As I’ve stated in prior posts, androgyny is homogeny, and nature stagnates (and often dies out) in conditions of homogeny. Androgynous men, by definition aren’t men – they are neither masculine or feminine – so is it any surprise that women’s innate, heteronormative, subliminal and tingle inducing need for a traditionally masculine man is frustrated by the same egalitarian mindset they’ve fostered in compliant men for so long?

Primal femininity is confused and frustrated by blank-slate equalism.

The Blue Pill Painted Red

As open hypergamy and the conflict between equalism and complementarity becomes more evident the advocates for that ‘touchy-feely’ “men need to be more balanced with Beta” sentimentalism will find it increasingly more difficult to sell that brand of equalism.

I’m aware of many a former (nominally) red pill blogger who’s dropped their previous advocacy for masculine (Alpha) attributes being arousing/attractive in favor of a diluted blue pill ‘new age sensitive guy’ message that better resonates with his increasingly female readership. While spinning just enough red pill into what accounts for a blue pill ideology might make for better, temporary, revenue, it only aggravates the same conflict between equalism and complementarity that Gunther here is exposing.

The DeadBedrooms subreddit is an excellent example of this conflict. I’ll warn you now, this forum will depress you, but virtually every personal admission here is a testament to what men were conditioned to believe women would want in a man, in a relationship, and the empirical results of the imbalance between a blue pill mindset and a red pill reality.

The popular message, the socially acceptable one, is that what makes a man an ideal long term partner will necessarily make him a tingle inducing sexual prospect. It sounds right, and it lifts women on whole up to a more idealized, humanist, higher-self.

Prior to the push for a more open hypergamy, what woman wanted to cop to love fucking the bad boys and “best sex ever” short term partners? No dutiful Beta wants to hear that truth, so the praises of the “respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive” guys are sung.

It may sell books and increase click-thru traffic, but ultimately hypergamy doesn’t care about higher-self aspirations or the conditioned delusions of men who believe that what makes men an attractive prospect for Beta Bucks will necessarily turn women on for Alpha Fucks. Your proof is in the DeadBedrooms subred.

Before I end here, I feel I have to address that I do in fact believe that men and women can, and regularly do, rise above our innate instinctual natures. Obviously civilization didn’t reach the point we have by not controlling our base natures. The problem I see now is the social order established to effect that control is failing to account for the conflict between equalism and complementarity.

If there’s a take away lesson to be learned from Gunther’s article it’s not that men are lacking in Beta attributes or sensitivity training to balance their asshole Alpha egos. If anything the vast majority of men have too much invested in that Beta equalism and sentimentality.

Whether it’s openly or covert, the message we get from those men’s consequences is that women are overwhelmingly conveying the want for traditional masculine dominance, prowess, control and even a bit of the cocky ego that legitimately comes along with it.

It’s been mentioned in many a manosphere comment thread that, the medium is the message, and women’s medium has been proving that their interests lean much more openly towards Alpha Fucks, even after marriage, even after consolidation on Beta Bucks provisioning.

151 comments

  1. “But it is precisely such a conclusion about biology and human nature that is the most galling of all possible irritants to our egalitarians.” – Murray Rothbard in “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature” http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/were-not-equal/

    In their attempts to bring about equality for the sexes, egalitarians have cursed both sexes to a life of unhappiness. The same is true of forced diversity/multiculturalism (diversity+proximity=war). We can conclude a law of nature, that forced or coerced equality is amoral and will always result in hostile conflict. Each person is inherently unique, inherently unequal. This is a fact that should be celebrated, not ignored.

  2. I’m curious, Rollo, what you think the next move by the Egalitarians/Feminists will be. My suspicion will be “spiking” the Blue Pill with just enough masculinity to make women happier, creating a sort of “Purple Pill.” But of course not to give enough RP truth to allow men to reassert themselves and regain control of the inter-sexual competition. It seems like the next logical step in “build a better Beta.”

  3. Sanitizing the red pill to fit the purpose of the imperative. Building better Betas only works so long as those Betas are ignorant of the underlying hypergamy they play a part in.

    Once they become aware, the Feminine Imperative will either realign itself with conventional masculinity (and make men believe that was its purpose from the start) and / or it will expect Beta men to accept their normalized cuckoldry

  4. It may get talked about in that deadbedrooms blog, but if the topic of the divorces that the women are initializing in the ‘got what she asked for marriages’ ever gets more attention in the main stream, the fact that the men are completely blind sided will probably either get ignored, or spun into men now need to meet a new definition of masculinity.
    Or another way of saying he should’ve known or just gotten it.

  5. Ha! Love the comment above

    The myth – thanks for the link above, it is an excellent read

    Siirtyrion – “In that case, academic works only re-affirm real truth” Unfortunately academic endeavors are not always motivated by non-bias desire for real truth that harsh reality of experience exposes.

  6. nce they become aware, the Feminine Imperative will either realign itself with conventional masculinity (and make men believe that was its purpose from the start) and / or it will expect Beta men to accept their normalized cuckoldry

    Thanks Rollo. Matches up with my expectations as well.

  7. The first mate always gives me a ration about my arrogance. We are still together after 40+ years. It amuses me. She wants to know if I’m ever going to change. No.

  8. They get it that it’s sexy to help make a meal or take the kids away

    I call BS… Women want what women have always wanted, and are attracted to the same thing – and a wuss, androgynous type of guy that will take care of the kids isn’t it. I was at a grocery store on Saturday and saw a family – the woman (20’s) was kinda hot with tattoos on the upper part of one arm. Now I’ve always figured that a woman has tattoos to advertise that she wants to be ridden like a pony, so I always like to test that. So the guy and kids go by and the woman is bringing up the rear, and I say quietly, “Nice ink” and wink when she looks. I keep walking to the aisle I want and go to pick up stuff.

    While seeing if they have “travel” shaving cream, I hear – “I have others.” I turn to see little wifey and she continues, “but they are not for public places”. Of course hubby and the kids aren’t around…

    So while women may marry the guy that will take care of kids and foot the bills, they are always looking for a man when it comes to rutting like the animals they are. Got her info in case I’m in the area again. Wouldn’t mind seeing the other ink…

  9. man, i know i’m a growly shithead between here and a few other spots but if you EVER need a silent partner to fund a massive expansion…drop me a note.

    this is perfunctory sublimis.

  10. Rollo–is “Androgynous” really the correct way to describe “blue pill” men? Androgynous implies sexual ambiguity (“gender-neutral”, “genderqueer”, etc), yet the average guy is not part-male, part-female. He still sees himself as a man.

    I’d argue that millennial men have become submissive men, especially after being born to a generation of “strong and independent” mothers. I’d take this a step further and argue today’s men have deep “Mommy Issues.” They want the woman to lead and be in charge. They are even turned on by this. They want to submit to the Feminine Imperative.

  11. @ Rollo, Donal

    Sanitizing the red pill to fit the purpose of the imperative. Building better Betas only works so long as those Betas are ignorant of the underlying hypergamy they play a part in.

    Once they become aware, the Feminine Imperative will either realign itself with conventional masculinity (and make men believe that was its purpose from the start) and / or it will expect Beta men to accept their normalized cuckoldry

    As the country is only “nominally” Christian, the former is more likely, especially as:

    1. Middle class is eroding into rich vs poor. Poor communities will become increasingly like the black community.
    2. The rich see women divorcing them and taking all their stuff. They will be less willing to marry.
    3. Male pill.
    4. Sex bots and/or more realistic porn.

    In order for most women to “obtain” a high quality man when there is already such a high deficit of them — give the “education gap, MGTOW, and plate spinning — they will have to attempt to co-opt any type of male movement in order to try to convince men that they are still worth something more than sex.

  12. Given the 80/20 rule it stands that the bulk of women marry betas one way or another, whether it’s equalism or complementary.

    What we are seeing is simply another feminine imperative distortion coming to light, the mid life crisis. Except the reality is that it is a feminine convention.

    I’ve never seen the male version of the midlife crisis (the ones that left their wives were invariably ‘forced’ out by their wives’ behaviour) but I’ve literally seen hundreds of the female version.

    Once they reach a stage of material security that can be independently sustained they eject for some fun.

    That’s why I find the expression ‘dads’ and ‘cads’ so hilarious, the job of a dad is obviously to provide provisioning until independence is achieved so they can enjoy the cad phase again.

  13. There are people, names you know, that have created music and other forms of art known worldwide. Interviewing them has convinced me that there is a power from another dimension that’s enhancing the genius of their talent. The body of work created by these individuals is usually vast… and it changes the course of global events.

    I’ve never officially interviewed Rollo Tomassi, but passages like this tell me that he’s tapped into that kind of inexplicable power from another dimension:

    Whether this dominance is physical (looks and sexual prowess), psychological (Game) or provisional, women are seeking a dominance that an androgynous man is incapable of providing. As I’ve stated in prior posts, androgyny is homogeny, and nature stagnates (and often dies out) in conditions of homogeny. Androgynous men, by definition aren’t men – they are neither masculine or feminine – so is it any surprise that women’s innate, heteronormative, subliminal and tingle inducing need for a traditionally masculine man is frustrated by the same egalitarian mindset they’ve fostered in compliant men for so long?

    Primal femininity is confused and frustrated by blank-slate equalism.

    Rollo brings clarity and simplicity to complex concepts. His written works are like the music created by Nadir Khayat (Arabic: نادر الخياط‎) professionally known as RedOne.

    Sure, there are a lot of people that disagree with the style of the music RedOne has produced, but the sound has changed the course of global human events. Rollo Tomassi’s writing has critics, but his work is changing the course of global human events.

    “Scientists” that insist it’s only legitimate if a funded, peer-reviewed study proves it should write their own blogs since they are sure they are correct. Maybe they, too, will attract millions of readers per month with their long explanations that have failed to simplify “facts” into brief, clear, simple language.

  14. The cynic in me says that men and women can, and sometimes do (if temporarily), rise above our innate instinctual natures; if they have to or are forced to. Rarely does it happen just because.
    In a nutshell, most men and women; but moreso women, due to the lesser likelyhood of negative social feedback on their behaviour, do what they are used to “getting away with” or what they think they can “get away with”.
    Most of the time they are in this, head up their own asshole “default mode”.

    Hypergamy, being opportunistic in nature, knows no bounds.

    Increasingly, marriage for men is becoming a fools errand fraught with ongoing compromise and risk.

  15. The Rational Male (site) ranks in the top 1/10,000, or 0.01% of websites.

    Perhaps the scientists that believe they are more intelligent than Rollo Tomassi should write their own blogs and see if their lofty explanations bring them Alexa (an Amazon company) ranking that’s in top 1/10,000 of websites.

    About the time of the original “Altitude” program by Eben Pagan, Eben wrote this:

    Book #1: “A Thinking Person’s Step by Step Guide to Weight Loss & Exercise Program”
    Book #2: “Skinny Bitch”
    A Thinking Person’s Step by Step Guide to Weight Loss & Exercise Program was written by two Ph.D.s and based on empirical research by guys with doctorate degrees.
    Skinny Bitch was written by an ex-model and an ex-modeling-agent (if that’s how you say it).

    Time’s up. Which one sells more?

    Well, according to Amazon.com, A Thinking Person’s Step by Step Guide to Weight Loss & Exercise Program is their #437,317th best-selling book, whereas Skinny Bitch comes in at #56.

    Eben goes on to explain why the Ph.D.s didn’t even make the top 100,000 (or the top 100) and how to change that. The ones that believe they are more intelligent often forget to think about the one that will be reading.

    I’ve met a lot of friends because of him. I suggest the scientists and Ph.D.s get to know him too. Constant learning, constant improvement… is a good thing.

    That’s why Rollo Tomassi’s blog is in the top 1/10,000 of websites. He’s listened to and read the experiences of millions of people around the world for more than a decade on these topics. Instead of spouting ‘his’ truth, he is clear that none of the concepts “are unmodifiable or above further refinement.”

  16. Rollo, you make some very good points in this post, but I don’t agree with everything.

    Women have remained feral and men have not.

    Basically what has happened is that with all the focus (intense pressure from all sides) for men to become “better men” over the last 30 years, it has in fact caused men to indeed become more balanced and to have refined their feral natures. This does not equal “androgyny”. (There are of course many feminised men, but they are in the minority – there has always been effeminate men – just consider history for a few minutes and think of the aristocrats of the past, etc). So I think you should make a very clear distinction between INDIVIDUATED men (well-balanced, non-feral men) and effeminate/feminine men – very big difference. The second point is that while men have individuated (personal growth orientated leading to more responsibility and maturity), women have gone the opposite way. There has been no emphasis at all for women to do this. In fact whereas in the past they were brought up with various household and community tasks and duties – this was expected from them and a requirement to get a man, they have “been freed” from that. In other words they can more or less “bring themselves up”, with minimal expectation from either society or parents, and sadly this is where men have failed, because we don;t demand that from them (any more).

    So, in short – women have remained feral and are growing up and live in an environment which accommodates, facilitates and promotes that. Men have been working on themselves and have evolved. Women are for the most part unconscious and live from their instincts – I fully agree with that.

    I do not agree that men should now DEvolve to accommodate the ferality of women. Of course it’s important to understand that you have to access your feral nature to “get them”, but to live from your feral nature to accommodate (a) women would further contribute to the destruction of society.

    In my opinion it is not in the interest of alphas to promote the expectation of responsibility from women – and the expectation that they evolve. The reason for this is that unevolved, feral, infantilised women are easy pickings for alphas and they are easy to keep – for alphas.

    Women have not evolved – they have devolved through a lack of a certain type of socialisation and due to a promotion of another type of (non)socialisation called “empowerment”, which is in fact a false empowerment.

    Society has changed to such an extent that what we are noticing is the complete disappearance of women needing to be faithful or commit to a LTR under any circumstances. Expecting men to devolve in order to still be relevant is counter-productive and destructive even.

    Basically what has happened is that long-term companionship has fallen away/disappeared. This is a hard pill to take for betas who used to get into LTR’s easier in the past – before hook-up culture became mass culture.

    Well, we have what we have an we have allowed it to happen. A complete deterioration of society in the name for the freedom to be as feral as you want – especially if you are a woman.

    The environment is an artificial construct favouring women on basically all levels. In this artificial environment, everything has become unbalanced and the balanced have become “redundant” from a female perspective, because they themselves have no need for a beta except being a provider after years of carousalling.

    I fully agree that the concept of equality between men and women is a complete myth.

  17. I saw a comment above asking what’s next and while those steps are likely to happen,I’ll let you guys in on the big picture. The following is my take on how we got here and where everything is headed. You’ll begin to see that not only have things always been this way, but that the very embracement of the Feminine Imperative will ultimately be civilization’s undoing:

    Taken together, empirical studies suggest that any theoretical evolutionary perspective completely captures the dynamics for human mate selection. Parental investment-based evolutionary theories and social context theories are structured based on to a mixture of surveys, self-reports,theoretical predictions, and seem particularly suited to predicting and explaining short-term mating preferences, or rather, male short-term mating preferences. BUT neither perspective comprehensively accounts for the importance placed by women on attractiveness in male partners and the relative unimportant given to social status attributes.

    Interestingly, Darwin himself predicted this patter, suggesting that when existing environmental conditions create the opportunity to choose from an array of potential mates, both sexes will select partners:

    “not for mental charms, or property, or social position, but almost solely from external appearance” (1871, p386).

    Although Darwin did not speculate as to the adaptive significance of this preference for beauty, it is certainly the case that in modern ,industrialized societies ,the physical and social environments are such that both men and women have considerable, and considerable more equal, powers of selection ( e.g., mobility increases access to potential mates, economic opportunities for women reduce the need to select mates based on financial considerations, contraception, decreased social sanctions against divorce and premarital sexual activity, etc).

    Since natural selection is primarily driven by adaptation to local environments and ecological factors, the role of these selective agents suggests that the genome-wide pattern of local adaptation can be detected by identifying correlations between patterns of allele frequencies and environmental variables.

    The problem will always follow a shift towards ecological prosperity (which implies a relaxation of precedent ecological pressures). When a highly cooperative population is too prosperous, a strategic morph known as a ‘selfish replicator’ can exploit a favorable evolutionary niche to out breed all others when that prosperity becomes sufficiently distributed throughout the population. And because selfish morphs incur the least liability (they take far more than they contribute), they are able to out-produce (out breed) all others, gaining an evolutionary advantage. So, over generations, selfish replicators become dominant in a population (this is what is happening in all developed world populations as we speak)

    As selfish replicators become increasingly dominant, populations become less cooperative/efficient, and the male breeding population shrinks dramatically(relaxed ecological pressures marginalize the paternal investment advantages in offspring success that would otherwise hold female sexual selectivity in check by favoring larger, more inclusive male breeding populations) as female sexual choice focuses on an increasingly small pool of ‘choice’ males.

    A tendency to smaller male breeding populations in turn begins to pose evolutionary problems in the form of large population replacement (incurring fertility losses through the overhead of increased female selectivity, and the time and energy costs that this entails) and inbreeding depression-type effects, which must ultimately reduce population viability (as deleterious recessives will tend to combine at greater frequencies in smaller populations). Eventually, this dynamic becomes UNSUSTAINABLE, as the population becomes evolutionary unstable (indicated in tendencies to sub-replacement fertility – another symptom observed of developed world populations).

    Thus, unperturbed female sexual choice can be the most pernicious agency acting upon the stability of density dependent human systems. And, since the ‘problem’ I am describing is a systemic one, entangled in the most base and selfish of evolutionary concerns (which mediate all human rationality), there can be no common solution – these problems MUST resolve SYSTEMICALLY, over evolutionary time (where we should expect that the same invariant evolutionary forces that acted upon small populations in the past – tending to constrain female choice – will likewise hold, and reassert themselves in the future).

    Not so surprising, when one considers that a selection bias for resourceful males should exist in some proportion to the advantages they pose to the survival of her offspring.

    Thus, if the advantages are small (given a prosperous welfare state, which marginalizes these advantages), then there will be minimal selection bias (which explains a large population of women who are increasingly disinterested by the lone prospect of a resourceful mate). Therefore male physical attractiveness has become the limiting concern in female mate choice, following a Pareto (Principle) distribution.

    Females only receive two quantities of evolutionary value from males – direct benefits (observed in long-term mating, with implications for the survival of offspring), and genetic benefits (observed through indications of physical attractiveness in her mate). And since females can receive genetic benefits outside of marriage(i.e. through casual sexual encounters), and no longer need rely upon mates for the survival of their offspring, there is no pressure for them to compromise on holding out for an unlikely (long-term)fantasy partner.

    This current social pattern increases highly male variance in mating success, because female sexual choices always tend towards small male breeding populations (narrow range of male phenotypes), while male ‘preferences’ are inclusive of a broad range in female variance.

    And this is a predictable manifestation of sexual-conflict, where males and females really do have conflicting reproductive agendas, courtesy of sexual evolution. It has always been like this, the only difference is that before female ‘liberation’ outcomes in this ‘conflict’ tended to be male-dominated, rather than female dominated as it ‘post’ liberation.

    And I don’t think I need to elaborate on which extreme is more agreeable to the preservation of…civilization.

  18. “Once they become aware, the Feminine Imperative will either realign itself with conventional masculinity (and make men believe that was its purpose from the start) and / or it will expect Beta men to accept their normalized cuckoldry”

    We’re already seeing both of these — the first from the “red pill women”, and the second from the Sandberg types and their mangina cheerleaders like GMP.

    It will be interesting to see which one dominates the mainstream discourse on the issue when red pill awareness becomes the norm for men (my guess is the latter, with the former being pushed more in traditionalist circles like churches and such).

  19. @ Promethean

    “In a nutshell, most men and women; but moreso women, due to the lesser likelyhood of negative social feedback on their behaviour, do what they are used to “getting away with” or what they think they can “get away with”. Most of the time they are in this, head up their own asshole “default mode”.

    ** negative social feedback **

    Completely nailed it! This is why they are the way they are these days compared to the past. (Of course the alphas would keep on insisting that nothing has changed). In the past they used to get negative feedback.
    Now they have freedom to do whatever they want. No negative feedback.

    Just look at the little monsters and eventually deviant delinquent children turn into if you don’t give then negative feedback.

    Men cannot get away with near as much as women – they get negative feedback first and foremost from their peers and secondly from women. A man always has to man-up!

    Somehow, for some strange unexplained, inexplicable reason, a women is not expected by any one to ever woman-up! (any more).

    Well, if you (we) want an unbalanced society you (we) can have it. Just carry on regardless.

  20. “Now they have freedom to do whatever they want. No negative feedback.”

    They have an army of blue pill pussy polishers and beta chumps to enable them.

    The modern “feminist” woman wants all the benefits of equality along with all the traditional entitlements/privileges but as few of the responsibilities as possible. Whenever anything goes wrong or her plans go awry, it’s men’s fault! and the “evil patriarchy” is to blame.

  21. “And since females can receive genetic benefits outside of marriage(i.e. through casual sexual encounters), and no longer need rely upon mates for the survival of their offspring, there is no pressure for them to compromise on holding out for an unlikely (long-term)fantasy partner.”

    Seems logical but there’s something you neglect. The resources females get from the state are not as valuable to them as if they come from an individual male. The’yre programmed to seek security from a male not from the state and I think that’s why attractiveness is not only a factor of looks.

  22. @ Promethean: It has always been like that I suppose. Women are beings of the present, just like animals and I think Rollo has written about that as well, they are empty vessels operating on feelings, instincts to be precise. They need to be filled with male values, hobbies, money. I like to compare them to a mirror because sometimes I get in touch with them they seem to be blank or empty at first and try to mirror your feelings to gauge your state of mind. As soon as they have done so, they will react to you on “your level”. On a larger scale, when I meet a woman from say 5 years ago, they’re not the same anymore, they have changed everything.

  23. LiveFearless, that’s an unreasonable demand. Discovering some truth has different demands than popularizing it. There is an inherent tradeoff involved. The purpose of science isn’t a popularity contest. Otherwise, we might end with the result resembling the Indiana Pi Bill.

  24. @ Promethean

    “Hypergamy, being opportunistic in nature, knows no bounds.”

    Many years ago (but not THAT long ago), if a women fell pregnant outside of “wedlock” she would have been ostracised by the community and by her family – she would have brought “shame” on the family for an entire generation. That in itself was a very strong curtailment of hypergamy. Besides, a non-virgin could not get a husband…

    So things have changed DRAMATICALLY in society.

    No-one is expecting for such conservative times to return, but a no-holds-barred, no morals, no virtues, no values and no expectations (on/from women whatsoever) obviously will lead to open, unlimited, unmitigated hypergamy being unleashed upon society. The alpha male’s dream! Not to so much the beta male’s dream…

    – “The modern “feminist” woman wants all the benefits of equality along with all the traditional entitlements/privileges but as few of the responsibilities as possible.” –

    Very will observed – and something very important to realise by all is that this is a CONSCIOUS strategy. They are very, very well aware that is their objective: all the benefits of equality along with all the traditional entitlements/privileges but as few of the responsibilities as possible.”
    and as little as possible accountability – preferably none.

    They are not as unconscious and instinctual as we think they are (although they are mostly unconscious, when necessary they are HIGHLY conscious of their objectives…)

  25. @ LiveFearless

    Unfortunately, particularly with these topics, I think Scientists often give science a bad name. Particularly, social science research and data are often less concrete and objective, making it easy for confirmation bias to creep into experiment design, interpretation, and dissemination of findings. This is often made worse by aspects of journalism, which twist findings almost to the breaking-point, to fit dominant ideology and propaganda goals. So, we’re left with something that appears utterly useless.

    Having said that, it is possible to dig beneath the bias and find applicable wisdom within scientific findings. Often, it takes going to the original source articles/data and making one’s own conclusions, while trying to not layer one’s own biases over it either. Of course, that is the “objectivity” that science is supposed to adhere to anyway.

    Given that, for the last three years, I have attempted to take up your blogging challenge. I do consider myself a scientist (as well as a practitioner). I do believe that peer-review studies are an important part of advancing our understanding of these issues (although I also value the lived experiences of myself and others). To date, I have also reached millions with my blog, which I think strikes a balance between long explanations and simplified, clear, actionable facts. I don’t know whether my numbers quite reach Rollo’s – but, there is certainly a market for thoughtful, science-based, information as well.

    Nevertheless, I do conduct myself a bit differently than many of my academic counterparts. I also listen and read the experiences of millions, to better understand the practical experience of these issues. I also immerse myself in them too. Unless they are writing anonymously, I also believe I am one of the few “doctors” actively engaging on sites like this as well. I may not always professionally be able to support all opinions that I am exposed to, but I remain open to both experiential and experimental data to modify/refine my hypotheses. Toward that end, I do consider myself a bit different…but not superior to others working diligently on these topics.

    The kicker is that everything I do is what I was taught that scientists are supposed to do. Many other scientists are also attempting to follow similar protocols, to the best of their ability and understanding. So, while I agree with your critique and motivation to boot my fellows in the butt to be more open-minded, I also do not want to overlook the positives. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they have something of value to teach. It is just a process of sorting through the bias to find the wisdom underneath. At least, that is what I attempt to do, as I keep reading, testing, learning from others, and refining my own approach.

    Beyond that, when I am in town, I would be happy to meet Mr. Pagan. I have a great appreciation for his work.

  26. @ Rollo

    I have still been considering this topic on my end too. In my style, I have been digging down into the actual results of social science studies on the topic. I hope to summarize what I’ve found in a future article. From that scientific angle though, I’m coming to some similar conclusion as what you are describing above.

    Briefly, the study results often show that the key to satisfying long-term relationships is in the outcomes of those interactions, not the process by which they are obtained. Specifically, relationship satisfaction and maintenance requires win-win outcomes, which meet the needs of both mates. In the literature, this is called Equitable Outcomes.

    One process by which these equitable outcomes can be obtained is by making both people Equal and having an Egalitarian interaction. People “like” these relationships, because they pretty much guarantee win-win outcomes. However, such arrangements also kills desire due to our evolved preference for complementary features (your negotiated desire).

    Complementary relationships “can” also result in win-win, equitable outcomes overall (with authentic desire). However, that takes managing the unequal moments in a specific way, which requires:
    1) The less-powerful person at the time to trust the more powerful person and be supportive, rather than “rock the boat”.
    2) The more-powerful person to lead “benevolently”, creating a win-win outcome and rewarding/reinforcing that trust – instead of acting selfishly and exploiting the inequality.

    Within that specific framework, complementary relationships appear to be the only relationships that can meet both our biological preferences and humanistic needs. However, it requires a balance of trust and considerate leadership to make it happen. Unfortunately, our modern social conditioning is going against complementary exchange, promoting distrust and selfishness between the sexes, and suggesting equality as the “only” solution. As a result, unless trust and benevolence can be reestablished, men may increasingly be left with the choice of either being a complementary “alpha” player for short-term flings, or an equal “beta” boyfriend for long-term dispassionate companionship.

  27. Livefearless,

    “The body of work created by these individuals is usually vast… and it changes the course of global events.”

    Respectfully, I disagree with your statement above if you are referring to creativity in the arts exclusively. From my perspective the course of global events change due to tangible, physiological, “real” phenomena, not ideology. Mechanical, technological, pharmaceutical inventions, weather and geophysical phenomena are some examples that initiate change. Art is an expression of, a manifested reaction of, the changes, not the genesis of the changes. Sometimes we get so focused on hope and ideology, or change occurs around us so rapidly, that we do not recognize the real initiators. We indulge in a false sense of power when we hope ideology alone will control behavior. Change is occurring here mostly due to the anonymous, efficient and open communication facilitated by computers and the internet.

    Some may argue with me concerning this and provide examples such as the ideologies presented by Hitler. However, every “event” can be directly related to at least one and usually more than one “real” condition that actually provides impetus for change. Among other issues, Germany was in extremely poor economic shape prior to WWI, largely due to the conditions imposed by the treaty of Versailles.

    I won’t get to deep into this, but essentially ideology is “surfing” on reality.

  28. The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist pretends the wind will change. The realist adjusts the sails.

  29. In respect of ‘open hypergamy’ and its discontents — which include open hypergamy’s practitioners, as the HuffPo piece summarizes — I think we’re witnessing a social cognitive dissonance with the women.

    We may be underestimating the confusion the women feel because we underestimate the power of habit and their social groupings.

    One, women have been full-throttle hypergamists (with feminist justifications) for a solid 20-25 years now. Sex pozzie feminism fed the “I can have it all!” feminism 1.0 impulse. These women are not swimming in the kiddie pool, and the charming naiveté of lane changing (“I can turn myself into June Cleaver on command!”), while fed by the culture, reflects bad science. Habit is powerful, habit is hardwired, and habits never die (they just get suppressed). We are all recidivists: former Good Men retain their affection and comfort as a draft horse, and sex pozzie strong independent women are not going to be rocked by sensitive man, “I’ll be gentle”, maintenance sex.

    Second, and I have no citations for this, but it conforms with most guys’ observations, I think we’re underestimating the influence of the modern femme’s social cohort. Who comprises this cohort?

    1. Professional women or aspirational professional women who celebrate men as bicycles — ‘cute’ accessories, requiring incessant fitness testing to keep them in line, potentially ‘dangerous’ or ‘abusive’ or ’emotionally remote’ creatures. This is not rhetoric to this cohort: this is what we men *are.*

    2. SIW who are, by virtue of bias #1, unhappy and/or unsuccessful in their couplings. They’re either face-planting into the Wall or they’re in the married-with-doofuses group that are most prominent in the HuffPo piece. (Sandberg’s latest book describes these provisioning, stable men as “nice guy misogynists.” It’s “misogyny,” you see, to retire a woman at 30 and work yourself into an early grave meeting her annual quota assignments.) This is the group that giggles about farming out their husbands, and making sure that the ‘man cave’ approach to co-habitation instantiates their male mates peripheral value.

    3. SIW who can be turned giddy at the prospect of discussing their intimacies with their men. Nothing elevates a woman’s social status like the sexual envy of a woman’s female cohort; forget about your sexual intimacies remaining private. As sexual accessories, their men, unless yoked by material imperatives (comfort, safety, control, and ratcheting lifestyles) are assured of being changed out (in thought or deed), as all accessories are upgraded at every opportunity. Expressing the disposability of desire, in this way, creates female social status. That social status is voided — destroyed — with the femme cohort if her man and the abstraction that is their relationship become a woman’s primary objective.

    Basically, while I think women are discovering the destructive properties of open hypergamy, I think we need to remember that for a generation these women have self-actualized in the very social, very resilient, very central ratification of these impulses *amongst other women.* They lose socially and professionally if they put their man and their desire for success with a man first.

    They’re really married to their equally frustrated girlfriends, in other words. As those girlfriends age and repeat cycle after cycle of failed relationships, their loyalty increases. They do not, or cannot, note their own battle fatigue; they get validation from repeating the same errors, because these are the consensus behaviors of the only people they know for more than a few months. The men come and go but the girls are always there for them.

    So men, like handbags or shoes, are sought as though it is meaningful to have one in every color. Romantic failure (repetitive) enhances the bonds of the girls. It becomes a malignant circle of negative reinforcement — seen as a *virtue*.

    If we date SIW such as the focus of the HuffPo piece we’re not dating a woman so much as a durable group of failing women. It’s tough stuff, expecting a woman to break free of her platoon of unhappy amazonian culture warriors. The only thing they understand is the harsh discipline of removal and isolation, IF the man has wowed the girlfriends and offered no fungible, group-approved defective behavior. (See above, physical or emotional “abuse.”) Only then does a woman lose status by losing another man.

    Thus A man seeking companionship has to be up for exacting that discipline, and he’s got to be hip to his status as a giggles-inducing sex-and-prizes curiosity. I don’t think that’s what women really want, at their core, but it doesn’t matter because for them, men are temporary, and the girl-group abides. The inflection point in this decline in civilization may already be in the rear-view mirror. The power of decades-long habit, the uniformity of the popular feminist culture, and the necessity of belonging to the girl-group are primary. Forget logic and accountability, as Jack Nicholson suggests. As one of these women: “Have you ever thought of doing what works, instead of what has never worked?” You’ll be met with a frozen countenance, at least for a few beats. But keep track of your billfold and car keys, because time-out is the only way to demonstrate what you mean.

  30. On topic: What do you tell a guy in this situation?

    I realize he’s posting on TRP forum, but his last statements reek of Beta rationalization. “He’s the real Beta after all” is the Beta hamster whirring away because his only frame of reality is in the context of what his egalitarian equalist conditioning has raised him to believe.

    Even when presented with the glaring duplicity of his wife’s hypergamy, after 15 years of marriage, his ego protection is still about how much better he fulfills the gender equal role the Feminine Imperative has established for him than his wife’s new lover.

  31. Gee, wonder which “previously red pill blogger” is being referred to hahah. I’ve always called that cat the Purple Pill Bloggah.

    Given his traffic fortunately he’s a gateway to the true red pill world now, for those poor slobs on his site.

  32. “So I’m the other man today” reddit thingy.

    I really, as a closet literary man, distrust stories in which there is no ambiguity or simple stupidity. Our cuckolded dude tells a perfect story and has a perfect punch line. This is like reading the “my husband was so abusive-like and emotionally-distant” crap on The Frisky. He’s creating, or repeating a talking point. This is how groups of women relate: via received wisdom, talking points, what Kundera described as kitsch.

    I’m not above it; I’ve done it; the manosphere is cheaper than a shrink. However, he probably should have just fucked his wife’s brains out more often, instead of being handy with a diaper.

  33. Rollo, thanks for the compliment on my overlong post. It’s open source, have a ball. One of my sons and several of my friends have your book, and your book is important.

  34. @BV- of course he should have but he did not discover the Pill until it was to late. He worked through this on other posts. This was his victory lap and I thought it was well played and his rationalizations are healthy. I really hope the next time he introduces his new young, hot GF to his used up ex-wife and her quickly betafying new lover.

    @Dr. Jeremy and other Science Lovers- The manosphere is not “science” but I agree with the good doctor. It is solid information shared in real time on the internet that should be understood and respected. In many ways it is superior to the bourgeois/feminist/cultural Marxist slop we call “science.”

  35. BPP: I think all rationalizations are diversions, and lazy. I would say that ‘rationalizing’ is lying. So that is where we diverge.

    Or, I learned more about this dude from his rationalization than I might have from observation.

  36. I got the message and have changed my behavior to the degree that I can accordingly. But even better, when I do act reflexively in a beta manner, I catch myself.

    The real problem for us is male disposability, yet we make ourselves disposable. The whole equalism thing is really a recipe for male disposability in that it will never keep a women attracted. There is only one frame for a stable relationship between a man and a woman and that is a frame where the man is dominant. Period. All other framing is misery for all involved.

    @ BuenaVista – Sheer brilliance looking at the collective/social structures that support all of this. The saddest thing is that these women aren’t happier for all of this. None of this is working well for men, women or families. I think your idea about breaking them off from that herd is quite wise. Also, the habitual nature of all this has spanned two generations now so it’s becoming more reflexive and all pervading.

    Its interesting, I’ve had two relationships in which I was highly dominant – but I felt bad about them. One was with a woman who was crazy so I bailed before it got out of hand, but the other one was great. She loved me being in charge. The sex was simply the best I ever had – and according to her the best for her. She would have insane trains of mulitple orgasms and I would just use her like my sex toy. But guess what? I thought there was something wrong with that, I thought I was being “bad”.

    I also just had another mindblowing thought. There was even another scenario where the woman I was with was begging for my dominance but I ran hot and cold with it. And you know what I just saw? I thought that being dominant in general was morally wrong. I thought that my dominance actually came from pathology, from my past abuse. I could never embrace it wholly and in fact shamed it.

    Holy crikey. Lots of stuff moving around for me today, thanks. Now on to the spanking this young hottie Nichole deserves so richly…

  37. Well, the guy in the redpill reddit should’ve asked his ex why her hair was so messed up. The answer may have told him if he or Dave were the real beta.
    Did BuenaVista just describe Jennifer Aniston?
    And, the idea that unchecked and ever financially prosperous women will go after a smaller and smaller selection of men, resulting in less marriages because more men will say it’s not worth it, and the replacement birth rate and population will start to decline has been has been agreed upon before.

  38. I’m always happy when a new Rollo or Dalrock post is up – it’s not just the post itself, it’s also the comment section which is simply better than most other RP blogs. Now THIS comment section today – absolutely mindboggling. Highest quality comments I have ever read on blogs regarding these issues. Thanks, and greetings from Germany.

  39. “I’m the Other Man Today”:

    The author feels RP because he’s realized that he’s won the prize.

    Most RP put the pussy as the prize. This man, this father, knows that the true prize is his children.

    Reading his posting history, he did well in the divorce, now it sounds like he has his children 5 days out of the week and was able to invade his wife’s space at will and with no repercussions.

    The conventional RP prize: the wife (pussy) has shown itself to be tainted. He now knows that he’s much, much better off without her. The POSOM’s ‘victory’ over him has shown itself to be pyrrhic at best.

    I liken the events to meeting someone that is bragging that he has stolen your rusted out 1988 POS Toyota Corolla, that goes through 4 quarts of oil every two weeks and the windows don’t roll all the way down.

    A car that you had insured for 50k and your subsequent claim was uncontested by the insurance company.

    He winks and says, “I sure got one over on YOU, buddy!”

    “Yup, you sure did. Got me. Got me good.”

  40. @ Dr. Jeremy – Great points. Having been (and being in them currently in my life) in leadership roles, one of the things that doesn’t get talked about often is the selflessness that real leadership requires. As a man, I spent my entire young life being socialized to put my needs second and the needs of my family, work, community, nation etc. first, before my needs. So, when I was a husband with a stay at home wife and a child depending on me I knew how to make decisions that served them, and also made decisions for them.

    Women don’t get trained to do this. They are told they have some innate magical quality that makes them work better with each other – completely false. They believe they are better “multi-taskers” – utter horseshit. And they often just don’t even lead effectively. Many are good managers, but most are afraid to be decisive and take real risks. They also will usually take care of those that they like in an organization/team they are running, hence why it’s very good to be on the good side of a female boss.

    But the idea of looking out for my best interests in a way I can’t? I’ve had male leaders in my life who really went out of their way to do what was best for me even when I resisted it. Coaches, teachers, managers/bosses. In my first full time job after dropping out of school at 19 I worked with this genius speed freak in a warehouse. I had no idea how to do warehouse work well, and he would come up to me and say shit like, “Come on, jump in my pocket, I’ll show you what to do.” When Dick did that, I just followed him and always learned something and got a lot done. Ditto with some coaches and other bosses. I’ve never once had the feeling of being benevolently led by a women and I think the reason is that they aren’t bred for it.

    So what we see in society is many women now holding power and being moronic with it. Witness Hillary at State or Condi Rice – useless, utterly useless. James Baker? He kicked the crap out of Israel personally, for example (don’t get hung up on where you come out on those politics, what I mean is he was a man who knew how to use power for what he thoughts was the good of others). Tell me, do you think anyone ever felt like Hillary Clinton was “doing it for your their own good”?

    Nietzsche spoke of what the world would become like when women took on being masculine and held real power. He predicted our politics and intellectual life would become a ridiculous has of nonsense. Take a good look around you and tell me he was wrong.

  41. Jake:

    Regarding Sedaris and relationships between gay men: Sure, there’s hypergamy there, but usually with the man who plays the “bottom” or the female role. And, the sex component and prominence of sex in the relationship is magnified in gay male relationships because both participants are men. These men, being men, put a premium on the sex– more, hotter, better. So the hypergamous aspect in a gay male relationship is going to be magnified quite a bit.

  42. Here, let me sum up life as we know it… Someone is going to get screwed – that can be either in a “good” way (as in “I screwed that little filly”) or not (as in, “Man, I’m screwed”). Your choice is to decide which side you want to be on… If you want to be the one that enjoys life, you’ll be the proactive one that is taking the action of doing the screwing – both literally and figuratively.

    It is as simple as that… And if you don’t believe me – just wait… You’ll be the one on the receiving end soon enough, and it won’t be good… You can believe me or not – makes no difference to me either way… But hey, I’m just saying….

  43. “Randi Ginther” begins her ridiculous article with:

    “Not so many years ago, married men had the freedom to live by one set of rules away from home, and a different set at the hearth.” This first sentence immediately and blatantly reveals her obvious intent is to shame and threaten the entire male gender.

    Later in the article she writes:
    “Men are from Mars” and other media presentations became the cry for holding on to the differences between men and women and to keep them from blending.” Here she clearly communicates “gender blending” (castration) is her moral utopia.

    Then she writes:
    “Ironically, because these (beta men) have nurtured the feminine side of their natures, they are also able to forgive in a way few men have been able to do in the past. But because they have no interest in returning to the “bad boy” mentality their competitors brandished, they are faced with a challenge most men have never had to confront. How do they hold on to their vulnerability and capacity to nurture, and blend it with the strength and power required of a self-respecting leader of men? In other words…Beta men who lick other men’s cum off their whores pussies and asses are of rare and higher value than all other men and most men that ever existed and swallowing is the only path to self respect.

    Then she ends with:
    “Committed partners who are willing to fight for that innovative solution will find the way.” Notice she requires nothing of the women, no responsibility to be accepted.

    “Madam” Gunthers entire article is extremely typical and predictable blathered nonsense coming from a hard up miserable cunt wallowing in penis envy. Someone should call her on her meta shit test and pimp slap some sense into her.

  44. “women’s medium has been proving that their interests lean much more openly towards Alpha Fucks, even after marriage, even after consolidation on Beta Bucks provisioning.”

    That guys thought “beta buck” was ever a winning strategy is ridiculous.

    These patterns show up EARLY. If “Beta Bucks” was every going to work you’d see the high school cheerleaders drooling over the Champion of the Math Team. That does not happen.

    Math Team Champs get their teeth knocked out by the Football Quarterback/Basketball Point Guard and from that time ON to the end of the human female life cycle, its Alpha Fucks or Bust. These desires are cultivated early. It does not change.

  45. Then when one’s parents told you, its okay do good in school and the girls will like you.
    Or, go to college and the girls love guys with a college degree.
    That was all b.s. rationalization for you failing to be the football quarterback/sports captain.
    Girls like the Apex Alpha.
    There is only one of those in each environment.
    No College Degree prospects will make you an Apex Alpha, but they sure will put you into Beta Debt with all of the accompanying gnashing of teeth.

  46. Just for shits I just read another couple articles by Gunther. I find the adrenaline rush of getting really pissed enjoyable and motivating before working out. What a crock of shit she is. It should be illegal for someone with such a destructive agenda to provide “counseling” services. Apparently everything she writes is centered around making men into pathetic impotent imbeciles subjugated to women. This is apparently her universal solution to all marital strife. She should address the primary problem in our culture that women generally think men are nothing more than slot machines with dicks.

  47. @Nathan

    The BB side of AF/BB begins early also. Both sides of this plurality are entrenched early and I hazard an assumption that the BB side begins even earlier than the AF side. In fact BB begins shortly after birth. The AF side does not begin until intersexual awareness begins around the age of 5 or 6. Sex is hidden from children and lied about. I played “butts” with a neighbor girl at about the age of 5, it was initially her idea and it was NOT in any of the fairy tales we had already been read numerous times. Women (and beta men) teach their daughters very early that they must set their sights on long term “good providers”. A perfect example of the BB sell is the Walt Disney story Cindrella. “Prince charming” is a prince for God sake…RICH; he is very beta, a gentleman, honest, proper, very well conditioned, politically correct, liked by all; of course he instantly recognized Cinderella’s superior beauty (hot bitch all the guys want to fuck); and falls in love (becomes addicted to a sex fantasy with Cinderella) after…..one dance…doesn’t even fuck her once…..and then runs around the entire kingdom the next day desperately looking for the bitch who lost the glass slipper. It is also no mystery that we do not know his actual name but we certainly know Cinderella’s name, its the fucking title. Think about THAT for a minuet. This is the same for all the feminist fairy tales written about the same time, Snow White, Rapunzel, etc.

    A big part of controlling your life is to recognize and stay out of fairytale land.

    Rollo, you are certainly doing an excellent job of pointing out reality. Thank you.

  48. ” . . .the Walt Disney story Cindrella. ”

    The story was first published in the 1600s. The template of the tale was ancient even then.

    “…doesn’t even fuck her once…..”

    Within the context of the story he’s lucky he even got meet her before their wedding.

    “…..and then runs around the entire kingdom the next day . . .”

    In the original published story and in the Disney treatment of it, he does not. He can only marry by arrangement and it is his father who makes the decision and has the search conducted.

    ” . . .we do not know his actual name but we certainly know Cinderella’s name . . .”

    We know his title. In the context of the story that would be his identity, how he would be addressed. It is a sobriquet as well as title. That is the way it is among aristocrats.

    Cinderella is no more her name than “Stinky” is the name of an English schoolboy. It is a derogatory sobriquet assigned to her by her stepmother.

    We do know that she herself is an aristocrat. The story would not make sense were she not, nor would the marriage to the prince have been allowed. In the original published version she was explicitly a princess. In the Disney version she is a Lady. Her name is Tremaine. We do not know her Christian name.

    ” . . .the feminist fairy tales written about the same time, Snow White, Rapunzel, etc.”

    These were first publihed at the same time, 1812, but again, their templates are ancient and are seperated widely in their origins, temporally, geographically and culturally.

    They all have elements of the female imperative (as well as the male), giving evidence that these are innate to the human condition, but they should not be confused with modern political correctness and feminism. Indeed, modern political correctness and feminism consider these stories abhorent.

  49. “They tell me how wonderful their men are and how much they respect them. They just don’t want to be married to them anymore.”

    That’s some serious hamsterbation revealed right there from them all.

  50. @George

    Hitler followed a simple set of principles outlined by French social psychologist Gustave Le Bon. “Psychologie des Foules” – In English, it was translated into “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind”

    In 1895, Le Bon wrote what would happen if those principles were followed to the letter.

    The rest… is history.

  51. I have to salute any man who is able to somehow preserve his dignity in marriage.

    Just let me mention some real life examples:

    1. Last week my married friend came to my office with infomations that his wife stealed his child, returned to mother and wanted to divorce him. This poor fella confessed that they had sex 3 TIMES A YEAR!!!!

    2. One of my advocates – great looks, personality and income. Built a house for his family, has two daughters. He hasn´t have sex for a half year, his wife is cold, calculating. He is like working machine – good for my business, he sleeps in work.

    Such examples are the NORM even here in Eastern Europe, so my friends – stop dreaming about your sweet, innocent european women.

    The level of CONTEMPT, the wives have for their husbands, must be witnessed to believe. Theese poor bastards work themselves to early grave in a foolish hope that they somehow “earn” kindness from their ugly, fat, TOXIC bitches.

    Natural state of man must be slavery or else nothing of the aforementioned would be possible. I can honestly say that any guy who spends his life jerking off to porn, eating chips and doing nothing has MUCH BETTER LIFE than theese poor suckers. MUCH BETTER!! He has MUCH MORE DIGNITY AND MANLINESS in him than all those poor husbands/slaves together!

  52. @Exfernal

    “The purpose of science isn’t a popularity contest”

    I agree with that statement.

    Here’s what I’m saying:

    Why is “The Rational Male” (blog) in the top 1/10,000 of one percent among all websites?

    It’s because Rollo Tomassi has mastery of the stuff he writes about AND because he writes with clarity and brevity in a language that’s easy for his audience to understand.

    The way he simplifies complex truths resonates with millions of people each week.

    There are no wasted words in his posts, and most of his sentences are quotable.

    This draws one of the largest audiences of any website.

    Popularity, or ‘fame’ of concept does not make something into ‘science’ … but cultural change occurs when such concepts become ‘famous’ or well known.

    Rollo knows how to effectively communicate the concepts in ways that are easy for individual readers to absorb.

    Rollo would limit his audience if he wrote his blog in technical, scientific language.

    Is he capable of writing in the pedantic, boring, scientific language that journals of academia would respect? Of course he is… but he knows a lot more than technical writers do about how to reach the specific individuals that learn from “The Rational Male” blog.

    As Eben Pagan explains in many examples, the best and truest science may be lost in the crowd because of ones inability to choose to care about the how the individuals reading will absorb the material.

    Every person who has a desire or a problem is very “in touch” with that desire or problem. They are experiencing some type of motivation, and it’s literally driving them to seek out solutions.

    To that person, their desired outcome or result has a particularly high amount of value.

    In fact, for a person who is experiencing a particularly strong desire or pain, getting the result or outcome they want is the most important thing on their mind… or in their life.

    Most “experts” who want to sell information products COMPLETELY overlook this fact, and instead focus on what they think is valuable… and what they think their prospect should want.

    This leads to mistakes like calling your book “A Thinking Person’s Step by Step Guide to Weight Loss & Exercise Program”- and it leads to being “logical” with your prospects. In fact, the person who came up with this “Thinking Person’s…” name clearly was doing too much thinking… and not enough considering…

    …how their prospect FEELS, and then TRANSLATING the value of their product into terms that are crystal clear!

    Here’s an example. In the description of this book on Amazon, the first
    sentence reads as follows:

    “This book presents a groundbreaking approach to keeping up with weight loss and exercise plans…”
    Now, you tell me: Does a person who wants to lose weight want “a groundbreaking approach to keeping up with weight loss and exercise plans…”?
    Um, no.
    A person who wants to lose weight wants to…
    …go to sleep fat, wake up thin, and never even have to THINK about weight loss and exercise plans!
    The “experts” who wrote this book, made up the title, and wrote this description are MISSING THE BOAT.
    A complete waste.
    Instead of using the “Thinking Person’s” angle, this book would have probably sold much better if it had been called…
    “How To Lose Weight WITHOUT Thinking About it”
    And the description would have grabbed my attention if it would have said… “You’ve already proven to yourself that diet and exercise plans fail to help you lose weight and keep it off. Stop torturing yourself, and use a method that works…”

    Why would these messages work better?

    Because they aren’t going against the grain.

    They aren’t using bland, boring words that no one cares about.

    ~Eben Pagan

    Maybe certain ‘Scientists’ do have superior truth to present. However, the findings will remain irrelevant because of the way the material is presented.

    When any ‘Scientist’ contacts Eben Pagan to thank him for this enlightening (and free report) with knowledge which explains why Rollo Tomassi is more effective at getting the message ‘heard’ … tell him I sent you.

  53. @Rollo Great link: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2ehvav/so_i_met_the_other_man_today/

    What do you tell a guy like this? He measures himself against the other guy. His whole motivation is to get even, to show that 40 year old bitch of an ex wife of his that’s he’s still the better choice.

    He rationalizes it by saying the “David”-alpha dude is the beta who’s stuck with a 40 year old divorce with 3 kids. But if that’s the case…why is he still stuck on how they are together?

    This is a very insightful post. I for one came into the Red Pill to try to show up a girl who rejected me.

    Despite my successes both externally and internally in working on myself, I still constantly find myself licking my wounds if something goes bad rather than just shrugging it off as a learning.

    Alpha may be the leader, but it’s not alpha to be hard on one’s self. There are various instances of guys who are hugely successful in business, with women but are completely hard on themselves and need to prove to the world that they are something.

    Breaking out of that mindset is truly breaking out of the Matrix.

  54. An “Alpha” that ends up with a woman (who sounds half batshit crazy) with THREE kids is not an alpha, he is a Chump. A damn fool on borrowed time.

  55. I find that HuffPost story because earlier this summer, Candace Cameron said to a reporter that she’s submissive to her husband. Not in a BDSM way, which I think the HuffPost universe would have loved, but while they are a team and she’s not his property, he is the decision maker. She let’s him be the man. Oh did that set the comments on fire. She wasn’t saying that she’s his bitch. They complement each other, but his is the dominant role and that drove everyone crazy.

  56. @livefearless

    Thanks for your response, and I agree with your perspective. Correct my reference to WWI, should have been WWII. Germany’s dire economic condition among other “real” motivators prior to WWII created opportunity for Hitler to apply the principals in “A Study of The Popular Mind”. Without those dire conditions, Hitler would not have had the opportunity.

    We may be negotiating a “which came first the chicken or the egg” concept here. However, I agree with your perspective and that ideology certainly influences behavior. My message is that we should never let ideology obscure our awareness and respect for the fundamental basic “tangibles”. When we do so, we risk loosing control. Ideologies are extremely effective for purposes of manipulation. However, change is never implemented by ideology alone. There must always be an underlying “real” motivator.

    Current research indicates we share 95% to 98% the same DNA as chimpanzees. Chimpanzee behavior is very similar to early humans. They are social with alpha individuals, form alliances, attack and kill members of other groups, etc. they exhibit very similar patterns of behavior associated with control of territory, access to food sources and breeding rights.

  57. We will never have – nor have we ever had – a nation full of Alphas. That’s because Alpha is a comparative assessment, and constantly shifts.

    It’s absurd to give every kid a trophy. If we’re all good, then we’re all the same, and no one’s good.

    There are huge, multigenerational forces at work here. The pendulum has always crushed people. Right now, earnest guys who toed the line society trained them to are stuck to its face like bugs on a windshield.

    So, does this mean we should give up, if we self-assess as out of the running?

    Absolutely not. Our society is plagued by an aggregate dearth of alpha. Every little bit helps in slowing the pendulum. If we double down on dutiful, as society is cruelly imploring us to, the transition will be all the more catastrophic.

    It’s better to step aside than try and outrun the pendulum.

  58. A relationship is sustainable when both partners have symmetric perceived value. Trying to digest all info presented in last week’s post I arrived to this:

    woman look (X) + game factor (hipergamy, let’s name it H) = man look (Y) + game factor (G)

    Hipergamic “(…) women form the most secure emotional attachments to men 1-2 SMV steps above themselves (…)”
    We could make the assumption that a male with no game needs to have looks 2 points higher than the female. So feminine game factor (hipergamy) is, on average, H=2, so:

    RELATIONSHIP SYMMETRY EQUATION: X + 2 = Y + G

    Now we just need to get the male game factor (G). I got to this:

    Male game factor (G) = alpha fucks (AF) + beta bucks (BB)

    extreme alpha, AF=7
    alpha, AF=2.5
    lesser alpha, AF=1.5
    greater beta, AF=0.5
    beta, AF=-0.5
    extreme beta, AF=-3

    To this value we should also add beta bucks factor (BB), but this factor to the average guy is irrelevant.
    To simplificate I will consider BB=0, so Male game factor (G) = alpha fucks (AF)

    Notes:
    I used rational numbers to create the tension that is always present in relationships: a small change in game, looks or a better deal and the relationship will collapse.
    We also have a 10 points scale but ranging from -3 to 7 (looks scale range from 1 to 10). So looks and game worth the same but with different dynamics.

    Now we can extract as many examples as we want:

    Woman is a HB5 is almost symmetric to a men with look 7 with (0.5) greater beta game: 5+2=7+0.5
    Woman is a HB7 is almost symmetric to a men with look 7 with (1.5) lesser alpha game: 7+2=7+1.5
    Woman is a HB6 is almost symmetric to a men with look 9 with (-0.5) beta game: 6+2=9-0.5
    Woman is a HB8 is almost symmetric to a men with look 7 with (+2.5) alpha game: 8+2=7+2.5
    Woman is a HB10 is almost symmetric to a men with look 7 with (+4.5) super alpha game: 10+2=7+4.5

    Positive limits of male game factor (G):
    Is it realist to a guy with 4 in looks with the best game possible have relationship equilibrium with a HB10? If so we have: 10+2=4+8, probably not.
    And for a guy with look 5, is it possible? 10+2=5+7. Probably yes. I think the limit will be 7 positive points as male game factor.

    Negative limits of male game factor (G):
    Is it realist to a ugly girl (4) to have relationship equilibrium with a good looking (10) guy with the worse game possible? If so we have: 4+2=10-4, probably not, she is too ugly even for an extreme beta. So -4 is too much.
    And if the girl has look 5, is it possible? 5+2=10-3. Probably yes. So -3 is probably the maximum negative points to male game factor.

    Rollo, If this equation makes any sense to you, try to make something from this, you have the talent for it. Use, adjust or criticise it in your posts as you wish.
    I’m a regular reader here (by far the best blog in red pill theory) but is first time I’m able to give something back to this community that helped me a lot.

  59. As an aside, I was thinking about women pushing for state-funded birth control.

    My first reaction was bullshit, why should I pay women to be sluts?

    But now, way I see it, if we fund birth control, we place the responsibility for pregnancy completely in the hands of women and the state.

    So wouldn’t it then follow that legally, no man sould be held in debtor’s prison over a pregnancy that he didn’t want?

    She gets pregnant, all options were available to her for free so she obviously decided to… so if she wants to have it but he doesn’t, he should have the option to bail, no?

    Of course that’s a short hop to nanny-state dystopia

  60. “To this value we should also add beta bucks factor (BB), but this factor to the average guy is irrelevant.”
    Bingo!

    Unless you clear 100,000 + after taxes, debt payments, etc. you have no “beta bucks”

    Guys, nobody had money here. We are all in 30+ year morgatages student loan debt. Beta bycks HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  61. Let’s just say it. Providership game is DEAD. Unless you are making TONS of money all of your effort should go to Alpha Fucks (muscularity) To deny this is to put your head in the sand and fade away

  62. @Dr. Jeremy

    Nevertheless, I do conduct myself a bit differently than many of my academic counterparts. I also listen and read the experiences of millions, to better understand the practical experience of these issues. I also immerse myself in them too. Unless they are writing anonymously, I also believe I am one of the few “doctors” actively engaging on sites like this as well…

    The kicker is that everything I do is what I was taught that scientists are supposed to do. Many other scientists are also attempting to follow similar protocols, to the best of their ability and understanding. So, while I agree with your critique and motivation to boot my fellows in the butt to be more open-minded, I also do not want to overlook the positives. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they have something of value to teach. It is just a process of sorting through the bias to find the wisdom underneath. At least, that is what I attempt to do, as I keep reading, testing, learning from others, and refining my own approach.

    Beyond that, when I am in town, I would be happy to meet Mr. Pagan. I have a great appreciation for his work.

    You’ve got my respect for doing your best to sound like a human when surrounded by they that like to spout.

    My brother is the heart transplant surgeon that has not accepted that certain innovations were impossible.

    For you Dr. Jeremy, I admire you for risking ridicule from the hairy, obese spouters of big words in long-winded discourse – ridicule from peers that earn a living from praising specific ideas regardless of how negatively those ideas will hurt people.

    My brother has risked ridicule as well and found respect. Now heart surgeons emulate the procedures, innovations and inventions he’s put in place because it saves lives.

    Remember the Apple ad “Here’s to the crazy ones…”

    Phil Hartman, The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, has a point:

    Saturday Night Live – Yahoo Screen https://screen.yahoo.com/unfrozen-cave-man-lawyer-1-223412426.html?soc_src=default


  63. [ open on interior, courtroom, the Judge banging her gavel ]

    Judge: Mr. Cirroc, are you ready to give your summation?

    Cirroc: [ stepping out] It’s just “Cirroc”, your Honor.. and, yes, I’m ready. [ approaches the jury box ] Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’m just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: “Did little demons get inside and type it?” I don’t know! My primitive mind can’t grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know – when a man like my client slips and falls on a sidewalk in front of a public library, then he is entitled to no less than two million in compensatory damages, and two million in punitive damages. Thank you.

    Judge: The jury will now retire to deliberate.

    Jury Foreman: [ standing ] Your Honor.. we don’t need to retire. Cirroc’s words are just as true now as they were in his time. We give him the full amount.

    Did you notice how he credits (or blames) “some scientists” for thawing him out.

    @Dr. Jeremy From a psychological standpoint, what does this say about the intentions or mindset of “some scientists” considering the success of the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer?

    Some scientists made a choice to thaw him out, and now his success sets precedents in courtrooms and large market city council meetings.

  64. Rollo,
    You made mention of “mutually beneficial imperatives.” We know the definition of the female imperative what is the definition for the male?
    I am trying to devise a list of terms.
    Thank you.

  65. @D-Man

    She gets pregnant, all options were available to her for free so she obviously decided to… so if she wants to have it but he doesn’t, he should have the option to bail, no?

    You assume women would be held accountable for anything. Remember – take a man then remove reason and accountability. They’ll no more be to blame in your hypothetical universe than they are to blame in today’s universe when they do a bad job at work and yet are promoted up the ladder by cackling corporate-witches.

  66. “But now, way I see it, if we fund birth control, we place the responsibility for pregnancy completely in the hands of women and the state.

    So wouldn’t it then follow that legally, no man sould be held in debtor’s prison over a pregnancy that he didn’t want?

    She gets pregnant, all options were available to her for free so she obviously decided to… so if she wants to have it but he doesn’t, he should have the option to bail, no?”

    Unfortunately…no. The Feminine Imperative or modern liberalism, whatever you want to blame, would never allow it.

    Take abortion.

    A woman may end a pregnancy without any input needed from the father. In other words, the father has no say in ending the life of his child.

    A woman may decide to keep a child and then enslave a father for 18 tears of child support. The father has no choice to opt out of that life-altering decision.

    How is this the case?

    A man and women voluntarily engage is sex. Upon conception, the man basically has no say in the fate of the child, but is saddled with equal responsibility.

    If women really wanted to accept responsibility, they would have made sure to include the part where its all on them in Roe v. Wade. Oddly, enough they did not. They only wanted the right. They were not all that interested in the responsibility.

    Take a look at what is happening with the Sexual Conduct codes and kangaroo courts in colleges around the country. When you boil it down, really, it is about affording women the ability to engage in sex freely, but placing the responsibility for all encounters on men.

    So, if you think supplying them with all the birth control they could possibly want will lead them to let men off the hook, you will be sadly disappointed.

  67. Yeah I know. Far be it for a solution that makes sense to actually apply. It seems that both women and the state feel entitled to pinch us for our utility, doesn’t it?

    I’ve never really been drawn to the trend of applying facials, but they’re not leaving us much choice.

  68. Practically perfect:

    I’m not Rollo, but I think that men have a sexual imperative and a social imperative.

    Rollo has defined the male sexual imperative as unlimited sexual access to unlimited women. (Most men will usually compromise this to unlimited sexual access to one woman, mostly because they must.)

    I define the male social imperative as: dominion and victory. The man wants to win. He wants to subdue and take dominion: over himself, his mind, his body, his work, his money, his possessions, his land, his woman, and his family, He will also want dominion or a sphere of influence over other people as well—usually professionally.

  69. More on topic, in regards to rising above our feral natures, it depends on whether we are rewarded for doing so or not.

    If I engage in feral behavior and society punishes me for it in the interest of promoting civilized behavior, you will see less of it. You won’t quash it completely because it IS part of our natures, but it will be discouraged.

    If, on the other hand, punishments are not handed out for it, or better yet, if there are rewards for it…

    You get the idea.

    Interesting case study…

    In my church, there was a woman (pretty, 7-8, would be solid 8 5 years ago) with two kids who left her husband for a guy that knocked her up. Never seen the husband, but this new guy is a big, hulking guy having at least outward appearance of Alpha, and he started attending church with her, her daughters, as her belly swelled. She kept her job as a Sunday School teacher and was given a baby shower thrown in part by the Pastor’s wife. They were not married (I think she was still divorcing the other guy) and may still not be.

    In essence, while I don’t know everything that might have transpired, there does not seem to have been a whole lot of negative consequences for the behavior while I assume she got typical cash and prizes along with her new boyfriend. This despite the fact this women is engaging in behavior which is discouraged as sin by the church she’s attending.

    Now, when I do a mental exercise, and wonder what would happen if I left my wife, knocked up my mistress, and kept attending church with her. I am trying to imagine the dynamics where the pastor and his wife would openly and warmly greet me and her. I am trying to see me convincing the pastor to hire my adulterous girlfriend to work at the Sunday school my children attend, in which they are supposed to receive moral instruction, without an outcry. I am trying to imagine the pastor’s wife throwing my mistress a baby shower…

    I can’t see it. I don’t think it would happen. I think I would be counseled to get back with my wife at the very least. I think my mistress and myself would meet with much more hostility or much less support than this other woman and her beau. Bottom line, I don’t it getting a pass.

    The point is, one incident is greeted with little or no resistance or reproach while another is.

    As a further examination of this, there was a session where one of the parishioners during a presentation proclaimed herself as gay. Now, everyone knew of her and her partner attending for a while, so it was not great surprise, and I frankly don’t give much of damn, really.

    My issue, though, was this…

    In the presentation, there was discussion of sin, and acceptance of people as sinners (we all are in christianity), and of being true to oneself, and yadda-yadda. In it, it was not entirely clear whether the woman (and this presentation was done with the pastor’s ok) was saying homosexuality WAS a sin, but it certainly seemed like she was acknowledging it was but she was being true to herself, God made her that way, and it was ok.

    Believe it or not, I am ok with this in principle for far.

    My issue, which comes back to discouraging or encouraging behavior, is then why can’t a man be a philandering womanizer and be accepted as such within a church? Within the religion?

    If God made me a man, and men have a higher sexual drive, and he made men more interested in spreading their seed around, then why should I NOT screw around? If we are discussing the acceptance of alternative lifestyles, why can’t that be one?

    Would I be able to stand in front of the church and declare I regularly engage in sinful conduct, but God made me that way, so it is okay and by the way, I plan to keep doing it because it is just how I was made? I basically trying to imagine the pastor embracing me and my lifestyle choices, and again…

    I can’t see it.

    Now, don’t get me wrong and let’s not get off on tangents. This is not about lambasting either woman. It is not about discussing what is sin or not.

    It is about examine the differing standards of behavior, and what gets a pass, and what does not. Some feral, or core, impulses are accepted, and some are not, and the hypocrisy is that fascinates me.

  70. “Yeah I know. Far be it for a solution that makes sense to actually apply. It seems that both women and the state feel entitled to pinch us for our utility, doesn’t it?”

    To be fair, I think there is a broader human impulse to try and get others to do your work, to support you. There was a quote I heard from I believe Lincoln that summed it up nicely, but I have not been able to find it again.

    I won’t do it justice, but the gist of it was that throughout history there have always been people who wanted slaves to do the heavy work while they lived well off their backs.

    The problem with the state and women nowadays is that:

    1) They both inherently wield enormous power

    2) They are currently in cahoots

    3) They have no problem with demonizing all opponents to their rule

    Power corrupts, and both have been corrupted horribly. They need to be challenged, and when they are, you see the vicious backlash from both, calling critics of their abuse of power all manner of names in order to shame them into silence. Few relinquish power willingly or easily.

    @Deti

    “He wants to subdue and take dominion: over himself, his mind, his body, his work, his money, his possessions, his land, his woman, and his family”

    And what does both the state and women seem intent on doing? Removing his dominion over every aspect of his life by encroaching steadily into every aspect of it.

    He is not allowed his own spaces or organizations, to speak his own mind freely, to express his sexuality, to keep the profits of his labor, how he wishes to run his business, how much wealth he is allowed to own, etc.

    Do you think they will at least allow us to pick between the title “serf” or “slave”?

  71. Magnet,

    Interesting account of the church group members. Their behavior is not uncommon and I don’t think it ever has been. One of my uncles retired as minister of a Presbyterian parish a few years ago. His father (my grandfather) was the preceding minister. My uncle is in his late 70s. After retirement and being put on pension he wrote a paper entitled “How I lost my religion”. Over the years he “ministered” many people who behaved like and experienced similar events such as those you described above. His father also did and often referred to women in general as “damn whores”. It was hilarious to hear my grandfather carry on sometimes about the trials and tribulations people came to him complaining about. I think our instincts have far mor power over our behavior than the ideology of any religion.

  72. If guilt is feeling bad about what you have done, shame is feeling bad about what you ARE… it’s one of the most crippling, insidious, and powerful ways of controlling people and their behaviour.

    There are more than a few parallels between the methods honed by organized religion and those employed by the thought police today.

  73. @heyjay

    Seems logical but there’s something you neglect. The resources females get from the state are not as valuable to them as if they come from an individual male. They’re programmed to seek security from a male not from the state and I think that’s why attractiveness is not only a factor of looks.

    You’re correct, for the most part, in that women will much rather PREFER an individual male to invest resources in her because not only does he provide material depositions, but he will also give her emotional and psychological support just by being present. After all, women need a masculine presence even if it comes from a male that is less than ideal to them. But you’re wrong in thinking that looks aren’t a completely (inherent) Alpha Fucks strategy. They are. Physicality is a pre-requiste for the ideal Alpha Fucks strategy, as it has been proven by how selective women are towards ‘masculine phenotypes.

    I also want you guys to notice that I said women prefer these traits (masculine phenotypes) and not men. Men may consider other men Alpha even if he does not hold the aesthetic ideal of masculinity because men tend to value a different set of traits than women do. Rollo did a post on this (I believe he covered it indirectly) but I forgot what it was called.

    @George

    The BB side of AF/BB begins early also. Both sides of this plurality are entrenched early and I hazard an assumption that the BB side begins even earlier than the AF side. In fact BB begins shortly after birth.

    The propensity for a man to either fulfill an Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks strategy is, FOR THE MOST PART, genetic. It is encoded into a man’s DNA as to whether or not he’ll fulfill one side MORE than the other. Studies covering the digit ratio, FWH ratio, and sexual dimorphism show this.

  74. @ BuenaVista, August 25th, 2014 at 11:30 am
    .

    “Second, and I have no citations for this, but it conforms with most guys’ observations, I think we’re underestimating the influence of the modern femme’s social cohort.”

    I think that this is absolutely correct, and extends to the power of other external influences on women, as well.
    .

    ” … That social status is voided — destroyed — with the femme cohort if her man and the abstraction that is their relationship become a woman’s primary objective.”

    Hypergamy, in the sense of the instinct to secure and bond with a man who is above her (as far as possible) in mental and physical strength (which also addressed provisioning) seems to be an evolved feature (“hardwired”) from the earliest time, since women without this predisposition did not survive as often.

    A prevalent idea in the Manosphere has been that a woman would be on Team Woman with respect to feminist imaginary oppression and danger, and other henhouse shit.

    But that, when in a relationship, she would be on Team Her Man (at least with a desirable man), because of bonding, and to protect against what she clearly understood to be cliques of jealous and backstabbing “frenemies”.

    Is this type of bond now being “bred” out of women (memetically *, or through antagonistic conditioning from a very young age and in an environment that supports little else)?
    .

    “It’s tough stuff, expecting a woman to break free of her platoon of unhappy amazonian culture warriors. The only thing they understand is the harsh discipline of removal and isolation, IF the man has wowed the girlfriends and offered no fungible, group-approved defective behavior. (See above, physical or emotional “abuse.”) Only then does a woman lose status by losing another man.

    “Thus a man seeking companionship has to be up for exacting that discipline, and he’s got to be hip to his status as a giggles-inducing sex-and-prizes curiosity. I don’t think that’s what women really want, at their core, but it doesn’t matter because for them, men are temporary, and the girl-group abides.”

    The problem is that civilization cannot be created or maintained when girl groups abide, or are allowed to be arbiters of anything.

    If social status, of the type that depends on “her man and the abstraction that is their relationship” never being a woman’s primary objective, can displace previous “hardwiring” and become fundamental, then fewer options can be considered viable for future societies.
    .

    * “The meme, analogous to a gene, was conceived as a ‘unit of culture’ (an idea, belief, pattern of behavior, etc.) [Richard Dawkins, “The Selfish Gene”], which is ‘hosted’ in the minds of one or more individuals, and which can reproduce itself, thereby jumping from mind to mind. Thus what would otherwise be regarded as one individual influencing another to adopt a belief is seen as an idea-replicator reproducing itself in a new host.”
    .
    .

    @ D-Man, August 26th, 2014 at 10:35 am

    “We will never have – nor have we ever had – a nation full of Alphas. That’s because Alpha is a comparative assessment, and constantly shifts.”

    There are also multiple (and sometimes overlapping) definitions of Alpha in use: desired by women, leader of civilization, builder of civilization, destroyer of civilization, and so on.

    And two essential, but often overlooked, identifiers / prerequisites are self-respect and strength of will.

  75. @buenavista
    Great comment and you have put into words very elegantly, something that I have been experiencing and perceiving but unable to conceptualize in a useful way. Your description/explanation is brilliant and I thank you for your comment- on of the most lucid comments I’ve read in the manosphere. This is why I come here even though I rarely go to other RP sites anymore- just the facts and no bullshit. Great comments and Rollo just gets to it.. no window dressing.
    Thanks again BV. I hope Rollo picks up the ball and rolls with it, I’d love to hear his take on your observation

  76. Reading the book; The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History by Howard Bloom was one of the early steps I took into the matrix of Red Pill thinking and is well worth a read.

  77. I was at a party this weekend and observed the following:

    Exhibit A:
    Male out of shape. Getting married next August to gf that controls the finances, house and is primary breadwinner. Gf rode the carousel (pulled a guy every weekend for 5 years). Gf aged 24 Guy: 31. She flirts with guys in front him. It’s painful to watch. So silly me filled with red pill knowledge noticed that their fridge had the writings : “Susan and Lee kitchen” and re-arranged it to read “Lee and Susan kitchen” suffice to say I got loads of stares. I don’t think I am welcome back.

    Exhibit B
    Male greater beta but out of shape and supplicates to his high maintenance gf. She has always had stuff paid and bought for. Trips to Paris with ex-bf when she was 17. Now they barely talk to each other when they are together. Rumour has it he might move out to save more money.

    There were more examples but the state of relationship in the UK is a pretty sorry sight after you have swallowed the red pill. It’s amazing to see your writing in action Rollo Tomassi. And having applied dominance neg hits and cocky funny techniques on gf I was the envy of all the women. As all of sudden she realised how beta all the men were. I am usually a beta but in public with her I go all alpha.

  78. Magent comments on Deti’s description of male sovereignty:

    “’He wants to subdue and take dominion: over himself, his mind, his body, his work, his money, his possessions, his land, his woman, and his family”
    And what does both the state and women seem intent on doing? Removing his dominion over every aspect of his life by encroaching steadily into every aspect of it.’

    “He is not allowed his own spaces or organizations, to speak his own mind freely, to express his sexuality, to keep the profits of his labor, how he wishes to run his business, how much wealth he is allowed to own, etc.

    Do you think they will at least allow us to pick between the title “serf” or “slave”?”

    ***

    There’s a big risk here in aggregating (as we do in a sympathetic forum) negative intersexual dynamics, and concluding we’re fucked.

    The notion of sovereignty, as Deti summarizes, is really a point of departure rather than an end state (I would assert; anyway, this is how I am defining The Sovereign Man).

    The Stoics believed that the ideal end-state for Man is represented by the Philosopher-King (Master of his thoughts and senses) — Epictetus writes in his Encheiridion: “Socrates became fully perfect in this way, by not paying attention to anything but his reason in everything that he met with. You, even if you are not yet Socrates out to live as someone wanting to be Socrates.”

    Therefore, noting the discordancies and irrationalities of our intersexual lives, be they in personal or public realms, would seem to be the first and perhaps lasting challenge. We should all want to be “Socrates” because only then are we able to see, understand, lead, manage. Only then are we in position to negotiate sovereignty and decide which of our relationships or impulses is worth the effort, risk or cost demanded by the femme-state and a woman or two.

    Clearly the Feminist State would, at its logical conclusion, reduce us to happy draft horses, chattel-serfs, sexual playthings, maybe emotional surrogates absorbing their capricious feelings and anxieties. But too many men have already been deformed and damaged by the law and culture, in the past 15 years, for this to happen; too many of us (and I think the numbers in the 20-40 year-old cohort are off the charts, far higher than is publicly credited) were faced with a decision to unplug or die.

    Now the challenge is one of insight, negotiation, a balancing of pleasure and need, a redefinition of masculine purpose and legacy. It’s infuriating that this has happened, but we don’t make the rules, we’re just playing the game; while we were playing by *the* old rules the world changed. I don’t think that the feminist cohort is quite ready to live by their own rules, if men bring Epictetus’ philosophical impulse (to reason, to understand, to achieve enlightened detachment, to command one’s own senses) to the party they started. But we’ll find out.

  79. George, on the only problem with religion being the congregants:

    I have a somewhat odd life, alternating between the urban east and rural upper midwest. In the rural part, 100 miles from the nearest wine bar or interstate, I belong to a sola scriptura church. Or I have belonged.

    Though the pastor is a personal friend (sailboats, motorcycles) as well as significant spiritual guide (he’s a true pastor) I cannot stand church attendance any longer. This is a little country church, with a little country Sunday school and nursery — yet half a dozen mommies insist on bringing their little darlings into the sanctuary where they fuss, cry, run about etc.: it’s a Romper Room.

    The pastor’s weekly exegesis is very challenging and I take notes throughout, but it got to the point where I was white-knuckling the pew to avoid reacting to all the “Look at me, I’m a Mommie who produced a child!” disruptions. During the disruptions the mommies glow with pride. They dearly enjoy, I guess, distracting the congregation from our pastor’s words, just so we know what we’re really supposed to worship. Never seen anything like it. Out east I go to high Episcopal services, where the homily doesn’t compare with the pastor’s 45 minute sermons, but at least I am not dealing with Chuck E Cheese theology.

    The most devout man I know in the country, my best friend, says, “The only thing wrong with Christianity is the churches.”

  80. @ LiveFearless

    IMO, I think the problem results when anyone (scientist or otherwise) takes things to extreme without balance and forethought of the larger implications. Essentially, they get stuck in their emotions and selfish needs, and confuse what is good and true for them, for what is good and true universally for everyone. As a result, they make emotionally-driven choices that benefit them in the short-run, but create disequilibrium for themselves and others in the long run.

    Such is the motivation of a scientist thawing out the fictitious SNL caveman. He is not concerned with the larger social implications…or even whether that caveman might kill him. Instead, he is completely focused on the selfish motivation to prove “his” science as powerful, correct, sexy, etc. He wants to prove himself superior, no matter the cost or actual “truth”, because he assumes it will ultimately result in some sort of survival/reproductive advantage. At least, that is what his emotions are saying anyway. Those same emotions bias the objectivity of his science, cause limitations and complications, and lead his work astray.

    Why? Because scientists are human too. As you note with Mr. Pagan’s words above, much of the time people are emotionally-driven creatures, not logical ones. When logic is employed, it is often just used to back-fill rationalizations for emotional decisions that “feel” correct anyway. In short, everybody has a “hamster”…not just college gals “riding the carousel” and enraged feminists.

    So, as an individual and provider of information, someone like myself has two choices. I can either focus on my emotions, selfish short-term needs, and personal beliefs/perspective – and present what is best for me (and those like me) as a universally correct standard. This would certainly make my message emotional, motivating, black-and-white, clear, and stirring – e.g. “Skinny Bitch”. It would get me a lot of attention. It would also be biased, with advice that did not work for everyone, which created other problems and caused disequilibrium (e.g. I’m not sure Skinny Bitch dieting is healthy…although it is sexy).

    Or, I could focus on logic and objective science too, balancing my perspective, and describe the pro-con options and choices for different people within a larger dynamic. Unfortunately, this is a harder sell, because it does not engage emotions as fully, is not ego validating for the reader as the universally “correct” approach, and takes motivation and cognitive ability to understand – e.g. a “Thinking Guide”. Such an approach would not get as much attention, as most people are motivated by emotion, validation, simple solutions, and proving their approach “correct”. However, the approach would be less biased, with information applicable to a wider range of people, and provide longer-term, satisfying, and sustainable solutions.

    Personally, I try to find a balance. My variable popularity reflects that approach. When my attempts at objective, scientific explanations for these topics are easy to understand and validate a particular group’s worldview, I get a surge of traffic and support for them. When they are more complex, or disagree with a group’s personal beliefs, I get boycotts and haters. Depending on the day, particular people either love me or hate me. But, that is the reaction of emotionally-driven people, in conflict over their needs, beliefs, and self-interests – to an objective, science-based, balanced perspective that does not completely agree with “their truth”.

    Don’t get me wrong, we need biology, emotion, and desire. We are multi-level beings. IMO, however, we are doing a worse and worse job at balancing those emotions and desires with logic, understanding, and restraint (even scientists). To the extent that we only act like animals, in universities and labs, on the streets, on chat rooms and blogs, and even in our relationships – we are going to continue to get what we get – more conflict, ignorance, and less satisfaction for us all.

    As John Nash astutely noted, neither extreme selfishness nor altruism works. Equilibrium is only found when individuals pursue what is both best for them and best for others. From my view, whether we have the ability and motivation to balance those perspectives, will determine whether we again have happy relationships and productive societies – or we flush ourselves down the drain into another dark age.

    Who knows, without a bit more balanced thinking, we all might end up cavemen again…

  81. “Now the challenge is one of insight, negotiation, a balancing of pleasure and need, a redefinition of masculine purpose and legacy. It’s infuriating that this has happened, but we don’t make the rules, we’re just playing the game; while we were playing by *the* old rules the world changed. I don’t think that the feminist cohort is quite ready to live by their own rules, if men bring Epictetus’ philosophical impulse (to reason, to understand, to achieve enlightened detachment, to command one’s own senses) to the party they started. But we’ll find out.”

    Yeah, to flesh this out a little more, the sovereign man will find his attempts at sovereignty more constricted, while at the same time having to learn what sovereignty is.

    In my “definition” I was deliberate about the order, in terms of timing and influence. It happens in linear fashion temporally and in concentric circles spatially. First he achieves dominion over the self (mind and body). This should be accomplished by age 17. Then over his work (early-mid 20s) then material things (20s), then other people (late 20s, early 30s).

    Most men now will be limited in achieving dominion inside their own concentric circles: Their bodies, their minds, their jobs, and their material possessions. But now, most men can barely achieve dominion over their bodies (obesity, substance abuse) and their minds (mass media, porn, idiocracy). But all this is obvious. The main problem is that most men will never have an incentive to try to achieve mastery over anything else beyond their own minds and bodies.

  82. BuenaVista,

    Thank you for the response. Appreciating all your insights.

    My last remark was meant to be sarcastic, but does not indicate a defeatist attitude per say. It was just meant to highlight what the end might look like if there is not sufficient pushback.

    And I agree with you that as men, it is necessary to take personal stock, and then personal action in order to right things, or at least have any chance to do so. The inner challenge is first and most important.

    As you and I both can agree, though, there has been a lot of damage done on the personal and societal levels, and there is a concerted effort to fence in men’s ability to maneuver in any quest to be himself and/or a man.

    So, I don’t think we’re screwed yet, but society is busy making sure we are strapped down good and tight so that they may have their way with us, as it were.

    As I noted previously, people with power, particularly those corrupted by it, are loathe to give it up. Breaking the shackles will engender a lot of blowback, as we have already seen with the reaction to Red Pill theory. Basically, I am saying it is going to get uglier before it gets better and we should be prepared for it.

    I am glad there are sites like this where these topics are discussed openly.

  83. Deti,

    “In my “definition” I was deliberate about the order, in terms of timing and influence. It happens in linear fashion temporally and in concentric circles spatially. First he achieves dominion over the self (mind and body). This should be accomplished by age 17. Then over his work (early-mid 20s) then material things (20s), then other people (late 20s, early 30s).”

    Funny, but more than once I have thought to myself, and remarked to some others, that I have always felt ‘behind’ for lack of better term. My friends and family consider me bright, creative, socially aware, yet…I always felt I was about 10 years or so behind the curve in life stages. It something that annoys me to this day.

    For instance, I am established in a career, yet it took me much longer than it took others in my circle. I could never quite explain it specific terms, but this seems resonant.

    Any advice for playing catch-up?

  84. Magent, sorry about that, I have a tin ear for online irony.

    We first started batting around the Sovereign Man concept at J4G’s last year, and I wrote out what I considered the ten principles of masculine sovereignty in the present context. A guy named Bastiat Blogger precipitated the discussion, and I am attempting to write a piece on sovereignty, in a kind of (literary) user manual fashion, drawing heavily on Epictetus’ concise manual, for BB’s blog. He’s getting a little impatient with me, however.

    The Encheiridion begins abruptly and simply: “Some things are up to us and some are not up to us. Our opinions are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions — in short, whatever is our own doing. …The things that are up to us are by nature free, unhindered, and unimpeded; the things that are not up to us are weak, enslaved, hindered, not our own. So remember, if you think that things naturally enslaved are free or that things not your own are your own, you will be thwarted, miserable, and upset, and will blame both gods and men.”

    Anyhow, it’s a philosophical take on the bromide we hear from every successful football coach or baseball manager: “I’m only going to worry about the things that I control.” And success is a matter of vision (knowing what may, or may not be controlled) as much as discipline.

    FWIW, below are the ten elements of personal sovereignty that a ‘philosopher’ might seek. They may be realized independently of the popular culture and prejudiced legal environment, in an intersexual context.

    See my comment #107, 12:02 p.m. 12/30/13:

    http://www.justfourguys.com/a-discussion-about-nice-guystm-and-an-object-lesson-in-female-mating-psychology%E2%80%8F/

  85. Dr. J: “IMO, I think the problem results when anyone (scientist or otherwise) takes things to extreme without balance and forethought of the larger implications. Essentially, they get stuck in their emotions and selfish needs, and confuse what is good and true for them, for what is good and true universally for everyone. As a result, they make emotionally-driven choices that benefit them in the short-run, but create disequilibrium for themselves and others in the long run.”

    This post begins oddly and disappears in confusion and “I feel your pain” ambiguities.

    Science has nothing to do with “balance and forethought” and projecting opinions on other people that are personally satisfying is not science. Science has nothing to do with “equilibrium”, as consensus or achieved popularity has nothing to do with science. Science has nothing to do with “larger implications” because science simply reveals that which is, reproducibly, while being falsifiable.

    Sure, most people make more money selling what others wish to hear, so qualities like popularity and equilibrium are necessary qualities in a successful business plan. But such a person is just an opinion retailer, not a scientist.

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s