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.