The Burden of Performance



From Love Story:

Men are expected to perform. To be successful, to get the girl, to live a good life, men must do. Whether it’s riding wheelies down the street on your bicycle to get that cute girl’s attention or to get a doctorate degree to ensure your personal success and your future family’s, Men must perform. Women’s arousal, attraction, desire and love are rooted in that conditional performance. The degree to which that performance meets or exceeds expectations is certainly subjective, and the ease with which you can perform is also an issue, but perform you must.

One of the most fundamental misconceptions plugged-in men have with regard to their intersexual relations with women is the issue of performance. Back in late March of this year I read an interesting article from Roosh, Men are nothing more than clowns to the modern woman and it struck me that although I certainly agreed with him in the context he presented it, there was more to the ‘entertainment’ factor than simple amusement on the part of women.

Women don’t seek out comfort or stability in men anymore—they seek entertainment. They seek distraction. They seek hedonistic pleasure. This is why provider men (beta males) are so hopelessly failing today to secure the commitment of beautiful women in their prime, and this is why even lesser alpha males fail to enter relationships with women beyond a few bangs. Once the entertainment or novelty you provide her declines—and it inevitably will—she moves on to something or someone else. In essence, the only way you can keep a girl is if you adopt the mentality of a soap opera writer, adding a cliffhanger to the end of each episode that keeps a woman interested when being a good man no longer does.

After reading this I tried to imagine myself being a recently unplugged man or a guy just coming to terms with the uncomfortable truths of the red pill and learning that all of the comforting “just be yourself and the right girl will come along” rhetoric everyone convinced me of had been replaced by a disingenuous need to transform oneself into a cartoon character in order to hold the attentions of an average girl.

That’s kind of depressing, especially when you consider the overwhelming effort and personal insight necessary in realizing red pill awareness. Roosh later tempered this with How to be a good clown and Clown Game vs. Good Man Game, and although he clarifies things well in Game terms, the root of the frustration most guys will have with the ‘clown factor’ is that, in these terms and in this context, their performance isn’t who they are.

In this environment it’s easy to see why the MGTOW option seems like an understandable recourse for red pill men. It’s a very seductive temptation to think that a man can simply remove himself from the performance equation with regards to women. I’ll touch on this later, but what’s important here is understanding the performance game men are necessarily born into. Like it or not, play it or not, as a man you will always be evaluated on your performance (or the perception of it).

I think what trips a lot of men up early in their red pill transformation is sort of a sense of indignation towards women that they should have to “be someone they’re not” and play a character role that simply isn’t who they are in order to hold a woman’s interest. I covered this idea in Have A Look and developed how women are like casting agents when it comes to the men they hope will entertain them.

This was really about a sexual context when I went into it, but as I read Roosh’s original article I began to consider that women’s “character” role they expect men to perform changes as their own phases of maturity dictates and their SMV can realistically demand for that phase. In other words the “characters” they want performed in their Party Years will be different than the ones they want after their Epiphany Phase, which may be different than the character they want for their mid-life years.

How realistic it is for men to be that character becomes less and less relevant as women are socialized to expect disappointment from men actually living up to the characters they’re conditioned to believe they should realistically be entitled to at various stages of their maturity.

Living Up

Right about now I’m sure various male readers are thinking, “fuck this, I’m gonna be who I am and any girl who can’t appreciate me for me is low quality anyway.” This will probably piss you off, but this is exactly the blue pill mentality most ‘just be yourself‘ Betas adopt for themselves.

It’s actually a law of power to despise what you can’t have, and deductively it makes sense, but the fact still remains, as a man you will always be evaluated by your performance. So even with a ‘fuck it, I’ll just be me’ mindset you’re still being evaluated on how well ‘you are just you’.

The simple fact is that you must actually be your performance – it must be internalized. In truth, you already are that performance whether you dictate and direct that, or you think you can forget it and hope your natural, undirected performance will be appreciated by women (and others), but regardless, women will filter for hypergamous optimization based on how well you align with what they believe they are entitled to in a man in the context of their own perception of their SMV.

Looks, talent, tangible benefits and other core prerequisites may change depending on the individual woman, but to be a man is to perform. Even if you’re a self-defined man going his own way who enjoys escorts to fulfill his needs, you still need to perform in order to earn the money to enjoy them.

It Doesn’t Get Easier, You Get Better

For Men, there is no true rest from performance. To believe so is to believe in women’s mythical capacity for a higher form of empathy which would perdispose them to overriding their innate hypergamous filtering based on performance.

Women will never have the same requisites of performance for themselves for which they expect men to maintain of themselves. Hypergamy demands a constant, subliminal reconfirmation of a man’s worthiness of her commitment to him, so there is never a parallel of experience.

Women will claim men “require” they meet some physical standard (i.e. performance) and while generally true, this is still a performance standard men have of women, not one they hold for themselves. There simply is no reciprocal dynamic or prequalification of performance for women, and in fact for a man to even voice the idea that he might qualify a woman for his intimacy he’s characterized as judgmental and misogynistic.

Social conventions like this are established to ensure women’s hypergamous sexual strategy is the socially dominant one. Expecting a woman to perform for a man is an insult to her ‘prize status’ as an individual.

From a humanistic perspective there’s a want for a rational solution to this performance requirement, but as I’ve outlined in prior posts, appeals to women’s reason are no insulation against the subliminal influences of hypergamy.

I read many a ‘dating coach’ who’s approach is complete honesty and full disclosure in the hopes that a like-minded, rational woman will naturally appreciate a man’s forthrightness, but this presupposes a preexisting equal playing field where subliminal influences are overridden by mutual rationalism.

The real hope is that women will drop their innate hypergamous performance requisites in appreciation of this vulnerable, inadequate honesty.

What they sweep under the rug is that you cannot appeal to a woman’s reason or sentiment to genuinely forgive a deficit in a man’s performance. Love, reason, both demand a preexisting mutual appreciation in a common context, but neither love nor reason alleviate the necessity of performance for a man.

Women simply are not motivated to compromise hypergamy on their own accord. They will not be reasoned into accommodating a situation of mutual needs by overt means.

It is a Man’s capacity to perform and demonstrate (never explicate) higher value that motivates women to accommodate mutual needs in a relationship – whether that’s a same night lay or a 50 year marriage.

Demonstrating Higher Value

I get the impression that DHV tends to get a bad rap both from blue pill critics as well as red pill aware men. A lot of that gets wrapped up in technique and practice. It’s easy to dismiss this concept as posturing or bluster, but DHV, as a principle isn’t defined by egotistical measures or how well a guy can ‘showboat’ himself around women.

A lot of DHV is unintentional. In fact the best most genuine forms of DHV are exhibited when a Man doesn’t realize he’s actually performing in a way that demonstrate his higher value. This can be as simple as walking int a room in the right context or environment. Even humility can be DHV in the proper context.

What I’m driving at here is that after reading all of this you might think I’m saying you need to be superhuman to qualify for women’s performance standards, and again that’s kind of depressing – that’s not what I’m getting at. A woman’s performance standards are dependent on many varied contexts and according to the priorities she places on the type of character she finds both arousing and attractive and according to what her conditions dictate for her.

It’s not how you perform so much as that you perform. Ambition and personal drive to perform and be the best and most successful you you can be may have absolutely nothing to do with your intention of attracting a woman, but you are still performing and you will be evaluated on that performance.

DHV or DLV is performance whether intentional or not. You cannot remove yourself from this performance equation. You can cease to direct your part in this performance, but until you die you cannot exit the game.




Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

265 comments on “The Burden of Performance

  1. As you can see from my thumbnail icon, I am by nature an entertainer. I have various forms. It’s Neptune-ASC-Venus-Mercury (in SCO opposing a TAU Moon). No-one can ever call me dull–even when I’m describing A Prairie Home Companion. If I have a fault, I’m overwhelming. And just TO-O-O-O SEX-X-X-XY };)!

  2. What Roosh describes is the consequence of lacks fiscal standards. Social engineering from world governments, bent on keeping everyone happy. Women haven’t been seeking comfort or stability because those needs have been met. All that remains is pleasure for pleasure’s sake.

    12 years ago a man I knew was able to get a £40,000 unsecured loan. He had no savings (having blown through the £7,000 he had) and no collateral. The debt this man has incurred through various failed ventures is north of £60,000. He confided in me once, it had gotten to a point where the stress of it all, made him abort sex with his partner while she was on top of him.

    We’ve had a free money policy in the west. You don’t, even, have to pay it back. If you’re prepared to go through a 6 year bankruptcy scheme, whereby you forfeited the right to get more free money from the big banking institutions. You could start again.

    What I’m documenting here is nothing new, you’re all aware of it.

    When I or another poster mention economic uncertain or collapse, some will think ‘but Ollie we had a recession in 08 and nothing changed’.
    We did have a global recession, but that was almost in name only. There were job losses and some lost their homes and businesses. But for the most part everything stayed roughly the same. This came about because central banks kept printing more money.
    If you compare the 08 crash to the 87 stock market crash, you’ll see what I mean. In 87 there was widespread pandemonium. Almost everyone lost everything. There was no forbearance for homeowners who had gotten behind on their mortgage repayments. In 87 those people found themselves on the street.

    My point is the burden of performance for a man has no value to women in the environment we’ve been operating in.

  3. So a few weeks ago we (me and missus) got a dog. A labrador. I’m a first time dog owner, so this was all new territory for me. Luckily there is a lot of material out there.

    (As a side note, even dog training can be view through a red pill lens. That also explains – to me- why guys like Doggy Dan and Cesar Millan are given a bad rep, they subscribe to pack leader and follower view of dog, which means you have to work on yourself to get the dog’s respect, not just use toys and clickers).

    And one of the key things that made me finally realise what you wrote here, was a line from the book by Cesar Millan (who is almost a natural BF Skinner adept): “Being a pack leader start from the day you get a dog, till the day the dog dies. Every day, 7 days a week. Otherwise the dog will assume that role”.

    For some reason it reason, it made me immediately think of this post and finally realise: Red Pill is a gateway, You are just a road sign.

    Unless I commit to becoming the man I read about, and live it every second of the day, it won’t work. It will be as useful as a pick up line (very in short term, less in long term, unless you keep churning women).

    It made me stop and evaluate myself and ask the obvious yet daunting question: Do I want to commit to that new man, or do I want to fill my head with intellectual excuses for when the shit hits the fan.

    So I had to admit to myself, that I’m an intellectual Red Piller, not an internalised one (not yet).

    After hitting myself over the head for a few hours, realising (again) that I wasted some time, the dog started getting restless and needed to be walked. On a leash, calmly and being taught to stop at crossings.

    So I did just that, because like it or not, I am dog owner and if not a packleader, someone who will end up on Cesar’s show ;).

    And so finally I also got to a place (with the risk of sounding esoteric) where I “got” that I am a man, and she is a woman. She is not changing, and I can choose to live RP or suffer BP. Her life will be great either way.

    Now I own that I am a man. And all of a sudden your posts, from 2011 on out are being revisited with a new lens. Not to learn, but to read, and implement.

    And by doing that all of a sudden there is a ton of opp’s to practice: from going to work, to talking to clients/prospects, to picking food in a restaurant.

    It feels like an acceleration, because it is no longer a choice, I am a man and RP. And as such I act in ways that are congruent with that self image.

    It is only a burden if you feel like you have to do it, because it is not something you own. Is breathing a burden? Is doing 4 hrs of statistical analysis for fantasy football a burden? It is not if you see it as part of you.

    Now I am not fooling myself into believing I had my road to damascus and not i’m done. I had a internalisation and now am setting up a daily system to hone, implement and further “muscle memorise” all that I once read, but never let sink it, below my brain.

    Thanks Rollo

  4. Just saw one of the worst movies of the last year “The Shape of Water”.

    Bad as it was, it did contain a nice little gem summarizing the male burden of performance:

    STRICKLAND: I need to ask, Sir… respectfully.
    GENERAL HOYT: Then go ahead, Son.
    STRICKLAND: You’ve known me for how long?
    GENERAL HOYT: Thirteen years. Battle of Pusan.
    STRICKLAND: Yes, Sir… and in all that time, I… I’ve never once… This is… what happened here is… A man is faithful, Sir… loyal, efficient all of his life. All of it and he is… useful. And he
    expects… He has certain expectations in return. And he fails, then… once. Only once. What
    does that make him? Does that make him a failure? When is a man done? Proving himself, Sir? A good man. A decent man.
    GENERAL HOYT: Decent?
    GENERAL HOYT: A man has the decency not to fuck up… that’s one thing. That is real decent of him. The other kind of decency? It doesn’t really matter. We sell it…sure… But it’s an export. And we sell it ‘cause we don’t use it. See? Thirty six hours from now this entire episode will be over. And so will you… Our universe will have a hole in it with your outline. And you will have gone on to an alternate universe. A universe of shit. You will be lost to civilization. You will be unborn. Unmade. Undone. So… go get some real decency, Son. And unfuck this mess.


    Yep… your loving woman absolutely is General Hoyt. Unless she is a quality unicorn woman.

  5. Yep… your loving woman absolutely is General Hoyt.

    Not. Even. For. A. Second.

    Get out of here with that pedestalizing, blue-pill junk.

  6. Strickland is the blue piller wondering if his one failure negates all the successes that came before… hoping it doesnt.

    Hoyt is society/employers/wives etc red pilling him by saying “Yep… thats pretty much the way it works”.

    That is the whole idea behind the burden of performance… it is never ending and you are only as good as your last success.

    I think you may have misunderstood something.

  7. I got your analogy, I understand it. It simply fails because you didn’t think it all the way through.

    HINT: A General Officer has sufficient authority to order a subordinate’s execution in some situations. “Firing party at dawn, burial afterwards” is total authority, is it not?

  8. Perfection doesn’t enter in, your analogy is false so it completely fails. It’s at best purple pill, mostly blue, and is the sort of junk that leads betaized men further into the slough.

    Just admit that you didn’t think it through and withdraw it. Or not, if reason doesn’t matter to you.

  9. “A General Officer has sufficient authority to order a subordinate’s execution in some situations. “Firing party at dawn, burial afterwards” is total authority, is it not?”

    I think perhaps your analysis is the one that is flawed. Supposedly the analogy fails because of the total authority (the ability to execute) of the general.

    But this is silly.

    Yes the general COULD do this, but that is really not on the table here… he knows it and Strickland knows it. Its not a firing squad he will face but a zeroing out of his career. And even if the firing squad IS on the table, it still works as a metaphor for being zeroed out of a relationship for not meeting the burden of performance. The relationship is ‘executed’ because you lost your job or you got sick, or your status took a hit for some other reason.

    So I will let this stand as an acceptable description/example of a mans burden of performance. Furthermore, I stand behind the analogy between General Hoyt and a woman you are in a relationship with.

    If other posters on here weigh in and can articulate why my reasoning is flawed, I would definitely love to hear their thought process. But you have failed to do so. Request for withdrawal denied.

    PS: Another good one (maybe even better) is this one…

  10. Yes Boulderhead… relational equity. Perfect.

    That is essentially what Strickland is saying to Hoyt. “But I have succeeded EVERY OTHER TIME! I have relational equity with you… dont I?”

    And Hoyt answers “No… I need someone who succeeds ALL the time.” (AKA… hypergamy doesnt care).

  11. CFGauss
    I think believe perhaps your analysis is the one that is flawed.


    Supposedly the analogy fails because of the total authority (the ability to execute) of the general.

    It is obvious that you do not understand elementary logic. Therefore you cannot construct a proper analogy. You should stop digging the hole of this failed analogy deeper.

    Movies are not reality. Nobody here is disagreeing with the fact of “burden of performance”, but movies are not reality. You can contort words all you want, but movies are not reality.

    Question: should a man give unlimited authority over his life to “his” woman? Yes or no? Can you answer without a lot of tl;dr? Because that’s what your failed analogy requires.

  12. CFGauss
    I stand behind the analogy between General Hoyt and a woman you are in a relationship with.


    How old are you?

  13. “If other posters on here weigh in and can articulate why my reasoning is flawed, I would definitely love to hear their thought process. But you have failed to do so. Request for withdrawal denied.”

    I fully accept the analogy. It’s simply Briffault’s Law. It is always in place in LTR’s. I can see why AR is in non-acceptance in non LTR’s. Especially with children.

    I don’t have a problem with it. I put that shit in my pipe and smoke it every day.

    Briffault’s Law: Women Rule
    Why can’t a woman be more like a man?
    Posted Oct 31, 2016:

    Briffault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” Today we would say “relationship” rather than “association.”

    For this bit of wisdom we have Robert Briffault (1876-1948), an English surgeon, anthropologist, and author, to thank. I do not present Briffault’s law as fact, nor do I dismiss it as fiction. It is something to think about – and Briffault gives us even more to ponder. Read on.

    We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault embellishes this truism by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    Briffault continues with these three corollaries to his law:

    * Even though a woman has accrued past benefits from her relationship with a man, this is no guarantee of her continuing the relationship with him. (Translation: What have you done for me lately?)

    * If a woman promises a man to continue her relationship with him in the future in exchange for a benefit received from him today, her promise becomes null and void as soon as the benefit is rendered. (“I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.“)

    * A man’s promise of a future benefit has limited ability to secure a continuing relationship with a woman, and his promise carries weight with her only to the extent that the woman’s wait for the benefit is short and to the extent that she trusts him to keep his promise.

    In economics there is the concept of diminishing marginal utility: The benefit derived from a product lessens with each successive unit consumed. Consider an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you arrive hungry, the first plate from the buffet provides 100% utility in satisfying your hunger. The second plate provides less utility, although you still may be a bit hungry when you begin filling the second plate. But by the time you’re eaten the second plate, you are no longer hungry. If you return to the buffet for a third plate, you will probably feel overstuffed after eating it. In terms of utility you are now in negative territory.

    If we accept Briffault’s law at face value, women derive diminishing marginal utility from their relationships with men after acquiring the desired benefits. That Briffault – what a romantic!

  14. “And Hoyt answers “No… I need someone who succeeds ALL the time.” (AKA… hypergamy doesnt care).”

    Ya don’t we all need assured success. Not gonna happen.
    Take a game dog for instance,it will hunt,run,fight,fetch whatever no matter what the situation.It could be thirsty ,starved,guts ripped out across the ground full of dirt and it won’t quit,quit isn’t in it’s vocabulary. The dog doesn’t know game,it literally is game.

    Say a man fucks up,he’s done good up to this point,but now his guts are ripped out and he’s laid up bad. If he is game he will plan forward and not give up His LTR is more likely to stick it out(especialy if his will isn’t made out yet) then if he whines and gives up.

    Moral be game and learn game don’t be a quiter.

  15. “Another fallacy? Cool.”

    Nope… Its not as if I am going to take a vote and then adjust my opinion based on the outcome. I am simply inviting others to join in so that maybe I can hear from someone who does a better job of articulating a coherent position… even if it conflicts with mine.

    Hint… that is not you… at least not yet. Keep giving it a go though. Practice makes perfect 🙂

    “Movies are not reality.” True. I disagree, though, that movies and literature cannot be used to illustrate concepts and principles.

    “Should a man give unlimited authority over his life to “his” woman? Yes or no?”

    No, he should not. I suspect you and I agree here. This scene illustrates precisely why you should not do this. This is DEFINITELY one of Strickland’s errors.

    Employees make this mistake all the time… “My company loves me because I have worked hard, do a good job, and am loyal. And they will continue to reward me for this even if I falter in the future”.

    Husbands/boyfriends make this mistake all the time… “My wife/girlfriend loves me because I have worked hard, do a good job, and am loyal. And they will continue to reward me for this even if I falter in the future”.

    Believing in this false ‘reality’ can be a mans undoing. The true reality is that the burden of performance never rests… and you better recognize it before you sign a one-sided binding contract with a person/entity whose motto is

    “What have you done for me lately”.

  16. No, he should not.

    Why not? That is what is required for your failed analogy to work.

    I suspect you and I agree here. This scene illustrates precisely why you should not do this. This is DEFINITELY one of Strickland’s errors.

    In this fictional scene, the subordinate is required by military code to obey the orders of the superior. The subordinate has not made any error in “relationship” terms. The subordinate is required to submit, by force if need be. The subordinate can be disciplined, imprisoned or even executed for such a failure.

    Your analogy fails because military general officers have authority over subordinates, while girlfriends / wives do not have that kind of authority over men.

    Learn some logic. This jazz-hands waving doesn’t cut the mustard.

    Adults learn to admit when they are wrong. How old are you?

  17. Again, no one here is denying the burden of performance. You attempted to illustrate the concept with an analogy that fails, and are perhaps too ignorant to understand your error.

    “General is to subordinate as woman is to man” is false, but you insist it is true.

    That is your problem with reality, not mine.

  18. “General is to subordinate as woman is to man” is false.

    Yes… ideally this SHOULD be false… but it frequently is not… often it is quite TRUE… to the detriment of the man in this position… and the woman for that matter.

    Which is why this comment is so wrong:

    “military general officers have authority over subordinates, while girlfriends / wives do not have that kind of authority over men.”

    You bet your butt they very often do… I dont want to put words in Rollo’s mouth but I would guess that one of the main reasons for his work is to warn men of the dangers of such a dynamic.


    I love debates. But it is important to use good judgement and recognize when the debate is a ‘productive’ one. My judgement tells me that this one is not. You can have the last word if you want to.

  19. Any relationship where the man is subordinate to the woman is doomed to fail. Sure it can happen but both will be miserable and confused. This subordination isn’t the burden of performance, the BOP is a mans obligation to set frame and lead,also to protect and provide. I include the protection and provision because I like procreation and those three P’s go together as BOP.

    The feminine primacy is trying to shift the game to absolute power,trouble is when you allow it they are not happy still. Complying with her as boss isn’t burden of performance it is failure to perform.

  20. “General is to subordinate as woman is to man” is false.

    Yes… ideally this SHOULD be false… but it frequently is not… often it is quite TRUE… to the detriment of the man in this position… and the woman for that matter.

    Ah, it was just about time for you to start shifting goal posts around.

    In any event, the analogy is false by inspection. In the US the Uniform Code of Military Justice is clear on the relationship between general and subordinate. Despite the Duluth Wheel, VAWA and other legal constructions, there is no equivalent formal, legal structure defining the relationship between man and wife.

    You are getting closer to admitting error, but not there yet.

    Which is why this comment is so wrong

    “military general officers have authority over subordinates, while girlfriends / wives do not have that kind of authority over men.”

    You bet your butt they very often do…

    No. You are wrong once again. If you wish to insist that you are right, then produce the appropriate legal requirements from US civil and criminal law, compare and contrast them with the UCMJ and make your case in an orderly, logical fashion.

    Or you could admit that you have blurred legal structures with informal social ones, however that likely is too much to expect.

    I dont want to put words in Rollo’s mouth but I would guess that one of the main reasons for his work is to warn men of the dangers of such a dynamic.


    Perhaps you should actually try reading what Rollo has written with regard to the “why”? Start with the “about” page, there is a link to it at the top. Rollo has been very, very clear over the years “why” he does this, it’s not difficult to find.

    If you had actually read the site prior to commenting, perhaps you would make fewer errors.

    I love debates.

    Really? You don’t show much skill.

    But it is important to use good judgement and recognize when the debate is a ‘productive’ one. My judgement tells me that this one is not. You can have the last word if you want to.

    Suggest you learn some elementary logic plus actually read all the articles that Rollo has so carefully crafted over the years. Buy his books, read them, give them to other men.

    The burden of performance is real. We must exercise care in how we choose to explain it, in order to avoid confusing other men.

  21. My problem with the BOP is that women don’t value the performance. Women’s minds are so fickle that you can never figure out what they value. One day she is lusting after Steve in Sales because he’s a strong leader, then the next week she hates him because he is so ambitious and didn’t agree with her. It’s always about them, this is why the the term “clown” is appropriate. We have been brainwashed to entertain and serve their imperative.

    Men are given this burden since birth, study hard, get a good job, work hard, create a business, get rich, never stop… Women on the other hand, just have to be “pretty”. I hear this in many conversations with women,”well, she cooks for you and does your laundry…”, as if this is the only performance requirement for women. Men are expected to perform in countless ways their whole lives while women get to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

    Comical conversation with a post-epiphany phase feminist female acquaintance. Her friend in the same age group (35-40), wanted a kid so bad that she chose a guy, got knocked up and now wants to leave the father and “raise the baby as a single mother”. As if this is a badge of honor to be proud of. Her feminist Kool-Aid and man hating mindset completely absolves her friend of any responsibility for the situation she is in. Blaming the man for making her into “a single mother”. Her sole imperative was to become a mother and now this chump has the burden of supporting a child he may never see. The relationship was basically a lie from the beginning. This is an example of how recklessly women act/think and try to place the blame on men and not be responsible for the consequences of their actions. You can be a high quality man, unknowingly paired with a psychotic bitch that genuinely doesn’t care about your performance, only herself. Another example of women being the oldest teenager in the house. Men take the role as daddy, being responsible and providing everything for her, while she gets to play around and be pretty with no requirement to produce.

    Damn, that realization just hit me. How many husbands out their are playing the role of daddy while their wives play all day? Only obligation is to make a few meals, wash some clothes and suffer some obligatory sex while he is required to perform until his last day.

    Rich for the RMG says it best, chase excellence not women. You are going to be judged for your performance, might as well be from your mental point of origin and not her’s.

    Wish Rollo was around 30 years ago, I could have used this insight a lot sooner.

  22. Sorry, you’re misunderstanding the burden of performance a bit. You’re still linking it to societal expectations. That’s an easy way to stress out and fail.

    Burden doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with studying, or earning life of money or any of those specifics.

    Your burden is to be unapologetically a man, and to perform< i/> as such, meaning you will lead and you will strive and you won’t look for sympathy or ( much ) help. You will stand on your own and get shit done.

    It’s got nothing to do with anybody’s expectations besides your own.

    Burden has nothing directly to do with women at all. It’s not all about them. You have responsibility to yourself as a man. Women may benefit from it. Your family definitely will. But the number one beneficiary is always you.

  23. @NewGuy

    Blax: “You’re still linking it to societal expectations. “

    Which means you are seeking external validation for yourself.

    What you are saying is that you want a deep and profound relationship with a girl and you envision a bottomless pool of unconditional positive regard, trust, security and acceptance by that girl. It doesn’t work that way.

    90% of the regard for you has to come from you. The other half from her.

    You need to be able to stand on your own two feet, strong, and then by nature relationships and parenting require giving of yourself, the extra excess goods, services and relationship bounty to others. It helps to have extra resources and charisma.

    You need to not be other-validated. It is axiomatic in Red Pill that you be you (that doesn’t mean you can’t adapt along the way) and she is welcome to follow. Generally when a red pill man enters or continues a LTR with a woman, he has spent 18 to 24 months vetting her. (BTW, Shaun T. Smith’s The Tactical Guide to Woman gives a lot of background on this.)

    Lately I’ve been trying to plow through David Schnarch’s book Intimacy and Desire. It is a compendium of 30 years of unconventional marriage counseling wisdom. In it he spells out 4 points of balance one might want to have in order to not have an unstable LTR. It deals with both a man and woman coming together, but also taking time to self differentiate and go separate ways. It deals much with the same concept as Rollo’s series of essays The Reconstruction I-IV. The gist of which is in a bad blue pill LTR, break up and start all over again, with or without her.

    As far as the Scharch 4 Points of Balance, Part I is a solid flexible self. One that is not entirely based on external validation for your Burden of Performance.

    1st Point of Balance: Solid Flexible Self™

    Many people lack a solid sense of themselves. They have no real identity of their own.

    -They get emotionally claustrophobic or overly dependent in committed relationships.
    -Or they’re rigid, brittle, controlling, and bend their relationships to fit their own needs and wants.
    -Or they become increasingly dependent–emotionally fused–with their partner.

    To the degree you lack a solid sense of self you depend on a reflected sense of self. You depend on getting a positive reflected sense of self from other people. Many people say they want intimacy, but what they’re looking for is:

    -Unconditional love

    There’s nothing wrong with wanting to feel validated, accepted and dearly loved. But if you depend on a reflected sense of self, you crash when these aren’t forthcoming, and you spend lots of time talking about “safety and security,” “abandonment,” and vulnerability.

    When you have solid flexible self:

    -You have an internalized set of core values by which you run your life.
    -You have a sense of your own self worth that perseveres through hard time.
    -You can maintain your own viewpoints and sense of direction when others pressure you to conform.
    -You draw your sense of personal stability, values, and direction from within yourself, which comes from frequently confronting yourself (from the best in yourself) that you could be wrong.
    -You don’t always have to be right, and you don’t crash when you’re wrong.

    Solid Flexible Self is not a rigid self. Being able to adapt and change when prudent is just as import as staying the course. Flexibility:

    -lets you learn from your mistakes.
    -lets you change roles when your children leave home or you retire.
    -lets other people to be right sometimes.
    -makes room for your partner in your relationship.

    Solid Flexible Self lets you stand on your own two feet in a relationship–without always standing on your partner’s toes.

    And the Forth Point of Balance is Meaningful Endurance in your Burden of Performance as a masculine male. Persistence. Not crumbling and going all low level MGTOW.

    4th Point of Balance: Meaningful Endurance™

    Tolerating discomfort for growth

    Of all things that determine success in life, perhaps the most important is Meaningful Endurance, the 4th Point of Balance.

    Very little gets accomplished in life without Meaningful Endurance. Endurance increases your chances of success in marriage, parenting, families, and careers.

    Meaningful Endurance is the basis of mastery. You cannot master a new skill, refine your abilities, develop your talent, learn new things, or expand your personality without Meaningful Endurance.

    -Sticking with things so you can accomplish your goals
    -Making yourself do what needs to be done, even when you don’t want to do it
    -Absorbing hardship and disappointment, bouncing back after defeat
    -Withstanding stress

    Meaningful Endurance is not blind perseverance, stubbornness, or refusal to face facts. It is not stupid pain-for-no-purpose. It is not simply high pain tolerance, or accepting a lousy relationship.

    Meaningful Endurance is about tolerating pain for growth. If there’s no growth, it’s not meaningful.

    Many people lack Meaningful Endurance.

  24. @Blaximus – @SJF

    I understand the definitions and expectations of what it means to be a man. We live in a completely different world then women. Both of your comments explain very well what it means to be and act like a man. We strive to act this way because of our nature. To be self-sufficient and be in control of our own destiny. The power comes from within and not given to us by someone else.

    My point is that we get used and abused for these qualities. Women are always looking for a “good man” once they reach their epiphany phase. A “good man” is one that exemplifies all of those qualities, yet once they find that man, they ultimately take him for granted. If he’s not able to maintain those qualities, then he is easily disposed of like trash.

    After being with my wife for 30 years, I find her to be a burden. Now Red Pill aware, I have become angry with the behaviors that I observe. Her behavior is disruptive and exhausting. Much like the forth child in my house. Yes, I have to be stoic, emotionless, protective and the provider until my last breath. I’ve got those nailed down pretty good. If my wife passed away, I would be fine because I’m self-sufficient anyway. What I’m mad about is gratitude and appreciation.

    These days we are under attack for being men. No gratitude for the effort and benefits others enjoy from our actions. My work place is filled with feminist that hate men for being men, yet they can’t provide for themselves and loose their shit around the age of 30. Desperate to find a man to leech off of for the rest of their lives because they no longer can compete (perform) with the younger women.

    Maybe the word “burden” is not a good descriptor. Those qualities are what it means to be a man and not a burden. If I was single and living on my own, I would be caring on about my life in the same manner.

    Thanks for the feedback.

  25. “I have become angry with the behaviors that I observe.”

    Of course you have. That’s a Kubler-Ross grief stage. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, then Acceptance.
    Being in the stages prevents a certain moving forward.

    “My point is that we get used and abused for these qualities. Women are always looking for a “good man” once they reach their epiphany phase. A “good man” is one that exemplifies all of those qualities, yet once they find that man, they ultimately take him for granted. If he’s not able to maintain those qualities, then he is easily disposed of like trash.”

    You allow yourself to get used and abused. You have a covert contract: I will be a “good man” and you return favors on me. The point of masculinity is not to be merely “a good man”, the goal is to be good at being a man. To be masculine atttractive, not unattractive. To generate admiration, respect and desire.

    Alpha and Beta are too abstract, but “good man” is not attractive and doesn’t generate desire in women. Merely being a good man is Beta unattractive. Alpha is attractive and desirable. So move in that direction without whining or being stuck in a grief stage.

    The Way of Men is The Way of The Gang

    When someone tells a man to be a man, they mean that there is a way to be a man. A man is not just a thing to be—it is also a way to be, a path to follow and a way to walk. Some try to make manhood mean everything. Others believe that it means nothing at all. Being good at being a man can’t mean everything, but it has always meant something.

    Most traditions have viewed masculinity and femininity as complementary opposites. It makes sense to say that masculinity is that which is least feminine and femininity is that which is least masculine, but saying that doesn’t tell us much about The Way of Men.

    Boys and girls don’t pair off at birth and scurry off to a dank cave together. Humans have always been social animals. We live in cooperative groups. Our bodies sort us into groups of males or females. We interact socially as members of one group or the other. These groups aren’t arbitrary or cultural—they’re basic and biological. Males have to negotiate male and female groups as males. Males aren’t simply reacting to females. We react to other males, as males. Who we are has a lot to do with how we see ourselves in relationship to other males, as members of the male group.

    A man is not merely a man but a man among men, in a world of men. Being good at being a man has more to do with a man’s ability to succeed with men and within groups of men than it does with a man’s relationship to any woman or any group of women. When someone tells a man to be a man, they are telling him to be more like other men, more like the majority of men, and ideally more like the men whom other men hold in high regard.

    Women believe they can improve men by making masculinity about what women want from men. Men want women to want them, but female approval isn’t the only thing men care about. When men compete against each other for status, they are competing for each other’s approval. The women whom men find most desirable have historically been attracted to—or been claimed by—men who were feared or revered by other men. Female approval has regularly been a consequence of male approval.

    Masculinity is about being a man within a group of men. Above all things, masculinity is about what men want from each other.

    If The Way of Men seems confusing, it is only because there are so many different groups of men who want so many different things from men. Established men of wealth and power have always wanted men to believe that being a man was about duty and obedience, or that manhood could be proved by attaining wealth and power through established channels. Men of religion and ideology have always wanted men to believe that being a man was a spiritual or moral endeavor, and that manhood could be proved through various means of self-mastery, self-denial, self-sacrifice or evangelism. Men who have something to sell have always wanted men to believe that masculinity can be proved or improved by buying it.

    In a united tribe with a strong sense of its own identity, there is some harmony between the interests of male groups, and The Way of Men seems straightforward enough. In a complex, cosmopolitan, individualistic, disunited civilization with many thin, à la carte identities, The Way of Men is unclear. The ways touted by rich and powerful men are tossed with the ways of gurus and ideologues and jumbled with the macho trinkets of merchants in such a mess that it’s easy to see why some say masculinity can mean anything, everything, or nothing at all. Add to that the “improvements” suggested by women and The Way of Men becomes an unreadable map to a junkyard of ideals.

    To understand who men are, what they have in common and why men struggle to prove their worth to each other, reduce male groups to their nucleic form. Sprawling, complex civilizations made up of millions of people are relatively new to men. For most of their time on this planet, men have organized in small survival bands, set against a hostile environment, competing for women and resources with other bands of men. Understanding the way men react to each other demands an understanding of their most basic social unit. Understanding what men want from each other requires an understanding of what men have most often needed from each other, and a sense of how these needs have shaped masculine psychology.

    Relieved of moral pretense and stripped of folk costumes, the raw masculinity that all men know in their gut has to do with being good at being a man within a small, embattled gang of men struggling to survive.

    The Way of Men is the way of that gang. –Chapter 1, The Way of Men by Jack Donovan

    It doesn’t revolve around what women want. Or how they can put men to work.

  26. I want to deal with less unnecessary drama. Women cause more trouble than they are worth. Instead of helping solve problems they create more. My favorite is the lack of accountability for their actions.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: