Our Sisters’ Keeper

sister's_keeper

“Men are to blame for women’s behavior. The Feminine Imperative only has as much power as men have allowed it to have. Hypergamy (open or otherwise) wouldn’t be the unrestrained social juggernaut it’s become without men’s complicity or accomplice.”

This quote is a go-to rationalization I read a lot from women just coming to terms with their first taste of the Red Pill. Unfortunately it’s also become a common refrain among certain sets in the manosphere; this rationale is usually particular to the moral absolutist strains of the manosphere.

When I read it from women it’s kind of ironic considering it usually comes from women who share in the same moral absolutism, who were “so different when they were in college”, but they’ve had their Epiphany and “got right with God.” They often cling to the Strong Independent® identity for themselves, but turn over a rock and show them the visceral, observable, ugly truth of unfettered Hypergamy and then, then it’s men’s partial or total responsibility for fostering women’s conditions.

It becomes men’s fault for not having the fortitude and presence of mind to correct them when they needed it – never mind the lifetime of Blue Pill conditioning that taught them judging women made them misogynistic assholes. I understand axiom that men and women get the men and women they deserve, but I wanted to explore this blame game dynamic a bit more.

From Validation Hunting & The Jenny Bahn Epiphany:

The Feminine Imperative relies on memes and conventions which shift the ownership of women’s personal liabilities for their sexual strategy to men.

When men are blamed for the negative consequences of women’s sexual strategy it helps to blunt the painful truths that Jenny Bahn is (to her credit) honestly confronting in her article at 30 years old and the SMV balance shifts towards enabling men’s capacity to effect their own sexual strategy.

As I was writing the Adaptations series it occurred to me that men on the ends of both the Alpha and Beta spectrum adapt their own sexual strategies in accord with the sexual marketplace and how that environment dictates the approach to what seems the most efficient.

As I stated in the last post, Hypergamy is nothing if not pragmatic, and efficient. However, men’s adapting to the “market” dictates of Hypergamy has to be equally efficient if that guy is to fulfill his own sexual imperative. Pragmatism doesn’t have time for how things should be. You make the best play with what’s in front of you.

Just to illustrate, for about 25 years or so, popular culture strongly pointed men towards a sexual strategy that could be defined as Beta Game. Play nice, respect a woman by default, be supportive of her self-image and ambitions to the sacrifice of your own, don’t judge her and do your utmost to identify with the feminine, was the call to action that, deductively, should make a man more attractive to a woman.

Furthermore, the intrasexual combat amongst men for sexual qualification was (at least ostensibly) focused on out-supporting, out-sympathizing, out-emoting and out-identifying with the feminine more so than other men. To set oneself apart from “other guys” the seemingly most strategic tact was to accept what women said they wanted from men. To pragmatically effect this men gladly joined the chorus of ridiculing conventional masculinity; denouncing and resisting the very element that would in fact have set them apart from the nebulous “other guys“.

So while this is an illustration of men’s deductive pragmatism in their adapting to the SMP, it’s also an illustration of how that adaptation can work against men’s best interests. Between the 80s, 90s and into the early 2000s this adaptation involved men following women’s lead to systematically turn conventional, positive masculinity into ridiculous or gay-associations of “macho-ness”. Later, defining the very idea of masculinity would progress from ambiguousness to women being the sole authority of what masculinity should mean to a man.

Women and Moral Agency

For as long as I’ve read and commented on Christo-Manosphere blogs a common thread has cropped up again and again; the debate as to whether women have the same moral agency or the same accountability for it as men. I’ve always found it fascinating because for all my dealing in cold harsh observable facts I’ve never paused to consider that women might have some excusable reason for their ethically challenged behavior. In my own estimate Hypergamy isn’t inherently bad or good – it just depends on whether you find yourself on the sharp end of it.

My point here isn’t to reheat that debate, but rather to see how it feeds into the rationale that men are in some way responsible for what contemporary women have become, and how they’ll progress if men don’t assume some responsibility for women’s behaviors.

Hypergamy is pragmatic, but it’s also inherently duplicitous. It’s unjust and unforgivable to a guy who doesn’t measure up to his burden of performance. When you consider the War Brides dynamic it’s downright reprehensible, but we have to also consider the pragmatism in that dynamic. From a male perspective we want to apply masculine concepts of honor and justice to women’s action – and in the past there was a high price to pay for infractions of it – but are we presuming our concept of justice is one that’s universally common to that of women?

Much in the same way we were Blue Pill conditioned to presume that our idealistic concept of love was mutually shared by women I would propose that men’s concepts of justice, honor, and (from an intrasexual perspective) respect are dissimilar from those of women.

For women, whatever actions serve Hypergamy are justifiable actions.

All that needs to be sorted out is reconciling those action with the concept of justice held by men. In the intersexual arena, what best serves men’s imperatives is justice. Up until the sexual revolution the balance between the sexes’ concepts of justice was mitigated by mutual compromise – each had something to lose and something to gain by considering the other sex’s imperatives.

For roughly the past 70 years this balance between the two concepts has listed heavily to the feminine. Our age has been defined by women’s unilateral and ubiquitous control of Hypergamy, and as such it is women’s sexual imperatives that is biologically and sociologically setting the course for future generations.

Along with that unprecedented control comes the prioritizing of women’s concept of justice above that of men’s. We can see this evidenced in every law, social convention or social justice movement that entitles women to rights and privileges that free them of any accountability for the negative consequence their Hypergamously based behavior would hold them to in a concept of justice that men would have.

I would also argue that women’s inherent solipsism reinforces this separation of concepts of justice between the sexes.

Rivelino had a good take on this on Twitter:

1 The woman is always the victim

2 Nothing is her fault

3 She is not responsible for her actions

4 A man is to blame

To which I’ll add a 5th: Any fault is always a ‘strength’.

The problem I see in assigning the blame of women’s behavior to men’s lack of control is that, presently, men have no real control nor does men’s concept of justice align with that of women. There’s a manosphere idiom that says women are the gatekeepers of sex while men are the gatekeepers of commitment. I’m not sure I completely agree with that.

That’s not to be defeatist, or an endorsement of a MGTOW course of action, but it is to say that if a man has neither the sex appeal to be a short term sexual prospect nor the provisioning appeal to be a long term investment, women feel entirely justified in acting in the best interests of Hypergamy and controlling his capacity for commitment as well.

And yes, that’s pretty fucked up if you, again, find yourself on the sharp end of it. Men’s adapting to the intersexual conditions set by women isn’t some deterministic prospect, but the idea that the mass majority of men would be responsible for the state women find themselves in is ludicrous. There will always be men willing to accept the sexual dictates of women because it serves their breeding imperatives. It’s good for him personally and it’s good for the species.

There will never be some global Lysistrata where men organize in solidarity, promising not to fuck another woman until they comply with demands that would place the Masculine Imperative above that of the feminine’s. Our own biology guarantees it.

Personal Responsibility

On a final note here, whenever I delve into the ethical implications of Red Pill awareness I invariably run into the personal responsibility equation. I do my best to make as coldly rational an observation of dynamics I see and allow my readers to make their own judgements. However, those observation are never intended to excuse the behaviors men and women find themselves prone to acting out.

There is always a want on the part of either sex to see their concept of justice enacted on those who would act against it. Thus you get honor killing in the Muslim world, and you have men’s access to the DNA testing of children they suspect aren’t their own denied in the “best interest of the child.”

So are men to blame for the conditions they find their women in? Are we our sisters’ keepers, hamstrung by our own culpability to actually help them be better women? Or do they bear the responsibility to conform to our perspective of justice and police the worst impulses of a Hypergamy most are only peripherally aware of?

 

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

722 comments on “Our Sisters’ Keeper

  1. scribblerg – “Tell me, what is ‘artificial’ about the state?”

    Artificial only the sense it is entirely an intentional construct of man and not naturally organic like say a tree. I see the term as being superior to the merely organic. My view sums up this way: Only God can make a tree, it takes a man to design and execute an 18 hole PGA golf course.

    As for your correction: thanks, it is a necessary clarification.

  2. So when you use artificial as a pejorative, it’s due to a naturalistic fallacy, backed up by deistic divinty? Ya gonna stick with that?

    Without the state, we are still in the trees. It enables scale in societies that is not accomplishable via other means. It in fact is designed to override what most gibbering morons would “choose” in terms of governance. In its best forms it empower and respects and dignifies the individual in in amazing ways.

    It’s also cross cultural, occurring across 6 completely separate human civilizations, and emerging about 6000 years ago, as those societies moved from hunter gatherer to agrarian. There were interim structures, perhaps one of the most interesting was the Iroquois confederacy in which individuals were treated quite well. But the same thing can be said of places Genghis Khan conquered, as he often created, installed and maintained a more just order than before he came along. It’s not too much to say this was his aim, in fact. Ghengis is a hero of mine and is a completely misunderstood figure in history.

    Tribes were always groups of bands and some grew much bigger than the typical limit of 150 or so, but still it could never scale the way the state does. The other benefit of the state that seems completely missed by anarchists is consistency. The same laws, same currency, same communications network – scale baby, scale.

    And of course, economically, all human progress comes from he specialization which scale allows. So many sophists in the political hysteria cults demonize corporations but have no idea that the degree of specialization a corporation can support is directly related to its scale. Innovation is a direct consequence of specialization in many firms, particularly the kind of iterative, marginal improvements we see rolling out constantly. This is a direct consequence of the scale states provide.

    As for placing limits on the, there is no reason to believe that isn’t possible. But it’s also true that it will be abused – that’s what revolutions are for. We are about due for one, and for one am ready to rumble.

  3. @Sun:

    The geneticists now tell us that the advent of agriculture served as a turbo booster to human evolution.

    @Scribbler: “the same thing can be said of places Genghis Khan conquered, as he often created, installed and maintained a more just order than before he came along.”

    I think that’s where I came into this movie.

  4. scciblerg – “So when you use artificial as a pejorative, it’s due to a naturalistic fallacy, backed up by deistic divinty? Ya gonna stick with that?”

    I am going to assume my piss poor writing is at fault here.

    I believe the artificial (creation of man), is potentially superior to the natural (creation of God, the universe, or whatever) from the human point of view. The tendency to organize and create hierarchies is natural the results are the artificial, manufactured by intent of mind and labor.

    I agree the rest of your comment without reservation.

  5. States do not exist but by leveraging human impulses. The same genes motivating a man to kill for his tribe of 150 motivates him to kill for a nation of 150 million.

    States are not the just institutions arising from consenting individuals as natural law might have us believe, and States are not character-less sets of laws. States are breathing entities, the literal embodiments of the nations they serve.

  6. @kfg

    Yeah I’ve heard about that. Even heard that it was farming combined with the unusual ocean currents running by Europe that allowed for white people to even come in to existence. It was a place where heavy pigmentation wasn’t needed for protection from the sun, but weather was warm enough to farm. Really an interesting example of farming and its effect on human evolution.

    Apparently even the mere act of cooking meat instead of consuming it raw made it easier for humans to acquire nutrients, resulting in our larger brains vs. other animals. Fascinating stuff.

    @sjfrellc

    Problem from last time should be resolved (was a result of my not understanding how the new DNS provider’s tools worked), but just in case it isn’t the IP is 80.82.64.201.

  7. @Tempus

    Should I shoot a text being like “if i have to text u everytime for us hookin up, im eventually gonna drop u”

    or

    “no good dick for u unless u initiate!”

    Both of those are pretty awful ideas. You’re being overt through an ultimatum. Always a way to show your weak position in a relationship. If you want her to crave your time more, she has to value it more. Right now you’re giving it away. Supply and demand.

    16th law of power
    Use absence to increase respect and honor

    Sounds like she’s due for a little absence.

  8. The Feminine Imperative only has as much power as men have allowed it to have.

    Why would I want to stop women from spreading their legs when they are young and attractive? Heck, I’ve been enjoying it for the last 40 years and plan on enjoying it for the next 40 if at all possible. Nothing is better than opening a new one for business. They can blame whomever they want – no one is forcing them to spread their legs or getting nice and wet. I just enjoy them. And who cares if they are used up in 10 years? I’m pretty much done with them after they are out of their teenage years – when they are “open and ready for anything”. It is their choice – no one forces them to want to “experience life” – but I’ll be danged if I don’t enjoy them when they are at their hottest.

    All women like to think they are victims of men – let them. At least I enjoy them, when they are at their “freshest”… And really – isn’t that all that really matters?

  9. Rollo
    “Still it’s hard to say “it’s mostly their fault” because they were only following the most deductive, pragmatic path they believed would make them more desirable.”

    I think betas are 100% sure of their inability to compete with tingle men with or without what they were told by women/feminists.

    At a certain age the unattractive unsexy beta will come to the realization when he first spot the alpha man walking by him.
    I know, it is a terrible awakening.

    Even if women became “financially independent ” and don’t need the beta provisioning, the beta is still useful for foot massage “comfort”.

  10. You can’t make a ‘our sister’s keeper’ argument without advocating that women be reduced to the status of children, without the brains to do such things as vote, sign contracts, enter marriage, seek divorce, etc…

    Right or wrong, such a thing will never float in this current political climate, where women are the majority of the voters, especially if you add in the p worshipers. Such changes are brought about by force, or collapse… given the state of the world economy, the smart money is on collapse.

  11. WOW

    “If women were generally victorious in there imperative we would have to acknowledge it.”

    WTF? They have been and continue to be “victorious in there(sic) imperative”. Dealing with that “success” is about all we do here.

    “They are not, and both genders fail because of it.”

    WTF are you trying to say? Both genders fail because women aren’t victorious? Women aren’t failing, on the contrary have been very successful. Your attempt at cryptic wisdom is rather incoherent. Explain yourself.

    WOW = War on Women? Troll?

    “Women are more miserable than ever. They have more tools at their disposable to get what they wan but cant make it work. It is miserable bitches as far as they eye can see.”

    You’ve been asked politely to explain yourself and instead we have more gibberish from you.

    Hit the road.

  12. SunW :-“We find a surprise in seven Scandinavian hunter-gatherers from the Motala site in southern Sweden who lived around 7,700 years before present. While the western hunter-gatherers of central and southern Europe largely have the ancestral allele at the two major European skin pigmentation loci, the closely related Scandinavian hunter-gatherers have both the derived alleles contributing to light skin pigmentation at high frequency (Figure 2B). Thus, the derived allele of SLC24A5 was common in both the Scandinavian hunter-gatherers and Early European farmers, but not in the geographically intermediate western hunter-gatherers.”
    http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/03/13/016477.full-text.pdf+html

    At least one of them had red hair, some were blond. And were pale.
    Whereas the WHG (western hunter/gatherer) seem on current evidence only one or two from Spain, La Brana is the usual illustration, dark skin tone and hair, but blue eyes.
    http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3975-Surprising-Pale-pigmentation-in-Mesolithic-Motala-HGs&p=73259&viewfull=1#post73259

    So the idea is I think that the early farmers could exhibit pale skin like the SHG (scandinavian h/g) they encountered in the north, but not in the west where the natives were darker than them, and the whole interbred mess underwent some kind of intensifying selective sweep due to poor feeding and lack of dietary vit D subsequent to that (i.e. your duskier daughters will have rickets and die in childbirth or something. Also brought lactase persistence to near universality the further north one goes, for the same reason. I don’t know. Help! Is there a doctor in the house?), and then more paleness from loads of Yamnaya (basically Ukraine. Milk-swigging Men With Hats, and probably horses), themselves descended ultimately from yet more northern hunter/gatherer grouplets, incomers in the latest neolithic/early bronze, fixing pale skin in prehistoric European farmers. But the presence of the Gulf Stream and so on didn’t contribute, it would appear.

  13. One more thought!.
    There is identical similarity between betas with $$$(can’t make him tingle man)and HBitchs 5.7/5.6 /5.5/5.4/5.3 with a pussy(can’t make tingle man look at them)They both are in denial ,but, not when looking at themselves in front of, say,,a mirror?

  14. And yes, I still put the blame on betas for driving up the prices of Hypergamy,not that alphas care, they are getting it for free, it is the other betas who gets screwed.
    While betas fight among themselves to make more $$$ to get the HB10 ,the HB10 is fucking the alphas for free .

  15. @Scribblerg,

    “Sorry. It’s also completely unsustainable as a social order.”

    I’m speaking for Tillikum and might be wrong but I don’t think Tillikum concerns himself with ‘social order’ and that seems to be his point.

  16. You say a man’s smv peaks at 37. Yet when I go outside, I never see a young woman with a guy who’s more than 5 years older than herself. 20 year old girls on okcupid generally have an age range of 18-24.

    Sure, getting sex with same-aged peers probably does become easier over time. But what good does that do me if my same aged peers are 30-something whose sexuality disgusts me as much as mine used to disgust them?

    Seems to me that a man’s pussy getting days (if he even had any to begin with) are over by 30 tops. The only game that’ll work after that age is hooker game.

  17. “So are men to blame for the conditions they find their women in? Are we our sisters’ keepers, hamstrung by our own culpability to actually help them be better women? Or do they bear the responsibility to conform to our perspective of justice and police the worst impulses of a Hypergamy most are only peripherally aware of?”

    My answer is an affirmative NO to both, if both concern absolutes. Man certainly has influence but not total power and control over woman. Woman also influences man but can never exercise total control. “It takes 2 to tango”. There exists a pendulum of power balance.

    It is elementary self evident blatant fact that we are all formed, created, evolved separate; (however anyone wants to spin it) we all exist separately and this establishes separate responsibility. Although we are communal, we each think and experience independently and uniquely. This is the essence of freedom. Each is an autonomous separate individual with unique imagination and will; regardless of any individual acceptance of this fact. Each woman’s responsibility is each woman’s. Man can only be accountable for that level of responsibility if he has enough power over woman so that he could control her and therefore be held responsible. Man would simply exercise that power to prevent woman’s actions that produce negative results…….and we would not have this blog, there would be no need for “The Rational Male” or the debates that swing the pendulum. However each man is perhaps at least partially to blame for his dissatisfaction. However, the larger dynamic enables conquest and the rewards of conquest. We derive satisfaction and fulfillment from struggle and challenge. That which is too easy is boring.

  18. @Ron

    My ex was 18 and quite hot when we met. I was 34. The relationship lasted over a year. It’s probably easier to one night stand a chick that age with an age difference that big, and definitely easier if you meet them in person. I managed to get her through online dating before TRP. Only problem was that I wasn’t prepared to handle how things ended.

    Am I saying everyone should expect those kind of results regularly? Nah. But if you can find a place to consistently meet the age you want to fuck in person and apply what you learn here, you can absolutely get a shot with chicks in their early-mid 20s in your 30s for plates or ONS.

    Stop worrying about the shit and worry about just working on your Game and improving yourself. It’ll come with time.

  19. Oh, and reading a woman’s profile online then taking it seriously? Dude you’re totally listening to what she says. Don’t do that.

  20. @Ron
    Move. The US is a skewed market. And do not do online dating. You’ll be filtered out by the software/user defined age limits before you even get a chance to approach. Daygame in Eastern Europe if you’re white, Asia if you’re not.

  21. @ Diplomat – totally agree with you; Can’t wait to catch up on this thread over the weekend. Also an unusually high number of new commentors in this thread which is great.

    @ Ron – Firstly, there is no such thing as hooker Game; that’s an oxymoron. Also read…http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/11/the-mature-man/ and Amused Mastery post.
    Younger chicks will fuck 35-55 guys with tight Game; LTR’s maybe not so much but it’s not at all impossible.

  22. Hopefully Rollo covers in more detail why he disagrees with the balance of gatekeeping (Men are gatekeepers of commitment, women are gatekeepers of sex). Is Rollo referring to the current environment of the SMP or was this a general disagreement? The example provided in the post from what I read seemed to say that because most men are betas, this isn’t true any more. In a society where gender roles were somewhat defined, I could see that the expression of gatekeeping between the sexes being very true.

    1. @DarkUserName

      Hopefully Rollo covers in more detail why he disagrees with the balance of gatekeeping (Men are gatekeepers of commitment, women are gatekeepers of sex). Is Rollo referring to the current environment of the SMP or was this a general disagreement? The example provided in the post from what I read seemed to say that because most men are betas, this isn’t true any more. In a society where gender roles were somewhat defined, I could see that the expression of gatekeeping between the sexes being very true.

      Re: Women are gatekeepers to sex and men are gatekeepers to commitment.

      To paraphrase Roosh, I wish this was an absolute truth, but it’s not. Collectively women are the gatekeepers of both sex and commitment. Most guys can surely attest to their failed attempts to secure commitment from women they slept with, and if you polled the entire population of men, you’d probably find it’s men who are the initiators of monogamous relationships more often than women. It only makes sense because,from an evolutionary standpoint, it’s way more damaging for a man to be cuckolded than the other way around. The 0.5% of the population who are skilled players and have more say with commitment don’t put a dent into this common reality. As a sex, men largely have very little say in determining the relationship dynamic.

      Initially the only reason guys learn Game is because women signaled to us that they just want casual sex. We’re extracting easy sex from women who want easy sex. Rest assured you’re not one-night standing girls who want a baby in the next year. No girl is crying because you didn’t call back after a drunken romp in the hopes you would be her husband. These easy girls prefer the one-night stand and they prefer to be your fuck buddy. Women have placed their preferred options on the table and men are simply reacting in a way that gets them a piece of the pie before it’s all gone.

  23. “Hopefully Rollo covers in more detail why he disagrees with the balance of gatekeeping (Men are gatekeepers of commitment, women are gatekeepers of sex).”

    The “gatekeeper” is always the person who has the power, who needs it last. If a man wants commitment from a women, she is the gatekeeper. If the woman wants sex from the man, he is the gatekeeper.

  24. The real question is do beta men have agency in the face of desireable pussy? Sadly I think not and women know it.

    How can the one who loves ideally have more agency than the one who loves conditionally?

    Even MGTOW is effectively an admission of a lack of agency, they have to effectively separate themselves from women to gain a semblance of personal agency. Otherwise they simply cannot help themselves being suckers under the spell of pussy.

  25. @SignorFarfalla – Re: Social Order – Indeed, Tilikum seems to think it’s “Beta” to act collectively, which is just amusing and really only reveals how the entire alpha thing can be carried to ridiculous extremes which kind of reduces it to nonsense. Being a narcissistic dick is not required.

    In fact, true alphas are leaders of men and understand that order is necessary all too well. What, you gonna tell me say George Patton was a Beta, Tilikum? Isn’t it Alpha to leverage the work of others? What, do you think leadership can be established and maintained without some kind of social order? Get serious.

    Where I will agree is that taking on “Men’s Rights” or “Justice” as a POV makes you just another social justice warrior, playing the game on their terms, which we will never win. Political systems can be corrupted and sadly, democracies are very vulnerable to manipulation by political zealots. The social justice warrior set are the today’s Communists, Fascists, Nazis – totalitarian ideologies. As an aside, do you know what the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism is? Authoritarians just want you to obey them or at least just stay out of their way – they don’t care about you unless you are an obstacle to their “progress”. But totalitarians want to control what you think. Orwell captures this nicely in 1984 when in the end, the main characters find they really do “love” Big Brother.

    Whatevs, lots of silliness on this thread. Frankly, to me, the idea that it’s “men’s fault” is not even worth discussing. Yes, some tradcon/fundo Christians do see things this way, but that is only one of many imbecilic things such folks believe.

    The current social order provides men no ability to restrain female hypergamy, so women are running wild. To think any individual man can do a thing about this is absurd. It’s also true that the full realization of liberty for women was an inevitable consequence of classical liberal ideals. Either humans are sovereign and possess natural rights or they don’t. If women are humans, then everything else follows. Once they get the vote, in a democracy, it takes no time at all for pathetic politicians to grovel for their votes. Want Daddy Govt? Sure, coming right up. Tired of taking care of your elderly parents ladies? No prob, social security and medicare – boom, problem solved. Tired of putting up with your Beta hubby provider, boom, “Tender Years Doctrine” – default presumption to maternal custody with Daddy still paying the freight. Tired of putting up with men fighting back when you bash them? Boom, here comes “The Duluth Model” of domestic violence which tilts the law to assume male guilt, Politics is their strongest weapon actually.

    Anyone here actually interested in how female politics are at the core of our problems in today’s society, just do this experiment. Go ask any American woman if she knows what the term “republican spirit” means. I’ve tried, not a one has any idea what I’m talking about. It’s a simple idea connoting that one should place concern for the overall wellbeing of our nation above factional and personal desires. Our version of democracy requires individuals to rise above petty partisanship and log rolling – but women don’t even understand this. Our founders were obsessed with this idea and spoke of it often. American democracy also requires that its citizens actually understand liberty and individual sovereignty, but try and ask women about any of this and you will get truly infantile answers.

    20 years ago when I bought stamps, they would say things like “Liberty” etc. Today? The stamps I have on my desk? They have one word on them, “Justice”. The U.S. wasn’t formed to deliver social justice, it was formed to deliver individual liberty. But women don’t even understand these basic things. So, we’re fucked. Many men are just as stupid these days but of course, this is a result of women overtaking education.

  26. @Rollo – I haven’t even given Insanity a second thought since you banned her – hooray! But given your comment about her I went over to look and wow, just wow. A few observations:

    1. “Andy” – His commenting here is weird, but I saw he’s on Insanitybyte’s site fawning and prostrating himself to her. He’s an IB fan, ‘nuf said.

    2. Solipsism – IB simply cannot see beyond her POV. She refuses to and judges all of the RP from her biased lens about the nature of men and women that has no scientific basis. She’s just making it up as she goes along, it’s kind of amazing. She argues the ideas here which have a tremendous basis in evo psych, behavioralism and evolutionary biology in general, but offers no counterfactuals with citations to back up anything she says.

    3. Victimology – Her view of female sexual agency is so limited, it’s absurd. She claims that women’s sexual behavior today is a reflection of male sexuality, that women have this shoved on them by the tender age of 13 and are programmed to have a slutty sexuality that is a copy of male sexuality. I kid you not – she peddles this shit as though it has any validity or basis in reality. For her, it’s as though the world started in 1956 in some suburban Utopia where women were women and men were men. Lol, I mean it’s truly daft. Worse yet, she constantly refers to how she is attacked here, and OMG, has been called a cunt etc – and posits it without noting that she didn’t get that treatment here until she made clear her hostility to us. I didn’t go after her until I read several comments of hers denigrating men. Yes, then I did let her have it – you want equality honey, that’s what it looks like. Don’t clutch your fucking pearls or shame me – rather, stop acting like a cunt and I’ll stop calling you one.

    Last. Her psycho-pathology is quite interesting. Why is she obsessed with this topic? Why is she obsessed with what goes on here? Dalrock I get – she’s a Christian, Perhaps that’s the confusion – this is not a “Christo-Manosphere” blog. It’s a Red Pill blog that many Christian men read and comment on. What’s weirdest is her bizarre aggression and nonstop need to shame you Rollo and everyone here for these ideas. It’s as though they are a personal threat to her or something. Yikes, what a complete dingbat. But hey, I can see people are nominating her blog for awards – women only doing that of course. What a cesspool of cuntery dressed up as “Christianity”.

  27. @Johnny Come Lately: “Otherwise they simply cannot help themselves being suckers under the spell of pussy.”

    If you scrape away the incels wearing MGTOW as a disguise, I think you will find, in keeping with the subject of the article, that it is not the pussy they find a problem, but the White Knights.

  28. <em. 1. “Andy” – His commenting here is weird, but I saw he’s on Insanitybyte’s site fawning and prostrating himself to her. He’s an IB fan, ‘nuf said.

    I have no idea what you just wrote there.

    1. Oh, so you weren’t apologizing profusely on IBs blog about being critical of her a post or two back? Lol, must be a different ‘Andy’ – wait, that’s not possible in WordPress…

  29. China has so many feminine women? What on earth are you going on about? The SMP is always relative, as all marketplaces are.

    Yeah, that’s my point. Its easy to lose the context in conversations like this. What I’m trying to say is that I think the best way to combat hypergamy (on a macro level at least) is to change the market. I personally don’t believe that warning your sister or daughter is going to change anything. She’s going to “Love” that beta at first.

    If we embrace open hypergamy then more beta’s are going to take the red pill. They’ll alpha up, withhold commitment and spin plates. The quality of remaining Beta’s diminishes changing the market. My theory is that this new market would force earlier epiphanies.

    I think embracing open hypergamy also works on another level. Like rule #5… Any weakness is a strength. I believe the epiphany (at least partly) is a reconciliation of the cognitive dissonance between the true morality and rationalizations of their actions. Let them flaunt it! It will force the epiphany.

  30. Oh, so you weren’t apologizing profusely on IBs blog about being critical of her a post or two back?

    Yeah, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about. Believe what you want.

  31. Wasn’t it the ugly unattractive women who were the first feminists “pioneers” who wanted to share the tingle / resources of the alphas ?
    Wasn’t it the early betas who supported the ugly feminists against the alphas as well?

    Both of them had a hidden/ conflicting agendas .
    The beta’s agenda was to have access to HB10.
    The ugly feminists agenda was to have access to the alpha men not the betas who supported them.
    Ironic?

  32. The beta’s agenda was to have access to HB10.
    The ugly feminists agenda was to have access to the alpha men not the betas who supported them.

    I think those beta’s are operating under the assumption of unrequited love or whatever. “If they could only see me for who I really am they’ll love me.” My theory is that open hypergamy will confront that belief. At least for men.

  33. You say a man’s smv peaks at 37. Yet when I go outside, I never see a young woman with a guy who’s more than 5 years older than herself. 20 year old girls on okcupid generally have an age range of 18-24.

    Sure, getting sex with same-aged peers probably does become easier over time. But what good does that do me if my same aged peers are 30-something whose sexuality disgusts me as much as mine used to disgust them?

    Seems to me that a man’s pussy getting days (if he even had any to begin with) are over by 30 tops. The only game that’ll work after that age is hooker game.

    There’s plenty of it going on, but it generally will never happen through online dating/tinder, because you will just get screened. You have to meet them in person. Also, my sense is that at least some portion of this is more clandestine in that it isn’t LTR/introduce to the friends type stuff, but simply sex/plates type stuff. Quite a few women are down with having sex with guys who are older like that even though they would never be in an LTR with them for various reasons. There are some who will do both.

    Don’t worry about hooker game. All you need to do is get better at your age, and then look for women lower in age than you are, and do not try to meet women online.

  34. “Wasn’t it the early betas who supported the ugly feminists against the alphas as well?”

    I think it was less the betas at the time than a certain strain of parasitic Alpha that saw the ability to accrue either money, or power from women’s liberation.

    I listen to a lot of BBC radio and one recurring theme is that the world, needs more women in the work force regardless of the economic realities of supply and demand in the labor markets. It’s a perverse form of supply side theory that seems to believe increasing the labor supply will magically increase the demand for labor. One crackpot from the London School of Economics was advocating for excusing women from paying taxes as a way to increase both labor supply and to mitigate the aggregate wage gap.

    The men that pushed for and advocated feminism in the political realm, legislators, donors, bureaucrats, not activists, I believe did so to gain power/money and gain the ability to more effectively push a Frankfurt School agenda (either literal or inspired by) which would put them a position to gain even more power and money. When women are removed from the home family as a social institution is weakened. Women as labor first and wives/mothers second has been disastrous for civil society, community cohesion, and durability of the family. The grassroots social safety net is weakened when community is replaced with career. This leaves only the state to fill the those roles and the state, without local competition, gets to define the “common good.” Ultimately the “common good” becomes defined by the health Wall Street*, or reach of government, and Wall Street and government are run by men not women.

    * note I use Wall street as a proxy for the financial power of the political donor class: rent seekers.

  35. I saw that this post was tagged with Estrus material.

    I just wonder if Estrus, SMV peak and women’s wild times are all related.
    One would say that the peak peak of a woman’s SMV is one year either side of 23. So that’s 3×12 or 36 peak days which a woman is biologically predisposed to seek males.

    Would it be reasonable for this 36 number to relate to the number of “big mistakes” in a girls past?

    Would it be reasonable to think that any activity that makes an impression during this time of a woman’s life impacts her deeply? Alpha Widow?

    Oh and another thought I recently fell on the outs with a 22 year old. Normal blah blah nice knowing you stuff. Until I brought up that time might be her enemy on all she wants to do in life.
    I told her that she had only a few years of peak time to lock down her career and get ready for a mate. (she wanted children badly)

    Holy Hell did that unleash the anger. I mean it’s like I gave her the biggest insult of all time. I don’t know why I touched a nerve on the age thing. No woman wants to be told her best years are behind. But I would have expected a 22 year old with plenty of time to not go crazy about it.
    Any ideas?

  36. If we embrace open hypergamy then more beta’s are going to take the red pill. They’ll alpha up, withhold commitment and spin plates. The quality of remaining Beta’s diminishes changing the market. My theory is that this new market would force earlier epiphanies.

    I’m skeptical of this because the same type of pressures are currently being exerted in the market for different reasons. Namely the rise of “Peter Pan” “man-boys”, bromancers, Guyland and so on. These guys are not alphas, they are betas and they are already really diminishing in quality. Women are complaining about it, but they aren’t having earlier epiphanies or stepping off the carousel, but rather staying on it longer.

    You see, the issue, I think, is that women for the most part really do not think forward in a rational way. There are some who do, a relatively small number (and they tend to be disproportionately successful in life due to their uncharacteristic penchant for future time orientation in their thinking). Women when they have every single male eyeball in the world on them are not thinking about men from a perspective of scarcity, whether those eyeballs are alpha or beta (and it’s generally both). They tend to only notice scarcity if and when the eyeball ratio drops (that is, the ratio of total male eyeballs in a given setting to the number of such eyeballs who are on her body in such setting). It’s that sense of decline which drives the epiphany, and I don’t see that changing by more men becoming red pill.

    The red pill guys are still going to be giving the attractive ones their visual due (and more), which provides precisely the type of validation that encourages women to put off going to Plan B, or even thinking about Plan B, any earlier than the eye ratio dropoff suggests. Again, even today, women are kind of aware that the quality of betas is decreasing as noted above — but as long as they are getting the validation they want from the men they want, they aren’t caring that much about it. Once the eyeball ratio falls off, then they get angry and write articles in The Atlantic about how the men available for Plan B suck and so on, but they don’t generally change how they are acting at 25 based on any future time concept of what their options will be at 30 unless they are in the small minority of women who is naturally future-time-oriented to begin with. We see the exact same behavior among otherwise highly intelligent women who are shocked when they can’t get pregnant easily at 38, having put off pregnancy to the last possible minute. A woman with future time orientation would have dug into that issue in detail earlier in life and planned accordingly (including deciding early on, perhaps, to forego children in lieu of money/career/sex/alpha), but the typical women, even a typical smart woman, does not think that way, and ends up being “blindsided”, even when the reality is hiding in plain sight, so to speak.

    So, no, I’m skeptical that a substantial decrease in the quality of betas will have much impact on when the epiphany happens. The quality of Plan B is already decreasing rapidly, and it isn’t moving epiphanies up. I think that this is because the epiphany is independent of that, and based instead on the eyeball ratio, and when she begins to notice a significant shift in that metric (and they *all* notice when it begins to shift).

  37. Holy Hell did that unleash the anger. I mean it’s like I gave her the biggest insult of all time. I don’t know why I touched a nerve on the age thing. No woman wants to be told her best years are behind. But I would have expected a 22 year old with plenty of time to not go crazy about it.
    Any ideas?

    Obvious — they don’t like the message. They’ve been told that they can have it all (even if it happens “sequentially” rather than at the same time), and so that is what they want. They do not want to be told that they have to make choices and compromises in life. In part this is penis envy as well (i.e., they are pissed that they don’t see men having to make similar compromises, which is true in a sense because we do not get pregnant, but of course they fail to see the other challenges involved with the male side of the ledger for the reasons Rollo points out all too well). But really, it’s just that women don’t like being told that they can’t have it all and have it turn out well, in most cases. There are a few who get lucky and pull that off, but it isn’t a reliable life plan. They don’t like that, because they want to have it all, especially when they are at the peak of SMV at 22 and are in no mood to start taking things off the table.

  38. Will these comment sections ever be re-formatted to have threads with replies below them (like at the Chateau)?

    It gets difficult trying to read through several different threads within one comment section…

  39. Here is a statement that would make me lots of enemies.
    I think the feminists/betas enabled revolution was about unattractive people revolting.
    The alliance of the unattractive people is crumbling down on them.
    What started 80 years ago was not a sincere alliance.

  40. @ Ron

    I have no game whatsoever and my 20s were a disappointing and confusing nightmare of confusion, humiliation, and beta serfdom. Things got significantly better in my early 30s without me even knowing what I was doing and without much change in my financial or professional situation.

    I was 31 or 32 when I met my ex in my pre red pill days. She was 20 and easily the hottest girl I’d ever been with. I blew it of course and fell all over myself to supplicate and pander to her. I made all the predictable and classic mistakes that deeply indoctrinated blue pill men make and got cheated on, but the point here is simply that I could never have gotten a girl like that in my early 20s, and I certainly tried.

    I get far better reactions from girls now that I’m in my 30s and I was doing so consistently even before the red pill when I had no clue what the hell I was doing.

  41. I think that this is because the epiphany is independent of that, and based instead on the eyeball ratio, and when she begins to notice a significant shift in that metric (and they *all* notice when it begins to shift.

    Good point. Maybe we can agree that forcing earlier epiphanies is a good goal, and that we should figure out how to accomplish that.

  42. Good point. Maybe we can agree that forcing earlier epiphanies is a good goal, and that we should figure out how to accomplish that.

    As a goal, I agree completely. Hard to know how to do that, though, and worth some further thought.

  43. Forcing earlier epiphanies:

    A long war idea.

    First force the epiphany on men that no woman over 29 is worth anything but a fuck or three. Make it a bumper sticker:

    Never trust a woman over 30

    Make the focus one of changing the tastes of young men to see all over 30 woman as junk bond investments, or like penny stocks, not as long term investments.

  44. @Rollo

    “I would also argue that women’s inherent solipsism reinforces this separation of concepts of justice between the sexes.

    Rivelino had a good take on this on Twitter:

    1 The woman is always the victim

    2 Nothing is her fault

    3 She is not responsible for her actions

    4 A man is to blame

    To which I’ll add a 5th: Any fault is always a ‘strength’.”

    -There is a point, where even the most BP amongst us can no longer deny the double standard?

    As a result of personal experience and introspection an awakening happens on an individual level first. Never the collective.

    Who’s fault?

    Evolution isn’t anyones fault. . . . It’s like blaming the weather on someone. . . . wait a minute. . . . Lol (Are climate change and the FI analogous? Hmm. . . . ) Induction?

    State of the SMP?

    Is it not a reciprocating effect between gender dynamics, gender imperatives and contingency adaptations?

    Fostered by socio-political environments and underpinning philosophies or value systems in which government agency concretely reinforces.

    ‘Post-modernism’ and the tearing down of Enlightenment or Reasoned and Rational thought, is the main driving force that is responsible for todays landscape. A blatant intent to depart from the past. Po-Mo is many things but it is manifestly a general distrust of tradition. IMO

    Where the FI and open hypergamy and all it’s derivatives are becoming more and more obvious?

    With the nuclear family on the decline, especially if you consider how main stream media bias portrays traditional roles.

    Women in a social context are more or less becoming or behaving like hyenas, lions and baboons. Where Alpha is valued and Beta is marginalized. . . . A return to the the primitive.

    “RELATIVISM – the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.”

    Great read, always provocative! Your essays’ enlighten and crystalize.

  45. First force the epiphany on men that no woman over 29 is worth anything but a fuck or three. Make it a bumper sticker:

    Yeah, but that kind of goes along with my previous theory of changing the market. Novaseeker is right. When the plan B guys suck women just decide not to get married and you end up like Japan.

    So, we don’t want to be Japan. Hmmm. Maybe we just need to convince them that Family > Career. Which I think is true for 95% of women. Which means you do talk to your sister and daughter, ANNNND I’ve gone full circle.

  46. @ NovaSeeker

    “‘Good point. Maybe we can agree that forcing earlier epiphanies is a good goal, and that we should figure out how to accomplish that.’

    As a goal, I agree completely. Hard to know how to do that, though, and worth some further thought.”

    Heh, if you guys can actually figure this out and make it happen on a large scale, the misogynists and pickup artist cretins of the manosphere will have basically saved western civilization.

  47. @ Andy

    I’m not suggesting we encourage men to go herbivore, just not commit to spent broads who by virtue of past performance are high risk for committed LTRs. By all means fucking, plating, friending post 30 women is fine and should be encouraged. Just don’t make them beneficiaries of man’s commitment.

  48. I’m not suggesting we encourage men to go herbivore, just not commit to spent broads who by virtue of past performance are high risk for committed LTRs

    That also means actually committing to the sweet feminine virginal ones. We know that a woman’s fantasy is seducing the Alpha into commitment. So, some of it is on us men. Maybe the problem is that they just don’t have to tools to seduce the alpha because being feminine has become so taboo for a “modern woman.”

    Convince them that family > career, and give them the tools to seduce the alpha.

  49. Family>career lol.

    Tell a single mother that her and her kid are not a family. Let me know how that goes for ya.

    Most women I meet, regardless of age, are not even wanting commitment. The exception might be the 25-30 crowd. Monogamy? Usually at some point they all want that. (On his end anyway)

    Families no longer require a husband.

    Being a wife > career.

  50. @ Andy

    It’s not about the Alpha’s they don’t have these problems and generally don’t give much of shit to begin with. It’s about making participation in the larger society worth the effort of the betas. You know the other 80%? If you don’t focus on the betas then the civilization either degrades, or some one comes along with a plan that secures a vision of respect and dignity for the common man that will likely, as a side effect, have a very high body count associated with it if history is any guide.

  51. Men are the gatekeepers to progress. Women and beta men are the support structure for those men.

    When that support structure is undermined, society declines.

    Empowering women has undermined that system.

    You don’t let the kids in the orphanage dictate how to run the place. You don’t ask a dog its opinion on how to run the kennel. You don’t let your own children decide what’s for supper.

  52. Being a wife > career.

    We’re fucked. lol.

    But seriously. You’re right. Convincing them that dad’s are necessary is part of it.

    If you don’t focus on the betas then the civilization either degrades, or some one comes along with a plan that secures a vision of respect and dignity for the common man

    Yeah, I believe forcing the red pill down society’s throat has to be done. I still think that using mainstream Open Hypergamy as a trap could be beneficial in some way.

  53. From Precentative Medicine – Redevelopment / Reinsurance

    “Women in this phase may be concerned for the futures of their daughters – and sons who may come into contact with women following the same hypergamic paradigm she used on their father(s) – but the concern is voiced for society and women as a whole. Rarely is this social concern an admission or testament of her own regret, but rather it’s something she must address to reconcile the parts of her past, the undeniable results of her hypergamy, that she can’t escape.”

    I agree with this assessment concerning only the strategic dynamics involved. But not motive. The motive is purely selfish and intentionally misleading. Women fake the intent to “reconcile”. They have absolutely no intention to actually reconcile. Their strategy is to fake reconciliation in order to fool men into thinking they would actually reconcile in order to scam men into providing financial and or emotional security. It is just another scam. This “reconciliation” is used just like “I’m not like I was in college”. She now has almost no sexual agency at this stage and relies almost exclusively on a “Now I REALLY understand what I did wrong” false act. She feigns concern for other women and men, the community in order to scam whatever men may buy her shit. She is the “White Queen” come to rescue humanity from the damage she causes. Her fake “reconciliation” is just another olive branch of implied reciprocation. Real reconciliation or reciprocation will never occur. She is incapable of it as established by all her past behavior. What else should men expect after a lifetime of duplicitous chicanery.

    1. @NBTM,

      The motive is purely selfish and intentionally misleading. Women fake the intent to “reconcile”. They have absolutely no intention to actually reconcile. Their strategy is to fake reconciliation in order to fool men into thinking they would actually reconcile in order to scam men into providing financial and or emotional security.

      Absolutely. Cross reference that with what I wrote in the Epiphany Phase post and you’ll get the picture, but, yeah.

  54. Too many men, too many modern comforts, too much excess. Not enough adversity. Too much competition for men, not enough for women.

    Just like any other market bubble or abnormality, there will be a correction.

    What will it look like is the question. Japan comes to mind, so does Greece.

  55. When the 1% are men, there is a general understanding that the 99% has to be treated just well enough to keep them “happy”and compliant.

    Kings of the past that got beheaded by the masses revolting can vouch for the hazards of disobeying that law. Plenty of modern examples too.

    I do not think that women or the average beta male is smart enough or shrewd enough to properly manage the masses. Chaos ensues.

  56. You can’t convince women that a husband is necessary, when in the short term THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY.

    In a 100% pragmatic view, the way things are right now, a husband is NOT NEEDED.

    Since there is public transportation where I live, I don’t need the Mercedes in my driveway either, know what I mean?

  57. @ScribblerG

    “The more I think about it, the more I believe we are becoming a matriarchy, folks. This is an ineluctable consequence of women not needing us for daily survival and them having the power of sexual selection. Most people don’t seem to know that western civilization only stopped having mass famines 150 years ago – the kind of prosperity and security open to a woman without a man as a provider/protector is simply unprecedented. Why would women not change their sexual behavior as a result? Why would they spend a life with one man? And of course, a matriarchy would feature open hypergamy just as harems suited alpha men in traditional societies.

    “We are in the midst of that transition, so our social order is a mess. The only thing that could change this to my thinking is a big change in the ecology where individual women need individual men to provide and protect again – but if that happened, it would mean that our society has collapsed so it would be at best a mixed blessing for men….”

    Yes, just so. It’s actually fascinating to watch how it’s creeping up the class ladder. I’ve grown up kinda upper class so lots of people around me still take monogamy seriously, and stay in it even if it’s not making them happy because they would take such a hit in status if they divorced. My brother is engaged and he and his fiancee are both hardcore monogamists, and I suspect will remain so.

    A have a friend who grew up more above-average middle class. Her parents stay together in a miserable marriage again because of the status hit they would take to divorce. But she, and those around her, are covertly engaging in more of a serial monogamist model, with some variation depending on personal discipline and religious conviction.

    Lower-middle class already tends to be open about it in my generation, while their parents often pursue a more or less covert serial monogamy model – though there’s a lot of variation there depending on cultural and religious background, some blue-collar workers are very religious and take their vows seriously so far as I can tell.

    Anyways, haven’t read all the comments yet. Wish me luck gents, I’m gonna have to be really fucking anti-fragile today. Found out the old one-itis has been stewing a relationship with the office manager like a total dumbass and I’m not gonna let her blow up the place with drama. Shots have already been fired. Dunno how this is going to shake out, I can only try to come out on top I guess.

  58. What I wanted to add is that individually it is mot necessarily each man’s fault for the state of society, but collectively, it is.

    Looking at this as a question of who’s fault it is is an error. What is going on is a conjunction of biology and various ideologies, including chivalry, feminism, and socialism. The ideological actors have been actively instigating change to benefit women.

  59. @Andy – Your “theory” is that enough Betas can Alpha up as an adaptive response to open hypergamy and because of the larger supply of alphas more men will get laid. And because there will be fewer Betas, women will have earlier epiphanies?

    As RazorBladeKandy says, “What, what?” I’ll try to make my two points clearly.

    1. Online studies of female preferences show they always cluster to the top 20% of men in interest, regardless off the distribution of quality. Tinder, OkCupid, even the SugarDaddy sites. What I think you are missing is how important relative standing is to women – they don’t want the hottest guy, they want a hotter guy than their social circle to lord over them as a victory. You are social proof of their value. They just want the top guys, no matter who they are. Sure, there are some thresholds and yes, if all men were hideously deformed maybe women wouldn’t be attracted to them but we are talking reality here. For men it’s a hotness contest in terms of arousal – for women it’s about assuring her you are of high enough value for her perceived value. This is why you can blow it so easily when a woman is initially attracted to but gets turned off by something you say or do that demonstrates low value, and it’s also why a 53 yr old horn dog can bang some young hotties.

    You do realize that men don’t cluster in this same way, with all of us overshooting, yes? I think you are projecting how interest and arousal arises in your self to woman, and it just ain’t so.

    2. Epiphanies come because their SMV drops due to biology as the utility of being pretty for a woman diminishes greatly as she approaches the end of her fertility, wrt evolution and genetics. In fact, it’s not too strong to say that nature doesn’t give a shit whether older women survive after fertility – have you watched a woman go through menopause? It’s like watching a women’s body go haywire and attack itself. How does what you are talking about change the biology at work there? For men, we don’t fall apart till maybe our 70s and can be fertile up till then. Remember, our “bodies/selves” are merely carriers for our genes. Our behavior serves propagating our genes, not our selves.

    So you’re saying that a woman is going to give up getting the best genes she can earlier in exchange for Beta provisioning cuz there are less Betas available when she hits the epiphany? Based on what theory or evidence? Cite some, please.

    As for attributing your comment to the comment on IBs blog, I understand my error now. There is guy with a WordPress account named “Andy” but you aren’t posting from a wordpress account, you are just doing so from email. You can see why I would think you two were the same – sorry for the error.

  60. Cave Clown – “I do not think that women or the average beta male is smart enough or shrewd enough to properly manage the masses. Chaos ensues.”

    Certainly true. Like you allude to properly lead betas are a tremendous benefit to the Alpha leader. But the Alpha has to be a leader of men, not a mere slayer of poon. The break point for this society is the divergence of the two ways to define what is an Alpha male. I know several guys who are great leaders of men but terrible with women, and others who are demi-gods with the ladies and are otherwise capable of less than fuck all.

    One of the best men I’ve ever worked for had the knack for both, lovely wife, and a leader who could motivate almost anyone to do and be better at work. His great talent was in convincing his employees he cared about them as people. Whether he did or not is irrelevant, but he reciprocated loyalty with loyalty. He might be the only person who understood that the proper treatment of his employees was actually good for the company’s bottom line, good for his customers, and good for his own bonuses and career track.

  61. There will always be a top 20%, regardless of how well the other 80% are doing. Stop dreaming of equality.

  62. Badpainter,

    I would say that it’s the state that is in charge, not any individual person(s)

    Who controls the state? I would argue it is women.

  63. Caveclown,

    Women are like the electors of the Holy Roman Empire. The get to validate nominees, and get to elect the office holders, but the don’t get to select the candidates. Those are selected by the powers that be. The powers behind the scenes, the campaign donors, media and party hacks. So yes women have great influence, but their power is limited to choosing from amongst the options presented to them.

    The state is in charge. However, that authority has limits and the people (men) will tolerate huge amounts of BS without rebelling, but there is a limit. Where the limit is here and now is unknown. When that limit is reached likely everyone will be surprised, much like in Romania in 1989, or Massachusetts in 1775.

  64. “I still have to bring condoms?”

    Because of any or all three:

    1. Dick Rot

    2. you know better than toplace blind trust in a woman to actually use birth control as prescribed.

    3. Misandry

  65. Fair warning: I’ve taken Insanity and MYG off the blacklist. If she insists on spamming the same messaging ad infinitum again she’ll go back on. Just thought our new commenters might like to take a stab at her.

  66. @forge – Great stuff. It’s interesting how divorce breaks down by class. Upper class types were headed in the same direction as the rest of society in the ’70s wrt divorce but it reverted back to almost pre-1960s levels during the ’80s/90s. Since this a female phenomena I think we can safely assume it’s simply about status. If you’ve managed to snag a high social status male, you are unlikely to improve your lot because you are already at the top and women leave less. I also think if you analyzed it (don’t know how we would) you’d find that there are more alphas in the upper class as that’s how they got the high status to begin with.

    I think it would be a mistake to confuse this with monogamy though. Women’s infidelity is increasing across the board, it’s just that in the upper class they’ve got the brass ring already so why divorce? Whereas in working and middle class women don’t take too much of a social status hit after divorce and then have all that upside potential to marry a higher status guy.

    But I do have a bone to pick with you:
    “Wish me luck gents, I’m gonna have to be really fucking anti-fragile today. Found out the old one-itis has been stewing a relationship with the office manager like a total dumbass and I’m not gonna let her blow up the place with drama. Shots have already been fired. Dunno how this is going to shake out, I can only try to come out on top I guess.”

    Dude, this may be a terminal case of oneitis. Why on earth are you involved in preventing her from blowing the place up with drama? That sounds like bullshit to me – are you a supervisor? And if you are, due to your previous relationship you should stay as far away from any issues having to do with her sexual behavior at work. Why are you invested? How does this help you? How does this demonstrate your value? Why can’t you get the message – she’s fucking another guy at your workplace, she’s not into you. Period. I think you have happy ears and latched onto when I told you that you probably could fuck her if you wanted to work hard enough to do so but what I didn’t say is that it’s unlikely worth the hassle. You also need to completely detach from her first and surely this is the opposite of detachment

    What would be a good move is if you started fucking someone at work. But your obsession with her is the exact opposite. What, do you need more pain?

    Have you fucked another woman yet? I’m telling you, it’s the only cure for OneItis. And leave this shit alone. I’m also starting to get a really bad vibe about this chick as she seems to be the office bicycle and likes drama – is that really what you want in your life? Fyi, I’ve fucked many women at work with zero drama and nobody knowing about it besides us. But I don’t fuck psychos at work, I steer clear of them. She’s sounding more and more like a psycho.

    Last. Anti-fragile means that you would be better off after all this drama today due to its effect on you. I’m certain that is not the case. Read Taleb’s book, it will change your life, I promise, but it’s complex and quite subtle.

  67. A bit OT, but some interesting entertainment messaging that touches on female agency and how men are portrayed as both facilitators and fixers within the female hero’s journey. A summer date-night movie: “Trainwreck”

    Apparently the feminist reviewer is panty-twisted because the film fails (in her eyes) to illustrate promiscuity (and lotsa other bad behavior that “men get away with”) as the liberating and empowering choices they really are.

    She’s also disappointed that the movie occasionally treads too closely to reality – a reality she denies of course. The protagonist is a sex zombie, a boozer, and all-around horrible person. “But her character in Trainwreck is at times so badly behaved — toward a man she supposedly loves — that it’s hard to be on her side.”

    How can all of that sexual enlightenment and self-indulgence possibly turn a woman into a miserable, selfish, abusive, and shallow human being?

    I’ve added some Feminist talking points followed by the reviewers crestfallen drivel:

    – Men get to do it, so should we! (credit her for the caveat – how enlightened!)
    “We think we’re getting a movie where a woman gets to enjoy the company of lots of partners, without remorse or shame, the sort of freedom men — some of them, at least — have enjoyed for centuries.”

    -Its none of your business (men) why a woman sleeps with a man, but there is always a reason, and that reason should make her look good. Plus: Tingles! We need to see her tingle.
    “But the trouble signs show up early: We have no idea why Amy is attracted to one guy or another, even just for a night.”

    -No-Strings Sex is the bomb! Grrr, why didn’t the movie show this?
    “Before she meets Aaron, she doesn’t even seem to enjoy the sex we see her having — we’re simply supposed to assume she does because there’s lots of it….”

    – You go girl! Strong Independent Womyn, don’t get all “emotional” or attached.
    “She tackles her sex life with grim determination, and her lack of engagement — emotional or sexual — exposes a sneaky and unpleasant thread of conservatism* in Trainwreck”

    – Sex is its own ends. Monogamy is not the ideal, it is *Conservative and “Unpleasant”. Love has nothing to do with good sex. AKA Saving the Best.
    “The movie wants us to buy the idea that sex really is best with your One True Love, and anything outside that is just a cheap substitute.”

    Or conversely, to her point: sex, after so much “free sex”, with your One True Love is unlikely to be your best (so don’t settle, monogamy is not good for sex). But of course lotsa cox has nothing to do with sexual satisfaction later on in a relationship.

    – Divorced parents shouldn’t be instructive to how a woman views her own relationships. Lots of children of divorce do just fine. Marriage is not the ideal (unless she decides it is, post epiphany, then man-up)
    “Amy is determinedly uncommitted and noncommittal; her parents’ marital breakup, years before, led her to doubt whether monogamy is even possible.”

    – Hyperinflation of SMV (check); Eschewing pesky “relationship” men (even if they are +3SMV) in favor of freedom (check); Relationship men are boring (check); Sex with hawt men you don’t even like is better than relationship sex or no sex (check); Muscle-bound men are dumb (check). Men are the romantics (Truth).
    “She favors one-night stands, and has lots of them, though there is one monosyllabic, musclebound dude (John Cena) she sees more frequently than the rest — somehow he believes they’re exclusive and is crestfallen to discover his mistake.”

    – Anti monogamy, Anti-relationship, Anti-family.
    “Schumer’s vision has been wrestled into the template that nearly all of his [Judd Aptow] movies, even the best ones, follow: one in which the comforts of conventional partnerships and family life are what we should all aspire to, even though we may pretend to be interested in tawdry things like casual sex and excessive partying….And in the end, it’s supposed to be a triumph that Amy is won over to the wonders of monogamy. ”

    -Anti-Slut-shaming, celebration of “alternative” lifestyles, don’t oppress me with your morality.
    “A retreat into the safety of couplehood is the only possible future it can imagine, the necessary corrective to sleeping around. In its too-tidy universe, good girls don’t. And bad girls probably shouldn’t, either. ”

    The feminist reviewer is disappointed because the film is not feminist enough. See, despite the message that the protagonist’s miserable behavior, poor choices, devaluing of her sexuality to nothing more than habitual rutting (not even her own base physical enjoyment), her treatment of men as commoditized sex-toys and entertainment devices, and obvious self-loathing does not impede her ability to have options, to have men much more attractive than her at her disposal, or impair her value as a GF or wife for a high value man who is always at the ready, the film still fails because monogamy with a high value man should not be the Prize.

    Its just not feminist enough that a drunken slut gets the surgeon in the end. That’s so Traditional. So if we are to believe this film, we are to believe that men will both facilitate the mindless sexual buffet women indulge in – which by the way should not be a “bad” thing with “bad” outcomes because: equality, but will also gladly step in front of a painfully obvious Trainwreck for a relationship. To save her from herself. Which according to the reviewer is a sell-out to an outdated kind of oppressive normalcy that just isn’t progressive enough.

    I take this to mean men should not seek out relationships with women, but should avoid any kind of emotional commitment or provisioning, in order to allow women to continue their magical experience of personal expression and exploration toward an enlightenment of progressive accordance. Cool.

    http://www.villagevoice.com/film/the-taming-of-amy-schumer-trainwreck-has-laughs-but-at-what-cost-7353708

  68. Plan on re-reading this (as always) but what I appreciate the most Rollo is the tone of how you deal with this. No moral outrage, no moral covering fire, just how it is, good and bad etc etc

    For me, women are without moral agency and what I have read of the ancients, thats been the typical opinion of men world wide… or at least the parts of the world that advanced far enough to leave artifacts, writings etc behind

    1. @SFC, so if women are without moral agency is it men’s responsibility to correct their Hypergamous conduct and enforce a male-primary concept of justice on them?

      As it stands right now, female critics of our present intersexual environment blame men for their complicity in it (not restraining them) while simultaneously raging at men for not accommodating their Hypergamous conduct (repressing their sexual strategy).

      As a policy I try to remain as amoral in my observations as possible, but in this instance the intersexual dynamic is a moral appeal on the part of women to men’s accountability for their own behavior.

      1. Bare with me Rollo as I am no word smith.

        Yes in sane times and in a sane society it is a man’s responsibility. I am old school of the old school variety and believe the proper place of women (and kids and what are women but the oldest teenager in the house?) is as property. Property of their father’s ( or nearest blood kin) or of their husbands(or his nearest blood kin if he should pass).

        I do not believe in liberty or equality etc for women( or others as experiments in these various progressive notions have utterly failed).

        women always want fried ice so yes they blame men for not restraining them and rage against men for not accommodating. Nothing new under the sun. This feeds into my women should be property etc (as does most of what I have read written by ancient men the world over, though as you know I am only a superficial scholar at best)

        As for the now? Well no I do not think it is a man’s responsibility because some dumb-asses a long ways back decided to elevate women (and kids and others) above their place.

        I was not knocking your stating things in an amoral approach but giving you props for extending it in to the topic of morality. Very clever, very well done

  69. I think it would be a mistake to confuse this with monogamy though. Women’s infidelity is increasing across the board, it’s just that in the upper class they’ve got the brass ring already so why divorce? Whereas in working and middle class women don’t take too much of a social status hit after divorce and then have all that upside potential to marry a higher status guy.

    Yes. Among the uppers it’s status, and among the next-in-line (upper middle, or “working rich”), it’s about both status and money because many of these are dual high income where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts living separately. In both cases, it’s about the “hit” taken on divorce — where the “hit” is high enough, status or economically, divorce is discouraged. Where it is not that high (middle-middle and below), divorce is not discouraged and so it ensues at higher rates. Fidelity is decreasing across the board, however — the difference is whether it results in divorce or not, and that depends on incentives/the “hit” taken upon divorce.

  70. @Rollo – I can’t believe you are inviting IB back in here. Big mistake.

    [Crazy like a fox]

  71. “Just thought our new commenters might like to take a stab at her.”
    Wo! Careful boss, she could weaponize that as a “death threat” and take it to the Twittermobs, emulating that other mad fat one with the insider stooges who got cernovich and roissy banninated from the Twattosphere the other day. They all do it and are furiously jealous of each others imagined peril.
    Ah what the hell. Screw Twitter, it can join reddit and the rest in sjw-ruled hell.

  72. Online studies of female preferences show they always cluster to the top 20% of men in interest, regardless off the distribution of quality.

    How do you know that it will always be a zero sum game? Online dating is not necessarily a corollary for real life. I believe you may be able to increase that percentage “offline”. If PUA has taught us anything it’s that attraction is a formulaic.

    Has it already been established that if everyone knows the formula, the formula changes?

  73. Rollo,
    Thanks for one of the best of your posts I’ve read so far, and I’m about halfway through reading all of them in reverse. Since IB and MYG have been zotted the comment section has been much more focused, with any given topic or theme being developed logically by reasoned exchange over several comments and thus truly helpful to us lurkers. It’s just felt like a more comfortable place to hang recently. Since it’s obvious that IB and MYG came here only to disrupt the flow and antagonize I’m a little disappointed you’d let them return. Since we know where to find IB anytime we want to read her drivel, why not just occasionally excerpt some of her more insane bits like you did a little bit up thread? Just my .02. Your idea of having some of the newer commenters take her/them on makes sense too….

  74. @ Rollo, SFC

    Isn’t morality an individual choice measured against collective agreement?

    Aren’t women blaming Alpha men behavior on one hand and rewarding it on the other. . . all the while, rejecting Beta behavior. . . the behavior they supposedly would approve?

    A contradiction that doesn’t merit respect. . . . And gives them what they deserve.

    To paraphrase what Norman Mailer said about feminism. . . . The get all the benefit and the burden of being a man.

  75. Thanks Glenn. You could be right. And I did take your point that ‘getting this girl back’ isn’t likely or likely to be productive or a good use of time. I’m not trying for that here, i just said I’d keep my eyes open before rather than be totally closed to the dim chance.

    This isn’t really about me and her. I mean, I’m biased so it’s hard for me to say for sure, but i really am pissed about this from another perspective. I care a lot about what this business accomplishes. I’m passionate about what I can accomplish at my job. Two bad hires in the past few years really hamstrung our ability to do that for a while. We’ve just settled into normalcy, got a new manger who’s been doing a great job getting shit going again, and then this shit happens. And I really think it’s her initiative not the manager’s. I’ll see her out the door before I let this place go to the shitter again. And it will, this dude’s beta he’ll be a wreck in six months if this doesn’t stop. We’ve got important work to do, no time for that.

    She’s not psycho but she’s very bad news emotionally. So enough.

  76. Quote RM: [“Men are to blame for women’s behavior. The Feminine Imperative only has as much power as men have allowed it to have. Hypergamy (open or otherwise) wouldn’t be the unrestrained social juggernaut it’s become without men’s complicity or accomplice.”

    This quote is a go-to rationalization I read a lot from women just coming to terms with their first taste of the Red Pill. Unfortunately it’s also become a common refrain among certain sets in the manosphere; this rationale is usually particular to the moral absolutist strains of the manosphere.]

    I agree that moral absolutist men seem to agree on this often.

    Yet, there is a logical explanation (or rather: interpretation) of this statement:

    1) The central idea is that “Men are to blame for women’s behaviour”.

    The word “blame” insinuates that which we know to be true about unrestricted female sexual selection – in short: Bringing down (western) civilization by fucking and also procreating(!) with men who are either
    1 a) unfit
    1 b) unwilling
    1 c) unsuitable
    to continue a high-end civilization, because their genetic proxys (appearance, social actions, style, game, life plans) appeal to the hindbrain of females, who find solid “creators” (betas; in womanese: “nerds”, “boring guys”) or even solid fighters and protectors (betas, too; in womanse: “evil white male soldiers”, “racist cops”, “sexist firemen” etc.) not SEXUALLY attractive. (Even though they perhaps like their uniform, salary or outer appearance in the social sphere)

    2) Now one has several choices:
    2 a) disregard the central statement as irrelevant (free choice; neutral)
    2 b) disagree (negative reaction)
    2 c) agree (positive reaction)

    3) In case of 2c), one is NOT bound to moralize:

    We can see the central statement in a positive light – that is, agree to it- WITHOUT ANY MORALS by making a very simple deduction:

    3 a) Women try to act as much in accord with their basic sexual imperative (fuck viscerally attractive men; hoist workload and validation/social security on to betas or the social collective) as they are ABLE to.
    They rationalize this by any means available.

    3 b) They are able to do this, because there is no physical force stopping them or punishing them for that IN A WAY THAT STOPS OR REDUCES THEIR REPRODUCTION. (aka eugenics, honor killings, social ostracism, etc. pp.)

    3 c) Due to the biological reality of there being only two relevant sexes (male and female), the opposing force LOGICALLY (not morally!) has to be men.

    4) Conclusion:
    The central statement can be completly agreed to without using (at least conventional) morals, religious values etc. pp.

  77. Does that make sense or am I full of shit? Serious question, I know how easy it is to rationalize stuff to yourself. But I really would rather she be gone, outta here, than see this happen to this place.

    But if ya’ll tell me I’m still fooling myself with oneitis I’ll give myself a solid wallop across the face and let this shit go, let the management deal with it as it may.

    And I’ll read Tasim’s book after I’m done with the 48 laws.

  78. Forge,

    In the little I know about you, and what I read today?

    Let the walloping begin!

    Screams “oneitis” dude

  79. 3 cold approaches today, 15 total since monday morning.

    2 numbers gotten, now doing the texting thing.

    One lay yesterday with a cold approach from a few weeks ago. (She acted indifferent on our first meet, 3 weeks later she’s probably the best lay I’ve had yet, also crazy as fuck)

    Not bad for a rookie. One lay in about 75 total approaches over a month. 3 others in the works.

    Lots of mistakes, but lots of fun!

  80. “The central statement can be completly agreed to without using (at least conventional) morals, religious values etc. . . .”

    . . . by drawing it as a vector force diagram.

  81. well, they’re not mothers of children or wives of husbands,neither priestesses of the Earth, so what the fuck are they.?…..lost human animals..like you?…

  82. The sad state of Beta:

    He hears women complain about the Alpha,
    and he tries to become the opposite of Alpha.
    He tries to become just like her.

    “the Beta needs to make the Alpha seem common, while making himself seem unique. In order to effectively disqualify an Alpha, the Beta has to display his empathy for the feminine, and she must appreciate it or it’s been all for nothing (which it usually is). Not only is this an ego preservation mechanism, but it’s also perceived as a tool for achieving the desired sexual reciprocation / appreciation he desires.”

    ~Rollo Tomassi, from his book all men must read:

    “The Rational Male”
    (p. 133)

  83. Forge: She’s not your problem that you need to fix for the world. She’s a problem in your own head. Fix your head.

  84. @Forge

    Gotta go with the others here. Just the frequency alone with which you’ve mentioned her suggests that getting completely clear of her would be beneficial. You need your head cleared, and as things are that doesn’t seem to be happening.

    For the record, she doesn’t sound like the kind of prize worth devoting more than a couple dick tosses and cab fare to. Move on, bro. Move on.

  85. These days there’s one thing I try to constantly remind myself of:

    “If it provides you no considerable benefit, it deserves none of your time.”

    It’s a real easy way to start sorting who or what deserves your time and brainspace or doesn’t. Apply that metric to each interaction or choice throughout your day and filter accordingly.

  86. Rollo,

    This is the first time you’ve said something I at least partially (if not wholly) disagreed with. To the extent that mothers raise their sons on the blue pill, you’re correct that women are responsible for encouraging the behavior you talk about. But the rest of the responsibilty falls to men ourselves. Each sex incentivizes the other’s behavior. Women incentivize certain male behaviors by sleeping with the men who exhibit them, and vice versa. Your comment about Muslims at the end reminded me of an exchange I had in another forum with a Muslim guy from the ME. He said, “Lol your women are such sluts! It’s unbelievable!” I said, ” Of course they are, because that’s what we want from them. And your women are (ostensibly) more chaste because that’s what you want from them.”

    Over at thelastpsychiatrist.com, Alone had a great observation on the anxiety that women feel due to the fact that their sexuality is to a great extent dictated to them by men. He’s a psychiatrist who presumably deals with these issues with plenty of female clients. Something to the effect of, “Sixty years ago, women pretended to be more virtuous than they really were because that’s what men wanted, and it made them unhappy. Today, women pretend to be sluttier than they really are because that’s what men want, and it makes them unhappy.”

  87. Women are sluttier because that is what men want, or because that is what their sisters tell them men want?

    How many here bemoan the fact that women are slutty? How many are looking for that magic virginal unicorn?

    I like sluts, but don’t most men want good girls?

  88. I would suggest to anyone having problems such as Forge’s to listen to each of Rollo’s podcasts with Christian McQueen and the recent podcast with Tom Torero.

    Reading text about game and TRP is one thing, but on the path to fully internalizing the ideas and strategies, it is imperative to hear it verbalized.

    This also ties into why it’s imperative to find RP aware individuals in real life and see it in motion. And as usual this goes back to what YaReally is always saying: Live It.

    Reading Rollo’s articles is invaluable to use all, but sometimes it’s like having a strictly texting relationship with a girl: she doesn’t actually exist.

    Awareness is one thing but internalization is another thing completely.

  89. But the rest of the responsibilty falls to men ourselves.

    Yeah, it’s totally my fault that every time I’ve found a woman I wanted to be with long term and told her as much, she decided to be a slut instead. Clearly I encouraged it. Clearly my telling her “Let’s be together, just you and me” is advocating hopping on the next guy’s cock.

    Totally my fault. I’ve created a bunch of sluts by trying to encourage women to be monogamous with me. My bad. It’s all my responsibility. Me and the 80% of guys that act the same way.

    Cripes.

  90. Don’t confuse a differing/incompatible value system as a lack of moral agency.

    True.

    It’s similar in some ways to the distinction made between the way men love and the way women love. Same word, but two different things. I think the same can be said for moral agency as between men and women. I think to say that women have no moral agency goes way, way too far (it’s odd seeing religious Christians say this when Christianity, at least in its traditional forms, has never really taught that about women, at least not until feminism gets rolling in the 19th). But I think it can be said that the “scope” of moral agency of women is narrower than the scope for men, because their overall moral scope is also narrower.

    That is, the prime directive of women is protection of self and then after that protection and nurturing of children. Everything else in her life is a means to those ends — work, family, education, men, sex, etc. So she has moral agency within that more narrow sphere (and should be held to account for that moral agency, which women generally aren’t today for various reasons), but outside of that sphere, women have significantly diminished moral agency due to their prime directive being so narrow. Things that fall outside the scope of it are very, very difficult for a woman to act “morally” about, from a male perspective of what acting morally would mean, because they conflict with the prime directive, which delineates the scope of a woman’s moral agency. Hence the “war brides” phenomenon, cuckolding and so on, just to take two prominent examples.

  91. Well @Sun, at least you admit it. Lol

    Change your name to “The Creator of Sluts”

    Sounds like a Norse God or some shit

  92. Alright, 3 for 3. I’ll give myself that shiner.

    Thank you all. I’ll call this down. She knows I know but I haven’t told anyone past that, so I’ll just tell her that I thought it over and though I think this is a bad decision professionally it’s none of my business to interfere. She can do what she wants. I suppose she may have told the manager which makes things awkward but that’s my own dumb fault, I’ll deal.

    I’ll avoid all contact except for the polite ‘good mornings’ in the hall.

    And I’m gonna go out 2 times this weekend and see what I can do about getting some hard plates going.

    This has been crazy. Even when I accepted how women are and began to look forward to creating a life within a paradigm I understood better, I was still stuck in bargaining/anger wrt this girl. I finally feel motivated to cut that shit out. Re-reading my comments today it’s bleedingly obvious and that shit’s been cutting me down.

    I might still slip up from time to time but where I was sympathetic to my urges to reconcile with her before, now it’s just making me angry. The beta’s gotta die. This ain’t our grandfather’s world, there’s no place for him here.

    Thanks again. Busy now but i’ll try and comment on-topic later, this is a really good OP.

  93. @ The Tingler

    I think it used to be true that each sex incentivized behaviors for the other once upon a time because there was some balance between the sexes. Women provided reproductive resources, men provided material resources. Now there is no balance whatsoever. Women dictate. How could men dictate if their attention is so cheap that they are so easily replaced and if women have less need of men’s material resources?

    Women can do whatever they want because, as Ms. Massey explained, “dick is abundant.”

    And this state of affairs is nothing new. Selection pressure flows from women to men, not the other way around. It’s men that are at risk of failing to breed, not women. It’s always been that way. The burden of performance is ours, not theirs. Women risk being stuck with suboptimal mating opportunities, men risk being stuck with no mating opportunities whatsoever.

    And I don’t think muslim women get much of a choice one way or the other. Western women have nothing but choice.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: