Complementarity

complementarity

At the Man In Demand conference I briefly got into the topic of egalitarian equalism and its relation to complementarity during my talk. On my flight home I was jotting down my thoughts about the seminar and one thing I now have plans to do for the next one* is base an entire talk and group discussion about the distinctions between equalism and complementarity as I understand them.

However, for now, consider this post a primer for that talk. I’ve done my best to explain the differences between equalism and complementarity in Equalism and Masculinity and Positive Masculinity vs. EqualismMy detailing the social dynamics and psychological influences men face in an equalist headspace has been a recurrent theme in many of my posts. On occasion I’ve made contrasting comparisons to Complementarity, but until the Red Pill Parenting series I hadn’t gone into the detail I’d like to.

Guy starts us off:

As many of you have already mentioned in the stories you’ve shared, it is usually the father who pushes their children towards a higher standard of success. This is critical for the child to develop into a successful adult that excels in society.

It is usually the mother who coos and coddles their children. This is also necessary, as it’s vitally important for children to feel loved and accepted by their parents. This shows the necessity of the roles of both mothers and fathers in the development of children. If a child faces only criticism, it may have lasting effects on their self esteem. If a child is never criticized, they may never grow up into an adult.

The negative effects of too much coddling are so widespread, that we actually have sayings that illustrate it.
“A ____ only a mother could love”

To understand the dynamic of complementarity first it’s important to consider the theology behind egalitarianism. I tend to use the term egalitarianism and equalism interchangeably, but I do so because I see them both as stems from the same tree of blank-slate humanism. In the first Red Pill Parent essay I made the following case against of a single parent, single gender upbringing of children:

Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the complementary relationship between a mother and father.

It’s the height of gender-supremacism to be so arrogantly self-convinced as to deliberately choose to birth a child and attempt to raise it into the contrived ideal of what that “parent” believes the other gender’s role oughtto be.

This should put the institutionalized social engineering agenda of the Feminine Imperative into stark contrast for anyone considering intentional single parenthood. Now consider that sperm banks and feminine-specific fertility institutions have been part of normalized society for over 60 years and you can see that Hypergamy has dictated the course of parenting for some time now. This is the definition of social engineering.

The idea that a single mother is as co-effective as a father stems from the blank-slate belief that gender is a social construct rather than the physical and psychological manifestation of humans’ evolved mental firmware. While the foundations of this blank-slate theory originated with John Locke in in the 17th century it would be the anima/animus theories of Carl Jung to cement egalitarian equalism into the popular conscious with regard to gender relations.

Tabula Rasa (blank-slate) refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. With the scientific and technical advancements of the 20th and 21st centuries we now have a better understanding of how the human brains of men and women operate from a far more advanced perspective than either Jung or Locke had knowledge of. To be fair, Jung’s presupposition was one that human’s possess innate potentials for both the masculine and feminine (thus the “get in touch with your feminine side” trope for men), but those potentials derive from a presumed-accepted egalitarian base.

Yet still, from a meta-social perspective, western(izing) culture still clings to the blank-slate theoretical models from Jung inspired by Locke and other tabula rasa thinkers of old.

Why is that? Why should it be that for all of our greater understanding of the biomechanics of the human body and it’s influences on behavior that the greater whole of society persists in the belief that men and women possess co-equal gender proficiencies based on an outdated, largely disproven Tabula Rasa model? I would argue that resisting the more obvious and practical model of evolved gender differences presents an uncomfortable proposition of biological determinism to people conditioned to believe gender is a nurture, not nature, proposition.

I’ve opined about Carl Jung’s contributions to our present state of feminine social primacy in the past.

One of the key elements Jung introduced into western culture’s popular consciousness is the theory of anima and animus; that each individual, irrespective of sex, possesses greater or lesser degrees of association and manifested behavior of masculine and feminine psychological affiliations. In 2012, when you hear a 6 year old girl tell a 6 year old boy “you need to get in touch with your feminine side” in order to get him to comply with her, you can begin to understand the scope to which this idea has been internalized into society’s collective consciousness. So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back its origins – it’s simply taken as fact that men and women possess varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s.

It’s important to consider Jung’s bi-gender individualities within the individual person in context with Locke’s Tabula Rasa theory because in tandem they constitute the basis of the egalitarian equalism which feminism and our present feminine-primary conditioning rely upon. To the modern egalitarian mind, inequalities in social dynamics, gender conflicts and economic disparities are the result of a deliberate (if not malicious) intent on the part of individuals to limit the presumedly equal potentials of others. Social ills are the conflict between the selfish need of the one versus the equalized need of the many.

There is very little headspace given to the material, innate, mechanics that make up the condition of the individual. Natural talent, innate ability, in-born predispositions, and physical and adaptational advantages stemming from evolved differences – whether a boon or a burden – are either disqualified or marginalized in an egalitarian mindset. The egalitarian, while very humanistic, leans almost entirely on the learned behavior model of human development. It’s Tabula Rasa, and the zeroed-out-at-birth content of the individual is filled by the influence of a society that is corrupted by those who don’t agree with an idealized egalitarian imperative.

Complementarity

Complementarity acknowledges the importance of the inborn differences between the sexes that egalitarianism marginalizes or outright denies exist while recognizing and embracing the strengths and weaknesses those differences represent.

There are many well documented, peer reviewed, scientific studies on the neurological differences between men and women’s brain structure. The easiest evidence of these differences is the cyclic nature of women’s sexuality (versus men’s always-on sexuality) and the neurological/hormonal influences on beliefs, behaviors and the rationalizations for those behaviors prompted by the innate drive to optimize Hypergamy.

Women experience negative emotions differently from men. The male brain evolved to seek out sex before food. And while our feminine-centric social order insists that, in the name of equalism, boys should be forced to learn in the same modality as that of girls, the science shows that boys brains are rudimentarily wired to learn differently.

Stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains.

Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women’s brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men’s brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.

Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

“If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there’s a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better,” Verma said. “Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more.”

Ironically, in an egalitarian gender-neutral social order, a college professor publicly suggesting that men are more adept at mathematical thinking gets him fired from a lengthy tenure, but when a female researcher suggests the same she’s rewarded with professional accolades and grant money.

As you might expect, this article focuses primarily on the triumphant advantages of the female brain structure, but the studies themselves are revealing of the empirical evidence that men and women are not the functional equals that egalitarianism would insist we are.

The scans showed greater connectivity between the left and right sides of the brain in women, while the connections in men were mostly confined to individual hemispheres. The only region where men had more connections between the left and right sides of the brain was in the cerebellum, which plays a vital role in motor control. “If you want to learn how to ski, it’s the cerebellum that has to be strong,” Verma said. Details of the study are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It’s quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are,” Ruben Gur, a co-author on the study, said in a statement. “Detailed connectome maps of the brain will not only help us better understand the differences between how men and women think, but it will also give us more insight into the roots of neurological disorders, which are often sex-related.”

These distinct neurological differences between men and women are evidence of a an evolved intersexual complementarity that has manifested in both the personal and social dynamic of intergender relations for millennia. Conventional gender roles where there is a defined interdependence between the sexes is reflective of precisely the hardwired “stereotypes” researchers were so shocked to discover in men and women’s neural wiring.

Talents and Deficits

I’m often asked what the complementarian model looks like and it’s all too easy to not want to fall into the perceived trap in defining gender roles for men and women as they’ve been for centuries before our own era. Conventionally feminine women and masculine men are ‘shocking’ stereotypes to a society steeped and conditioned to accept the egalitarian model as the norm. The simple fact is that equality is only defined by the conditions and environmental circumstance that make something equal or unequal.

Men and women are biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally and sexually different. This presents a very difficult proposition to an egalitarian mindset – men and women are simply better suited for, better wired, better enabled and better physically capable of succeeding in different tasks, different environments, different socialization, different mental or emotional demands as those circumstances dictate.

We simply evolved for symbiosis between the sexes; the strengths of one compensate for the weakness of the other. Depending on the challenge presented, yes, this means that in our complementarity the difference between a man and a woman are going to be unequal. Much of the gender discord our present society suffers is due primarily to the intentional rejection of this evolved, symbiotic complementarity and its replacement with the fantasy of uninfluenced, independently sustaining equalism. From the egalitarian mindset, the genders are self-sustaining and independent, thus men and women simply have no need for the other.

Though egalitarians will argue it does, complementarity doesn’t imply a universal superiority of one gender or the other. Rather, depending on the task at hand, one sex will be better predisposed to accomplishing it. Furthermore this isn’t to say that the gender-specific deficiencies of one gender cannot be overcome by learning, practice and brain plasticity to achieve the same ends – it is to say that men and women’s brains, and the task specific adaptations of them, predispose them to being better capable of achieving them.

Fighting Nature

For the better part of this blog’s history I’ve outlined the process of how the Feminine Imperative conditions men to embrace their “feminine sides” and create generations of ready Betas. Most Blue Pill men will fail to identify with the more masculine specificity I’ve outlined above. It’s important to remember that learning to be better at non-gender specificity in an attempt to override this natural gender-wiring is not always a voluntary effort on the part of a person – especially when egalitarian Mom and Dad are in on the conditioning.

When we see the recent popular social effort to embrace transexual acceptance what we’re being asked to do is accept a learning process that countermands a male or female’s evolved neural architecture. Brain plasticity is a marvel of evolution, but it is subject to external manipulation and the ideologies of those doing the manipulating.

There’s been a criticism of western public education’s push to force boys to learn like girls – we treat boys like they are defective girls. This is a prime example of not just a social engineering effort, but an effort in reprogramming boys to override their natural, neurological maleness. Thus they become less effective girls because they are required to think, emote and react in way their brains never predisposed them to.

Likewise there is a popular push to encourage girls to adopt male modalities of thinking. In the hopes to make mathematics and technology fields more gender equal egalitarian society will make special compensation and establish exclusive academic rewards for girls who teach themselves to override their intrinsic mental proficiencies and find intrinsic reward in adopting those of boys.

The egalitarian mindset simply denies the foundational truths that decades of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology and anthropological research indicate about our present state of intersexual relations. Inso doing they reject a complementary model and embrace an egalitarian one. Their mistake is presuming that evo-psych necessitates a biological determinism and thereby absolves an individual of personal responsibility for their behavior. It does not, but it does provide a framework that more accurately describes the mental state, sexual strategies and social environment in which men find themselves with women.

When you hear or read the trope that “women are just as sexual as men” what’s being related to you is founded in the same egalitarian root that teaches us to believe that “women are just as good at fathering as any man”. All are equal, but men’s sexuality seems a boon that egalitarian women would like to adopt.

One reason egalitarianism is an appealing cover story for feminism is because its primary goal is leveling the sexual competition playing field for all women to optimize Hypergamy at the expense of men’s own sexual strategy interests. If all is equal, if men’s basic biological impulses are reduced to shamed criminality, if women can expect men to be aroused by their perceived value of their self-defined self-worth, then all material and physiological deficits can be effectively dismissed.

Under the guise of egalitarianism, feminism has effected feminine social dominance for over half a century now.

Egalitarianism is likewise appealing to evo-psych detractors because a belief in egalitarianism should mean that men can escape their burden of performance. I touched on this in the first post of the Adaptations series. The presumption is that if the more intrinsic, ephemeral aspects of men’s higher-order thinking and personal worth is appreciated as a sexual attraction, then all deficiencies in meeting his naturalistic burden of performance can be rescinded. Game, physique, personality, status, success, achievement, etc. are superseded by his equalist belief system and this is sold to him as the new order upon which women should find him attractive.

Complementarity is the evolved interdependence between the sexes and it’s been a responsible element of how the human race has risen to be the apex species on this planet, but it doesn’t ensure an optimal breeding schedule for either sex. So long as men and women are mired in a denial of the evolved psychological differences between the sexes, their only alternative is to embrace egalitarianism.

The reason feminism hates the Red Pill – in its concrete sense – is because it more accurately predicts human behavior than feminism and equalism have ever been capable of.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

340 comments on “Complementarity

  1. @GW – Thank-you for your comments. Since you do not prescribe to (A), I assume that you believe women should not be held to the same moral standard as men (if I am reading you correctly). Do you think this because you believe women lack the necessary attributes to have the capacity to meet that moral standard, or is it for another reason you would hold them to a lower standard?

  2. A woman conversely seems to be instead updating her self-image as life goes on, altering it as conditions dictate (which allows for a more flexible interface with the environment).

    That is a feature of female evolution. Rollo covered this a few years back.

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

    If woman were shown what it feels like to do it the man’s way, and what fortunes that allows, perhaps she could appreciate the need for a deeper moral responsibility within herself.

    Not likely, because see above.

    How do we know unless we try?

    It appears you do not really understand the differences between male and female psychology, you seem to still be looking at women as “men with tits”.

    I think my request for more precision, if addressed, would help people within sexual relationships, but would also help alleviate alot of the misunderstanding that is coming hard and fast now, among the various camps within the culture at large.

    I think you are still choking on the red pill, and reluctant to come to terms with reality.

  3. Hello @Rollo & @Anonymous Reader

    @Anonymous Reader – thank-you for your comments and thanks for the link.

    In light of the tenor of Rollo’s “War Brides” article, the female correlate of the:

    – uncynical redpill (A)
    – the less cynical redpill (B)
    – and the more cynical redpill (C)

    , that I outlined in my comment above, would result in:

    Version A-1): women have proclivities for which they are enticed, enabled, encouraged, tempted, or otherwise drawn to, (each redpill pundit of this ilk will use his own specific descriptor) to blind themselves to their ascribing to a lower moral agency for themselves than men generally do ascribe to for themselves (i.e. – women do have the aptitude for ascribing to a higher standard of moral agency, but do not, and are at ease around this, because they deceive themselves, to facilitate a higher level of comfort for themselves, as encouraged to do so, by men, via the masculine competition for the women’s attentions).

    Version A-2): women have proclivities for which they are enticed, enabled, encouraged, tempted, or otherwise drawn to, (each redpill pundit of this ilk will use his own specific descriptor) to blind themselves to their ascribing to a lower moral agency for themselves than men generally do ascribe to for themselves (i.e. – women do have the aptitude for ascribing to a higher standard of moral agency, but do not, and are at ease around this, because they deceive themselves, to facilitate a higher level of comfort for themselves, as encouraged to do so, by the machinations of their own psyches for which they do have some agency over).

    Version A-3): women have proclivities for which they are enticed, enabled, encouraged, tempted, or otherwise drawn to, (each redpill pundit of this ilk will use his own specific descriptor) to blind themselves to their ascribing to a lower moral agency for themselves than men generally do ascribe to for themselves (i.e. – women do not have the aptitude for ascribing to a higher standard of moral agency, because the peculiarities of their psyches has removed the faculty of agency around this, and therefore they are at ease around this, because they unknowingly deceive themselves, to facilitate a higher level of comfort for themselves, as encouraged to do so, by the machinations of their own psyches).

    Version B) or alternatively women do not actually possess the correct attributes to actually perceive the moral standard generally ascribed to by men, and as such they cannot meet this standard (i.e.- inferior to emotionally healthy men in this way, not possessing the cognitive/emotional power to appreciate the higher standard – akin to people that are more than children but less than men in regards to this moral ability – i.e. – like teenagers in this respect – i.e. – akin to the deeply narcissistic self-love for which, necessarily, a high degree of paranoia would be a concomitant, thus producing machaivellian-like behavior, for which not enough agency around is available to judge any culpability in this respect)

    Version C) or alternatively women do possess the correct attributes to perceive the masculine moral standard, but do not, not because of a blindness (semi-unintentional or instead unconscious) but because of intentional duplicity around this (i.e.- akin to the deeply narcissistic self-love for which, necessarily, a high degree of paranoia would be a concomitant, thus producing machaivellian-like behavior, for which agency can be ascribed and therefore culpability as well)

    Quating from the last paragarpph of Rollos’s linked article “War Brides”:

    “After reading all of this I can understand if anyone thinks this is a very nihilistic observation. Let me be clear, this dynamic is real by order of degrees for individual women. A woman’s conditions may be such that she’s never needed to tap into this reserve. Also, we are dealing with subconscious elements of her personality here, so it would come as no surprise that feminine solipsism wouldn’t be cognitive for most women – thus offensive and denied. I’m not asking that anyone accept this idea as gospel, just that the dots do connect very predictably.”

    Pairing my thoughts with Rollo’s hi-lights that it seems both he may not be (at least circa October 2011) and I am not (circa now) absolutely sure which of A1, A2, A3, B, or C is the correct view, normatively, for womankind generally (of course there will be large individual differences between women but the normative perspective would be informative and therefore invaluable with respect to knowing how best to proceed, within individual relationships as well as how best to proceed within the larger context of the man/woman social dynamic).

    @Rollo – your War Brides article seems to favor your belief in either A2 or A3 – is that an accurate interpretation? Or am I misunderstanding and your belief is more akin to B or C? Or is the jury still out with you as well on this, at this juncture (as it is with me).

    @Rollo & @Anonymous Reader – AR – your comment – “I think you are still choking on the red pill, and reluctant to come to terms with reality”.

    That may be true, but it would be helpful to swallow if I knew what I was being asked to swallow precisely. Can you not see that all of A1, A2, A3, B, or C, if true, would mean completely different healthy frames for the man (men) in the picture (especially if he is one like myself that has a deep appreciation for the emotive foundations of the golden rule?) So it would be very advantageous to differentiate what the case in reality is. I don’t think I am alone in not being entirely sure what the redpill consensus is in this respect. As such I would like to deepen the discussion. Game?

    My “wish” is that it is A1 or A2 or a combination thereof, so that it would be within the realm of possibility at least, to change the emotionally healthy women’s prescription of moral agency, to that level of moral agency prescribed to by emotionally healthy men (for simplification sake, let’s just say moral agency around the issue of the golden rule for now). If it is A1 or A2, then this “wish” may be just an ideal at this point, but at least it would be an ideal that could be aspired to. I am being honest about my “wish”, but I don’t really want to call it anymore than a “wish” until I hear more precise advisorial positions around this. It is important for me that my understanding be more precise with regards to your viewpoints at this juncture. It seems to me I need this precision, in order to proceed to the next step of transforming my “wish” into the realm of possibility or into the realm of pollyanna dreams. I would appreciate more input as it would be very helpful with respect to moving forward with my own thinking.

    @Rollo – if indeed the jury is still out with you with respect to A1, A2, A3, B, or C, then it would also be helpful for me to know this. If this is the case I would request that more exploration around these possibilities occur, as it would be so fruitful pragmatically, if we could accurately tease this out.

  4. @Rollo & @Anonymous Reader – the more I think about this perhaps a change within the nomenclature would be more accurate – changing A-3 (uncynical redpill category) to B-2 (less cynical redpill category). So the possibilities would become:

    – A1 & A2 (within noncynical repill)
    – B1 & B2 (within less cynical redpill)
    – C (within more cynical repill)

  5. @Wild Man

    Reading your thoughts with interest.

    The thing is, I think this issue of equality/complimentarity seems ambiguous or paradoxical to you since you’re approaching this all from a non-redpill paradigm.

    This stuff about ‘fundamental worth’ and so on are abstractions, and as such there’s not a good way to think about such a thing pragmatically or realistically.

    Men and women are what they are. That’s all. Fundamental rights or worth are something you’re making up in your head. The only purpose of the concept is as a way to conceptualize coherent functioning societal structures such as government.

    I think redpill ideas have the potential to eventually inform better-calibrated social systems. I also think that, as a societal abstraction, treating people as having the same rights and worth is a good idea. Not sure that necessarily maps to the personal realm though.

    Re: optimistic vs cynical redpill – when you have a good relationship I think it will, at times, resemble your more rosy pictures. But it always will be contingent upon redpill factors in your control, and some factors less in your control. It’s important to have your own MPO so you’re fine regardless….

  6. @Forge the Sky

    Thank-you for your comments.

    1) Your comment – “The thing is, I think this issue of equality/complimentarity seems ambiguous or paradoxical to you since you’re approaching this all from a non-redpill paradigm.”

    – The egalitarian (as I defined) does not seem ambiguous or paradoxical to me. It is obvious to me (and many others – it is one of the tenents of the western cultural tradition). Is it the redpill paradigm that makes it seems ambiguous or paradoxical? If so what good is a paradigm if it cannot withstand scrutiny?

    2) Your comment – “This stuff about ‘fundamental worth’ and so on are abstractions, and as such there’s not a good way to think about such a thing pragmatically or realistically.”

    – Abstractions – so what? Pretty much all the redpill discourse are abstractions.

    – Thinking about it realistically – I have outlined the egalitarian abstraction in a realistic output (the golden rule) every bit as much so, as pretty much any redpill abstraction you may choose

    3) Your comment – “Men and women are what they are. That’s all. Fundamental rights or worth are something you’re making up in your head. The only purpose of the concept is as a way to conceptualize coherent functioning societal structures such as government. ”

    – Redpill I think has been doing some of the work of uncovering precisely what men and women are. I’m not criticizing that. I celebrate that. But that is not all. The work is not finished. There is much more. Why would we want to stop our explorations here? There are deeper insights to be had (because we can and are still asking more questions).

    – If I’m making up the idea of the egalitarian (as I defined) in my head, I am not the only one. This idea is one of the tenets of the western cultural tradition.

    – Concepts, if they are powerful, will shed light on more than one structural level. As well note that the psychic, personal, relational, social, cultural, societal, global and innate human structures are all intimately inter-related by way of intricate feedback loops.

    4) Your comment – “I think redpill ideas have the potential to eventually inform better-calibrated social systems. I also think that, as a societal abstraction, treating people as having the same rights and worth is a good idea. Not sure that necessarily maps to the personal realm though.”

    – I agree that both redpill and the egalitarian (as I have defined) can serve to improve the conditions for humanity, cross-structural-wise.

    – Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) and others would argue that social traits are indirectly contingent on personal traits.

    5) Your comment – “Re: optimistic vs cynical redpill – when you have a good relationship I think it will, at times, resemble your more rosy pictures. But it always will be contingent upon redpill factors in your control, and some factors less in your control. It’s important to have your own MPO so you’re fine regardless….”

    – if you mean: egalitarian/complimentarian relationship = good relationship. I agree that that ideal would be good. As I outlined in my comment above, it is also my “wish” for that to be a possibility. No one has shot that down yet in a way convincing to me (but no one has strongly come out in favor of the real possibility for that ideal, amongst the commenters, or Rollo, yet either as far as I am aware).

    – yes, the (A) uncynical redpill more ideal relationship would be very contingent on redpill awareness among both the man and the woman, as outlined in my comment above

    – MPO – for me it is seeking the many perspectives to amalgamate as the big picture, and try to abide by, and expect others to abide by, that frame (which becomes my frame – the frame of deep self-respect and mutual respect).

  7. @Rollo

    Do you believe emotionally healthy women should hold themselves, and be held, to the same moral standard as emotionally healthy men hold for themselves, and are beholden to (for simplicity sake for now, let’s just say, with respect to the golden rule)?

  8. “I think you are still choking on the red pill, and reluctant to come to terms with reality”.

    That may be true, but it would be helpful to swallow if I knew what I was being asked to swallow precisely.

    You know, you could try actually reading the site before insisting that everyone else stop what they are doing and play word games with you.

    Here’s a couple of postings to consider, on the issue of what you are choking on.

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/10/the-bitter-taste-of-the-red-pill/

    http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/26/the-red-pill-lens/

    One more note: men and women are not the same. They don’t think the same. They don’t emote the same. They don’t love the same. Men are not defective women, and women are not “men with boobs”.

    Frankly, your egalitarian fantasies stink of 1970’s 2nd wave feminism and that is part of the problem, it is no part of any solution.

    Your “Case A, Type 1, Group iii” game playing is not impressive, either. It won’t give a man being ground up by the divorce industry a shred of hope, it won’t give a betaized man in a dead bedroom the slightest chance, it’s frankly extremely boring and won’t be read by anyone under 40, so young men won’t be helped by it, either.

    Empty your cup. Admit your ignorance. Then maybe you can learn.

  9. @Anonymous Reader – You can’t deny that you have taken an interest in my comments here. I have been responding back in the spirit of a fair exchange of ideas (choosing to focus on that portion of your comments).
    I will ignore the scolding tenor of some of your comments as an inconsequential aspect of your delivery, this one last time.

    Look I have never said anything that should lead anyone to interpret any of my comments as – “Men are defective women, and women are men with boobs” You are within no rational rights whatsoever to repeatedly put that recent-wave-feminist and wretched bullshit in my mouth.

    I have read 60+% of Rollo’s posts here at TRM.

    I may have missed “The Bitter Taste Of The Red Pill”. Thank-you for that link. With that post I have finally seen something that perhaps shows Rollo’s agreement that redpill and the egalitarian/complimentarian (as I have defined it) perspectives can be reconciled. Quoting Rollo from the above-mentioned article:

    “There is only Game and the degree to which you accept it and are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define. If that context is under the auspices of a mutually beneficial, mutually loving, mutually respecting LTR monogamy of YOUR choosing, know that it’s the fundaments of Game that are at the root of its success or failure. If that context is in terms of spinning multiple plates, liberating the affections of women from other men, and enjoying a love life based on your personal satisfactions, also understand that it lives and dies based on your understanding the fundaments of Game.

    Just as Alpha is not inherently nobel or deplorable, Game is neither inherently good nor evil – the Devil is in the details and whomever’s defined context in which you use it. In the introduction section of the 48 Laws of Power, author Robert Greene explains the same about power. Power is neither good nor evil, it simply is, and your capacity to use power, your comfort in using it, doesn’t invalidate the principles of power. Likewise, your discomfort or inability to accept those principles does not excuse you from the consequence of having that power used upon you.

    The unwritten, 49th Law of Power, is denying the utility of power itself, or demonizing its use both moralistically and socially.”

    I believe there is enough room in Rollo’s quoted ideas above, that such can be reconciled to my idea of:

    Type (A) Uncynical redpill man/woman relationship:

    1) men & women are of equal fundamental existential worth but complimentary in nature

    2) the natural emotive disposition of a healthy woman is sensitive discretion, a fine-tuned sensitivity to the emotional constitution of the milieu and a disposition for discrete consensus-building communication around such.

    3) the natural emotive disposition of a healthy man is an exuberant aggression, to be used very judiciously more so as a storehouse of emotive power, as a potential, that provides confidence in the man’s ability to prevail in the face of changing circumstances in such a way that will allow him to act in ways congruent with his abstract convictions around personal integrity.

    4) this dynamic necessarily entails a mutual knowledge, respect, and appreciation among each party, for the natural disposition and skills of the other party as well as an appreciation amongst both for the adverse consequences of the misuse of said dispositions and skills (perhaps the adverse could be described as a propensity for narcissism and the machiavellian for women and perhaps a propensity for unnecessary violence and unprincipled convictions for men). Only then can the egalitarian ideal be achieved.

    , as long as this dynamic is contingent on:

    – such emotionally healthy woman holding herself, and allowing herself to be held, to the same moral standard as the emotionally healthy man holds for himself, and is beholden to

    But I am not sure whether redpill allows for the possibility of this level of moral agency for women or not (unanswered question as per two of my comments above).

    As well, as I have already indicated earlier, my description of the natural emotive disposition of healthy woman (point #2 above, with the adverse noted in #4) may not be accurate as described – this I think is up for debate. And I gotta tell you -this deep deep shit on where women are emotively motivational-wise coming from – is hard to come by shit. Help here would be appreciated – it is not forthcoming from women themselves as we all know – redpill says it much better than women will themselves (but unfortunately redpill mostly focuses on the negative aspect side of this double-sided disposition), but – give the redpill criticism to women that may be predisposed to help, let them mull that over, and headway then seems at least somewhat forthcoming. Fuck – I don’t know maybe #2 and #4 above is still too pollyanna, but I am fucking trying to understand and a fucking open mind is what is required now – because we all fucking know – this shit, the deepest shit, about women, is not even close to 100% figured out yet.

    @Anonymous Reader – Do you believe emotionally healthy women should hold themselves, and be held, to the same moral standard as emotionally healthy men hold for themselves, and are beholden to (for simplicity sake for now, let’s just say, with respect to the golden rule)?

    @Anonymous Reader – The questions I am asking do relate to my personal situation (56, married 20 years, divorced 10 years ago, other LTR-like sexual relationships before and after, one with a BPDer, deliberately on sabbatical from seeking LTR right now so as to give myself some time to precisely define the LTR-frame that I am seeking). One of the things I am trying to figure out for myself is – the precise relationship frame to internalize, as the best option, before I commence seeking LTR again and I think this has loads of relatability to all kinds of men, but I get it that it is an approach the obviously won’t be too helpful to those already in a LTR, and also won’t be too helpful to men that do not already have very strong convictions around their personal identity and integrity (so yes, this approach may seem obtuse to some of the younger men that are still sorting out the convictions that are going to form the backbone of their own identity. I was there at one time, I know how trying that can be, that you pretty much have to forge your ego out of convictions tried by the fires of tribulation. That stings an awful lot, and probably repeatedly, for a long time, but once in your ’50’s, men will probably find all that trauma was well worth it). It is because I have strong convictions that allows me to seek more precision (because I already know more or less what I want, so now my question is – what precisely is there available to get, after removing the smoke and mirrors?).

    @Anonymous Reader – your comment -“Empty your cup. Admit your ignorance. Then maybe you can learn.” You don’t really expect me, at 56, to give up on my life-long conviction of the value of the egalitarian (as I defined), after it has been repeatedly fired by the trials of my life and found worthy in my books, do you? Look I don’t know how old you are but I’m not telling you to empty your cup even if you are a young man. That would not my business to do so. Each man has to form his convictions on his own (but discussing things is good). Cut the condescending crap.

    In the fullness of time If it turns out that I am mistaken in thinking the egalitarian dynamic might possibly be applicable to at least some women, as obviously is still an open question for me, because the perspective I am favoring now is that perhaps it was previously about me not understanding enough to properly vet the women for this egalitarian frame, or not properly reading the subtext of women’s covert communications among those that may have been worthy of that frame) then I am still not going to give up on the egalitarian. I will still subscribe to the egalitarian frame for myself personally (as it has such intense value). But then I would have to put women in the category of individuals that cannot appreciate this frame, and cannot reciprocate to honoring this frame. For someone of my moral proclivity, I have found I have to limit my exposure among those that do not abide by this mutual-respect frame. Once it is clear that the individual in question does not abide, I have found that It is far too much work, to test for and manage the maintenance of trust with such individuals, because such trust is always transitory, and has to be constantly newly rebuilt. The way I see it, this is a waste of my cognitive and emotional resources. I do have some relationships with individuals that are clearly in the dog-eat-dog default frame, (as do us all I suspect), and I limit my exposure (each such interaction basically becomes reduced to quid pro quo in the immediate sense – you scratch my back and I will scratch yours, as long as that all happens pretty much now). I try not to judge. Everybody has to make their own mind up about how to lead their life. If they don’t want to (or can’t) enter my frame then that is their business. But I’m not changing my frame. It is far too valuable to give up. I guess if I finally conclude all women are of this ilk, then it is pretty much prostitutes for me in my future then (be it trading sex for money or sex for game-instilled-fantasies).

    @Anonymous Reader – Not admitting ignorance? – you sure that criticism applies to me? Go read my comments again. The implication that I can’t learn until I do what you tell me to is pretty damn supercilious too. I know very well what my aptitude is.

  10. @YaReally

    Hey, YaReally.

    I read this giant ebook composed of some of the stuff you wrote about long term relationships and women etc. I really value your opinion.

    Thus, I have a question.
    I’ve also followed the Authentic Man Program and I saw that Travis Decker had a great relationship with his girlfriend and that he still had phenomenal skills without directly doing PU or doing red pill stuff.

    What is your opinion of the Authentic Man Program and their products?

  11. Pingback: An Essay for Women

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: