Women ‘Improving’ Men

Improving_men

“I’d honestly love if the manosphere would actually focus on helping men in relationships and self-improvement.”

I had this comment offered in a recent thread. It’s a common gripe from women who believe they’re in some way Red Pill and want to divert their new acceptance of Red Pill truths to serve the same tired ends of the Feminine Imperative. The operative, of course, is always whose definition do we base the measure of ‘improvement’ on? For most women the term ‘improvement’ always aligns with whatever best serves a female sexual strategy – because from a feminine-solipsistic perspective whatever serve women should necessarily serve men.

As with most uneducated women’s concerns I’d already addressed this long ago in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

A lot gets made of the Dark Triad or the Dark Side of Game where a skillful player can sadistically use his newly learned red-pill super powers for evil instead of for the greater good of mankind. Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaing the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;

“Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, Hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”

It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered). Even in the admission of the truth that Game has enlightened Men of, the feminine imperative still seeks to categorize the application of Game to its own end. That Men might have some means of access to their own sexual strategy is too terrible a Threat; Game must be colored good or bad as it concerns the imperatives of women and a fem-centric societal norm.

As the default, socially correct and virtuous concern, women have an easier time of this. As Game becomes increasingly more difficult to deny or misdirect for the feminine, the natural next step in accepting it becomes qualifying its acceptable uses. While hypergamy is an ugly truth, the characterization of it becomes “just how women are” –an unfortunate legacy of their evolution. However for Men, the characterizations of the harsher aspects of Game in its rawest form  (contingencies for hypergamy) are dubbed “the dark arts”.

In her trolling ignorance she fails to understand that she and many “Red Pill Women” before her all want a better Beta. They want a Beta with a side of Alpha – in essence a better slave; one that’s just ignorant enough of female nature and the consequences that ignorance represents, but one who also Just Gets It and satisfies their need for amused mastery, masculine dominance (when it’s convenient and affirming), and ‘just gets women’ so well he never needs to be made aware of women’s nature.

The difference in this case is that the ostensibly “Red Pill” woman now looks to the manosphere’s best and brightest to provide them with such men via some distortion of Red Pill social proof. Not only that, but, in their entitled hubris, they are all too willing to pander to exactly the male idealistic nature I described in the last post. Their appeal is to Red Pill aware men’s sense of duty, honor or integrity in mentoring other Blue Pill Beta men (the ones they hope to improve) in an acceptable Purple Pill fashion – just enough ‘self-improvement’ to serve women’s sexual strategies, but just enough watered down ignorance of women’s feral nature to serve as what they believe would be their ‘right guy’.

You’re just not a “Man” if you don’t promote a feminine reviewed and approved version of the Red Pill to other men.

Many of the wives and women that participate in formerly Red Pill married forums follow this invasion into that previously male space and then turn it to similar ends.

The worst part of this bastardization of course is that they only need to encourage the parts of Red Pill awareness that serves their ends. They feel entitled to Red Pill men educating the plugged-in in how to become the ‘improved’ men they believe they deserve. Thus it’s an easy bandwagon to get aboard so long as their redefinition of what actually is Red Pill jives with what they feel is their due in men.

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

The ideal situation for Red Pill women here is to have a group of respected Red Pill men educate the next generation of plugged-in men to provide the attractive aspects of this awareness while stifling the uncomfortable threatening aspects that might require women to actually prove their own worthiness of those men.

Sexy Psychopaths

My good friend Dagonet had a bit of a misguided hope in this tweet today:

https://twitter.com/TheQuestForever/status/686981982014668800

Once again, male idealism gets the better of one of our own. I wish it were in fact the case that women’s innate, evolved Hypergamy could be overridden so they would find men’s higher-order virtues and ideals to be arousing and attractive. This, however, is not the reality we are dealing with.

Reader Gregg brought up an interesting, and as you’ll read timely, comment about why Dag is in error:

Men think that women want “confident, strong” men. Why do we think that way? Because women told us so, or we have read it in some “wise” 500 pages psychology book. Our old provider needs to believe this, so that he has some “noble” manly goal he can pursue. Of course it is very beneficial for women to have STRONG, CONFIDENT slave that protect her. Put aside our male ego, our goals and aspirationas when we want to understand women. They know that our male ego will side with them, will help them in their game. Unhampered by ego, woman can easily enslave man like that.

Male ego tells us – we have to be strong and confident..cos it is “manly”, it’s “respectable” and women SHOULD respect that! So it is a given that they respect that! While in reality…nothing is further from the truth. She wants strong and confident men as her protecting slaves but she tingles and craves for emotionally unstable man. Like attracts the like. Is Tyler Durden a strong, confident man? He is unstable, knows weak spot of women, he can live in a moment, is more unpredictable than woman. He is emotionally intelligent, more so than typical women. He behaves more like a woman than like a man. Therefore he HAS POWER over them! Is Mystery a strong, confident man? Anyone who’s read “the Game” knows how he was driven mad by one, single chick.

What are the traits of men, women are madly enslaved to? Is it confidence, is it strenght? NOPE. It is unpredictability, unstability, emotional COLDNESS, psychopathy! In this case he is more unstable than her, so SHE is trying to fix the relationship, she is trying to give them some rules, some stability, some “security”. She must do all the work, otherwise there is nothing. She fills the void. He who cares less…..

We still do not want to confess hard, dark truth about women and about ourselves. We still talk about this burden of performance, confidence, strenght, emh..POSITIVE masculinity. We still discuss with women, try to persuade them with logic, try to impress them with our “performance”, knowledge, experience. So can our man with innate need to perform rule/care less about, the realtionship? How? He is enslaved by his very need to perform which performance will be judged by women!

Ultimate lotharios are neither strong, nor confident. They behave more like women than like men. They do not feel the need to perform, to protect, to build, to be confident, to answer, to be responsible. Take Charlie Sheen as an example. This man is emotionally damaged, unstable, irresponsible, weak. Majority of women are much more stable than him. Yet he has fucked more then 5000 of them. You think it is due to his fame? I am sure each of us know weak men, psychopatic men with no fame, yet with harems of women.

It is still the same…discussion of slaves how to be worthy of women. Maybe mentality, maybe genetics, do not know which one more. And new generations of lambs arises…primed for slaughter as the last. We are loosing my friends, big time.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but I’ll drop a two of the responding comments before I do. YaReally provides some counterbalance here:

YaReally:

And here we come to two different results because Gregg isn’t entirely inaccurate that a lot of fucked up damaged dudes are catnip for girls (and not just damaged fucked up girls, hi madonna/whore complex). Whenever we get two different results we have to drill deeper to find the commonality.

It comes down to the guy having an emotional impact on the girl. It doesn’t matter whether you make her feel good or bad emotions (ideally you make her feel both at various times), all that matters is that you have emotional impact on her. The damaged basketcase hot & cold guy who treats her like a princess one minute then tells her to fuck off because his life is falling apart the next is giving her a full range of emotions. So is the super confident guy with his shit together who’s running push/pull on her.

The biggest thing no one will talk about because it sets guys on a bad path is how fucked up and falling apart your life can really BE and you can still attract and keep hot poon around. Ideally we want men to go the TRP route where they build their careers and hit the gym and don’t booze it up etc. But the reality is you can be a fucking MESS and still get hot girls, as long as you have emotional impact on them. It’s why chicks will whore themselves out for ugly pimps and go back to abusive relationships, and on the flip side it’s why they’ll leave dependable boring guys who give them an emotional flatline day to day.

Personally I think that in the old days a chick had a baby at an early enough age to fulfill her need for crazy emotional impact drama to keep her happy and not craving it, but these days since they don’t want kids till they’re 30+ they fill that voice with the cock carousel, cats, Eat Pray Love adventures, hundreds of hours of Netflix (shows/movies full of emotional ups and downs), fucking guys like me, etc.

And finally I’m going to paraphrase SJF’s comment here for another perspective:

What makes you think “lothario” is the kind of man some of us want to be? (although I’m not sure if you are advocating being one or not.) A lothario is an unscrupulous seducer of woman. Unscrupulous means having or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair.

Just because a man has an innate desire (not need) to perform, doesn’t mean he is enslaved. The Rational Male certainly confesses/explicates/describes truths about women and ourselves. Some of us aren’t shackled by knowledge of the burden of performance and having confidence, strength and positive masculinity. Some of us have found that not to be a burden. To be a low hurdle to real power. With low downside and potentially huge upside.

As an aside here I would also point out that Gregg’s focus on men’s Burden of Performance is entirely on serving women’s interests rather than a natural order of male idealism. This is a common mindset among Blue Pill, plugged-in men, they can’t imagine an existence where their finding of an idealistically male purpose or passion in life is set in a context that doesn’t relate to how women perceive it. It’s a logical trap that most MGTOWs find themselves in – they want a world where their performance burden is removed with regard to women, but still refuse to accept that this burden exists independent from women’s perceptions.

In other words they can’t exit the Game, the fundamental rules persist; whether they choose to play or not the Game proceeds in spite of their involvement.

That being what it is, I’ve set these two concepts together here for a reason. First we have a set of Red Pill women seemingly desirous of Red Pill aware men that serve their imperatives within their acceptable frame of what “Red Pill” ought to be for them. Second we have a parallel between Gregg’s take and YaReally’s take on what women are honestly seeking in an ‘improved’ man – a more perfected slave; one who can embody the worst contradiction to positive masculinity (from Gregg’s perspective), and one who despite his performance burden is really only required to provide emotional polarity to generate tingles and genuine desire.

Toxic Masculinity

Liz’s comment from the last thread (emphasis mine):

Masculinity is not bad, it is good.

The poster responded that toxic masculinity refers to behaviors that cause distress (telling a son not to cry and so forth). I didn’t go further into the argument with her, we didn’t see eye to eye enough to really engage anyway […]

Juxtapose this with the feminine way of going things. He is told everyone has his or her own unique specialness and he just needs some encouragement.

Sometimes I think our idea of “bad” and “good” are skewed, and that’s just feminist poisoning.

Toxic masculinity is yet another narrative buzz word the Feminine Imperative has made endemic in the same way it repeats the “rape culture’ meme. By adding the term ‘culture’ to any article you find offensive you make that article an endemic phenomenon – Rape ‘culture’, Bro ‘culture’, a ‘Culture’ of Corruption, etc.

‘Toxic’ Masculinity is another such exercise. It presumes a universally agreed upon definition of what exactly is toxic – very similar again to the good and bad uses of Game in the Dark Art / Dark Triad associations I made at the beginning of this article. And in Liz’s exchange that definition is whatever male-specific behaviors women find “distressing”.

However as we see in Gregg’s example of ideal masculinity, those distressing attributes are in fact the most arousing attributes of men. I’ve used this example before, but the most pussy I’ve ever enjoyed, the most freely given and most genuinely sought after of myself by women was when I was virtually penniless. I didn’t need to signal parental investment and provisioning cues to get women’s sexual interest, I just need to fit the bill for what YaReally defines as the “fun guy” – or as Sheryl Sandberg agrees, “the bad boy, the crazy boy, the cool boy, and the commitment-phobic boy in order to prompt a woman’s genuinely inspired sexual best.

Women & Altruism:

Altruism plays a role in mate choice, particularly in women’s preferences and in long-term (LT) relationships. The current study analyzed how these preferences interacted with another important mate choice variable, physical attractiveness. Here, female participants were presented with photographs of men of varying levels of physical attractiveness, alongside descriptions of them behaving either altruistically or not in different scenarios. The results showed women preferred altruistic men, particularly in LT relationships and that this interacted with physical attractiveness such that being both attractive and altruistic made a man more desirable than just the sum of the two desirable parts. Also, being altruistic made low attractive men more desirable but only for LT relationships. Finally, men who were just altruistic were rated more desirable than men who were just attractive, especially for LT relationships. Overall, these findings are discussed in terms of the role of altruism in mate choice, particularly in LT relationships and directions of future research.

There’s subsection of Red Pill thought (Athol Kay in particular) that believes that Beta attributes align with the effects oxytocin has on men and women. I’m adding this here to provide a balance to that misguided idea:

It has been suggested that the degree of compassion—the feeling of warmth, understanding and kindness that motivates the desire to help others, is modulated by observers’ views regarding the target’s vulnerability and suffering. This study tested the hypothesis that as compassion developed to protect vulnerable kinships, hormones such as oxytocin, which have been suggested as playing a key role in ‘tend-and-befriend’ behaviors among women, will enhance compassion toward women but not toward men. Thirty subjects participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subject study. Following administration of oxytocin/placebo, participants listened to recordings of different female/male protagonists describing distressful emotional conflicts and were then asked to provide compassionate advice to the protagonist. The participants’ responses were coded according to various components of compassion by two clinical psychologists who were blind to the treatment. The results showed that in women and men participants oxytocin enhanced compassion toward women, but did not affect compassion toward men. These findings indicate that the oxytocinergic system differentially mediates compassion toward women and toward men, emphasizing an evolutionary perspective that views compassion as a caregiving behavior designed to help vulnerable individuals.

Those example might seem a bit abstract, but I’m putting them up here to make the point that women’s sexual selection filtering is a two-fold prospect rooted in the dual nature of women’s Hypergamy. What best serves Alpha Fucks is contradicted by Beta Bucks.

Thus we have notions like the attributes that make up “Toxic Masculinity” being arbitrarily whatever aspects of the male nature women find themselves most lacking in men. And by way of that we get a definition that fluctuates according to the Feminine Imperative’s needs. Because of this women, Red Pill or otherwise will never be honest arbiter of ‘improving’ men’s states of masculinity.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of
SlatternsRing
Guest
SlatternsRing
Offline

Women “improving” men invariably involves feminising them.
Women have no interest in the processes of development of character, wealth, honor, etc. The only interest is the result, the “product” (and the comgruence to whatever current fried ice fantasy is presently spinning her hampster wheel. “Ends justifies means” thinking describes this feminine thought process. Combine “Ends justifies the means” with “what have you done for me lately?” and you get the FI in a nutshell.

mersonia
Guest
mersonia
Offline

@kfg your cool

@andy Don’t uptalk

” And sometimes your tone is unnecessarily condescending which can hurt your points despite their validity.
Of course I could be reading you completely wrong.”

^ most annoying stuff a man can do . Say a statement and stick to it

Striver
Guest
Striver
Offline

Man: It’s chaos out there, what a jungle. Woman: I’m scared. Why can’t we live somewhere safer? Man: I beat up that bad guy. Woman: Oh that poor man! Man: Crime’s way down, isn’t it great? Woman: I’m bored. Such is life. I am convinced that long term, even PUA or Red Pill won’t work with women. They will find a way to be unhappy with it. Their cycle rules everything. So if men figure out the cycle, the spikes, women will start gravitating to convents or flat-lining men. If PUA/Red Pill was the answer, however complex, it would have… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“I am convinced that long term, even PUA or Red Pill won’t work with women.”

Define “work.”

Andy
Guest
Andy
Offline

“Don’t uptalk”

lol, got it.

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

That’s a good read on me Andy.

My strengths are a quick, imaginative and strategic mind, high self-confidence, independence and decisiveness. I’m hard-working and determined and open minded (open to new ideas, supported by logic, even if they prove previous conceptions wrong). In real life I’m a Jack-Of-All-Trades.

My weaknesses are that I’m arrogant, judgmental, overly analytical, loathe highly structured environments and am clueless in romance.

But enough about me.

kobayashii1681
Guest

” This is a common mindset among Blue Pill, plugged-in men, they can’t imagine an existence where their finding of an idealistically male purpose or passion in life is set in a context that doesn’t relate to how women perceive it.”

Truth…

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@SJF – Objectivism can’t fairly even be called a philosophy and Ayn Rand most of all resisted attempts to turn it into one, and to turn her into a leader of it.

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky
Offline

Tim: I think the word ‘perform’ is throwing you off. MGTOW tends to use it exclusively to mean ‘perform for another’s benefit.’ Here, we use it in a more general sense of accomplishing things. You can do it for yourself or for others. We recommend the former.

Andy
Guest
Andy
Offline

“My strengths are a —, —, and high self-confidence”

As long as you realize that ultimate self confidence is egoless.

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky
Offline

@Striver

The trick is not caring that women are discontent. Discontent is essential to their nature. It comes from a limbic-level anxiety about security/hypergamic optimization.

If you don’t worry yourself about that and just achieve your own goals, women you choose to have around you will tend to be quite happy actually. Women are capable of happiness. Contentment is a male thing.

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@Mersonia – Still butthurt? Wow.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlOSdRMSG_k&w=560&h=315%5D

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@Scribbler: It’s almost always the fanbois who are the real problem.

mersonia
Guest
mersonia
Offline

@scribblerg I’m sure your daughters butt hurts more than mine.

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@Striver – This: “Man: It’s chaos out there, what a jungle. Woman: I’m scared. Why can’t we live somewhere safer? Man: I beat up that bad guy. Woman: Oh that poor man! Man: Crime’s way down, isn’t it great? Woman: I’m bored. Such is life.” SJF often says “don’t seek completion in life”. The entire point of this piece is that women’s hypergamous nature is an unstable platform for them to operate from. And since we are biologically determined to want to fuck them like crazy, we have to deal with it. Understand the dynamic and roll with it. Take… Read more »

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

ScribblerG, there you go again, mis-attributing my name for KFG’s. But on the Ayn Rand subject, that’s a good point that kfg makes on her being anti-social. I think everyone in their 20’s should read her but be instructed that she is two dimensional in her ideology instead of being prescriptive in 5 dimensions. I was quite inspired a long time ago by her thoughts before becoming multi-dimensional. I think there was a bit of soul and spirit missing from her writings. She was an INTJ and I haven’t met too many INTJ’s that I didn’t like. (You know for… Read more »

Razorwire
Guest
Razorwire
Offline

With the red pill encroaching further into mainstream chambers I can’t help but to think that the typical invade, agree, alter, co-opt, celebrate model will soon be upon us in full force. This is not s stretch if you look at some of the leading voices picked up by the mainstream. It is interesting to me that one of the common complaints of women is that too many men are expecting to be mothered – or need to be mothered, or that this idea of a more ‘traditional’ complimentary ideal is really just one more way to replace their mother… Read more »

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

@ScribblerG “Taking women seriously is probably the biggest mistake I’ve ever made.” Do me a favor. Contemplate this before you go out tonight: you don’t take them seriously, but don’t neglect to appeal to their self-interest. Don’t be too derisive. And there is nothing wrong with putting up a facade that you take them seriously. There is a difference. You can be at a place where you don’t take them seriously, but make the interaction about them. Evoke their values and what they like and invest in giving them what they like. Push-pull, but give them stuff ego-and-emotion-wise in a… Read more »

zip
Guest
zip
Offline

@ Razor

Interesting observation and another example of women’s contradictory attitude.

Being lenient I’d say the “yesterday’s-gun-opposer-today’s-best-shooting-buddy”-phenomenon is a consequence of women’s childlike mindset – living only in the here-and-now, mimicking everything men are exerting with confidence and passion.

Being less lenient it’s her sexual strategy to try to take over her current Alpha completely until he is betazised enough to spit him out and turn to the next Alpha.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“Equal! partners is the only way, etc.” By which they seem to mean that everybody has to try to use the same paint brush at the same time. “In any case, she hates guns. Hates people with guns (uneducated, knuckle draggers) . . .” All the while she is free to hold such opinions, because (and I’m fairly certain that you are aware of the irony) uneducated, knuckle dragging men with guns remain vigilant through the night and protect her while she sleeps. And I’m not even thinking of the military and police. Get rid of the varmint/predator hunters and… Read more »

Is This Thing On?
Guest
Is This Thing On?
Offline

Regarding the AVFM vs Roosh video: I could only listen to a few minutes of it. They both started verbally jockeying for top dog status in very passive aggressive ways. The thing is, I’ve gotten lots of value out of MGTOW videos, AVFM content, Return of Kings stuff, and mostly right here at TRM. It all addresses different needs of different men at different times of their lives. For sure their is a lot of garbage to reject as well, but that is just part of life. Why can’t all the different sub-spheres of the manosphere just do what they… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“Why can’t all the different sub-spheres of the manosphere just do what they do well and stop pissing in each others cheerios?”

For the same reason boys wrassle.

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@Mersonia – And who do you think your comment reveals more about – me or you? Who’s in who’s head? Please, keep demonstrating how you are my bitch, it’s amusing and sad, simultaneously.

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

And it’s Rollo, in for the kill. Clarity and truth. Two assclowns fumbling around for their cocks…

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline
Roused
Guest
Roused
Offline

Thanks Rollo, best lunch read I’ve had in a while. The more I read your work and these comments the better I am. The better I am the more I realize I have more to read and actualize.

Longgone
Guest
Longgone
Offline

SJF,

“My strengths are a quick, imaginative and strategic mind, high self-confidence, independence and decisiveness. I’m hard-working and determined and open minded (open to new ideas, supported by logic, even if they prove previous conceptions wrong). In real life I’m a Jack-Of-All-Trades.”

Save that for your online dating profile (when you need it). wink Happy New Year!

J1J2
Guest
J1J2
Offline

That’s a lot of verbiage to go through just to say that women don’t like it that men’s out-reproductive strategy is promiscuity (perhaps followed by hypergamy), and that this is in conflict (for high SMV types) with women’s out-reproductive strategy. Women would rather have men’s out-reproductive strategy just be a male version of hypergamy, so that success for alpha males does not mean failure for “alpha” females. In other words, they think game is fine as long as men just use it to get married, not laid. I got banned from HUS for trying to point this out over there.… Read more »

The Question
Guest

@ Rollo Tomassi “It took all of 10 minutes to block me on twitter and ban all my disqus comments on RoK, his sites and forum after I was critical of his bullshit PR push.” As someone who finds the neomasculinity philosophy appealing, reading this disturbs me. It’s not the Red Pill and men shouldn’t be required to adhere to it in order to be RP. If people can’t defend their philosophy against criticism, that’s not a good sign. “Neomasculinity is a business plan and is really only a vehicle for Roosh to remain relevant now that he’s 36 and… Read more »

cheupez
Guest
cheupez
Offline

Big Up for the altruistic men in the house. I am told the women like those too. The altruistic score for men: Still acceptable if you were drunk…How is this for altruistic sex? 1. Went clubbing and screwed a chick in the gents once: Score one. (If you have done this twice score four). Any more and you don’t need any more scores. Overboard. Heheheee 2. If you have ever screwed more than three different women in a period of less 24 hrs: Threesomes and foursomes don’t count: Score one. 3. If you have screwed a woman so hard she… Read more »

Is This Thing On?
Guest
Is This Thing On?
Offline

@scribblerg Those two in particular are certainly assclowns. That being said, they have organizations with other people that still turn out decent content. I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To me, the most valuable part of the sphere is the entirety of it. It’s men waking up and realizing how fucked things have gotten. Taking the red pill can be uncomfortable. The more widely varied the various crash pads are the better. So Roosh is full of shit these days. People will figure that out soon enough. He an Elam are still voices out there… Read more »

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

@The Question

Although I can’t remember the Neomasculinity manifesto, I would assume that it and the MRM take a top down approach and thus have a touch of being impracticable. With the former being a first set of books subscription.

Rollo advises a bottoms-up approach to red pill and the Masculine Imperative.

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

@Longgone
January 15th, 2016 at 1:28 pm

I grant you that would go over like a lead balloon. (The obvious message to women: Don’t fuck with me because you can’t mold me).

I don’t plan to need an online dating profile.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

” . . . more militant MGTOWs . . . ”

Many of whom are obviously infused with contemporary egalitarianism ideals as well. The basic idea seems to be that if men abandon women, women will be forced to evolve into men.

And they say that as if it’s a good thing.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“I don’t plan to need an online dating profile.”

I will remind, for any who might need such a reminder, that online dating inherently rests on the fundamental premise that desire can be negotiated.

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@SJF – Words are a bit inadequate for all this. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, rather I’m trying to get at something a bit more ineffable. I was never cruel to women. I fucked them back in those days by charming the pants off them. But what was also true is that I just didn’t give a fuck. One turned me down, whatevs. I try something crazy with the next, or some line like “Pink or brown” and they walk off, I’d just laugh. They could tell I was no pussy beggar. Due to my ego investments in… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@Scribbler: ” . . . I was aggressive and a talker . . .”

Now there’s a shocker.

J1J2
Guest
J1J2
Offline

No doubt women get hurt by men running game, but for the most part this happens only with their own more or less enthusiastic cooperation. There are two ways this syndrome could be reduced: 1) men could “realize” how immoral it is to run game for lays, and stop doing that, or 2) women could realize how foolish it is to “just assume” interest in sex implies interest in romance, and “have the talk”. On the general principle that it is always up to the party that would suffer greater injury to prevent occurrences that would cause injury, stopping pump… Read more »

scribblerg
Guest
scribblerg
Offline

@KFG – Yes, two traits mandatory for picking up women.I always out-performed the super chiseled, aloof, wannabe Renaissance men who are ego-invested in seeing themselves as smarter than everyone else in the room and talked down to everyone, including women. Funny how that works… When I was chubby, I used to pull up my shirt and make a small, hairy ass out of my stomach by pushing either side of my gut together around my bellybutton, and make women laugh, who would later blow me…Many an effete man would scowl at such antics as he flexed in the mirror behind… Read more »

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

At ScribblerG,

That’s definitely effable enough for me.

Your strengths back then were that you were smart, adaptable in game, good looking and had no ego (DGAF) and you had desire. You got the go ahead to maximize those now.

Your weaknesses as you know them now, yes minimize them. Be adaptable. Have desire. You’ve got time. Relax your mind (your most valuable asset).

Good luck.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“On the general principle that it is always up to the party that would suffer greater injury . . .”

Don’t teach women not to pick up porcupines. Teach porcupines not to be covered in pointy things.

“We are sexually incorrigible.”

adjective: incorrigible

1. (of a person or their tendencies) not able to be corrected, improved, or reformed.

Contrariwise to my above statement about some extreme MGTOW, you refer to men’s sexuality as if it’s a bad thing.

I wonder where you might have gotten that particular perspective from.

Andy
Guest
Andy
Offline

“I always out-performed the super chiseled, aloof, wannabe Renaissance men who are ego-invested in seeing themselves as smarter than everyone else in the room and talked down to everyone, including women.”

lol!!!

Edelweiss
Guest
Edelweiss
Offline

@Razorwire-I’ve been going to various gun ranges for 30+ years. I can’t help noticing that the number of women showing up has exploded. It used to be almost exclusively a guy thing. Many ranges now cater to women with a “girls only” session. As you stated above, women feel the need to infiltrate, and alter. If they can’t, they pressure their men to abstain, and it usually works. They expect to be the center of attention, and if that doesn’t happen, it’s time for tantrum mode. I’ve tried to organize a few shoots with co-workers that are guy only. No… Read more »

agent p
Guest
agent p
Offline

tit for tat vis a vis women invading men’s space:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/men-rights-unruh-act-women-discrimination

Marc
Guest
Marc
Offline

I bought and read both of your books. It was such a shock that I would read them as fast as I could to get over this task as quickly as possible. I never touched them anymore. I don’t remember much of them, it’s as if I tried to forget what I read. Out of curiosity I came to your blog today and read this post. Now I know why I did this with your books : you write uncomfortable truth and it hurts. But damn it, I swear I’m gonna go through your books again, slowly, during the summer,… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@Marc: ” . . . it’s painful.”

What doesn’t kill us, well, often times it leaves us crippled for life, but sometimes it makes us stronger.

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

Marc, your eyes hurt because….? A while back I was looking for a couple of books by Nancy Friday, “My Secret Garden” and “Women on top” (highly recommended reading, by the way, for those still burdened with a Madonna / whore mindset. AWALT…) and in a fairly large used book store at that. I wound up in the “sexuality / relationships” section which blended into the “women’s studies” and “men’s studies” as well. A lot of junk thought crammed into a few shelves; there’s apparently no limit to the number of books that can be published advising men on how… Read more »

Anonymous Reader
Guest
Anonymous Reader
Offline

razorwire .A friend who I shoot with has a GF now. She’s full lib-feminist. Its perplexed me from the get go as he is a classic good’ol southern man. Apparently, she really likes me even though I am not shy about calling her out on her shit. In any case, she hates guns. Hates people with guns (uneducated, knuckle draggers) Well, except for my friend. So guess who is coming shooting with us this weekend? I LOL’d. “Woman is like water, she takes the shape of the vessel she’s placed in”. I don’t even remember where in the ‘sphere I… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@AR: “It occured to me I should buy Rollo’s books, open them and make them look a bit read, then turn right around and sell them to that used book store. A low key way to spread the word.”

It may not technically be samizdat, but it fulfils the principle. The only criticism I can make is that it fails to build a network.

On the other hand, the more men there are who start using their eyes, the easier networks will be to create.

Edelweiss
Guest
Edelweiss
Offline

Agent P- What those guys don’t get is that you can’t “out victim” the pros. The speed with which they can go from strong independent woman to victim is mind blowing. You might win a minor legal battle, but if the popular narrative isn’t supported, you’ll likely be cast as a ridiculous whiner. Notice the comments section. Granted, it is an MJ article. The epitome of left wing “free thinkers”. LOL

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

” . . . if the popular narrative isn’t supported, you’ll likely be cast as a ridiculous whiner.”

Really. That’s how the progressive feminists started out, and look how little traction they’ve gotten out of it.

What’s being done here is playing by the progressive’s own rule book. Literally. It’s Rule 4: Make them live by their own rules.

No, it isn’t going to create large changes overnight, but if applied with persistence over time it changes the popular narrative. I’ve spent my life watching it work.

Angus Malcolm
Guest
Angus Malcolm
Offline

“It comes down to the guy having an emotional impact on the girl. It doesn’t matter whether you make her feel good or bad emotions (ideally you make her feel both at various times), all that matters is that you have emotional impact on her.” Very interesting watching the reaction to Bowie dying this week. Frankly, I was never much of a fan, but I recognized long ago that David Bowie was catnip to a certain type of woman. My FB feed was blowing up this week with eulogies to him, mostly from women. The guys who were fans were… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“To most guys, if they remember the movie at all . . .”

. . . it reminds them of the girl.

What girl?

The girl with the power.

What power?

The power of being 16 year old Jennifer Connelly.

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong
Offline

@kfg

The power of being 16 year old Jennifer Connelly.

Absolutely no shit to that. Think I popped my first boner to her. She was positively smoking for most of her career.

Angus Malcolm
Guest
Angus Malcolm
Offline

@Rollo

Should have known you had it covered. I’ve read extensively but I haven’t read everything.

Divided Line
Guest

@Rollo I’m sure Mr. Elam would be happy to debate/interview you for his channel. I would have much preferred to see that debate than the one he had with Roosh.

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong
Offline

@Angus

http://i.imgur.com/5QdBVLe.jpg

Hehe, it’s really hard to find something Rollo hasn’t written about at this point.

Andy
Guest
Andy
Offline

“She was positively smoking for most of her career.”

Oh man… Her in Requiem for a Dream. Got oneitis for her in that movie. Lol.

Angus Malcolm
Guest
Angus Malcolm
Offline

In my defense, both of the articles I linked are topical and gold, regardless.

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

I actually just finished listening to the Elam/Roosh debate as you posted that. I’ve never been more bored by anything in my life.

I don’t think Rollo would have it in him to do a debate with Elam. Waste of time.

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

“In my defense, both of the articles I linked are topical and gold, regardless.”

YGBSM.

Apex rock star wets panties and women explain why?

With apologies to myself for the uptalk.

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong
Offline

@Andy

Got oneitis for her in that movie.

I’m not saying it’s Oneitis, but I would’ve hit that with the fury of a million supernovae. Just sayin.

Andy
Guest
Andy
Offline

@Sun

Lol. Her not having the chance to be pregnant with my babies is a crime against humanity.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrRkVNVboFs

At about 20 seconds my brain melts.

Forge the Sky
Guest
Forge the Sky
Offline

Well, I thought the articles were pretty interesting. I didn’t know there was a whole scene of mid-teen girls openly having sex with celebrities as late as the 1970’s, reported in the tabloids and all. THRILLIST: Still, you were a 15-year-old kid and he was an adult man with a lot of experience, and power, and drugs. You don’t see any problem with that now? MATTIX: I was an innocent girl, but the way it happened was so beautiful. I remember him looking like God and having me over a table. Who wouldn’t want to lose their virginity to David… Read more »

Divided Line
Guest

What irritated me more about that Elam interview was how Elam paid short shrift to how difficult all of this is. Simply “having standards,” telling a woman “no” sometimes, and bushing up on the symptoms of BPD in the DSM IV apparently is all men need to successfully navigate the SMP. I disagree that men seek out women simply because they’re slaves to “hormones.” Even for a guy who is mercilessly gaming and plowing through pussy, it’s not entirely just about sex, is it? If that were the case, men – being the logical, pragmatic, and linear thinkers that we… Read more »

dwellerman
Guest
dwellerman
Offline

@AR: “It occured to me I should buy Rollo’s books, open them and make them look a bit read, then turn right around and sell them to that used book store. A low key way to spread the word.” ~ In CA, [maybe all States], there’s a library program which allows you to fill out a simple form with your name, address and the Title and author of any book you want to get from Amazon. So long as you have a library card and the the Library doesn’t already have that book it sends the form to Amazon with… Read more »

Divided Line
Guest

@Angus Women get turned on by all-powerful men, and yet we’re supposed to believe that “gender equality” is possible. Oh ok. Y’know, I was born in 1979, same generation as that author. I can remember Labyrinth on cable in the 1980s and thinking it was just some stupid movie about puppets. I never had much interest in it. The messages I was getting from the culture about gender didn’t come from Labyrinth, but from movies like the Karate Kid or Say Anything. I fully believed that the underdog could get the girl. But women don’t the underdog, now do they?… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“Even for a guy who is mercilessly gaming and plowing through pussy, it’s not entirely just about sex, is it?”

It’s babies. All.The way.Down.

No babies. No sexes.

Acksiom
Guest
Acksiom
Offline

“Why can’t all the different sub-spheres of the manosphere just do what they do well and stop pissing in each others cheerios?” Because they’re competing with each other for the attention of a niche market that is still very small and limited. It is limited primarily by the same economic and technological factors behind the assignment of certain social responsibilities to males. That assignment is the result of males’ greater reproductive expendability. Males are assigned the more dirty, dangerous, deadly work necessary to maintaining a sufficiently high reproductive rate in communities. The women’s movement succeeded because technological advances industrialized much… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@Divided Line: “But women don’t the underdog, now do they?”

See the opening of The Karate Kid, Part II.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

“It’s as though the idea of genuine male liberation terrifies you . . .”

KFG’s Maxim #1 (it has an actual number, and that number is 1, not because it is the most important, but because it was actually my first maxim):

If a machine can do the job, I don’t want it.

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy
Offline

*sigh* al·tru·ism noun: altruism —> The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. Could not be any more clear. Altruism is concern for others specifically to the detriment of concern for the self. The only species on earth that behave this way are hive species; ants, termites, bees. No mammalian species actually behaves in this fashion. Cooperation is not altruism. Voluntarism is not altruism. Both of those concepts lack the crucial element of a total disinterest in self-preservation. I re-submit that Altruism (proper) is actually contrary to normal animal evolution, as there are… Read more »

SJF
Guest
SJF
Offline

@ Forge the Sky Imagine my annoyance a decade or so ago, when one of my wife’s favorite dinner party stories was the one where she would announce loudly that her friend who she went to a WHO concert once as a young’un fucked slept with Roger Daltrey. The only reason my wife didn’t get get the honor (as the more attractive one) was because his handlers vetted her first and she had a viral cold at the time. Yep, she used to tell that one with a smirk. Too bad the manosphere and game weren’t invented yet for us… Read more »

Divided Line
Guest

@Acksiom

Can’t find a suitable mate? “Man up, you’re not entitled. Quit whining.” Can’t find a job? “Man up, you’re not entitled. Quit whining.”

That’s a weird parallel. What could that mean? Capitalism is applied gynocentrism.

Acksiom
Guest
Acksiom
Offline

@kfg – And if you can’t address the model, I don’t want to hear it. Do you not notice how you are doing *exactly* what I just pointed out? You’re avoiding any discussion of the model.

Why do you do that?

Divided Line
Guest

@Jeremy “The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. Could not be any more clear. Altruism is concern for others specifically to the detriment of concern for the self. The only species on earth that behave this way are hive species; ants, termites, bees. No mammalian species actually behaves in this fashion. Cooperation is not altruism. Voluntarism is not altruism. Both of those concepts lack the crucial element of a total disinterest in self-preservation.” Human males behave in this way. Hence the male workplace injuries and death statistics, hence the piles of male… Read more »

Acksiom
Guest
Acksiom
Offline

@Divided Line – “Capitalism is applied gynocentrism.” No. ‘Capitalism’, as you use the term there, is applied *reproductivism*. Causatively, it’s about maintaining the population replacement rate, not benefiting women. Instead, the benefits to females and detriments to males are the result of their relative importance to that maintenance. That’s why I advocate for Vasalgel and RISUG. What happens when men have a default veto over reproduction? Their value in the population replacement formula increases significantly, and their value in the economic and social markets increases as a result. Not because of social justice or androcentrism, but because their resource value… Read more »

Divided Line
Guest

No mammalian species can manipulate their environment to turn it into skyscrapers, microprocessors, and nuclear weapons either. The defining characteristic of our species is our ability to do precisely this, and the means by which we do it is a division of labor where tasks can be specialized. It really is a hive, like it or not. We don’t confront our environment directly, as so many other species do, but indirectly through that division of labor. You spend your entire life in that human hive and depend on it entirely for your survival. Cooperation really is altruism if it carries… Read more »

Divided Line
Guest

@Acksiom “No. ‘Capitalism’, as you use the term there, is applied *reproductivism*. Causatively, it’s about maintaining the population replacement rate, not benefiting women.”

I don’t see the difference.

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@Acksiom: “You’re avoiding any discussion of the model.”

You don’t know me very good.

Andy
Guest
Andy
Offline

“it has an actual number, and that number is 1, not because it is the most important, but because it was actually my first maxim” Lol. What are the others? “Because they’re competing with each other for the attention of a niche market that is still very small and limited.” I have a different theory. Mine is that the Internet is so vast that it is essentially a reinforcement theory factory. For every advancement in human consciousness there exists niche Internet confirmation bias community. U% of people will die never emerging from the MSM. V% will make it to the… Read more »

Sun Wukong
Guest
Sun Wukong
Offline

Capitalism is applied gynocentrism.

Which is clearly why only the most socialist countries mandate female C-levels in supposedly capitalist private companies, right?

Acksiom
Guest
Acksiom
Offline

@Divided Line –

The difference is that gynocentrism is female-primacy merely for the sake of female-primacy, whereas reproductivism is community-survival-primacy for the sake of benefiting the majority of the community.

Labeling it as mere ‘gynocentrism’ conceals the causative relationships involved, which makes it harder to intentionally improve these matters. More correctly identifying it as ‘reproductivism’ better reveals the causative relationships, making it easier to intentionally improve them.

That’s the difference – how *useful* the labels are, which is consistently dependent upon their accuracy.

@ Andy – How is your theory supposed to answer the original question?

Divided Line
Guest

@Rollo It probably is a waste of time. What I’ve noticed is how the manosphere reflexively forms a hierarchy of guys throwing each other under the bus whenever they’re criticized from the outside. It looks to me like the same mechanism at work when male feminists and white knights try to differentiate themselves from the bad guys. You could look at some of the criticism that MGTOW gets by MRAs and just replace “MGTOW” with “misogynist” and the rhetoric would be identical. “Yeah, feminism is bullshit, but y’know, we’re not like *those* guys, those fuckin’ school shooting, rapey, creepy misogynists!”… Read more »

kfg
Guest
kfg
Offline

@Andy: “Lol. What are the others?” Good question. The others don’t have numbers because I haven’t bothered to list them. Perhaps some day, when I am leaving the city forever, some guard at the gate won’t let me leave until I record them. Some of my friends probably know them better than I do. Some I have posted in threads here, when their relevance reminds me of them. When their relevance goes out of sight, they tend to go out of mind. One from this thread is: It’s babies, all the way down. Let’s see, one I haven’t posted before,… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy
Offline

@acksiom

Why the sub-spheres will never get along? Well they never will because they’ll always think the others are wrong. But hopefully there will always be people like Rollo actively convincing people that you don’t have to live the rest of your life angry.

Acksiom
Guest
Acksiom
Offline

@ Divided Line – “That’s what seems to be at work when Elam and Esmay are trying to differentiate themselves from PUA. ‘No, no, ladies, we’re the good guys! See?'” Except Elam etc. aren’t saying it just to the ladies. They’re saying it to the wider click-paying market into which they want to expand. They’re trying to make their messaging more acceptable to the Community while still courting the outrage pony ride market. What I’ve noticed is how parts of the manosphere tend to overemphasize female valuation of males relative to general community valuation of males. The regard and respect… Read more »

Acksiom
Guest
Acksiom
Offline

@ Andy – “Why the sub-spheres will never get along? Well they never will because they’ll always think the others are wrong.”

OK, so why will they always think the others are wrong?

Andy
Guest
Andy
Offline
The Question
Guest

@ SJF “Although I can’t remember the Neomasculinity manifesto, I would assume that it and the MRM take a top down approach and thus have a touch of being impracticable. With the former being a first set of books subscription.Rollo advises a bottoms-up approach to red pill and the Masculine Imperative.” I’ve read the manifesto several times, and neomasculinity cannot make sense to a Blue Pill or Purple Pill man. However, taking the Red Pill as a prerequisite is not specifically articulated as far as I know, and honestly I think that is the biggest threat to the philosophy. Having… Read more »

Divided Line
Guest

@Sun Wukon If capitalism is sociological phenomena, not a belief system, but the spontaneous order that arises out of the machinations of human political economy, then there’s no way that it could not be the product of gynocentrism. That’s what proponents of “free trade” would have us believe, right? The market is “natural.” It’s just about working ourselves to death to provide for women. No amount of lipstick you put on it is going to disguise the fact that it is a pig. Nobody in the manosphere wants to accept that fact or work out what it means because they’re… Read more »

Acksiom
Guest
Acksiom
Offline

@ Andy – OK, so why does that necessarily lead to pissing in each other’s Cheerios the way they do?

I ask because we don’t see any of these mano-sub-sphere’s going after the NPO or the intactivists or similar organizations and groups, and I see how my theory explains that but not how yours does.

The Question
Guest

@Andy “Why the sub-spheres will never get along? Well they never will because they’ll always think the others are wrong.” There’s a difference between disagreeing with people and treating them badly or ostracizing them because they don’t see eye to eye on everything with you. Thinking someone is wrong is not the same as thinking someone has ill intent. “But hopefully there will always be people like Rollo actively convincing people that you don’t have to live the rest of your life angry.” Yes. What has made the manosphere so great has been its true diversity of perspectives and opinions,… Read more »

%d bloggers like this: