Mansplaining

About three years ago I published a post called Remove the Man. That essay was prompted by Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signing on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral.

“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”

That was 2013. I’d encourage readers to go over this article again as a frame of reference, but the gist of the idea then was revealing the efforts being made by the Feminine Imperative to remove men (literally and figuratively) not only from the common language but to remove men from defining masculinity altogether. I touched on this as well in VulnerabilityIn seizing a monopoly on our very language women are free to redefine not just words but the ideas that those words connote.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” – George Orwell, 1984

It’s an easy jump to associate this word-thought monopolization with political and social justice agendas, and I’m sure there are many examples of it in practice. And while I’ll leave that discussion to other blogs, I do think it’s important in the scope of this blog’s mandate to address how maleness is (and has been) decoupled from masculinity – certainly conventional masculinity – and the redefinition of the concept of masculinity has been surrendered to the feminine in a similar fashion that Hypergamy has been given free reign in society.

In other words, in a feminine-centric social order, men, by and large, have willingly acquiesced the defining power of how they will communicate to the sensibilities of women.

From Remove the Man:

Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.

[…]the same social tool has been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative.

[…]For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity, solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.

Control the language and you control the concept. Control the concept, and what is acceptable and what is not about it, and you control the thought before it forms. As I’ve argued in the past, the end state of the Feminine Imperative’s consolidation of social control isn’t the complete elimination of masculinity, but rather that it conveniently conforms to the needs of the imperative as best suits it.

‘Masculinity’ when shame for a lack of performance in desired acts, protection and provisioning are necessary, ‘Misogyny’ when the threat of feminine-primary control is implied in men’s self-esteem, affirmation or reward are attributed to maleness.

From Vulnerability:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

I’m beginning with this today because it’s necessary to underline the latent purposes behind the cutesy jingoisms the Feminine Imperative likes to use when it finds it necessary to reign in the ‘word-thought’ of men. One of these is the term “Mansplaining.”

I led off with the video of Senator Gallagher being called to the carpet for using ‘Mansplaining’ as her go-to rationale because it illustrates how the jingoism of the imperative is expected to work with men already cowed by a Blue Pill conditioning. She literally expects everyone present to understand what Mansplaining is.

Side note: I also find it ironic that the word “Mansplaining” is not flagged with a red underline by autocorrect as I type this. Womansplaining however, is. It’s kind of spooky how readily the language monopoly of the Feminine Imperative is integrated into our popular consciousness via communications technologies and social media. How quick? Have a look at how ‘Mansplaining’ trends on Google.

Even more ironic is the fact that the common definition of what constitutes ‘mansplaining’ is still up for grabs. According to Wikipedia:

Mansplaining covers a heterogeneous mix of mannerisms in which a speaker’s reduced respect for the stance of a listener, or a person being discussed, appears to have little reason behind it other than the speaker’s assumption that the listener or subject, being female, does not have the same capacity to understand as a man. It also covers situations in which it appears a person is using a conversation primarily for the purpose of self-aggrandizement — holding forth to a female listener, presumed to be less capable, in order to appear knowledgeable by comparison.

Solnit’s original essay went further, discussing the consequences of this gendered behavior and drawing attention to its effect in creating a conspiracy of silence and disempowerment. Solnit later published Men Explain Things To Me, a collection of seven essays on similar themes. Women, including professionals and experts, are routinely seen or treated as less credible than men, she wrote in the title essay, and their insights or even legal testimony are dismissed unless validated by a man. She argued that this was one symptom of a widespread phenomenon that “keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”

Mansplaining differs somewhat from other forms of condescension in that it is specifically gender-related, rooted in a sexist assumption that a man will normally be more knowledgeable, or more capable of understanding, than a woman.

Google cuts to the meat of it for simplicity:

mansplain

Others argue that any information a man relates in a male way of explaining it (i.e. a longwinded description of informational content). Julia Baird’s offering is particularly egregious, citing the amount of lines women get in proportion to those of men in the movies:

The problem is global and endemic across all media. Female characters speak lessin Disney films today than they used to — even princesses get a minority of the speaking lines in films in which they’re the principal: In the 2013 animated movie “Frozen,” for example, male characters get 59 percent of the lines. A quick search for best monologues in film or movies reveals that they are almost all male. If you took Princess Leia out of “Star Wars,” the total speaking time for female characters is 63 seconds out of the original trilogy’s 386 minutes.

This, of course, is in stark contrast to the studies that show women spend more time on their cell phones and text more often than men. Women also use emoticons more often than men, yet men have more variety in emoticon usage. That may seem trivial, but it’s an important aspect to consider in comparing men and women’s preferred intents of communication. Then there are the studies that show women actually do talk more than men – 13,000 words a day.

It’s also important to consider that women dominate the vast majority of social media, unless that social media happens to be something work related like LinkedIn. This is an important distinction to make when we consider how men and women prefer to communicate.

From The Medium is the Message:

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

It should come as no surprise to most men in the manosphere that men and women have different means and different priorities in communications. I published that post almost five years ago, but even then I knew that a social order founded on feminine primacy was going to standardize its own way of communicating as the correct way. The ostensible reasoning is that, from a desire for gender parity in society, men must abandon their blunt, artless and simplistic, yet overbearing and egotistic way of communication and adopt women’s more meaningful, emotive and insightful covert way.

Of course, it’s men who see this ruse for what it is and either refuse to capitulate or simply don’t realize they’re supposed to talk like women who set themselves apart from the throngs of Blue Pill men conditioned to identify with the female experience (as a means to become intimate with them). I forget where I read it, but some one said a PUA is a man who pretends he has what a woman pretends she does not want. I may not agree with that in whole, but it certainly describes the social condition that’s been established by the Feminine Imperative over the course of four generations.

When we’re presented with easily digestible terms like Mansplaining, no matter how loosely defined, and it filters into the popular consciousness and lexicon so rapidly, what we’re witnessing is the ease with which the Feminine Imperative expects men to cede to it.

When a woman attempts to cow a man by saying he’s Mansplaining something to her she’s reached a point at which she prefers that man, any man, speak to her as a woman would. In base terms, she shames him for not opting to communicate as a woman would from the outset. He should know better.

The fem-splaining cover story is that men feel some ego-centric need to over-explain something to a woman. For a Blue Pill conditioned man this may even be accurate in that they hope so doing will endear himself to a “rational reasonable” woman by helping her understand a concept he’s educated on. What we’re really looking at is a struggle to control which gender-communication will take precedence. In a feminine primary social order, men’s means of communicating is offensive to women by default. The presumption is that men are being condescending to women by expecting them to communicate as men do, and especially within the political and working spheres.

As women push their way into male spaces, part of assimilating those spaces is to re-standardize how men will appropriately communicate within them. The conflict comes from the expectation on the part of men that women will respect the nature of station she’s been empowered to and be able to weather criticism and reproach as men have always done in those stations. The fallacy is the equalist belief that women will be equal agents while holding the same roles as men; the reality is what we see in the video above today.

So the solution, as always, is to remove the man, remove the masculine influence, change the language and the definitions, to remake the nature of the engagement if not the actual real-world factors that make the game or the politic or the business what it is – to silence the man by telling him to “just shut the hell up” or be tarred with the epithet of being a ‘typical man’.

The content of the communication is of less importance to women than how that communication makes them feel. We see this in no uncertain terms the more women become part of the socio-political/business spheres. When a man needs to explain the importance of content to a woman who is only qualified for her station by virtue of her being female that exchange necessarily is uncomfortable for women. Solution: complain about the delivery of the content and silence the men who would deliver it.

370 comments

  1. “Side note: I also find it ironic that the word “Mansplaining” is not flagged with a red underline by autocorrect as I type this. Womansplaining however, is.”

    That’s because the accepted word for “womansplaining” is “nagging”.

  2. The gist of the main characters job in 1984 is changing the words of articles to fit the new language.

    Why? It’s for the same ultimate reason we see so much focus on PC redefinition of language IOW the feminine imperative- if a man can’t express masculine thought for lack of words to express it ,he is de facto not a threat to the FI. Even if he knows the truth about game and women, the language itself won’t exist to express it.

    In a fashion, it’s a meta example of female hypergamy adapting to the male operative to reproduce. See, guys- perhaps for the first time as a species- can mass communicate in ways women do not control. For the first time , we are comparing notes about how women work on a global scale, and are sharing the goods.

    As Rollo observed in earlier articles, hypergamy doesn’t work very well when guys can spoof the tells.Its like a standardized test for students who have the answer key-it renders the measuring mechanism useless.

    The goal of Hypergamy can be identified as this- an instinctual sorting and processing of a females available mating options to determine the ideal mixture of male seed and resources .

    It can’t do that in an environment where betas and alphas do the same things.

    So it serves the feminine imperative best to ensure us males can’t communicate. By keeping men in the dark about the realities of the mating system, women can efficiently sort through males to benefit their interest.
    Females can trust their initial impression of a man is the honest one – because how can a dude fake being beta or alpha when the language and resources to fake it either way are forbidden , inaccessible or destroyed?

  3. lol

    it’s super funny how if you just add ‘shit ALPHA males do’ before most of feminist gripes, things start to make sense.

    any time a guy opens his mouth to explicate and TRY to use logic, it = mansplaining, esp if it involves invalidating someone’s feelings.

    but i mean, you can imagine the gregarious alpha male just silencing someone with a bullshit explanation for EVERYTHING

    to me, that’s a fair charge of ‘mansplaining.’

    a lot of the other ones are very hit/miss…mostly miss.

    the main problem in the FI, and with feminism, anti-racism, is that they just set their sights on easy targets 99% of the time.

    in everyday life it’s the beta schlub who gets his ass chewed out over mansplaining, not the alpha CEO….the ‘feminist’ is too busy fucking that guy.

    just like a lot of anti-racism goes against like….poor schluby white people. lol they already lost the civil war, no one gives a shit about them.

    if all these movements went up against the actual seats of power, i’d be way more about them…but the problem is that, once anyone gets a taste of power, they just have to abuse it….which involves bullying.

    sad shit, mang.

  4. Globally there is a movement to make language “Gender neutral”—in English anyway. Wouldn’t work in other languages like Spanish, French, etc.

    But the debate seems useless. Who are these words and songs and ideas offending?

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2731475/gender-neutral-lyrics-in-o-canada-up-for-debate-in-house-of-commons/

    But I find myself reverting to using these words just because they’ve become more commonly understood.

    But seeing the roles reversed or taken up by women is ruining the sport.

    They can’t do the man’s part well so as Rollo or someone here once put it: instead of being better women they’ve focused on being substandard men.

    The change in “gender neutral” language in English makes guys who don’t use it the target of scorn or accusations of not being sensitive.

    So for years these words were accepted and now they’re being “neutralized”.

  5. Is it an average of 13000 more words used to convey absolutely no useful information?

    If a woman exists that can read a plan and visualize the outcome,I haven’t met her.I have to show them a picture.Women have half the money and all the pussy in the world.

    There was this joke going around the fem circle where they give men numbers and assign certain tasks so when they need a man for this task they just ask for someone with this number. Now angies list is more popular than the bbb.It is no longer a joke.

    I would like to say I am done explaining things to women,but there are certain things they will never learn[because they are to smart]and I am a man,so inevitably I will get asked again and how can you relate something as simple as a counterfort walls necessity in anything other than laymans terms,Mansplaining?

  6. I’d like to order a couple thousand of that guy in the video please. Over here in this country, and into political office a.s.a.p.

    Trump, supposedly you get the best people, supposedly you know how to hire as well as fire? This nation needs a lot of those men and fast. It’s never too early in the admin to snag good talent.

  7. “and their insights or even legal testimony are dismissed unless validated by a man.”

    testimony refers to testicles, as in, a man had to swear on his balls that he was telling the truth. women were never allowed to testify because they don’t have balls to lose.

    plus it was recognized thousands of years ago that a woman’s version of the “truth” was clouded by emotion and could not be counted on for shit.

  8. The FI language police are so effective I used to take their concerns to heart and honestly edit my interactions so as to be more respectful and deferential. I figured I hadn’t lived their lives and couldn’t appreciate the constant challenges of living in a man’s world. It took me years and years (and years) to grow out of it. I realized that (1) I had become the most sensitive, gentle man I knew, to no effect, and (2) the FI’s owning an issue didn’t result in gratitude for or happiness over that win, it just led them to find some other issue to be unhappy about and launch a campaign over.

    I don’t play their game anymore.

    What it comes down to is that, as a man, you’ll have shit flung at you regardless of how you behave. If you comply, you’ll be marked as allergic to shit and at least accepted, if not praised, publicly (while being privately dismissed as not up to scratch). If you refuse to comply, you get a double dose of shit flinging and publicly cast out of the kingdom (but grudgingly respected as your own man). Give me the latter any day.

  9. The video above strikes me because of the fucking smugness displayed by the broad.

    ” It’s a word..” bullshit is quite a tell, as is the refusal to retract the offensive word.

    I must admit that my hackles were sufficiently raised during the discussion.

    Fortunately I have not yet encountered a woman using this terminology towards me or in my presence. I guess it’s just a matter of time. My company has an absurd amount of female execs.

    But as I learned in my ” Harassment training “, if a woman should call me anything other than a name that appears on my birth certificate, or an acceptable adj. such as sir, mr. or Lord, I can swiftly haul her ass before (in)Human Resources.

    Ahhhh, the smell of company sanctioned victimhood!!!!

  10. Balls! said the queen,
    If I had two
    I’d be King
    and the King just laughed
    because he had two.

    On a more serious note, I’ve lived in very masculine centric cultures.
    There is very little braggadocio. The guys are quiet because their power is understood. Lots to be learned there.

    Personally I cannot be bothered to snivel about the FI situation. Read the Laws of Power. Act accordingly.

    funoldguy

  11. “Fudd’s First Law of Opposition.”

    So why not a buttress? Because it would need to be part of an existing interior wall to save space and the only one in the right location is adjacent to the utility room,putting it there would restrict the duct work to half of the building.

    Could you bring us this material today?
    I am baking you guys some cookies>
    If we don’t get the material soon,we will go home and come back when you let us know it is here.
    I am going to bake some cookies.
    We don’t need cookies.We need material.
    Tears!

  12. ~20 years ago it occurred to me one day to wonder if there was a male equivalent to the word “misogyny”. I thought I remembered seeing “misandry” somewhere (or maybe I just figured it out, from rudimentary knowledge of how such words are formed from Classical languages). I looked in a lot of dictionaries before I finally found it, in a 6″ thick Unabridged in the local Library. A interesting lesson in language.

  13. “The fem-splaining cover story is that men feel some ego-centric need to over-explain something to a woman. For a Blue Pill conditioned man this may even be accurate in that they hope so doing will endear himself to a “rational reasonable” woman by helping her understand a concept he’s educated on.”

    I only explain shit when it directly affects me and the woman specifically asks why I want something done a certain way.

    if she doesn’t ask, as long as she’s doing it correctly, I don’t care if she understands why and I’m not going to waste my energy explaining anything

    it’s best to let your cock do the talking as she cares about chemistry and economic policy as much as I care about what so and so said to so and so.

    fucking came way before language

  14. @yareally

    “you’re going to end up networking a lot and may run into people who, because you gave them value, drop stuff like that “hey that job opening is available, tell them Bob sent you” or “oh I got a buddy out there who runs a shop, lemme get your number and I’ll hook you up””

    I actually had something like a job offer. Son of the couple I met at wine shop told me about an open job position that wasn’t listed to the public.

    “The worst thing you could do is txt her again apologizing tho, just let it ride like it’s absurd to you that someone would be offended by you fucking around lol You may bump into her again at a bar at some point and can smooth it over.”

    If I see asian girl again, was planning on just blazing on as if nothing happened, but if it was an issue just joke with her about how I just assumed she had a since of humor, but won’t make that mistake again. Awesome thing about that is that I can just reference that again if I have to recalibrate. So say I go for a kiss or something and she gets offended, just tease her “Oh, right, no sense of humor. Forgot. Lol”

    “Eat nothing but instant noodles to save up for it if you have to, but get your ass to a city/location where you have more access to your type of girls ’cause you will slay it bringing this kind of vibe there.”

    Been trying. Like I told Culum, I applied to over 50 jobs at my comprimise location that’s nearby, but has a nice downtown district full of venues (AWESOME Day 2, like fuck me theres bars and breweries and strip clubs and specility shops and just whatever you can imagine all packed in a small area). Not a HUGE town, and it doesn’t have any more girls of my type than are around here, but its a party town with a university and there are definitely tourists that visit around now. Its a good place to get started because, yeah, its hard to find girls I want to bang, but I can practice game anytime I want. Places I was looking at living are close to downtown — you can just walk to venues.

    Plus you can instadate really easily since everything is close by.

    But like I said, applied to over 50 jobs and didn’t hear back from one. I think I am going to go up there for a few days and stay with someone I know, maybe I can figure something out then.

    Locations the biggest issue though. Still going to keep going out while I am here though.

  15. Reading these articles, I am frequently reminded that we were warned twenty-two centuries ago:

    Women want total freedom, or rather – to call things by their names – total license. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they are your fellows, they will become your masters. — Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder), 234-149 BCE [A Dead White Man]

    I actually had a little Latin in high school, 57 years ago; nowadays they’re lucky if they can even speak English on graduation. Not by accident.

  16. Here we go again, Rollo mansplaining. He should unbanish Emily (return her from the unicorn field) so she can explain hypergamy to y’all in an inclusive way that makes everyone safe and equal

  17. Not sure how on topic this article is, but I just read it and thought I’d share it with y’all. Feel free to ‘comment’ below the article…

    theage.com.au/comment/fat-shaming–if-we-spent-less-time-judging-strangers-bodies-and-more-time-looking-inside-our-own-heads-the-world-might-actually-be-a-happier-place-20160531-gp80mb.html

  18. the accepted word for “womansplaining” is “nagging”.

    “Bitching”, “moaning”, or “whining” will also do…. There are a lot of words to describe the complaints of women – because they do it so much…

  19. @Jimmy B:

    Interesting article, but I wouldn’t want to mansplain to the little big darlin’ how what she’s complaining about was caused by women complaining about what she’s complaining about.

  20. One of my best friends is a woman I play in a band with as a duo, so I get to spend lots of time with her. I have used my Red Pill awareness to observe and understand where she’s at as a woman and it’s amazing, they really have no sense of logic on so many levels. Now this is a chick who is handy mechanically, but when she goes off an illogical female tangent I now know it’s best not to say anything, least of all ‘mansplain’ to her as it just makes her even more irrational. And the truth is, boys, you can’t have a rational discussion with an irrational person (i.e. all women).

  21. Don’t worry! We won’t have to endure this type of bullshit much longer.
    Here in Europe the barbarians are amassing at the gate reading taxpayer funded guides on how to interact with European women and laughing.
    They know what women need and are preparing to “mansplain” it to bitches of both sexes with their cocks!
    Every society that becomes shaped by allowing the FI to implement unrestrained hypergamy will be crushed by more masculine models.
    Ironically giving females what they really want and need, men who will lead and dominate them.
    We have brought this on ourselves by giving away our birthright as men.
    Going against nature never ends well!

  22. Great post Rollo – thank you.

    No surprises you’ve used that video as the perfect reference for this post.

    It also doesn’t surprise me regarding the google ‘mansplaining’ trends, especially by geographical location. This just proves to me what I already knew; that Australia (mainly Sydney & Melbourne) has become one of the worst places for 3rd wave feminism, SJW’s and language policing on the planet.

    Australian women and blue pill men completely lost their minds when Roosh attempted to organise the ROK tribal meetings here – in fact I think it was an Australian “journalist” that broke the story and it near broke the interweb. Our spineless immigration minister even went as far as not permitting Roosh a visa.

    But wait…., it gets much much worse….a couple of days ago this was launched with the hashtag #wordsatwork now trending at warp speed.

    https://www.dca.org.au/dca-research/wordsatwork—building-inclusion-through-the-power-of-language.html

  23. How about; “Womanstanding” – when a female hears what she wants to hear based on a combination of her mood, insecurities, level of perceived victim-hood and ego/hubris.

  24. Just watched the video.
    As much as she tried to insist on her accusation and refuse to reconsider her position, you can bet she sees this man in a different light now after he didn’t crumble under her bullshit.
    Working in that type of PC environment must be hell, I wouldn’t last a day before HR would ensure my removal for crimes against the FI.

  25. The male senator in the video may have overplayed being a victim of sexist a bit too much, but I think he managed to flip the script there and put the female senator in the defensive.

  26. The accusation of mansplaining is, of course, a perfect example of projection. It’s normally women who resort to consescending and patronizing language, usually directed at betas, and it’s women who come up with accusations like “you just don’t get it”, “you just can’t relate to my experience as a woman” etc.

  27. Increasingly obvious that all this PC, feminism, diversity, anti-racist BS is just a ruse by bitter fug hags to force men to like their high status (artificially got) in a passive aggressive way. Pretty girls don’t need to as they have high status. Just look at how most female pols look like Miss Piggy, and how any halfway clever man can see the horrific consequences of their ridiculous PC beliefs.

  28. We don’t need this word..we already have one in our language..it’s called condescending.

    Women are attempting to remove themselves from the term condescending (while many of them with their entitled attitudes are just that) – and they are shooting for being the victim status (yet, again). We’ve seen and read this playbook before…it’s their “go to” play whenever they aren’t getting what they want – they shame.

    It reminds me of how only white people (usually men) can only be racist.

  29. on a side note: We’re seeing language changed to remove “man” from all positive aspects of our culture or anywhere a woman wants to be involved (i.e. fireman becoming firefighter).

    But, if it’s something they want to label a man with, a negative label, then mansplaining is just fine with them. It’s another example of how they are sexist and hypocrites…all at the same time.

  30. @Playdontpay

    You are right on the money. Feminism doesn’t understand that it can not win. It can only destroy us all. They will blindly push forward thinking they are making progress until they are left standing in a pile of ashes. My question to you is what does the individual man do? Convert to Islam?

  31. Working in a larger IT organization, for a national company, I see a lot of communication difficulties between the sexes. Often I see women have to repeat what you said, then state back what they think you said, then state their understanding of it, all before absorbing it. This is especially frustrating in one of my counterparts here at the company who does all of that, then expects confirmation when her opinion or interpretation of the facts stated back in the third repetition is completely wrong. She becomes frustrated and uses her female initiative to storm out of the room saying ‘I can’t deal with this right now’, yet if I or another male counterpart did that, we would be fired.

    I am consistently amazed by this and by the ability for women to create realities in their mind, perceptions and false memories of how things happen (this happens frequently in my LTR) and turn them back on their male partners or counterparts. Then when challenged, they immediately go for the jugular in whatever available mechanism they have. Not using it as a crutch, but coming from a stereotypical abusive alcoholic upbringing, it makes it difficult to deal with.

    I want to thank you Rollo for bringing this article and topic back, I read it before either in the book or here on the site, and I think it becomes especially relevant in the election climate in the US right now. I know I’m a bit of a lurker here, still stuck in Blue Pill land in a LTR with a BPD, but I’m trying to learn, and rescue myself. I hope you’ll all allow me to stay and grow into a man.

  32. If we are ever faced with an accusation of “mansplaining”, what are some good options?

    Flip the script: using such a term is sexist (this was mostly what the Male senator did).

    AM / ignore if you can pull it off…

    Any good ideas for funny Agree/Disagree and Amplify?

  33. OMG! This is so true: “the accepted word for “womansplaining” is “nagging”.

    Thanks for mansplaining that to me, but I feeeelz used because of a lack of emotional context.

  34. @ IAS

    I use different tactics if I get a sense that a woman displays that she is thinking I am mansplaining.

    Mostly I ignore.

    Sometimes I treat them like a 4 year old little girl.

    I make sure to drop my voice another couple of Octaves and move closer.

    I have no problem perceiving them as a clown if that’s what their behavior is indicating.

    Attempt my ” removal ” at your own peril. 😀

  35. ” Solution: complain about the delivery of the content and silence the men who would deliver it.”

  36. @becomingamaninmyforties

    Working in a larger IT organization, for a national company, I see a lot of communication difficulties between the sexes. Often I see women have to repeat what you said, then state back what they think you said, then state their understanding of it, all before absorbing it. This is especially frustrating in one of my counterparts here at the company who does all of that, then expects confirmation when her opinion or interpretation of the facts stated back in the third repetition is completely wrong. She becomes frustrated and uses her female initiative to storm out of the room saying ‘I can’t deal with this right now’, yet if I or another male counterpart did that, we would be fired.

    next time try to pay attention to what her final opinion actually ‘is’… it should line up with what she wants to be true… which will ultimately be the best outcome for her personally…lol… and not the company or the job… hamsters don’t punch out when a girl walks into work…lol…

    I am consistently amazed by this and by the ability for women to create realities in their mind, perceptions and false memories of how things happen (this happens frequently in my LTR) and turn them back on their male partners or counterparts.

    the hamster is a force of nature…lol…

    Then when challenged, they immediately go for the jugular in whatever available mechanism they have.

    this is usually the end result of a guard dog situ spinning up (you pushing back a little, then she increases her efforts and wins… you push back little more… and then she wins… rinse and repeat until you are in your situ…all girls are like this, but it’s a lot worse for bpd girls…

    Not using it as a crutch, but coming from a stereotypical abusive alcoholic upbringing, it makes it difficult to deal with.
    I want to thank you Rollo for bringing this article and topic back, I read it before either in the book or here on the site, and I think it becomes especially relevant in the election climate in the US right now.

    vote Trump!…done!…lol…

    I know I’m a bit of a lurker here, still stuck in Blue Pill land in a LTR with a BPD, but I’m trying to learn, and rescue myself. I hope you’ll all allow me to stay and grow into a man.

    welcome!…and post away…comments, FRs, observations, requests for advice…it’s all good…lol…and if you really want to rescue yourself, this is the place to be…

    buuuut, YOU will have to put in the actual work…bc it’s your life…and the more you work it, the faster it turns around… all WE can do is to put another set of eyes and a more RP perspective (with the related experience) on your situ… but that’s about the best you can do ‘in person’ anyway…

    here’s some actionable intel to start you off (see guys on TRM really DO want you to succeed…) = start changing your body posture (and bc it’s all internal focus, it’s not like you are going to get/should be getting ‘push-back’ on the change to your demeanor…and if you DO, you are definitely doing it right…lol)

    standing = contrapposto…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrapposto

    and sitting = contrapposto…lol… just take the definition and apply it to sitting = relaxed, sitting up straight, weight on one side, shoulders relaxed, back and off parallel axis to hips…

    pretend your head is a helium balloon on a string…and keep your hands away from your chest and down around your hips/legs/away to the side… it WILL feel uncomfortable… like you are ‘exaggerating’…bc you ARE…lol…but only until it becomes natural…

    and if your LTR really IS a bpd girl, you need to plan your exit strategy ASAP… not kidding… bc they don’t change (you can’t ‘tame’ them…regardless of whatever bravado-style advice you might get…)

    good luck!

  37. I do sign everything Rolo says in this Post, but i do have a Question. At the Office or in the remains of my still existing SC, i can, have and will overt, straight and speak what i mean.

    But most of my SC impoaded in the last year, because everyone is going to settle down (30+) and suddenly i was attacked (covert) in everything i was doing. Friends locked down by GFs, Freinds evious by my future Plans and Girlfriend tried to kill my ambitions and secure me as well. It was awful and i went Monk Mode and Ghost over a year.

    Is the only way escaping/avoiding such extreme Situations by a) not talking overt in SC or b) kill sunk cost mentality and abandon such SC because you cant fight against BP-Manginas and Girls in that SC the same time. Ergo: my screening for Friends and GFs was bad?

    (sry, English is not my native Language)

  38. You can’t trust wikipedia…

    From urban dictionary: (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mansplaining)

    Mansplaining

    Stating accurate, verifiable facts. Especially when these facts are inconvenient to the feminist worldview, or contradict feminist talking points.
    It is often used by a feminists who makes an incorrect claim in support of their narrative, and someone responds with something refuting the feminist’s claim, which she (usually it’s a she) cannot counter.
    By claiming “mansplaining,” she tries to pretend to have invalidated her opponents claim, even though she has not addressed it at all.
    Feminists: Women only make 77% of what men make for exactly the same work! Oh the patriarchy.

    Factual Person: No, they don’t. That statistic is just for overall median pay of full time workers, and does not account for overtime hours worked, location, experience, degree earned, or even the field someone is working in. Women make less on average because men and women make different career choices, because believe it or not, men and women are different.

    Feminist: Stop mansplaining to me! Facts and logic are just oppressive constructs to keep women down!

  39. Serious question. When do men in aggregate just get tired of this shit? If every men unanimously said “enough” it would end tomorrow. What the hell happened to manhood in the west?

  40. “If we are ever faced with an accusation of “mansplaining”, what are some good options? …..Any good ideas for funny Agree/Disagree and Amplify?”

    Perhaps……

    “Hey, thanks for womansplalning your perception of the mansplaining to me! Good on ya lass. It may well be, thanks to you, that we are all learning a small thing or two here, as an aside, but now – enough with your interesting aside – best to get back to the issue at hand now – shall we?”

    Depending on how she responds, you can just keep having alot more fun with this until she got no choice but getting back to the real issue at hand. The key is to keep if playful. I guess this is agree & amplify sprinkled with cocky & funny-lite.

    The ladies seem to enjoy this. You are respecting their agency (and perceptions) in the matter, but still leading. If they feel that is what is occurring – often they now be like’n you.

  41. @tvvist

    “because everyone is going to settle down (30+)”

    You are in the wrong SC for plates, girl friends, and future mother(s) of your children if all the women are 30+. Avoid women in their 30s like the plague.

    Do not go into monk/ghost mode as you climb towards your SMV peak. That’s for guys still getting used to having testosterone. Instead embrace all you are.

  42. @ ITTO

    Good question. Unless there is some kind of mass movement in social media and popular culture at large, I no longer believe that there will be significant movement by men to reverse the course we are on.

    It would take effort that younger generation of men no longer are interested in, nor do they possess.

    This was the intent behind denigrating and outlawing masculinity in the first place.

    Men are beaten down, confused and unaware. Most will never take the medicine required for cure.

    Many men are just checking out.

    Only those that want to be saved, can be saved.

  43. @Blaximus,

    “It would take effort that younger generation of men no longer are interested in, nor do they possess.”

    This is a good summary of what I was trying to ask. Is there no innate spark in men? Are we really so weak that the socialization you talk about can actually win out? It would appear the answer is yes.

  44. It’s easy to look at the millennial generation and lose hope, but that’s just due to a lack of perspective.

    Look at the kids currently in grade school – then abandon all hope. When they hit their late teens they’re going to make the millennials look like Sgt. Fucking Rock.

  45. @ ITTO

    There is an innate spark in the majority of men/boys.

    Currently society ridicules, shames and medicates it out of them.

  46. great OP…

    and the ‘shaming’ lines up with that evo-psych ‘shame reflex’ paper i linked… the goal of the FI is to ‘devalue’ men in-group by de-valuing their group contribution (content-based language… which is only responsible for the creation/maintenance of western civ…lol), and so should trigger a shame reflex… which looks like supplication/beta behavior…as a method to prevent the group from ‘kicking him out’ (bc he’ll die without the group)… and that’s what we see in situ…

    and i think most men (at least here at TRM/in the manosphere generally, but even a lot of my BP friends in meat world) understand this on a base level. that’s why they assume that western civ is going to crash and burn…lol…

    my take on the whole process is that it is one of the driving mechs behind the push towards the 90/10 or 95/5 pareto distro in beta/alpha interactions. bc this whole ‘mansplaining’ process works as a meta-level shit test… where ‘natural’ alphas just KNOW they are not subject to the rules of society…lol… and can ‘get away’ with that attitude bc of congruence/frame control…

    in other words, it’s the FI adapting to the realities of ‘game’…lol…(in a similar process to kfg’s example of the startle response/leopards synergistic development) bc as the whole ‘mansplaining’ effect gets more entrenched in the system, having a solid, unshakable, ‘natural’ zfg internal frame of reference is going to become the sine qua non of ‘alpha’… just like it used to be on the plains of Ur… which makes sense with the decreasing system-level restrictions on girls’ sexuality = open hypergamy, etc. of the FI…

    and bc i know that you don’t push prescription… i will…lol…

    the way to counter the FI here is to

    1) internal frame of reference – get men to push back on their devaluation as an in-group member by developing a solid internal frame of reference = we have VALUE in and of ourselves, just bc we are men (MPoO) so we can –
    a) discount girls’ opinions as meaningless generally/system-wide (the way it used to be, bc men have more general societal value that girls) and/or

    b) can actively ‘resist’ by countering the devaluation directly in situ… and

    2) external frame of reference – get men to join a ‘different’ group (but bc of the realities of the interconnected world we live in, this group will have to be ‘virtual’ like TRM (see Coach, i do pay attention in class…lol))… where the culture actually values the ‘masculine’ content-based communication… this idea includes recognizing when other men in our meat world situs are being subject to the FI and stepping up to support them…in whatever ways we can…

    and the process to do any of that is game…lol… as SJF says ‘game is fungible across all relationship interactions.’… RP knowledge and application really is the only hope to save western civ… so, read up…make a plan… and get in-field…

    good luck!

  47. ” Solnit’s original essay went further, discussing the consequences of this gendered behavior and drawing attention to its effect in creating aconspiracy of silence and disempowerment.”

    😂😂😂😂

    Yes, male M.P.O is the rule….

  48. @redlight

    Thanks for you feedback.

    Monk Mode: Was really necessary, because Burnout/PTBS, because some heavy Cluster-B-Traits with Ex GF -> needed to get myself straight and did not want to start the next uphill battle aka LTR.

    SMV peak: gettin there. You know, …dont wish it would be easier…

    Social Circle: Lesson learned regardin sunk cost and wrong Social Circle…nearly killed me. For real.

    On Topic: Central Europe (not Eastern) shows from my perspective serious trends to Wording like Rolo mentioned in this post (in regards to the joe avarage). Quality Women on Decline….we do follow the US-Lead.

    The Problem where i connect is, that when you are in the wrong SC, like i was, than you will be, without warning, find out, that secretly, there is a price on your head and covert moves have been taken. It will take you (me) by surprise.

    TLDR: If you think, that a SC with Manginas and Girls, is just fine, cause you have no trouble, you are wrong. Because when the shit hits the fan, you will be all on your own.

  49. In doing some research lately about happiness, even though in an incorrect frame, I read about remembering when you were happy. So I thought back and I remember being a pre-teen, riding bikes and digging through the woods and creeks, exploring and in general, getting dirty. Is our destiny then, since that has disappeared for today’s kids, that they will never have any ‘boys will be boys’ experiences, that they will have no purely exploratory frame to reference? What I mean is, will they be missing the spark of discovery that would lead them to Alpha some day?

    Personally, those times are the most Alpha I can remember in my life… but no one will pay me to do that… but that is my goal so far, to find what makes me feel like that invincible kid who can do anything again….

    Thanks for the support and I will try to keep you updated as I start making headway on this journey. And my exit strategy is there, if I can make it there without going insane first.

  50. @becomingamaninmyforties:

    I think it heavaly depends on the influence of the Male Part in a family. If he is Beta and is a vehicle for third Wave Fem BS, the Boys will have a hard time.

  51. becomingamaninmyforties – you said:

    “Personally, those times are the most Alpha I can remember in my life… but no one will pay me to do that… but that is my goal so far, to find what makes me feel like that invincible kid who can do anything again…. ”

    Hey – for whatever it’s worth, I think they way you are framing it is key. It really is that simple. Do what makes you happy. Men and boys are naturally penetrative, right from the get go of our lives here …… and that masculine drive can find it’s fulfillment in all kinds of endeavors, including abstract endeavors, if that is one’s proclivity. That Peter Tunney artist that Sentient linked to in the last thread seems to be simply doing that very thing ….. aligning his life with the purity of his first masculine inspirations …. to explore and penetrate the world around him. It was interesting to see that in that short vid, the women were in his thrall about this about him ….. women love this stuff about guys.

    You said:

    “Is our destiny then, since that has disappeared for today’s kids, that they will never have any ‘boys will be boys’ experiences, that they will have no purely exploratory frame to reference? What I mean is, will they be missing the spark of discovery that would lead them to Alpha some day? ”

    I don’t perceive this. I like to walk around, especially if I have someone to walk with me that I can talk to. I find this walking/talking past-time to be immensely pleasurable. In such travels, if occurring during mid-morning, what I have noticed is that the young mothers are out with the young’ns and you can definitely see how the childish exuberance of the little boys differs from the childish exuberance of the little girls. The boys are so happy to go zooming around, running towards whatever they see that excites them (and then proclaim to mommy or each other about their little conquest). The little girls are often absorbed in friendly emotional conversation with another little girl.

    I think the kids are going to be alright. As they get a bit older, they just are focusing on different aspects of their worlds, compared to us in the older generations, because there are new things to explore now (some being more abstract). I think everything is going to be fine.

    Notice another thing about very young children. They are mostly good to each other. They are mostly good to each other because they “play”. No reason men can’t be true to their penetrative nature, and women true to their receptive and emotionally commutative nature, yet still be mostly good to one another. But the changing times has disrupted that somewhat, and made us overly serious and concerned …… however I’m sure that ultimately there will be a reversion to the mean. Humans always seem to find a way to survive and thrive. I think that placing a bet on humanity-fail is a very long shot, and therefore not a smart bet.

    But good to discuss what can be done to address the disruptions stemming from the changing times. I guess that is what many here are interested in.

  52. A charge of mansplaining is a Shit Test, nothing more. You can see the Senatorette doesn’t get angry. The old hag was tingling so hard I am surprised she didn’t start diddling herself right at the table. You can bet her husband (or whatever Chad she is fucking right now) got a demand for a good pounding that night.

    >>>>>”In the 2013 animated movie “Frozen,” for example, male characters get 59 percent of the lines. A quick search for best monologues in film or movies reveals that they are almost all male. If you took Princess Leia out of “Star Wars,” the total speaking time for female characters is 63 seconds out of the original trilogy’s 386 minutes”

    What do bitches really have to say anyway?

    How bout we compare screen time and shots with Elsa or Anna getting about 90% of air time. Let me guess, they are also deleting the numerous songs the girls sing in order to reach this ridiculous imbalance they allege.

    The fact there is and SHOULD be an imbalance in words spoken merely reflects human nature. Over 90% of what women have to say is snark, bitching, complaining, whining, bossing, and bullying (I know this is generous but whatever). Since NOBODY- especially women and girls- want to watch a movie with “Women’s VERBAL Language” of bitching, snarky, catty etc, then of course women will get a lot fewer verbal lines in a movie. It is not bias, it is human nature.

  53. that Peter Tunney artist that Sentient linked to in the last thread seems to be simply doing that very thing ….. aligning his life with the purity of his first masculine inspirations …. to explore and penetrate the world around him. It was interesting to see that in that short vid, the women were in his thrall about this about him ….. women love this stuff about guys.

    Exactly The Man… the three ultimate qualities of “alpha” are being dynamic, passionate and authentic. Once the Alpha Triad is reached… you create enough gravitational pull to bring women (and beta’s) naturally into your orbit. The problem most guys have though is the Triad is amoral… and I suspect HABD would say the reason being is guys looking to look to link “good” outcomes with “good” behaviors is the FI being sneaky…

  54. ” I think that placing a bet on humanity-fail is a very long shot . . .”

    To riff off the great philosopher Linus van Pelt, I have no great concerns about the fate of humanity, it’s people I’m worried about.

  55. Solnit’s original essay had the example of some dude who was explaining the content of her own book back to her.

  56. Also the “if you took Princes Leia out” thing. Point in fact: Princes Leia was in the movie. How do the numbers work if you take Luke out? Stupid.

  57. Sentient – yes – this “dynamic, passionate and authentic” as the qualities of “alpha” is really, really good. I first saw you say that over at CH close to a year ago and that impressed me alot at the time, and I still think your way of putting it is pointing to something really profound.

    For me, absorbing a concept takes better if I can make a narrative out of it, like a story, in which maybe I can identify as one of the characters in the story. That way I get to see all to see all the moving parts that produces a feeling, an attitude, a mindset.

    What becomingamaninmyforties said above:

    “So I thought back and I remember being a pre-teen, riding bikes and digging through the woods and creeks, exploring and in general, getting dirty.”

    Yes, reminds me of all the great adventures me and my buddies would concoct at that age. The moving parts to these stories inform what “dynamic, passionate and authentic” feels like. It feels majestic. It feels like when you have a dream that you are flying. That is what men are deep down.

  58. @bluepillprof

    “A charge of mansplaining is a Shit Test, nothing more”

    in wat context?

    i mean, look, if you got a natural alpha who’s pulling frame control bullshit when they’re all out there to build a bridge….it’s actually a problem. or if he’s trying to do the same thing when actual human rights violations are occurring, the same.

    and in the context of more ‘beta’ males trying to ‘logically’ explain x or y, half the time the logical explanation is a model that doesn’t really fit well with reality, and the beta has no clue about it because he has zero life experience, whereas the woman has the life experience.

    i think mansplaining is an overused term and it’s a little too cute and anti-male…but that doesn’t mean that what it refers to isn’t real.

    ‘What do bitches really have to say anyway?’

    lol

    this is part of the overcorrection shit that just sinks the manosphere.

    women are hypergamous and are not unconditional lovers and yes, this means that they are not pretty little angels.

    buuut….

    if you’ve never heard chicks say witty, insightful, introspective, etc. things then you haven’t gone out enough.

  59. Welp wordpress ate my comment. Only had time for one longass comment and I haven’t learned to type them elsewhere first yet soooo

    Responded to a lot of people from the last thread. I’ll give a few of you the cliff notes then I gotta vanish again.

    @Strongtek (lol) – you have a lot of good thoughts. You’re DONE with that part. More aren’t gonna help you.

    I’ve learned the past year that state is more important than proper thoughts or even (sometimes) hard work. Work on making your STATE be more consistently the sort that gets stuff done. The thoughts are nothing more than helpful starting hints, don’t let theory dictate what SHOULD work for you.

    Also, re: you saying how chatting w girls online made you feel bad/guilty so you’re afraid what actually banging one would be like – dude. If I got sexual with a girl ON THE INTERNET I’d feel bad too. it’s frustrating. Actually banging a girl will make you feel very different.

    @Culum

    Dude, I’m just waiting for your comment where you post an epic FR where you OPEN TONS OF HOT GIRLS and just get blown the FUCK out and get frustrated and make a good open/DHV stack.

    Seriously, you’re scrounging for scraps with your prospects here. Open. Sets.

    Don’t worry man, I’m partly talking to myself too lol.

    @Hank

    Not much to add, great to read your FR’s. Great example of how up and down this can be. Well done playing the whole venue. Your #close sounds a bit weak (no time-bridge) but getting one is a fantastic step forward.

    @Blax

    Sorry man, I answered your interview questions from last thread in detail but I don’t have time to redo it. Interesting stuff to think about though.

    @Sun Wukong

    U ded bro?

  60. @ becomingamaninmyforties

    “Is our destiny then, since that has disappeared for today’s kids, that they will never have any ‘boys will be boys’ experiences, that they will have no purely exploratory frame to reference? What I mean is, will they be missing the spark of discovery that would lead them to Alpha some day?”

    I remember crawling through drainage pipes as a kid. You’d go into one, crawl past a bunch of creepy crawlers then end up someplace COMPLETELY different. It was like going through a magic portal. Dangerous shit but that’s the point.

    See, stuff like this is why I dislike harping on alpha and beta too much. I feel like almost all guys start out fairly alpha, then get it beat out of them by society as they grow older.

    So most of these girly guys you see around today would have been fairly alpha had they grown up in a different setting/time period.

    @Forge

    “Not much to add, great to read your FR’s. Great example of how up and down this can be. Well done playing the whole venue. Your #close sounds a bit weak (no time-bridge) but getting one is a fantastic step forward.”

    Oh yeah. My goal for that night (and most nights this week) was just to go out like an hour. Just to go out. But instead I have been staying out 3 to 5 times what I intended and gotten a lot of work on opening sets and basic social stuff.

    Things like going for numbers and shit I have literally only done once or twice in my entire life, so I am learning that stuff from scratch. But each time I am weak on something I rethink it and come up with a really sophisticated solution — see my day 2 lol.

    Now I know do do the whole Julien shit when I get a number. And to work on obstacles first before going for target.

    Now just focused on going out and bumping into issues in field so I can read up on them after the fact. I’m finding that even though I have known about most of these issues for years, its not until you experience it in the field that it really clicks.

  61. @all

    And I think that’s a really good thing to emphasize to any keyboard jockeys or lurkers — just go out. You CAN learn a lot from just reading, but unless you actually have PERSONAL experiences from THE FIELD of things like AMOGing or going for numbers or escalating you won’t truly get it.

    But when you read something and go “Oh, shit, that’s how I would solve x problem” its etched in your mind and you are good to go.

    So still read up and do whatever it takes you to get started, but you really have to just go out.

    Think of it as like lifting weights. If you think “Hey I want to get a six pack” and just focus on that — you’ll get discouraged. You’ll do your first workout, it will be rough, you’ll look in the mirror and you look — EXACTLY the same.

    But if you set a time to work out, say, and hour monday and thursday, and just get in the habit of doing that workout, 6 months from now you’ll look in the mirror and go “Wow I look MUCH better.”

    Same with PUA. If you focus on girls you’re fucked. But if you set aside time, an hour monday and thrusday and just go out, you’ll make a lot of progress.

    And it just naturally escalates from there. You’ll go out. It sucks. then you meet people. Then you meet girls. You fuck up, learn a weak point, then you are focused on that weak point. So you research that weak point and then go out and work on it. Now, instead of just going out, you are working on number closes. The you just go out to focus on number closes. Then you fuck up somewhere else, say on day 2. So you read up on day 2s until you figure that out.

    And it just goes on and on until you git gud lol.

    My tip for newbies is to set aside 20min a week to just go out. Gradually expand the time and frequency that you go out. Once you are comfortable going to bars and approaching people, I would commit to one week of hardcore going out. Like 5 days of 2 hours each day if you can. You’ll make a TON of progress in a short time if you go out and STAY out. You’ll be use your momentum to ride pass the areas you are uncomfortable with.

    @Forge

    Quick tip. Before you post your comment, high light all of it and hit “copy”. That way if wordpress eats the comment, you can just paste it back into the box.

  62. @Sentient

    The problem most guys have though is the Triad is amoral… and I suspect HABD would say the reason being is guys looking to look to link “good” outcomes with “good” behaviors is the FI being sneaky…

    that’s part of it…lol… but the real issue is how the FI actually IS sneaky… bc without that understanding you can’t fight back…

    and that (and i’m pretty sure Rollo has covered this already but i’m too lazy to look it up…lol) is that guys are logical… and overt communicators (bc that’s the only way to work together to bring down that mastodon for dinner…lol), so they expect a straightforward causality chain to success…based on the overt communication stream…

    which the FI does NOT want men to notice/understand does NOT result in cause/effect success based on the overt comm stream…and girls communicate on covert communication streams (subcomms) so… ‘sneaky’ it is…lol…

    and bc girls are amoral… the FI is amoral… just like nature… but that’s cognitively dissonant to ‘logic’ (on the overt comm stream)… so, men ‘don’t go there’… bc it ‘hurts’… (note – the Triad is amoral too… just like nature…bc it is…lol (bc it’s based on those evolved subcomm cues we were ‘discussing’ in the last thread = dynamic, passionate and authentic = grandpa’s internal frame…)

    that’s my overall goal = to give men the understanding needed to better their lives… and in the process kick the FI’s ass…lol… how’s that for a straightforward causality chain?…lol…

    good luck!

  63. Yes this morality thing is tricky. I don’t really know what to make of it myself. What people call morality is relative, that much is clear. I could be wrong but I think you might be able to make a case for what people call morality actually being something akin to what the good of the species is, which perhaps is somehow encoded in the consensus, and said consensus of course is made up of the differing gendered motivations and focuses, and or course there is also big differences person to person within gender as well wrt what each person thinks moral behavior actually is. And to complicate matters whatever each person prescribes to morality-definition-wise, changes according to changing circumstances, and also is very prone to social conditioning in any event.

    But somehow we all end up both cooperating and competing. Don’t know how to properly frame it though. Is it more like competition operating within a larger field of cooperation, or is it more like cooperation operating within a larger field of competition? I don’t really know, and it seems to me some people will think one and some other people will think the other – like maybe there really isn’t any consensus on this one way or the other (it would be interesting psych-study-wise to create some data for that – wouldn’t be that hard to produce a study on this I don’t think).

    Anyway, for me, I don’t like how it feels to get disrespected, or allow dis-respect upon myself (which would therefore have to have a component of self-disrespect to it), and I don’t really like feeling like I put that on others either (alot of the time I only see that may have occurred in retrospect, and then … you know ….. it feels a bit shitty …. but not really sure why – I got some theories on this but they are just theories). But it seems like maybe there are no universal default settings around this, but perhaps norms – normal-distribution-like (but I’m not even very sure about that either).

    This morality thing is hard to think about cogently (cause my selfish point of view always keeps getting in the way – Ha!)

    Is there some relatively unbiased studies around this?

  64. Ya Blax – it be me – but I don’t want to cause a bunch of discord no more. I like coming here to talk with you guys every once in awhile. And I’m still trying to figure some shit out.

  65. ” – it be me – ”

    Well that last comment was pretty much a fingerprint.

    “Is there some relatively unbiased studies around this?”

    Wrong field. Mathematics – more specifically, game theory.

  66. P.S.; I’ve watched enough Kevin MacDonald videos now to get beyond the white power aspects and deeper into what he’s talking about.

    And most of the time when he says “egalitarian” what he means is “meritocratic.”

  67. @ scray

    ” if you’ve never heard chicks say witty, insightful, introspective, etc. things then you haven’t gone out enough. ”

    Agreed, but it’s getting harder and harder to find these chicks… I imagine.

    And if a guy is always looking for the witty, insightful, introspective hb9 – whew!! #Goodluckwitdatshit.

    ” women are hypergamous and are not unconditional lovers and yes, this means that they are not pretty little angels. ”

    The ultimate troof every man needs to grasp from the rip.

  68. Not caught up with this thread or the end of the previous one yet but found my own name on a search (been too busy going out – unfortunately, just a couple more Provider hunting online chicks dates – FRs pending..)

    @Forge the Sky: Haha I have a big night scheduled for Sat night provided my wings keep their promise to turn up! Loads of cold approaches planned.

  69. kfg – the game theory – I don’t think it currently has the power to roll up to the meta-upon-meta organizational levels, (that all contain intricate feedback loops) of human society, as of yet – does it? (not sure – I could be wrong), but I believe game theory does show that under some circumstances cooperative behaviors do provide for an exponentially ascending benefit for all, via synergies.

    What I am instead wondering is – well what is this morality thing? I think it is a much bigger question than game theory can answer as of now. Since there seems to be so much divisiveness all around, about what morality is, maybe the psych community should start collecting data as to what people think it is (or maybe they have already done that?) – that is what I was getting at, ….. as well, as breaking down morality so-defined by it’s contingents (like compassion for instance) and see how that maps against the individual opinions (but the problem here is we don’t really even know what traits like compassion precisely are).

    This whole line of inquiry does interface with the gender differences quite a bit.

    Man – I feel this is already getting controversial bringing this up here again. Maybe people here don’t want to talk about this. If so I’m cool with that. I’m really at the point I realize I just got a bunch of questions around this and no answers (and some of the questions are about possible hypotheses). Maybe best for me just to hear what others got to say (if they wish) and defer myself from saying anything more about the topic.

    I’m really uncertain how to proceed here on this topic man. It is an interesting topic and it is pertinent to the discussion here. Pretty much like always I didn’t bring the topic up again (was only responding to what someone else said about morality because it is so damn interesting). Not sure what to do here (feels like a double bind for me).

  70. @TM:

    Computer modelling has changed everything. Even evolution can be modelled now and made a game element.

    “– well what is this morality thing?”

    A species level survival strategy.

  71. “I’m really uncertain how to proceed here on this topic man.”

    The general rule is: Be fun, Add value and always observe Law #4.

    Or you might get banned from an un-moderated forum.

  72. @blax

    “Agreed, but it’s getting harder and harder to find these chicks… I imagine.”

    lol nah dude

    most chicks are just getting their asses kissed 24/7

    so it’s like ‘why would i even waste any of my wit/time/higher thought on YOU?’

    ‘The ultimate troof every man needs to grasp from the rip’

    the manosphere grasps it and takes it way too far

    and all of this talk about how irrational women are also misses the point

    women can and will be rational WHEN THEY NEED to be

    most of the time, thanks to HUGE SMV power imbalances, it’s a fucking option for them.

    just like it’s an option for say, a rockstar.

  73. Shit, I just got a comment eaten by WordPress also. I did save it by composing it on Microsoft Wordpad first.

    I’d be interested in seeing Forge the Sky’s earlier post in moderation because of his excellent writing skills and style.

    As for my comment it could be revised a fourth time, so if it doesn’t get released, there is alway that.

  74. @Culum Here’s my recent FR. One of the few times I went out with a girl and didn’t bang her that night. Part of the reason was that I didn’t sexualize it early over text.

    She’s HB7, cute, met her at a party and number closed her. When we met up she was looking hot: short skirt, heels.

    We ordered drinks and started bantering. For her it was a mountain of shit tests: she was keen to know how old I am, where I work, and more personal details. I held back and teased her. She was pushing back saying we had nothing in common. I shrugged and laughed. Then suggested we play pool. We bet a steak dinner and she lost. I took a bunch of photos of her in the most unflattering poses shooting pool and eating.

    I asked her the questions: have you ever kissed a girl? yes, she had. How old were you when you first kissed a boy? She was guarded and flakey but it was clear she was intrigued.

    She wanted to invite her friend out later on. I told her that she couldn’t come. I left it there. She said her friend was “hot”. Later the friend didn’t show up.

    She’d studied psychology so we talked a bit about evolutionary psychology and the 3 elements of attraction. Ask a girl this—it’s hilarious. They always say “Money”…Then I ask: “You find a guy with money attractive?” No…she doesn’t.

    We made plans to meet so I could collect my steak dinner. I kissed her and she turned her head. Later I texted her the ridiculous photos i’d taken: “Stay classy kiddo…see ya next week.” She was responding instantly: “those aren’t good photos…” Me: That’s why you’re buying me a steak dinner…. Her: “stillllllll”

    You can see the difference between what a girl says and what she does.

    She’s telling me she doesn’t like me….but she’s staying late, making plans to meet and texting instantly.

    The point of this post is to make sure you always sexualize. I did that early and it set a specific frame: man and woman…. She’s typical flakey girl bouncing from topic to topic. But she did say something very interesting.

    While we were talking about ev psych she said “If those are the triggers of attraction, why do some girls end up with dull BETA guys?” her exact words. Girls now get the whole dynamic. I talked about it as “provider” vs “Lover”…

    I was incepting words into her hamster-driven mind. Her rational mind is “this guy is older and we don’t have a common thread” Her hamster is saying “I’m here, he seems kinda weird…but….but….”

    I’ll fill you in on what if anything happens. But honestly, I don’t care. I paid for drinks this time with the idea next time she’s covering dinner. It’s under the cover of losing a bet….so it doesn’t seem like a ‘second date’.

    Girls like this idea of not calling things what they are…because that’s what they do.

  75. kfg – OK thanks for the input. As per your input, I just took a look at the wikipedia article “Evolutionary game theory”, and I can see that your hypothesis (which is also the hypothesis I was putting forth above),

    hypothesis: human morality = a species level survival strategy

    is in fact implied as possible and maybe even probable, by way of the EGT math as it stand now.

    But I don’t think we know much about the actual dynamical operation of human morality as of yet (but once again I could be wrong – and if you know otherwise please tell), because, for the reason I alluded to in my post above (i.e – that there seems to be a wide range of individual strategies at play around the overall morality dynamic that is operating within a dynamic of differing gendered morality strategies) this would imply that it is not a strategy that is an “evolutionarily stable strategy” (ESS), which, if I am interpreting the math correctly, would imply that human morality is either

    1) a singular strategy in flux

    2) or a constellation of strategies that are mutually dependent wrt a provision of species-trait-constellation-stability

    3) or a constellation of strategies that are not mutually dependent and therefore could not be counted on to provide stability

    And in fact, since EGT does not deal with the variable of changing environmental conditions outside-of-species, I don’t think EGT in it’s current form provides the necessary horsepower to winnow down these possible scenarios in any event.

    So it still leaves “well what is this morality thing?” as an open question at least wrt to looking to the maths for more than just an answer at the nebulous meaning-level of – “perhaps a species level survival strategy by way of unknown operation”.

    So I still think we don’t know an awful lot about this morality thing. But …… thanks for steering me towards EGT. This whole discussion is starting to allow me to see that what I feel about the golden-rule, others may not perceive the same way. I keep thinking I am going to convince others to see the obvious, but maybe what I should be asking people instead is …… “what does the golden rule feel like to you?”. I do believe there is an emotional/cognitive component that is encoded at the individual level for each of the various individual morality strategies, or various individual constellations of morality strategies, so such questioning might be a useful way to proceed.

    On Kevin MacDonald – you know that is really funny how I came to know about his stuff. I was commenting over at CH for a bit before coming here, and over there back at that time (probably about a year ago) it was more or less keyboard cowboys conducting shoot-outs, wild wild west-style, and there was just crazy crazy things being said that were so over the top about race realism, especially about a Jewish conspiracy, because you know people of Ashkenazi Jewish decent control so many levers of cultural power in the west, (which is actually true and a very interesting phenomenon), but the conclusions drawn around that were so bold and over-reaching without much by way of evidence except hearsay, …. of course me being me …. pointed that out …… and pointed out contra-hypothesis (Jewish scholar – Israel Shahak) and got into some awesome shootouts with the crazies (I was repeatedly labeled as an obvious Mossad psych-ops agent – haha! – lotsa fun, and also nearly got banned because the CH blog writer’s thought I was subversive to their message) …… and so I found out about this Kevin MacDonald because these guys kept referring to him when I asked for evidence. So I looked him up, and yeah he pretty much is a race realist, and seems to want to make the argument that the Ashkenazi Jews are more or less in the process of divergence, species-wise, away from homo sapiens sapiens, by way of a special in-group selection for in-group altruism that is specific to their in-group only and different than such traits among any other population (conjecture only – no evidence found as of yet in the genome). You know this conjecture is just ludicrous given that the Ashkenazi American Jews have been intermarrying with gentiles at the 70% rate for awhile now. I do agree however that there is something fishy going on wrt the real behind the-scenes-zionist power in Israel (Jewish scholars – Israel Shahak, Noam Chomski, and others, agree). I think there are some people there, not well known, that control the religious ideology behind the political agenda, that are an international menace and use the American Jews, who are mainly secularized and probably don’t know any better, like dupes. I think this group actually thinks they are “God’s chosen people”. Such is the subversive power of ideologies. There is some fundamental Christian ideologies and fundamental Islamic ideologies that are dupes for this shit too (the ones that pray for the end of the world to come).

    Anyway, it turned out that despite Kevin MacDonald’s other interests, nevertheless, he did have these wonderful ideas about a selection for meritocracy begetting the egalitarian mindset among ice age europeans (he needed such “gullibility-predisposed” mindset for which the supposed Ashkenazi in-group conjecture to operate upon). His arguments for this ice-aged european selection for meritocracy begetting the egalitarian mindset are quite compelling (but like I have previously pointed out here at RM – this dynamic would then also apply, by way of the same logic, to all of humanity, because of the several severe population bottlenecks that occurred within human history, as shown by genome studies, going way back and occurring mainly among the first human populations in Africa, which by way of the same logic would beget a selection for meritocracy begetting the egalitarian mindset, occurring repeatedly, if i recall correctly I think it was 6 times the population was reduced to less than 10,000 individuals – rough going for the first humans).

    So say what you will otherwise about Kevin MacDonald – I found these concepts of his on the meritocracy/egalitarian compelling (but as I have since found out, there is a confirmation bias wrt me with these concepts, because I feel the egalitarian mindset – I completely understand what it is because I feel it strongly – so I naturally thought other people did too – but I am slowly and painstakingly finding out that no ….. this flavor of the “morality trait(s)” is probably not universal within any population, and I now suspect is only one of many flavors).

Speak your mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s