Reader, constrainedlocus had an interesting thought in the Anger Bias essay comment thread:
“The point is that a feminine-primary social order readily makes this nature a useful tool in dismissing what would otherwise be valid, but uncomfortable Red Pill truth. This anger bias mechanism is a tool for message control.”
What I find interesting is that, from my own personal observations of men in both marriage and long-term relationships, is that this dismissal happens readily and frequently at the micro level in sexual relationships as well. It’s impossible for men not to notice the hypocrisy.
A man need not experience the trivialization of his anger from “the sisterhood” response in the media, in the corporate setting, or even while at a party with other couples.
I think it now common for a wife or long-term girlfriend to assume a certain privilege or “authority” to express and direct her own anger, indignation and outrage rather freely and loudly – whenever she wishes – toward her male companion, without much consequence.
But should her male companion ever lose his composure, raise his voice in anger toward here, then this is either considered “verbal abuse”, an uncalled for overreaction, or his complaint is simply trivialized, ridiculed or disqualified by her, much like she would belittle the tantrum of her own young child.
Who has not witnessed wives scold their husbands in public at a restaurant or at a park like little children for his getting angry at her attitude or behavior? “Don’t you EVER raise your voice at me, mister!”.
I realize this is all about a man’s frame in the relationship.
I know that it is a weak man who tolerates this, while a wise man just ignores or nexts it.
Indeed, it is all about control.
But I still find it fascinating the confidence level with which so many women feel they can just scoff and ridicule the anger of men in relationships overtly, while unilaterally assuming the validity and overriding importance of their own anger whenever convenient for them.
It’s seems like an added bolt-on power up of feminist triumphalism.
Even among ourselves, we men are not supposed to show such angry emotions, at risk of verbal abuse or a humiliating well-deserved fucking beat down. Us dudes are to be these rational Vulcans walking around and doing shit, deleting emotion commands from our code. Because the thought is this: allowing someone else’s behavior to determine your feelings and emotional response is regarded as a sign of male weakness.
Anger should be expressed infrequently, and when expressed, done decisively and with brevity and action.
I think a lot of dudes recovering from blue pill conditioning struggle with this immensely, and are not sure what to do when their anger and frustration is openly minimized, trivialized or negated by their wife or LTR.
In a feminine-primary social order men are expected to show exactly this emotional restraint out of fear for being considered a typical, angry bully for any marginal display of aggressiveness. Yet, men are simultaneously conditioned to be emotionally expressive, emotionally available, in order to be ‘fully actualized’ human beings. They’re taught that strength is weakness and weakness is strength, and that vulnerability and emotionalism makes them whole persons.
Then the narrative changes again as per the needs of the Feminine Imperative. Men who are agreeable and show humility are punished with a removal of women’s sexual interest in them, while more conventionally masculine men, more Alpha, potentially more aggressive men who display outward signs of it – the emotions they’re taught to repress – are more commonly rewarded with women’s sexual interests.
When you have a social structure based on a calculated duplicity and confusion of purpose is it any wonder we see a generation of frustrated Betas with a perceived potential for violence? We’re supposed to delete emotional commands, but also to be more emotionally available and in touch (whatever the fuck that means) with our emotions. What it really comes down to is men are socialized to be automatons whose emotional connection should only apply to those emotions that benefit and complement with the Feminine Imperative and repress the emotions that frighten or potentially threaten the Feminine Imperative. In other words, to become more like women is to become a more perfected ‘man’ by today’s metric.
We presently live in a feminine-primary social order that wants to convince us that egalitarian equalism is the normative presumption between men and women. The blank-slate idea is that men are the functional equivalents of women, but, for all the social constructivism, men need to train, learn, be conditioned to constrain the aspects of themselves that conflict with their identities becoming more like women in their emotional nature. If boys and men can be conditioned (or medically treated) to repress every evolved aspect of their maleness that conflicts with aligning with the feminine they can be trained to be ostensibly more ‘equal’ beings. In this mindset, for a man to become more ‘equal’ he must be more feminine.
The normative belief is that boys and men are simply unperfected women, but the subtext to this is that men and women, binary genders, are (or ought to be) functional equivalents. This too is based on the (I believe flawed) Jungian theory of anima and animus; that no matter the sex, every ‘person’ has some counterbalancing elements of male and female nature to them. I believe this is a flawed theory for the simple fact that men and women have never been functional equals from an evolutionary standpoint and modern science is disproving Jung’s (often metaphysical) presumptions with neurological and hormonal (and the functional behaviors that derive from either sex’s innate structures) understanding that didn’t exist in Jung’s time.
I’ve dug into why I have a problem with Jung in the past, but the point I’m making is that, in Jung, the Feminine Imperative and 2nd and 3rd wave feminist agendas have had an incestuous affair with his theories and conflating overwhelmingly disproven blank-slate equalism. This conflation of flawed theory has been the foundation for normalizing the social feminization of boys and men for almost a century now.
With this equalist presumption as a point of origin, the first step is to condition boys for emotional control.
Emotions have an evolutionary purpose in men and women. We can trace the manifested behaviors of emotional response to survival-specific functions. Oxytocin, for instance, predisposes human beings to feelings of trust and nurturing which primarily affects women most. The effects of testosterone, which men produce 12-17 times the amount that women do, are well known and masculinize the human body. These are just some basic hormonal differences, but the function behind the effects of those hormones (as well as men and women neurological structure) is where we run into conflict with the Feminine Imperative.
For millennia, boys and men have been taught to control their emotive states. This practice in control isn’t something that sprang up a few hundred years ago, we’re talking ancient cultures teaching their young men to resist losing their rational state-control over to an emotionalism that had a potential to get a man into some serious trouble. In some respects this self-control has been a necessary part of men’s upbringing, but also because men and women experience emotional states differently as a result of evolved biological differences. Women tend to process negative emotions differently than men. This processing isn’t due to some socially constructed acculturation, it is the result of the differences in men and women’s mental firmware. This is also a primary reason why making an emotional impact on a woman, positive or negative, is a source of stimulation for them. Men’s arousal may be founded on visual cues, but women are wired for emotional cues.
Likewise, men’s emotive states run a different gamut than that of women. As I mentioned in the Anger Bias essay, men are less predisposed to emotional states that women believe are beneficial in their own experience. In a feminine-correct social state, where women’s experiences define the norm, and in a social constructivist perspective, this amounts to a ‘repression’ of emotions. The idea is that an overly masculine acculturation of boys leads them to holding back the emotions that women tend to build their lives around. The real truth is that men process emotions, and prioritize the expression of those emotions, much more as a result of our own mental firmware than social repression.
That’s not to say there isn’t some social influence over teaching men to learn self-control over those emotions. As I just mentioned, young men have been taught for millennia to have state control by each other, their mentors and their peers, but since the time of the sexual revolution and the rise of a feminine primary social order this state control has been turned into a net negative.
So, in a sense, young men of the last 4-5 generations are caught between pleasing two masters. To be considered the ‘equal’ that feminine-primary egalitarianism would have them be they must first get in touch with their emotions. However, the only emotions they are taught are valid are those that make them more alike and identifying with women; nurturing, crying, expressing vulnerability, etc., essentially anything not characteristic of conventional masculinity. This of course has the effect of women subconsciously perceiving them as they would other women, and not potential intimates. Essentially, this aligning with women’s experience of emotion desexualizes men.
Yet, on the other hand, men are expected to repress their emotions in terms of having a state control that appeals to women’s Hypergamous need for security. Thus, the emotions that might better serve men in a survivalist utility are exactly those which feminine-correct society considers negative or ‘toxic’ and therefore must be controlled. The problem inherent in all of this is that it is feminine-primacy that is defining what men’s experience of emotion is acceptable despite it being the cause of so much of women’s frustration with men.
As the saying goes, women get the men they deserve and the emotive, masculine-confused men of today are simply the result of a social order that’s standardized the female experience as the definition of what blank-slate equalism should be for both sexes – but really as a means of social control for women whose experience is defined by an unsolvable need for certain security.
None of this is to say men ought not to express themselves emotionally or avoid being artists and poets or whatever in favor of some uninspired stoicism, but it is to say that Red Pill aware men should also be aware of the feminine-primary influences informing their expectations of expressing any or no emotion. That may seem like a drawn out way of saying ‘own your emotions’, but it’s my belief that for men to reclaim conventional masculinity it will require them to honestly assess why and how they choose to express or control their emotional states based on their own definition of what is correct from a male perspective, not the female perspective.
Women aren’t the enemy, but if you don’t understand their nature it can be. I’ll make a brief summary here (if you want to read my expanded post on this topic, checkout: https://alphajedi.com/2015/03/31/the-enemy/) The nature of women is straightforward when you break it down. Women are pragmatic in their approach to love and relationships and as such they care more about the stats a man possesses. Your status, how good looking you are and how you conduct yourself are all huge factors. Women are attracted to man for what he is not who he is. Women don’t really care who… Read more »
NBTM A woman’s natural beauty is set, she does not have to constantly reevaluate and tweak it during her interactions to maintain her attractiveness. What do you think women do when they scoot off to the bathroom duirng a night out? Why do they have a compact, lipstick, and other stuff in that purse? Why should I even be asking these questions, when you should already know the answers? Behavior is Impossible to maintain if it is not natural. Fake it till you make it in my opinion does not work. Cool. Your opinion does not match up with my… Read more »
@Keith: Depends on the dress: http://badassoftheweek.com/images/285335829594/charlemagne2a.jpg @NBTM: Not withstanding, you didn’t get any of that from the article you cited. It was the point you wanted to make, so you made it, despite its irrelevance to the nearly contentless “article” you linked. Hence my “inkblot” comment. I will note that one thing I have noted as a problem in both the femo and mano spheres is a solipsistic lack of recognition that men and women are the two sexes of the same sexually reproducing species. i.e. their behaviors are two takes on an essentially common theme, the dance between the… Read more »
Greatest love of all….. always thought that was between a man and his Harely or his Pit bull or his rifle
I thought it was a man on his bike with his pit bull and rifle.
@Not Born This Morning “A woman’s natural beauty is set.” A woman’s beauty is often hidden under several layers of foundation. When was the last time you saw a group of women without some form of make up on? It’s gotten to the point where a woman can’t leave the house without putting her face on. There’s no natural beauty as far as society is concerned, but rather cosmetic beauty. A woman’s beauty is defined by how well she can hide any trace of her true visage. The sad thing is a woman believes she’s as attractive as her false… Read more »
Teasing makeup application…my favorite nuke neg…so many variations…
“What is it called when makeup foundation is too thick? Google it. Whatever it is, you have it.”
I just simply walk straight up and tell her I noticed her, find her attractive and want to get to know her. This absolutely works FAR BETTER than any other “method”. Ah, the old Brady Rules of Game: 1. Be attractive. 2. Don’t be unattractive. 3. Be Tom Brady. He is either masculine enough in his natural behavior or he isn’t Do you seriously think that masculinity is binary? Don’t you think that social skills can be learned? If you are “masculine”, yet lack social skills, girls aren’t gonna like you. Social skills are essential. Brady Rule #2. Masculinity can… Read more »
The following excerpt is well worth sharing with everyone here at RM as it pertains to the questions we debate, and ask ourselves, considering men, women and the inevitable sexual social dynamics. At first consideration you will likely think I am even more full of crap than I am, but it is wise to be patient and think about the following seriously. What I am about to tell you dovetails with my most recent comments, there is wisdom herein on the most fundamental level concerning all this. “Fooled?” is an excerpt (verbatim) from the book entitled “What is the name… Read more »
” Of course, if you only approach attractive girls, you will give off the “Player” vibe…” Well, it all depends on what you are saying to these attractive girls, or any girl for that matter. One can build and develop social skills through interaction, attention and understanding. the timelines will vary greatly from man to man. But at the end of the exercise, a man has to understand attraction and how it works. If being masculine is incorporated into the building of social skills, then he won’t need to be a ” player ” in a loose sense of the… Read more »
When you walk up to a chick she knows there are one of two things going on
You want to bang her, and you know it, she knows etc and you can get her damp in the pants
Or you watch to bang her but your a simp who doesn’t know how to make her damp in the pants.
Either way, she knows you want to bang her. Otherwise you wouldn’t roll up on her
“Just be yourself” is fine as long as you also have essential skill sets and knowledge about women. However, without those skill sets and knowledge, your advice is about as useful as bubble pipe underwater. Your advice is typical of a natural who has no clue about his nonverbal signals and how women respond to them.” Same take I had from NBTM. I don’t disagree with what he said as long as a man has a limitless skill set. But what is the point? What idea is NBTM pushing other that his Frame? Even @5:43 pm he is pushing the… Read more »
@NBTM So, how does the forgoing excerpt pertain to sexual gender dynamics? “Gender” is a linguistic concept. When you misuse that word instead of the correct term, “sex”, you are writing without precision or accuracy. When you write inaccurately and imprecisely, you are learning how to write inaccurately and imprecisely. That means you are thinking imprecisely and inaccurately. For example: It is imperative to comprehend that RP “truths” are actually nothing more than stratagems which only effectively become “truth” when they are respected as such. I have applied Game with a great deal of internal skepticism, i.e. with zero respect… Read more »
Do it like this here – Emile “So, you expected me to fool you didn’t you?” Blaximus ” Lol, that’s sweet. You fool me? Picture that. ” Emile “But I didn’t, did I?” Blaximus ” I’m sorry, are you still talking about… what was it again?” Emile “But you expected me to, didn’t you?” Blaximus ” Expectations are irrelevant. You are who you are and do what you do. ” Emile “So, I fooled you, didn’t I ?!” Blaximus ” Lol, hey, you can tell yourself whatever you’d like to, as it seems that the whole ‘ fooling ‘ thing… Read more »
“I really don’t get what you are selling this week. Is it AMOGing? Is it Only Real Man In The Room? Is it Only Real Men Like Me Can Get Women? What are you trying to say?”
Winner,winner. My sentiments, exactly.
kfg 2 days ago to NBTM
OK, now what do you see in this inkblot?
STOP POSTING THAT DISGUSTING PORN!!!!
@Blax Well, it all depends on what you are saying to these attractive girls, or any girl for that matter. No, my friend, you could simply be asking girls to dance. Preselection attaches the Player attribute to a man. You get preselected simply by getting lots of girls giggling and smiling while they dance with you. Or you could chat with girls all over the room and talk about the weather…if your nonverbals are solid, girls will show IOIs towards you and other girls will see it and…presto…you are preselected. On a side note, the Player attribute raises ASD in… Read more »
Let me explain what I mean by “just being myself” in the context of approaching a woman I find attractive. I NEVER approach by talking with her less attractive friend first and pretending that I’m maybe not interested in her, I do not feign lack of interest. I just simply walk straight up and tell her I noticed her, find her attractive and want to get to know her. Let’s consider two different people doing this very same thing: 1. One of Amy’s lovers (Amy from Big Bang Theory)…manly men…these men walk tall, speak clearly and directly, and hold girls’… Read more »
Taleb via Alpha Game Plan:
But the article was just clueless, feminist dipshitery stumbling on a clue that men are people too.
Lol. You gotta weigh with werds.
Gonna sperg a sec. How can someone be clueless after stumbling on a clue? Did they fumble the clue?
Birds need to walk the walk… lol.
In other news…
Movie Lawsuit Dude gets paid… woman gets? Movie deal????
Still not sure whether this is a threshold moment of Beta nut dropping or King Gamma moment. Over at WIA he poses the question Pimp or Simp and concludes Simp.
The statement (like the article) has an implicit temporal component.
“Women mistakenly believe blank-slate equalism makes them equally as durable as men . . .” The front passenger seat of an automobile is colloquially referred to as the “Suicide Seat,” because the accident fatality rate of that seat is higher than any other. Once upon a time auto engineers spent a good deal of time and money trying to figure out why that seat was less safe and what engineering solution they might apply to the problem. The why was eventually discovered in another statistic, not in the physical properties of automobiles: That seat is most often occupied by a… Read more »
“That seat is most often occupied by a woman.”
And now, for the non sequitur of the day:
Quentin Tarantino sure did exploit that in Death Proof (movie) when Stuntman Mike McKay (Kurt Russell) took Pam (Rose McGowan) for a mean ride in his stunt car. Peak Anger phase.
It’s clear the Grey Alien Race doesn’t take shit from their android beaner concubines back home.
The nerve of that cleaning lady having better shit to do than watch some feminist horseshit movie with E.T.
The statement (like the article) has an implicit temporal component.
About time you responded.
I’m surpised she didn’t pay him in singles or just loose change and Sonic coupon…
“Therapist Blames American Couples’ Sex Slump On Social Media, Lack of Communication”
Angela Hughes has her own “go-to” plan when she isn’t feeling it.
“I just go to the bathroom and strategically wait for him to be asleep,” she laughed, explaining, “We have four kids.”
I’d have my own plan if my wife stays in the bathroom too long.
Thanks for all the responses to my comments, sincerely. The RP enlightens a man to be aware of the machelivian arts and especially with respect to women in the MANosphere. RP truth (and I completely agree it is in fact true where its effects prevail) identifies machevellism as part of woman’s primary MO in her negotiations with man. So, in this sense, the newly initiated man is introduced to what the RP identifies as primarily more feminine, considering that the RP makes man aware of what woman has already been practicing. Whether she is practicing consciously or not makes no… Read more »
Re: State Control RP lenses reveal the dual standards and it’s frustrating. Men are to tolerate, celebrate you-go-girl women’s anger, subdue their own. When women overtly emote, esp. anger, they’re out of their comfort zone, preferred frame. They’re shit testing men, the world, their hindbrain isn’t buying, tho. Example: Mrs. Eh would misbehave, I’d withhold attention and carry on ZFG, not calibrating. We’d walk around each other until she’d melt down, sometimes violently, looking for leadership. I’d accept the stormy night, placid morning narrative. Years of this. I go RP, accept my leadership failure, no going back…and I’m going to… Read more »
@rugby11 May 25, 2017 at 7:38 am
That was a fantastic video of Jordan Peterson. I never did get what he was about cause I couldn’t slog through his long videos (albeit, they were random and not directed like you did today). But now I just get it about the free speech. And a lot of that talk was a microcosm of what goes on here in dialog at TRM.
(And disclaimer if someone clicks, the audio is terrible.)
The unofficial EhIntellect household anthem
Can’t keep runnin’ away…..
Thanks for sharing.
Applying myself to a career, building a company, focusing on a hobby, developing myself without so much obsession about women, brings more women into my life
So you’re a natural who uses his social circle to obtain women, amirite?
@EhIntellect “RP lenses reveal the dual standards and it’s frustrating. Men are to tolerate, celebrate you-go-girl women’s anger, subdue their own. When women overtly emote, esp. anger, they’re out of their comfort zone, preferred frame. They’re shit testing men, the world, their hindbrain isn’t buying, tho.” Just to clarify a point: Women are in their comfort zone when they are receiving emotions from an Alpha male. Bad emotions are not outside of their comfort zone if calibrated and executed well. Reminder, the worst emotion she can give you is indifference. If you can be comfortable by not flinching when she… Read more »
She’s in a bad or angry emotional state?
Paint her back porch rex, pound that bitch from behind and clean your junk off in her hair.
“clean your junk off in her hair”
…and then get a beer for you and make some sammiches
“So you’re a natural who uses his social circle to obtain women, amirite?” No but yes. First no, because that isn’t the primary objective. It just happens. Yes, because that is a result. But, no again, because that result is one incidental, not the primary intent. It takes care of itself. They take care of it. Its their work. Let them worry. Let them be the hamster feeder. Now obviously a wall flower isn’t going to get the bees and shit only attracts flies. Can’t be a wallflower or a shit. Only women who are wall flowers are capable of… Read more »
We must share are story’s and mistake and growth…
Well women used to be more emotional than men until they mandated that men be more emotional!
@SJF “This Too Shall Pass’ and keep your wits” This, brother, this saved me until I fell backwards here. We’ve not come to blows since…with all the same benefits. I was at SFCTons blog and sheepishly walked memory lane. How humbling. Speaking of: Switched from German pub to Mexican pub down the street during Kim’s piano lessons. The kids walk to us after. Cheaper and the female staff is sassy. Manager, whom I’m friendly, wearing black, all black. I, ever the idiot, ask if he’s going for the slimming look. No, his 19 y.o. son was murdered in Guatemala two… Read more »
[…] and make specific from one arena in his life and not in another. My last three essays State Control, Submission, and Family Integrity are really explorations in this Meta Frame ownership. A lot of […]
‘Cause me if I get emotional.
Accuse me too!
On the OP good essay on male emotion. It is a parodox if a male shows emotion. One side she can’t understand his side or sympathize or have empathy. She can’t comprehend his struggle or sacrifices he makes on the daily. If he emotes and yells and get frustrated he looks weak even laughable to her because the threat of physical violence is removed from his arsenal of tools by the system.But the other side if he fails to dominate she will see weakness and destroy him. Parodox indeed. In the bars I go to and think it’s pretty common… Read more »
@NBTM Yes, because that is a result. But, no again, because that result is one incidental, not the primary intent. It takes care of itself. They take care of it. Its their work. Let them worry. Let them be the hamster feeder. This is all fine if you’re a natural with a social circle that includes lovely women. You have unconscious competence—you don’t have to put out much effort to get laid. Most men are unconsciously incompetent, however. They don’t even know how incompetent they are. They need to learn what you learned years ago and you have even forgotten… Read more »
We’re all dealing with the same shit. Only at different magnitudes.
Rational thought works with men. Righteous anger works as long as she’s responsive. For shits, think energy conservation when engaging her. Get her to submit with minimum energy on your part. Stress kills, brother.
Consider any given female contribution here. It’ll devolve to simmering erotica with only a nudge. Your lady wants you as Alpha, leader, lover. AWALT.
It’s Friday, my sabbatical is ending, I’m burning it down.
[…]  https://therationalmale.com/2017/05/17/state-control/ […]
Everytime I read “Feminine Imperative” or anything the social order today, I think … Of course we live in a society like this. And as much as we’d like to throw blame around, it comes back to Men taking responsibility for their actions. We live in a world of our own making, therefore, our society reflects that world. This world/society was built by Men, every generation continues to be built by Men – the same world we bitch and complain about, is the one in which the people to blame are the Men standing at the switches and controls. Why?… Read more »
Thought this would be a good place to post this: