Peterson drops the ball in a couple of forgivable instances here. First, many contemporary studies show that women do in fact enter an estrus state. Secondly, while he is entirely correct about women’s Hypergamy never seeking its own level, he implies here that it is singularly a man’s capacity to produce and share resources that forms the basis for women’s attraction. This is an interesting overlook when you consider how often he’s made reference to how women primarily look for sexual dominance in men. From the Beta Bucks, provisioning, side of women’s sexual strategy, a man’s capacity for production and sharing resources is certainly an attraction cue, but it is only a cue insofar as it applies to women’s long term security needs. From the Alpha Fucks, short term mating perspective, it is a man’s capacity for sexual arousal and his sexual availability to her that is the basis for assessing a man’s SMV.
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Peterson. I count him amongst the greatest minds of Red Pill awareness, however, his analysis is often subject to a Blue Pill conditioning that predisposes him to a default belief in the inherent ‘goodness’ of the female psyche. That isn’t to say women are inherently ‘bad’, but it is to say his objectivity is colored by a want to see the feminine on a pedestal. Peterson tends to pepper in a Blue Pill conditioned masculine ridicule into his observations about men when he’s detailing gender differences and it’s his habit to presume the best from women. He accurately makes the case here for how men are continually driven by an existential crisis when it comes to being accepted by (‘perfectly well-intended’) women in passing on their genetic material, but falls into the trap of believing that women would only, logically, want to breed with men who have good long term prospects for providing and sharing resources. There’s a 30+ year body of evo-bio / evo-psych research that contradicts his presumption.
However, in this instance, Peterson hits upon the fundamental reasoning as to why men are by nature more competitive than women. Over the millennia of human evolution, the stresses of men’s breeding strategies and realities has become hardwired into the male mental firmware, and as such it has selected-for men having a more competitive nature than women. I would go so far as to suggest that competitiveness is a primary aspect of conventional masculinity – and one that requires a constant effort to socialize out of modern males today.
On the female side we have to consider how women evolved, socially and psychologically, in hunter-gatherer, foraging tribes, and how the environmental stress of maintaining a social collective shaped women’s mental firmware. It’s my belief that women’s intense need for long term security (as well as Hypergamous doubt) is directly descended from the need to hedge against the environmental uncertainties of our evolutionary past. The rigors of gestation, carrying a child to term, child birth and then rearing that child to puberty – all while gathering food and resources and defending that child and the collective against external (and sometime internal) threats selected-for women with a collectivist / cooperative mental firmware. While the men of the tribal society were off hunting game or defending the tribe, it would follow that women would develop a more unitary, collectivist social order of intrasexual cooperation in order to survive and, as Dr. Peterson points out, ensure that the genetic material of the men they selected (or were selected by) survived for posterity.
In several essays, and in my latest book, I describe women’s natural social order as the Sisterhood Über Alles. That is ‘women above all else’, and from an evolved psychological perspective this solidarity, collectivism and cooperative bent is the mental vestige of an evolution that demanded women to be so in order to survive. Evolution doesn’t care how women breed and survive, just that women breed and survive. Flash forward to modern times and we see women of every and any social, political, religious and racial stripe preempt any conviction inspired by them with the concerns of womankind.
There are several studies that indicate that collectivism is a characteristic of women’s mental firmware. When presented with the distribution of a common wealth (or resource) it’s women’s predisposition to mete those resources out to the familial, feminine-primary social group (tribe) in as even a distribution as possible, or by an individual’s most pressing needs. Again, this is convincing evidence of a mental framework that leans towards a collectivism that finds its roots in our evolutionary past.
This fundamental prioritizing of the survival, needs and best interests of women as a collective is what now forms the basis of, and drives, what I commonly refer to as the Feminine Imperative. And from the Feminine Imperative, combined with a male-permissive social structure that has allowed for women’s social primacy, we have largely developed into a feminine-primary social order that is founded on the evolved, collectivist social structure that women’s mental firmware naturally predisposes them to.
Collectivism, socialism, is a fundamental aspect of the female psyche. In a social order that prioritizes female interests above all else we see the rise and perpetuation of an egalitarian equalism that finds its roots in women’s natural predisposition for collectivism. I would argue here that the egalitarian equalism we contend with today is really a convenient cover-term for female social primacy, and one that is a result of women’s collectivist nature.
Male Dominance Hierarchies
As Dr. Peterson briefly details in this clip, it is primarily men’s performance burden (and a man’s capacity to share the fruits of it) that has historically been the basis of women’s selection criteria for the long term provisioning aspect of women’s Hypergamous natures. And as I mentioned, this only covers half of what makes for women’s true assessments of men’s sexual market value. DNA mapping of our foraging ancestors reveals the real story about the importance sexual arousal and strategic pluralism played in women’s sexual selection. Historically, only 20% of men bred with 80% of women. If we only look at this fact from Peterson’s perspective we’re left to conclude that this 20% looked like good long term prospects with resources to share, rather than consider the uglier side of Hypergamy and women opportunistically breeding with the best physical specimens they had access to and, proactively or retroactively, cuckolding the ‘good provider’. The mental schema of mate guarding didn’t develop in a vacuum – there are very good evolutionary reasons why men developed a subconscious, peripheral sensitivity to the behaviors that indicate women’s ovulatory phase.
Hypergamy doesn’t care, but it did indeed play a part in the evolution of men’s dominance hierarchies as Peterson suggests. Whether the criteria for selection was physical prowess or provisional prowess, the breeding pressures placed on men by women’s sexual strategy is responsible for a great deal of what we consider the male nature and conventional masculinity itself. While it may be a pleasant fiction for men to apply terms like strength and honor and fidelity to male-kind, those concepts exist outside the evolved male-competitive nature. Kings and emperors had breeding rights to harems while their subjects, by order of degree, had sexual access to progressively diminishing opportunities with women.
One aspect I think Peterson didn’t get around to explaining in this clip is that women have only had unilateral sexual selection opportunity in the past century due to the social and physical unfettering of Hypergamy. Being a king may’ve meant that man had more breeding opportunities than that of his lessers, but it in no way made him the best, or even the willing, choice for the women he bred with. Up until the rise of feminine social primacy, men have always had social, moral, ethical and yes, physical, means of exerting their own control over Hypergamy.
Competitiveness is what defines masculinity for every generation of men. While it may be part of women’s mental firmware to consider the collective first with regard to resource distribution, it is most definitely an evolved characteristic of men to accrue resources in order to be considered a good prospect for women’s long term security needs. When we consider the criteria women have in order for a man to represent an optimal Hypergamous prospect, it makes pragmatic sense that an innate competitiveness would be part of men’s psychological firmware. Nature would select-for a natural competitiveness in men. As such we observe that men consider merit and performance first in distributing resources (rewards) in order to recognize, in theory, an exceptionality in men. Even if it is within our selfish-gene nature to want to retain as much for ourselves (and thus make ourselves better prospects for Hypergamous optimization) we still recognize merit, or lack of it, in men’s burden of performance.
So, with regard to the bigger societal picture, what we’re seeing in our egalitarian equalist social experiment of today is not just a conflict in men and women’s social approaches, but also a fundamental conflict in which sex’s sexual strategy will be the socially predominant one. In a social sense it is a conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution the answer has been clear; it is women’s sexual strategy that has been allowed to define our social order.
Brotherhood
Jack Donovan had a great post back in February titled We are not Brothers. I entirely cosign his sentiment in this essay – today men bandy around the term Brother without really considering the deeper implications that true, in-group, exclusively male, brotherhood entails. It’s a good essay, but I think one reason Jack is sensitive to the term losing its meaning is due to the efforts the Feminine Imperative has made in destroying men’s understanding of conventional masculinity. It’s deliberate, so Brotherhood means whatever the feminine feels comfortable in allowing it to mean, and it can effect control over its significance for as long as it can continue to confuse men about the sacrificial nature of conventional masculinity.
Men’s dominance hierarchies and breeding strategies predispose men to maverick independence (sigmas) or intrasexual rivalries within a fraternal group (tribes). Men’s collective, cooperative social structures – traditionally, exclusive male spaces – existed in spite of this intrasexually competitive nature. Even amongst the most steadfast, cooperative and loyal of brotherhoods there will always be intrasexual rivalries for breeding opportunities. And as Jordan B. Peterson notes, it is women’s Hypergamy that gives rise to male dominance hierarchies, but moreover it has led to the necessity for developing an evolved predisposition for men’s being competitive.
It is precisely this competitive mental firmware in men which makes it next to impossible for their to ever be a Brotherhood Über Alles – and in an age where men are shamed for masculinity, an age in which women will force themselves into male space as overseers, an age where men will adaptively define masculinity to mean whatever suits their weakest proficiencies, it’s easy to understand the difficulties in men cooperatively coming together to enforce their own collective best interests as men. In ages past, when masculine cooperation determined the fate of a tribe, a people, a nation, etc. this fraternity was a much more imperative concept for men.
It’s been noted before that in earlier eras formalized monogamy was a social adaptation with the latent purpose of solving men’s evolved imperative to ensure his own paternity. Whether this adaptation was (is) a successful hedge against women’s Hypergamy is debatable, but the relative insurance a man was afforded by formal monogamy was that he could send his genetic material on to successive generations. From an evolutionary perspective, men’s primary existential crisis is reproduction, and in order to successfully solve this problem women’s Hypergamy must be controlled for. As this push for male control superseded women’s imperatives it’s made for a social guarantee that a man would reproduce with a lessened need for competition and a lessened burden of performance for men. While high SMV men were guaranteed reproduction, the monogamy adaptation meant that, theoretically, only the lowliest of men wouldn’t find a mate.
That was the latent socio-sexual contract prior to the Sexual Revolution. Today, we see parallels for this struggle between men and women’s sexual strategies and women’s own social push to unilaterally control and institutionalize Hypergamy. Now the script has been flipped to socially create and enforce a new feminine-primary structure that has the latent purpose of ensuring even the lowest SMV woman can fulfill Hypergamy to a greater degree. Just as formal monogamy sought to ensure men could solve their reproductive purpose in spite of his performance burden, now we have women as the primary beneficiaries of a society structured to, theoretically, ensure they have access to both the best genes (Alpha Fucks) and the best provisioning (Beta Bucks) – all to the point that men are conscripted into doing so.
As women have less and less need of men who can (directly) produce and share resources the concept of masculine cooperation in enforcing their best interests becomes a farce at best, a ‘hate crime’ at worst. The more women can produce and/or consume resources, or conscript men to involuntarily produce and share, the more women lean towards the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy in prioritizing their sexual selection. As a result, male dominance hierarchies will continue to develop around the short term sexual breeding criteria of women. In the past, as per Dr. Peterson, that hierarchy may have been centered on long term provisioning; today it is all about women’s pleasure in accessing the best genetic material her evolved hindbrain determines is in her best interests.
Yet still we hear women bemoan a lack of marriageable, long term producer/sharers who are their (perceived) status equals or better (always better). The evolved need for that security providing, competent male is still part of her mental firmware, no matter what the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative are telling her conscious self. And in a pragmatic, adaptive response, men will continue to define masculinity for themselves, continue to prioritize short term sexual arousal above long term attraction, and continue to be befuddled or embarrassed by the ideas of forming Brotherhoods with any deeper meaning than what pop culture will define them for men as.
Late edit: Reader Novaseeker had a brilliant observation about the reasons women’s collectivism evolved.
The innate sisterhood, or herd, also arises from the reality that most human tribes were patrilocal and not matrilocal. That is, the core of the tribe was a group of males bonded by kin, and they brought in females from other tribes (trade/conquest) routinely for mating. Thus, the males had relatively high levels of cooperation due to being kin-bonded (not perfect levels of cooperation — rivalries always exist, violence happens in kin bonds as well — but much higher than among non-kin-bonded males), whereas the females had to adapt to cooperate with the other females despite the lack of kin bonds between them as a kind of counterweight to the innate solidarity that the kin-bonded males had vis-a-vis the females. The kind of female sisterhood/collectivism that we see in women evolved, in addition to what you write about, as well from the need to counteract the male solidarity in patrilocal tribes — women evolved to cooperate with other “strange” women in the face of this male solidarity which was based on kin bonds.
A key point of this — and something which explains much of the behavior of women *politically* in the last 200 years or so — is that the context in which this evolved was specifically to counterweigh male power. That is, because females would otherwise have remained weak and isolated in the face of a tribe of kin-bonded males, they evolved this sisterhood/collective mentality specifically to provide a counterweight to male power. This is important, because it’s this specific context in which this mentality comes to the fore most prominently in women, even today. Women can fight and scratch and claw with each other and be bitches with each other incessantly, but when one of them comes into conflict with a man or “with men”, the sisterhood/collective mindset kicks in in high gear, precisely because this is the specific context it emerged to counter. In other words, it’s specifically evolved to offset male power, to counterbalance male power, by forging solidarity between females who otherwise would not have any reason to act like a sisterhood (and who may even dislike each other).
Contemporary feminism is perhaps the most obvious form of this, but it isn’t the only one. The pronounced female in-group preference is another easy to spot one as well. But in any case, a key point to understand is that the sisterhood isn’t neutral — it’s evolved to counterbalance any kind of male power that threatens women’s interests as a group. This is the case even though women haven’t lived in patrilocal conditions for a long, long, long time, and even though contemporary men have no solidarity to speak of at all which could possibly threaten women’s interest as a group. That evolutionary history casts long shadows, and the tendency for women to see men as a cabal acting to control women — when in fact, as we all know, we’re kind of the exact opposite of that — arises from the collective evolutionary memory of adaptations to deal with the very real male solidarity females faced when they were imported into patrilocal male tribes of kin-bonded males.
SJB @Anonymous Reader: You are saying that all bad behavior by women is actually the fault of men, is that correct? No. Then what are you trying to say by invoking “war brides”? Define “ideal sociopathy” See Pol Pot. Many of the most efficient Khmer Rouge executioners were women, using ordinary hoes ground to a sharp triangle point. A condemned prisoner on the ground could die almost instantly with a strike to the base of the skull, or very, very slowly with many cuts all over the body, depending on what the female executioners wanted to do. How does that… Read more »
Or to ask the same question a different way, SJB:
Do women have agency?
@Anonymous Reader: Then what are you trying to say by invoking “war brides”?
That females adapt to the situation into which they are thrust and, on average, do not attempt to create an ideal situation starting from where they are.
How does that fit in with your idea of sociopathy?
That there were female executioners are neither here nor there. From whom came the vision (ideal) prompting the action?
@Anonymous Reader: Do women have agency?
Situationaly.
We’ve strayed far from Peterson’s alleged blue-pillness. I suggested that he views them as neutral simply that females have less variability than males; I also suggested, tangentially, that male idealism is the root of that variability: males are more likely to envision an ideal and then act on that ideal. To get from there to female agency was a leap.
Laid bare for all to see is Rollo’s lack of even a modicum of a response to my plurality of attempts to reveal the true motives behind his writings. Both Rollo and Peterson are cut from the same cloth and are so obviously enthusiastic agents of resurging reactionary rightwing extremism only those with preconceived Charlottesville-esqe sympathies cannot see what is self-evident to both centrists and leftists. Rollo, your lack of addressing this elephant squeezed into a linen closet is reaching ad absurdum. Your silence is prima facie evidence my accusations are incontrovertibly true in every sense of the word. Rollo… Read more »
@Rollo: “I’ll take a bf 109 if it’s all the same to you.”
As a greyhound man I would expect you to.
@Rendezvous in Mexico: ” . . . Rollo and Peterson are cut from the same cloth and are so obviously enthusiastic agents of resurging reactionary rightwing extremism . . .”
Yer funny.
Rollo and Peterson are most certainly on the radar of people who matter and are being watched closely.
Lol, my legal tactics are top tier. I’ll help Rollo with anything the SPLC sends his way. Meanwhile, Leon, why don’t you apprehend an aeronautical fornication vectored towards an oscillating pastry?
@Leon Trotsky
Have you ever considered that you are ridiculous and not worth the virtual ink?
Leon T.
Laid bare for all to see is Rollo’s lack of even a modicum of a response to my plurality of attempts to reveal the true motives behind his writings.
I’m ready to respond to you, Leon. When can we meet?
He’s got to be a Leftist Bot. Cause no one can actually be that blustery if they actually Read Rollo or listened to J.B. Peterson. Peterson and Rollo have a core mission of truth and praxeology. That just drives Lefties to swarm like hornets. But then they realize they are only lowly yellow jackets. I love the talks of Peterson. Best thing ever was his guilty pleasure when asked about The Trailer Park boys. I watched the series on Netflix earlier this year when I was refining my MPO and Frame. And that shit really came in handy. Ricky and… Read more »
@Anonymous Reader: Then what are you trying to say by invoking “war brides”? SJB That females adapt to the situation into which they are thrust and, on average, do not attempt to create an ideal situation starting from where they are. If that were true then women would never attempt to change the men around them. Do you assert that women never attempt to change lovers / husbands / bosses / coworkers? Because if they did that, that would be an attempt to create an ideal situation starting from where they are. So which position do you wish to take?… Read more »
@Rollo
PZ Meyers:
I detest evolutionary psychology, not because I dislike the answers it gives, but on purely methodological and empirical grounds: it is a grandiose exercise in leaping to conclusions on inadequate evidence, it is built on premises that simply don’t work, and it’s a field that seems to do a very poor job of training and policing its practitioners, so that it primarily serves as a dump for bad research that then supplies tabloids with a feast of garbage science that discredits the rest of us.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/15/when-in-doubt-just-question-the-motives-of-evolutionary-psychology-critics/
“Laid bare for all to see is Rollo’s lack of even a modicum of a response to my plurality of attempts to reveal the true motives behind his writings.
Indifference is a bitch, ain’t it.
For the fourth time?:
https://youtu.be/nmcqrAopaLs
I wonder if Leon is some psych lab’s sock puppet.
@Anonymous Reader: Do women have agency? SJB Situationaly. Please expand that. We’ve strayed far from Peterson’s alleged blue-pillness. Disagree. All of this ties back to his blue-pill status. I suggested that he views them as neutral simply that females have less variability than males; I disagree with that also. Given what Rollo has pointed out – he met his future wife at the age of 8 – it seems likely that Peterson is closer to a “Women are Wonderful” point of view, however he has the intellectual rigor and honesty to follow some of the evidence in front of him.… Read more »
@Leon
Re: “plurality”
I do not think this word means what you think it means.
It is possible that “Leon Trotsky” is some Social Justice Warrior who wants to threaten Rollo in some way. Perhaps “Leon” wishes to imply doxxing, or some other attack such as DDOS against WordPress? Or perhaps it’s just an empty LARP.
But it is a threat, nevertheless and perhaps should be regarded as such in a larger sense.
I’m sure Rollo has site backups away from WordPress as well as alternatives.
Interesting choice, bf 109. The preferred ride of Erich Hartmann, top scoring fighter pilot of all the combatants in World War 2 with 352 victories.
There’s a hidden meaning for Leon, but he probably doesn’t get it.
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/erich-hartmann-messerschmitt-bf-109-white-background-craig-tinder.jpg
Leon Trotsky meets the definition of sociopath, by the content of his antisocial comments on this blog.
Peterson’s flaw is that the upper middle class is stuck in Status jockeying and everything is viewed through the lense of the monetary dominance hierarchy – beta bucks.
SJB
I also suggested, tangentially, that male idealism is the root of that variability: males are more likely to envision an ideal and then act on that ideal.
I have just re-read every comment in this thread. Nowhere do I find such a suggestion from you.
Please explain.
No threat. Them as do don’t talk, and conversely, them as talk don’t do.
Though if our Swarthmore bot’s idea of “does” is as good as he talks, he ain’t doin’ shit.
Compare the real Anonymous: they do, then broadcast what they did.
Bots are like assholes: they’re both joined together at the hip.
@Anonymous Reader: To be honest, I do not care if females have agency; I’ve more of an eye toward female culpability. Interestingly Rollo and Peterson are of similar age, both purport to be monogamous, and both are more than occasionally surrounded by women in peak fertility range (pour girls and undergrads respectively). Both are in a position for critical first-hand observation but the argument is that one is not observant. Further, in a podcast, I’ve heard Rollo speak about his wife — I’d say — fondly; likewise I’ve heard Peterson speak of his wife fondly. That his wife was the… Read more »
@Johnycomelately
The main flaw of most academics is they lack total real life experience. Not to say that their experiences are irrelevant,rather time spent studying others ideas and experiences precludes time spent gathering ones own.
JP is doing quite well,though it appears that his bp outlook with personal sex relations is causing him some consternation.
I think I will have to disagree here. I don’t think women had any choice back then on who to mate with, it was mostly brute forced by men (Rape, which funny enough is the number one female “fantasy”), let’s be honest, female selection would never work in a real hunter-gatherer tribe society because the men would impede himself onto the women or a women. Women back then were extremely meek. And later on in society it was the father who had to give permission to marry if the man was suitable. They didn’t have the strength and of course… Read more »
Not good enough. Innate competitiveness evolved in men in response to something. Women’s innate Hypergamy also evolved in response to something.
SJB To be honest, I do not care if females have agency; I’ve more of an eye toward female culpability. Huh. In other words, you do not care if females can be held responsible, you have more of an eye for female responsibilty. Did you mean to write that ? Interestingly Rollo and Peterson are of similar age, both purport to be monogamous, and both are more than occasionally surrounded by women in peak fertility range (pour girls and undergrads respectively). Both are in a position for critical first-hand observation but the argument is that one is not observant. Yes,… Read more »
Looks like you are squirting a little squid ink here, frankly. A man can understand what his wife is capable of yet still be fond of her, surely. JBP’s and my own experience with women in our individual lives is night and day. If he married his grammar school sweetheart as he states, his experience with women is limited to what he learned in school and church. It’s one thing to read about BPD women and an entirely different thing to have lived through a 4 year horror show with one. I have the benefit of learning from experience with… Read more »
She put you up to this ^^ didn’t she?.
@JohnnyComingLately and Slowly “Peterson’s flaw is that the upper middle class is stuck in Status jockeying and everything is viewed through the lense of the monetary dominance hierarchy – beta bucks.” Rollo commented: Much of this phenomenon can be attributed to women’s evolved mental expectation of male competency in security provisioning: https://therationalmale.com/2017/06/30/competency/ I re-read that essay on competency. The upper middle class Naturals or the Learned Red Pill guys (like me) actually don’t have to status jockey. I live in a Washington Post SuperZipCode. Everyone I hang out with in my neighborhood and at my country club is at the… Read more »
In the manosphere the other idea is that women don’t like to be in groups or secretly hate each other in a group or at least between groups…. so where is the default sisterhood.
………
They don’t like other women very much. They like beta men even less
“The upper middle class Naturals or the Learned Red Pill guys (like me) actually don’t have to status jockey. I live in a Washington Post SuperZipCode. Everyone I hang out with in my neighborhood and at my country club is at the far right of the bell curve.”
Smells like Burning Jocky shorts^.
Churchians by default aren’t right wing. On a whole shit ton of issues
As always interesting to see men reject part of the blank slate but not reject the whole thing.
One of the best things about my life is laughing at how little moeny the dudes with the far right iqs and living in super zip codes have
Ps
All women are natural born psychopaths. Not genrally of the violent type but psychopaths none the less
SJB it isn’t that anyone “needs” for Peterson to be blue pill. It’s an analysis of him. If I wanted to modify existing turbofan jet engines and I have a choice between: A. An engineer with experience in heat transfer and fluid flow dynamics B. An engineer with experience in phlogiston theory[1] C. An engineer with experience in coaxing magic spirits Which should I contract with? Peterson is far beyond the magic spirits – that’s what traditional conservatives use to analyze women, intersexual relations, etc. via their “Just Be Yourself!” fire dance, with rattles. Peterson is at the level of… Read more »
From Rollo’s essay Competency: “You cannot make a woman “Happy”, however, this does not preclude a woman’s innate need to see you as either a confident problem solver (as in Draper’s exchange with Betty) or a guy who “Just Gets It” (as in the shit test example with Megan). I believe Deti is correct here, but I think we can make a distinction between a woman’s need to test for a comfort versus a shit test of sexual selection. I would argue that a comfort test comes from women’s deep need for security in a chaotic world. A comfort test,… Read more »
@SFC Ton “One of the best things about my life is laughing at how little moeny the dudes with the far right iqs and living in super zip codes have” If a dude in a super zip doesn’t have much money, it’s because he let the consumerist narrative and his wife’s consumerist life take him over. We all know what is going on there. The manosphere taught me not to let my shit own me (not to be consumerist). Some of my red pill buddies also demonstrated that path to me. I have a Machiavellian tactic to currently be cash… Read more »
The next to last paragraph made this post. I think the reason to adapt to the sexual marketplace and be the short term guy is what drove me to the Manosphere. Some men have the knowledge, but they go MGTOW, & others might be Alpha husbands/fathers. Even though we are anonymous per se, we form a cooperative brotherhood 4 knowledge in cyberspace, because we want to develop ourselves. We all want to be a woman’s top interest, and grasping the death of or lack of respect for the beta bucks side is always the toughest reality to deal with. It’s… Read more »
Slow appluase. One of your best essays Rollo!
“I would argue here that the egalitarian equalism we contend with today is really a convenient cover-term for female social primacy, and one that is a result of women’s collectivist nature.”
Exactly, when women get to vote, civilisation starts to disintegrate.
And nice quote from Jordan Peterson: For man to be above average in woman perception, he needs to be top 20% obectively.
@Anonymous Reader: Huh. In other words, you do not care if females can be held responsible, you have more of an eye for female responsibilty. Did you mean to write that ?
To answer the direct question, of course I contrasted agency with culpability. As far as your statement, I cannot parse it.
Trolling . . . yes, my initial impression was that Rollo was trolling Peterson. Asking why was an interesting question yesterday but not so today.
@Rollo: re: squid ink. I get it: clinical practice ain’t practice.
Self surgery Yesterday i took buddy of mine who i find to be a brother in spirit out into the world to talk and laugh and eat and enjoy the community in which i live. Went to an all men’s meeting and one of the question’s was are men and women different. I don’t usually speak at these meeting’s but out of the three question’s they ask the group two resonated with me a lot. One was are men and women different and the other was about free speech. The third one which i didn’t go into was about charity… Read more »
“innate Sisterhood”. I totally forgot about my own observations of my girls and their friends. The girls are broken into cliques.. not sure what is the nucleus of each grouping. My daughters clique has members that are friends and others that she says she doesn’t even like. I asked her then why do you even hang out with her at all? She doesn’t have an answer other than she has to, as in has to in order to be part of the group or that this girls mother takes the group places (i.e. material resources). My other daughter doesn’t like… Read more »
The innate sisterhood, or herd, also arises from the reality that most human tribes were patrilocal and not matrilocal. That is, the core of the tribe was a group of males bonded by kin, and they brought in females from other tribes (trade/conquest) routinely for mating. Thus, the males had relatively high levels of cooperation due to being kin-bonded (not perfect levels of cooperation — rivalries always exist, violence happens in kin bonds as well — but much higher than among non-kin-bonded males), whereas the females had to adapt to cooperate with the other females despite the lack of kin… Read more »
Nova, that was too good an observation not to add to this post. Thanks.
@SJB AR @Anonymous Reader: Huh. In other words, you do not care if females can be held responsible, you have more of an eye for female responsibilty. Did you mean to write that ? To answer the direct question, of course I contrasted agency with culpability. As far as your statement, I cannot parse it. AR is pointing out that the ideas are basically the same… (although slightly blending the two concepts, it’s a fair point)… having agency is a necessary precursor to being held culpable… they are just two points on the same timeline… agency = able to make… Read more »
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/16/14/27A185A600000578-0-image-a-83_1429192745183.jpg
@nova; The sisterhood is quite alive in my house! When I am upset with the woman, the girls always side with her unless it’s very egregious on her part.
Novaseeker The kind of female sisterhood/collectivism that we see in women evolved, in addition to what you write about, as well from the need to counteract the male solidarity in patrilocal tribes — women evolved to cooperate with other “strange” women in the face of this male solidarity which was based on kin bonds. This can be explained in evo bio terms for those who need it. Women who could cooperate with stranger women on the basis of “woman” would be more likely to get food, carry children to term, see some of them grow to mating age: they would… Read more »
SJB To answer the direct question, of course I contrasted agency with culpability. Someone without agency cannot be cupable. That’s why legal systems have the insanity defense, why we do not treat minors as adults. Someone who is culpable is perforce possessed of agency. Two sides of the same coin. As far as your statement, I cannot parse it. Can’t? Looks more like “won’t” to me. Trolling . . . yes, my initial impression was that Rollo was trolling Peterson. Is that why you decided to troll the rest of us? Asking why was an interesting question yesterday but not… Read more »
pinelero @nova; The sisterhood is quite alive in my house! When I am upset with the woman, the girls always side with her unless it’s very egregious on her part. Noticing that is very good. If your mother was there she would join in, no matter how old she is. I’ve seen women in their 70’s and 80’s dealing out shit tests to male relatives. AWALT. It is necessary to game all females within your circle of authority. Obviously the Game that one runs on a wife won’t be the same as what one runs on a mother, aunt, sister,… Read more »
@having a bad day, @Anonymous Reader: Agency (response-ability) implies action alone while culpability adds knowledge and intent.
@having a bad day: I’d mentioned in an earlier comment that I found the article scattered; Peterson’s red / blue pill status did not add to the article’s introduction, body, or conclusion. However I did ask for evidence of blue pill-ness.
@Anonymous Reader: Usually you are honest. In this thread you have not been honest, in fact you have been disingeuous to the point of making up things that are not true and pretending they are…then avoiding that issue. You’ve been borderline passive-aggressive, playing the ‘guess what I’m thinking?’ game as well.
That’s rich.
Women can no more escape accountability than men can escape the burden of performance.
@kfg: back-breaking labor?
The end result of FI “sisterhood” is the collectivist and the collapse of free civilization. “So what would a world made up totally of women really be like? It would be tyrannical beyond belief. No one would be willing to speak against the accepted narrative unless they were willing to be unpersoned or killed. Think of a mix between 1984, the very worst social aspects of socialist regimes, and the Borg. There would be constant pushing for position, usually by starting whisper campaigns or setting someone above oneself up to be badly embarrassed. Look at the SJWs of today’s world… Read more »
“Even afterward, you’ll forever be “tainted” with the sin of noncompliance.”
In other words, you cannot get back in their good graces. Apology is confession.
SJB
Agency (response-ability) implies action alone while culpability adds knowledge and intent.
Did you get out a microscope to split that hair? I’m beginning to see what your problem may be.
Let me try a different approach: does Andrea Yates belong in prison or not? Was she response-able for her actions, or did those murders “just happen”? Should her then-husband have been imprisoned as well, or even instead of her?
@HABD
having agency is a necessary precursor to being held culpable
Who says? What about the stage of a project where the innocent are punished?
SJB That’s rich. Oh? Let me refresh your memory. SJB I also suggested, tangentially, that male idealism is the root of that variability: males are more likely to envision an ideal and then act on that ideal. Again: I have just re-read every comment in this thread. Nowhere do I find such a suggestion from you. Please explain. SJB, a man would review the comments and have a reply such as “Oh, I thought I said that” or “well, I meant to” or some other admission of error. A woman would more likely double down on gaslighting and even outright… Read more »
Collective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PSSlrq_8Zc The geek inside me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn02c176YuI Novaseeker “Contemporary feminism is perhaps the most obvious form of this, but it isn’t the only one. The pronounced female in-group preference is another easy to spot one as well. But in any case, a key point to understand is that the sisterhood isn’t neutral — it’s evolved to counterbalance any kind of male power that threatens women’s interests as a group. This is the case even though women haven’t lived in patrilocal conditions for a long, long, long time, and even though contemporary men have no solidarity to speak of at all… Read more »
@Anonymous Reader: you have a strange manner about you.
Rollo’s article referenced female collectivism (now with an excellent addendum). I referenced male collectivism which, when salted with idealism (i.e. Marxism), is quite deadly (i.e. last century).
How that leaped into whether or not I think females have agency is on you.
Simply, as I read the article, it occurred to me that Rollo writes against female collectivism and Peterson writes against male collectivism. It seems to me to be an intersecting project.
How Peterson’s pill status fits in there baffled me but, as previously stated, that curiosity is extinguished.
@SJB
But wasn’t Marxism materialist…?
I personally think collectivism is unavoidable. There are degrees of govt. intervention of course, but the world population is not made of interchangable monads. If you recognize nations, you are already a collectivist.
Sorry libertarians 🙁
@Oscar C: “But wasn’t Marxism materialist…?”
Quintessentially.
“If you recognize nations, you are already a collectivist.”
Humans are not bears. Still, there is a fundamental difference between a pack of wolves and a prairie dog colony. Any group as large as a city is, as the kids these days say, problematic. Republican Rome tried to deal the matter by being a pack of packs of wolves. It fell apart over the issue of taking in new packs.
@Oscar
If you recognize nations, you are already a collectivist
Please complete your argument. You might start by defining “nation” and “collectivist.”
The question of loyalty
Where have people put their loyalty in the past? How have they identified themselves?
As a member of a family, clan, tribe, city, province, nation, people-group, international society.
@kfg
It fell apart over the issue of taking in new packs.
Et Tu-Pak?
@Oscar C.: But wasn’t Marxism materialist…?
Sure. And implicit in the critique was (is) an ideal pattern of human behavior / interaction. Some folks were (are) pretty adamant to see the pattern enacted.
Women do not have moral agency.
Doesn’t mean you don’t punish them for fucking up. It means you treat them like males before the age of majority. You don’t let them sign contracts, vote etc etc.
@theasdgamer
@HABD: having agency is a necessary precursor to being held culpable
Who says?
everybody!…lol…
but seriously, culpable just means ‘blame-worthy’… but to get to THAT, the person has to have agency to make the choice… otherwise, not worthy of blame…
note – doesn’t mean a culpable person actually gets punished…
What about the stage of a project where the innocent are punished?
different concept…
https://infogalactic.com/info/Scapegoating
good luck!
So this is about getting men to make yuuuuuge groups of sons again. All Red Pilled, All willing to fight and defend eachother since they all are family. And of course the cunts will try to legislate against it, which of course wont work since people don’t want to kill the goose(or do they?). And then men will be used to having many brothers again and then the average man who subscribes to the philosophy of being “more than their body” will find like minded men again and then open insurrection.
……..Right?
@HABD:
Legal philosophy not withstanding, your dog is culpable for the pile of dog shit on the rug, and you are likely to hold it accountable as well.
@SJB @having a bad day: I’d mentioned in an earlier comment that I found the article scattered; Peterson’s red / blue pill status did not add to the article’s introduction, body, or conclusion. However I did ask for evidence of blue pill-ness. ya, i got that part…lol… and i actually thought there was plenty of evidence in the article (for why Rollo was justified in noting the bluish tint on Peterson’s analysis…) He accurately makes the case here for how men are continually driven by an existential crisis when it comes to being accepted by (‘perfectly well-intended’) women in passing… Read more »
SJB @Anonymous Reader: you have a strange manner about you. In what way? Be specific. I’m keen to know, because you have a strangely familiar way about you in this thread. Rollo’s article referenced female collectivism (now with an excellent addendum). I referenced male collectivism which, when salted with idealism (i.e. Marxism), is quite deadly (i.e. last century). This is rewriting the thread, when your comments such as this: Neutral” in that girls will take the form of whomever leads them as in Rollo’s “War Brides”; lacking capture by a strong male of course they will follow a Sandberg. are… Read more »
@kfg
@HABD:
Legal philosophy not withstanding, your dog is culpable for the pile of dog shit on the rug, and you are likely to hold it accountable as well.
not if (((I))) fed him that burrito 20 minutes ago and locked him in the room…lol… but i take your (and theasdgamer’s) point…
how about moral philosophy?…
and does the dog have agency?…or do girls?…lol… but not kidding…
(i think this is going to get messy…lol… but this is right where the ‘anger phase’ line of demarcation is…)
good luck!
HABD has an excellent point re SJB”s blather: Rollo’s article referenced female collectivism (now with an excellent addendum). I referenced male collectivism which, when salted with idealism (i.e. Marxism), is quite deadly (i.e. last century). For the obvious reason that Marxist style collectivism didn’t exist until women found their “voice”. One of the key fetures in the leadup to the French revolution of the 1790’s was the salon culture, presided over by women. One of the key parts of both Marx and Engels program was dissolution of the nuclear family, i.e. freeing women from having to obey one particular man.… Read more »
“and does the dog have agency?…or do girls?…lol… but not kidding… ”
Under law a dog’s owner is held responsible for the behavior of the dog. Under legal patriarchy, men were held legally responsible for the behavior of girls.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/6yh6xs/this_guy_just_finished_kayaking_across_the/?ref=share&ref_source=link
Guess it depends on one’s definition of collectivism. If it’s Spock’s “needs of the many outweigh needs of the few” we’ve had that around for a long, long while. Likely the best general the world has ever seen (yes, better than Ceasar/Alexander the Great, even Khan) lived in Korea (April 28, 1545 – December 16, 1598). His name was Yi Sun-sin. Most people have never heard of him, but he is famous not only for victory under unbelievable odds, but his honor code required absolute loyalty to the state. Even after being tortured and vilified and so forth. Individualism and… Read more »
“The Bolsheviks let feminism run riot in the 1920’s, then had to resort to extraordinary efforts to rein it back in. ”
How was this done?
I don’t know if it’s true or fake news but Russia is now cracking down on feminism.
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-extremism-feminism-putin-jehovah-651168
@having a bad day: I do understand your point but think you’ve failed to understand mine: the Peterson clip is an except from a lecture (the first I think) titled “The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories”. It was not specifically a lecture on intersexual dynamics but a talk on the rise of human consciousness; viewing the excerpt and then reading the succeeding paragraphs are a non sequitur in the fine points. @having a bad day, @Anonymous Reader: male collective = hunting party. The “Cognitive Revolution”, to use Harari’s term, saw a difference in hunting and trapping techniques if I… Read more »
Almost as interesting as why [SJB] can’t answer a simple question.
Perhaps the questions you pose are uninteresting.
Here’s a living example of that feminist collectivism in action. In my Latin dance class, it’s suddenly become fashionable or “cool” for women to dance with other women. Normally and traditionally it had been a male-lead dance…suddenly more and more women are leading and following each other. The problem is they can’t lead—I mean that quite literally…they look awkward…there’s no feeling or rhythm to it. But they don’t care—they love the “feelz” of leading another girl. But here’s the irony…they will refuse a dance with a newbie guy because he can’t lead or can’t dance…but will eagerly take up a… Read more »
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/05/denver-health-medical-center-nurses-suspended-admired-genitals/
@wala
The problem is they can’t lead—I mean that quite literally
Average female dancers–sure. Female dance instructors backlead quite competently, lol. I tried doing the follow role with a female instructor leading me just to get the feel of it. It’s a little awkward, but the girl did a fine job of leading.
But I take your point that girls generally are terrible at leading another girl.
@HABD
Were real scapegoats blameworthy?
Seems if I decide that a goat merits punishment, then it’s blameworthy irrespective of its agency or understanding of right/wrong.
@Ton
I don’t want any unauthorized peeping at my junk…yet another reason to avoid medical care.
@HABD Re anger phase and feminine agency: I just watched an episode of Black Mirror where the husband catches the wife cheating with an ex and she keeps lying and lying and lying and the husband catches her in all her lies. The wife had agency and the husband was pretty clever to catch her as he observed her nonverbal signals towards her ex who was present at a dinner with them and the husband followed it up using the ingrained recording technology that was the point of the show. It sucked that the husband was getting drunk as he… Read more »
@Rugby
So the kayaker started his third voyage when he was 60? 😉
Seems like a hermit’s life, but he probably had a support boat accompanying him.
@ASD:
Real scapegoats were neither to blame nor punished, although the goat might not have seen it that way.
The kayaker had support, as well as a specially made kayak, but the Atlantic has been crossed in a standard wood and canvas folding kayak, without support, but not continent to continent at the widest point as this gentleman has done.
@theasdgamer It was interesting that Mrs. Gamer sided with the cheating wife against the husband…the wife hid the fact that her ex was her ex whom she had seen for six months and also had fucked when her husband was gone for five days. The child’s paternity was in doubt. Mrs. Gamer acknowledged that the wife was a slut. “The Entire History of You” is the third and final episode of the first series of British science fiction anthology series Black Mirror. That’s fight club territory. I’m not a fan of sharing the video with a woman. It gives her… Read more »
@Adsgamer The whole shift is an example of how when women start to take over something….they ruin its original dynamic.
There’s now lesbians dancing with girls, criticizing men, holding their own events aimed at women…
Men generally keep silent about this or encourage it not realizing that it’s yet another example of how men are being made redundant…
The only exception to this is to have game…to have attitude…to be that guy who women can’t resist being lead by.
Those guys are few and far between.
three times across the pond by yourself in any way and just for the fuck of it takes a huge set of brass… he’d need a support boat to carry ’em
not a kayaker myself but I’d still hope to push to the edge like this dude did at least once or twice just to say I’d lived
And making a different point, as long as I’m here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HWkvV35hlo
The problem with this video is that there is no such thing as a women’s Smoke Dance.
@wala
to be that guy who women can’t resist being lead by.
That’s ideal. Real world, women who can’t follow are frequently led by ethanol. Few drunk women can follow worth a shit. The one who could was an alcoholic. But this was country, not salsa. Women who dance salsa don’t get drunk. And women who dance salsa can usually follow.
@kfg
A domesticated goat sent off alone probly gonna die quick…substitutionary punishment.
The kayaker was uber cool. Somebody head Blax off at Niagara Falls.
“his analysis is often subject to a Blue Pill conditioning that predisposes him to a default belief in the inherent ‘goodness’ of the female psyche. That isn’t to say women are inherently ‘bad’, but it is to say his objectivity is colored by a want to see the feminine on a pedestal.” i’m starting to believe in the “inherent goodness” of the female psyche. if a man steps back far enough to take a very broad view and if he leaves behind his personal “poor me that big meanie girl hurt my feelings” he’ll see some incredible shit; the female… Read more »
@ASD: “A domesticated goat sent off alone probly gonna die quick…”
Sure, but it was only the goat that saw it as punishment. The people thought of the goat as more like a data storage device, the blame overtly belonging to the people.
Transfer the data to the device, wipe the device, wipe the people’s blame.
And at least the scapegoat had a chance, unlike the sacrificial goat.
@SJF But Liam just didn’t get it I think he got clued in to the cheating with very few clues. I wouldn’t have guessed the cheating from the sparse clues, but I wouldn’t have called Jonas a dick, either. Jonas was attractive to women and maybe Liam felt envious. At first I just thought that Liam was just insecure and realized later that he had good reason to press his wife and Jonas. Liam needed the drinking to release his inhibitions enough to get violent with Jonas. I realized that later. All in all, I thought that Liam performed well… Read more »
Fleezer ain’t wrong about the upside to hypergammy Always remember there are two creatures inside of each woman Creature #1 is that happy little girl who will dote on the man who just broke her pussy and filled her baby maker full of alpha baby batter Creature #2 Will drown her own offspring in the toilet to help cleanse herself of icky beta Problem for moat guys isn’t that they aren’t apex alphas. The problem is the propaganda, indoctrination and pit right society wide dis-information campaign that keeps your average dude from operating in reality. Well at least the short… Read more »