An Essay for Women

A Hierarchy of Relationship Needs • Part II

Hypergamy is a dualistic mating strategy. Women have two conflicting mating strategies. I wonder how many of you have stopped and actually considered what that’s like for a woman?

It’s not easy, and it’s even worse for those who are aware of it because knowing it doesn’t change it. Like she can’t help it that the thug makes her wet…

Society constrained women from pursuing their short term, Alpha Fux urges in many ways. But it doesn’t now. So all women pursue the hottest guys, the guys who turn them on the most and now that they can earn and support themselves, why the fuck not?

If you were a woman, would you strap in with some chode for the duration cuz he was “steady”? So what he can’t make you cum, I mean that’s not all there is to life, right?

Get this – women were trapped with men they didn’t want to be with in many situations in the past.I know, bringing up a female POV is always verboten here. But in fact, the Red Pill has made me much more empathetic to what it’s actually like for women. You see, if you spend a lot of time with different women, having sex with them, they open up. They tell me how they feel about being monogamous at all. Many young women do not want children at all. And why not? Because it doesn’t serve men? That’s the point – they want to serve their impulses and their needs.

I don’t say it’s good. I don’t think we are headed in a good direction. But I also understand why women behave the way they do. And I don’t feel ill-served by it because it suits my mating strategy.


For what it’s worth, it’s never been verboten to discuss women’s perspectives on this blog. On the contrary, I think sussing out why women are the way they are is essential to understanding intersexual dynamics. Despite some guys yelling, “Who cares what women think!”, understanding women’s innate motivations is key to understanding intersexual dynamics.

And that disinterest is the first obstacle I think a lot of guys, especially in today’s Manosphere, need to get past in order to figure out what would work best for themselves in the new sexual marketplace. PUAs have always been interested in what makes women tick. Understanding their motivations and mating strategies is key to solving a reproductive problem. MGTOW and others may feign indifference to those motives, but even their ‘solutions’ are still rooted in knowing why women do what they do.

For the most part, my blog has been dedicated to understanding the mechanics of how both sexes go about solving their reproductive problem. My critics seem to think that just asking questions about those mechanics or coming to a consensus about them based on the dots I connect is negative and/or bitter. And I get it from both sides. There are the guys who’ll say the Red Pill is obsessed with getting laid, and therefore is pointless because it gives women an undue importance in a guy’s life. And then there are the guys (and a lot of women) who’ll say “Rollo, all you ever do is focus on men, why isn’t there a Rational Female book you’re working on?

When I get asked about writing a book for women my first impulse is to suggest they just read the The Rational Male first. I have no plans to write a female specific book in the future (nor will I be participating in any misguided convention marketed a “making women great again”) because I think that what I outline in all my books is, or should be, equally relevant to female readers. Women will complain about ‘tone‘ and why can’t I just wrap up this information in a nice pink-covered edition of the book, but it’s the content that’s important. Women are innate solipsists and would love nothing more than to read about themselves and their own natures – if for no other reason than to get off on the indignation I might inspire – but they really don’t want a rational discourse about it. They want an emotional delivery.

And this is the difficulty I’m facing in coming to this part of my series; most women really don’t want to learn anything objective about themselves. It doesn’t feel good. In this essay I’m going to outline a few things women can do to make themselves a better catch in the sexual marketplace. So, yes ladies, this is finally a Rational Male post directed at you.

If you read the the six simple directives Rich Cooper enumerated in his tweet from the last essay you’ll already be ahead of the curve. However, I understand I am committing a Red Pill sin here in that I am attempting to appeal to your reason. Despite the accusations of misogyny I do, in fact, believe women can use a capacity to reason – and therefore do have agency – it’s just that reason is always downstream from emotion in women’s mental firmware. And I should add that the larger social narrative of feels before reals is a direct result of this prioritization of women in a female-centric social order.

Women don’t wanna be told shit.

There’s even a cute name for when men try to explain something to a woman her ego doesn’t want to acknowledge – Mansplaining. This is the next obstacle. The Fempowerment narrative (really an effort in social engineering) has conditioned generations of women since the Sexual Revolution to presume an inherent correctness in whatever it is that satisfies the Feminine Imperative. If something benefits womankind it must therefor be the correct solution for a woman personally and society on whole. I sometimes refer to this as The Sisterhood Über Alles. The cultural meme The Future is Female is a recent example of this.

This resistance to acknowledging anything even marginally objective or unflattering about female nature (or even that humans might have an innate nature) is the primary reason I rarely bother with trying to explain anything Red Pill to women. Women don’t wanna be told shit, and when I get a request for a female-focused approach to something it’s because women want to feel something (usually indignation), not learn anything. Even in a social scope women refer to their organizations and movements as the resistance. This cultural meme is an extension of women’s personal edicts as taught to them by Fempowerment.

Asking women to drop their own, learned, hubris is the first hurdle to educating them. The next is confronting their innate solipsism. In Girl-World everything is about them. This proclivity for self-importance and self-aggrandizement in women has been ruthlessly exploited by commercial and ideological interests for almost two centuries now. It is also the key component in the spread of feminism and the embedding of feminist ideological ideas in our social fabric.

A Blue Pill for Women

In a few videos I’ve detailed how there is a similar effort in western(izing) culture to condition women to fit a new social contract. Feminism and the Fempowerment narrative is just one aspect of this Blue Pill for women. But the next hurdle for women to understand a Red Pill praxeology can be distilled to one message Fempowerment teaches women:

Never do anything for the express pleasure of a man.

A woman’s Blue Pill conditioning is founded on the 70s feminism era notion of the Strong Independent Woman meme. She don’t need no man. She is independent – independent of what? She is not dependent on any man, and anything she might do to specifically please a man is antithetical to that independence. To please a man is to participate in their own “oppression” by the Patriarchy.

That’s the origin of the mechanics of the meme we now take for granted. Ladies, from the time you were five years old this independence of men message has been hammered into your psyche by everything from popular culture, to your schooling, to your religion, to your single mothers and your Blue Pill conditioned fathers.

The present-day social segregation of the sexes I keep harping on this year is a direct result of this independence meme being baked into women’s souls from the earliest ages for generations now. I have to laugh when I read women tell me how ‘little girls are so repressed still today’ when a Fempowered social order has eliminated even the thought of not giving girls and women every form of advantage and special dispensation imaginable for over 50 years now.

So, ladies, you must unlearn that which you’ve learned. Understand that solipsism is in your mental firmware.

  • Understand that you’ve been conditioned to feel that men and any opinion they have are irrelevant to your being. Men should serve you and be thankful you gave them the opportunity to do so.
  • Understand that this social order is predicated on the female experience superseding, and being more legitimate, than the male experience.
  • Understand that Hypergamy and your innate self-interest are being fed by a social order that profits on your self-absorption – only to discard you when you figure out the game too late in life.
  • Understand that there are social conventions established at every phase of your life to explain away why you aren’t living the life of strong independence that narrative conditioned you for since the age you started watching Disney Princess movies.

Most importantly, female reader, understand it’s okay that you should want to do something for the express pleasure of a man. It’s okay to appreciate the masculine for the sake of it. This is the number one thing you have to unlearn. Men and women are different. Our natures are complements to each other, but we are not equals – and it should be a source of pleasure for you to appreciate and enjoy those differences.

Yes, a man must live up to his Burden of Performance in order for you to evaluate his merits. I’m in no way suggesting that you drop anything with regard to your Hypergamous filtering. I’m saying you need to unlearn the hubris you’ve been conditioned for. Unlearn the ego-inflation that social media has deliberately instilled in you. And most importantly, unlearn the notion, the pride, of independence from men.

Learn this now ladies, you will never get close to the connection you want to feel with a man until you learn to appreciate him as a masculine complement to your feminine nature. You are not his equal, you are his complement, and as Roissy once said, a woman wants to submit to a worthy man’s mission as his complement. We are better together than we are apart. The sum can be greater than the parts, but not if you are the independent, self-fulfilling, autonomous ‘things‘ that feminism and the Blue Pill would have you believe is the key to its fantasy of an egalitarian, androgynous, goal-state for human beings.


So. Was any of that triggering for you? Illuminating women to the reality of their own conditioning is in some ways even more dangerous and difficult than unplugging guys from their own Blue Pill delusions.

Most women fancy themselves as “Alpha Females” but never really understand that the fantastical Strong Independent Woman® archetype (really it’s a brand) they hold in their heads is actually based on a masculine dynamic. They’re actually alpha males with breasts and a vagina. It’s really hard for women to give that fantasy up, particularly when they live in an era when men are portrayed as vile, stupid, untrustworthy and ‘dependent‘ on women’s powerfulness to save them from themselves.

The female Blue Pill instills this sense of empowerment in women based on false narratives about a straw-man masculinity. Hypergamy is dualistic – Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks, Cads/Dads – but half of that desire, the desire for provisioning, parental investment, familiarity and comfort, is rooted in a need for security. Women are the weaker sex. In our ancestral past women (and their offspring) were dependent on men for protection from a chaotic environment. That need for security is still something women seek out in today’s men.

But in this era, men are weak. Bumbling buffoons. “Economically unattractive” and largely incapable of protecting her or her young. This is the message the female Blue Pill teaches little girls and old women. As a result, men cannot be trusted to provide anything like physical protection, and increasingly they can’t be relied upon to help pay the bills. So, women must step up and fulfill their own security needs – often by direct resource transfer from men, but that’s immaterial to the message that Fempowerment embeds in you ladies.

To compound this impression of men, women (and men) are taught that they are in fact blank slate equals of the other. All individuals are really just chaotic, unknowable products of whatever social order constructed them. There are no natures or differences between the genders – and there are at least 68 of those that we know of, right?

The female Blue Pill teaches women that not only are men not to be trusted for security, but that part of that independence from men will be necessary for their own survival. This insecurity about men being capable of providing security is the basis of women masculinizing themselves.

In turn, this is the reason all of what I write here and elsewhere is so triggering for women. How dare I suggest women ought to ‘man down’?! Man can’t be trusted to ‘be men’, just look at them!

This is why women resist the awareness that the Red Pill brings to them. It presumes they must drop all their preconceptions about the nature of men and adopt a femininity that is now alien to them. The Blue Pill will tell you that the discomfort you feel in being more feminine is ‘just how you are‘, but it’s really due to decades of constant social conditioning to make you feel self-conscious in being feminine.

But, most of all, dropping that masculine pretense needed to provide her own security implies she make herself vulnerable to emotionally investing herself in a man who’s dishonest in his own quality. The Existential Fear for women is to invest herself in a man (and his progeny) who tricked her Hypergamous filters into believing he was Alpha when he was in fact Beta. By flipping the Blue Pill script, by suggesting that women drop the masculine pretense and adopt conventional gender complementarity (submission), it is akin to me suggesting she ignore her Hypergamous instincts.

That is why this is triggering you ladies.

Value Added

All that said, how can a woman make herself more valuable to a man once the sexual side of the equation is satisfied? Women constantly complain about being “sexually objectified” by men. They want to be appreciated for more than just being a piece of ass, but in the same world advertise their sexuality as their primary value virtually everywhere. From a very early age women understand that their primary agency in this life is their sexual value to men – and they quickly learn how to leverage it.

Ladies, if you want to be valued for more than your sexuality your going to have to develop actual value beyond your sexuality. Sex is the glue that holds a relationship together. Learn that, accept that. But once you have that down, what else are you to him? What can you do to expressly please him and what can you do to express your appreciation for him?

You must learn the concept of value added. For women this value comes from an inherent understanding of her own femininity and what it offers to the masculine that it cannot provide for itself or does only with greater effort.

If you want a dominant, Alpha, conventionally masculine man to be your boyfriend/husband start by living like a man like that can actually exist in the world. Most guys adapt to whatever it is that will get them laid. When a guy believes in the fantasy of an egalitarian relationship with a woman it’s because he believes it’s the best path to solving his reproductive problem. You can counter this by expecting him to adopt conventional masculinity.

One of the biggest favors my wife did for me was in her expecting me to “be the man” in our relationship and later marriage. Until I met her damn near every woman I was intimate with was convinced that egalitarianism between men and women was ‘natural’, or should be at least. It was a shock to my Blue Pill system when my wife expected me to drive her car when we were dating. From the earliest days of our relationship she insisted that I fill the dominant masculine role and she was going to fill the feminine role. This expectation and our filling those roles modeled masculine and feminine behavior for our daughter who now also has a conventional perspective on gender that most of her peers do not.

New Old Ideas
  • Learn to cook.
  • Do laundry.
  • Keep the home organized and clean.
  • Stay thin.
  • Be sexy, learn to seduce him.
  • Initiate sex with him.
  • Have genuine sexual desire for him (and let him know when you don’t) and be a genuinely enthusiastic lover.
  • Wear a dress.
  • Embrace his family.
  • Take his surname.
  • Have a job, but not a career.
  • Trust him to be your source of security.
  • Encourage him when you face challenges.
  • Reassure him.
  • Play with him, and play with him

These are just a few of the acts that you can do to manifest your femininity, but they must be part of a genuine desire and willingness to be his complement. You cannot negotiate desire. This primarily applies to sex, but the resentment that comes from obligation also flows over into other aspects of your relationship.

You have to want to be feminine. Just as men eventually need to internalize the Red Pill and make that awareness deeper than just the situational, so too must you want to be his complement. He has to be the guy you want to be feminine for. He must be the man whose babies you want to have for him.

If you find yourself making rules for him, if you make sex a reward for desired behavior, he’s not that guy.

Women make rules for Beta men to comply with. They’re like little ultimatums he must follow, but understand that this is your hindbrain asking that Hypergamous question; ‘Is he the best I can do?’ Recognize this in yourself.

Women break rules for Alpha men. Is your desire for this man so significant that you will break the rules that the female Blue Pill has taught you? Will you break with the conditioning that taught you never to do anything for the express pleasure of a man? Even the most staunch feminists confess to loving a dominant Alpha male who exercises his will over her own. Why do you suppose that is?

Will you break the greatest rule you have for yourself and submit to him because you have the genuine desire to do so? You’ll be happier and healthier if you can answer ‘yes’, but if not, do both him and yourself the courtesy of breaking it off and go sort yourself out before you try again.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

160 comments on “An Essay for Women

  1. @Wildside – It was the smugness of both my niece and her soyfriend, err… boyfriend.

    Interesting thing–they just got engaged. I offered best wishes. Unsolicited, she mentioned, her age (late-30s nearing the wall), security and tax benefits. There wasn’t any pretense of being in love. I just listened. Before, everyone stopped oversharing on facebook, wife showed me a photo she had posted of them–with matching facial cleansing masks grinning like idiots. I said, “My god, he’s her girlfriend.”

    It’s an interesting dynamic. As a man, if soyfriend was a man, if he was salvageable and she wasn’t my niece, I should be warning him to run like hell.

    This tug of war between family loyalty to the women-relations and the loyalty (“honor among men” that SJF frequently talks about, but seems to be the weakest bond in the universe when women are added to the mix) to a confused man to whom I owe nothing.

    It seems to be a problem for most men here. I did like Sentient’s brilliant talk to his daughter’s fiancee about no give backs, no hand in my wallet. It wasn’t pilled red or blue, but put him on notice.

  2. “understanding women’s innate motivations is key to understanding intersexual dynamics”

    HB7.5 attempts dhv by showing me sparse ig with only female contemporary and local followers approx 1100

    no dude “friends”

    she very happy to show all the “hot/hottie/bish” comments from under 20 females

    is that because guys don’t like/comment anymore? doubtful

    more like she don’t want to be associated with trash cause then i wonder, why the fuck are you internet buddies with these tools

    i think her dhv might have worked cuase i’m typing about it

    also she’s hot

  3. AR

    My great grandfather affectionately known as ” Daddy Jim “, lost his first wife to illness when he was around 60. She bore him 8 children. He remarried at around age 65 or so, to his second wife who was in her early thirties, and she bore him 6 more. He lived to see all of his kids become adults, and died at age 95 or so.

    He used to tell me that it was a woman’s purpose to have children and raise the family well, and that women that never have kids or a husband may be very nice, but they were defective.

    In many ways I feel fortunate to have spent time with a lot of men in my family, paternal and maternal, that were born in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s. I don’t think I’d consider most of those men ” blue pill ” as the times didn’t support a lot of romanticism beyond a short courtship and asking to ” take ” someone’s daughter. I don’t know if I’d call these men ” red pill ” either, but they absolutely had control over their wives and children, and other men/society at large expected and supported as much.

    I always wonder, having observed the ” old timers with a dozen kids not living in poverty ” if more men would improve themselves would a lot of the current fuckery be dialed down significantly. My great grandfather was the first generation born outside of slavery, and he had to amass land, farm, build his own house ( with his brothers help ) by chopping down trees and ” milling ” the wood ( that house is still standing and occupied by family), and all children were born at home ( my generation was the first to be born in hospitals. I was the first male to be born outside of the home ).

    The reliance on fiat currency and comfort along with physical inability must add fuel to the intersexual circus.

  4. Online dating, old school edition:

    Looking for a woman with a tractor. Please send picture. Of tractor.

    The Victorian English certainly bear a lot of the blame for our current blue pill ideals, but the behavior and ideas of the gentry are not representative of the times beyond their own circle. The brothels of the East End and Deadwood were part of the period as well.

    And the gentry were not all so blue pilled as not to visit them.

  5. “The Victorian English certainly bear a lot of the blame for our current blue pill ideals”

    The French and Italians thought the English very boring back then. Madam Bovary.


    “Asked on the Ladies Like Us podcast about sex education for his children, he said: “Not only have we had the conversation, we have yearly trips to the gynaecologist to check her hymen. Yes, I go with her … I will say, as of her 18th birthday, her hymen is still intact.”

    He acknowledged a woman’s hymen can be broken outside of sexual activity, but countered by saying: “So then they come and say, ‘Well, I just want you to know that there are other ways besides sex that the hymen can be broken like bike riding, athletics, horseback riding and just other forms of athletic physical activity’. So I say, ‘Look, Doc, she don’t ride no horses, she don’t ride no bike, she don’t play no sports. Just check the hymen, please, and give me back my results expeditiously.’” The comments have since been edited out of the podcast.”

    Cue outrage…

    Except… Planned Parenthood.


    “Idk who needs to hear this but virginity is a made-up social construct, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your hymen.”

    OK then. But wait! More clarification…

    “A virgin is someone who’s never had sex. But “sex” means different things to different people, so “virginity” does too. Many don’t care what it means or think it matters. Whatever you believe, the fact is you can’t tell if someone’s had sex by checking their hymen.”

    Zeus! You know what to do… smh

    T.I. sing us out bruv…

  7. Blaximus
    My great grandfather affectionately known as ” Daddy Jim “, lost his first wife to illness when he was around 60. She bore him 8 children. He remarried at around age 65 or so, to his second wife who was in her early thirties, and she bore him 6 more. He lived to see all of his kids become adults, and died at age 95 or so.

    Not unusual in the 19th century. My example of President Tyler’s grandson still being around in 2012 was in response to this:

    I related the story of how one of my ancestors at the age of 60, surviving his wife and two of his sons, married a woman who was 18. I related that times were hard in the 1800’s and she most likely benefited greatly from this. One of my divorced nieces scoffed at this. The soy-boy she’s dating said, “Well that doesn’t make it right.” I didn’t pursue this but, apparently, they could not get past the idea that this was somehow sexual exploitation.

    I see this in some 20-somethings, where the expectation is that man and woman will be of about the same age, maybe 2 year gap. So a 27 year old girl marries a 29 year old man, or a 29.999 year old girl marries a 31 year old man. The very idea of a 23 year old girl marrying a 27 year old man, or [gasp] a 30 year old man is just creepy now. Because some reason or other.

    I haven’t heard much talk about Sugar Babies, however. Pretty sure that would be “different”. Perhaps the FI likes a Sugar Daddy who knows how to treat her, but then wants a Beta Bux who is rather clueless about women?

    Anyway, the “too much age gap is sexual exploitation” is a social construct. It’s just a modern affectation, as far as I can tell.

  8. Anyway, the “too much age gap is sexual exploitation” is a social construct. It’s just a modern affectation, as far as I can tell.

    Plenty of 50s guys marrying 30’s women today. Except they aren’t widowers, they are divorced. The woman is usually single/never married and at her last “peak”… She pops out two kids before late 30s.

  9. Sentient
    Plenty of 50s guys marrying 30’s women today.

    Yup. I know some of those couples. “Blended families”, too; married Game in that case gets interesting – a second wife has a financial interest in ending child support to the first one, for example. Other men are more qualified than me to discuss it. Come to recall a supervisor from a few years back, active churchgoing man, second wife – huh? – Oh, the first one had died in a car accident. I’m sure the dynamic was different in that case.

    Anyway, the whole “sexual exploitaition!” screech seems to come mainly from girls in their 20’s, but not necessarily from Sugar Babies, lol. I’m sure that some of them will change that opinion sometime after their 29.999th birthday, too. The “evolution” of female opinion at the group and individual level is a funny thing to watch. Funny curious and funny LOL as well.


    Anonymous Age 60-whatever used to write about his life in Mexico. When they first arrived and settled in, he had some number of women pretty much offer to be his mistress / second wife, some of them were of an age ending with “teen”. Preselection for sure, some golddigging as well, but also a different culture where only a few generations back men often outlived their first and even second wife.

  10. Mona Eltahawy, the awful, angry feminist (is there any other kind?) with the dyed bright red hair and foul mouth needs more than an essay to mend her wicked ways. But in a positive turn of events, many have turned against against her. She’s definitely a “moaner”, but not in a good way…

    “…Columnist and author Mona Eltahawy, one of the guests on the panel, says people upset with the program should direct their rage towards real instances of violence and not the “rhetorical” or “imaginary” scenarios she and others brought up during the show. Q&A guest Mona Eltahawy says people upset with Monday night’s episode should focus their rage on real instances of violence and not “rhetorical” or “imaginary” scenarios.

    The episode, which aired on Monday, was broadcast from Melbourne in partnership with The Wheeler Centre’s feminist ideas festival Broadside. On the panel, moderated by the ABC’s Fran Kelly, Eltahawy asked, “How long must we wait for men and boys to stop murdering us, to stop beating us and to stop raping us? How many rapists must we kill?”

  11. Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden) leaves wife for personal trainer. Read how much shaming they pepper through this article. I love Maiden and I met Bruce in 1988 (7th Son of a 7th Son) and he is a well grounded and switched on man. Very likeable. What makes me laugh about this article is it starts off with ‘age shaming’. ‘She is 15 years his junior’. They do not say her age but they do say ‘thought to be in her 40s’. I guess all these journalists flunked at Maths. He is 61 so that makes her 46. In what Universe, even in this feminised society, is that an issue? Bruce is a Tier 1 Alpha. He could bang and shack up with a 25 year old stunner any day of the week but he chooses not to and yet they still try to shame him.

  12. The Irishman, 31, has repeatedly denied sleeping with Ms Murray, insisting that she slept with a friend of his who had joined him at Aintree.

    I don’t want his money. I just want to prove he is Clodagh’s dad and I’m not lying.

    If he gets that DNA test, he never has to speak to me again, he can walk away

    I promise there’s more to come if this rat does not take the paternity test. For those calling me all sorts of names I promise you will eat your words

    I’m still thinking I shouldn’t do this, it is wrong, It has got to the point, I’m living with my mum, on my own, with no job, with a baby, I’m struggling, it is harder than I thought it was

    DNA results seen by Irish media sources have now reportedly confirmed there is ‘zero per cent probability’ that the baby, named Clodagh, is McGregor’s daughter

    Women goes feral at Epiphany Phase. Funny thing is, it’s not difficult to find the real rat (the friend) and have a paternity test and conclude the case in style. Who knows if they’ll do that. Since, women live in the context, they are capable of lying effortlessly, practical example.

    1. This is the kicker…..

      I’m still thinking I shouldn’t do this, it is wrong (yes it is wrong), It has got to the point, I’m living with my mum, on my own, with no job, with a baby, I’m struggling, it is harder than I thought it was.

      Who’s fault is that? Not wanting to take responsibility for her own life and then openly saying that she’s doing it for resource. Open Hypergamy 101

  13. Biggest lol of the morning…

    October 18, 2019

    “Giuliani has alleged, without providing evidence, that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to end an investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky in order to protect his son.”

    September 20, 2019

    If it’s from Reuters, it must be true. You can’t make this stuff up.

    Wonder why everyone calls the mainstream media “Faux News?”

  14. Here is an excellent comment from ‘Scup’ talking about 3rd wave feminism from ‘The Age’ last week with 69 ‘Respect’ likes, which is a lot in that forum. Nothing new for RedPillers, but good to see these rational views permeating the maintstream…

    16 hours ago
    “I’m obviously not saying women are going to go out there on the streets and kill people,” she said. “Why are these white, male, right-wing commentators so obsessed with someone trying to shake people awake into noticing how horrific these statistics are when it comes to sexual violence and murder? Last year [in Melbourne] a young woman was raped and murdered in a park while walking home. How is this still happening today?”

    Eltahawy’s discourse fails to acknowledge that the people behind such violence tend to be those suffering from mental health issues. The use of the words “white male” and “violence” in the same sentence, together with the political / social manipulation of leftist feminist academics, is little more than fear mongering, social shaming and blaming without looking at facts, statistics and evidence.

    No-one denies that violence, against all people, not just women, is a problem. The radical left have “shamed” the general populace to think that violence against women is some new form of moral panic. Violence against anyone has been going on forever. Why should feminists seek to implement “special laws” for female victims of violence as opposed to male, or children victims of violence? That’s called hijacking politics for personal gain.

    Feminism is not about equality, especially equality of opportunity. It’s about biased outcomes without responsibility or accountability. If you question it, as a male, especially a white male, your views are automatically publically shamed by use of language such as “you’re a rape apologist”, “you’re a misogynist”, or “you want to maintain the Patriarchy (whatever that is supposed to mean….. hey I don’t have my men’s club card so I clearly am not a member)”. The language used is to deride the masses into conforming with the loudest voice and using “ignorant mob mentality” (i.e – fear of being different or outcast) as a means of control.

    In my first couple of years at Uni in the 1990s, I studied alternate legal discourse and theories for two years. These were run by a very well known feminist academic. Looking back, those courses were filled with women who just hated men, for no other reason. This academic resonated with these women’s personal issues and, like a cult, rapidly grew in popularity. The reading texts were all about language, knowledge and power construction. This was the beginning of third wave feminism, the fruits of which we are seeing today.

    Over the last 30 years, this “language” was used to create a “specialised knowledge” – gender studies. When questioned, these very same people then insulted their accusers, by saying that they were not “knowledgable” in such issues. Patriarchy was the term used by these academic feminists to claim that men derived their power from their “socially accepted positions of authority” and enforced it on women through physical and institutional violence. But that was never the case. Like #metoo, it is about “feeling repressed” which gave rise to those feminists to create a challenge to a system they believe existed, but in law, had not existed since at least the 70’s (discrimination act anyone!!??).

    3rd wave Feminism was clearly about how “some” women felt. It was and is nothing more than a way to control mens’ behaviour. Most men know, and stand up for, stopping violence against anyone. Feminists use language, which they are now trying to codify in law (gender naming / identification politics, aside from legislation which is biased against men in the Family Court), to control behaviour and effectively keep men on a leash, irrespective of how they behave. The problem is, it is the activist feminists which are driving the discussion, allegedly, on behalf of all women. Like there are certain men who simply hate women, there are certain women who simply hate men. Unfortunately, those women seem to be the extreme left feminists who are pushing the debate.

    There is nothing wrong with equality and having the opportunity to do what you want. Life is about choices. You choose to have a family or or don’t. You choose to have an education or you don’t. There are certainly those who, unfortunately, don’t get a choice, but life is, unfortunately not fair to some men and women. If you’ve made a bad choice, own up to it, deal with it and move on. Don’t look to pass the buck for your own stupidity.

    What feminist don’t tell you are the statistics, documented by many government organisations and not for profit agencies, which flies in the face of their rhetoric. Some examples are:

    the number of suicides by men are higher than women;
    the majority of homeless people are men;
    the majority of those who suffer from violence by men are…. men;
    the majority of those who suffer from violence by women are children;
    the increased use by women of making false rape allegations against men for personal gain;
    the increase in abortions by women for simply not taking reproductive precautions (not medical reasons or abortion of a fetus due to rape);
    the so-called gender pay gap, comes down to a choice in vocation and family life, for men and women (and hermaphrodites as well).

    Most mainstream media organisations are now too scared to counter this deliberate and manipulative language used by the extreme feminist left. There is no fear in shaming the extreme right (as they should be for equally appalling ideologies), because the feminist left have hijacked opinions and are now little more than social bullies. Mainstream media has followed this rhetoric, because it claims it comes from research and academia and therefore holds a presupposed “validity” which the general public don’t have the ability, or knowledge, to question. This language has also held academia to ransom, which is problematic, as academia should be the forum in which all ideas are debated, discussed and challenged, not automatically vilified as “hate speech” in order to silence those who do not agree with their view of the world. Just remember, the 3rd Riecht used the same tactics to make the German public conform (Goebbels), followed by threats of violence. Eltahawy effectively used the same tactic on Q&A, short of using actual physical violence, but she was, anyway you look at it, condoning the use of violence. Thankfully there are those who pushed back.

    Have a look at the works of French philosopher Michel Foucault, particularly on knowledge and power structures (as well as his book on “Sex and Sexuality”). It was his works, or more so his analysis on the use and construction of language as a tool of power, that the 3rd wave academic feminists used to build their platform on.

    I wonder if the moderator would be willing to post the above. Is the Age willing to rise above all and engage in such discourse? Apologies for the length, but the point required it.

  15. @If-I-fell

    It’s an interesting dynamic. As a man, if soyfriend was a man, if he was salvageable and she wasn’t my niece, I should be warning him to run like hell.

    It would be no use. No-one learns anything before going through serious suffering, and even then, most choose to continue the serious suffering instead of the liberating pill.

  16. On a lighter note, concerning the taking of surnames. I guy from my work took his wife’s name—dropping his own surname. I was pretty disgusted with this—thinking what kind of a man would debase himself to the degree that he would take his wife’s surname. While now, in the LGBTQ-steeped culture it would be highly inappropriate to say this, but, back in the day, we would call such a man a faggot.

    Well you know, I keep reading The Rational Male because every time I think we’ve reached the bottom of the rabbit hole, it just seems to go deeper and deeper.

    So, I very gently mentioned the surname thing to a confidant. I was quite surprised when I was informed that he was, in fact, the wife and, yes, he’s a homosexual.

    TT, my advice would be to keep reading.

  17. @TT. ‘Nought’. I like that. As Rollo would say it is the ‘burden of performance’ that all men have to learn to internalise. Some men don’t want to have to endure that burden so they check out. But it does not have to be an endurance.

    As David Deida stated, I paraphrase, ‘Being a man is about living to your edge’. Iron Maiden sang ‘Living on a razor’s edge, bouncing on a ledge’. And that is what existence is about for a man. A man can stare life in the face as the world implodes around him, smiles and calmly says ‘Give me your best shot’.

    Stick around TT.

  18. Book Of Pook Quotes:

    The more divided a man is between his dream and self, the more he will point to how ‘nice’ he is, how ‘intellectual’ he is, and unceasingly inform us on how ‘rotten’ the world is.

  19. @The Silver Fox

    Why do you listen to what they say? You don’t purge the racial enemies. And then THEY simp for feminism. You wont win the war by being tolerant and self-effacing.

  20. Mattress Girl returns…

    This story starts with me being on Tinder,” Emma Sulkowicz explains. “I don’t have TV, so all I can do is swipe left and right on men.”

    Since 2016, Sulkowicz has identified as gender fluid, and she sometimes uses they/them pronouns. When I ask what to use for this article, she texts me, “Lol I’m not clear about it either,” before settling on she/her.

    Swiping through Tinder, a man she found “distasteful” super-liked her. “It smelled like Connecticut,” she says of his profile. “He was very blond, law school, cut jawline, trapezoidal body figure, tweed suit kind of vibe, but something inside of me made me swipe right, I don’t know.”

    Eventually, Sulkowicz stalked him on Twitter and realized that he was conservative — “like, very conservative.” At first, she was repulsed and considered breaking it off. But then she thought, “Wait, actually, that’s kind of fucked up because he’s the most interesting person I’ve come across, shouldn’t I be open to talking to him?” After dispelling her initial fear, she texted him that it would be “interesting (progressive? Powerful?) for two people who might be the antithesis of each other to go on a Tinder date.”

    When he asks if he can choose his own pseudonym, I tell him sure. He picks Chad. It’s a reference to the incel term for men who, due to serendipitous genetics, are attractive enough to have oodles of sex. All of us laugh, but Sulkowicz laughs loudest, her voice tinkling, bell-like, and leaping between octaves.

    Chad is a Chad, by the way, and he does “smell like Connecticut”: he has cornsilk hair, a shieldlike chest, and a jawline that an incel might show his surgeon for inspiration.

    In her speeches back then, Sulkowicz’s rhetoric sounded quite leftist. But years later, during her conversations with Chad, he suggested that her views might align more with libertarianism. Sulkowicz was open to that — her progressive politics didn’t feel core to her identity, even as they defined her image. Then Chad brought her to a party where she approached Nick Gillespie, an editor at large of Reason, a libertarian magazine that Sulkowicz knew from her Mattress Performance days.

    In explaining the arc of her life since Mattress Performance, Sulkowicz invokes something surprising. “As I became more and more feminist,” she recalls, “I think I got to a point where I was literally just straight up hating men. I just hated men, I wished all men would die.” But embarking on her political journey made her want to understand them, so she jumped into the belly of the beast, reading the book that “had always been framed to me as the book that all dudes read and then they became yucky”: Neil Strauss’s The Game, considered the bible of pickup artists.

  21. Even if you showed this to a woman in your life it would never stick. Think of how difficult it is to unplug a beta male friend. One of the most important things I’ve learned from Rollo, is to never explicate, only demonstrate. I cant tell how much trouble I’ve seen guys get into when they start mansplaining these ideas to women.

  22. @RedLight

    I didn’t click on your links.

    But Rollo interviewing Tate and then this guy Josh Fluke was great stuff.

    In the Josh interview, what Josh lacks is what Tate offers in spades: The Jack Donovan tribal guy affiliation experience.

    There is nothing better to do than to have guy, real hangout buddies to hangout with. And to lean out to the edge of. With.

    Josh is in the mode of doing stuff on YouTube to not to lose. Tate is in the mode of winning at all/any costs. Balls to the wall vs. millenial save your self within your self.


    One could do better by blending the two.

    Isolation is dangerous.

  23. @sjf Fluke is a hard working, conscientious, nice boy. At 29 he is tired of being used. Tate is a hard fighting, inconsiderate, bad boy who uses. I agree, the interviews were a great contrast.

    1. @Redlight. I had never heard of him. He does seem a nice young man. He is definately Red Pill aware but you can tell he is in no man’s land. He said he has been fully through the 5 stages. He hasn’t. He walked straight out of a bad marriage with a BPD and then repeated his mistake with a live in girlfriend who went on Spring Break without him.

      I noticed a few Josh ‘Fan girls’ in Rollo’s channel so he wants to be vigilant. They are not there because they want to be coders. He’s a good looking, successful young man but he comes across as vulnerable. You can tell he still has blue pill, Disney love ideals. As Rollo suggested, he needs to spin plates. Carry on doing what he is doing but remove his focus off women. And get off dating sites and social media. Buffers.

  24. @wildside The reason why I linked to Fluke’s week old video on family was to show the problem in living with a Disney mindset even after you “know” redpill. Certainly his live in GF had not gone on spring break as she told him, but had flown somewhere else to meet a guy. However look at the relationship with his family.

    His family takes him for 15K (10K loan, and 5K credit card fraud). He responds by providing a place to live for his parents and sister, expecting them to work. Only his dad does. His sister takes up with a criminal. Redpill spans across all relationships.

  25. Re: Fluke

    …but you can tell he is in no man’s land.

    And so, he needs to get in man’s land. I.e. a group of masculine tribal guys. Go get a group of five genuine actualized guys to hang out with.

    “As Rollo suggested, he needs to spin plates. Carry on doing what he is doing but remove his focus off women. And get off dating sites and social media. Buffers.”

    Sure, he can be vigilant. But MGTOW is not a good masculine way. He should engage with woman. Not walk the walk with “protection”, guarding his heart and Buffering.

    The goal of the masculine is to have a complementary relationship with the feminine.

    The goal isn’t to be the nice guy opposite of your father, or Tate. That is just reactionary to ones detriment.

    The two interviews are an open book of illustration for TRP.

    Nice job, Rollo

  26. I didn’t think this was triggering at all (I’m a girl). Though I don’t completely understand bullet point 4 (the first part of it). The fact that ‘Understand’ was put in front of the bullet points was triggering, it seems to be suggestive covertly.

  27. @Elooie I’m a girl and I read this and I don’t understand why it would be triggering. A girl would have to be 100% secure with a man to adhere to it, meaning the man would have to offer an exclusive relationship and have a planning-type of personality. Besides that I don’t see how it’s offensive.

  28. Read anything by David Deida, and you’ll see that pink covered edition exists already. But it’s written from the perspective of a man talking to a man, in the language and manner of a woman. Straight up Chick Crack.

  29. I think the most interesting impact this has is the realization that what should be a common sense thing feels so foreign, because the pendulum went so far to the other side. Straight men don’t want to date other men, so if Alpha Female can’t find and attract anyone who she feels genuine desire for that is exactly why. But this is just a part of the story. I think the other part is even more sad. Because it’s is so ingrained into female psyche now, even if she finds someone willing to try, she will sabotage herself immediately, because that is all she knows how to do. She doesn’t know how to add value, she doesn’t know how to be interesting beyond sexual in a conversation, dialog, etc. Disney movies doesn’t teach that part. They teach how to get to marriage, but than what does it mean to “live happily ever after” ? I keep hearing guys freaking out that the rules of the game are changing. True, but we get new tools as well. In fact Rollo’s books are an excellent example of that change. I think another powerful source for the change will be female’s realization that all those feminist ideal’s they were sold on for so long are not delivering the level of happiness they thought it would. So I’m pretty optimistic and the way to accelerate female’s scholastic progress in that direction is to stop compensating their shortcomings for them. Let them fail fast and hard. Let them be unhappy, Don’t play along. Experience teaches hard, but it does teach best for everyone and not just for men.

  30. One of the problems in this digital Age of Enlightenment is that raising children is no longer the satisfactory attention currency – we want as close to the attention of the top tier women – the digital age gives us too much insight into what is possible. So our short term incentives lead us to global Instagram social validation, then post-wall we realize that this and our dog ain’t gonna cut it. Leftist politics gives us a renewed opportunity for social validation when our looks have waned and we can pretend to raise the village while we douse ourselves in glass after glass of wine to make up the delta. What kind of woman will the smart Gen Z female, who quietly consumes this material in the confines of her room, desire to be in the Age of Enlightenment?

    1. @Megan. I am just reading an excellent book called ‘Mating in Captivity’. I quote from a chapter called ‘The pitfalls of Modern Intimacy’.

      ‘In our world of instant communication, we supplement our relationships with an assortment of technological devices in the hope that all these gizmos will strengthen our connections. This social frenzy masks a profound hunger for human contact’.

      So say we all.

  31. Thumbs up from me Rollo, too — another woman that’s enjoying your work.

    I think many more women are willing to listen. But it’s not exactly being “sold” to them — I’m not talking about a pink cover and referencing women exclusively. I’m just talking about the fucking troglodytes that guard this fortress of information, here and on your Youtube channels. I’ve only persisted because I’d been partially red-pilled for a while, and because I always want to know the truth, no matter what, but it takes quite a lot of resilience for the average woman to get past what is just an open display of misogyny from many of those who take your intelligent ideas and pervert them beyond recognition. I know you have little control over that, but it’s a fact.

    I think that the most important message us women must acknowledge is that men should dominate us because that is what WE want and need, not only because of what THEY want and need. Once women internalize this, they will stop being hell-bent on tearing men down, and will help build them up instead.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: