Idealizations

She’s Unhaapppy,…

controlling-parent

Do women seem more or less happy to you? It’s kind of hard to quantify/qualify what happiness means to men, but when it comes to women’s state of happiness or contentment I think most guys have a tendency to expect women’s experience of happiness to be measured on a similar scale to their own. From a strictly evo-psych / evo-bio perspective it’s important that any metric of happiness between the sexes be measured by first considering each’s innate psychological firmware and what contributes to men and women feeling a degree of happiness.

Because men and women rate their experiences differently per their own interpretations of what contribute to it  happiness becomes a really subjective evaluation. As you might guess, what makes for a happy woman is not always what makes for a happy man. It’s a similar contrast to men and women’s differing concepts of love. Men tend to approach love from an idealistic perspective, and women base their emotional investments on opportunistic contexts. We’re conditioned from an early age to believe men and women share a mutual concept of love thanks to an ever-present presumption of egalitarian equalism between males and females, and this is where a lot of intersexual problems find their root.

Likewise, our egalitarian presumptions also condition men and women to believe that we share mutual concepts of what should and shouldn’t make either sex happy in a long term sense. In this case it is women who are largely misled by the equalist narrative. For more than sixty years women have been conditioned to believe they can meet their own idealistic goal of ‘having it all’ if they can only “empower” themselves into being Strong Independent Women®. Increasingly women are coming to the conclusion that this pro-woman life plan has been nothing but feel-good advertising, and now, after having invested their most productive years in this narrative they find that they are largely unhappy with the results its brought into their lives.

You see, equalism (the religion of feminism) would have women believe that what makes men happy must necessarily be what makes women happy – or would make them happy in the long term if only the “patriarchy” would allow women the same opportunities to experience it. If we are all blank-slate equals, what makes women and men happy must be mutually shared, thus men are encouraged to be women and craft their identities around feminine-primacy, but also, women must become men and craft their personas around the masculine ideals that bring men so much power, and by way of it happiness.

Yet in our modern western(izing) world we find that the equalist effort to socially engineer androgyny into society has had the opposite effect in engendering happiness in women. Article after article and study after study show that women’s perceived happiness is at an all-time low since researchers have been collecting data on it. Women are living longer lives and at no point in history have they enjoyed more access to the means of more success than in the now. Mainstream feminine-primacy sees that more women are college educated than men, while men fill our prisons at 12 times the rate of women, yet for all of this women express feeling less satisfied with the quality of, and happiness in, their lives.

American women are wealthier, healthier and better educated than they were 30 years ago. They’re more likely to work outside the home, and more likely to earn salaries comparable to men’s when they do. They can leave abusive marriages and sue sexist employers. They enjoy unprecedented control over their own fertility. On some fronts — graduation rates, life expectancy and even job security — men look increasingly like the second sex.

But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. In the 1960s, when Betty Friedan diagnosed her fellow wives and daughters as the victims of “the problem with no name,” American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women.

And, as would be expected, women’s dissatisfaction with their lives is always traced back to uncooperative men and their reluctancy to make feminism the roaring success they just know it could be if men would simply accept their diminishing importance and superfluousness. What Today’s Woman has been sold is that the careerism, status seeking and ambitiousness that’s driven men to their sense of happiness-through-accomplishment (with all the prerequisite sacrifices needed to get there) is necessarily the same path to women’s sense of happiness and fulfillment.

But men and women are in fact different, and while the social experiment that is equalism continues to destroy lives by insisting they aren’t, women are coming to find (often too late in life to correct) that happiness for themselves comes as a result of satisfying needs that are innate to their nature as a female. As such, equalism and feminism fluidly redefine what “should be” happiness for men and women – men should always find fulfillment in making women happy in an ‘equalist’ utopia – yet that contentment for women will always be elusive and thus, a need to make men the culprits in that unending oppression of happiness comes into play.

Worst Case Scenario

Virtually every woman I’ve ever come into contact with in my lifetime shared a common mindset – each one subscribes to what I call the ‘worst case scenario’ mindset. I expect this from a mother or matronly relative, maybe even an overprotective sister, but to some degree all (and yes I mean all) women share a sense of risk aversion. That may not be in all aspects of a woman’s life, and certainly there are instances where this can be overridden – usually ones that imply an optimized Hypergamous opportunity – but I find that it’s part of women’s psychological firmware to obsessively want to mitigate risk of loss. Whether that’s risk of injury or resources or something that has a potential for providing her with security, the innate female subroutine is to play things safe.

In an age of mass media and instantaneous communication (women’s domain) this risk aversion gets combined with women’s primary, evolutionarily derived, need for a sustainable long term security and an existence-level sense of doubt. I’ve covered in prior posts about how Hypergamy is rooted in doubt and demands a constant reverifying of its being optimized in a man or a man with whom a woman has the potential of becoming intimate with. What results from this root level doubt and a hindbrain need for security is a continual preoccupation with the Worst Case Scenario.

Every possibility for the worst is thought through, contemplated and anticipated by women. There are very few women known for their genuine optimism or faith in a better outcome than what could possibly be the worst case. Yes, there are women who are saccharine motivational speakers, women’s ministry leaders and “make it a great day” believers in the magic powers of positivity, but even when it is genuine it comes as the result of wanting to mitigate the risks of the worst case scenario for their own (or women’s) lives.

As I wrote in Imagination, a man’s best tool in his Game toolbox is a woman’s imagination. That may be well for Game, but it also comes with the drawback of women’s imaginings of the worst possible thing that could ever happen. Throw women’s evolved sense of solipsism into this mix and it’s the worst possible thing that could happen, to her. On one hand, Dread is useful because of this innately female dynamic, but when you must contend with what amounts to a never ending battery of ‘what if’ doubts and reassurances then you begin to see the downside of that imagination. You begin to understand why women default to blaming men for not providing them with a sustainable happiness.

Women, being the life-bearing, nurture-giving sex with the most to lose in their investment in selecting a mate and gestating a child, have evolved to seek a sustainable security above all else – a security that guarantees her individuated happiness. That conventional, evolved sense of wellbeing used to be dependent upon the provisioning and the excitement that could only be provided by men. This is a subconscious expectation of women. Even women who subscribe to sexual fluidity often seek a similar security from their masculinized dominant partner.

Social Security

As a result of our equalist social narrative, women have been conditioned to believe that they can find this security and happiness in some untapped well they have hidden in their psyche if only they can be Strong and Independent enough to access it. In prior essays I’ve made the case that the ultimate goal of our feminine-primary social order has been to facilitate women’s optimizing Hypergamy by essentially outlawing men’s influence on that process. Every gender-based law that’s come into being since the time of the Sexual Revolution; from sexual consent, to what constitutes sexual harassment, to father’s (lack of) rights, to divorce settlement has been motivated by this deep seated female need for an enduring security. This was a security unique to men, but in an ‘equalist’ paradigm it is no longer required of, nor is it expected to be found in, men.

Yet for all of this handwringing, for all of the great efforts needed to legislate men’s direct or indirect financing of this security, and despite every social dispensation intended to empower women to provide this soul-gnawing need for security, women are still not happy.

The masterful Pook once said that the surest way to make a woman unhappy is to give them everything they want. I recently got into, yet again, another debate about the merits or non-merits of Choreplay and whether the idea of women getting hot for guys who do dishes was really a thing,…or not. This time the spin is that women will cheat on their husbands if they don’t do more chores.

As I was requoting myself for this debate I realized how long the Choreplay dilemma has been playing out – the first time I took it on was 2008. Men are deductive problem solvers. We want to make women happy as a means to getting sex, keeping the peace, sustaining intimacy, security, and just making a woman happy. The problem with that is that nothing a man can do will make a woman happy in the long term. In fact, just the whack-a-mole attempt to intentionally try to make a woman happy is itself a display women read as coming from a man who Just Doesn’t Get It.

The majority of men (Betas) would like nothing more than to sustain a woman’s happiness. They’re taught that relationship are always ‘hard work’ and his work will ultimately never be good enough. Even the most dutiful Beta can’t make a woman happy, but their efforts become a process of him negotiating for a woman’s desire. Whether that’s earning the ‘happiness’ of his mother, his sister, his female co-worker or his wife, the effect is the same.

We’ve made women’s happiness a litmus test for how successful a man or his relationships are. The common refrain of a woman leaving a man due to her being “unhaaaaaapy” is almost a cliché in the manosphere now. But if it’s a cliché it’s because this is the go-to reasoning we’ve heard from pop-psychologists, marriage counselors and mommy bloggers for the 70%+ of divorces initiated by women. We are expected to put a premium on women’s sustained happiness in a feminine-primary social order. Women’s happiness has become the prime directive and the metric for a relationship’s success. Any concern for men’s happiness is either a sign of his weakness or his problematic misogyny.

From Perfecting the Fantasy:

Here’s a secret – there’s no such thing as contentment.

Being content implies that life is static; it’s not, and to be honest, how boring would that be anyway? Life consists of varying states of discontent: why else would you bother doing anything? But the good news is that it’s more fun and more beneficial to manage discontent than to endure contentment (which you can’t anyway since it’s transitory at best). The trick is to understand that there are 2 kinds of discontent – creative and destructive discontent. What you choose to do with that discontent makes all the difference in the world. You will only get what you’ve gotten if you keep doing what you’ve done. Don’t allow yourself to fall back into old destructive habits of dealing with discontent. Don’t bother with anti-depressants and self-help books when a good hard workout at the gym would serve you better.

The truth is I’m always discontent, but constructively so. The minute you can look yourself in the mirror and be happy with what you see you’re sunk. You can always improve, even after achieving things that were once very important and difficult to attain. Happiness is a state of being, it’s in the ‘doing’ not the ‘having done.’ It’s not about endlessly chasing your tail, it’s about being better than you were the day before.

I agree with Gorilla Patriot, women’s default is for unhappiness, but I’d qualify this by saying it’s more of a predisposition of discontent. That is to say there is no real neutral disposition for a woman. Even in a state of indifference, a woman’s conditioned expectation from men will always originate from a preconception of disappointment. The worst case scenario is what is subconsciously planned for to the point that, even a man whom a woman loves and trusts, a woman’s first expectation from him is failure.

A lot of this comes from a lifetime of having male role models portrayed as default failures, social ignoramuses or just ridiculous because of their maleness. Women have had an endless education that only their unique femaleness can solve men’s problems of maleness, and they solve it in spite of themselves. Women are quite literally taught to expect failure, discontentment and unhappiness from men from a very early age.

The great tragedy of this ‘education’ is that it teaches women to empower themselves to find some life satisfaction as a result of their independence from men, but yet they can’t get around the want to find happiness with men. This teaching seeks to create some equalist semblance of happiness based on what men define for themselves as happiness.

They’re taught that a real enduring security is somehow possible in an intrinsically unsafe and chaotic world. So they limit men, they mandate laws and social mores to mitigate the risks that men, in their idealism, would naturally be drawn to take. They keep the kids safe, tell them to walk on one side of the sidewalk, tell them not to jump on the bed, tell them not to ride a bike without a helmet and knee and arm pads, and to prepare for the most damaging possibility imaginable. And men, who’ve always been bigger, more dangerous children to them, must comply with this risk aversion by law or by shame.

Women are unhappy because they expect unhappiness. They’ve been taught that the security they sought in men was a weakness; one they need to compensate for. They were conditioned to feel shame for that need, that masculine comfort, even when they know security is never going to be guaranteed in the best of possible cases. They’re unhappy because they were taught that men’s happiness is better than women’s happiness and that’s the path they ought to follow no matter the sacrifice, no matter the damage to the family. They were taught that feminist pride and equalist hubris were a better substitute for a family – they believed the lie that they would just be ‘happy captives’.

Deep Conversion

conversion

About four years ago Nick Krauser dropped a quick-hit post on his blog called Deep Conversion. I made a mental note in my head about this concept back then because, in spite of the brevity of it, I really thought Nick was on to something much more significant. The direction of my recent discussions both on this blog and a few other forums I read got me thinking about Nick’s observations.

I had an old reader (who want’s me to believe he’s a new reader) dig back through my archives and reheat an old debate about conflating my post about women’s concept of love with, “women are incapable of love – at all.” Over the five years that this blog’s been online I’ve gone to great lengths to define my position on the differing concepts of love either gender holds, and what influences the origins of love for either gender. I wont do a remedial post to reassert my points on this here. If you’re new reader and unfamiliar with that expansive series of posts I’ll refer you the Love category on my side bar links. However, to restate the premise for today’s post so everything is clear:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.

That bolded part there was always emphasized for a very important reason – to avoid the misperception in men that women are entirely incapable of love, and to make a distinction about men’s Blue Pill hope that a woman could love him according to his idealistic concept of love. As I said, there is an expansive series on my ideas about this, and it requires an (I believe rewarding) investment of time and comprehension in understanding them. Sorry, but there is no TL;DR version here.

When I wrote this, and during my deliberating it, I fully expected to get this most common response I get from men still stinging from a more cynical Red Pill awakening. And that is the want to believe that women’s Hypergamy prevents them from ever feeling a “genuine” love or a genuine desire for men beyond what their most immediate opportunistic need may be according to their sexual strategy – short term breeding or long term security. Generally, it’s newly unplugged guys who want to accuse me of not thinking it all the way through because I need some hopeful rationale to justify my 20-year marriage, or they think I’ve never considered Briffault’s Law.

Concepts & Expectations

I expected all of this when I wrote my early essays on men and women’s differing concepts of love. And while I’ve covered the idea of love being a complementary arrangement between men and women each holding differing concepts in prior essays, one thing I haven’t explored is what Nick calls the “Deep Conversion” a woman goes through and what she feels for a man with whom she genuinely falls in love with.

Nick refers to this process as a kind of ‘soul surrender’ in which a woman recognizes a Man’s inherent value to both her short term sexual, and long term security needs. From her perception, this guy represents her Hypergamous ideal. Such is his sexual market value in relation to her own that it puts all but the most deeply rooted doubts of his quality to rest for her and opens her to associating him with an emotional state.

I should also point out that this emotional state needn’t always be a positive association; just that the association he represents is an ideal situation her hindbrain interprets as Hypergamously optimal. If that dynamic seems like a recipe for potential abuse you’re not too far from the mark. This conversion comes as a result of a woman’s perception of her Hypergamous need and her own SMV in comparison to what she believes that man’s  SMV is in relation. Shaking a woman out of the devotion she has with an abusive husband/boyfriend is really shaking her out of the perception that he represents her Hypergamous ideal.

That optimal state is also qualified by her own self-perception of her sexual market value, and again prioritized by her most necessitous needs for her phase of maturity. However, given all these variables, that man’s perceived value to her Hypergamy is always valued as higher than her own. Hypergamy never seeks its own level, but always looks for a better-than deserved SMV comparison. In terms of SMV ratios-to-attachment Deep Conversion takes place somewhere between a 2:1 to 3:1 variance.

Most guys are simply incapable of inspiring this kind of total soul surrender and devotion in a women. Most women never get to feel it and instead must get off on Deep Conversion Lite through sugar-rush books like 50 Shades of Grey. It’s the difference between spinning plates with fuck buddies and having a genuine harem where all your girls are exclusive to you. The women aren’t aligning with you out of cold calculation or temporary strung-out groupie lust, the connection runs far far deeper and feels wholesome to both of you.

This was an excellent observation on Nick’s part, however, I think it’s important to consider this bit in terms of why most men are incapable of instilling a Deep Conversion state in women. The first reason is that most men (being Beta) already presume that any woman who would find them suitable for a monogamous commitment must already feel this sense of Deep Conversion otherwise they’d never agree to that commitment. This is part of the Blue Pill conditioning for Beta men – any girl who says “yes” to him must necessarily see him as her Hypergamous ideal. Most men lack the Red Pill awareness that women regularly make long term relationship decisions based on security needs, not because that guy represents her Hypergamous ideal.

Women would rather cry over an asshole than be saddled with a guy who bores them to tears. That doesn’t sell very well with Blue Pill men raised on Disney dreams, but women readily get into LTRs where the Beta they pair with is no comparison to the Alpha she’s widowed from; for whom she had a Deep Conversion with. And as Nick says, this is when they look to manufacture their own indignation and the excitement they lack in cheap (but safe) substitutes.

Another reason most men never experience this is because, due their Blue Pill conditioning, never give themselves permission to become the conventionally masculine men with a dominance that women need in order to feel this conversion for him. Most Blue Pill men have been taught a default deference to women. Theirs is one of a ‘Nice’, passive sensitivity to a woman’s perceived wants, rather than a dominant knowing of her need which is born from a lifetime of learning to place his mental point of origin on the whims of women.

This may be my own interpretation, but I would also argue that both a woman’s evolved psychological filtering (testing) of a man’s Hypergamous qualifications and her socialized sense of self (ego) contribute to a woman resisting this Deep Conversion for a man. As a lot of men in the Married Red Pill and DeadBedroom subredd forums will attest, it’s entirely possible to spend your life with a woman who will never feel this conversion with a man.

Deep Conversion

Done correctly deep conversion is the most satisfying experience possible between a man and a woman. So long as you keep the elements in place, it has no natural time limit. I had my ex-wife in this state for eight of the nine years we were together (losing it only when I lost my mojo) and I’ve had four girlfriends in the past two years in the same position. I’ve got a few more on the boil now. It’s really not very hard to do if you have the following core competencies in place:

  1. An unshakeably strong frame. You are special, you know you’re special, and your masculinity is stratospheric compared to the chumps around you.
  2. Cheerful misogyny. You love women but don’t take them seriously. This is more than just the attraction phase teasing. You genuinely believe women are more like dogs or children, meaning they are a delight when well-lead and a nightmare when left ill-disciplined without a pack leader. It’s empathetic but not weak or equalist.
  3. Direction. Your life must be a straight line in a Deida-esque manner. Whether it’s your music, philosophy, career, fitness your life contains several arrows pointing the same direction… towards building the archetype of a fully developed man. If you are one-dimensional the girl will hold back.
  4. Sexual mastery. Understand that women crave dominance above all else in the bedroom. Give her the kind of sex that penetrates her soul. This isn’t high-fitness sport sex and G-spot finding. Those men will keep a woman around as her sexual provider, the guy she goes to when she wants a good fucking, the bedroom equivalent of a qualifying beta chump. A sexual master rocks a girl psychologically so even a half-assed knee trembler in a public toilet has her dreaming for weeks afterwards. The girl dreams of pleasing him, not him pleasing her.

All four elements increase with age if you live your life correctly. I don’t want to write too much about it and certainly the book will never be released. Just be aware that it has it’s own ego traps, its own risks…. but it is possible. When you’re tired of the notch-carousel you might want to look into it.

Much of what Nick is outlining here is Red Pill 101 and I’d also add that Roissy’s original 16 Commandments of Poon would fill out this list more completely. What I’m exploring here, however, is the concept of how this Deep Conversion fits into the framework of men and women’s individualized concepts of love. On the one hand I have men who are critics tell me I’m in error because women’s opportunistic concept of love doesn’t meet their criteria for what love ought to be between a man and a woman – a mutually shared, unconsciously agreed upon, concept that aligns with men’s idealistic (love for love’s sake) concept.

Yet still, they don’t disagree with my assessment that women’s concept of love is rooted in optimizing their innate Hypergamy and manifests as an beneficent opportunism (beneficent in terms of quality control for the human race, not necessarily for men). This is where the conflict starts. If a male-idealistic concept of love is the correct one, and women lack a capacity to understand, appreciate or engage in that concept in a genuine, organic fashion then women entirely lack the capacity for love as men would define it. This is the deductive logic that tears men up when I explain men and women’s differing concepts of love. Their definition has to be the correct one, and if it is then women cannot love men. For guys reeling from the initial hopelessness that their Blue Pill world was always an exploitative fantasy, it’s hard for them to accept that their concept of love is only subjectively correct for them.

Blue Pill Idealism

Much of this hopelessness stems from the all-is-equal mentality that the Blue Pill sells us when we’re being raised by the ‘Village’ of pop-culture. Equalism is the religion of the Feminine Imperative, so Blue Pill men are conditioned to believe that men and women, being co-equal, co-rational agents, would necessarily share a common concept of love. As with everything egalitarian, that equalism outright denies any innate differences physically or psychologically that would separate men and women or make them adversarial in sexual strategy or purpose in life. This premise, of course, is deftly twisted by the Feminine Imperative to make feminine-primary sexual strategies and women’s concept of love, the socially correct expressions of ‘equalism’.

But therein lies men’s conflict. The same influences that convince men their idealistic concept of love is the mutually shared one are also the influences that convince men that satisfying women’s socio-sexual imperatives ought to be their life’s priority and their mental point of origin if they ever hope to achieve that idealized love state. Take this Blue Pill path to that idealistic state away from men, and you get very despondent guys who don’t believe women have a capacity to feel actual love for them. It all becomes jumping through hoops to create a feeling of love in women whose criteria for a love that originates in their opportunistic concept they must constantly qualify for.

Women critics of this differing love concepts dynamic, unsurprisingly, personalize every experience they have, their friends have or their family ever had by referring to examples of their own selfless acts of devotion to a certain man. It’s always a story about how they gave everything to a (often unappreciative, unreciprocating) man they felt some undying idealistic love for themselves, and how dare I impugn their sincerity in it?

And again, I’ll add that the only way they came to this idealistic love was through a Deep Conversion they had with a man who satisfied their Hypergamous opportunism long before they were ever inspired to those selfless acts of devotion and sacrifice. For every Alpha Widow woman who ever gave herself over to that conversion and surrendered her soul to a guy who never reciprocated it, there are a hundred Beta men who will never inspire that degree of devotion in the wives who settled on marrying them. Statistically, 80% of men (Betas) will never inspire the Deep Conversion that 10-20% of men women feel it for did.

The Red Pill Conversion

When I wrote The Love Experience I was asked to elaborate on a quote I’d made about men and women both having the capacity to love each other deeply and passionately:

“Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures.”

For men who innately cling to an idealistic concept of love, their own kind of Deep Conversion can come in the form of ONEitis and develop into some very unhealthy dependencies. One of the reasons ONEitis is so common among men is because their Blue Pill conditioning predisposes them to putting women’s needs above his own and they see that as the path to sustaining this True Love state – a state defined by their idealism.

For women, this Deep Conversion can only result from a man who so thoroughly satisfies her Hypergamous nature she’s willing to abandon her own sexual strategy. And, like the guy with ONEitis, she dedicates herself to the one guy she was able to (she thinks) lock down who was a better-than-deserved Hypergamous prospect. Women get very upset when this dedication is questioned (not unlike the ONEitis guy) because they’ve generally abandoned furthering their sexual strategy by investing their egos into a guy who satisfied their Hypergamous natures. To doubt that devotion is to doubt the wisdom of her investment – and that goes down to her evolved biology and psychology in that choice. I should note here that Alpha Widows are born from this conversion.

However, for all of that inherent risk, and despite men and women’s differing concepts of love, men and women can and do come together in individual states of love (that they often believe the other shares) that are ‘genuine’ to them and also last a lifetime. I would argue that this state cannot exist without a woman’s Deep Conversion occurring after, and as a process of, her testing and evaluating the quality of the man she feels it for. And I would also argue that a man who commits himself to this woman must also feel some sense of his idealistic concept of love being validated by that woman who has devoted herself to him.

Under the old social contracts, and under the old set of books, this conversion in men and women was likely something much easier than it is today. Women are distracted by social and cultural influences that distorts their ever truly understanding their greatly diminishing value to men, and at the same time places so many men so far below women in general that this conversion and devotion will always seem demeaning to them – even for men who exceed them in SMV.

However, this Deep Conversion state is not an impossibility and it is not impossible to sustain it in a Red Pill aware paradigm. In fact, I’ll say that Red Pill awareness and internalized Game is really the only way to sustain it in an era of Open Hypergamy where Blue Pill conditioning of men is the norm, and women’s expectations of men are ridiculously low, but standards are ridiculously exaggerated.

For the Red Pill / Game aware guy, understanding this conversion and how to inspire it is something he ought to contemplate since so much of a woman’s ego becomes invested in her devotion to him once that conversion takes place. Conversely, Red Pill men should also understand, as Nick explained about his ex-wife, that this conversion is always tentative upon his own capacity to perpetuate it.

For Better or Worse

betterorworse

Before I dive in here today it’s going to be important to put things into perspective with respect to an Old Married Guy becoming Red Pill aware and then applying what he’s learned in his marriage. In the last few comment threads the discussion has veered to what exactly the state of “monogamy” (if it can be called that) will look like in the next few decades given Red Pill awareness, Open Hypergamy, the progression of technologies that conflict with (or exacerbate) our evolved capacity to reproduce, etc.

The conversation tends to be a back and forth between what a more feasible and pragmatic approach to long-term relationships might be. The Young Single Guys make a (rather convincing) case for some form of men reserving the option of non-exclusivity; to take on short term lovers should the opportunity present itself – even if for just protecting a man’s state of Frame. Dread, being what it is, would necessarily be a mutually understood cornerstone of this arrangement.

The OMGs who’ve had the benefit of experience with respect to living with women (and in some cases divorces), rearing children (for better or worse) then offer up the realities of what a pLTR might be limited by with respect to actually living in an arrangement like this and the legal ramifications it leaves men open to.

Hashing out what Marriage 3.0 will or should look like is a discussion I’ll reserve for the next essay. For now I think it’s going to be important for that debate to recognize that since Red Pill awareness, in the intersexual respect, is a relatively new social awareness there’s always going to be differing experiences with it.

For the young men who’ve had the benefit of being Red Pill aware and learning Game, courtesy of communication technology and the experiences of countless other older men, it may sound kind of mundane when an Old Married Guy (OMG) finally ‘gets it’ after being Blue Pill for so long. But while you may never consider getting married in the future, you will no doubt get older and hopefully wiser in a way that your elders never had the benefit of. The reason I wrote Preventive Medicine was to do just this; to teach men what to expect from women and their sexual strategies and prioritization at their various phases of maturity. However, I would be remiss not to take into consideration what YSGs relate about the realities of today’s sexual marketplace. I think between us we have a very powerful knowledge-base.

As I said, for YSGs, it may seem mundane for a formerly Blue Pill OMG to kick up his wife’s sexual interest with his new Red Pill awareness, but consider that to him the Red Pill is an exciting answer to a long struggle. Likewise, an older guy reeling from an ugly divorce and rebuilding an even better life and sex life with Red Pill awareness is a fantastic feeling that I think is hard for YSGs to empathize with.

Instant Gratification

In my Stalling for Time essay I quoted reader YaReally and his understandable frustration with dealing with women in what’s become the modern sexual marketplace. I won’t re-quote it here, but the gist of it was how women of this generation are so predisposed to the attentions that social media offers them. The immediacy of social affirmation is just an Instagram post away and Beta orbiters are now a utility women simply take for granted.

It’s important to understand this in the light of how women’s psyches interpret instantaneous affirmation, as well as instantaneous indignation, attention and emotional consolation from both Beta orbiters and ‘you go girl’ girlfriends. I should also point out that there’s an even uglier side to this equation for women and girls who find themselves social outcasts. The cruel venom from haters is equally as instantaneous and likewise women’s evolved psyches struggle to process this.

As is the theme of this series, we have a situation wherein technological advancement outpaces human capacity to adequately process how it is affecting us. In this case we have women’s solipsistic nature that prevents the insight necessary to self-govern themselves with regard to how instant gratification of their base needs for attention is affecting their personalities and the decisions they make because of it. Prior to the communication age women’s need for interpersonal affirmation was generally limited to a small social circle and the opportunities to satisfy it were precious and private. It used to require far more investment on the part of women to connect interpersonally. But in the space of just two generations the social media age has made this affirmation an expect part of a woman’s daily life.

On top of this, we find ourselves in a time when feminine-primacy in our social structure makes criticizing or even making casual, constructive, observations of this self-gratifying vanity on par with misogyny for men. Women cannot hear what men wont tell them, and women have far less incentive to self-examine the consequences of what this affirmation-satisfying attention is working in them.

The Open Hypergamy Future

I get what the Young Single Guys are saying, I really do. I linked this article in a recent comment and after reading through it and author’s blog I can’t help but sympathize with the YSG’s grasp of the modern dating scene and how utterly hopeless it is for men to expect anything less than complete, life altering despair from the prospect of marriage. There is no upside to monogamous commitment, but the real kicker is that this condition is what women plan for and would hope for their own daughters.

Now, I understand Emma Johnson is another click-bait outrage broker, but is the sentiment her reader relates in raising her daughter to expect to be a single mother as an ideal state all that difficult or shocking to believe from women in this era?

My dream for my daughter is that she be in a loving relationship, and have a good ex-husband who really does a great job with the kids, 50 percent of the time.

People forget the joys of divorce — sharing your kids without guilt and having alone/me time.

[…]I also have time to exercise, enjoy vacations that are relaxing and involve lots of book-reading, and I have had time to nurture a relationship with my new husband, with fewer of the stresses of blended families.

The idealized state is one in which I outlined in The Myth of the Good Guy:

The problem with this ‘Good Guy’ myth is not because men can’t or wouldn’t want to try to balance women’s Hypergamy for them, but simply because women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with.

This is a new step in Open Hypergamy, the acknowledgement and proud embrace of women’s Hypergamous sexual strategy is not enough. The open expectation that one man will father and support her children while another will satisfy her sexually and appreciatively is not enough. The plan is literally to raise a young woman to adulthood with the expectation of her raising another child without a father/husband in her life and the child’s. We’re left to presume that the preferred norm for raising boys will be in teaching them it’s their responsibility to accommodate this norm.

The plan is not simply to end the Sandbergian plan for Hypergamy with the “Equal partner, someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home.” The plan is to leave that well-providing Beta once he’s been locked into indefinite utility and take up with a sexier husband with fewer parental stresses.

Yet, despite the overtness of women’s Hypergamy, men still have an idealistic hope that the worst predations of women wont happen to them. Read this woman’s post, sift through her other posts; she’s despicable, calculating, duplicitous and would put the knife in your back she told you she would,…but she’s also honest.

Whether by our conditioning or some intrinsic idealism, we want to believe in the earnestness of the Old Set of Books in the face of New Book women openly telling us “You stupid men, this is what we plan to do to you from the outset. Naked, open Hypergamy and all its machinations is what I will teach my daughters and grand daughters to do to your sons and grandsons. And you will take it and accept your Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks roles in all of it because you’ll never get past your inherent idealism that we might not do all of this.”

We want to believe this woman is an outlier, but by order of degree, we know that whether it’s with softly spoken, loving words or a mommy blog that triumphantly yells these truths, women’s opportunistic concept of love will never align with our idealistic concept of love.

Primary LTRs

The arrangement this woman is hoping will be her daughter’s adult life is not too far different from what YaReally was suggesting about pLTRs; a primary long term relationship with a direct or indirect understanding that a man could take other lovers as fits him. He’s not the first to suggest the pLTR scheme as a workaround for marriage or raising a family sans marriage or binding commitment. And if Emma Johnson (or the reader she’s quoted) is to be believed this would be her own ideal relationship, albeit from the perspective of a woman retaining total Frame control.

Even a PUA like Mystery believed he could maintain a literal harem in some kind of live-in pLTR. And then there are the men who subscribe to the Charles Bukowski school of intersexual relations – in the right socioeconomic conditions this pLTR is realtively possible, but I think this is a poor substitute for what, as men we’d like to be an ideal, reciprocal marriage in which men can expect respect, desire, love, honor and all the other words no woman could ever hope to recite from their marriage vows.

I’ve locked horns with more than a few women who want to take me to task over my debating that human beings are not naturally monogamous. From a social perspective, loose monogamy and women’s inherent need for cuckoldry has always conflicted with our more or less successful human progress based on monogamous marriage. This is changing right along with the latest technologies that afford it to. As such, men are also forced to adapt and improvise with women’s inabilities to process these changes and the rapidity with which the next ones occur.

The old gals always like to tout that western society is the result of our agrarian roots and monogamous way of life. This is ironic since it’s women themselves who’ve fought tooth and nail to destroy exactly this ‘successful’ set up. Ruthless, open Hypergamy is now something to be proud of; something to instruct our daughters to utilize for their own solipsistic, selfish betterment at men’s expense – and to feel no shame for it, but rather expect it as the future norm.

It’s now time for men to either accept and adapt to this, or to form our own response to it in a way that not only benefits our interests, but the interests of women who can no longer process these changes without mens’ direct instruction. In Our Sisters’ Keeper I explored the notion that women of today are merely the women we deserve because men have kept their counsel about the affairs of women. We’ve got the women we deserve because our silence, and the silence of our forbearers, was the voice of complicity. Now we’ve come so far that women will send a man to jail or the unemployment office, or a paternity court rather than hear a man criticize her inability to process social changes that harm not only her but the larger social order.

There must come a point where men must unapologetically correct women for the betterment of society. Today this is a bold statement, one that could likely bring consequences to man’s life, but it’s only a bold thought because we’ve allowed women and their imperatives define the Frame of our social order for so long now. The socio-intersexual conditions we find ourselves in today are the direct result of women’s inability to process rapid social changes. As men we need to collectively recognize this. We need to recognize also that our social state is the result of allowing women to set a social framework that indentures men, that calls single motherhood and Hypergamous choices normative ideals.

We also need to recognize that we will be reviled for presuming some patriarchal control or male privilege, but we must have the confidence to set this aside in the knowledge that we now understand that women cannot cope with post-modern social and technological changes.

Stalling for Time

stalled

I was made aware of a trio of rather noteworthy stories last week all of which I found dovetail nicely on topic together. The first was Tweeted to me about the new advent of artificial ovaries and how overjoyed our feminine-concerned social order was that ‘infertile‘ women might have a better chance of conception. The report’s subtitled perspective was, ostensibly, about how making a synthetic home for a woman’s egg-producing follicles could improve fertility after chemotherapy and help women with endometriosis conceive:

Women can become infertile after cancer treatment as the ovaries and the egg-making follicles they contain are vulnerable to chemotherapy, especially for leukaemias, brain cancers and lymphomas. Removing and freezing ovarian tissue beforehand to reimplant after treatment can help women conceive, but there is a risk that this tissue will reintroduce hidden cancer cells.

Call me a cynic, but I think if a woman’s had a cancer serious enough to warrant chemotherapy I’m not sure her capacity to conceive a child is really her most important concern. A noble reasoning to be sure, but another paragraph down and we get to the real reason for the excitement:

“It may be used by women who want to delay having babies or postpone the menopause“

The method could benefit other women, too. “When fully developed, this technology may be used in women who want to delay having babies for social reasons, or who want to postpone the menopause,” says Claus Andersen at the University Hospital of Copenhagen, Denmark.

Ah yes, the Holy Grail of bioengineered gender equalism – a safe and effective means of perpetuating a woman’s fertility well beyond all reason and concern for healthy parenting would otherwise mandate. Nowhere is it mentioned, or are we to politely consider, that women’s real reasons for wanting a safe way to extend their fertility has less to do with ‘infertility’ concerns and a lot more to do with their difficulties in optimizing Hypergamy.

Earlier this year I wrote an essay entitled Assurances in which I argue that women will demand that society and science accommodate and insure their indefinite fertility while they sort out why it is they can’t seem to find the right (and Hypergamously cooperative) guy with which to start a family. I began that article by outlining the recent worker’s benefit of ‘egg freezing’ some larger companies were offering in order to entice (executive level) women to work for them – women, we are meant to presume, are so absorbed by their careers that they need to dedicate their most fertile years to their professional aspirations. All in order to stay on an equal footing with hyper-competitive men of course:

The latent purpose of developing technology to freeze a woman’s eggs, for instance, is to cheat (or give the impression of being able to cheat) the otherwise natural process of fertility that women are beholden to.

The latent purpose of every pop-cultural trend that contributes to the perception that women can realistically exceed the window of their fertility is offered as an assurance that women have more time than would be naturalistically expected to optimize Hypergamy.

Ostensibly, the message for women is the cliché of ‘having it all’ – reassuring women that they can have a rewarding career and make a significant difference in their lives and the lives of others as well as realistically having a meaningful family experience later in life. The unspoken hindbrain message is that a woman has more time to optimize Hypergamy.

I took a lot of criticism for being so presumptuous in that assertion. How dare I suggest that professional women didn’t deserve to be afforded the same opportunities men, who peak in their own SMV well after women’s prime fertility years have passed, had in life, career, and family. The thoroughly modern women of today weren’t forestalling pregnancy because of any personal misgivings or difficulties in attracting Mr. Right, these women needed to freeze their eggs to have more time to develop their careers, don’t you know.

The Real Reason Women are Freezing their Eggs

Turns out, not so much. Actually not at all,…

They are often portrayed as hard-hearted individuals who are putting motherhood on hold in order to climb the career ladder.

But women who freeze their eggs are actually waiting for a man who is perfect father material to come along.

Researcher Kylie Baldwin, who asked a group of women why they froze their eggs, said: ‘I think they were looking for a hands-on father.

‘And it was the absence of this particular type of potential father, not just the absence of any partner, that led them to freeze the eggs.

‘It’s not just about not having the right partner, it’s about having the right dad for their child.’

Interestingly, some of the women were in a relationships – but froze their eggs because they didn’t believe their partner was father material and were hoping someone better would come along.

I should add a side note here and point out the importance these women place having “the right dad for their child.” It’s so important that they’d expect a scientific miracle to give them enough time to find this very important father. However, I’d encourage my readers to compare and contrast this to the complete lack of importance men are expected to place on their own roles as the biological father of a child with regard to raising a child that is not his own. You see, while a woman will freeze her eggs in order to find the perfect hands-on Dad to breed with, men are told that even when a child is not his own he shouldn’t concern himself with his own self-importance in breeding or raising that kid.

This study was an interesting confirmation of the assertions I’d made in Assurances – Women want an assurance of Hypergamous optimization. Egg freezing isn’t about medical concerns or even professional sacrifices; egg freezing is about Hypergamy and women’s increasingly diminished ability to satisfy it later and later in life. In the manosphere and in my book Preventive Medicine there’s an understanding that women’s Party Years, the years she rides the “cock carousel”, are dedicated to the pursuit of Alpha Fucks – her prime directive is generally focused on a short term breeding strategy. Women’s entitlement extends to the point now that they demand science extend this period and assure them they will have ample time to complete their quest for Beta Bucks, motherhood, provisioning and parental investments indefinitely, or at least as long as men might be able to live up to their peak SMV qualifications.

The women were predominately middle-class and highly educated and were aged 38, on average, when they had their eggs frozen.

Mrs Baldwin, a sociologist, said: ‘I asked them about what their motivations were and I would say none of the women underwent the procedure for career reasons.

‘Instead, it was very often down to their perception that it was not yet the right time for them to be pursuing motherhood for one reason or another.’

And, as you might expect, what article about women’s struggle in finding the right guy would be complete without shaming men for their reluctance to participate in playing the roles the Feminine Imperative demands they play in order to fulfill women’s sexual strategies?

The comments about men’s reluctance to commit echo some made by one of Britain’s leading fertility doctors earlier this year.

Professor Adam Balen, chairman of the British Fertility Society, said: ‘There is a notion that young men are not committed to relationships in the way they have been in the past.

‘Childhood for some men is being extended into 20s and 30s when they’re not committing to a relationship.’

Again, it’s childish men’s fault that women have been brought to egg freezing science. This then brings us full circle to NPR’s recent story about economists “puzzlement” over why men are leaving the workforce in droves.

“I wasn’t going to go back to work. It was almost going to just be a nice transition into retirement for me — a very early retirement. I mean, I’m only 36 years old,” he says.

And if he does go back to work, he worries about the prospects.

“Things move really, really, really quick [in IT], and I’m worried that if we can’t make it work, that I’m going to go looking for a job and they’re going to say two years out of it, ‘Sorry, brother, you don’t have what it takes to work here anymore,’ ” Rekkedal says.

Tara Sinclair, chief economist for job-search site Indeed.com, says brawny jobs are being replaced by brainy ones, and that trend doesn’t favor men.

How’s that for an interesting social cycle?

There’s a common refrain you read in both the femosphere as well as religious bloggers about the state of extended adolescence they believe men are extending today. I even wrote about this ridiculous impression of men’s clinging to juvenility in Are You Experienced.

Men forestalling their “adulthood” – a characterization that is entirely dependent on how well a man aligns with women’s imperatives – by dropping out, or otherwise not preparing to be a potential provider for a family a woman deems is at last necessary to her, are considered ‘kidults’ or extending their adolescent years. Professor Adam Balen in the egg freezing article says men are extending “childhood” into their 20s and 30s.

Ironically, you’ll find the most ardent critics of extended adolescence in the writings of Man-up-and-marry-those-sluts religious male bloggers intent on virtue signaling their acceptability to women who will benefit most from their ‘manning up’ and overlooking their Party Years indiscretions.

On the other hand, women wishing to forestall motherhood – a characterization which used to imply a woman’s entrance into adulthood – are never characterized as “extending their childhood.” Women who opt to delay marriage can always fall back on the unacceptability of ‘most men these days’ to excuse their own extension, or they are “focusing on their career.” Women can never be cast in any way other than Strong and Independent®. In fact, this is the first, default presumption we make about a never-married or never-mothered woman.

The Daily Mail article about the truths of women’s reasoning for freezing their eggs puts the lie to this presumption. Women’s latent purpose in egg freezing is to extend fertility until their ideal Alpha man arrives in their lives.

Then, of course the blame become circular on men – men not accepting the role that open Hypergamy expects them to already be aware of and accept wholesale makes him guilty of extending his childhood. Women then blame their spinsterhood on a lack of acceptable ‘adult’ men.

There is never any incentive for personal insight on the part of women, not even when she’s far past her reasonably fertile years, to say nothing of her capacity to intersexually compete with her sisters for those acceptable men. Nowhere is there an afterthought that acceptable men would actively avoid her or find her unacceptable for his own long term investment.

Advancing Gender Dynamics

Finally, we need to add to this the obscene amounts of on-tap social validation women enjoy today. I’m not the first author to recognize or write about this, but there is a very real psychological dynamic that humans in this era have had to deal with which no other previous generations had to consider. Our capacity for technological advancement has progressed so quickly over the past century (and 16 years) that human beings are scarcely capable of understanding what these advancements imply to us as a society and largely as a species.

One reason I believe evolutionary psychology will always have a place in the manosphere and Red Pill discussion is because it aids us in understanding how our minds have evolved and what we can expect from ourselves, or cultures our intersexual dynamics in the context of how we’re experiencing these technological advancements. I had a reader tell me once about how appalled his grandmother was at the idea of a sperm bank when they first appeared. Today it’s part of the scenery, but when they appeared it was scandalous to the mindset of that era’s acculturation. Fast forward from the 1960s to now; in just over half a century think of the tech advancements we have with us today that we take for granted, but our grandparents would marvel over. Now think about how those advancements are interpreted by our hindbrains in so short a time.

Communications technologies, and now a social media explosion, affect our very plastic, yet feral hindbrains in ways that our new globalizing culture can’t keep pace with. I bring this up, because it’s important to consider how women’s feral selves are affected by an instantaneous attention and affirmation that previous generations of women craved, but never dreamed of having this kind of facility with.

As the conversation is won’t to do on this blog’s comment threads, the topic du jour picked up on the merits, or lack thereof, of monogamy vs. legal marriage vs. pLTRs (primary long term relationships or ‘plural’ long term relationships as the term fits). I’ll be addressing this in the next post, but I’ll foreshadow a bit with this; sifting through one of his usually long comments, this bit from YaReally stuck with me (emphasis mine):

“But even if your Game is as tight as YaReally’s, try interesting a modern young chick in commitment. Go ahead. You’ll be in for a shock. A woman in her prime years is so high on a never ending validation train that she’s sure it will never end. Why should she commit? There’s no incentive to do so. She always branch swings to better, and better is always available before she’s even tired of what she’s got.”

You hear them say “I wouldn’t give up my social media for that dream guy”, but you don’t hear why they won’t. The “why” is what we’re up against. They are conditioned to think they will never hit the wall, Amy Schumer at 45 gets the rich doctor in the end, they have endless offers of commitment and monkey branch higher and higher up the tree in their prime.

I have fuckbuddies who’ve disqualified high status guys. and rich jacked 6-pack dudes for like one or two errors. My favorite was one who disqualified a guy because the area of medicine he picked to specialize in wasn’t EXCITING ENOUGH. So she interpreted that as him not having enough ambition. She turned him down for such a silly reason. But why wouldn’t she? She has dates lined up anytime she wants with guys as high value or higher than him around the block whenever she wants. If she takes care of herself the attention train won’t stop till 35+. Why would she want to limit her Hypergamous options by settling in her early 20s?

That’s why those girls look at you funny when you suggest giving up social media. They can’t comprehend any reason TO. It doesn’t compute.

In a globalizing culture where both science and social order is predicated on the satisfaction of women’s imperatives, why indeed would any woman believe she isn’t entitled to it all? Both technology and social reengineering have placed women into a position where their hindbrains cannot hope to interpret the experiences they afford, much less have the attention span necessary for the insight to process how they should best cope with changes they’re scarcely aware of or take for granted.

This post is the first in a series detailing the contrast between how our evolved biological natures conflict and cope with the changes our rapid advancement demands of us, and how our intersexual and social relations are changing as a result of it.

Losing My Religion

fem-christ

In the interests of full disclosure, I’ll admit I’ve had this post in my drafts folder for some time now. As always, standard caveats apply with regard to my policy on posts about religion, politics, and socioeconomics. I don’t delve into the particulars of these subjects, but I will dissect how they coincide with intersexual dynamics.

It’s no secret that I’ve been a regular follower of Dalrock’s blog for over five years now. Along with Dal I also consider Donalgraeme and a few other bloggers in the ‘Christo-Manosphere’ Red Pill colleagues if not friends. I’ve always held Dalrock as a sort of Red Pill brother since both our blogs came up around the same time. I’ve quoted and credited him in both my books.

I do so because there was a time I considered pursuing a path in my writing that would follow the same Red Pill critique of religion, (Christianity for Dal) at least in some occasional sense. After reading Dalrock’s very insightful early posts I decided against it. Dal has earned the respect of the manosphere for his Red Pill lens of contemporary Christianity for good reason – he’s a consummate statistician and researcher, and he’s what I’d call “embedded” well within modern (I presume mostly evangelical) church culture. He does it better than I could hope to do that part of the manosphere justice.

I never go into any detail about my own faith for a couple of reasons, the first being it’s only peripherally relevant in my writing. Secondly, it’s always been my position that the Red Pill needs to remain fundamentally areligious and apolitical. That said, I am familiar enough with ‘Churchian’ culture and the psycho-social side of mainstream religion to understand it through my own Red Pill lens.

When I analyze Red Pill principles within social contexts I always have a hard time with religion. It grates on me because I’m of the opinion that one’s religious leanings, one’s interaction with existence and life, one’s consideration of the spiritual, ought to be something personal and private if it’s in anyway genuine. As such, and for some, it can be a source of real vulnerability and exploitation which is really nothing new to anyone. It’s one thing to be even agnostic and trapped in a Blue Pill world, but it’s quite another to have been raised to adulthood in a religious context and coming to terms with having some very deep ego-investments shattered by a new Red Pill awareness.

If you ask anyone steeped in the Blue Pill conditioning of the Feminine Imperative about how this exploitation operates in an intersexual context you’ll likely get the standard answer that religion is largely a “social construct designed to maintain the Patriarchy.” And I have no doubt that in a Judeo-Christian sense this was likely the case for millennia. I won’t dig into how much of this had the latent purpose of controlling for Hypergamy in this post, but in the generations since the sexual revolution and the rise of feminine social primacy this maintaining the Patriarchy is a failing distraction on the part of the Feminine Imperative.

Creating Religion in the Image of the Feminine Imperative

For the past five generations, there has been a concerted re-engineering of religion (and not just limited to Christianity) to better suit the ends of the Feminine Imperative. Just as men are sold the idealism of the old set of books while living within the social context that confounds them, religion has been coopted by the feminine. The old books religion has either been replaced wholesale by a feminine-interpreted, feminine-directed religion that places women as its highest authority, or it’s been restructured and rewritten to serve the same feminine-primary objectives.

For going on six years now, Dalrock has masterfully documented and rightly criticized these shifts in Christianity. Although I’m focusing on western Christiainty here, this re-engineering of modern religion is not limited to just Christianity. A Red Pill perspective reveals a lot of uncomfortable truths, one of these is how well the Feminine Imperative has succeeded in supplanting any and all masculine influence in religion.

I expect there will be female critics who’ll cite that, in most of church culture, it’s still predominantly men who control churches and religious organizations, but in the era of feminine social primacy, it’s not who executes the control, but whose beliefs control the executors. Pair this with the commodification of religion and we can see the spheres of true feminine control and feminine-primary purpose.

After almost six years of following the religious aspects of the Red Pill, I think it’s high time men acknowledge that modern Christian culture simply does not have men’s best interests as part of its doctrine anymore. Christianity, in particular, is by women, for women – if not directly executed by women, though even that is changing.

Church culture is now openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable, gender-loathing Betas. The feminist narrative of “toxic masculinity” has entirely replaced any semblance of what traditional masculinity or manhood once was to the church. Any hint of a masculinity not entirely beholden to a now feminine-primary purpose is not only feared, but shamed with feminine-interpreted aspersions of faith.

I recently read a study that our current generation is the least religious in history and I think as far as men are concerned much of that disdain for religion is attributable to a church culture that constantly and openly ridicules and debases any male-specific endeavors or anything characteristic of conventional masculinity. It’s no secret in today’s church franchisement that reaching out to, and retaining the interests of, men is at its most difficult.

Again, this is attributable to a generation of feminized men being raised into a church culture, and eventual church leadership, that has been taught to prioritize and identify with the feminine and reinforced with articles of faith now defined by the Feminine Imperative. The modern church has trouble reaching men because the church no longer has a grasp of what it means to be ‘men’.

To be clear, that’s not an indictment of the genuine faith itself, but rather a fairly measured observation of the way a feminine-primary church culture has shaped that faith. In the future, any man with a marginal capacity for critical thought will avoid the contemporary Christian church and religion for the obvious misandry it espouses; the only religious men you will find will be those raised into a life of religiously motivated Beta servitude – or those dragged to the feminine-directed church by wives who hold authoritative ‘headship’ in their relationships.

And even in what some consider to be pro-masculine or “macho” churches, we still find the Paper Alpha leaders preach from a mindset that defers wholesale to the feminine’s “Godly perfection” as they attempt to AMOG other male member to greater devotion to qualifying for, and identifying with, the feminine influence that pervades their church.

Religious men will be synonymous with a Beta mindset.

It’s gotten to a point where it’s better to look after your self-interests and repent of the sin later than commit to an institution that openly seeks to indenture you. I realize that might be anathema to the more determined religious man, but just understand that this is the pragmatic, deductive future that the contemporary, western-feminized church is presenting to men. The social contract of marriage from a religious perspective has shifted into the ultimate leap of faith for men. They literally risk everything in marriage – child custody, sexual access, any expectation of true, male authority or respect, long-term financial prospects, etc. – but this leap of faith comes with a metaphysical price tag.

Men declining to participate in faith-based marriage decline an aspect of a faith reset to serve women; women who are held as a higher order of sinless being than men by this new church. For the agnostic or areligious man, discarding a Blue Pill social conditioning for a Red Pill awareness is a difficult task, but for men raised to believe that their only doctrinally approved path to sex with a woman is abstinence until marriage, that man’s only hope is to accept his fate and stay the Beta a feminized church has conditioned him to be.

And once he gets to marriage and his approved expression of his sexuality, the “Christian” man finds that the feminized church, even the male elders, expect endless qualifications to women and his wife’s unceasing appeasement in exchange for that approved sex. It’s a tail-chasing that holds men to the old books social order expectations while absolving women of all accountability and expecting him to also make concessions for a new (feminized) social order that’s ensaturated the church.

SeventiesJason from Dalrock’s blog:

And then we have “Christian marriage” divorce rates which are only a few paltry percentage points lower than the secular world……..men like Chandler will blame “men” for not leading, not being ‘holy’ enough, not bold n’ biblical enough, not going to bed exhausted every night….and a pile of other excuses for why she “had no choice” but to end the marriage.

We have a whole cottage industry of ‘christian counseling’ and self-help books, usually written for and by women. We have conferences, TV channels, broadcast networks, podcasts, radio stations, outreach, plenty of churches in this country……..the Internet. A ton of resources. Books……every pastor great and small today is “working on” or has written a book.

How on earth did the early church survive under the penalty of death? Persecution. Seclusion, and outright shunning? How did it grow? How did it survive?

We are told over and over by pastors that “God has an amazing plan for your life!” and then to sell men in the world this ‘churchian’ ploy that you are somehow not as holy, balanced, ready, equipped, or mature to handle this amazing plan….ah, but your wife to be is! The unspoken consolation prize is “but…..hey, you get to have sex….and that’s the only thing men need or think about and want!”

That seems to be given begrudgingly today (in my men’s group…..goodness, so many of the married guys complain that their wives never want sex)

How did the early church turn the world upside down? All God did was send a few men, and they made it happen. We have so many tools today…..and we’re “helpless” and we tend to think a “building program” will help everything and if we let the men fix things on the property they will feel “useful”

For over five generations now, the modern church has become a Beta farm existing only to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today. In our idealism I think too many (even well-meaning Red Pill) men believe that the church is some insulation against the worst of the Feminine Imperative when it is in fact an institution that produces the same men we hope to free from the Matrix.

Dean Abbot had an excellent post about this dynamic in his critique of another post by Mark Braivo:

In spite of what you might hear in the media about how terrible and retrograde evangelicals are, the entire movement, even the “conservative” end is thoroughly feminized.

The central Christian teaching that ALL people are sinners gets glossed over. Instead, the notion that men are somehow worse by nature than women is everywhere, sometimes stated overtly, often in the subtext.

At the same time, women are elevated to a position of moral and spiritual superiority. Women’s sin is often excused in light of a man’s failings. I remember hearing a very well known evangelical leader tell a story about how his wife freaked out and started smashing all their dishes. What was his point? That she did this because he had been neglecting her. See, she is not an adult beholden to practice self-control, but rather an innocent, sweet victim driven to outlandish behavior by his shortcomings.

“Toxic masculinity”, any masculinity inconvenient to a feminine-correct purpose, is a sin both actively and retroactively in today’s church.

With every successive generation of Beta pastors that are produced by this farm you get more and more men whose only experience of that religion is one of servile deference to a faith that’s been fundamentally altered to the utility of women and feminine-primacy. Women love to complain that it’s largely men who do the preaching and decision making in church, but what they ignore is that these men are the developed implements of the Feminine Imperative.

I will wager that in the next 10 years Christianity will be unrecognizable from its prior tenets of well defined conventional masculinity and the faith itself will expressly be centered on deference to the feminine.

Culture Informs Faith

I’ve had several critics tell me that the problem with the modern church is really one of its culture and should be considered apart from the ‘genuine’ faith, however it is church culture that ultimately informs and restructures doctrine and articles of faith. When that culture is informed by the Feminine Imperative, open Christian feminists, and a feminine influence posing as doctrinally sound egalitarianism, this fundamentally recreates an old order religion in the image of a new order, female-primary, imperative.

This and endless variations of the feminization of religion across every denomination and sect is why contemporary religion is openly hostile to any semblance of conventional masculinity. Church is no place for a single man and is just a formality for the man married to a religious woman at this point in time. All considerations of faith aside, I cannot fathom an adult man with any self-respect finding anything attractive about the modern church. Either there is nothing for him there or he is despised and denigrated, openly in a faith altering way or discreetly in resentment, or in pandering ridicule of his juvenilized maleness.

I don’t type this without a sincere sense of what’s been lost, particularly for men genuinely seeking existential answers for himself. My observations here will undoubtedly be thought of as some attack on a genuine faith, but my issue here isn’t with religion per se, but rather the thoroughness with which the Feminine Imperative has either subverted wholesale or covertly influenced really all modern religion.

Yes, I realize that faith is something personal that should be set apart from churchy social influence, but the culture is a manifestation of the doctrine and collective belief system. That culture ultimately modifies and informs the faith itself, thus with every successive generation that social influence becomes an article of the faith for the next.

Better to laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, especially when the ‘saints’ are the priestesses of the Feminine Imperative.

The Red Pill lens in today’s church is a scary prospect.

Another commenter, The Question, had a good comment about this:

You’re absolutely right about the state of the Church in the West.

What makes it so dangerous for a Blue Pill man is that it is ground-zero for girls entering the epiphany phase. The single men who remain in the church are the ones will be pressured to fulfill their role in that strategy and will be treated with hostility if they don’t. I personally anticipate a renewed church “man up” campaign somewhere in the near future as the next wave of twenty-somethings near 30 and beyond.

I’d say the only reason to go is to meet cute single young women and that’s if the church actually has them and its theology isn’t wholly intolerable. College town churches like mine have quite a few young single ladies which is why I go.

I will admit, putting aside conscience and morality, the modern (‘Relevant’) church would be a veritable untapped gold mine for a PUA savvy of christian culture. Churchianity’s already got the perfect social architecture installed for pick up. Christian women aching for sexy Alpha dominance in a sea of preconditioned christian Beta “good guys”, high intrasexual competition anxiety for both sexes, instant reconciliation and sin forgiveness for women, hell, you can even talk a woman into an abortion without her having any accountability for killing her child at this point. What’s not for a PUA to like? Feminine-primary churchianity has been waiting for christian-savvy players for years now.

Men with a well defined Red Pill lens, having the sensitivity to understand the subcommunications of what’s going on around them in church, should be rightly horrified.

This is one reason Men like Dalrock are vilified by Christian women who understand he’s wise to what’s transpiring in the church – the Feminine Imperative has taken the Lord’s name in vain by presuming to promote its agenda and socially engineer generations of men to support it by claiming it’s God’s will.

Read the Fempowerment narratives of any ‘Christian women’s ministry speaker’, they will defend the sisterhood above any tenets of faith. They’ll tolerate blasphemy of the faith, but never the Feminine Imperative. They’ll rationalize abortion as a man’s sin, but never accept accountability for it and any man to attempt to rebuke them (for anything really) is counter-shamed for male chauvinist judgementalism. And being judgemental of any woman is the most mortal of sins a man can make in the new church

In the feminine-primary church, the Holy Spirit is the Feminine Imperative, what she says is an article of faith. Men who become aware of this via the Red Pill are a danger to it.

The Key Masters

keymaster

In last week’s comments Not Born This Morning dropped this comment in the last thread:

It has been said and it seems fairly well established as a presumed reality that “Women are the gate keepers to sex and men are the gate keepers to commitment”. This model of gender specific “gatekeeping” seems to be the most widely accepted model in the red pill community and the general culture accepts it readily. This model seems rational enough, it significantly forms our frame of understanding about gender dynamics upon which we base our interpretations of behavior & intents, and our decisions to act. But is it the best model to explain what is really going on? Could this model be inferior in that it fails to account for an underlying more fundamental motivator? Is there a more accurate explanation for women’s intents and behaviors? Could this model be potentially deceptive?

The sex side of this model is simple and easy to understand. It is very clear and specific to the fundamental biologic. It is inarguable, not negotiable. The primary drive motivating the sexual aspect is not political or social. It is biological. This is not the case with the commitment side. The commitment side is primary to the political and social realm. “Commitments” are always components of contracts written or otherwise.

To comprehend what I’m about to explain, we must first agree on the primary definition of commitment. As I understand it, a commitment is a pledge to do something, a proclamation to perform certain action (or inaction) within a specific context for the benefit of another usually in exchange for some consideration. In the sexual context women seek “commitment” from a man primarily for provisioning and sexual exclusivity. The man “commits” to the woman that he will abandon his freedom and not enter into sexual relations with other women. He pledges himself financially and sexually to her exclusively. Realistically, this form of “commitment” includes the man abandoning his options. If he becomes sexually involved with another woman, it is widely considered that he has “broken his commitment” and he is dishonored by her and society for “breaking the commitment”. But, has he really broken any commitment other than a self denigrating pledge to forgo his freedom and abandon his options? Since obviously the male imperative is polygamy and spreading his seed, then isn’t the imposition to “commit” in the first place really a dishonor of his sexuality and a dishonor to him? If so, isn’t “commitment” in this context nothing more than a form of enslavement?

So by saying men are the “gate keepers of commitment” aren’t we really saying that men are the “gatekeepers of their own enslavement”?

I’ve read this line of thought from various MGTOW hardliners in various iterations and I’ve even written a post on the concept of commitment  and what it does or doesn’t mean to a man. The idea is to equate committing to a woman with some irrational agreement to self-induced slavery. However, the problem most men have with commitment is that the old set of books has a social mandate for men to keep their word or honor an agreement. It’s what men do. Say what you mean and stick to it, but as with most every uniquely male custom, Honor among men has been one more useful distortion of the Feminine Imperative.

As I mentioned in the Paradox of Commitment, men don’t have nearly the fear of commitment our feminized social order would have us believe. Men aren’t “commit-o-phones” when it comes to military service or dedicating themselves to a business. These are the areas the women’s magazines conveniently overlook when it comes to comparing men’s commitment with committing to women in monogamy. I’m bringing this up because it’s important to see how men commit to things other than fidelity to a single woman.

If we’re going to equate monogamous fidelity to a woman with slavery we also need to see how other commitments can be viewed as being, or not being, slavery. Is the commitment of military service slavery? Particularly if you know have a pretty good idea of what to expect from that commitment? Are you volunteering for slavery if you start a business and become financially beholden to it?

From  the Paradox of Commitment:

You can even take marriage out of the equation; if I’m in a committed LTR with a GF and over the course of that relationship I realize that she’s not what I’m looking for (for any number of reasons, not just sex), even though she’s 100% faithfully committed to me and the LTR, should I then break that commitment? If I do, am I then being unethical for having broken that commitment irrespective of how I break it? Should the commitment to my own personal well being and future happiness be compromised by another commitment?

What’s my obligation; neglect myself in favor of a bad commitment or to the principle of commitment itself?

It’s my take that commitment ‘should’ be a function of genuine desire. Ideally, commitment should be to something one is so passionate about that the limiting of one’s own future opportunities that come from that commitment is an equitable, and mutually appreciated trade. This is, unfortunately, rarely the case for most people in any form of commitment because people, circumstance, opportunity and conditions are always in flux. A commitment that had been seen as equitable sacrifice at one time can become debilitating 5 years after it depending upon circumstance.

Under the old social contract, the idea that a man would compromise his sexual strategy to fulfill a woman’s (Hypergamy in the long term) had a presumed exchange – sexual access, parental investment, companionship, a good, supportive feminine role example for the kids, etc. – that made the commitment of marriage at least somewhat appealing, if not entirely equitable. I supposed a case could still be made that even under the old order of conventional gender roles and expectations men were still committing themselves to a downside bargain. But in our new, feminine-primary social order, with our broader communication, it’s certainly signing up for slavery of a sort in comparison to the options available being single.

A lot of guys think that by my advising men to spin plates and remain as non-exclusive as possible that its sole purpose is to free them up to indiscriminately bang as many women as possible. While sexual variety maybe an upside to non-exclusivity, there are many more freedoms and options that a non-exclusive man can invest himself in where committed men cannot, or wouldn’t even think to.

So yes, from a male sexual strategy perspective, and considering the terms of that commitment and consequences of breaking it are all glaringly apparent, signing up for that commitment might be assigning yourself to a kind of slavery. Under our present social conditions, staying single might be as good as it gets for men.

However, that said, there is still an undeniable, idealistic, hope that men can make the best of a marriage. Most men (see the 80% Beta men) still remarry in far greater margins than women, even after horrific divorces. We can attribute that to the sustainability of men’s sexual market value lasting longer than women’s, but the desire to want for a lasting monogamy is what I’m getting at. Even in light of the fact that women are hardwired for Hypergamy, and in light of women’s inability to appreciate the sacrifices men must make to facilitate their realities, men still, sooner or later, have a desire to lock down or otherwise wife-up a woman he idealizes. I have read the testimonies of men who will go to any length to stay in a marriage if even the outside hope of it improving exists.

I think this desire might be both a conditional and innate drive in men.

In Mrs. Hyde I quoted a study by Dr. Martie Haselton from Why is muscularity sexy? :

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

It’s entirely possible that a man’s sexual strategy is the simple result of his adapting to his circumstance.

Under the old social order, prior to the upheaval of the sexual revolution and feminine social primacy, investing heavily in one’s mate made good sense if the guy wanted to procreate. As men, I think we still want to apply more value to our commitment in this respect. I think it gets back to the fallacy of relational equity, but because most Blue Pill men believe that there is value in their committing to a woman, and they falsely think that women have the capacity to appreciate it, we tend to build more into it as some kind of mutually understood relationship leverage.

Gatekeepers

Back before Roosh began making his necessities into virtues, he had a pretty good insight about women being “gatekeepers” of both sex and commitment:

A popular manosphere saying is that women are gatekeepers to sex and men are gatekeepers to commitment. I wish this was an absolute truth, but it’s not. As a collective, women are often gatekeepers to both sex and commitment. Most men reading right now can surely attest to their failed attempts to secure commitment from women they slept with, and if you poll the entire population of men, you may find that they are the initiators of monogamous relationships more often than women. It only makes sense for this to be true: it is way more damaging for a man to have his woman sleep with another man and get cuckolded than the other way around. The 0.5% of the population who are skilled players and have more say with commitment don’t put a dent into this common reality. As a sex, men have very little say in determining the relationship dynamic.

[…]It would be a nice fantasy for us men to believe that we have a say in relationships and sex. It’d be nice to think that our “alpha” behavior and our game determines how a relationship can proceed, but often it doesn’t. We’re just giving the girl what she has already decided on. Do you really think you’re selling televisions to customers who came into the store with the intent to buy bicycles? The girl who falls in love with us wanted to fall in love with us, the girl who had fun with us wanted to just have fun with us, and so on. And even when a girl wants a bicycle, she still wants a certain kind of bicycle. This is why game is a numbers game, because girls are incredibly picky even when they are sexually available. The horniest girl in the club who decided on having sex will still have her pick of the litter and opt to get the best that she can.

From the perspective of men using Game to secure some kind of commitment with a woman, I’d agree, it is a numbers game. But, in general, most men aren’t learning PUA/Game to settle into an LTR and most Red Pill aware men (should) understand the nature of women well enough to leverage Game if (ever) they do look for commitment.

Roosh was correct about men not really being gatekeepers of commitment though. I think there’s a definite want on the part of guys to believe that they have some sort of leverage in the ultimate scheme of things. The Feminine Imperative constantly conditions men to think that their commitment to a woman is something insanely valuable to women. Thus, we see shaming tactics designed to call men out for avoiding commitment irrespective of men’s reasons for wanting to take precautions. This has the effect of conditioning men to think that they are the gatekeepers of something valuable.

In a sense, commitment is something valuable to a woman, however, in the age of Open Hypergamy and Strong Independent Women®, the writing is on the wall for men with regard to the convenient need for that commitment at the end-game phase of a woman’s sexual market value. So yes, a man’s commitment to monogamy with a woman has inherent value, but men are hardly the gatekeepers of it when it is a woman who does the deciding as to whether any one guy’s commitment makes any difference to her.

So, we come to a question of comparative equity with regard to men “signing up for slavery” and how inherently valuable his commitment (as convenient as it’s needed) really is to a woman. I have no doubt there are several women reading this right now who are in “relationship limbo” with a guy they desperately want to commit to them in some official capacity. And no doubt they’ll drop a story in the comments personalizing it to be typical of men, but I would argue Roosh’s point that men are the initiators of monogamous relationships far more often than women. Ironically, commitment only has value to a woman when it’s denied to her by a man who’s SMV outclasses her own.

For obvious reasons, highly desirable women, women at the peak of their sexual market valuation, are always the least concerned with men’s capacity to commit. They largely have the luxury to be selective, but furthermore the time at which women are at their highest SMV is usually the point at which men are still building upon their own. Eventually, commitment only has an appreciable value to a woman when she is most in need of it; when her SMV is in decline.

I should also point out that men, the majority being Blue Pill Betas, are the most necessitous of a woman’s commitment when she is at her highest, his is an unproven commodity, and he appreciates the value of a woman’s commitment. Thus, most men look for a stable monogamy in their early to mid 20s, while more mature men who’ve had time to build their SMV into their mid to late thirties tend to be less concerned with monogamy. This is why we hear the constant drone of women bemoaning that highly valuable, supposedly peer-equitable men’s unwillingness to commit and settle down with women aging out of the sexual marketplace. Women are far less concerned with the commitment-readiness of young, unproven men who themselves would commit to even a women in the mid-range of her SMV.

At the end here, I think it’s time Red Pill men disabuse themselves of the idea that they are the ‘gatekeepers’ of commitment, and rather employ their internalized Red Pill awareness and Game to be the ‘key masters’ of women. While I have no doubt that commitment can be a carrot on the stick for some women, the problem really lies in how that commitment is in anyway valuable and balance that knowledge with the fact that commitment, once given, becomes valueless and taken for granted when it’s established. The fact that you’d commit to a woman isn’t something that carries a relationship, no matter how badly she wanted it from you before.

There really is no quid pro quo when it comes to commitment or value in believing you’re a gatekeeper of it.

Law 20
Do Not Commit to Anyone

It is the fool who always rushes to take sides. Do not commit to any side or cause but yourself. By maintaining your independence, you become the master of others – playing people against one another, making them pursue you.

Blue Pill Frame

BluePillFrame

Establishing and internalizing a strong sense of Frame is one of the most fundamental aspects necessary for a man’s personal success. I’m hesitant to use the word “success” here because it subjectively means so much to men on an individual basis. “Success” is a relative term, but I intentionally began the Iron Rules of Tomassi with Frame because an understanding of this principle applies to so many different arenas in a man’s life.

It’s far too easy to conflate Frame (and the hoped-for success that can come about from it) with a power-of-positive-thinking motivational vibe. Developing, maintaining and internalizing a personal Frame isn’t derived from motivational thinking. That’s not to say it doesn’t help, but Frame can align either on realizable realities informed by Red Pill awareness or it can be founded on deeply ingrained investments in Blue Pill conditioning.

For some men, a Blue Pill mindset, and the conditioning principles that formed it, is the foundation of what they convince themselves is a very strong, very ‘correct’, establishment of Frame. It quite literally is the reality into which they expect a woman will want to be a part of and will want to readily cooperate within. The problem, of course, is that the Frame they’ve developed is informed by Old Rules/Blue Pill goals that mischaracterize the truer natures of women and what their motivations are.

This insistence of women adapting to a Blue Pill Frame is the root of many a Beta man’s downfall when a woman has finally run out of Alpha Fucks options during her Party Years and she’s “turned over a new leaf” in the necessitousness of her Epiphany Phase. Women aging out of the sexual marketplace are only too happy to appear to be a Beta man’s Blue Pill ship that’s finally come in.

Behold, Camelot

I have heard many times, from well-intended Blue Pill men, some variation of the Just Be Yourself self-righteous expectation that women should want to enter into his Frame. “If a woman can’t accept me for who I am, she’s not the right (quality) woman for me” is the standard refrain. The Frame is strong, the expectation is (seemingly) strong, but the Blue Pill foundation it’s built upon is flawed because it is influenced and conditioned by the Feminine Imperative that always expects him to focus outwardly instead of making himself his own mental point of origin.

If they were honest, these are the guys who will Beta Hamster their Blue Pill ideal of the ‘right’ girl being any one who acknowledges his Blue Pill Frame.

There’s usually some self-evincing rationale that sounds similar when a Blue Pill guy has his Frame challenged by a woman unwilling to play along with his “world”. Whether he comes to this by rejection or simply observing women’s solipsism and duplicity, the reasoning is never about the validity of what his Frame is based on, but rather the disqualification of a woman who contradicts his ego-investments in it (i.e. they become “low quality women” to him).

However, many a White Knight will have what, for all purposes, is a very strong personal Frame. This dedication to a Blue Pill conditioned mindset is central to their ego-investments and it’s a big reason why it’s so difficult to unplug a man from it apart from some trauma that shakes his investing his personality in it. And even then, it’s far easier to disqualify the women who want nothing to do with his Frame than it is to get him to reconsider his fundamental, Blue Pill, old books belief-set.

As I was picking apart the conditions that lead to a man like Steve from last week’s post to becoming what he is, I found it’s important to highlight the determination with which most men will defend their Blue Pill investments and defend the investments of other Blue Pill men with whom it aligns with.

From Enter White Knight:

Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ‘changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical observations of how women ‘are’, etc. – understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster. That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism. Even under the conditions of relative anonymity (like the internet), he’ll still cling to that want of proving his uniqueness just on the off chance that a woman might read his rebuff and be fatefully attracted to him.

The more invested a Blue Pill man is in his Frame, the more ardent a White Knight he’s likely to be. The problem in all of this is that his dedication to that Frame, and the expectation that ‘quality women’ will rationally and deductively appreciate it, is in error. Women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate their reality. Even the most enlightened, appreciative woman you know still operates in a feminne-centric reality.

It’s easy to spot (and get annoyed with) a White Knight when he comes to the aid of M’Lady on an internet forum, but the defender-of-the-faith behavior also extends to other men, like himself, given to the same Blue Pill Frame and ideals. From a Red Pill perspective we know this is virtue signaling, but it’s also indicative of reaffirming a White Knight’s dedication to a Frame and belief-set that requires a constant reassurance in the face of so much observable contradiction.

Blue Pill Frame / Red Pill Awareness

In the manosphere, there’s a tendency to characterize the Blue Pill mindset with non-assertive “people pleaser” men conditioned from an early age to defer to women and sublimate themselves to the Feminine Imperative. For the most part, that generalization fits, but I think it’s important to understand that it’s entirely possible for otherwise very Alpha men to invest themselves in Blue Pill paradigms and then build Frames up around them.

While I was writing this, reader Softek had a very good take on how Frame can be applicable from both an Alpha and a Beta perspective:

Steve’s relationship is PERFECT.

It is in EXACT ALIGNMENT with his Frame.

His Frame, which he voluntarily maintains, is that of a Beta male. Weak, submissive, and priming him perfectly to be cuckolded.

Similarly, my relationship with my GF is perfect.

It’s in exact alignment with my Frame.

This is how it always works. It’s the only way it CAN work. Your Frame is your reality, period, end of story. I’m sticking to this idea of women having no Frame, because I think it can help men to realize that the man’s Frame – as far as the man is concerned – is the only thing that matters.

I’m going to stop here because this is one of his few assertions I don’t entirely agree with. Women’s innate sense of Frame is informed by their fundamentally solipsistic nature. How that solipsism is expressed can take different forms, but in all instances it places the experience of the woman as being central to her own importance.

The easy example is the Frame grab I outlined in The Talk where a woman (consciously or otherwise) seeks to assert her experience as being the primary Frame or when a man abdicates his Frame to satisfy a woman’s need for long-term security. The other side of this is that even when women are considered ‘powerless’, and they are acted upon (hypoagency), their solipsistic experience is still central to the nature of any Frame because that presumption of powerlessness informs her solipsism and she builds her Frame around it.

Women most definitely have a Frame; it is informed by solipsism and its state is determined by what her need for optimizing Hypergamy demands at any phase of her maturity and how well she is likely to consolidate on it. I understand what Softek is getting at here, but just observe Beta men who are trapped in submissive roles to their dominant wives and you’ll see how he’s acted upon within her Frame.

If your Frame is what you really want it to be, you’re all set. You will simply not put up with BS, so it won’t be necessary to calculate what kind of BS or shit tests are being thrown at you, because you’ll automatically pass them without even being conscious of them.

At a deeper level, there is no your reality vs. her reality, or who has more power in the relationship.

It all goes back to your relationship with yourself. Your Frame. You decide what you accept in your life, and what you don’t accept.

Everyone has been telling me to get out of my relationship. Why? Their Frame is different. Maybe they have more self-respect. Maybe they have more confidence. But ultimately, their Frame is different.

They would not put up with half the BS I’ve put up with. They would’ve been gone a long, long time ago and onto greener pastures.

I’m getting what I deserve. I’m getting the relationship that is PERFECT for me, which means it’s perfectly aligned with my [current, malleable, changeable] Frame.

Frame isn’t set in stone. It’s ours to control, and ours alone, because it belongs to us each individually.

If I want a different relationship, I need to change my Frame. What do I want? What am I willing to accept? What am I not willing to accept?

This is a very important point, to understand that Steve’s relationship is PERFECT….for him. A complete match with his Frame.

If you dig into WHY he’s in this relationship, it’s for that reason and that reason alone: it resonates with his Frame. It resonates with the perception he has of himself, and the rules he’s laid out for himself in his life.

He is doing exactly what an Alpha does: living 100% by his Frame.

It’s just that his Frame is weak and submissive instead of strong and self-serving.

It’s funny when you look at things like this. When you realize you’re already “Alpha” in the sense that you know how to live 100% in your Frame….what’s stopping you from changing your Frame?

You already know what it’s like to hold Frame. Not everyone can stay in an abusive, sexless relationship. It takes a pretty extreme Beta to put up with all that. I am a fucking Beta God. I will put up with more abuse than any man on this planet. I’m the most abject Beta in the world.

(I’m being deliberately hyperbolic here, bear with me)

The most abject Beta is simply the other side of the Apex Alpha coin.

Both stubbornly hold to their Frame. The Beta holds to his Frame to his inevitable cuckolding and destruction; the Alpha holds to his Frame to his self-gratification regardless of who tries to shame him or bring him down.

We need to stop thinking “Beta Bad” and “Alpha Good” and realize that Frame is subjective.

I may not agree with some of this, and considering Softek’s dependence on maintaining his relationship it’s easy to see why he feels this way, however, he does touch upon some foundational aspects of Frame. Yes, women get the men they deserve, or in this case, women enter into relations with the men who align with what they’ve created.

As I mention in Frame, yours should be a world women will want to enter or you will be entering her Frame. That said beware the motives of the woman who would eagerly embrace a Beta’s Frame. Those motives are rooted in necessity and not genuine desire. Just ask Saira Khan.

Understanding that a solid sense of Frame – literally creating a reality in which you live and expect others to interact within – is central to success is not a difficult concept to grasp for most men. Whether or not they feel an ownership of that Frame, or a motive to employ it, is what defines men’s understanding of it. And this discomfort men have in insisting upon a solid, active, Alpha Frame is precisely what the Feminine Imperative has sought to condition into men for going on five generations now.

Recently I’ve been commenting on yet another article of feminist triumphalism, glorying in the statistics that women are far happier after a divorce. This is standard feminist boilerplate, but the bloody handed cruelty of articles like this always ignore that the “men” they denigrate are the direct results of a generational conditioning that leads men to swallow Blue Pill idealism and abdicate Frame in the name of a nebulous egalitarian equalism.

As 39% more men put a gun in their mouths after a divorce, women will bemoan a generation of men the Feminine Imperative created to abdicate their Frame. So yes, when it comes to men becoming despondent and suicidal after having their Blue Pill idealistic ego-investments destroyed by the same imperative that invested it in them, yes, “Beta Bad” and “Alpha Good”.

Fempowerment

fempowerment

I’m often asked by ‘fempowered’ women critics whether I ‘believe‘ in some of the more socially acceptable tenets of feminism in some sort defense to the affront of my Red Pill lens being cast their way. It’s usually something to do with, “Do you or do you not think women ought to have the right to vote?” or the ever-reliable “Shouldn’t women have the right to do with their bodies what they choose?” These questions are always binary (“yes or no will do”) and usually couched in a context that implies that if you even slightly disagree or have a marginal caveat to answering ‘appropriately’ you’ll be dismissed with a name tag that has “misogynist” printed on it. Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man.

Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man. Up until recently, it’s been a very effective means of silencing uncomfortable truths about the Feminine Imperative.

I’ve always found it ironic that a movement (feminism) that predicates itself on the ostensibly egalitarian notion that rational, reasonable considerations of issues should lead us to ideals of equality is the first to reduce itself to unquestioned, blind faith binaries at the first sign of rational reasonable truth being unflattering to women. If you want to know who holds power over you, look at whom you aren’t allowed to criticise – or even hint at criticism.

My position on these and many other questions of the sort is usually met with simple observational analysis (as you’d probably expect). I don’t necessarily have a problem with women voting or even having access to legal (relatively safe) abortions. What I have a problem with is the latent purpose behind the reasons that led to women’s decisions to vote a particular way or the latent purposes that brought them to having that abortion. For the greater part, any dubious ‘right’ women feel they were somehow denied in the past usually comes at the expense of men being liable for decisions they had nothing to do with.

What I have a problem with is an expectation of lowering the standards of the game, thus fundamentally altering the game, to better accommodate the variable strengths and weaknesses of women – up to, and including, changing the very nature of women’s environmental realities that would endanger the wellbeing of both sexes. What I take issue with is the expectation of making men liable for the decisions and consequences of the rights and freedom of choices we’ve reserved for only women to make (almost unilaterally Hypergamic choices) that are not in men’s best interests.

I mentioned in Our Sister’s Keeper that men today find themselves in a very precarious position with regard to entertaining women’s perceived wrongs of the past. Men are expected,by default, to be held accountable, for no other reason than they were born men, for past injuries to the ever-changing Feminine Imperative. Your existence as a man today, your failed understanding to accommodate women’s social primacy, your lack of catering to the ambiguous nature of what conveniently passes for masculinity, is a constant stinking affront and obstacle to the “advancement” of women. The Feminine Imperative has known how to manipulate men’s Burden of Performance for millennia, and at not other time in history has it had the unfettered leisure to do so than now.

So, we get socially acceptable default presumptions of ‘male privilege’ without qualifying what it even means, or we get catchy jingoisms like ‘mansplaining’ to give a name to women’s need for silencing men’s inconvenient observations of women’s ‘correct’ perceptions, decisions and the reasons they came to them. We get default presumptions of male guilt for sexual assault and sexual consent as fluidly defined in as convenient a way that serves women’s imperatives. As I’ve mentioned before, the true intent of feminism has never been about establishing a mutually agreed ‘equality’, rather it’s always been about retribution and restitution for perceived past wrongs to the sisterhood.

There has always been a subtext, a cover story, of equality mentioned in the same breath as feminism. Only the most antagonistic asshole, only the most anti-social prick, would be against “equality between the sexes”. Thus, to be against feminism is to be against a simplistic concept of baseline equality. However, taken out of the propagandizing efforts to shame and ‘correct’ men’s imperatives, it’s easy to demonstrate that the true intent of feminism is female ‘fempowerment’ in the dressing of an equality that no man (or woman) wants to appear to be against.

Yellowed Pearls

I found an interesting example of this  Catch 22 in the Economist recently. Pick and choose: Why women’s rights in China are regressing.

In 2007 China’s official Xinhua news agency published a commentary about women who were still unmarried at the age of 27 under the title, “Eight Simple Moves to Escape the Leftover Woman Trap”. The Communist Party had concluded that young Chinese women were becoming too picky and were over-focused on attaining the “three highs”: high education, professional status and income. Newspapers have since reprinted similar editorials. In 2011 one said: “The tragedy is they don’t realise that as women age they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their MA or PhD, they are already old, like yellowed pearls.”

In the last Red Pill Monthly discussion, I mentioned the expansion that the Feminine Imperative has taken on a global scale. One of the old missives of the manosphere has always been about how American women are too far gone to be worth ever entertaining beyond a pump-and-dump consideration. They are too damaged and self-absorbed beyond all redemption, and men ought to expatriate to another country where women are more feminine or at least necessitous enough to appreciate a conventionally masculine man.

I get that. I understand the want for a Poosy Paradise or some promised land where women are still raised to respect and love men by being conventionally feminine. I also get that there exist certain cultures where this is still true, but for all of that, I think it’s important to recognize the social undercurrent that the Feminine Imperative exercises in these cultures. A popular meme on Twitter is ‘Feminism is Cancer’, but there’s a kernel of truth to the humor of this. The spread of the westernizing social primacy of the Feminine Imperative is spreading, not unlike cancer, into what we would otherwise believe were societies and cultures still oppressed by the mythical Patriarchy – a belief necessary to perpetuate the narrative of default female victimhood.

It may not be now, but at some stage, the Feminine Imperative will exercise its presumptive control over even the societies we think ought to be immune from that cancer. As I mention on The Red Pill Monthly, even in underdeveloped countries where we would expect to find the horrible oppression of girls and women, we make a triumphant example of the incidents of where girls (not boys) are taught to read and “think for themselves”. Westernized culture, founded on the Feminine Imperative, celebrates every time a woman in Saudi Arabia is allowed to drive a car, much less run a business on her own as if it were some blow against the tyranny of men.

Little by little, or in leaps and bounds, your second or third world Poosy Paradise will eventually be assimilated by the Feminine Imperative.

I bring this up because, as you’ll read in the linked article, China is also experiencing the long-term results of having adopted feminine social primacy in its own culture. From women’s popular consciousness, we’re still, to this day, told of how horrible “communist” China has been in mandating its one-child policy and how its draconian ‘sons live, daughters die’ social structure has been the result. However, once we reasonably investigate it, we find that China now has a problem with “Yellowed Pearls” as a result of a cultural shift that placed women’s interests as preeminent in that culture. And it should be noted that this shift came about as the direct result of the men who adopted and accommodated the Feminine Imperative as their own.

Now the problem for women in China is not unlike the plight of American women bemoaning the lack of men with “equal” marriageability as themselves. And likewise, the self-same social authorities responsible for institutionalizing the fempowerment of women are now the horrible misogynist villains for suggesting that women ought to lower their unrealistic standards.

The tone of these articles is surprising, given the Communist Party’s past support for women’s advancement. Mao Zedong destroyed China, but he succeeded in raising the status of women. Almost the first legislation enacted by the Communist Party in 1950 was the Marriage Law under which women were given many new rights, including the right to divorce and the right to own property.

Sounds a far cry different from the pictures women, even women in this century, have painted of China’s institutionalized, one-child sexism doesn’t it? Remember, this advancement in women’s rights took place before the Cultural Revolution in China.

Though collectivisation made the latter largely irrelevant, women played an active role in Mao’s China, and still do today. By 2010 26% of urban women had university degrees, double the proportion ten years earlier. Women now regularly outperform men at Chinese universities, which has led to gender-based quotas favouring men in some entrance exams. However, many of the earlier advances have been eroded in recent years by the gradual re-emergence of traditional patriarchal attitudes.

Consider this part in contrast to other industrialized nations and how women have increased their socio-political standing as the result of having the Feminine Imperative adopted as the primary social order of those cultures. Even in cultures that are still popularly deemed “repressive” to women we see educational and socioeconomic parallels to western(ized) cultures. We also see the same resulting consequences and the shifting of blame for them to men. The downside of Yellowed Pearls is placed at the feet of men for not living up to the convenient, feminine-primary definition of what their Burden of Performance ought to mean in promoting and forgiving women’s decisions.

The party has joined an alliance of property companies and dating websites to confront the issue. Government surveys on marriage and property are often sponsored by matchmaking agencies, and perpetuate the perception that being “leftover” is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. They also promote other myths, such as the idea that a man must have a house before he can marry.

As you may expect, the tone of the article is written to emphasize an egalitarian perspective that conflicts with a reality that the Feminine Imperative would have men change or be responsible for not having changed. It’s men’s fault that women might feel bad for not having married by a post-wall age. It’s men’s fault for promoting myths that women would expect that a man must be successfully established in his life and career before any considerations of marriage occur to him. It’s also a man’s fault for clinging to the “myth” that women don’t want him to be established.

The law is reflecting the shift away from women’s empowerment too. An interpretation by the Supreme Court in 2011 of the 1950 Marriage Law stated that, when a couple divorces, property should not be shared equally, but each side should keep what is in his or her own name. This ruling, says Ms Fincher, has serious implications. In the big cities a third of marriages now end in divorce but, based on hundreds of interviews, she finds that only about 30% of married women have their name on the deeds of the marital flat. Women believe the party hype about becoming a “leftover” woman so strongly, she says, that many rush into unhappy marriages with unsuitable men, made on condition that the brides agree not to put their name on the property deeds.

Feminism Would be a Success if Men Would Only Cooperate More

Several years ago Dalrock had a post detailing the sentiment of feminists that feminism would be a success if only men would cooperate with the ideology by abandoning their own interests and sublimating their own biological impulses. The fact remains that feminism and egalitarianism are failed ideologies because at the root level those ideologies ask men to participate in their own extinction. Not only this, but they ask men to raise successive generations to accommodate and participate in their own degradation.

The narrative expects Yellowed Pearls to be prized by men, or respected as Spinsters, or pandered to as ‘Cougars’ while still maintaining men sublimate their own imperatives by willfully ignoring the fact that their own sexual strategy is what is being asked of them to abandon. As I stated in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, for one sex’s strategy to succeed the other must either be compromised or abandoned – what better way is there to assure this for women than to socially mandate through shame, persecution or financial liabilities that men abandon their own strategy in favor of women?

For some time now, I’ve detailed how for the past 4 or 5 generations, there has been a popular social re-engineering effort to raise and condition boys to become the ‘better betas‘ – boys designed to become the supportive male-reinforcers of empowering women’s interests and imperatives.

For a greater part this effort has been primarily focused on boys and men in western society, and while it’s still open for debate, I’d say that westernizing cultures are really the only cultural environments that can afford to entertain this ‘fempowerment’. This is changing radically now if it was ever really the case to begin with.

In the manosphere we like to highlight the ‘pussification’ of modern men through various efforts on the part of a nebulous ‘socitey’ aligned against masculinity. However, the flip side to this is the fempowerment agenda; an feminine-primary social structure that disallows any criticism of inherently female nature while promoting the empowerment of women on every level of social strata.

We coddle and cater to the feminine in every aspect of social interaction, every aspect of academic achievement, every socioeconomic advantage inventable, every story we tell in every form of media and we do so under the threat of not being supportive or misogynistic for suggesting anything marginally pro-masculine. This is the other side of the demasculinization imperative of boys & men – the total consolidation of handicaping men and empowering women into unrealistic effigies of feminine triumphalism.

How do you counter this?

I’m always lauded for describing these social dynamics, but I’m run up the flagpole for not offering concrete ways of dealing with and pushing back on these imperatives. Many a MGTOW will simply suggest men no longer play the Game, that isolationism is the way to go, but this only serves to eventually concede power to the Feminine Imperative. You don’t get to check out of the Game even if you refuse to play it. For all the guys who left for parts unknown to find their demi-utopia of feminine women in a foreign country, even they will explain that the tide of feminism is changing those seemingly idlyic places. And for every guy to voluntarilly go celebate and “refuse to deal with women” I’ll show you a man whose tax dollars go to fund the consequences of women’s legislated rights to Hypergamous choice.

Sooner or later Men will have to confront and push back against both men and women who are convinced of their purpose in idealizing the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. A lot of men in the ‘sphere believe their being clever when they refer to people with this worldview as ‘SJWs’, but for every hair dyed, gender-confused man-woman you see on Twitter there are hundreds of ‘normal’ people who all share similar perspectives – some simply subconscious generalization they’re oblivious to – sitting next to you at church, or working in the cubicle next to you.

As I’ve mentioned countless times, the change needs to take place by appealing to the hearts and minds of Men by making them Red Pill aware from the bottom up, but moreover, we need to live out that awareness in our own lives and lead by Red Pill example. Our decisions in life, our aspiration in parenting, family and career, in our business dealings, in the women we Game and the people we hire, all of these aspects need to take on the perspective of how they fit into pushing back against a feminine-primary world that demands we surrender any thought of individuated male power.

As Men, we need to unapologetically exercise what little power we’re left with to inform this and successive generation of Red Pill truths tactfully, but with strength of conviction in the face of a feminine-primary society bent on our surrender. Life finds a way. Feminism and the consolidation of the Feminine Imperative have failed because Men were not evolved to acquiesce their dominant spirit. On the same evolutionary level women also evolved into requiring that convnetionally masculine dominance. This is why feminism and egalitarianism will ultimately fail – nature simply will not cooperate with it’s own stagnation. As men, we can use this truth to our Red Pill aware advantage.