Inter-gender Communication

The Feminine Imperative in Corporate Culture

The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy. But when you are inside and you look around, what do you see; businessmen, lawyers, teachers, carpenters. The minds of the very people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of the system and that makes them our enemy.

You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.

I apologize for breaking up the continuity of last week’s post with this one today, but I felt it was necessary to address the recent firing of James Damore by his employers, Google, for allegedly breaking company conduct codes for raising many of the issue I and other’s in the Red Pill community and the Manosphere have been dissecting for a long time now. I generally don’t like to get too wrapped up in current events until more information develops about an incident I think is relevant to how the Red Pill (as it correctly applies to intersexual dynamics) is perceived in mainstream society. It’s easy to make mistakes so if I miss anything here please feel free to correct me or add to things in the comment thread.

To the best of what I’ve been able to ascertain James Damore posted what mainstream media wants to define as a 10 page “manifesto” (really a ‘memo’) about why it is he believes certain gender/sexual stereotypes persist in the tech field. After reading it, there is really nothing all that shocking from a Red Pill perspective in his essay. If anything, Damore is still deluded by Blue Pill conditioned idealistic hopes for gender equalism not dissimilar to those held by the MRM. Really there’s nothing in this PDF that the Manosphere and even the sexual sciences haven’t been revealing for over a decade now. Damore just had the balls to post it on what Google promoted as an anonymous inter-corporate intranet forum, ostensibly established to allow their employees to voice their opinions and concerns about the company in anonymity. Google is only one of many multi-national companies to have these forums set up in some lame effort to make it seem as if they value the opinions and engagement of their employees.

Now we see just how private and dangerous these forums really are to the livelihood of their employees. To be fair, I doubt that Damore is the first guy to get fired for expressing himself on one of these forums. I’m sure there’ve been countless other men shown the door by many companies with a lower profile than Google. What made Damore a target wasn’t so much Google from a corporate sense, but rather the ‘progressive’ feminine-primary corporate culture that is endemic to Google. Once Damore had published his very well-thought op-ed about the fundamental biological, psychological and neurological differences between men and women, and how this affects innovation and employment in the tech industry, the intra-corporate witch hunt was on for the guy who anonymously posted. No doubt Google code monkeys would have little problem identifying and doxxing James, but where this witch hunt stemmed from was far more likely his co-workers and fueled by the egalitarian-equalist, postmodernist mindset that pervades Google.

This is a snapshot of the Google corporate culture. The last gal, Danielle Brown is Google’s “Diversity VP”.

The official line from Google is that Damore’s “manifesto” constitutes a breach of Google’s code of conduct. Yet for all of Google’s insisting that they respect the right’s of speech within the company, Damore’s doxxing came from within Google’s corporate culture:

The employee memo — which was up for days without action by Google — went viral within the search giant’s internal discussion boards this weekend, with some decrying it and others defending it. Sources said the company’s top execs have been struggling with how to deal with it and the fallout, trying to decide if its troubling content crossed a line.

Apparently it did. In a memo to employees titled “Our words matter,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the employee — who has been named on Twitter, although his identity could not be verified — had violated its code of conduct. (I am not publishing his name, because he — and others who disagree with him — have been threatened with violence online.)

Well, apparently James was doxxed identified and was threatened with violence both from within and without Google now. Thus, the predictable constitutional excuse that ‘you can say what you want, but you’ll be held accountable’ and Google was within its rights to fire Damore doesn’t hold water when Google promoted its internal forum as an anonymous place for employees to provide their input so the company can get honest feedback. I’m not a lawyer, but I think Google’s got a really sticky situation on their hands in that their actions technically constitute entrapment.

Furthermore, I get the feeling that Google’s campus is not unlike many other large corporate cultures – a core of skilled labor that actually puts numbers on the board as far as productivity is concerned working within a larger bureaucracy of basically superfluous positions that define the company’s corporate identity to the world around it. The writing on the wall now, that this skilled labor pool is seeing, is that this bureaucracy set of the company can have them fired for daring to voice a dissenting reality to their own ego-investments. How long before that talent pool opts for a more secure jobs in a corporate culture that looks less like the “people’s” revolution in China?

Now, all that said, James Damore, unwittingly or deliberately, has fallen into the trust-trap that I outlined back in 2013 in It’s Their Game. And while I think he’s got a pretty good case against Google, he had to have understood to some degree that Google owns his Frame. Perhaps this was his intent all along (nowhere have I seen how long he’d been employed there), but he was either very naive or very cunning in his in publishing his ‘memo’. Maybe he thinks this is his Atlas Shrugged moment, or maybe he actually bought the lie that Google (any company) cared about his employee feedback – that fact remains that the Feminine Imperative has assimilated every aspect of western society. The frame in which the overwhelming majority of men depend upon in their corporate, career, job, lives is one into which the Feminine Imperative seized social control over long ago.

For as much as it seems that standing up to systemic, calculated, postmodern ignorance is a heroic act of Red Pill aware defiance, never forget the insistent frame of the system you find yourself in. A lot of men in the ‘sphere like to tout the virtues of being ‘anti-fragile’ enough to weather the inevitable retaliations of the postmodern herd for their dissenting world view, and that may well be the case for a few men, but remember, everyone, with rare exception, is fragile about something – family, respect, integrity, personal relationships, the people who depend on him as well as his revenue (and the capacity to generate more) all apply.

Feminine Correctness

Every social, religious and corporate institution has been saturated with feminine-correctness. It’s important for Red Pill aware men to make this distinction because it will inform your decision making for as long as you remain in most corporate environments. I know many ideological and political factions like to trot out the idea about how they are against “Political Correctness”. That term, PC, has been with us for a long time now and its definition has been passed back and forth along political lines almost interchangeably for decades. Whatever it is one side isn’t allowed to address in public discourse becomes politically incorrect conversation. However, the distinction that conveniently (calculatedly) goes unnoticed is what I described as the Sisterhood Über Alles in my most recent book. Feminine Correctness permeates both sides of the political spectrum, but this is only one social arena amongst many where the appeasement of women’s perspectives as being the only correct perspective has been saturated.

Anyone who’s read my essay, Losing My Religion regarding how the Feminine Imperative has covertly (and recently overtly) assimilated authority of church culture – and ultimately doctrine – in mainstream religion can get an idea of what I’m talking about here with regard to corporate culture. The corporate workplace, big and small, has similarly been assimilated over the course of over six decades now; to the point that a feminine-primary influence has become a de facto authority under the premise of diversity, gender-neutrality and combating a presumed endemic male-sexism. All of which feed into the default, feminine-correct, presumption of female victimhood. Thus, we see the rise of the ubiquitous, almost universally female staffed, Human Resources departments whose true purpose is not about hiring, company morale or corporate culture, but rather an enforcement of feminine-correct initiatives and bylaws intended to give unquestioned authority to the feminine-correct social narrative.

In our modern corporate culture we’ve seen a meta-scale enforcement of what I termed Overseers in the Locker Room in my essay, Male Space:

Overseers in the Locker Room

The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; According to their proper feminized conditioning, they embrace the opportunity to impress these ‘trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their feminine overseer(s), or they become easy foils of an “out moded” way of thinking that the new ‘in-group’ happily labels them with.

Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ‘feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space, while in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on out-group men’s failure to comply with, or the rejection of, the Feminine Imperative’s ‘correcting’ influence on the in-group.

In all honesty, Jame Damore’s rationales in his ‘memo’ were very measured, bordering on Blue Pill, in his attempts to preempt what he obviously knew would be a workplace viral insult. However, his experience is a high-profile illustration of how corporate culture has been taken hostage by a mindset fed and raised by the Feminine Imperative. When you consider that this is the corporate culture of a company dubiously responsible for global access to information – ostensibly legitimate, authoritative information by the larger populace – you begin to see the extent to which the imperative as assumed control not just of our social discourse, but the unquestionable authority to direct the acceptability of personal belief and critical thought.

When I wrote The First Female President, I attempted to reveal just how globally extensive the reach of the Feminine Imperative really was. So encompassing is the presumed understanding of feminine-correctness, so ensaturated is it into our societal subconscious that we tend to take its presence for granted until Hillary (the she) was denied the presidency (to the he). Then the societal scale outrage comes to the surface because what was presumed to be correct is not a universally accepted foreknowledge as their social subconscious had presumed was believed.

That outrage was on a geopolitical social scale, yet it was due to the same presumptions that cause the outrage we see over a kid at Google who dared to say ‘no’ not just to Google’s corporate culture, but to all corporate cultures that have been subsumed by the Feminine Imperative for over 60 years now. That any company would need a Vice President of Diversity is an indictment of how deeply embedded the Feminine Imperative is in corporate culture.

Divorce Incorporated

What I’m going to get into today is going to be kind of dark. I’m doing this not to exacerbate any guy’s negative feelings, but to shed some light on the reality of how divorce operates in the United States as well as many other western societies. A lot of guys tend to focus on the logistics, the laws, the process of how a divorce proceeds. Much of what I see coming from Men’s Rights advocates about divorce centers on the need for legal and institutional reform of the process in their misguided hopes of creating a more ‘equal’ state between men and women. From what I understand, MRA’s primary hope (for most every issue they address) is that this reform can come from a top-down approach – changing the system to be more fair – rather than confronting the fact that these laws, divorce and others, are manifestations of an endemic social dynamic that is based on a fundamentally unfair, unequal interrelation between the sexes.

What I’m going to focus on here is dissecting this process, but doing so from a Red Pill aware perspective. While it may be the purview of the MRM that this process is fundamentally corrupt and in need of reform (I agree), what they willingly ignore is the root level inequalities that are part of men and women’s evolved differences that are the source of this process. This isn’t meant to be some take-down of the MRM; I find their causes worthy enough, but I believe their approach to solving them to be fundamentally flawed due to a refusal to accept the core, evolved differences in men and women and a stubborn refusal to reject the ideals of egalitarian equalism that the feminism they claim to hate is ostensibly founded on.

This system is designed to create conflict, but that conflict is rooted in the presumption that men are always at fault in it. This is why there can never be an equalist solution to correcting the endemic problems of modern divorce procedures.

At present I have a personal friend I’m counseling who is in the opening phases of this process. He and his soon to be Ex are also in ‘marriage therapy’. First thing I ask, “is it a man or woman therapist?” He says woman. I say, you’re fucked; start planning your exit now.

He agrees, but still has that Blue Pill hope he’s not wasting his money (she’s a SAHM) and they’ll be able to negotiate some mutually amicable feigning of her desire for him. When we invest ourselves in something we’ve accepted is supposed to be effective we’ll hold on to hope that it will because there’s a part of us (especially in idealistic men) that doesn’t like to think we are able to be conned. This is a very well studied psych phenomenon. We convince ourselves that we ‘got something out of’ an experience regardless of it being a provably bad investment. We like to believe that in all labor there is profit, but reality shows us, quite often, that this simply isn’t true.

I gave him a list of things to keep in his head as he was going to these counseling sessions, but I also told him the truth that marriage counseling is almost always ‘last stop before toll’ and that he needs to be careful now because his wife will eagerly use this therapist’s testimony to destroy his character at a later date. That’s the profit model for therapists in divorce proceedings. They’re getting paid when you’re coming and going.

I told him she will turn into someone he never thought she could become and most of it will be at the prodding of their therapist and her attorney (who he’ll also be paying). It’s in all of their best interests that they create a monster of him. The male anger bias I write about here will be the primary basis for his character assassination.

Anything even remotely, positively masculine or Alpha is still a ‘man being a man’ and this can always be reinterpreted as potentially aggressive or violent. In a feminine-primary social order where feminized men and women are taught that men are inherently evil and prone to anger and violence (the “culture” of masculinity) there’s an army of women and White Knight sympathizing men who want nothing more than to stick it to the ‘man’ symbolically. And when they draw a paycheck from doing so they’re all the more eager. Add to this that they feel a sense of moral justification in “making the world a better place” by burning him in an effigy of all men and you get to where we are now. We presently live in a social order that presumes any masculinity is “toxic” or “hyper” masculinity. So disassociated from anything positive has society become with regard to conventional masculinity that just the term is now masculinity is a negative connotation.

Needless to say this will be the starting point from which a soon-to-be-divorced man will have his undoing begin. So prevalent is the presumption of abuse on a man’s part that even the most saintly father can be remade into a secret monster. It’s just ‘how guys are’ and this presumption also serves as a point of justification for women, and Blue Pill male sympathizers, to feel okay about pillorying him.

Yes, I understand that there is at least a reportedly higher incidence of men being the abuser in domestic cases, but we also have to understand that the definition of “abuse” has been rendered so ambiguous that most men don’t realize virtually anything they do in a domestic confrontation can fit the definition of “abuse”. Just raising one’s voice is enough to qualify as psychological abuse. Denying a woman access to money also fits a new definition of abuse. I once counseled a guy who had been taken to jail for snatching the car keys away from his drunk wife so as to prevent her from driving drunk. She called the police and, as you likely know, the man is always the party removed from the home by police. Snatching the keys was enough to qualify his removal. 5 months later he’s living with his parents (at 43) and paying rent on a home and car payments on a car only his now ex is allowed to occupy and drive.

I know how my friend’s story is going to end. I’m doing what I can to give him fair warning – it’d be better for him to completely pull up stakes and remove himself from the situation than stick around and ‘try to make it work’ because the longer he lingers the more ammunition she and the therapist potentially get. I think this is also the profit model; keep the Blue Pill chump husband around the house for as long as it takes to build him up as a stereotypical ‘man’ and then escalate the most marginal conflict as a ‘typical’ domestic violence incident and he’s gone. If you watch the above documentary on the divorce industry you’ll see how many lucrative profit opportunities there are at every stage of divorce; and there is no incentive to dissuade divorce profiteers from doing anything different. And, as I stated earlier, there are many ready-made social and moral conventions available to help them justify their profits.

Old Books and New Books

‘No one cares how mean your ex was, how unfair she was to you and so on … at the end of the day, the system can’t right wrongs, they only process your case’

The above and following  quote was from an article in the National Post, Family court advice for men, from one who’s made it through;

I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of notes; on a gender breakdown, probably 80 percent are from men, 20 percent from women.

I’ve heard from family court lawyers, some of whom are angry at my suggestions that fathers get the tough end of the stick in child custody cases (though the actual evidence is reasonably clear that they do), some of whom say “the whole system is B.S … one of the first things out of my mouth when I see someone is, ‘What’s your budget and how much does he/she dislike you?’” I’ve heard from judges and former judges and psychologists and counsellors.

Without exception, they agree that the system is beyond broken.

What we have, fundamentally, in the state of modern divorce is a conflict between old books social contracts serving as the ethical basis of a new books resource transfer from men to women (Thomas Ball even described it as such). Really this conflict is at the root of much of what Red Pill awareness (from the social perspective of intersexual dynamics) describes, but in this instance there’s an entire social complex that influences policy and profit. Judges, attorneys, psychologists and counselors all make a very good living from this fundamental conflict; and if you watch the Divorce Incorporated documentary I linked you’ll see that there’s no incentive to ever change that profitable conflict at any stage.

However, all of the people involved in even a typical western divorce are all subject to the belief sets that the Feminine Imperative has predisposed them to about men and women. We presume a default state of victimhood is to be applied to a woman and the benefit of that victimhood doubt runs deep. We see it evolve into the kangaroo court systems that govern what we’re told to believe is an endemic ‘rape culture’ on college campuses – up to and beyond denying a man his civil rights.

We’re taught that any slight appearance of abuse towards a woman is an opportunity to teach any man doing so a lesson, but should a man be the victim of the same abuse? Well, he probably had it coming. The Feminine Imperative has (and still is in some senses) prepared women and Blue Pill men to believe that women are untouchable; always to be believed, by default, in their victim status no matter the circumstance.

Now we can expand this presumption to every party involved in a divorce proceeding. We get female therapists whose livelihoods depend on following the victimhood of women and demonization of men (and masculinity) script the Feminine Imperative has laid out for them for most of their lives. We get Blue Pill Alphas eager to prove their authority by punishing any man who might remind them of their asshole fathers or who fits their idea of what the imperative has taught him is a “misogynist”. The imperative plays to the natural ‘protector’ impulse of these men. We get well-conditioned attorneys, counsellors and judges ready to follow that same script by legally enacting the retribution and restitution upon which feminism has always been based.

But underneath all of this we have the fundamental inequalities in ideology between what the old books social contract expects of men while the divorce industry enforces, almost unilaterally male, punishment based on a new books social paradigm to better empower women – presumably to right the past wrongs they believe were endemic in that old books paradigm. What we have today are new books divorce and marital laws based on those old books presumptions of men’s evils, indiscretions and addressing the toll it allegedly took on women. The result is a system that is designed to psychologically, financially and personally ruin any man whose idealism led him to believe that men and women share some mutually recognized concept of love; enough to compel him to a lifetime commitment in modern marriage. It is a system calculated to destroy the same Blue Pill conditioned men who will eagerly stand up to defend their ego-investments in it.

The common refrain to this is always “just don’t get married”, and it is precisely this system’s goal to disincentivize long term commitment between the sexes so that this response is the only logical one. Thus, we get women spending small fortunes to freeze their eggs in the hopes that one day some man will be foolishly idealistic enough to look past all the inherent life-threatening risks marriage and divorce uniquely disposes men to. Thus, we get old books moralists berating men for wanting to prolong their adolescence (never mind women doing so is considered empowerment) by avoiding the dangers of marriage that they’ve been smart enough to understand, or have been a party to in one way or another.

In my next essay I’ll be addressing the misguided opinion of some ‘stand up’ Purple Pill moralists that the Red Pill is “just for guys who are obsessed with sex and make getting laid their life’s mission”. I’ll elaborate on why this is simply a distraction from the much larger meta-scope of Red Pill awareness and intersexual dynamics. However, understanding how the divorce industry is based on the same dynamics the Red Pill has described for a decade and a half is a good illustration of why the Red Pill isn’t just about men basing their lives on getting laid. This system is fundamentally unegalitarian and unequal, and the designed imbalances are entirely founded in Red Pill intersexual principles. This is why the MRM will never be successful in their hopes of a top down institution of social change. The laws and the social imperatives that crush men are symptoms of a deeper problem that requires a bottom up changing of men’s minds about women and themselves.

Competency

A while back reader Looking for Zion had a great comment wondering why it is women seem to have such a preoccupation with complaining to men so much:

Yesterday I was listening to a blogger talking about that Antifa Girl, then I saw a video by Camille Paglia on how women need to stop blaming men. By the time I read this essay I was already wondering, Why do women blame men (for everything)?

I mean, for example, no matter how good women have it here in the US, it’s never enough. They say, “We still have far to go.” What the fuck does that mean? They’ve achieved everything except becoming President and Vice-President – and only failed at that cause the worst possible candidate was put up. They’re astronauts, brain surgeons, CEOs, soldiers, pilots, MMA fighters…. I mean, short of a penis, what are they really missing?

Then I read this essay and it dawned on me: Women are biologically programmed to blame men for any and all perceived failures or shortfalls, because for millennia they have depended solely upon men (at the societal, tribal, and family level) for everything, particularly their very survival.

Whether it’s the nagging wife blaming her husband for her unhappiness, or the feminist harpy blaming men for WHATEVER, it is in female DNA and thus beyond their control to stop blaming “men” for anything they perceive to be wrong (in the absence of men standing firm and telling them to STFU). Males are always the scapegoat because men, until recently, were always the protectors and leaders of the female species.

When I woke up this morning, that realization led me to connect another dot: The patriarchy is not some ephemeral construct, or a male conspiracy. The patriarchy is IN WOMEN’S DNA.

From the time that the first single-celled creatures sprang forth from the waters of the Earth, life evolved toward the creation of homo-sapiens. Billions of years of genetic code formed a male dominant human dynamic that feminists and cultural Marxists have tried to re-engineer for a comparatively measly 50-60 years. But social engineering can NOT overwrite biology.

So good luck trying to “smash the Patriarchy” ladies, because the patriarchy is inside you. It was a survival mechanism selected for over eons. The patriarchy will always be there, like a splinter in your mind – unless and until enough time and genetic mutations have passed after men as a whole have given up and let you completely rule the world however you see fit.

With this, Zion is coming into an understanding of the evolved psychological underpinnings of intersexual relations. Women’s innate predilection to complain is just one aspect of women’s evolved nature that socialization or, if you like, “higher order thinking” finds ways to cover up, but never really change. Whether it’s women’s capacity to move on from a former lover (War Brides), women’s subconscious shit testing for men’s fitness, or the uglier aspects of Hypergamy, the underlying motivators for much of what we dismiss as ‘women just being women’ is rooted in how they evolved to interact with men.

Recently I cam across a video of Jordan B. Peterson explaining the evolutionary logistics involved in women’s sexual selection process. You can watch the video here, but the short version confirms exactly what Zion is coming to realize; the seeds of Patriarchy is literally written into women’s DNA, and by extension into larger human society’s social and intersexual make up.

Women’s sexual selection, women’s Hypergamous sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks), is what creates the condition of the male dominance hierarchy. By the social extension of this hierarchy, based on women’s evolved conditions for male Hypergamous acceptability, we see what perceptually looks like Patriarchy. Indeed, this has been the dominant social order – with women creating covert personal and social contingencies to exploit it – up until the time of unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control and the subsequent sexual revolution.

As Zion noted, billions of years of genetic code formed a male dominant human dynamic that feminists and cultural Marxists have tried to re-engineer for a comparatively measly 50-60 years. And it’s correct that social engineering cannot overwrite biology. However, that isn’t to say that social and scientific engineering can’t give women more control over their sexual selection process as well as making every effort to absolve them of the responsibilities associated with this new control. If I disagree with anything Peterson asserts in this video it’s that our social order for the last 60-70 years has been one founded on unfettering and insuring women’s sexual strategy and applying the consequences and costs of women’s control over it directly to men. Presently, we live in a feminine-primary social order, but it’s founded on the default presumption of an oppressive, inherently sexist, misogynistic Patriarchy that still clings to a social contract that hasn’t existed since the time of the Sexual Revolution.

Our feminine-primary social order is a reflection of how intersexual dynamics have shifted to favor the female and the female sexual strategy. The male dominance hierarchy and the qualifications of it are still dependent upon women’s evolved Hypergamy, only now, in light of how women have been insured against any real liability for their sexual selection choices, the prioritization of those hierarchal qualifications have shifted. There is still a “patriarchy” created by women’s sexual strategy, but now this male dominance hierarchy is primarily founded on the Alpha Fucks side of the Hypergamous equation.

Evolution of Complaining

The fact that complaining seems to come so natural to women is something we kind of take for granted, in fact so much so that we will make jokes about it and think nothing of it. We can interpret this also from the ‘men display, women choose’ principle. There is an expectation that men will qualify themselves for a woman’s intimate approval – whether or not they do so is irrelevant, it is women’s expectation of performance from men. Men being innate idealists, as well as deductive problem solvers, it only follows that men (majority being Beta) would make their best efforts to solve women’s problems as a primary element of their sexual strategy. The deductive logic is: Solve a woman’s problems and in exchange she will reciprocate with her intimacy.

This, in a nutshell, is what constitutes most men’s Game in their earliest attempts to get with a woman, and really why wouldn’t it? Boys are taught a default deference to “respect” the female sex from an early age. This deference is where the expectation of performance begins, and taken to the extreme it can end up as the Savior Schema and expectations of women reciprocating in Relational Equity. This is where many Betas have their ‘game’ disillusioned for them. They see the guys who do not perform for women in a direct manner being rewarded with intimacy while they are shamed for their ‘Niceties’ – the behaviors they’ve always been taught will endear women to them – and shamed for expecting intimacy in exchange for solving women’s problems.

But really, what is women’s complaining about? The facility with which women will complain to men makes evident their need for security and this security need flows from the provisioning side of Hypergamy. As I’ve said many times before, Hypergamy is rooted in an existential doubt – is this guy the best she can do? It’s important to put this doubt into context though; bear in mind that there are two sides to Hypergamy – short term sexual, genetic optimization (Alpha Fucks) and long term security, safety and parental investment optimization (Beta Bucks). Both sides of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy always have doubt attached to them. And as Zion implied, even when women are assured of security that doubt still persists.

When we consider women’s subconscious need to shit test men we also need to see that women’s complaining is part of her subconscious attempting to reconcile this doubt with a man she’s invested herself in. It is indeed written into women’s mental firmware that men are to be looked to as the problem solvers.

A while ago Deti had a great comment on one of Dalrock’s posts:

Some of the best depictions of shit testing and comfort testing in media are in Mad Men, where Betty brings some concern to Don. Some concerns are serious; some are frivolous and trivial. Almost all the time, Don faces her and says something like “Bets, you’re tired. You’re upset. And it’s all understandable. It’ll be OK. Just go get some sleep, and we’ll figure it out in the morning.” And that’s all Betty needed to hear. Don has it under control. He explains to her what’s going on, and says he (or they) will get it taken care of.

That’s passing comfort tests with flying colors.

A shit test is depicted where Megan (his second wife) is cleaning their apartment in her bra and panties. She taunts him, saying “you can’t have any of this”, while on hands and knees in a clearly sexually provocative position, all the while looking back at him to gauge his response. He then proceeds to pull her to her feet, kisses her, and has sex with her on the living room floor. She willingly submits to him.

That’s passing a shit test with flying colors. And that really is a shit test – she’s being a total bitch to Don and stating a literal challenge to his masculinity. It’s “I’m here, calling you less than a man and depriving you of something we both know you want. You don’t have what it takes to stand up to me. What are you gonna do about it?”

You cannot make a woman “Happy”, however, this does not preclude a woman’s innate need to see you as either a confident problem solver (as in Draper’s exchange with Betty) or a guy who “Just Gets It” (as in the shit test example with Megan). I believe Deti is correct here, but I think we can make a distinction between a woman’s need to test for a comfort versus a shit test of sexual selection.

I would argue that a comfort test comes from women’s deep need for security in a chaotic world. A comfort test, and I would include complaining and nagging in this, is rooted in a woman’s Hypergamous need of certainty and consistency in provisioning. A persistent complaint is really a cry for security and confirmation of a man’s competency. Male dominance will always require a superior competency in virtually all matters. That may not be realistic or pragmatic, but it is the expectation, and this need for competency finds its roots in men understanding and accepting their Burden of Performance.

A shit test, on the other hand, is a challenge of a man’s savvy with regard to reading, interpreting and acting upon a woman’s covert communications of sexual competency. Shit tests, even subconscious or unintentional ones, are initiated to gauge whether a man Just Gets It with regard to a woman’s sexual subcommunications. It is a test designed to determine a man’s Alpha potential and his capacity to push past his social programming and go after (even physically) what he wants sexually – hopefully that’s the woman giving him the indicators. It is a test of a man’s capacity to understand that the Medium is the Message.

One reason that Amused Mastery is such an effective PUA technique is because – when understood and applied well – it serves to satisfy both sides of these tests. It implies competency in both problem solving and sexual viability.

Lastly, I should also point out that both of these tests of competency are part of women’s evolved, psychological firmware. Women can certainly deliver these tests with malice, intent and forethought, but as to why these tests would be significant from an evolutionary perspective, only her subconscious is aware of it. Both tests have the latent purpose to establish a man’s competency in either the Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks aspect of a woman’s Hypergamy.

The Utility of Beta Men – Part II

Before I get started today I thought I’d relate a few things to think about from the first installment of this series.

No Neutral Balance

Reader Boxcar had a pertinent comment on last week’s thread:

Frankly, losing the “beta” qualities would make it difficult to live a happy, successful and fulfilling life. But they have become stigmatized because they are associated with men being used by women.

I used to lock horns about the necessity of Beta traits with Athol Kay on Married Man Sex Life back before women took over his messaging. The problem with this idea is that 80%+ of men in a feminine-primary social order, that has systematically engineered a majority of men to be predominantly Betas, possess all these Beta behavioral and psychological attributes in spades.

As such, there will always be a gross overemphasis on the value of those aspects. I don’t believe in a balance of Alpha to Beta traits. It’s my opinion that men should make Alpha traits their predominant, default set, only expressing Beta traits as necessary to maintain a minimum comfort level – and even then, this comfort level should only be apparent to reinforce a necessary anxiety level for a woman’s continued interest in a man.

Also, I believe there needs to be a distinction between Alpha and Beta behavioral sets and Alpha and Beta mindsets. Most men today are raised into a Beta mindset and this manifests in their behaviors. Vice versa for Alpha mindsets. However, that isn’t to say that a man of a predominantly Alpha mindset can’t deliberately display a Beta attribute in order to serve his own ends. Same with Beta men displaying a Alpha attributes. The problem with this lies in what is congruent with the overall perception of that man’s status to a woman.

In the case of the Australian guy whom Goldmund schooled in last week’s post, the woman already had a preconceived understanding that his mindset was that of a Beta. Had he displayed some brief “flash of Alpha” it would’ve seemed inauthentic and incongruous with her preconception. However, going from an Alpha preconception to a brief “flash of Beta” can be endearing and affirming for a woman.

Ergo, there is no neutral balance of Alpha and Beta that a woman will ever find attractive in a man. His mindset and behaviors must be predominantly and consistently Alpha to hold her Hypergamous sexual and relational interests. While occasional, strategic and brief expressions of a Beta-like trait are necessary for comfort, there is no advantage in a man trying to maintain some equilateral balance of Alpha to Beta, and if anything it only serves to confuse a woman about her estimate of your status. Moments of Vulnerability can be reassuring for women, but only when that vulnerability is uncharacteristic for a predominantly Alpha man.

Relational Equity

One very common hindbrain presumption most well-trained Betas have is a that their emotional, financial and loyalty investments in a woman will be appreciated and reciprocated by the women they invest in. This ‘pre’-sumption is integral to a mindset founded on the old books social contract. Beta men’s approach to intimacy going in already expects a woman to appreciate his investing in her as some quality that sets him apart from “typical guys who just want to bang her”.

So, when when a guy like Goldmund effortlessly seduces the woman that Aussie Guy has been investing so much into (like all-expense paid trips) it represent two very frustrating realities for him. The first, as I mentioned, is the destruction of his ego-investment in his old books mindset. The second is the sense of loss of so much relational investment he was trying to figure out how to get a return on. All of the preconditions he believed were necessary to get this woman’s intimacy are tossed out of the window when Goldmund arrives and she willingly and (to him) unconditionally becomes sexual with him.

He believed he had to earn her sex, but in no uncertain terms, along comes a guy who did almost nothing to earn it and she reflexively responds to him with sex. In prior posts I’ve proposed that women will break rules for Alpha men while creating and imposing new/more rules for Beta men to access her sexuality. I would expand this to say that Beta men will, via their preconditioning, impose those rules upon themselves before they even meet a woman with whom to invest themselves in.

The presumption of relational equity comes before a Beta even has a woman to invest in. This is the source of Aussie guy’s frustration. I covered this dynamic in Prewhipped and Betas in Waiting.

Giving Value

Commenter Trent Lane had an excellent insight about what ought or ought not to be a Red Pill aware man’s duty to his fellow, unenlightened Blue Pill man.

Ethic responsibilities in a red pill paradigm for those who are not in it is an interesting concept. If we all accept Red Pill principles like Hypergamy, AF/BB and so on as truth (which most of us do, since we‘re here) and as you advance in Game you see, know and can do more with social and intergender dynamics than 99% of the men around you.

You can use this for destruction and mayhem. You can use this to selfishly get your needs met with zero fucks given about anyone. Or you can use it to get your needs met AND give value to the people you interact with.

The question is, why should you?
The answer is, aside from metaphysical reasons like religion, Karma and so forth, in which you can chose to believe or not: you mainly do it for yourself.

By fucking others up this way you fuck yourself up. Is it possible to go down the route of destruction this way with zero fucks given about anyone and lead a happy, fulfilled life long term? Probably for some. More likely you‘ll end up fucked yourself, without purpose, unable to ever satisfy your raging narcissistic urges, burning out and getting more and more shallow as you chase the next kick.

Giving value makes you happier than taking value. It sounds corny like a cliche, but if long term happiness in life is your concern, it‘s true.

I’m going to jump off here because this comment speaks to what I want to cover next in this series – dealing with Blue Pill men in a Red Pill aware man’s life. Just as I’m inclined to tell guys of the MGTOW persuasion that there really is no exiting the game, so too is it next to impossible for the Red Pill aware man to insulate himself from having to deal with, work with, relate to, men who are thoroughly invested in a Blue Pill defined existence.

In the first part of this series I mentioned how Blue Pill orbiters are often an untapped resource of social proof for a Red Pill aware man. Sometimes all it takes to stand out in the crowd is to simply allow the mediocre to display their status and be ready to capitalize on it. It’s like the part of Game where once you get to attraction all you have to do is not fuck things up. That’s not to say Game doesn’t take effort, it does, but when you have a connection with a woman who herself has orbiters’ attention in spades it easy to see that her attraction cues and ego are built around quality not quantity.

I also mentioned in last week’s essay that actively AMOGing these guys can actually be counterproductive to Game. Women may not ever want to bang their orbiters or really have them mean anything more that easy attention, but on the same note they likely don’t want to have anything too cruel happen to them. Fortunately there are ‘lightest touch’ ways to use these guys’ inability (or willful rejection) to really embrace Red Pill awareness to your advantage if you have the art. There’s a tendency to want to help these orbiters, but I would say the real test is having the confidence to use them as SMV comparisons. Adopting an Amused Mastery with an orbiter is one such method – building social proof by artfully pointing out their Beta Game strategies. The risk you run is women taking this as arrogance on your part, at first, until that Beta confirms your measured analysis of him.

Betas at Work

One of the most arduous aspects of modern work life is having to cooperate with well-conditioned Blue Pill men. God forbid you have a business partner or a boss with whom your financial wellbeing depends. I would argue that the single most dangerous environment in which to attempt to ‘help’ a Blue Pill man with Red Pill awareness is in the workplace. For all the talk of mythical “glass ceilings” and back room boys clubs, modern corporate culture has been at the mercy of the Feminine Imperative’s influence for several decades now. This social environment was a Male Space that was invaded long ago by feminine-primary interests, but for the sake of this discussion I’d have readers consider the following: imagine a Blue Pill conditioned Beta who’s been educated and acculturated in feminine primacy (as equality) for the better part of his lifetime. Now, take that guy and put him into a workplace social structure, steeped in feminine-primary work laws, HR departments and corporate bylaws (all designed to avoid charges of endemic workplace sexism). Finally, base that man’s livelihood, the health of his marriage and the future wellbeing of his children on how well he adheres to that feminine-primary office culture and you get a guy who’s a veritable time bomb for any Red Pill aware coworker.

This reminds me of a great article in the Telegraph about how men are so afraid of sexual harassment accusations they resist the urge to extend the most basic courtesies to women in the workplace.

Elsesser cites examples of men who have been dragged in by their HR departments for simply opening a door for a female colleague or complimenting her on a new suit. “Stories like these spread around workplaces, instilling a fear that innocent remarks will be misinterpreted,” she says.

The upside to this situation is that a Red Pill savvy man can use the predictable foreknowledge of how a Blue Pill colleague will respond to various workplace circumstances to his advantage. While it may be prudent to accommodate that guy’s Blue Pill mindset at work, it also presents some opportunities to use Red Pill awareness and Game in a context that can advance your career. Female bosses are still female, and as noted earlier, the same dynamics you can use to ping social proof from a Blue Pill orbiter can similarly be used with a Blue Pill coworker and a female supervisor.

If you know a guy is trapped in a Blue Pill marriage, odds are he’s in a dead bedroom situation. If he’s got kids, especially a newborn, it’s fairly easy to predict his life priorities based on what we know of his Blue Pill mindset. Happy wife, happy life is probably his ego-investment. There’s quite a lot you can read from a Blue Pill coworker or supervisor, and as a Red Pill aware man, this puts you at a strategic advantage in the workplace. As such you are not at the disadvantage he is and can opt in on work opportunities his mindset and his life’s resultant conditions wont permit him to.

As a side note here, I should also mention that being Red Pill aware has various advantages in dealing with women in the workplace too. In the same vein as the Blue Pill supervisor, it’s important to get a ‘read’ on a female boss and how she interacts with male and female subordinates. Corporate culture is often the most visceral teacher when it comes to understanding intrasexual competition amongst women. However, as a Red Pill aware man we can also apply our predictive Red Pill Lens towards what most women in the workplace are experiencing in their lives. We know the common dissatisfaction professional women experience when it comes to their personal lives. We also know that even the married ones are likely to be discontent with husbands whom they can never feel comfortable in submitting themselves to – especially after 8-10 hours at an office where lesser men must submit to her and the greater men she is beholden to don’t see her as anything but an instrument for their own success. The trick is using this tactical understanding to your own benefit by getting inside their heads and making female nature work for you.

So, after all this we’re left with a few of considerations. The first is the degree of calculated risk a Red Pill man is comfortable in taking with a Blue Pill colleague. Even if the guy is a personal friend, there is always a risk that using your Red Pill Lens with him can backfire on you. There’s only one thing worse than a woman scorned and that’s a deeply committed Blue Pill guy who’s just had his mindset used against him by a superior player. Most will pass it off as the result of an unfair life, but others, the less stable Blue Pill guys, they can have an explosive potential.

Then there is the ever present ethical considerations that will always dog this question – should you do it? If Goldmund’s story from last week’s essay was an object lesson in mate poaching it was also a subjective lesson in the ethical consideration of it too. Much of what constitutes attractiveness in men to women is found on the Dark Triad personality traits. Sometimes Red Pill awareness and Game application gets called an education in psychopathy. Having written about Red Pill awareness for as long as I have, I know there’s far more to this, but to an initiated reader, one steeped in Blue Pill conditioning, I fully understand why it would look like psychopathy.

Now the question is, does a Red Pill man use his awareness to his advantage outside of the intersexual realm? In the case of using it with a female supervisor that might be an easy, yes, but in the case of using a Blue Pill man’s handicap of his mindset that answer may be subjective by order of degree. Even if there is no malice involved, and even if just by fact of having that awareness, a Red Pill man has a distinct advantage over men given to a Blue Pill belief set and their resultant life conditions.

So the question might be, are we our Beta brother’s keepers? Do we have an obligation to give Blue Pill men value or does that idea end where that man’s capacity to accept what Red Pill awareness offers him end? Obviously I have two books and five and a half years of blog posts all written with the intent of ultimately unplugging Blue Pill men and making them aware of the true nature of intersexual dynamism. My purpose has always been to give men the tools they need to do that, but is it my obligation to do so?

The Anger Bias

I don’t think it will come as a shock to my readers, or anyone who follows me on Twitter or on the Red Pill Reddit forum, that I’ve gone to bat in recent months to combat the (often deliberate) misperception that self-described ‘Red Pill’ men are inherently angry men. As such, we’re also meant to presume these ‘angry men’ have a potential for violence or at best self-loathing.

The idea, of course, is proposed that “the guys in TRP are just embittered, deeply hurt men who’ve taken the truths that Red Pill awareness has presented to them and converted it to a real, genuine misogyny”. Furthermore, the convention is proposed that these guys cannot come to terms with their own failures and want to blame them all on women, or at the very least an unkind, unforgiving, pro-female world in which they’ve always struggled (i.e. “losers want to blame their losing on women”). Thus, these ‘bitter terpers’ (TRPers) promote either hostility towards women, or they attempt to check themselves out of the sexual marketplace entirely by “going their own way”. In either case, it’s proposed that it’s men’s inherent anger that motivates them to an anti-woman mindset.

I addressed much of this misguided argument in my essay Anger Management:

But are we angry? I can’t say that I haven’t encountered a few guys on some forums and comment threads who I’d characterize as angry judging from their comments or describing their situations. For the greater whole I’d say the manosphere is not angry, but the views we express don’t align with a feminine-primary society. Men expressing a dissatisfaction with feminine-primacy, men coming together to make sense of it, sound angry to people who’s sense of comfort comes from what the feminine imperative has conditioned them to.

Most of the men who’ve expressed a genuine anger with me aren’t angry with women, but rather they’re angry with themselves for having been blind to the Game that they’d been a part of for so long in their blue-pill ignorance. They’re angry that they hadn’t figured it out sooner.

I understand that a lot of what is written in the manosphere can certainly be interpreted as coming from a source for anger. When I (or anyone else) outline the fundaments of hypergamy for instance, there’s a lot to be angry about for a man. Women get pissed because it exposes an ugly truth that the feminine exhausts a lot of resources to keep under the rug, but for men, learning about the feral reasons for feminine (and masculine) behaviors often enough cause a guy to become despondent or angry. That impression should never be the basis for a Man’s Game, nor is it ever really an aspect of internalizing Game that will benefit him personally.

Anger bias and attribution to men is an easy follow for a social order predicated on empowering and protecting the feminine. From an egalitarian mindset that insists on socially constructed equalism between the sexes it’s ironic that the attribution of a default anger to men, and the conventionally masculine, is something entirely unique to the male sex. To the feminine-primary mindset, all-is-one until a negative trait unique to the male biology serves a purpose, and a positive trait unique to women is flattering for them. Then the ideals of social constructionism are suspended insofar as biology agrees with a feminine-primary social order.

I would also argue that predisposed anger is just one attribute the Feminine Imperative finds useful in men to create operative social conventions. The default presumption of mens predisposition to anger is the basis of most domestic legislation (paternity, domestic violence, child custody, etc.) between men and women.

This is a convenient social constructivism based (ostensibly) on egalitarian equality until a particular emotion or personal quality is predominantly attributable to one sex in the positive or negative; then it’s the ‘differences’, not the similarities, between the sexes that make for social control. It’s funny how we’re all equal, blank-slates until anger is better attributed to “toxic” masculinity and some preternatural capacity for empathy in women are beliefs the Feminine Imperative reinforces in its cultural context.

Anger is a useful emotion for fem-centrism. It’s all too easy to classify men’s propensity for anger (and associated violence) as ‘toxic’ yet women’s anger is something transformative and empowering. This connects back to the social efforts of the past five generations designed to feminize men and masculinize women; the inverse traits that would be conventional to one gender are encouraged as positive traits in the opposite gender.

This may be somewhat remedial for my regular readers, but I’m reviewing this because it illustrates a dichotomy that a Blue Pill mindset is all too ready to accept. To the equalist ideology, biological gender-specific truths are only a minor factor in the human condition – unless the truth of that gender-specific biological fact is something advantageous to the feminine and disadvantageous to the masculine.

For instance, to suggest that women’s evolved neurological capacity for communication makes them more intuitive and sensitive to verbal and nonverbal sub-communication we’re supposed to embrace this biological fact as something that sets women apart as ‘special’ or evidence of women being “more evolved”. But when we suggest that men outclass women in cognitive spatial ability, or neurological gender differences in rational abstract thinking gives men a biological advantage in areas like mathematics, then male professors lose their tenured jobs for expressing these facts publicly. If a biological difference is flattering to women it’s an exception to the blank-slate ideology; if a difference is unflattering to women it’s considered evidence of an institutionalized sexism on the part of men.

For all purposes, a social order founded on the blank-slate ideology of egalitarian equalism (serving the Feminine Imperative) regularly, and ruthlessly, quashes any discourse of biological gender differences – unless those factual differences are flattering to the feminine and/or damning of the masculine.

Anger Bias

One biological difference equalism is happy to promote is the notion that men are biologically predisposed to anger, aggression and violence. The motivating impetus behind this anger is rarely something the equalist mind will consider, but that men are predominantly, naturally, more ‘angry’ than women is a meme that is actively encouraged. If anything, this biological fact is a root basis for the cultural concept of “toxic” masculinity.

However, the fact does remain, healthy men possess 12 to 17 times the biogenous serum testosterone that women do. This naturally predisposes men to be more muscular, hairy, lower voices, libidinous and yes, aggressive. It’s no secret that statistically men are biologically more prone to anger, aggression and potentially violence. In a feminine-correct social context this natural predilection is the basis of all masculine attributes being ‘toxic’, if for no other reason than it presents a threat to women’s social control.

For all this, the male gender-bias towards presumption of anger has a foundation in evolutionary psychology. Men will always be considered more angry than women because of an evolutionary adaptation known as Error Management. And in men’s case, this anger attribution is a species-survival adaptation. The following quotes originate from a study called, Seeing storms behind the clouds: Biases in the attribution of anger. This experimental study, and another similar study (If looks could kill), come to us courtesy of Dr. Martie Haselton and her colleagues in the evo-psych department at UCLA. These studies outline the inherent biases towards anger all humans theoretically harbor subconsciously.

Anger-prone individuals are volatile and frequently dangerous. Accordingly, inferring the presence of this personality trait in others was important in ancestral human populations. This inference, made under uncertainty, can result in two types of errors: underestimation or overestimation of trait anger. Averaged over evolutionary time, underestimation will have been the more costly error, as the fitness decrements resulting from physical harm or death due to insufficient vigilance are greater than those resulting from lost social opportunities due to excessive caution. We therefore hypothesized that selection has favored an upwards bias in the estimation of others’ trait anger relative to estimations of other traits not characterized by such an error asymmetry.

Anger attribution to physical and gender cues is an “adaptive rationality”. In other words, it’s probably better to err on the side of caution and misattribute anger to an individual displaying even marginal cues of a potential for aggression (for instance, they hold implements or tools that could cause physical harm) than to miss that cue and wind up dead or injured.

Moreover, we hypothesized that additional attributes that 1) make the actor more dangerous, or 2) make the observer more vulnerable increase the error asymmetry with regard to inferring anger-proneness, and should therefore correspondingly increase this overestimation bias.

This is an important distinction to make when we extrapolate this theory to a larger social scope. When the actors (men in our case) are made to appear more dangerous, or the observers (women & feminized men) are made to feel more vulnerable there is an increase in the perception that the actors are in fact more prone to anger (asymmetrical error attribution).

Adaptive rationality and error management

The “adaptive rationality” approach contends that the mind was shaped by selection to enhance fitness in ancestral environments rather than to yield accurate judgments. Therefore, human cognition can manifest seemingly irrational biases that are, in fact, “adaptively rational.”

I explored this topic in my essay, Vestiges.

Anger attribution is one domain in which this might occur. Perceivers can commit one of two errors: underestimate an individual’s trait anger (false negative) or overestimate it (false positive). On average, underestimations will have been costlier than overestimations in ancestral populations: assuming that an anger-prone individual was temperate placed the perceiver at risk of assault, whereas assuming that a temperate individual was anger-prone merely led to foregoing potentially profitable interactions. Thus, overall accuracy (i.e., committing false negative and false positive errors with equal frequency) did not maximize fitness over evolutionary time. Rather, in line with error management theory, we hypothesize that selection favored a biased tendency to commit the less costly false positive — overestimating trait anger. Although the same logic applies to the estimations of state anger, our predictions focus squarely on trait anger because traits predict future behavior, and it is costly to underestimate an individual’s anger not only in the moment, but also in future interactions.

For the Red Pill aware, what I’m suggesting is that there is an evolved predisposition to perceive men as generally more prone to anger, and thereby more susceptible to aggression/violence, than may in fact be the actual case with men individually. Largely, as a man, you will always be perceived as potentially angrier than a woman.

Contextual factors can influence this asymmetry, resulting in a concomitant increase in biases in the perception of a given emotion. Anger motivates aggression, hence an important contextual factor in anger perception is the capacity of the perceived individual to inflict harm. The greater the capacity to harm, the more costly it is to underestimate the extent to which the target is angry, and therefore the more that perception should be biased in favor of overestimation.

I would argue here that men’s state in western(izing) cultures is one that grossly exaggerates men’s overall potential for anger, and by extension violence. Presuming that Red Pill men are “a bunch of angry misogynists” is one such error, but it is also a useful one in that it plays upon this overestimation of anger in men on whole. This anger attribution in men will always be an easy method of poisoning the well or creating straw men arguments from which opponents of Red Pill awareness will dismiss valid, factual arguments.

As you might guess, this male anger bias is a simple tool to use – and one I unfortunately see being employed by many Purple Pill dating coaches who’d like to dissuade their clientele from the less marketable aspects of Red Pill awareness. Anything Red Pill that disagrees with their feminine-sanitized advice is conveniently dismissed as “negative” or the rantings of angry, bitter, burned men. It becomes “Truthful Anger”, but their emphasis is always on the anger part rather than the truth that would kick a leg out from under their positivity marketing scheme.

The default state of women and feminized men is one of a presumed vulnerability due to a persistent social characterization of a default female victimhood in popular culture and media. Likewise, men are portrayed as quick to anger – all in spite of generations of effort spent in Blue Pill conditioning of men to be ideally passive, supportive, non-assertive and entirely less masculinized. Despite all that sensitivity conditioning, from the earliest ages, the default presumption that’s still popularly reinforced is that men are always the angry/violent ones. Domestic violence laws presume a man is always the attacker and always the party to be removed from the home because of this preconception.

Both the Feminine Imperative and even well meaning Red Pill men default to this overestimation. I get that this is largely merited on whole as a characteristic of men. This error management is a useful and pragmatic adaptation, but it is also a useful foil for dismissing men on whole. It’s interesting that I’d be pilloried for expressing that the realities of women’s menstrual cycle predispose them to ovulatory shift, as well as anti-social, behaviors, yet were I to explain that testosterone predisposes men to aggression we largely accept this as a given.

My intent in this essay isn’t to say men aren’t as angry as their evolutionary nature makes them. The point is that a feminine-primary social order readily makes this nature a useful tool in dismissing what would otherwise be valid, but uncomfortable Red Pill truth. This anger bias mechanism is a tool for message control.

Teaching Slaves to Read

Ehintellect had a very enlightening comment in last week’s thread. I’ve edited it for relevant content, but you can read the whole thing here. This touched on an essay topic I’ve been considering since my conversation with Ed Latimore and Mark Baxter:

[I] was at a home party a few years back. Highly successful surgeons, wives, husbands; quickly devolved into quarters, college games. 

My wife loves the parties as she gets compliments and conversation she’d otherwise not get. She’s not plugged into that crowd, and I assume doesn’t want to. In a way, that’s fortunate. There is tremendous value in my marriage, parenting. I’m astonished at the change.

Mrs. Eh’s shit tests continue, but are a whole different breed. Comfort, mostly, and usually because I don’t calibrate enough. Easily dealt with, I’m astonished at the dynamic. I was bar rail with wife, and my erstwhile suicidal, now RP, TRM acquaintance called asking me to celebrate his 2 (!) plate spinning / back at school / ”I know your trick, EhIntellect!” / ”Now I understand the true nature of women.” / “My life has never been better.” life. I was celebrating on the phone with him. Well, yeah, after the 5-10 minute chat, Mrs. Eh. wasn’t too pleased. She started to test about me treating her as a “whore” and my daughter shabbily.

Still upbeat, I kissed her forehead and whispered, “You’re no whore. You’re MY whore.” Well, that didn’t work as intended, she sulked, I got up and said let’s go. Nope she sat and I, dropping her jacket on my chair, wordlessly left out the back. The bar waitress walked her out by the arm 3 minutes later.

I’d have never been able to do that without you guys.

I had a karaoke night planned, for me, so kept on. In a way I “bounced” her to another venue, ran with her happily sprinting with me to the new pub. It’s like the dust up never happened, she was crazy sexual for the rest of the night. That’s what we’re to do right? Spike that test! I wanted to sing, and raised the roof that night. Did I reinforce bad behavior? IMO, no. The test is to be passed, my burden of performance, she holds me tighter, begs me for affection as never before. Sex is plentiful. More frame for me, no snark, much laughter.

Reader SJF comments next:

Your wife’s response to overhearing your conversation is normal operating procedure for women. I’ve been through this scenario and could shed some more light on it.

Sure it is a shit test. Sure it is a comfort test. Doesn’t matter. It’s not about passing a shit test. It’s about using it to your advantage. “You’re no whore. You’re MY whore” was an Agree and Amplify response to the test. Not the best way to accomplish your goals. Your goals here were to mentor your buddy. Not to game your wife–you already have that in hand 

What this situation calls for is to conduct your discussions with men in fight club in private.

What’s going on with your wife in this situation is and INDIGNATION of the SISTERHOOD scenario. (How fucking dare you help another man to implement his strategy to compromise the strategy of the Sisterhood? The Sisterhood’s Social Conventions and their Feminine Imperatives to implement their strategy are more important in a Feminine Supreme Society than you buddy gaining agency).

Your wife on behalf of her and your daughter is affronted by you giving him tactics. (She figures on your part this is you giving her and your daughter and indignity because you are giving this: insult, offend, mortify, provoke, pique, wound, hurt to the Sisterhood Strategy and Imperatives.) You are poking the mother of your children in the ribs with riposte. She protests. She figures it’s not fucking fair.

So this talking red pill to red pill with guys is best kept off the grid and out of sight and earshot.
Now keep in mind this is not abdicating frame any more than a Machiavellian strategist is embarrassed by his tactics being kept secret.

Tyler Durden in fight club would not agree about using overt, rather than covert discussions about blowing up the edifices (buildings, social conventions and imperatives) in society to achieve ends.

And finally Novaseeker adds this most salient comment:

“You should know this stuff, but you shouldn’t know this stuff, if it were up to the Sisterhood. You guys are taking away OUR POWER and I’m going to shit test you about that with some INDIGNATION.”

Yes, it’s because it violates the “Just Get It” principle. It’s fine if a man “just gets it”. It’s not fine if a man has to learn it in order to get it, because in the latter case there is a concern that he doesn’t actually really “get it”, because he isn’t a man who “just gets it”.

More fundamentally, they do not trust themselves to be able to tell the difference between a man who “just gets it” and man who has learned from other men how to “get it”, and they fundamentally do want to distinguish between the two types of men because that is a critical Alpha filter. What you’re doing is sabotaging their filter, which of course will be unwelcome, never mind that they will generally be just as satisfied with a man who learns to get it as they would with a man who just gets it, in practice (as long as the former guy maintains frame and so on properly). So, yes, don’t talk about fight club outside fight club and all that.

Women want a man who ‘just gets it’ but they despise a man who has to be told how to ‘get it’.

This is the first law of the Sisterhood, a man who must be told how to be a man, how to be dominant in his dealings with women, or fluidly, naturally be the Alpha who is in control of his environment(s) isn’t the man for her. If masculinity or the value of social dominance had to be explained to him, he had to make a conscious effort to act contrary to what his ‘true’ nature would otherwise be for women.

Hypergamy always seeks the better-than-deserved situation with men. In the past I’ve discussed how the nature of Hypergamy is such that it cannot wait for a man to realize his potential. Hypergamy looks for the ‘sure thing’. This is why women prefer the romantic attentions (at least as far as long term prospects go) of men who are 5 – 7 years or older than themselves. On a limbic level, women are aware that men’s accrual of sexual market value takes much longer than for women. Men who would be intimately acceptable are the men who are already made-men. There is no (or certainly less) uncertainty for her Hypergamous doubt to resolve for her when that man possesses SMP equity that time has made of him. This is also the root reason women are attracted to men who naturally, effortlessly, display higher value and Amused Mastery, as well as men for whom social proof is socially and organically confirmed for her.

Women’s sexual agency –their only true commodity value to men – is perishable. This then is the nature of women’s very intimate relationship with the Wall; they know on a hindbrain, limbic level and from a very early age that their sexual agency rises quickly and burns out fast. Their peak competitive years in the sexual marketplace (SMP) spans only 10-12 years at best before their younger sisters replace them in the SMP. They know that there will come a point that their capacity to compete in the SMP will diminish.

Every cosmetic ever created, every plastic surgery or implant devised (by men) every fashion trend or clothing style for women has been created with the express purpose of both making a woman appear younger than her actual age and/or to convince her that her sexual agency has an indefinite shelf life. Every social convention for women the Feminine Imperative has ever devised is rooted in the latent purpose of convincing women that their sexual market value ought to be based on some esoteric or intrinsic quality (rather than the biological and evolutionary reality) once they’ve moved past the age of being able to effectively compete intrasexually with their sisters.

They are conditioned to believe the fault in ‘unrealistic beauty standards’ is due to the horrific sexual objectification of men’s base (biological) natures and/or the social constructivist narrative that would have them believe it’s a nebulous ‘society’s’ fault that they are unable to consolidate their Hypergamy once the expiration date for their sexual market value has passed and their younger sisters outcompete them.

Id vs. Ego

On a subconscious level this is the internal conflict women fight within themselves. The desires of their Ids war with the dictates of what Hypergamy demands of them, knowing all the while that their capacity to consolidate on it is limited to a very short window in their lifetimes. Women’s Egos are then fed on the narrative of the Feminine Imperative that the worries of their Ids, and the crushing doubts that Hypergamy biologically wires into women, are unfounded and they have an almost indefinite timeframe in which to consolidate on the ‘perfect guy’ ; The guy who will satisfy both the Alpha Fucks sexual excitement of Hypergamy with the stable, comforting, dependable security the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy needs for her long term security. A woman’s Id knows this is a lie, but her Ego is convinced she can wait out her Party Years at least to sample as many ‘bad boys, wrong boys, commitment-phobic boys’ as the Sheryl Sandberg plan for Hypergamy has convinced her Ego she has the time to work her way through.

A woman’s Id is having none of it, beyond enjoying the sexual pleasures of the Alpha men she prefers in her peak sexual market value (SMV) years. Hypergamy demands the complete package, the already-made man. The guy for whom she’s so certain will be the best of both worlds (despite the unbeliveability of it) that it quells her Hypergamous doubt. On a rudimentary level a woman’s Id knows she deserves a better-than-warranted situation with regard to her Hypergamy; it’s the only situation that will ever be truly satisfying to her. Only a man who rates 1-2 degrees above what she feels her own SMV merits (however unrealistic that’s become to her) will be the man she can truly submit herself to.

This is what her Id knows. On some level of consciousness it knows she is choosing a life in which she can either submit herself and entrust her life, body and soul to the long term security of a deserving man (one who rates a full to two steps above her own self-impression), or she will resign herself to her own ‘independence’ and self-reliance with respect to long term security in a life with a man who doesn’t “deserve her” and who she will never submit herself to.

There are many variables that interfere with a woman making this consolidation in her younger years, but the fact remains, the longer a woman delays consolidating on the guy she could comfortably submit herself to the less likely she is to actually do so; and the more likely she is to resign herself to insisting on her own Frame to supply the security she would otherwise get from a man she could’ve submitted herself to.

This is why we see a majority of older women – women who’ve cycled out of the SMP – falling back on the tropes of the Strong Independent Woman® narrative. The truth is they are unlikely to ever lockdown the perfect guy with whom they could comfortably submit to. This is also compounded by her Hypergamous doubt and long term security having to be self-provisioned for a longer and longer period of time. A never-married 40 year old woman will likely have been so necessitous in her own provisioning that she will never allow herself to submit to any man’s Frames for the remainder of her life.

All of this interpersonal back and forth revolves around women’s capacity to attract a suitable man while simultaneously filtering for men’s requisite qualities to satisfy the dual nature of Hypergamy. From an evolutionary perspective, women’s breeding potential cannot afford to be tricked or deceived into her consolidating on a less than optimal man. That’s the paradox of Hypergamy and the prime reason women seek pre-made man (or a man with such overwhelming potential it satisfies Hypergamy). So important is this filtering mechanism that it evolved to be a part of women’s neurological firmware – it’s baked in.

In a larger respect, this filtering is part of the prime directive amongst the collective social influence of the Sisterhood. Women want, and expect, a default, and completely honest, evaluation of a man’s intimate potential in satisfying Hypergamy from her peers as well as the larger social collective of women. Anything that confounds or deliberately confuses the veracity of this Hypergamous assessment about a guy is equitable with deliberately attempting to sabotage a woman’s life. Accurate evaluation of a man’s Hypergamous potential is the highest order for the Sisterhood.

Teaching Slaves to Read

In my interview with Ed Latimore we discussed exactly this dynamic and what Ed said was profound. I paraphrase him here, but the sentiment was, “Men learning Game, men teaching men about the intrinsic psychological and biological natures of women, men making other men Red Pill aware, is like teaching slaves to read in the time of slavery.”

Men becoming aware of the nature of women is a Threat; and that threat is primarily dangerous because it deliberately confounds women’s accurate assessment of a man’s true value in satisfying her Hypergamous doubt. Educating men about Game, about Red Pill awareness, must be prevented on both a personal level and a sociological level if women are to maintain a feminine-primary, feminine-correct and feminine-dominant social order. Thus, we encounter the social situations that Ehintellect and SJF describe in the above comments.

This reminds me of a story I read on the Red Pill Reddit forum about a guy who’s girlfriend discovered my book he’d been reading. She began picking through various sections and, expectedly, got really pissed off at the chapters on SMV (the chart in particular). They both discussed the parts she’d read and she admitted she wanted to read the whole thing, but from what they talked about she confessed that there wasn’t really anything she disagreed with. Her words were, “You men shouldn’t know this stuff!

It wasn’t that she was irritated by the truth in those sections of the book, but rather, her concern was that men might become aware of women’s sexual strategies as laid bare by the SMV sections and chart. Essentially, men teaching men to become Red Pill aware, to unplug them from the Matrix is anathema to women’s long term sexual strategy. Teaching men to Just Get It is a deliberate effort to bypass women’s subconscious and overt filtering processes to evaluate a man’s Hypergamous value.

Furthermore, Red Pill aware men represent an existential threat to women unilaterally making Hypergamous decisions for their lives – a unilateral power women have taken for granted since the unfettering of Hypergamy in the Sexual Revolution – and thus represent a threat to their making a less than optimal choice. Men becoming Red Pill aware, in effect, prioritizes men’s control over the Hypergamous process. That may be only by order of degree, and subjective to men’s real grasp of the Red Pill and their capacity to implement it, but the fear remains. Even a nominal control or increase in control of men over the Hypergamous process must be criminalized, marginalized or shamed to eliminate the threat that a man might convincingly misrepresent himself for a woman’s Hypergamous approval.

This is interesting in light of women’s hubris of embracing Open Hypergamy on a societal, cultural level. It’s not that men would be aware of women’s Hypergamous sexual strategies – this they triumphantly flaunt in very public ways – it’s that men would collude together to deliberately exploit that knowledge to wrest some marginal control over women’s sexual selection process.

Novaseeker’s assessment is correct, this convincing deception centers on men teaching men to passably appear to, if not actually, Just Get It. There’s a maxim in the manosphere that states women are not interested in how a man becomes a man. They are uninterested in the process of a man becoming anything, just that he is. If there is one thing Hypergamy demands to satisfy its inherent doubts is that men be genuine. How they became ‘genuine’ is irrelevant to women, just that they are genuine is enough. This is the conflict between women’s Ids and Egos – that a man might appear to be genuine in his quality is enough, yet not enough. 

The First Female President®

As a matter of policy I’ve always kept this blog’s topics about intersexual dynamics and left direct issues of politics, religion, economics, race, etc. to other blogs. The only time I cross into these issues is when they relate to inter (or intra) sexual dynamics, and usually when I do it makes for some heated discussions about whatever ideology seems to be the most “Red Pill”. In these circumstances I’ve learned (the hard way) that it’s wise to wait and reserve my opinions until all the cards have hit table. With respect to the gender-social landscape of a Trump presidency I think that time might be now.

If you’ve listened to any of my recent interviews over the last year (and American campaign cycle) you’ll understand my take on how I believe Red Pill issues have colored the last campaign. With the first real shot of a female president on the table I could hardly not be asked about what I expected. If you follow me on Twitter you’ll also know I made a prediction that it would be Red Pill issues, from the intersexual perspective, that would be a defining catalyst of the campaign. I was not disappointed.

While I’ve never been an ardent Trump supporter, my political decisions were made for me with the campaign of Hillary Clinton being his opposition. I didn’t vote for Trump, I voted against Hillary, and I don’t think I was alone in that assessment. As far as I’m concerned the jury’s still out on a Trump presidency, so I’ll reserve my skepticism, but one thing I am eminently thankful for is that Hillary was denied the presidency. From a socio-sexual standpoint, and being a Red Pill writer for some time, my analysis of this being a campaign rooted in Red Pill dynamics, those the manosphere has been sussing out for going on 15 years, centered on the fact that Hillary was the Feminine Imperative’s best hope for the First Female President®. I think it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that it wasn’t Hillary herself who was running, but the ideal of the first real hope for a woman in the White House.

As a long-time Red Pill author, the feminine-primacy narrative in her campaign was blatantly obvious to me. Even ‘Obama-the-feminist’ carried the Fempowerment water for her. That was to be expected, but what I found equally predictable was the pro-woman narrative using many of the Social Conventions I’ve detailed for a decade now. Naturally, there were the feminist tropes, but the feminine-primary ‘Village’ couldn’t just pander to women, it needed some outreach to men. So, the predictable appeals to “real manhood”, the Male Catch 22 and the ever-present shaming of conventional masculinity had to follow. Men needed to declare, “I’m with Her”. It was a ham-fisted hope that male Hillary supporters would ostracize other men into supporting her – or at least they might self-police men’s vocal opposition to her.

Again, as expected from the Feminine Imperative, any dissent, any criticism, any doubt or about Hillary (no matter the issue debated) was tantamount to misogyny. This has been the spoken and unspoken presumption of any man who might be critical of anything pro-female for sometime now, but the Bitter Misogynist narrative needed some freshening up to remind women and men about their duty as responsible members of a feminine-primary social order to elect the First Female President®. This played out on a larger scale in the Clinton campaign’s late-game efforts to dig up the endless words Trump might’ve said that proved his misogyny. However, it didn’t matter what Trump did or didn’t say; the fact that any man would oppose the First Female President® made him a misogynist by default.

He versus Her

From my Red Pill perspective, the campaign wasn’t about Hillary and Trump, it was about the Feminine Imperative vs. conventional masculinity. I believe the feminine-primary hope was to definitively defeat all vestiges, all semblances, of conventional masculinity. I’ve written on numerous occasions about feminine-primacy’s efforts to remove men from all aspects of our collective thought, but a Hillary presidency was to be a decisive victory over the mythical Patriarchy and the symbolic defeat of all that is men. Hillary and Trump were mere caricatures, effigies, placeholding representative of the ridiculous extremes we’re meant to presume of women vs. men – Trump, the living image of Patriarchy and Misogyny, Hillary, the pinnacle of exaggerated female empowerment that’s been culminating since the time of the suffragettes.

It was the school yard, boys-against-girls, battle of the sexes writ large on a geopolitical scale, and the end-game victory of the First Female President® was all but a given certainty. I will admit myself, I thought Hillary had it in the bag. That’s what anyone plugged into the narrative was certain above all doubt would happen. She was supposed to win. On countless female-supremacist blogs the mantra was “Its Her turn” – it wasn’t specifically Hillary’s turn, it was Her turn, it was women’s turn. That was the foregone conclusion and anyone could see it. Even the polls who we’d later wonder “how could they have gotten it so wrong?”, even they just knew it was “her turn”. If you believed TrumpHis‘ would win it was just a sign of your stupidity in the face of such overwhelming surety.

In fact, such was the surety of the First Female President® that companies, social organizations, advertising agencies, publications of every ideological stripe, all banked on Her winning the White House – and all prepared to be ready to welcome the First Female President®. With the surety of a woman president came the surety of an ushering in of a new Era of the Woman. It was simple pragmatism to prepare well in advance for what everyone was convinced would be the zeitgeist of the next 4 (and likely 8) years of the First Female President®. Him winning was inconceivable, so it made sense to get advertising, commercials, corporate policies, special events, preliminary legislation, etc. all in readiness and in line with the coming Era of the Woman. The smart money was ‘being on the right side of history’, especially given the certainty of it and the idiocy you’d be accused of for betting against it.

But then Election Day came, and with it came the inconceivable, the unbelievable. ‘He‘ won, not ‘Her‘.

We were then treated to the tearful videos of young women in disbelief, sure that their efforts to elect Her were wasted and the certainty of their empowerment left in doubt. Their part in ‘history in the making’ was to be denied.

We had the hurriedly written concession speech only after a day or so, such was the hubris there was no need to write a ‘concession’ speech prior. Then came the existential cries of soul-destroying anguish when He was sworn in. And we were introduced to protests of a hostility never before exhibited by the followers of Her. His character was no longer about misogyny so much as it was converted to fascism. A vote for Him was considered a hate-crime, mirroring much of the same fluidity and ambiguity applied to the definitions of ‘rape’ and ‘consent’, before He came along.

With the inconceivable Trump presidency those pre-bought ad campaigns, those forward-thinking companies had to switch the narrative from a feminine-supremacism victory lap to one of ‘we shall overcome’ in spite of the same old sexism we’re supposed to presume is lurking under every male CEO’s desk. You can see this in stark contrast when you look at any of the multi-million dollar Super Bowl commercial spots that are shot a year well in advance of their air-time date. Audi’s commercial being the most glaringly evident of the presupposition of a woman president.

Turning Over Stones

What His victory has really exposed for us as a society is a condition of feminine-primacy I have been writing about for well on 14 years now. When I wrote Fem-Centrism and The Feminine Reality I was attempting to bring to light the ways in which we exist in a feminine-primary social order. I caught a lot of flack for those posts back in the day, but they’ve served as a keystone understanding for many of the social paradigms and the intents of feminization efforts I’ve written about over the years. For several generation we’ve been conditioned to believe “it’s a man’s world” and we accept notions of the evil Patriarchy to be a settled truth. Along comes Rollo Tomassi and he turns over the stones to reveal that it is in fact a feminine-primary social order men serve in – gynocentrism, gynocracy, misandry – and all pretense of ‘Patriarchy’ is really part of one more operative social convention to sell men and women on the idea of female victimhood.

All of that changed on Election Day, 2016. All of the preplanned victory lap celebrations, all the feminist triumphal marches scheduled to follow in the wake of the First Female President®, were converted to protests marches, riots, violence and demonstrations against the prospect that He might potentially remove Her rights. All of the pretense of our feminine-centric, feminine-primary social order being a social undercurrent has been, and will be tossed to the wind now. The Empress has no clothes (often literally), and all she wears is a knitted pink-pussy hat; the new uniform of female supremacism. In the span of one election cycle virtually every premise I asserted about the validity of the Feminine Imperative has been confirmed. But moreover, that imperative, so angered by the denial of the First Female President®, is comfortable in its existence being laid bare.

For years I’ve addressed the comfort women now have in openly acknowledging their Hypergamy. Open Hypergamy and Open Cuckoldry are not just embraced, they’re celebrated among women and among the feminine-primary social order to the point that we make commercials and sitcoms based on women’s sexual strategy. Now that we’ve achieved Peak Hypergamy the final step is casting off all pretense about the designs on Female Supremacism. His victory appears to be the catalyst for this.

The jig is up and the Sisterhood Über Alles has revealed the true nature of the Feminine Imperative. Even the pretense of a desire for ‘equality’ among the sexes is now replaced with a visceral contempt for all things male. More attempts to remove the man from all language is the first initiative in both the military and on campus. No longer does the femosphere feel a need to hide or sweet talk its agenda; the intent isn’t lofty dreams of gender-equality, it is, and always has been Female Supremacism and the complete erasure of anything conventionally male or masculine. If it is male and can be replaced with a female proxy, so be it. If it cannot, its complete destruction is preferred.

The Women’s March on Washington last January was the most glaring confirmation of everything I’ve ever written about the Feminine Imperative. My timing of publishing this post with tomorrow’s Day Without Women international protest is no coincidence and I have no doubt that the embrace of feminine supremacism will offer increasingly more evidence of what I’ve asserted about the Feminine Imperative. Men, Red Pill or otherwise, need to be aware of this embrace of Open Female Supremacism and their complicity in it. The Era of the Woman has now shifted to one of a blatant, naked, power grab that likely would’ve been made all the easier had the First Female President® not been denied “her turn”.

Had Hillary won the presidency I have no doubt we’d still hear platitudes of how feminism is really about ‘equality’, and how it really benefits men too. Instead we have open contempt for all that appears masculine. Even the protests themselves are converted into programs meant to emasculate men. Instead of notions of ‘equality’ we get further atomization between the sexes in the name of Fempowerment. And instead they will openly make masculinity a disease to cure.

In the coming year(s) I predict we’re going to see more of the “women-as-oppressed” in advertising, in our cultural narrative, in or social dialog, because this is what a feminine-primary social order believes will resonate with damn near every demographic. And for those whom it doesn’t, then those who disagree will have to deal with those it does. It would be easy to dismiss all of this as over exaggeration; after all this isn’t really anything new to Red Pill aware men. I’ve been writing about for almost 14 years. What is new is an increased social urgency combined with the denial of the feminine entitlement the Red Pill community has been talking about among individual women for a decade.

It’s as if women everywhere were promised the First Female President® and then had her snatched away by the living embodiment of misogyny they’ve been taught to exaggerate for generations. They were ‘entitled’ to her winning – so much so that they would change the rules of the game in order for that certainty – but He took it away. He stole it, he cheated, he,…did anything but legitimately win it. That is a very BIG hit to the collective ego-investments of a feminine-primary social order. Thus, we will see in the years to come even grander displays of this entitlement, yes, but also the stripping away of all pretense women ever had of coexisting with anything looking like masculinity.

Masculinity is misogyny now. If you thought intersexual Red Pill awareness was derided before, it will be reviled as a hate-crime in the coming era. I once joked that if things kept going the way they were socially, The Rational Male would need to be secretly smuggled to groups of men to read by firelight like Bibles in Mao’s China. I’m not laughing about that these days.

False Equivalencies

equivalencies

One of the more persistent questions I get asked about Hypergamy is if there’s a parallel to it in men. I’ve answered this in several comment threads both here and in other forums, but I’ve never really addressed it in a post. When I was considering this I remembered a couple of comments from manosphere luminaries Deti and Novaseeker who I thought summed up this (often deliberate) misconception. Deti was kind enough to provide me with his own observations which I’m quoting and riffing on here:

It’s often said that men and women are both hypergamous.  This isn’t true.  Both men and women optimize.  But only women are hypergamous.

Hypergamy has become a term of art in the manosphere.  It has a very specific meaning which differs from the meaning social scientists ascribe to it.  In social science it refers specifically and only to marriage relationships.   The term is used to refer to women marrying men who are perceived to be wealthier or of a higher social/economic standing or caste, usually observed in Hindu cultures on the Indian subcontinent but also observed in early American society.  In the United States it’s often referred to as women “marrying up”.   

 F. Roger Devlin, himself having a social science background, appropriated the term in his essay entitled Sexual Utopia in Power when referring to his observation that young single women always seemed to be looking for the best man they can get at any one time, seeking the most attractive man or men for sex.  Devlin observed modern Western women’s propensity to discard one man in favor of a better man, in serial fashion, always doing their best to “move up” and get  a more attractive, better man with each successive discard and pairing.  

Expanding on this, manosphere writers and bloggers noticed that hypergamy operates at a low hum, like a background operating system, in every woman.   It is “satisfied” while she’s with a man of sufficiently high value. But if a man of perceived higher value or greater attractiveness  shows interest, and/or her current man’s value is faltering, that low hum becomes a loud alarm. This can cause her, at the very least, to have feelings of attraction for the new man and feelings of dis-attraction for the current man. This can in many cases cause her to leave the current man for the new higher value, more attractive man. This doesn’t always happen, but it can happen. Hypergamy can operate in any combination – more attractive man showing interest; current man’s attractiveness waning or falling, and anywhere in between. Thus, the manosphere’s use of the term “hypergamy” came into being, to refer to a core aspect of female sexual nature which is unique to women. 

If you do a Google search for the term ‘Hypergamy’ you’ll find The Rational Male and the topic category link for all the posts I’ve ever done on it is the second return you’ll get below the Wikipedia entry for the term. At the risk of a humble-brag, I’m not sure anyone in the ‘sphere has written more extensively on the subject than myself and I think Deti sums up the conflict in definition that both critics and the uninitiated have with their understanding why there is a need for a broader definition of Hypergamy.

I made an effort to address this in The Hypergamy Conspiracy, but this was some time ago. ‘Hypergamy’ serves well in a much broader capacity, but should the Feminine Imperative find that broader definition threatening to its purpose it will casually dismiss it as illegitimate, because the manosphere appropriated the term. Thus, we’ll see feminine-primary society embrace the larger ideas of Hypergamy (as in the embrace of Open Hypergamy) so long as it’s flattering to, and benefits most, women. Once it gets ugly, then it conveniently denies the legitimacy of the broad definition and it’s strictly about the “women having a tendency to marry up” sociology term.

People confuse “optimization” with “hypergamy“. Both men and women optimize; meaning they want the best they can get, of anything and everything. Men and women optimize everything:  jobs, cars, houses, furniture, friends, even churches. Men and women optimize with each other. But men and women optimize with the opposite sex in different ways, and that’s where the confusion comes in.

Hypergamy in its current iteration in the manosphere means essentially “is attracted only to people who are more attractive than I am”.  Women will be sexually attracted to men who they perceive as “above” them in attractiveness.  They will be somewhat attracted to men who are at their rough SMV level, but that man must bring other things to the table, usually provisioning and commitment, before she will have sex with him. And women are never ever sexually attracted to men who are perceived to be beneath their own SMV level.  

Example:   A woman with SMV = 7 will be sexually attracted to males with SMV of 8 and up.   She will pair with a male 7, if and only if he brings “other things” to the table. She will never be sexually attracted to male 6s on down.  And she will be able to easily get sex with men above her in SMV.  She can occasionally get relationships with male 8s.  She can easily get relationships and sex with male 7s.  Male 6s on down are her orbiters, with whom she’ll never have sex.   

Female critics of the broader definition of Hypergamy often have a (contrived) problem with the distinction between optimization and Hypergamy. And, as Deti explains, a lot of this comes from the fact that women’s sense of their own sexual market value is largely overinflated. Women rate 80 percent of men below average in attractiveness. When you contrast, even loose, statistics like this against the broader idea of Hypergamy you start to see why women would want there to be some analogous kind of Hypergamy for men. Hypergamy in women is founded on three bedrock truths:

  • Persistent doubt that a woman has adequately ‘optimized’ on Hypergamy with any man she has, or will potentially have, consolidated on a long term relationship with.
  • Hypergamy never seeks its own level. Women are always looking for a better-than-equal pairing with men in respect to their own SMV compared to his. When 80% of men are (loosely) agreed to be below average in attractiveness to women, we must consider that this assessment is measured in relation to what women’s Hypergamous doubt might be optimized with in a man.
  • Women’s Hypergamy is based in, and the source of, women’s dualistic sexual strategy. The manosphere euphemism for this is Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. This shorthand refers to Hypergamy seeking optimization in both short-term-sex breeding potential and (ideally) long-term parental investment, protection and provisioning security potential.

It’s important to review these principles of Hypergamy because, for all the protestations of women wanting an equal comparison, there are no parallels of Hypergamy for men’s sexual strategy.

Deti continues:

Men do not operate like this at all.  And that’s the difference.   Men are not attracted only to women who are above them in SMV. A man can be, and often is, attracted to women above him in SMV, and to women at his SMV level and also to women below him in SMV. What is also different is the level of women he can get and how well his relationships will work out, based on his and her SMV.   

A man will be unable to continue a relationship with a woman above his SMV. He is very sexually attracted to them, and occasionally lucks out and gets sex with one or two; but he can’t sustain a relationship with them. He can get sex from women at his SMV level but only if he goes all in and offers commitment. He can most easily get sex with women below him in SMV, many times no strings attached sex. 

Example: A male 6 will rarely get sex with a 7 but can’t keep anything with her going. He’s not even on the radar of female 8s on up. He can get sex with a female 6 only if he offers commitment and provisioning. He can most easily get sex with female 5s on down. 

And here’s the grand difference: A man is OK with having sex with women at and below his own SMV. In fact, he’ll be happiest in his relationships with women beneath his own SMV – a woman is “meh” about sex with men at her SMV, and she is positively repulsed and sickened at having sex with men below her own SMV. She’ll be happiest in a relationship with a man above her own SMV and she can tolerate a man at her SMV. And she’ll be miserable at best with a man beneath her SMV and will tend to blow up those relationships. 

Men and women both have attraction floors. Men’s attraction floor is below their own SMV.   Women’s attraction floor is either above her own SMV and sometimes at her own SMV, but never beneath it.

I explore the fundamentals of intimate attachments and how SMV status influences it here. That article might be worth reviewing because in it is a lesson about Hypergamy. Again, compare the idea that the most secure attachments between couples are ones where the dominant, man’s, SMV status is roughly 1-2 points above that of the woman’s and contrast that against the fact that women rate 80% of men’s attractiveness as ‘below average’.

Also, keep in mind the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The other, minor difference is that men are polygamous, not hypergamous. A man’s imperative is not (necessarily) to get the best woman. It’s to get as many women as possible with as little investment and commitment as possible. If he can do it, he would love to get as many women as possible at and a little below his own SMV, and have sex with as many of them as possible for as long as possible, without committing to or investing in any of them.   That’s spinning plates. Most men don’t do this, because they can’t, because they’re not attractive enough, but that’s a different post.  

A woman’s imperative is to get the best one man she can get for sex and for provisioning.     That’s why you don’t see many women “dating” (i.e. having sex with) several different men at the same time. Women don’t spin plates; they pick the best plate they can and take care of it as best they can. Instead of trying to collect plates, they just change out the plates, one for another, when a bigger, better one comes along.  

This is why the best long term relationship is one in which the man outranks his woman in SMV. He should be at least +1 and preferably +2 in SMV.  This makes both of them happiest in the long run.

On many an occasion I’ve fielded the question, “Well Rollo, if there’s a Feminine Imperative, there must be a Masculine Imperative.” People don’t usually like the answer, but from a strictly evolutionary and biological perspective, the Masculine (or male) Imperative is Unlimited Access to Unlimited Sexuality.

Deti summed this up adequately here, but the more high-minded of my critics will often think the ‘male imperative’ is setting the bar too low for men, but usually this comes from a want of something more than the visceral truth of what motivates us. And I’d agree with this for the most part, if men are to become something more than their base natures would have of them. But using the same reproductive metric I use in describing women’s Hypergamy I’ve also got to recognize that men’s drive for sex has been the incentive for our greatest achievements and our worst proclivities. If we are to be ethical in our judgements we must be amoral in our assessments. Sometimes those assessments will be unflattering for men and women.

The objective issue here is that men’s imperative is not analogous to women’s imperative. When we look at men’s approach to gratifying this imperative we see the stark contrast between women’s Hypergamy and men’s sexual strategy.

False Equivalencies

One of the most predictable responses I expect to hear from women when they chafe at various Red Pill truths is always the first presumption of false equivalencies between the sexes. Whenever I, or any Red Pill man relates some unflattering truth about the nature of women, without fail, the first reflexive response is “well, men do this too, and it’s worse,…” or there’s some other unflattering presumption about the nature of men that’s supposed to provide some counterbalance to the ugly truth about women that’s being related. Feminized men and White Knights will also adopt this tact in order to defend the honor of the Sisterhood so as to have there be no doubt that they ‘aren’t like typical men’ in their identifying with women.

This is to be expected though. The first impulse is to defend against anyone acknowledging that truth by distraction. “Ooh, ooh, men do it too!” is a distraction meant to refocus the intent of objectively (amorally) assessing what is otherwise an unflattering aspect of female nature, behavior and/or the motivators that prompt it. In order to do so we are expected to first presume a co-equal state between men and women, as well as a co-equal state of mutual goals. Thus, for women’s distraction to be effective there must be a presumed state of equivalency between men and women.

As such, we are, by default, expected to accept that if there is a female Hypergamy there must also be a male form of Hypergamy. This is a very useful illustration of the false equivalency principle women rely upon. Deductively it should make sense, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but only in a mindset and a social order based on egalitarian-equalism is that reaction presumed to be the binary opposite of the original action.

If, as equalism would have us accept, men and women are functional equals, then it follows that there must be a male Hypergamy that is the reaction to women’s (often unflattering) Hypergamy. Women’s innate solipsism only reinforces this presumption because only an action that impacts a woman (positively or negatively) is deemed a legitimate truth to that mindset. I would argue that this is exactly why women’s first reflexive defense (to anything challenging her gender-defined ego-investments) will always be to presume some gender-opposite reaction for men. The belief is that while she can’t deny the proposed truth, at least (she) women aren’t as bad as men. From there the objective is to distract from that uncomfortable truth by indicting (functionally equal) men’s natures.

All of this presumption only functions in a social order that’s based on the idea of egalitarian-equalism between the sexes. When we look at things from a gender-complementarity perspective, and we accept that there are fundamental differences in the innate natures and motivators of men and women, those distractions become less effective. Just as Deti explains for us here, once we accept that men are not co-equal agents with women, we don’t even expect that there would be an equivalent to women’s Hypergamy in men.

The genders are different. We both have strategies for sex and life and fulfillment that are often not analogous to one another. Women only expect that there would be analogies because they presume that a female experience, female goals and contexts that benefit the Feminine Imperative will necessarily be what men mutually agree upon as what’s best for themselves. Only in a state of equalism, ignorant and intolerant of anything not agreed upon by ‘feminine correctness’, is there a presumption that men must have some parallel to the motivators and behaviors that prompt women. Only in a state of solipsism is this the subconscious assumption.

This is something to keep in mind the next time a woman bemoans how unfair double standards are for women. Men are not women, women are not men. Our strategies are often incompatible, or at the very least require a degree of compromise or total acquiescence to coexist in an ostensibly symbiotic relationship between men and women. It is only women (and feminized men) who default to supposing men are their functional equals.