Category Archives: Inter-gender Communication

The Princess Experience

‘Fallen Princesses’ –  photographer Dina Goldstein


Mansplaining

About three years ago I published a post called Remove the Man. That essay was prompted by Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signing on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral.

“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”

That was 2013. I’d encourage readers to go over this article again as a frame of reference, but the gist of the idea then was revealing the efforts being made by the Feminine Imperative to remove men (literally and figuratively) not only from the common language but to remove men from defining masculinity altogether. I touched on this as well in VulnerabilityIn seizing a monopoly on our very language women are free to redefine not just words but the ideas that those words connote.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” – George Orwell, 1984

It’s an easy jump to associate this word-thought monopolization with political and social justice agendas, and I’m sure there are many examples of it in practice. And while I’ll leave that discussion to other blogs, I do think it’s important in the scope of this blog’s mandate to address how maleness is (and has been) decoupled from masculinity – certainly conventional masculinity – and the redefinition of the concept of masculinity has been surrendered to the feminine in a similar fashion that Hypergamy has been given free reign in society.

In other words, in a feminine-centric social order, men, by and large, have willingly acquiesced the defining power of how they will communicate to the sensibilities of women.

From Remove the Man:

Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.

[…]the same social tool has been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative.

[…]For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity, solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.

Control the language and you control the concept. Control the concept, and what is acceptable and what is not about it, and you control the thought before it forms. As I’ve argued in the past, the end state of the Feminine Imperative’s consolidation of social control isn’t the complete elimination of masculinity, but rather that it conveniently conforms to the needs of the imperative as best suits it.

‘Masculinity’ when shame for a lack of performance in desired acts, protection and provisioning are necessary, ‘Misogyny’ when the threat of feminine-primary control is implied in men’s self-esteem, affirmation or reward are attributed to maleness.

From Vulnerability:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

I’m beginning with this today because it’s necessary to underline the latent purposes behind the cutesy jingoisms the Feminine Imperative likes to use when it finds it necessary to reign in the ‘word-thought’ of men. One of these is the term “Mansplaining.”

I led off with the video of Senator Gallagher being called to the carpet for using ‘Mansplaining’ as her go-to rationale because it illustrates how the jingoism of the imperative is expected to work with men already cowed by a Blue Pill conditioning. She literally expects everyone present to understand what Mansplaining is.

Side note: I also find it ironic that the word “Mansplaining” is not flagged with a red underline by autocorrect as I type this. Womansplaining however, is. It’s kind of spooky how readily the language monopoly of the Feminine Imperative is integrated into our popular consciousness via communications technologies and social media. How quick? Have a look at how ‘Mansplaining’ trends on Google.

Even more ironic is the fact that the common definition of what constitutes ‘mansplaining’ is still up for grabs. According to Wikipedia:

Mansplaining covers a heterogeneous mix of mannerisms in which a speaker’s reduced respect for the stance of a listener, or a person being discussed, appears to have little reason behind it other than the speaker’s assumption that the listener or subject, being female, does not have the same capacity to understand as a man. It also covers situations in which it appears a person is using a conversation primarily for the purpose of self-aggrandizement — holding forth to a female listener, presumed to be less capable, in order to appear knowledgeable by comparison.

Solnit’s original essay went further, discussing the consequences of this gendered behavior and drawing attention to its effect in creating a conspiracy of silence and disempowerment. Solnit later published Men Explain Things To Me, a collection of seven essays on similar themes. Women, including professionals and experts, are routinely seen or treated as less credible than men, she wrote in the title essay, and their insights or even legal testimony are dismissed unless validated by a man. She argued that this was one symptom of a widespread phenomenon that “keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”

Mansplaining differs somewhat from other forms of condescension in that it is specifically gender-related, rooted in a sexist assumption that a man will normally be more knowledgeable, or more capable of understanding, than a woman.

Google cuts to the meat of it for simplicity:

mansplain

Others argue that any information a man relates in a male way of explaining it (i.e. a longwinded description of informational content). Julia Baird’s offering is particularly egregious, citing the amount of lines women get in proportion to those of men in the movies:

The problem is global and endemic across all media. Female characters speak lessin Disney films today than they used to — even princesses get a minority of the speaking lines in films in which they’re the principal: In the 2013 animated movie “Frozen,” for example, male characters get 59 percent of the lines. A quick search for best monologues in film or movies reveals that they are almost all male. If you took Princess Leia out of “Star Wars,” the total speaking time for female characters is 63 seconds out of the original trilogy’s 386 minutes.

This, of course, is in stark contrast to the studies that show women spend more time on their cell phones and text more often than men. Women also use emoticons more often than men, yet men have more variety in emoticon usage. That may seem trivial, but it’s an important aspect to consider in comparing men and women’s preferred intents of communication. Then there are the studies that show women actually do talk more than men – 13,000 words a day.

It’s also important to consider that women dominate the vast majority of social media, unless that social media happens to be something work related like LinkedIn. This is an important distinction to make when we consider how men and women prefer to communicate.

From The Medium is the Message:

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

It should come as no surprise to most men in the manosphere that men and women have different means and different priorities in communications. I published that post almost five years ago, but even then I knew that a social order founded on feminine primacy was going to standardize its own way of communicating as the correct way. The ostensible reasoning is that, from a desire for gender parity in society, men must abandon their blunt, artless and simplistic, yet overbearing and egotistic way of communication and adopt women’s more meaningful, emotive and insightful covert way.

Of course, it’s men who see this ruse for what it is and either refuse to capitulate or simply don’t realize they’re supposed to talk like women who set themselves apart from the throngs of Blue Pill men conditioned to identify with the female experience (as a means to become intimate with them). I forget where I read it, but some one said a PUA is a man who pretends he has what a woman pretends she does not want. I may not agree with that in whole, but it certainly describes the social condition that’s been established by the Feminine Imperative over the course of four generations.

When we’re presented with easily digestible terms like Mansplaining, no matter how loosely defined, and it filters into the popular consciousness and lexicon so rapidly, what we’re witnessing is the ease with which the Feminine Imperative expects men to cede to it.

When a woman attempts to cow a man by saying he’s Mansplaining something to her she’s reached a point at which she prefers that man, any man, speak to her as a woman would. In base terms, she shames him for not opting to communicate as a woman would from the outset. He should know better.

The fem-splaining cover story is that men feel some ego-centric need to over-explain something to a woman. For a Blue Pill conditioned man this may even be accurate in that they hope so doing will endear himself to a “rational reasonable” woman by helping her understand a concept he’s educated on. What we’re really looking at is a struggle to control which gender-communication will take precedence. In a feminine primary social order, men’s means of communicating is offensive to women by default. The presumption is that men are being condescending to women by expecting them to communicate as men do, and especially within the political and working spheres.

As women push their way into male spaces, part of assimilating those spaces is to re-standardize how men will appropriately communicate within them. The conflict comes from the expectation on the part of men that women will respect the nature of station she’s been empowered to and be able to weather criticism and reproach as men have always done in those stations. The fallacy is the equalist belief that women will be equal agents while holding the same roles as men; the reality is what we see in the video above today.

So the solution, as always, is to remove the man, remove the masculine influence, change the language and the definitions, to remake the nature of the engagement if not the actual real-world factors that make the game or the politic or the business what it is – to silence the man by telling him to “just shut the hell up” or be tarred with the epithet of being a ‘typical man’.

The content of the communication is of less importance to women than how that communication makes them feel. We see this in no uncertain terms the more women become part of the socio-political/business spheres. When a man needs to explain the importance of content to a woman who is only qualified for her station by virtue of her being female that exchange necessarily is uncomfortable for women. Solution: complain about the delivery of the content and silence the men who would deliver it.


Children and Cornfields

Does anyone remember the episode of the Twilight Zone called “It’s a Good Life“? I rewatched this for this article and I’ve got to stay it still holds up and it’s just as creepy as when I watched it as a kid.

Six-year-old Anthony Fremont looks like any other little boy, but looks can be deceiving: he is a monster, a mutant with godlike mental powers, including mind-reading. Years before, he isolated his town of Peaksville, Ohio. Everybody is under his rule, even his parents. Since he’s begun isolating the town, supplies of common household items, such as bar soap, have been dwindling. He has blocked television signals, caused cars to not work, and, due to his controlling everything, he does not attend school.

The children and adults, including his own parents, tiptoe nervously around him, constantly telling him how everything he does is “good,” since displeasing him can get them wished away into a mystical “cornfield”, an unknown place, from which there is no return. At one point, a dog is heard barking angrily. Anthony thinks the dog is “bad” and doesn’t “like [him] at all,” and wishes it into the cornfield. His father and mother are horrified, but they dare not show it.

One night, due to the townsfolk having always done what he wants, he treats them to one hour of TV. Although they do not like what he shows, they tell Anthony that it was far better than what used to be on TV.

Finally, at Dan Hollins’ birthday party, he gets two presents from his wife: a bottle of brandy and a Perry Como record. As Dan is eager to listen to the record, he is reminded by everyone that Anthony does not like singing. Getting slightly drunk from the brandy, complaining about not listening to the record, and no one singing “Happy Birthday” to him, Dan cannot take the strain anymore and confronts Anthony, calling him a monster and a murderer. While Anthony’s anger grows, Dan yells for someone to attack Anthony from behind and end his reign of terror. Aunt Amy (who isn’t able to sing anymore because of Anthony) tentatively reaches for a fireplace poker, but no one has the courage to act. Anthony cries out to Dan, “You’re a bad man! You’re a very bad man! And you keep thinking bad thoughts about me!” Dan is transformed into a jack-in-the-box (ending his life), causing his wife to break down. The adults are horrified at what Anthony had done, and his father begs him to wish it into the cornfield, which he does.

Because of Amy’s earlier complaints about the heat, Anthony causes snow to begin falling outside. His father observes that the snow will kill off at least half the crops, and he is about to confront Anthony about this, but his wife and the other adults look on with worried smiles on their faces. The father then smiles and tells Anthony in a horror-tinged voice, “…But it’s good you’re making it snow. A real good thing. And tomorrow… tomorrow’s gonna be a… real ‘good’ day!”

I didn’t really understand the significance of this episode until recently. In a sense I guess I can attribute it to a more defined Red Pill Lens but the femosphere events and a few articles brought to my attention this last week reminded me of this Twilight Zone story. I’ll get to why in a bit.

The first event was the highly publicized not guilty verdict in the Jian Gomeshi rape (hoax) trial. Mike Cernovich had a quick hit post about the details here. I’ve written about the particulars of why women’s insecurity about optimizing Hypergamy drives them to insane lengths to control for it before, but my focus this time with Gomeshi wasn’t so much about the women’s lying, or the ambiguity of what constitutes rape or sexual harassment. When the Rolling Stone/UVA fraternity rape hoax was finally revealed for what it was I wrote Hysteria :

Transferring information about a man’s preselected approval amongst a collective of women is one such override. However, it’s very important for men living in a feminine-primary social order to understand that social proof is not just limited to preselection of men as potential partners.

This social proof dynamic extends to the perceptions of women in a collective peer group, as well as men for whom they have no sexual interest in, but serve their material interests nonetheless.

The current cultural atmosphere of male suspicion and autonomous rape-threat assessment of men is another variation of this perceptual, hysterical, collective belief dynamic. Women want to believe in the presumption that every man outside of their preselected, collective approved, hypergamous ideal  is a potential rape threat. In other words, a man who might, by force or coercion, assume control of her hypergamous sexual selection.

The narrative, the perception, is all that matters.

[…]women become so ego-invested in the certainty of their collective perceptions that, even in light of contrary evidence, the only acknowledged verification of that perception is how it makes them feel.

This contradiction of a collective feminine hysteria is what many luminaries of the Feminine Imperative are now being forced to confront. It’s important to remember during this UVa / Rolling Stone rape debacle that women, and more than a few enabling male sympathizers, wanted to believe this travesty was true in spite of the vaudevillian outlandishments and still refuse to accept that it isn’t.

gomeshi

The overwhelming zeitgeist consensus in this case was that the women concerned in Gomeshi’s rape trial were to be believed irrespective of facts that exonerated him. And so strong was this sentiment that suggesting the suspension of the most fundamental aspects of law was the first recourse to be considered – that consideration is to change the presumption of guilt where it affects the accusations of men by women.

Once again, just as in the UVA rape hoax, we see a feminine-primary collective social consciousness moved by a need to believe in order to maintain a collective ego-investment in that social order’s correctness. And all of that in spite of all controverting, unignorable evidence. However, the feminine conditioned reflex for feminine defined ‘justice’ in this regard has been taken a step further – an accusation of rape or sexual assault is as good as a conviction.

I can’t be too sympathetic for Gomeshi. He built his reputation on being a social justice warrior and a self-evincing ‘male feminist, but just like another notable male feminist, Hugo Schwyzer, he’s had to learn the hard way that feminist Game comes with a substantial risk.

However the salient point I took away from his trial wasn’t that women are duplicitous or a feminized society being too ready to unquestioningly presume the veracity of another woman’s rape claims. Neither was it unexpected that a need to believe that presumed guilt would come up. What struck me was the push for control, for absolute unilateral arbitrative power to condemn a man for the accusation of sexual misconduct.

What struck me was that the Feminine Imperative should seek to nakedly place itself above a rule of law that is otherwise founded on a logical, rational process of checks and balances (or at least intends to do so).

As the protests and debate swirled around Gomeshi I was also made aware of a review of a new book Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape

An economics major taking a gender studies class is getting dressed in her college dorm room for a night out, cheerfully discussing sexual stereotyping in advertising with Orenstein — while at the same time grabbing a miniskirt and a bottle of vodka, the better to achieve her evening goal: to “get really drunk and make out with someone.” “You look hot,” her friend tells her — and the student, apparently registering the oddness of the scene, turns to Orenstein. “In my gender class I’m all, ‘That damned patriarchy,’ ” she says. “But . . . what’s the point of a night if you aren’t getting attention from guys?” Her ambition, she explains, “is to be just slutty enough, where you’re not a prude but you’re not a whore. . . . Finding that balance is every college girl’s dream, you know what I mean?”

Author Peggy Orenstien serves up the same reheated feminist alarmism for her young daughter that Hannah Rosin did 8 years ago. However, Orenstien escalates the narrative much in the same vein that the feminist reaction to Gomeshi has. She defines it for us:

For guys, she says, there is fun and pleasure; for girls (at least the straight ones), too little physical joy, too much regret and a general sense that the boys are in charge. Fully half the girls in Orenstein’s book say they’ve been coerced into sex, and many had been raped — among them, by the way, that econ major, who was so confused that when her assailant dropped her off the next morning, she told him, “Thanks, I had fun.” The sexual playing field Orenstein describes is so tilted no girl could win.

Orenstein presumes the control of a girl with a handle of vodka and dressed ‘just slutty enough’ rest entirely with the boys she’s making out with and more. They are ‘assailants’ by definition – a definition that depends on the Hypergamous whims of the woman involved.

I drew parallels between these stories because they are indicative of a trend I predicted a couple years ago – in a social order that prioritizes Hypergamy as the intersexual priority, men who wont cooperate with it must be legislated into complying with it. But as it develops now this doesn’t go far enough; men must be preemptively convicted of the crime of sexual misconduct before the they are ever judged worthy of a woman’s sexual interests. In other words, men are ‘assailants’ for the very attempt of presenting themselves for the intimate approval of women.

Monday’s Price of Nice post and the femosphere response to men’s want to be Nice in order to ingratiate themselves in the hopes that they might endear a woman to him highlights this even further. Men being ‘nice’ are by definition ‘assailants’.

But it’s not enough to discourage men’s niceties, they must be taught to fear the attempt of initiating anything looking like intimacy. They must fear being whisked away to the cornfield for not thinking the right way about the women they would hope to find favor with.

Commenter SJF had a poignant comment this week:

Infantile as they are, women are ill-equipped to handle power, and that which is born out of the insecurity that a man may do her wrong, turns into an exploitative, predatory misuse of power that fuels grandiose narcissism, and thus masculinizes her. The aforementioned relationships between the different aspects of the female psyche do not explain in it in its entirety, but nonetheless, should accurately depict its root and core.

Which brings us back to our six year old Anthony Fremont in the Twilight Zone episode. On a social scale we are rapidly approaching a time where coddling the childish impulsivity of women will dictate not just the rule of law for men, but will define the nature of men’s dealing with women on a fear based level. In fact we’re already beginning to see this in the workplace.

Taken to its intended and illogical extreme, given unilateral God-like arbitration of men in every aspect of society, politics, religion, academia, etc., women and their imperatives would define intersexual relations much in the same way as Anthony does with the ‘adults’ he controls.

 

 


The War Brides of Europe

(h/t to greyghost for today’s video)

Comment from Kaminsky on Dalrock’s thread:

What I find with that video of the Danish feminist. If there were such a thing as a Master’s Degree in the manosphere, you could show the candidate that video and have him break down all the elements of the female mind displayed. Point by point;

  • Let’s you and him fight
  • Shit-testing
  • Extraordinary lack of accountability
  • Collectivism to the depths of her soul
  • A form of AF/BB…In that men have to be both ends of behavior to meet females’ changing needs. Meek and placid during the forty years of feminist play-acting fun-time, now all of a sudden a different kind of man is needed.
  • Victim/victim convenient duality. Victorious feminists imposed their will and opened borders, now they’re victims and it’s up to men to clean it all up.
  • Equalist/androgynous when it suits whatever need, strong gender roles when it suits whatever need.

So amazing.

“Intractable solipsism” belongs in that list as well.

I apologize in advance if this post comes off as overly dramatic or kicking a hornets’ nest. It’s not my intent to wax poetic, but it will serve a purpose.

I was asked about my take on the current ‘migrant crisis’ in Europe by several Red Pill friends (both online and in person I should add), and how I thought it played into what I’ve written in the past about the War Brides dynamic. As my readers know I never delve into issues of politics, race or religion on this blog unless those issues are directly related to intersexual social and personal dynamics.

So it was with this in mind that I considered connecting the dots between Hypergamy and the War Brides dynamic and what I believe we’re beginning to see now in Europe. However, before I get too deep I thought I’d pick Ms. Thranholm’s interview apart first.

A Schism in the Feminine Imperative

I’ll agree with Kaminsky on his take for the most part; the degree of default entitlement women feel they have to men’s physical protection is glaringly evident, especially coming from ardent feminists, but the side-glance vitriol for European men wearing skirts in protest to the rash of ‘migrants’ raping/harassing European women only highlights feminist duplicity.

Is this rash as widespread as these women are making it? Hard for me to say, but not a day’s gone by since this migration that several ‘incidents’ of these migrant’s sexual assault (assault that would land the average European male in jail or make an American man a sex offender overnight) has been in my Twitter feed. I’ll leave that interpretation up to my readers, however what’s glaringly evident is the duplicity in the reaction strong independent® feminists are having to these assaults.

In the video Thranholm at last drops the feminist boilerplate and makes the concession all feminists (and Red Pill deniers) are loathe to hear – our society has become feminized. I’ve been making this point since the days of my writing on SoSuave; western society has become founded on a feminine social primacy that prioritizes women’s imperatives (Hypergamy) above all other considerations (lead photo NSFW). The fabric of western society from our religions, to our work cultures, to our personal relations, to our educational institutions, to the foundations of our parenting, have been progressively and systematically feminized over the course of 60+ short years.

To have a woman like Thranholm voice this from a visceral, fear based necessity is an indictment of how unignorable this feminization as become. In a similar fashion to how Open Hypergamy and soon Open Cuckoldry are becoming too socially evident to ignore, so too is the fact that an increasing majority of western(ized) men believe that touchy-feely feminized solutions to conflict are their first best alternative to violent, physical, in-your-face conflict resolution.

“This militant feminism that has been going on for decades, now we see the consequences that many men here are brought up to be like women, and to think like women, and be soft-minded.”

Iben explains in no uncertain terms that a lack of conventional, complementary masculine strength is so lacking in Europe that even feminist women are beginning to feel uneasy in the uncertainty that their safety could be insured by average European men. Underneath all of the posturing of strength, feminism still needs “muscle” for its physical defense. When feminism looks to its loyal White Knights for that muscle it finds them dressed in mini-skirts and high heels.

Without missing a beat, scowling feminist interviewer, Anissa Naouai, presents the complete obliviousness of the gravity of the situation women are facing…

“But that is what Europe is about, that is part of the European qualities that the European Union promotes.

[…] “These refugees are coming to Europe, shouldn’t they adapt to that?”

This is a glaring example of the degree of cognitive dissonance that has been cultivated in our feminine-primary social order. The idea that men who wouldn’t recognize that feminine social primacy exist, much less who would entirely ignore it, is so alien a thought that it never enters Anissa’s mind.

An Appeal to Honor

Iben continues and answers Anissa’s question without really realizing it.

“Now we see that these post modern values are just a construction.”

I thought this was interesting when we consider how long we’ve been told the opposite – that the popular concepts of conventional, evolved gender roles are the social construction. However once these ‘post modern values’ are slammed into the harsh conditions of a reality that diametrically contradicts it, then, then it becomes a question of “where have all the cowboys gone?” Now the truth is revealed that it is in fact this post modern, feminized interpretation of gender that is the social construct – and one with potentially disastrous consequences.

“…and now we see that we don’t have any male that can stand up, that can fight, who can fight back those male aggressions that we are feeling. So the vacuum that feminism has created means that women are the victims of those male aggressions”

And now we come to the standard appeal to the Male Catch 22 I described in The Honor System many years ago:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Perhaps we haven’t reached it quite yet, but we are approaching a social tipping point where the physical necessity of conventional masculinity will outweigh the liability to women in ceding the power that feminine social primacy represents. The need for ‘Man Up’ will outweigh the need for ‘Shut Up‘.

This need for women’s defense predictably gets couched in men’s Burden of Performance, and now that shit’s gotten real we see this dynamic laid bare in women’s shaming of men for not putting themselves bodily between them and an attacker. This is where Iben’s premise, and the sham of the Feminine Imperative’s social engineering, breaks down. And ironically the very idea of a new “male revolution” or supporting conventional masculinity on a social scale is even more appalling to Anissa than the reality of rising potential sexual assaults on women:

“It means that men need to take responsibility to go back to the old male virtues, to defend the women, the children and the culture. Because now this post modern project is dead, it doesn’t work…”

Iben goes on for a bit repeating the same men need to take responsibility for defending women trope in various ways and tries to explain to Anissa in as black and white a way that reality necessitates this. However the real disconnect, the most poignant illustration of feminisms denial of reality comes from Anissa after all of this:

“But the mass rapes shouldn’t be happening in the first place.”

“I’m sorry, uh, what?”

“The mass rape, the violence shouldn’t be happening in the first place. These are guests essentially who Europe has welcomed.

[…] should (women) have to protect themselves against mass rape on their streets at home?”

The utter cognitive dissonance of Anissa with her inability to grasp that these male ‘guests’ (who should be beholden to the Male Catch 22 by default) wouldn’t honor the dictates of feminine primacy is staggering. So much so it even fazes Iben for a moment. However, this disconnect is a textbook example of the sociological and psychological schism that is (or will soon) taking place for European women given their present reality.

I’ll stop here because Iben goes on to reiterate most of her points, and gets in another about the need for complementarity in conventional gender roles, but do watch the whole clip. The point I’m making with this is that there is a coming reckoning that a feminine primary society is beginning to face; post modern feminized gender constructs have fundamentally compromised the security of western culture.

Real Solutions

This then begs the question, what comes as a response to this? As I mention, the typical go-to strategy of the Feminine Imperative is to lean on men’s shame for not taking the masculine responsibility for women’s (and children’s) defense. However the same characteristics that make a conventionally masculine man a good defender are also a liability to women’s sphere of control once all her would-be attackers have been subdued. These are the same characteristic that have been ridiculed, marginalized, denigrated and punished by feminine-centric society for going on 7 decades now.

So what’s the proper response here? No doubt there will be the scorched earth factions who’ll quote us the following:

This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll whisper “no.”
– Rorschach, Watchmen 2009

If men need to take responsibility to go back to the old male virtues, to defend the women, the children and the culture it needs to come with a reciprocal incentive for men in doing so. Relying on men’s sense of duty to honor only works insofar as women are appreciative and rewarding of it. As it stands now, the average man either blindly believes his honorable action is to be more “soft-minded” in his approach to honor or has absolutely no motivation to risk himself for women who’ve told him they don’t need his “macho bullshit masculinity” for the past 60 years – right up until she’s assaulted or raped in 2016.

For a complementary gender restructuring of society it implies a reciprocal incentive on the part of women; one I don’t see forthcoming even in the desperate tones of Iben and Anissa.

It may be all well and good to let women such as Anissa to burn along with the rest of feminized Europe, however, Iben does make a valid point; if (European) men don’t do something by reassuming conventional masculinity they stand to find themselves in precisely the position I outline in War Brides:

Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism.

[…]women’s peripheral environment dictated the need to develop psychological mechanisms to help them survive. It was the women who could make that emotional disconnect when the circumstances necessitated it who survived and lived to breed when their tribe was decimated by a superior force. This is also known as the War Bride dynamic; women develop an empathy with their conquerors by necessity.

Men are the disposable sex, women, the preserved sex. Men would simply die in favor of a superior aggressor, but women would be reserved for breeding. So it served a feminine imperative to evolve an ability to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism.

Now, here is where I’ll step off the diving board and into the theoretical. It’s my purview that a lot of what men would complain are duplicitous acts of indifference towards them are really rooted in this innate feminine solipsism. That’s a bold statement, I realize, but I’d argue that what men take for inconsiderate indifference in a break up or in ruthless shit tests is really a woman tapping into this innate, self-preserving solipsism. Combine hypergamy with the chronically hostile environments of the past and you end up with a modern day feminine solipsism. Add to this an acculturated sense of female entitlement, social conventions that excuse this ‘duplicity’, and a constant misdirection of intent by women themselves, and you come to where we are now. As if that weren’t enough, throw in the element of hypergamy and the countdown in terms of fertility and long term provisioning that a woman must deal with before hitting the imminent Wall, and now you have a fuller picture of the conditions and stresses that necessitate this solipsistic nature.

It seems clear to me that women who align with Anissa’s feminine-primary mindset exhibit exactly this self-preserving solipsism in the subconscious knowledge that the men of their ‘tribe’ have become acculturated into becoming more like women and unable to defend them from a stronger, more conventionally masculine tribe.

Both Iben and Anissa are on either side of this War Brides dynamic, but both also illustrated the other’s solipsistic approach to dealing with it. I don’t claim to have the solution to this circumstance, and perhaps that should be the focus of discussion, but this is exactly the War Brides dynamic I laid out.


A Teachable Moment

Teachable

While I’d had another post on deck for today I simply couldn’t let Divided Line’s most recent comment go unanswered. I was going to riff on his comment in that thread, but it occurred to me that his concerns would be educational for many new readers and what I tell him here might give even my regulars something new to think about.

This is the part I can’t get. I can look back and see how my beta behaviors made it impossible for my ex to respect and love me. I see those behaviors for what they are, but what I can’t do is internalize a competing value system, or a competing idealism, one which would allow me to judge myself in the way you’re judging yourself here. I still get stuck on “but she *should* have loved me for those behaviors,” even if I understand on an intellectual level why she didn’t. Even if I game myself into believing I feel differently about it, I know that on some level, I’m still going to be hoping that every girl I get involved with will prove to be capable of fulfilling that blue pill idealism. I fully expect to just fall back into oneitis and needy supplicating behaviors whenever I meet somebody. they just creep up on you without you even realizing it.

When I go into the intricacies of men’s innate sense of idealism this is what I mean. In a Blue Pill context there will always be an expectation of some possibility of an ideal state with a woman. The problem here isn’t men’s idealism, but rather the conditioning of it to expect an idealized Blue Pill outcome.

From a strictly deductive standpoint DL’s ex should have loved him for the idealized, pro-social, pro-family, pro-parental investment, pro-providership and pro-egalitarian that were some of the most integral parts of his life’s Blue Pill conditioning.

The reality is that he’d been convinced of a Blue Pill social order founded on an Old Set of Books.

Let’s get real about it. It’s not like women have good reason to behave the way they do. Whatever evo-psych explanation we can come with, it doesn’t provide them with an excuse. They’re not stewards of the gene pool, there is no greater good that is served by hypergamy. In a modern context it’s a liability, not an asset. At the limbic level they’re screening for traits that would have been advantageous 20,000 years ago, not in a modern industrial or post industrial society. Should I try to convince myself otherwise and judge myself according to my evolutionary fitness or something? It seems absurd.

When I wrote Our Sisters’ Keeper I delved into the question of whether it could be expected of women to take responsibility for their own decisions, moral or otherwise. It generally comes down to a question of the seeming determinism that Hypergamy represents, and the deductive male-logic that, idealistically, expects women to take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

In this respect Hypergamy doesn’t provide women with an excuse for the consequences, but the question of personal responsibility still doesn’t change the the underlying motivators, incentives and influences that Hypergamy exerts over women. The devil biology made me do it is the same alibi for Hypergamy as it is for men’s Selfish Gene.

While the software may change with the environment, our firmware and our hardware are still very much based in the evolution that benefitted our prehistoric predecessors. What measure you personally choose to judge yourself by is up to you, but again, the hardware and the firmware doesn’t change.

Under our modern social environment women have an unprecedented, virtually unilateral, stewardship of the gene pool. So much so in fact that women’s sexual selection strategy, Hypergamy and feminine social primacy are enforced by law and ensaturated into our social fabric. Whether this is for ‘the greater good’ or not all depends on who’s agenda defines what ‘good’ is.

For a very long time men had at least some measure of being able to direct the course that the gene pool was going. Men’s influence today is only as potent as women’s legislated sexual selection will allow them.

Women aren’t dogs, they’re human beings. They’re perfectly capable of self awareness and of awareness of others. In theory they’re perfectly capable of higher order idealism – anybody who can think at an abstract level should be. Women are unaware of themselves because the bar is so low for them, because they are profoundly privileged and everything is handed to them on a silver platter, not because they’re incapable of treating men in a way that would have made the blue pill equality ideal possible.

It really just boils down to a profound form of inferiority, their unwillingness to empathize or give a shit. They don’t care because they don’t have to. It’s a fundamental hollowness at the core of their character.

You’re presuming an egalitarian inspired similarity between men and women, and once again I’ll refer you to what I proposed above; you’re expecting software to override firmware and hardware. There are simply evidential and provable physical and cognitive differences between men and women.

I believe you’re correct – women are perfectly capable of self awareness and of awareness of others. In theory they’re perfectly capable of higher order idealism – however, this is not women’s firmware directive. It is not their initial mental point of origin.

True, women can learn to be empathetic, learn to be idealistic, and yes, learn to sublimate their innate solipsism, but their capacity to learn to override their firmware doesn’t erase the root conditions they must learn and practice to override.

And yes, we’ve reached a (western) social order that prioritizes and privileges women by setting the bar very low for them, thus making this ‘learning’, or even the desire to learn, to override their neural firmware not just a challenge, but entirely unexpected of them.

The capacity fro women to realize that Blue Pill ideal is there, but what this does is pit women’s innate dispositions against what men think would be an ideal state for both sexes, and then holds women personally responsible for not ‘learning’ to override their firmware.

Dalrock has a series of posts about feminism that blames men for the failures of feminism. Feminism would work if not for uncooperative men; the same is true for Blue Pill men – Blue Pill idealism would work if not for uncooperative women. Both blame the failures of their goal-states on the other sex’s personal / social character flaws without consideration of the hindbrain, firmware that always rebels against those states.

How do you just accept that and blame yourself for being beta? I’m not saying you shouldn’t, I’m saying I want to be able to do the same thing. I just can’t access that mindset.

What was so terrible about the blue pill equalism really? We all regard it with contempt, but we’re just being pragmatic, since it’s unworkable, a cruel lie we were all fed from birth. I get all that. But in and of itself, what was so terrible about it? Had it been possible – which it is not – would the idea been worthy of such contempt? I can’t convince myself of that.

Again, men’s idealistic root note wants some kind of cooperative Blue Pill harmony to exist in a mutually shared, mutually negotiated and mutually agreed upon state between men and women. Yes, Blue Pill equalism seems very pragmatic, that’s what makes subscribing to it so seductive, and potentially so damaging for idealistic men. The Feminine Imperative figured that out a hundred thousand years ago – men are the True Romantics, and that’s been their thumbscrew for millennia.

All I did was treat my ex the way I wanted to be treated. In fact, that’s all I did in any of my relationships. And not even because I was trying to be Ghandi or live according to some conscious code, but simply because that is what came naturally. That’s what made the relationship appealing and worth investing in in the first place. Feeling that way about her cultivated a selfless aspect of myself, one that I actually *like.* I miss feeling that way. I loved her because she inspired me to treat her the way I did, or to want to treat her that way. I can look back on it and see it as beta, and if I regard women like robots running an evo-psych script, I can see that it would have been impossible for her to love and respect me, I guess. So is that what it boils down to? Thinking about women as if they are children or dumb dogs and accepting it?

There is great power in the Golden Rule. I don’t mean that from the sentimentalist, “do unto others” perspective, but rather how available you make yourself to exploitation and manipulation when adopting that mindset. There is no position more vulnerable than an expectation of equal treatment from another for like treatment from yourself. It presumes a mutually shared acknowledgement of how that other would perceive treating you as they would themselves.

The fundamental differences between men and women (idealistic vs. opportunistic love concepts) virtually ensure that a conflict will occur when you pair this expectation of equal treatment and equal appreciation with the cardinal rule of sexual strategies:

The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

Men’s predilection for idealism make them the logical candidates for this compromise or abandonment of their own imperatives, however, in doing so they fall prey to self-sacrifice in the hopes of mutual appreciation, earning relational equity and all while idealistically affirming for themselves their own righteousness of that sacrifice. The more you suffer the more it shows you really care, right?

The problem then becomes one of women fundamentally lacking the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate her own reality.

And thus we come back to the software vs. firmware conflict again.

This is what I mean when I say that women are “awful.” I don’t even have words for it. I don’t understand how I’m supposed to get past the contempt or sense of being wronged. You can tell yourself “stop being beta, bro. Don’t wish it was easier, wish you were better, etc.,” or anything you like, it doesn’t change the reality or the fact that I recognize the reality. It’s like trying to convince yourself that 2+2=5.

My idealism was co-opted to serve the FI, but what is competing idealism? Stoicism and being a badass who can take it? Beating myself up for being beta and striving for what? It’s like I’m supposed to improve myself, but I can’t see anything that I would actually regard as an improvement, just traits that would appeal to women’s hunter gatherer libido.

The first step is giving up hope on the Blue Pill ideals you’ve been conditioned to believe are desirable, much less achievable. You need to accept that Blue Pill idealism will never be achieved in a Red Pill paradigm.

The next step is to accept that you can create new hope and a new ideal founded on Red Pill awareness rather than succumbing to a nihilistic despair that’s based on the hope for Blue Pill falsehoods.

Men’s idealistic nature can either be his greatest vulnerability or the source of his greatest strength and drive. It’s the context and conditioning of that idealism that makes it a danger or a boon. Stoicism is a practical measuring of that idealism based on self-knowledge and a truthful understanding of the state in which a man lives (Red Pill awareness).

Why are we so much more idealistic and imaginative in our youth? Because we have very little life experience with which to measure that idealism against. This is exactly why the Feminine Imperative must condition men from an early age – to direct that idealism to its own Blue Pill ends before a man learns enough about his reality to reject the imperatives’ ends in favor of his own.

And that is why undiluted, uncompromised Red Pill awareness being widely available is a threat to the Feminine Imperative.


The Red Pill Balance

Before you move on to reading today’s post, please take 14 minutes and listen to Niko Choski’s latest here Man:the being made of stone, it’ll be relevant in the second half of this post.

Niko is MGTOW, and from what I know is fairly highly regarded in that sphere. I did an interview with him back in August and since then have become a semi-regular listener of his youtube channel. We’ve occasionally bounced ideas off one another since the interview and I hold Niko in the highest respect for his intellectual approach and insights.

So it’s with that in mind that I’m going to use his latest offering here as a contrast to what I’m going into today.

Reader Divided Line stopped me in my writing tracks on another post with this comment from the last post thread. Not the least of which because I’d just finished listening to Niko’s audio here, but also because it was an interesting juxtaposition to what I’d planned to go into today. I’m going to quote Divided Line here and riff a bit as I go (emphasis mine):

@reloadedbeats

A lot of what you’ve said here echos my own thinking to such a degree that it’s as if you read my mind. I agree 100%.

What you’re talking about here, I think, is the inherent value of goodness or justice. I think Plato took up this question in the Republic and nailed it better than most.

In the beginning of the dialogue the question is “what is justice?” But it quickly transforms into “what is the value of justice?” In other words, if goodness wins us no reward, then what value does it have? Is it valuable in its own right? Would it have value even if it cost us something, or indeed cost us everything?

Glaucon puts the question like this (paraphrasing): “What if the perfectly just man is seen by everyone as perfectly unjust, while the perfectly unjust man is seen as perfectly just?” He then puts it on Socrates to effectively prove that, even in this scenario, justice would be worth it.

We could gender this question and simply ask “what if the perfectly good man is seen as perfectly unattractive to women, while the perfectly evil man is seen as perfectly attractive?”

Is goodness worth it even if it isn’t profitable sexually or socially? It’s the same question.

Why be a ‘good’ man when what we consider good by both personal and social measures isn’t rewarded (or only grudgingly rewarded), while what we consider ‘bad’ is what is enthusiastically rewarded with women’s genuine desire and intimacy? In other words, Hypergamy doesn’t care about what men consider good or bad.

It seems like this is the predicament red pill awareness puts us in when we have to consider the value of our formerly beta self. What makes the beta the beta is his weakness, of course, but it is simultaneously his civility. We’re not defective people for wanting or even needing the possibility love, empathy, truth, friendship, kindness, and – above all else – trust in our lives. It just makes us human. If we project our deeply rooted desires for these things and treat others the way we want to be treated, wouldn’t society be better off for it? And isn’t this what the supplicating, loyal beta does when latches on to a woman he believes to the “the One?”

No Quarter Given

In my post (and book chapter) Of Love and War I quote a reader who summed up this want for relief from men’s inherent Burden of Performance:

We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.

We want to, so badly.

If we do, we soon are no longer able to

When I consider Niko’s perspective alongside this I begin to see a stark paradox; mens’ want for a relief or a respite from that performance burden tends to be their undoing. I wont get too deep into this, but one reason I see the MGTOW sphere being so seductive is the hopeful promise of that same relief. Simply give up. Refuse to play along and reject the burden altogether. Japan’s herbivorous men crisis is a graphic example of the long term effects of this.

However, this is the same mistake men make in their Blue Pill, Beta conditioning. They believe that if they meet the right girl, if they align correctly with that special ONE, then they too can give up and not worry about their performance burden – or relax and only make the base effort necessary to keep his ONE happy.

The Beta buys the advertising that his Blue Pill conditioning has presented to him for a lifetime. Find the right girl who accepts you independent of your performance, and you can let down your guard, be vulnerable, forget any notion of Red Pill truths because your girl is a special specimen who places no conditions on her love, empathy, intimate acceptance or genuine desire for you.

And this is also very seductive and inuring for the Beta who’s been conditioned to believe there can realistically be a respite from his burden.

That’s how it seemed to work in my own life. Looking back on it, I was so grateful to my ex, who was easily the most attractive girl I’d ever been with, that I would have taken a bullet for her. I didn’t want anybody else. I didn’t even think about other girls – the first time that had ever happened to me in a relationship. I can remember thinking that even if she gained weight, lost her looks, and got old, I’d still want her. I would have “loved” her forever. I was good and ready to cash in my chips, exit the SMV, and retire. I would have arranged my whole life around making her happy and would have felt lucky to have had the privilege.

At the time, all of that felt noble and brave, but looking back on it, it just seems pathetic and pathological, the result of my neediness. But the thing is, what if she had reciprocated it? Wouldn’t it have been a relationship worth having? Had she reciprocated it – if any woman was capable of reciprocating that – it wouldn’t have been Disney movie bullshit, but the real thing. We’re supposed to think such a thing is possible and that’s what keeps us playing along. The Red Pill is really about recognizing its impossibility, I think. There is no possible equity. To be sure, a woman can be loyal and dedicated to you, in theory, but she’ll only give that loyalty to the guy who needs it least. It’s like a cruel, cosmic joke.

Such as it is, that girl lied to me, ran for the hills the moment I showed weakness and needed her the most, and cheated on me. Big surprise, right? With a red pill awareness now I can see how predictable that result was, but at the time I was blindsided by it. I never saw it coming. I couldn’t understand how she could do such a thing when I’d invested so much in her, when I was so willing to give her all the things I’d always wanted most. I assumed she wanted the same things – men and women are the same, right? That’s what the egalitarians tell us. I couldn’t understand how those things could be so valueless to her that she would just throw it all away like that. She didn’t value them at all.

On occasion I’ve suggested that men watch the movie Blue Valentine. You can check out the plot summary on the IMDB link there, but you really need to watch the movie (on Netflix) to appreciate what I’m going to relate here. The main character suffers from the same romantic idealism and want for a perfected, mutually shared concept of love between himself and the single mother he eventually marries.

It follows along the same familiar theme of Alpha while single / Beta after marriage that most men experience in what they believe is their lot. More often than not the Alpha they believed their wives or LTR girlfriends perceived they were was really just a guy who’d do for their needs of whatever phase of maturity she found herself in.

By itself this would be enough for me to endorse the movie, but the story teaches a much more valuable lesson. What Dean (Ryan Gosling) represents is a man who idealistically buys the Blue Pill promise that men and women share a mutual love concept, independent of what their sexual strategies and innate dispositions prompt them to. Because of this misbelief Dean gives up on the burden of his performance. He drops his ambitions and relaxes with his ONE girl, contenting himself in mediocrity, low ambitions and his idealistic belief in a woman sharing and sustaining his romanticized Blue Pill love ideal – performancelessness.

He relaxes, lets his guard down and becomes the vulnerable man he was taught since birth that women would not only desire, but require for their false, performanceless notions of mutual intimacy. The men of this sphere who don’t find themselves divorced from their progressively bored wives are often the ones who trade their ambitions and passions for a life of mediocrity and routine,…so long as the security blanket of what they believe is a sustainable, passable semblance of that love (but not desire) exists in their wives or girlfriends.

Their burden of performance is sedated so long as their women are reasonably comfortable or sedate themselves. That false sense of contentment is only temporary and leads to their own ruin or decay.

No Quarter Expected

I’ve since watched something similar happen to a friend not once but twice. It’s textbook, standard shit. AWALT.

Cultivating these unrequited beta aspects of somebody’s character, if we did it on a mass scale, creates a society worth living in. It’s a civilized society where these things are most possible and it’s a truly worthwhile relationship where both parties regard each other this way and can full expect it to be reciprocated. It requires faith and trust, but we all know better. Our survival depends on knowing better, post sexual revolution. Women were never worthy of such trust and they’re entirely incapable of it. They were never capable of it. We were just supposed to think they were and cultivate the better aspects of our natures in order to be worthy of them.

The ugly truth of it is that women were never worthy of us.

Women’s sexuality doesn’t reward justice or goodness – if it did, reciprocity would be the norm and none of us would be confused about relational equity. Women reward not goodness, but strength. And strength is amoral, meaning it can be either just or unjust, good or bad. The guy with strength can either be the villain or the hero – it makes no difference to women. They can’t tell the difference and in truth don’t care anyway.

There is a set of the Red Pill that subscribe to what I’d call a ‘scorched earth‘ policy. It’s very difficult to reconcile the opportunistic basis of women’s Hypergamous natures with men’s hopeful, idealistic want for a love that’s independent from their performance burden. So the idea is again one of giving up. They say fuck it, women only respond to the most base selfishly individualistic, socio or psychopathic of men, so the personality they adopt is one that hammers his idealism flat and exaggerates his ‘Dark Triad‘ traits beyond all believability.

It’s almost a vengeful embrace of the most painful truths Red Pill awareness presents to us, and again I see why the scorched earth PUA attitude would seem attractive. Women do in fact observably and predictably reward assholes and excessively dominant Alpha men with genuine desire and sexual enthusiasm.

Agreeableness and humility in men has been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners.

The problem inherent in applying reciprocal solutions to gender relations is the belief that those relations are in any way improved by an equilibrium between both sexes interests. Solution: turn hard toward the asshole energy. Men understand the rules of engagement with women and they know Game well enough to capitalize on it so why not capitalize on that mastery of it?

The dangers of this are twofold. First, it lacks real sustainability and eventually becomes a more sexualized version of MGTOW. Secondly, “accidents” happen. MGTOWs will warn us that any interaction with a woman bears a risk of sexual harassment or false rape claims, but for the scorched earth guy a planned unplanned pregnancy on the part of a woman attempting to lock down her Alpha is far more likely to be his long term downfall. Emotional and provisioning liabilities for a child tends to pour cold water on the scorched earth guy.

It wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that women are philosophically, spiritually, and morally stunted. They have a limited capacity for adherence to higher ideals and this is why they don’t know or care what actual justice or goodness is. Like Schopenhauer said, they “mistake knowledge for its appearance.”

It took me a long time to be able to accept this. That is women’s true inferiority – and women are profoundly inferior. And I take no pleasure in recognizing that, as if I’m somehow touting the superiority of team men. It’s awful, in fact. Dealing with it is the ultimate burden of performance for us as individual men, but also as a society. At some point we’re simply going to have to confront women’s moral inferiority. If we look at our institutions, the very same that are crumbling now all around us, we can see that previous generations of men already figured this out. We just forgot what they knew.

So what’s the answer? Is justice valuable for its own sake? All of us would probably on some level want to be able to say yes and argue the case, but I don’t know if I can do so convincingly.

I’m with you on this, part of me thinks “Fuck this. It can’t be like this.” But it is. I wish I had the answer.

Niko attempts to redress the assumption that men feel some necessity to be someone they really aren’t. In Vulnerability I go into how the Feminine Imperative is only too willing to exploit this self-doubt by labeling men as existential posers and their conventional masculinity is a ‘mask’ – a false charade – they put on to hide the real vulnerability that lies beneath.

Unfortunately many men accept this as gospel. It’s part of their Blue Pill upbringing and is an essential aspect of their feminine ‘sensitivity training’ and gender loathing conditioning. When masculinity is only ever a mask men wear the only thing real about them is what real women tell them it should be.

What we don’t consider is the legitimacy of our need for strength, independence, stoicism, and yes, emotional restraint. That need to be bulwark against women’s emotionality, that need to wear psychological armor against the Red Pill realities of women’s visceral natures is legitimate and necessary. If a man’s vulnerability is ever it’s because his display of it is so uncharacteristic of his normal impenetrability. The woman’s demeanor, and the narrator’s voice, in the last post’s Campbell’s soup commercial is an example of the weak, vulnerability women expect from lesser child-men – and a commensurate expectation of him to just get that he needs to be strong.

That’s the inconsistency in women’s Hypergamous nature and the narrative of the Feminine Imperative’s messaging. Be sweet, open, vulnerable; it’s OK to cry, ask for help, be sick and weakened, we’re all equal and empathetic – but, Man Up, “what, you need your mommy?”, assert yourself, the asshole is sexier than you, where’s your self-discipline? – but, your masculine identity is a mask you wear to hide the real you,……

I play many roles in the male life I lead today, and I’ve played many others in my past. I’m Rollo Tomassi in the manosphere, I’m a father to my daughter, a husband and lover to my wife, a brilliant artist and pragmatic builder of brands in my job, an adventure seeker when I’m on my snowmobile and a quiet contemplator of life and God when I’m fishing. All of those roles and more are as legitimate as I choose to make them. Do I have moments of uncertainty? Do I waiver in my resolve sometimes? Of course, but I don’t let that define me because I know there is no real strength in relating that.

The Red Pill Balance

Red Pill awareness is both a blessing and a curse. The trick is balancing your Red Pill expectations with your previous Blue Pill idealism. It’s not a sin for you to want for an idealistic reality – that’s what sets us apart from women’s opportunism. You do yourself no favors in killing you idealistic, creative sense of wonderment of what could be. The trick is acknowledging that aspect of your male self.

KFG had a comment to this point:

If men did not hold heroism as a higher ideal, we wouldn’t be here.
If women did not hold survival as a higher ideal, we wouldn’t be here.

This was precisely the dynamic I was referring to when I wrote Idealism.

Men’s idealism and idealistic concepts of love are the natural counterbalance to women’s pragmatic, Hypergamously rooted opportunism and opportunistic concepts of love and vice versa. Those differing concepts can be applied very unjustly and very cruelly, or very judiciously and honorably, but they are the reality of our existence.

Red Pill awareness isn’t just about understanding women’s innate natures and behaviors, it’s also understanding your own male nature and learning how it fits in to that new awareness and living in a new paradigm. Is something like justice valuable for its own sake? I’d say so, but that concept of justice must be tempered (or enforced) in a Red Pill understanding of what to expect from women and men. Red Pill awareness doesn’t mean we should abandon our idealism or higher order aspirations, and it certainly doesn’t mean we should just accept our lot in women’s social frame because of it. It does mean we need to balance that idealism in as pragmatic a way with the realities of what the Red Pill shows us.

 


Empathy 2016

The Campbell’s Soup Company was founded in 1869. In those 147 years the company developed a reputation as a wholesome staple of brands to the point it’s been considered Americana – even Andy Warhol considered Campbell’s emblematic of the American experience.

But in the space of a 30 second commercial the Feminine Imperative and the feminist narrative has managed to corrupt, if not overtly destroy a brand identity that took 147 years to establish.

Last week I outlined how the imperative assimilated the Star Wars intellectual property and franchise; arguably another example of Americana. Monday I detailed how it is in women’s innate interests individually and in the Feminine Imperative’s interests on a meta scale to appropriate the works and fruits of men’s labors as a result of their Burden of Performance. And, once again, here we have another glaring example of the imperative’s appropriation of a storied brand identity to use as a vehicle for its narratives.

The gold of course is in the comments on the YouTube page. And as you might expect there’s a lot of predictable outrage swirling around how ‘not all women are like that‘ (NAWALT) and “wow, what a bitch.” The commercial message was even overt enough to trigger the average man to risk to consider, “flip the genders and look how this commercial reads.” But that’s just it, there is such a comfort with the Feminine Imperative in being this overt that even plugged in Blue Pill men cannot ignore the message.

What exactly is that message? In this case it’s the degree to which the imperative is comfortable in revealing truths about the nature of women. I’ve been calling attention to this comfort level for almost two years now. Open Hypergamy is almost a given at this stage. Open cuckoldry is beginning to establish a foothold in being socially acceptable, and later socially expected. In the coming years I believe we’ll begin to see an even larger degree of comfort the imperative has in revealing and reveling in innate feminine nature. This commercial, from a storied brand of comfort food no less, is the first illustration of this trend.

While this commercial and the hashtag associated are intended to shock, it’s important to understand the message that Campbell’s Soup Company is aligning itself with. Bear in mind that a board of executives, brand directors and marketing directs had to approve the message and budget needed to deliver this message. The fallback of course will be that the intent was humor, but they understand very well the latent message in the humor they will hide behind when the publicity backlash occurs.

No doubt the Jezebel set of the femosphere will either embrace the commercial’s message by parroting the trope that women hate to be men’s mothers, or they will decry it as portraying women as being heartless, careerist bitches – they just can’t win. In either interpretation the louder buzz will be as it always is, women being victims.

In a Red Pill perspective we see a lot of what we already know about women’s innate, visceral natures.

From Empathy:

Women cannot bear to see a Man experiencing negative emotions such as extreme anger, rage, fear, despair, despondency or depression for extended periods of time. You say you want to “be there” for your Man; but you cannot do it. If it goes on long enough, it kills the attraction; it sets off your hypergamy alarms; and subconsciously causes you to start hunting for a replacement Man.

A woman seeing a Male go through the above will seek to replace that Male immediately.

Women cannot listen to Men talking about or working out their dating/mating/relationship issues or problems. Women reflexively view a Man discussing such issues as “whining” or “complaining” or “bitterness” or “sour grapes” or “well, you just chose poorly, so sucks to be you” or “suck it up, no one wants to hear you bitching about it”.

As to both of the above principles; when a Male is involved, ratchet up by a factor of 5 the disdain and repulsion a woman experiences when seeing a Male do or experience the above.

I took a lot of shit from indignant women when I published Empathy. Yet here we have what was likely a half million dollar budget commercial graphically confirming exactly the premise of my post.

As a bonus this message also overtly confirms much of what I wrote in Vulnerability:

Vulnerability is not something to be brandished or proud of. While I do believe the insight and acknowledgement of your personal vulnerabilities is a necessary part of understanding oneself (particularly when it comes to unplugging oneself), it is not the source of attraction, and certainly not arousal, that most men believe it is for women.

From the comfort of the internet and polite company women will consider the ‘sounds-right’ appeal of male vulnerability with regard to what they’resupposed to be attracted to, but on an instinctual, subconscious level, women make a connection with the weakness that vulnerability represents.

A lot of men believe that trusting displays of vulnerability are mutually exclusive of displays of weakness, but what they ignore is that Hypergamy demands men that can shoulder the burden of performance. When a man openly broadcasts his vulnerableness he is, by definition, beginning from a position of weakness.

Yes ladies, I understand you’re not like this. I fully anticipate the “not in my experience” personalization each of you will attempt to adopt to placate any bad juju and your solipsistic mental point of origin. Just remember that this is the messaging your gender’s imperative is fostering. This is the message that Campbell’s Soup will stake its 147 year brand reputation on because it believes it will sell more soup.

It may seem that I’m being unduly critical of the narrative of this commercial, but remember that this narrative exists for a reason. I have no doubt women will chime in about how it’s an exaggeration, but what message is being exaggerated? What is the message that the medium is conveying here? For as much as the narrative would like men to be sensitive and open up about their feelings, for as much as it wants men to be vulnerable, all it takes is a 30 second commercial to confirm that men expressing weakness isn’t strength, and Hypergamy doesn’t care if your Mommy made you soup when you were sick as a child – stop expecting Strong Independent Women® to be your Mommy.

Keep in mind the contradicting message this commercial conveys here. This is the same degree of ruthlessness and insensitivity that the Feminine Imperative expects from, and finds attractive in, men.


Don’t Hate the Beta

beta_hate

A common refrain I hear from even some well meaning Red Pill aware men is that there is some degree of disdain for the “Beta” man in the sphere. There’s not so much a rejection of apparent Red Pill truths as there is a schoolyard mentality when it comes to characterizing a guy as Alpha or Beta. This is where where a lot of guys turn themselves off to the Red Pill in a community sense.

In a way I suppose it becomes reminiscent of guys having been bullied in their formative years by the guys they now have a mental image of being archetypically “Alpha”. So it follows that concepts like AMOGing or running a ‘Boyfriend Destroyer’ script is distasteful; a lot of men, that is to say the 80%+ Beta men, have likely experienced this disqualification in direct or indirect ways in their youth. Sometimes that may simply be a girl he had his ONEitis sights set on opting for a more Alpha guy after telling him she wasn’t ready for a relationship, or it may be a more direct experience of having sand metaphorically kicked in his face.

Thus it becomes a matter of course to entirely dismiss the nuts & bolts understanding of how abstracts like Alpha and Beta are used in the sphere. The default understanding goes something like this, “Those Red Pillers just hate on Betas to build themselves up” or some other version of this where the Red Pill becomes a Machiavellian free for all at the expense of other, ‘lesser’, men.

It’s either this or the abstractions of Alpha and Beta are reduced to absurd binary interpretations; Alphas become ridiculous ‘douchebag’ parodies and Betas become pathetic, simpering doormats for the world to tread upon. In either case the purpose of reducing these abstracts as such is an effort in dismissing the uncomfortable, as well as evidently observable qualities and truths of the intersexual environment that plays out around us.

For the record I think it’s important for Red Pill men to remain as objective and disinvested from making qualitative assumptions about what constitutes the Alpha and Beta abstractions. I don’t hate, pity or resent Beta men. Neither do I embrace the idea that Alpha archetypes as necessarily positive or negative. For the moment however, I’m going to focus on Beta men.

The Presumption of Control

As I mentioned above, one of the primary dismissals men have when they encounter Red Pill thought is to blow it off because “it’s all just a bunch of hating on Betas.” And that presumption comes only if a guy is willing to consider the abstracts of Alpha and Beta in the first place – most simply don’t want to recognize specific ‘statuses’ or defining characteristics of men or women, and just fall back on the “all is relative, all is subjective” mindset they’ve been conditioned to. People are People, there is no human “nature” so there is no male or female “nature”.

But for the guy who at least accepts the idea of human natures, I can certainly understand the reservations of men whose identities were conditioned to a more Beta role. There’s not much positive to characterize a Beta mindset with beyond the utility that conditioning serves to society and women’s sexual strategy. Betas do in fact get laid; the terms on which, and how their sexuality fits their utilitarian role in women’s Hypergamous plan is the real question.

I was recently asked if I thought Beta men employing Beta Game was a successful strategy in the larger scheme of things. If success means that Beta Game will get him laid, I’m incredulous about it. The presumption is that the Beta man employing that ‘game’ is in some way directing and controlling the outcome of his ‘success’. I’d argue that what he believes is ‘game’ is simply his utility to a woman coming into an optimal window for her necessity of him. So is his ‘strategy’ really successful, or is he simply the best ‘Plan B‘ a woman has available to her while her own SMV decays to the point where he’s her best option?

Is that Beta really in control? Or is he simply situationally useful?

I think a lot of what guys new to the manosphere perceive as Beta hate is simply the presumption of control they believe they should be able to exercise with women. After having been told for the the better part of their lives that the more accommodating and identifying with women they are will lead to them being accepted by women it’s a presumption that this is some means of socially acceptable control for them.

It’s very galling to have men place fault on a guy for things he knows are out of his control. I fully understand the angst and frustration that leads to things like Beta Uprising and men frustrated with intersexual dynamics taking it out on the whole of society before they swallow a bullet themselves.

It essentially amounts to victim blaming; Betas are hapless and hopeless mules brainwashed and indentured to serve not just the Feminine Imperative (which would be galling enough), but also to have the pains and strivings that society demands of them be rewarded with women’s genuine intimate interests focusing on Alpha men.

That sucks.

PUAs telling a guy it’s on him as to why women are boring to him, or uninterested in him sexually, only reinforces that angst. It’s like a pastor telling you that if you’d only prayed harder or more earnestly God would have cured your Mom of cancer. So they hate the Alpha, they hate the PUA, they hate the hotchickswithdouchebags guy, but they also hate women and the social/biological mechanics of the position they’re placed in. It presumes a control that he believes he’s never had, nor ever will.

So there comes a point where that Beta wants, sometimes adamantly insists, for his own burden of performance to be replaced, or at least handicapped, by a woman meeting him half way. This want is rooted in his Blue Pill presumption that people are people and in the equalist notion that women’s hindbrains can (willingly) be overridden when it comes to arousal, attraction and intersexual dynamics. Again, if there is no human nature it should stand to reason that a woman could potentially choose that Beta for all the reasons he’s been conditioned to believe she should choose him for. If there is a female nature, and that nature follows (with some degree of consistency) Red Pill aware truths, then his frustrations are founded on his own lack.

But these guys aren’t Blue Pill oblivious men, they are Red Pill aware. They see the truth and that leads to their awakening to the cruel reality that they’re in. So when these guys are put into that place they have a few choices: Snap and take out themselves and as many others as they can, go isolationist MGTOW and retreat to minimal societal investment, go MRA and impotently try to enact legislation that they think will even the social playing filed from the top down, or they can take a realistic look at themselves and reinvent themselves to better play the Game.

The Burden of Fault

Whether it’s fair or not, by virtue of being a man, you’re going to have to accept your burden of performance. That burden includes your liability of accepting fault even for things that aren’t your fault per se. It’s not your fault that you were born and raised into a feminine-primary social order that conditioned you to be an accommodating utility for it – but irrespective of that, you will be held liable for not complying with it or resisting it. You are a man, you will always be accountable.

Is that fucked up? Yes. So with that in mind it is up to you as a Red Pill aware Man to decide for yourself what is worth your investment. Yes my friend, women can be amazing, interesting vivacious and fun, but they can also be fucked up and stupid and absolutely not worth your time, money and effort. It isn’t your fault they are the way they are, but it is your fault for investing yourself in something you’re not enjoying or profiting by.

With all of the railing against women not being worthwhile one would think that would prompt these men to being indifferent to women – but they aren’t. Even the most ardent MGTOW and hapless Beta Red Pill denier still wants women; he simply wants her in his context and his frame on his terms – and to genuinely want to be a part of all that. There’s nothing wrong with this desire, this is precisely what I advise with regards to Frame control, but the disconnect comes in how men go about establishing a Frame women want to be a part of.

Get Out There

I may debate with other men’s takes on how the importance of looks plays in to a man’s overall Game and appeal, but one thing I won’t argue with is the importance of men putting themselves out there and into situations that will most certainly take them out of their comfort zones.

For almost 20 years I have made a living doing exactly this. I have worked in gaming, liquor and brand development ventures that have put me into venues that range from Goth/Alternative/Hipster sets to LGBT events, to mixing with men and women who have the type of wealth that most people don’t even know exists. My career, family and personal life has been my Red Pill classroom and laboratory for all this, and in all of these contexts I have found a way to enjoy myself and/or learn from these interactions.

One reason I will never look to writing Red Pill books as a career option is because it would remove me from the very source of my observations. Living it is the only way keep learning from it. On my own time, I would very likely prefer to lock myself in my studio and paint or sculpt, or to create something new to work into a brand, often to the exclusion of my wife and family and the many friends I have. I’m a very social guy, but I would probably not feel compelled to head off to a night club or any of the events I involve myself in professionally on a weekly basis.

When I’m doing a promo, I know I’m not going to hook up, so I find enjoyment in watching and learning from what I see going on around me. I can’t drink when I’m on a promo or doing a trade show, so even that can’t be a source enjoyment. So why fucking do it right? I make money at it, and it beats living in a cubicle, but I’d much rather be creating new things, new brands, new ideas than interacting with half-buzzed hipsters who think they’re too cool to be there or obnoxious 40 something divorcés ‘sampling’ vodka and hoping to drink their spinsterhood away.

I enjoy what I do and it helps me help other guys. I put myself out in the wild because it’s part of my job(s), but I honestly enjoy interacting with even the dullards and the drunks. It’s what I invest myself in. That may sound like torture to you, but it’s really contextual. I have friends I’ve made at underground Goth events who would blanch at the thought of what I do at a golf tournament. I’m not saying you need to be a social chameleon, but understand that your social education will always be domain dependent if you stay in the settings that make you the most comfortable.

Don’t Hate the Beta

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t hate Beta men. For a long time in my Blue Pill past I was one of them, and I can fully understand the want to mischaracterize an Alpha mindset in order to preserve a sense of self-worth. Beta men don’t warrant pity or disgust, but rather they need a tough harsh awakening to the reality of the situation they find themselves in.

I don’t think Beta men are hopeless, but they will remain in a state of hopelessness so long as they subscribe to a want of making things easier for their condition rather than improving themselves to better play the Game. That’s hard to hear for most Beta men and I understand the protective need for denial in this, but I know of very few Red Pill men who really despise Beta or Blue Pill men. They despise his indentured state, they despise his willful obliviousness to his conditioned uses. They despise the lengths to which Blue Pill men will go in their hope to be appreciated by the system that made them what they are.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,206 other followers