Inter-gender Communication

Of Ego and Choice

ego

Last week I ran across a thread on the ‘Purple Pill Debate’ sub on Reddit that called into question the Red Pill idea that women’s egos have become overblown. This “debate” sub is essentially a forum dedicated to Blue Pill hacks expressing their dubious confusion about various topics discussed on the Red Pill sub so I wont grace the forum with a link here. That said, it is an interesting forum to peruse when looking for examples of how a lot of the fundamentals of Red Pill awareness are deliberately misconstrued. The Blue Pill mindset will make great efforts to insulate itself from unignorable Red Pill truths that threaten to break comforting ego-investments. Those efforts begin with a willful misunderstanding (and later denial) of Red Pill premises.

I’ve explored the topic of women’s ego inflation in various post on this blog, but truth be told I’ve had this more thorough examination sitting in my drafts folder for a while now. The idea that women’s sense of self-worth has been grossly overblown is something I think the Red Pill community often takes for granted. It’s fairly easy to see both online and in real life. I resisted fleshing this post out for a while because it presents the risk of being perceived as some gratuitous attack on all-women-being-like-that in their ego aggrandizements, so I’ve been content to just allude to this phenomenon in my posts.

It’s easy to throw red meat to the manosphere in this respect since women’s inflated egos are something most factions of the ‘sphere almost unanimously agree on. And of course, simply doing so makes the man pointing it out, by default, a misogynist. Then, either the mud gets slung by indignant tumblrinasor his points are perfunctorily dismissed and the conversation ends.

The Purple Pill “Debate” thread was simple enough, but such misguidance needs to be:

A narrative that is constantly pushed is the notion that the female ego is inflated from a constant barrage of male attention, thus leading women to have an inflated sense of value.

Attention and offers of sex from random strange males is not validating in most cases. Male attention and offers for sex are so easy to come by, they hold next to or even absolutely no value. To put it into a more crude term “dick is cheap”. Being offered free sex from a man that is not attractive to you is the equivalent of being offered a free bag of feces. It is free and it still might have some value, but I am not going to take it.

The whole idea that any of this is extremely validating is farcical and incorrect.

This premise is misguided in two respects. The first is defining exactly what is contributing to women’s ego inflation. The second is how a woman is validated by the attention that contributes to it. I’ve written extensively on the psychological effects attention has on women. Attention is the coin of the realm in girl-world. Women use attention as a form of currency with other women, which in turn establishes peer status among women’s social groupings:

The capacity to attract and hold attention denotes social rank within the peer clutch. The more attractive the girl, the more popular she becomes and the more influence she wields. This isn’t to say that any particular female is cognizant of this. However, when ostracized from the collective, this capacity for attracting attention in a high degree makes her despised. The attention can still be beneficial for affirmation (i.e. realized jealousy), it’s just that the intent that has changed.

Thus, women use attention not only for their own affirmation, individually and collectively, but also to do combat with each other. Far more damaging than physical fighting is the long term psychological impact of denying this reinforcement, or better still, delegitimizing or disqualifying a girl/woman’s capacity to attract this attention. Combine this with a woman’s natural, and innately higher agency to communicate both verbally and non-verbally (i.e covert communications) and you can see the potential this has in damaging a rival. This might explain a woman’s natural propensity to gossip. When a woman attacks the respectability and character of another (“she’s such a slut”), in essence, she is assaulting the woman’s agency for garnering attention by delegitimizing it.

The first misdirection in this thread is that attention only comes in one form that is ‘validating’ for women. It is a mistake to assume that male attention is all that contributes to women’s validation. My guess is that the original poster was male and trying to wrap his head around what form of attention ought to be validating from a male perspective. I say this because this mistake is also a common one amongst recovering Betas considering MGTOW. They often think their case is hopeless because women are so far removed from them due to all the “incredible amount of male attention” they receive online and in real life.

From this respect I can understand the OP’s point. Attention and ‘offers’ of sex – tacit or direct – from random strange males is not validating in most cases. With the proper incentive, male attention and offers for sex are so easy to come by, they hold next to or even absolutely no value. From the perspective of male attention, the (I think accurate) presumption is that unless a man is perceived as Hypergamously optimal his attention is worthless in ‘validating’ a woman’s ego.

The term “validation” is easy to mold to whatever definition a man or woman might find convenient with regard to affirming one’s ego. In a Red Pill aware sense this validation needs to translate into some sort of reinforcing of a person’s self-perception of their sexual market value (SMV). On the ‘Man Up’ side of things the perception is one that men ought to find some esoteric source of inner strength and purpose to find ‘validation’ for their egos, while avoiding the idea that how many women he sleeps with or the ‘quality’ of the woman he’s banging might contribute to ‘validation’.

It’s funny how Blue Pill (and a few Red Pill) critics will foster the idea that the only reason men learn Game is because they’re “validation seeking“, but yet they resist the idea that women’s egos would be similarly validated by the “incredible amount of male attention” they believe even the most mundane of women is capable of generating.

However, the OP is asking the wrong question. Women’s egos are not inflated by the value of men’s attention, but rather the perception of an unending abundance of prospective men. An abundance of male attention contributes to a sense of security for women’s SMV. A lot gets made about the influence of “thirsty” guys on women, but the only value they represent is a Buffer against women ever having any personal insight about their ego valuation. Thirsty guys only serve to convince a girl she has options and therefore leisure to demand a better-than-merited Hypergamous option (i.e. apex fallacy Alphas).

Feeding the Beast

Recently Petapixel had a not-so-funny photo exposé of the dutiful Betas behind the ego-validating shots of girls on Instagram. The complicity of the average Beta male in the feeding of the female ego is never to be underestimated. Not the least of which because they are unaware of their active participation in creating a generation of woman who will have nothing to do with him while she enjoys her peak SMV years, but also to complain about his inadequacies of meeting the requirements her ego demands of men when she finds it necessary to lock down a ‘marriageable’ man. He is the architect of his own failings, but it seemed like she’d like him better if he took the Instagram shots of her at the time – the ones she would use to advertise her SMV to the Alphas who she knew were the only men worth taking a picture for.

At no other time in the history of humanity has it been easier for a woman to validate her ego or (falsely) evaluate her SMV. But that validation isn’t based on quality, but rather perceived quantity. It’s not just male attention that contributes to this. A constant chorus of ‘go grrrl’ supporters, endless Fempowerment memes and special social dispensations since before a girl enters preschool make up a far greater influences for ego-inflation than male attention. If anything girls are taught from a very early age not to value male attention (in abundance or lack) as a source of validation or confidence. This returns us to the nebulous ‘inner strength and purpose’ meme, albeit with the Strong Independent Woman® branding.

In contemporary society women’s attention and indignation needs are as ubiquitously satisfied as men’s need for sexual release (i.e. internet porn) is . This, of course, leads the larger whole of women to perceive their social and SMV status to be far greater than it actually is – and when that inflated SMV is challenged by the real world there are countless social conventions already established to insulate women and simultaneously convince men that women’s perceived status should be the fantasy they believe it is.

It’s important to keep this in mind because men’s adaptive sexual strategies key on women’s self-impressions of their SMV (and often personal worth). This then forms a cycle wherein men’s attentions for women’s inflated sense of self-worth become the benchmark for future validation of it.

Hypergamy predisposes women to evaluate male attention on various levels. The attention of random strangers offering sex to her (even if this is her imagined state) is still attention, and while not as validating as the genuine sexual interests of a guy she perceives as Alpha, it’s still contributing to her overall sense of self. The quantity of attention skews the perception of her own desirability. Women rarely complain about the attentions of ‘friend zoned’ Beta orbiters – even when they know these men are playing what they think is a worthwhile ‘long game’. What women bemoan is a lack of Alpha, Hypergamously acceptable, men’s attentions. What we hear are complaints of quality, not quantity.

Why is it that women are distressed over a deficit of “marriageable” men?

Have a read of this Brookings Institute study

This data is nothing new. Compare this to Newsweek’s 1986 survey of women’s “chances” of marrying a suitable man.

As I’ve stated many times over, Hypergamy is founded on an evolved, biological-level doubt. Doubt that a woman will ever consolidate on an optimized (better-than-SMV-merited) attachment with a Hypergamously ideal male. Doubt that the male she consolidated on is in fact the ‘best she could do’.

The primary reason the anxiety of finding a ‘marriageable man’ is persistent in women is because they believe that their due is to marry a man of “equitable” value to what they perceive themselves to be. That self-perception of value is the result of a woman’s conditioned beliefs over the course of her lifetime. The popular response to this is that women have “made themselves better than ever and it’s listless men who aren’t keeping pace” in respect to education, career advancement, etc. The evaluation of self-worth for women (at least in the sense popularized by the Feminine Imperative) is ostensibly meant to be founded on criteria for attraction which has conventionally been a standard for male to female attraction. But notice that it is once again men who must shoulder a greater burden of performance to even be considered “equitable” in self-worth to make him ‘marriageable’ for women.

The truth is that Hypergamy always seeks a better-than-deserved arrangement when it comes to the men women want to breed with and share parental investment with. The anxiety is one born of women’s doubt in their capacity to optimize Hypergamy as contrasted to what their socially-inflated egos lead them to believe they’re entitled to with men. As women’s egos and self-aggrandizement expand, so too does the expectation of entitlement to an even more aggrandized male expand. The dearth of ‘marriageable’ men is both a reflection of men’s unwillingness to participate in their own indenturing and women’s unrealistic expectations of men prompted by an unrealistically exaggerated sense of personal worth.

Again, as a solution, we have a plea from the Blue Pill world for men to Man Up and accommodate this exaggeration. Women’s ego-aggrandizement is nothing that can’t be solved by Blue Pill men’s more invested efforts in appeasing it. Almost 7 years ago Roosh wrote an essay on what he expected from women (and it’s Game implications) in the future. It turned out to be quite prophetic, but in this essay he made this prediction:

Game Plus Fame Will Be More Important Than Anything

It doesn’t have to be national fame, but you must be known for something with a reputation that precedes you. You must have a YouTube channel with millions of views. You must be a proprietor of a hipster butcher shop. You must be a popular writer, artist, or musician. You must be nightclub promoter or DJ. You must be a competitive skateboarder. Your must be the notorious editor of a cupcake newsletter. In a culture where a million people are “famous,” you’ll have to work your ass off for scraps if you’re not. Nurture your own style and niche and then leverage that to get pussy. Game will always have its use, but game plus fame will be the qualities that tomorrow’s Casanova possess. Otherwise you’ll be approaching all day and night to fuck a 6 who stops calling you after a couple bangs. You must have the complete package to get the hottest girls, with game being only the first ability of a multi-level game warrior. Guys without game will simply not get laid, not even with ugly girls.

While I would disagree with the assessment that ‘fame’ is a prerequisite element to get the lay today, I do agree with the idea that the social proof that comes with genuine ‘fame’ status is now a vital part of what makes for male attention that women perceive as validating of their egos. As Roosh implies here, that fame need not be anything more than the contextual variety, and I’d also add that the perception of fame, or even the perception of a potential for fame, is now a required element for a man women would consider ‘marriageable’.

From an Alpha Fucks, short-term, ovulatory phase Hypergamy perspective, a man can get by on Game, looks, confidence, etc., but for anything more than this men are in a competition. This is not a competition with other men per se, but with the expected entitlements women’s egos and an entire feminine social order has convinced them is men’s duty to embody for them.

In our brave new world of instant global communication, social media and the ego aggrandizing influence it has on women is exactly what anyone should expect it would be. When we look at the progress of the social and legislative repercussions that the influence of unfettered Hypergamy has had on our social order should we really be surprised that women would use social media as a vehicle for expressing and advancing their sexual strategy?

V-Day

Time again for the annual re-post of this Classic:

_____________________________________________

Nothing says “I love you” like saturated fat and slutty lingerie.

In the U.S. businesses expect men to spend on average $186 for Valentine’s day – over three times the average a woman spends on a man. Explain to me why women own V-Day? If it’s a “celebration of romantic love” why should it be an annual shit test?

Lets clarify a few things about Vagintines Day since it’s become probably the most irksome manifestation of westernized/commercialized romanticism. V-Day is far and away the most vulgar display of female entitlement. On no occasion – even a woman’s birthday or her wedding anniversary – is this sense of entitlement more pronounced and our refined commercialization of this entitlement/expectation simply twists the knife in further for men to live up to this with ZERO expectation or entitlement to any reciprocation. He gets ‘lucky‘ if his romantic offerings are sufficient to appease her (social) media fueled expectations of ‘good enough’ to reward him with sex.

And exploit the media does. I can’t get away from it; Every radio station, every TV show, every newspaper and magazine article. Go to askmen.com right now, I guarantee there’s a “how not to fuck up this year’s V-Day for her” article there.

I listened to a talk radio show that I regularly tune into on my commute home on Friday; it was about what not buy this year. “Don’t buy lingerie, she knows it’s really a gift for you” or “Don’t pick up flowers at the gas station, women know they’re cheap”, and “God forbid you pick up some cheap jewlery or stop at one of those roadside urchins selling prepared flower baskets or arrangements – women know you didn’t think about it until you were on the way home.” On my way to work this morning, different show, same list. [Side Note: Never buy a woman lingerie, she will never be happy with it. A woman has to do this on her own to “feel sexy”, make sure it fits her right, and it’s HER IDEA. When you buy it for her it’s contrived and it is overt and overt is often the kiss of death for a try-hard guy.]

Why wouldn’t women have these expectiations? They’re relentlessly marketed to as the primary consumers in western culture. V-Day isn’t a celebration of romantic love, it’s a machine that drives a wedge of expectation and entitlement in between otherwise happy, relatively contented couples.

I’m not down on the idea of a special occasion to celebrate love (I actually proposed to Mrs. Tomassi on V-Day 18 years ago), I am down on the twisted expectations that have been perverted into it that puts a woman on some pedestal of entitlement by commercialized popularization of this feminized ideal. Why isn’t there an official “fuck your boyfriend like a wild animal” holiday or a list of criteria to meet that’ll make his day special? “Show him how appreciative you are of all his dependability and hard work this year – buy some lingerie ON YOUR OWN and pretend that you like him cuming in your mouth on his special day!” If women are so liberated and interested in equality, one would think this would be the first thing to occur to them. We need a special day to make us apprecitae each other?

Gentlemen, beware of falling into the trap of negotiating desire for Valentine’s Day performance. Don’t be lulled into thinking Game is any less necessary on V-Day. In fact, I can’t think of a more direct illustration of how the feminine encourages the transaction of men’s goods and services in exchange for a woman’s sexuality than reserving a ‘special day’ just for it. Remember, you cannot negotiate genuine desire; and with the right art, a bag of Skittles can be a more romantic gesture than all the sonnets, flowers and jewelry your inner romantic soul will ever be appreciated for by her.

Note to PUAs

Valentine’s Day is ripe with opportunity for an enterprising Man with the ability to see it. Go hit the clubs tomorrow night, particularly the ones that cater to a 25-40 y.o. affluent crowd. There’s a million different venues you can hit, all with promotions to help single ladies feel better about not having a date – usually with genderist drink specials to help your approach too. You’ll notice impromptu GNOs (girl’s night out) set up just for this occasion to prove to themselves “they don’t need men to have a good time.” A good PUA couldn’t arrange a better opportunity to hook up in multiple sets.

Don’t go play ‘pity friend’ with any girl on V-Day, don’t be the “you’re such a great friend” consolation date.. Call up your best wing man and sarge on the best night of the year to sarge. Wedding receptions aren’t even as good as V-Day for this.

V-Day in the Matrix

Just in case you weren’t already convinced of the complete totality of media control that the Matrix has, let me offer yet one more Valentine’s Day example:

I was in a grocery store this weekend picking up something to grill and thought it would be a convenient time to pick up a Valentine’s Card for my wife since it’s coming this week. So I meander over to the greeting cards section to sift this years crop of mushy sentiment.  Much to my disgust the only cards available in the “For My Wife” section of the Valentines Cards (and I mean ONLY cards available) come in two types:

A.) The sentimental, “My life was nothing before you and would be nothing without you”, tripe that reduces a man to a simpering, codependent who owes his very existence to the woman who deigned to marry the poor soul.

B.)The “humorous” Valentine that is essentially the greeting card equivalent of Everybody Loves Raymond or Family Guy. These are basically intended to beg for a wife’s forgiveness for all of his uniquely male faults and foibles, that only she can solve by virtue of her infallible feminine wiles. Judging from the ‘humorous’ intent of these cards, no man is capable of feeding himself much less ask for direction or leave a toilet seat down, but on “her special day” this card is meant to prompt an appologetic laugh.

Needless to say I’ll be making my own card this year, but for fuck’s sake, how can we ever get a break from this shit when we’re ankle-bitten at every opportunity? You simply cannot buy a card that doesn’t force a man to be self-depricating.

Sexual Retirement

retirement

Rational Reader, If-I-Fell wrote a comment addressing a common dynamic I think is larger in scope than most men realize. I’ve addressed this before, but I think it deserves a bit more elaboration. This first part was a commentary on Angelina Jolie’s elective double mastectomy surgery. Emphasis mine:

“I don’t know why Brad would still want Angelina. She is no longer a woman”, I said. Wait for it… Wait for it…

“That’s an awful thing to say; she has cancer in her family, and she had no choice,” she said.

This argument occurred after Angelina underwent her “de-womanizing” surgery, and before the “Brad is a drunken child abuser” incident.

This left the question—why did she have the surgery and why does calling a woman a eunuch raise such an emotional response from a woman, concerning a woman that she doesn’t know or really care about?

The Sisterhood Über Alles®, continuing,…

I am going to assert (without proof or study) that the reason is Sexual Retirement from a Beta (or even an Alpha).

I assert that women in hormonal decline (perimenopause) have a subconscious or conscious desire to retire from sex while holding onto their position and status. I believe this is a different dynamic from the operational cycling woman – dead bedroom. In this case, she doesn’t want sex from anyone, as opposed to she wants sex with someone, just not you. The feminine imperative is pushing sexual retirement as a women’s rights issue.

For a better explanation of the sexual retirement dynamic and if you want to get angry, read Lori Ann Lothian’s article “When He Wants Sex and You Don’t.” Basically, Lori has had her bad boy sex and now instead of using HRT (hormone replacement therapy) and making the effort, she wants to retire. She says that she is more creative when hormonally depleted and her cuck husband is understanding and supportive.

Since I began this blog I’ve attempted to outline the endless number of social conventions employed by the Feminine Imperative. It should be noted here that the Feminine Imperative has always evolved to fluidly reinvent these conventions to advantage women – and thus ensure their sexual strategy – at every stage of their maturity, but also in adapting to new truths that would otherwise threaten women’s insurance. There are many examples of the imperative reimagining various social convention in light of unflattering truths that previous conventions no longer account for, but are unignorable in a larger social scope.

The problem inherent in women’s Hypergamous sexual strategy has always been the balance of optimizing the best breeding potential (Alpha Fucks) with the best long-term security potential (Beta Bucks) in men. The capacity for a woman to optimize this balance is determined by her sexual agency (attractiveness & sexual availability) with men. This is why it’s necessary for adaptable social conventions, that sit outside this dynamic, to be established in order to qualify what should be attractive to men. This in turn enables women to distract and dissuade men with social narratives that comfort women, but confuse and shame men.

Yes, that flies in the face of biological truths about men’s arousal cues, but for generations these conventions have successfully convinced (Beta) men that those cues are learned, socially conditioned, triggers, and that if they’d just change their minds about attraction they’d see that they can be “attracted’ to any woman for any made up reason. This is the same social constructivist narrative that would have us believe gender identity is a learned social construct (which also contradicts the narrative of being born the ‘wrong gender’), and as such, attraction cues are also learned. This narrative works well for the Feminine Imperative because it’s a means to prolong women’s artificially inflated concept of attractiveness,…that is until women reach certain stages of maturity in their lives.

There are two points in women’s lives where this contrived idea about a socially conditioned definition of attractiveness fails them. The first, you may guess, is the Wall; the point at which a woman realizes she’s no longer able (or less able) to intra-sexually compete with other women for the attentions of men she hopes to optimize her Hypergamy with. At this stage there are two social conventions prepared for her – shame for men who base their ‘attraction’ on their primary requisite of physical appeal and not her (very marginal) intrinsic qualities, and/or a redefinition of what should constitute attractiveness (“it’s what’s on the inside that should count”). The latter also having the false confidence inflating effect of making a woman believe that her ‘attractiveness’ should be an indefinite, ambiguously defined, commodity; thus encouraging the belief that a woman can prolong her quest in finding the right guy to optimize Hypergamy well after the Wall.

The second phase is what If-I-Fell describes above, a phase where peri- and post-menopausal women are forced to accept that their sexual agency is at an end, but the need for Frame control still persists. This is a stage where no amount of pseudo self-confidence will convince a woman’s hindbrain that she can depend on her sexual agency to ensure her long-term security. But, as with everything else in a woman’s life, the Feminine Imperative is ready with a rationalization and various social conventions to absolve her of her reliance on her sexual agency and, of course, place the responsibility for it squarely on men’s shoulders.

In fact, those conventions can be quite profitable if you can offer any contrived solution to those insecurities.

Sexual Retirement

As If-I-Fell relates, there are no shortages of pop psychologist, women celebrities and talk show hosts ready with a book, an interview or a testimony of encouragement absolving women of their dependency on their sexual agency (for the entirety of their lives) in their menopausal phase while simultaneously shaming men who would even hint at not supporting this absolving.

Even women who would otherwise have been hated rivals during their sexually competitive years are later forgiven when they provide a salve for these insecurities when they reach an age where even the most attractive among them must come to terms with this sexual retirement. It’s at this stage the Sisterhood comes together in solidarity (in place of cut-throat intra-sexual competition) to bemoan their victim’s status.

The Feminine Imperative is indeed pushing sexual retirement, and absolving women of the consequences of their sexual agency and strategy, as a women’s rights issue. There’s a lot of money (not to mention ego validation) in fostering this in women.

If-I-Fell continues:

[…]Now, I have an argument with the wife every time she says she wants to go off HRT.

At this point, many guys blue and red will think I’m an asshole. After all, the Feminine Imperative is telling women to stay on HRT short-term to relieve symptoms and the risk of blood clots and woman-related cancers is increased. To the contrary, it is my understanding the increased cancer risk touted as doubled can be as small as a change of 1:100,000 to 2:100,000.

Suzanne Sommers has written multiple books in support of bioidentical hormone replacement that covers HRT in detail. This may be a good resource for men whose women have begun hormonally misfiring.

So, here’s the point of my long comment and how it relates to the topic of Reconstruction.

HRT (hormone replacement therapy) for menopausal women is the new litmus test for ’empowered’ women, and the personal impact of a woman’s life-long social investments comes down to a crisis of motive dilemma. Does a menopausal woman, whose sexual agency is well beyond her capacity to effectively compete in the sexual marketplace, accept the marginal risks associated with HRT in order to maintain her libido and her looks “for her husband’s sexual pleasure“?

When Angelina chose to desexualize herself the cover story we’re meant to accept is that she did so in order to preempt the breast cancer that runs in her family. That’s a hard decision to make (and one I’d expect from someone as invested in feminist theology and as psychologically imbalanced as Jolie), but there’s no real acceptable counter to it. She had a double mastectomy to save her life and considerations of her lessened sexual agency shouldn’t enter into the conversation. If we’re to accept that men’s arousal / attraction is to be based on women’s intrinsic qualities and not her extrinsic physical qualities, then any conversation about her opting to electively desexualize herself in doing so is rendered moot.

Men’s Pleasure

Brad Pitt’s pleasure, his arousal, his emotional investment in Jolie is never a consideration because the social constructivist position that attraction is learned disqualifies any counterargument anyone might pose. In fact, just doing so makes that person a pariah – she’s saving her life here man!

However, this transitions us to the idea that women do not ‘exist for a man’s pleasure’. This is a common refrain you’ll get from feminists and Women’s Studies teachers when they try to convince us about the infamous ‘male gaze‘ – they believe that a man’s simply gazing upon a beautiful woman is offensive because he’s deriving some visceral pleasure in doing so.

The male gaze is the way in which the visual arts and literature depict the world and women from a masculine point of view, presenting women as objects of male pleasure. The phrase male gaze was coined by feminist film critic Laura Mulvey in 1975.

Men have evolved to assess sexual availability of women and evaluate their fitness in the span of moments. This was a necessary evolutionary adaptation in the past in that it served men well to breed efficiently and evacuate quickly should a rival or monogamously paired man be in the vicinity to mate guard with violence. And this adaptation is also the result of women’s sexual strategy and predilection for making cuckolds of men.

The operative point here is that within a state of Sexual Retirement the long term partner of that woman is expected to identify with women’s experience so intimately, and reform his personality so thoroughly to accommodate the Frame of women that he is expected to default to understanding that ‘his pleasure’ is never to be a priority for women – no matter how devoted. In fact, this premise is foundational to feminist ideology and something men must be conditioned to accept via Blue Pill indoctrination.

This is a very important Red Pill truth men should understand. Blue Pill conditioning, the Feminine Imperative and feminist doctrine is rooted in the idea that women are never to ‘please’ men. Men are always to perform for, qualify for and serve at the ‘pleasure’ of women. Any idea, any effort, any pretense of overtly or covertly initiate a behavior with the purpose of pleasing a man is anathema to a feminine-primary  social order.

This premise is extended to countless social dictates and social conventions across many phases of women’s maturity and many aspects of our feminized society. In this case, the ‘never for men’s pleasure’ doctrine extends to the question of whether a woman should go on HRT with the express reason of staying pleasing and sexual for a man. That answer will always be a resounding ‘no’ for women steeped in the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative.

Side Note: There are of course many different instances in which a woman may intentionally do something for a man’s pleasure. Strippers, lingerie, adopting a sexy attitude, etc., you can probably think of many more. My intent here isn’t to suggest that women don’t intentionally do things to please men, but rather that their so doing is looked down on with disdain by a larger, feminine-primary social order. In those cases the narrative gets reversed and the line gets blurred as to whom a woman does such things for. If others can be convinced those acts are sources of Fempowerment, or that the means (pleasing men) justify the ends (female power) then we validate the action and, again, we return to a Crisis of Motive.

From Late Life Hypergamy

I wondered if she would even consider taking the new “pink pill”, the female form of viagra, but I’ve read enough counter argument articles from women about it to know that women’s hardwired psychology prevents them from even chemically altering themselves to want to have sex with a man her Hypergamy cannot accept. My guess is that even a cheeky holiday in the Maldives won’t be enough to convince Saira to want to fuck Steve.

However, this simple fact, that women will refuse to take the Spanish Fly to work themselves up and bypass their Hypergamy for their Beta husband’s happiness, destroys the convention that her frigidity is the result of her biomechanics. She doesn’t want a pill to fix her because she knows it’s a holistic problem.

I think it’s very telling that women will cognitively refuse to have sex with a man who represents a less than equitable exchange for either Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks. When a woman is consciously aware of the fact that the value of a man she should be having sex with (due to societal expectations, marriage, etc.) is not commensurate with what her subconscious is telling her there comes an internal conflict – and one that’s rooted in women’s evolved Hypergamous doubts of suitably breeding.

For all of the equalist hopes that sex might be something men should condition themselves to overcome or cure themselves of, women’s subconsciousness won’t allow them to consciously take a pill that would effectively do the same thing they expect of men – to convince their sex drives to want to be aroused by a woman for reasons other than what they evolved to be aroused by.

This is literally what we’ll condition men for from the earliest ages; to deny their sexual impulse in favor of seeing women in a humanist perspective and condition them to feel shame when their biology wont cooperate with social constructivist belief. Yet, when we present a solution to achieve the same effect with women – a pill that would make them want to fuck men who their hindbrains would otherwise reject – women’s hindbrains are disgusted at the thought of taking a pill to circumvent their biology.

And even that refusal isn’t enough. Men must be shamed for attempting to chemically achieve what takes the Feminine Imperative generation to in men.

As I was finishing this essay I came across the following series of Tweets:

i just sat near by two 60+ women.Let me tell you,hypergamy & golddigging never stops & they r not ashamed at all, laughing when talking about potential man. 1st time that i heard about ‘i’m old, weak & forgetful’ cards.They are part of main deck.

Shiite,they r now talking about age,praising each other that they r still young. Major problem is buying new clothes.

They both have facebook. Proud divorces also… 1 was major slut, bragging about it… So much gold, i cant believe this.

I managed to take a pic, its 1pm,both r drinking, right one is loud mouth, attention whore till the end.

Unfuckingbelievable, one of them is talking about doctor who makes women prettier, ‘he fixed tonnes of tits’ -word for word verbatim.

You can read the rest of the exchange, but I thought this was an interesting contrast to the idea of Sexual Retirement. The older women get, the more comfortable they become in embracing Hypergamy openly. This is something for Red Pill men to bear in mind when they are seeing the forest for the trees with women. The less a woman perceives she needs a man to accommodate the aspects of her Hypergamy, the more comfortable she is in revealing how it operates for her and women at large.

If you come across a woman who’s comfortable in Open Hypergamy, the question you need to ask yourself is, what is it that she perceives about herself makes her believe that revealing her Game to you will benefit her with? Granted, these old women are long past their expiration date with regard to their SMV, but isn’t it interesting that in spite of what’s obvious to any Red Pill guy, they still entertain themselves with believing they haven’t retired from sex in their old age? All of the same ego-appeasement we’d expect from teenage girls still persists into women’s 70s and 80s.

So, is there really such a thing as ‘sexual retirement’ for women, or is it just a convenient way of casting off a woman’s Beta-husband need for ‘pleasure’ after a certain age? I covered this further in Preventive Medicine.

 

The Reconstruction II

reconstructionii

One of the most influential books I’ve ever read I picked up from my father’s home library when I was about 25. That book was Dr. Warren Farrell’s Why Men Are The Way They Are. At the time it didn’t strike me as odd that my father would have this book in his collection – my clinically depressed, 3rd wave feminist, aging hippy of a step-mother had eventually roped him into reading it for some Unitarian book club they belonged to in the early 90s. I still have it. It’s even got her penciled-in liner notes scribbled in the margins with all the feminist outrage I imagine it must’ve inspired for her. It’s sort of a cosmic irony that the book she raged over would be instrumental for my own writing and online persona.

People always ask me when my point of unplugging came about, but if I’m honest, it was a gradual process that required a lot of bad experiences to learn my way out of the Matrix. However, Farrell’s book was a turning point for me. I’ve since had to reassess my opinion of Dr. Farrell – he’s still very much Blue Pill and will likely go to his grave never making the connection that a belief in egalitarian equalism (as taught to him by early feminism) is what’s kept him blind to really accepting Red Pill awareness. But if I had a moment of unplugging I’d say it was directly attributable to this book.

I think what got me the most about it at the time were the many stories of the men Farrell had done ‘men’s group’ sessions with while doing his research for the book. It was published 1986 (about 7 or 8 years before I read it) so it was already kind of dated when I read it, but for the most part these men sort of had these sit-ins with other men to relate with each other. If you’ve read my essay Tribes you’ll understand why these new-agey get together seem very contrived to me, but the stories these guys were relating in the early to mid 80s were about what I’d expect coming from my own Dad.

They all did everything right. Some were the products of the free love generation or the hedonistic 70s, but overall these guys were caught in the perfect storm of still clinging to the old books Beta-provisioning social contract and the expectation of 3rd wave feminists that they be ‘evolved males’. More than a few were attending these men’s groups at the behest of their empowered wives in the hopes that they’d learn to get in touch with their feminine sides or at least find some better way to meet their “needs”. I could see my father as one of these men.

Papa Tomassi was a very confused man with regard to women as it was, but to be caught on the cusp of an era when feminine social primacy coming into its own and still being part of the ‘do everything right’ social contract and the belief system that was doomed to fail in the decades to come, I can understand a lot of that confusion. One man in the book described it thusly:

“I feel like I’ve spent 40 years of my life working as hard as I could to become somebody I don’t even like.”

Each one of these guys related a similar frustration. They busted their asses for decades to fulfill the old books social contract, the one that had been the way you did the right thing in order to have a life with a woman, a family, kids, maybe grandchildren, and all of that was no longer working for men. The 24 year old Rollo Tomassi reading this book didn’t know what Hypergamy really was back then, but as I recount these men’s confusion today I can see that it was a result of being the first men to realize that institutionalized Hypergamy was erasing that old social paradigm for them.

Bad Investments

I’ve covered the fallacy of Relational Equity in a prior post, but I think it’s necessary to revisit the idea here to understand how it still undermines men in an era of Open Hypergamy and feminine social primacy. These men, most of whom are likely into their 70s now, had a preconception of what it meant to ‘do everything right’; to play by an understood rule set that women were supposed to find attractive, to acknowledge and honor. Furthermore, they were taught to expect a degree of mutual reason from these new, empowered and evolving women. If needs weren’t being met, well, then all that was necessary was a heart to heart and open communication and negotiation would set things back on track because women could be expected to be the functional equivalents of men. This was the golden, egalitarian, sexual equality, future that feminism promised the guys in the 70s and 80s.

Relational Equity is the misguided belief that ‘doing everything right’ would necessarily be what ultimately attracts a woman, kept a woman, a wife, an LTR, from both infidelity, and was an assurance of her continued happiness with her man. Needless to say, the collected experiences of men that’s led to the praxeology of what we know as Red Pill awareness puts the lie to this – but as men, we expect some kind of acknowledgement for our accomplishments. Rationally, in a male context, we expect that what we do will at least be recognized as valuable, if not honored, by other men. So by extension of our equalist social contract, women, whom we are told we should expect to be co-equal agents with men, should also be expected to see past their emotional Hypergamous natures and make a logical conclusion to be attracted to men who are good fits in a mutually understood sense.

This, of course, is nonsense for the same reason that expecting genuine desire can be negotiated is nonsense, but essentially this is essentially the idea the shifting social contract of the time was trying to convince men of. And as you might expect, those men, the ones with the insight to recognize it, saw it for the opportunism it really was. Even if they ended up at 40 hating who they’d become.

From Relational Equity:

This is a really tough truth for guys to swallow, because knowing how hypergamy works necessarily devalues their concept of relational equity with the woman they’re committed to, or considering commitment with. Men’s concept of relational equity stems from a mindset that accepts negotiated desire (not genuine desire) as a valid means of relationship security. This is precisely why most couples counseling fails – its operative origin begins from the misconception that genuine desire (hypergamy) can be negotiated indefinitely.

When we become Red Pill aware there is also a kind of Relational Equity we need to acknowledge and manage. Once we’ve unplugged it’s easy to get caught up in thinking that because we know the game, because we’ve gone through the trials, because we know we’re higher value men – if for no other reason than that we no longer subscribe to the misgivings of out Blue Pill conditioning – because of that awareness we tend to think that this should be consciously or tacitly appreciated by a wife, a girlfriend or the women we’re sarging in the club.

This can be kind of tough for an aware man because it’s often something we need to keep latent in ourselves. Being overt about Red Pill awareness with women is almost always self defeating because it exposes the Game. Women want to play the game, they don’t want to be told how it operates. In our everyday lives it’s necessary to reserve and observe or we risk changing the process.

Openly acknowledging the value a man believes he ought to inspire in a woman will alter her perception of that value. Most men who resort to forcing a woman’s hand by laying bare all the qualities of himself (real or imagined) he believes she should recognize and appreciate are only exposing their belief that Relational Equity and an old paradigm mindset is his mental point of origin. In truth, guys who attempt to set themselves apart by listing all the ways they’re valuable and playing by the rules generally get shamed by women in the end because those qualities have become so common place and expected that they’ve become debased.

So you’re a great father to your kids and a devoted husband who built himself into the guy that any woman should be attracted to, who should be a great catch? That’s great, but that’s what you’re supposed to do. And all those things you’re supposed to do, those aren’t what engender a woman’s genuine desire. In a feminine-primary social order – the same order that deliberately misdefines masculinity for men – all men need to do, endlessly, is just a bit more to do everything right.

The Awakening

On both the Married Red Pill and MGTOW Reddit forums there’s been discussed the concept of being ‘awakened while married’. Hopefully I wont butcher that concept too badly here, but I think one aspect of becoming Red Pill aware, whether you’re a young single guy or an old mature married one is that there comes a point when you are awake and aware of the conditioning and the intersexual paradigm you truly live in. Honestly, I envy the younger men who come into this awareness early in life, but I also recognize that theirs is a greater responsibility to the truth for the rest of their unplugged lives. Men awakened while married at least have the excuse of having been deluded by Blue Pill conditioning for most of their lives to that point.

For younger men the Red Pill presents challenges with each new prospective woman a man applies himself with. For the awakened married man, his challenge is reinventing himself in a Red Pill aware paradigm with a woman who is already intimately aware of his persona, possibly for decades. We always say that once you’ve become Red Pill aware there is no going back. Even for men who go into total denial and choose to live with the cognitive dissonance of what they know about their own Blue Pill conditioning and the socio-sexual game going on around them there will always be reminders of Red Pill awareness he’ll notice on his peripheries.

For a man awakened to his condition while married, his state is a never ending reminder of what his Blue Pill indenturement has made of him. Like the guy in Farrell’s men’s group, the Blue Pill husband has spent most of his life trying to become someone he may or may not like, but that process of becoming was prompted by his Blue Pill conditioned existence. Once that man becomes Red Pill aware he’s now faced with two problems – how will he remake himself and how will his wife accept that remaking?

From the earliest posts of this blog I’ve always stressed that a man’s dominant Frame in his relationship is vital to the function of that relationship. Unfortunately, most men who were awakened while married began their relationships with a strong Beta perception for their wives. We can debate as to whether just the commitment of marriage itself makes for a predominantly Beta perception of a man, but in an era of  masculine ridicule, Open Hypergamy and Alpha Widows it’s a good bet that women’s impression of their husbands is rarely one of reserved Alpha confidence.

This is a tough position for a Red Pill aware husband to confront. Sometimes a wife’s impression of his Beta-ness is too embedded, or she’s built a relational framework around expecting him to be a hapless Beta. Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. I should add that this expectation of predictability isn’t just limited to a wife’s perception of her Beta husband. That can, and often does, extend to a man’s family or friends who also expect him to be the Beta he’s always been. This then presents another challenge in remaking himself into something new, dominant and respectable in his Red Pill awareness.

Many of the men I used to do peer counseling with back in the early 2000s only wanted one thing; they wanted their wives to have a genuine desire to fuck them with either an enthusiasm they’d never known (but believed was possible) or they hoped to re-experience (and hopefully sustain) a genuine sexual desire they’d enjoyed with their wives while they were dating. None of them wanted (at least at first) to abandon their marriages, they just wanted to do thing right so their wives would fuck them, love them, respect them. They really wanted things to work, and so much so that they would overtly ask their wives “what do I have to do to get you to love/fuck/respect me and I’LL DO IT!” Which of course was precisely the thing that turned their wives off even more.

Their overtness and desperation was only more reinforcement and confirmation of these men’s wives perception of their Beta statuses. However, these men are the descendants of the generations that convinced them that ‘open communication’ solves all relationship problems, but here they were, being open, direct, expecting a rational, negotiable solution to their problem only to have it drive their disgusted wives further from them.

Hypergamy doesn’t care when a woman’s lasting impression of a man is his Beta status. How a man’s Red Pill awareness and the changes it brings in him will be accepted depends largely on his predominant condition. What husbands want is a sea change in their wives’ impression of them once they adopt a Red Pill / Game aware way of life. Most husbands have to weigh their emotional and personal investments in their wives with the reality that their wives’ impressions of them may simply never change. Becoming Red Pill aware forces husbands into a position of having to judge whether their marriages are even worth the considerable effort of trying to improve.

In the next part of this series I’ll be exploring the challenges an ‘awakened while married’ man has to face while weighing his wife’s impression of him with the impressions women outside his marriage have of him.

 

 

Alpha-Beta Communication Modes

communication

I had a really good comment from Rites of Passage from Elooie I’ve been meaning to get back to for a while now:

This post has been here for about a week so this comment might get buried but I was wondering if it would be an interesting post for you to speak to the difference in how women communicate with men they find alpha and men who are their emotional dumpster. (Its been covered in aggregate by multiple posts but not specifically how women frame the conversation)

At my work, I am an expert in not only my field but in our company. Even our newly hired CFO made a comment about finally putting a face to the legend he had heard about (when we met).

Since becoming red pill aware and really beginning to actively observe men and women in the office, I have found that women come to me specifically for career advice, my expertise, leadership and my help to make things happen. They don’t complain, they don’t dump their emotions they don’t ask me how I feel other than to make sure I approve. This defer to leadership (as I call it) has been happening more and more recently (either from my continued awaking to RP or my ability to finally notice)

What made me think to bring this female communication between alpha (defer to leadership for help/decisions) and beta men (let me dump my feeling on you) was a co-worker I used to work with a lot looked out of sort and I made a joke about her being high.. and she almost emotionally broke down when she told me her brother recently died. She visibly choked it down and I changed the subject before she broke down. She was incredibly relieved. In a way, changing the subject gave her strength or at least a distraction. Since then she has tried to be more engaged with me and constantly asking for my approval of what she does. I find it interesting that blue pill men might have wanted to try and help by having her discuss her feelings or try to connect with her and talk about how awful he feels for her.

Another example is a girl I used to sleep with texted me after the election out of the blue about how distraught she was and how the world was going to end because Trump won. (She doesn’t know I prefer Trump to Hillary). In the ramblingly long text she even mentioned how angry and unstable her current boyfriend was over it. All I said back was, “Take a deep breath, its going to be fine.” From that point on she has been trying to re-engage me and always flirty. Its obvious to me she wasn’t looking for someone to have an emotional conversation with..(her distraught beta boyfriend could have handled that) she wanted someone to tell her she was freaking out and pull her back to earth.

Both of those situations in a blue pill world would have triggered the “lets explore how we feel” conversation, but really they didn’t want that.

I’ve written several essays about the difference in men and women’s communications priorities and the importance each sex places on particular aspects of communication. However, most of these simply outlined the dynamics. It’s no secret, even to Blue Pill men, that men and women communicate differently. Men place primary importance on the information or content of what is being communicated, while women put context, or how what’s being communicated makes them feel about the exchange as their primary importance.

This is actually one area of Red Pill awareness you’ll get the least amount of resistance from Blue Pill guys or the femosphere about. Women love to tell us how superior their communication skills are, or how they get so much more from sub-communications that men are largely ignorant of. The point of pride comes from the idea that women tend to communicate more “effectively” than men, because they utilizes non-verbal cues such as tone, emotion, and empathy whereas men tend to be more task-oriented, less talkative, and more isolated. Men have a more difficult time understanding emotions that are not explicitly verbalized, while women tend to intuit emotions and emotional cues. These differences explain why men and women sometimes have difficulty communicating and why men-to-men friendships look different from friendships among women.

The problem with all of this is that it presupposes that women’s communication is the ‘correct’ form while men’s is incorrect because it is more blunt and devoid of nuance. The measure of “effective” communication in a feminine-centric world is judged from a feminine-centric (emotional) metric, not how well information is transferred. There’s really nothing isolating about men’s capacity to communicate, it just doesn’t appeal to a social order that’s founded on what ought to be correct for the Feminine Imperative. As you might guess, a high importance is given to emotion and a capacity to emote in a feminine-primary social order. Thus, emotionalism becomes the benchmark for that order’s metric of “effective communication”.

I’m stressing this here because as western(izing) societies have effectively feminized men for the past 4-5 generations the majority of men (largely Beta) have adapted to learn, and default to, this context-first female form of communication. In spite of men’s neurological differences in communication, their Blue Pill conditioning teaches them that ‘effective’ communication is female, emotive, communication. Although they lack the hardware for it, men learn to alter their communication style to accommodate that of women’s because it is seen as a means to intimacy with women in feminine-primary society. Beta men, as part of Beta Game, are conditioned by the Blue Pill to reprogram themselves to identify with the feminine – a large part of that is learning to communicate as a woman communicates.

Boyfriends and Girlfriends

Women have boyfriends and girlfriends. If you’re not fucking her, you’re her girlfriend.

I wrote that as part of my posts on intergender friendships. Women get upset by that quote because it’s unflattering, but true. Blue Pill guys get upset because they see themselves in it and then seek to rationalize how their situation with their ‘girl’ friends is different. But what they both rarely want to confront is that Beta men communicate with women like women. And conversely, women communicate with Beta men in the same mode of communication they are comfortable with when communicating with their same-sex girl friends.

Most Blue Pill / Beta men are largely oblivious to the fact that their communication’s methods and priorities have been conditioned to have them subconsciously default to a feminine-primary, context (feeling)-first form of communicating with women. This is so engrained in Beta men’s personalities that few are ever aware that they do so. It’s just ‘how they are’, and few if any ever give an afterthought to how they communicate with women as women. Many a Beta guy gets very hostile when they have this pointed out to them because it conflicts with their distorted Blue Pill-defined concept of masculinity. So, if you tell a Beta, ‘you communicate like a woman’ the conditioned response then is to question the security of the masculinity of the guy pointing it out and he goes back to feeling good about himself for being evolved enough to communicate correctly – as a woman.

It’s when guys unplug and become Red Pill aware that they begin to understand this dynamic. Most Beta men’s feminine-primary communication mode makes them subconsciously indistinguishable from women’s ‘girlfriends’. I mentioned this in some past essays on intergender friendships, but what happens is that as part of men’s Blue Pill conditioning that convinces them to adopt a personality of passivity, equalism, sensitivity and identifying themselves with the feminine, in most respects they become a woman’s same-sex girl friend. This feminization of the Beta is confirmed for them when that Beta communicates in the same mode as her best girl friends. The appearance might be male, but the hindbrain registers female for her.

This context-primary form of communication is the most common among men (largely Beta) today so it’s literally what women are accustomed to when they interact with men. They become used to being deferred to, used to being communicated with in her own mode. This then sets the baseline for what women expect from men’s communication – they expect him to communicate like a same-sex friend – so when that mode becomes taxed or a guy slips back into his blunt, low-nuance content driven mode it’s naturally an attraction. No doubt, that guy will get called out for being a ‘typical dude’ and shamed for his incorrect form, but it is attractive not only for being a break from the feminized communication patterns she’s used to, but also because it implies that he’s his own mental point of origin. It communicates that he is confident enough not to care about accommodating her form of communication (feminine-primary).

One reason Amused Mastery is so effective is because it forces a woman to communicate on male terms. Amused Mastery implies a man actually has a mastery above that of the woman he interacts with. When a man employs Amused Mastery it registers in a woman’s hindbrain through his unapologetic insistence on communicating with her on his communicative terms.

You’re Not Listening

Women’s biggest complaint about men with regard to communication is that they don’t listen. The common Red Pill observation about this that women only come up with that gripe when men wont do what she tells him to, and that it’s about a Frame grab. That’s certainly true, and especially evident in relationships where a woman presumes her Frame is the dominant one, however there’s a bit more to this. ‘Men don’t listen’ is also a conflict in communication modes. Since men’s communication mode centers on content and information, we tend to filter out the background noise – and most of the background noise that comes about from intergender communication comes from exactly the emotional chaff that women are so proud of in their ‘correct’ form of communicating. Men intensely listen to content, what they filter is unimportant non-content and usually this amounts to the contextual delivery of what’s being communicated.

However, women do filter for that emotiveness, so once again when a man does listen to feelings and identifies with women expressing them women’s hindbrains associate that with a feminine (or feminized) character. Ergo, the association is that Beta men are ‘listeners’, which ultimately is anti-seductive for any man wanting to develop a woman as a romantic prospect. And thus, you become her girl friend.

The Alpha & Beta Communication

So, to Elooie’s point, yes there are communicative differences in the ways women will relate to men they perceive as Alpha and Beta. As you may have guessed, how a woman communicates with you is a very strong indicator of her sexual market value estimate of you. Going back again to Amused Mastery, if you are perceived as an authority of something a woman’s communicative mode will often shift to a more content specific (male) form of interacting. This is particularly so when her need dictates she solve an immediate problem. Women with pressing real-world problems will often confuse men they perceive as Beta by deferring to their particular expertise on whatever it is they believe will solve that problem.

A lot of Beta computer guys know what I’m talking about. A woman communicates with them in her own feels-first contextual mode when it’s all solipsistically about her personal problems, but let her iPhone or laptop malfunction and then she shifts to content driven communication. She does this to solve a pressing problem by shifting the mode of interaction to deferring to him. He registers this and defaults back to his content-driven communication (with not a little bit of pride that she recognizes his convenient expertise). Once the problem is resolved, she goes back to her mode of communication (feels-first) and shames him for being a typical guy if he doesn’t adjust back to her communicative frame.

Another scenario is what Elooie describes. Women who already have an Alpha impression of you will often begin an exchange in what she expects will be your male-centered way of interacting. In PUA terms you might call this a preset buying temperature, but when a woman is attracted to you she is expecting you to communicate as she expects a man will communicate. In fact this is an excellent Alpha Tell if you have the skill to recognize it. In the early stages of interacting with a woman you will notice that playful banter is almost always performed in men’s communicative mode. This is the mode an attracted woman is hoping you’ll insist on maintaining. In fact, I’d argue that most shit tests a woman delivers (at least the active shit tests) are issued in the hopes that you will pass them from within a male-centered communicative mode.

That’s not to say that men’s content-based communication leaves no room for wit or nuance – nothing entertains a woman more than a guy who ‘Just Gets It‘ but also knows how to communicate that he does get it. This is the intergender thrust, parry, riposte of Game. If a man defaults to being Mr. Sensitivity, self-conscious of his every response and reflexively communicates in a female-centered mode from the outset, he gets relegated to Beta status; only useful for convenient chores and emotional tampon duties.

I think it’s a really good exercise for newly Red Pill aware men to put on their Red Pill Lenses and really listen and watch how women interact with men and each other. Make mental notes about how you think a woman interprets the SMV of men as well as the women she communicates with. Watch for the shift in communication modes, see if you can predict the shift when a woman talks with a man you think is Beta and then with a man you think she perceives as Alpha. It’s really not that hard to guess. In fact, we’re really preprogrammed to acknowledge it even in a Blue Pill sense, but with Red Pill awareness it’s educational and entertaining.

Once you get a good understanding of how this communicative interplay shifts according to personality, need, environment and attraction you’ll get a better grasp of the message a woman’s medium is telling you personally. Then, learn to pull your head out of a female mode of communicating and insist on her coming into your mode of communicating. This will be an essential part of establishing your dominant Frame.

The Power of Emotion

boxitup

Science fiction has always sought to portray human emotion as a weakness to be overcome.
Some have gone further to express the notion of our physical being as a limiting factor. This is notably seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I’m aware this is fiction, but I just want to reinforce the point from my earlier post that we don’t have to be held to eternal hostage by nature. We can strive to be better.
A quote from Terminator 2, sums it up admirably.

T-800 to John Connor: “I now know why you cry. But it is something, I can never do.”

While emotions are a part of our experience as human beings, Red Pill aware men need to understand the functionality of emotional responses. Rationality is, of course, the charter of this blog and my books, and while I make my best efforts to approach each aspect of what I write from as objective an origin as I’m able to, I also understand that there are limitations to remaining completely objective. I’m human like anyone else reading this (chatbots excepted) and I’ve always been fully aware that my emotional state, my own ego-investments and biases, as well as the observer effect are all something I need to make a conscious effort to account for while I’m writing about a new idea or observation I’m connecting dots with.

In a few prior posts I’ve made an effort to account for a balance between rationality and emotionalism. I say “emotionalism” because I think there needs to be a separation between the physical experience of emotion and the significance our fem-centric social order would have us place on those experiences. There is a difference between emotional response (evolved stimulus-response adaptations) and the ideologies that elevate human emotion to a metaphysical state (emotionalism).

Seeking, rage, fear, lust, care, panic and play are what are commonly recognized as primal emotions. I didn’t make this list up myself, these are just the most base-level imperatives from which more complex experiences of emotion are distilled. All of these root-level emotional experiences have been studied extensively and can be stimulated chemically and neurologically today. An easy example of this biological connection to emotional experience can be triggered and observed in the ‘roid rages’ experienced by the users of anabolic steroids.

Have you ever been “Hangry“? The feeling of anger / aggressiveness due to being overly hungry is an evolutionary survival adaptation. You’re far more motivated to kill and eat something if the feeling of hunger, prompted by its chemical triggers, also stimulates feelings of aggression. In today’s era that aggression may be inconvenient or anti-social, but our hunter-gatherer ancestors found it both acceptable and useful.

There are dozens of other examples I can give for the connection between our environmental, physical and chemical conditions and our emotional state. Similarly, there are chemical (dopamine) and behavioral prompts we associate with a particular emotional state. I don’t imagine this is anything revelatory to most Red Pill aware readers, but reviewing the objective aspects of emotion is necessary in order to separate it from the social influence of emotionalism.

Testosterone is well known to stimulate feelings of aggression and sexual arousal, but did you know that the chemical make up of testosterone is actually an inhibitor of the chemicals that prompt sadness and crying? When considered in this respect and the fact that human males produce 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone females do, is it any coincidence that men may feel less compulsion to cry over things? Yet, men are shamed for “holding back” tears. This is an example of the connection between our physical experience of emotions and the importance to which our social order places on (primarily female) emotionalism. There are a lot of complexities that make up our emotional state and the more we study the influences of our own biologies the better we can make a connection between the evolved, survival-beneficial, effect these emotions elicit in us.

The nuts and bolts science of emotions demystifies the more magical, romanticized association we like to apply to them. And at the risk of prompting any kind of nihilism, it’s important that we consider our emotional state in terms of the concrete physical stimulus that’s provoking our emotional states. It’s easy to get into the science of emotions when we’re trying to solve a problem like clinical depression and the feelings and potential behaviors it evokes, but it’s much harder to look at upsetting an elated feeling of happiness. If it ain’t broke there’s no reason to think about fixing it.

But what sets us off about really coming to terms with the science of emotion is it tends to kill our gods. Up until advent of our understanding the cause and effect influences of emotion we’ve applied a lot of metaphysical importance to our emotions. Historically, our emotions have inspired us to create some of the greatest cultural and artistic masterpieces, and they’ve urged us to some pretty ugly atrocities too. Even today, western cultures raise emotion to a mythical grandeur. We romanticize and apply great significance to how we feel. We prioritize expressing emotions to being some enlightened state and the repression or control of them as some kind of horrible evil or some form of retardation.

Emotionalism

The Washington Post (I know, I know,…) recently published the findings of a study outlining how “sexist” men have psychological problems:

Researchers then identified 11 norms considered to be “traditionally masculine” — desire to win, need for emotional control, risk-taking, violence, dominance, sexual promiscuity or playboy behavior, self-reliance, primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuality and pursuit of status — and looked to see whether they were associated with particular mental health outcomes.

In general, the men who stuck more strongly to these norms were more likely to experience problems such as depression, stress, body image issues, substance abuse and negative social functioning. They were also less likely to turn to counseling to help deal with those problems. The effect was particularly strong for men who emphasized playboy behavior, power over women and self-reliance.

As you might expect, what’s defined as “toxic” masculinity today is decided by people invested in a mindset that confirms the Feminine Imperative. This article follows along with what will likely be the Trump-era narrative for masculinity – anything remotely considered “traditionally” masculine will be conflated with a psychological disorder. The cure to which is, of course, ego-investing men in feminine-primary mental states; effectively feminizing men.

If we look at the norms identified by this study we are expected to nod in agreement about the negative, potentially damaging, connotations these traditionally masculine aspects imply. But they are only negative because the objective environment we are supposed to interpret them from is one of feminine primacy. Anything that can be considered an impediment to female societal control, any aspect of men’s intrinsic natures that lessens the same potentials of women is considered “toxic”.

Desire to win, need for emotional control, risk-taking, violence, dominance, sexual promiscuity or playboy behavior, self-reliance, primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuality and pursuit of status – by orders of degree these are the foundational aspects of masculinity that’s been responsible for the advancement of humanity for millennia now. I’m not entirely sure what ‘playboy lifestyle’ entails, but consider the problems these aspects of male nature evolved to solve for men. Each one of these characteristics has a functional prompt; they didn’t evolve in a vacuum. These parts of masculinity were and are functional benefits to men. Only in a society that defines supremacism of women and the primacy of female-correctness do these aspects become negative.

I doubt it will come as any surprise to the Red Pill aware that all of these traits used to have a higher social value in virtually all social orders prior to our present one. It’s not enough to make female social interaction the preeminent one, masculinity and its conventional aspects must be pathologized. They must become a sickness if gynocentrism is to sustain itself.

I’m exploring this here because the female way of socialization is founded upon emotionalism. I think it’s important for Red Pill men to understand that the defining of what particular emotional states are acceptable is intimately linked to what those states mean to the Feminine Imperative. In the past 60 years western(ized) culture has become one in which the feminine defines the predominant cultural narrative with regard to intersexual communication, correctness and the psychological values we are meant to infer from it. This discourse is one that is primarily informed by women’s high priority on an investment in emotionalism.

In past essays I’ve outlined how men and women’s brains are neurologically wired for different, yet complementary functions. Women experience negative emotions differently from men. The male brain evolved to seek out sex before food. And while our feminine-centric social order insists that, in the name of equalism, boys should be forced to learn in the same modality as that of girls, the science shows that boys brains are rudimentarily wired to learn differently.

“Greater emotional reactivity in women may explain many things, such as their being twice as likely to suffer from depression and anxiety disorders compared to men,” Mendrek added, who is also an associate professor at the University of Montreal’s Department of Psychiatry.

Yet for all of these very evident physical differences in men and women’s experience of emotion, it is women’s experience, and a feminine priority for the ‘correctness’ of that experience we apply to men. I would suggest that much of this is primarily due to women’s innate solipsism, but we’ve normalized women’s experience of emotion as the common and correct one in terms of intersexual communication and social dynamics.

Emotionalism and the applying of metaphysical meaning to the feminine-correct experience of them has pervaded our social consciousness since the time of the sexual revolution. This elevated importance of emotion has been a part of popular culture for millennia of course, but until the rise of a socially mandated importance of female Hypergamy we haven’t had female emotionalism direct the course of society as it has for over sixty years now.

As such, we see that men “getting in touch with their feminine sides” is really a concerted effort to repress their natural experience of emotion as a male, and to attempt to force their own emotional states into ones females can identify with. As I mentioned above, there are literally biological limitations for a man to experience emotion as a woman as well as his impulse to want to prioritize those feelings as women do. The presumption is that a man is emotionally stunted if he feel that repressing his emotions is what he ought to do. “Boys don’t cry” is a sickness when it is women’s experience and importance of emotionalism that drives our social discourse.

Women bemoan men’s stereotypical lack of “emotional availability”, and we put a religious importance upon our capacity to express our emotions in some way, but all of this is constrained to the box that is women’s correct experience and importance of emotion. This is not what men’s brains are naturally wired for, and in a Red Pill context this is not what women’s hindbrains want from men.

It’s important for Red Pill men to understand that our feminine-primary social order is founded up the importance women place on the God of emotion. Part of your Blue Pill conditioning was to convince you, as a young boy, that the way women emote and the importance they put on emotion is what you needed to accept as the healthy, normal way of experiencing and expressing it. The truth is you are not wired to experience emotion as a woman will. That isn’t to suggest you deny or repress your feelings, but to understand that you shouldn’t feel bad for not feeling as a woman feels. This kind of goes back to the point I was making in Empathy; while it may be possible for a woman to sympathize with your feelings, she will never be able to empathize with them as a man would experience it.

Furthermore, it should be part of men’s unplugging to come to terms with the metaphysical importance women place on (largely their own) emotional states. They remove the functional aspect of emotion and elevate it to something only women have a unique sensitivity to understand. Separating yourself from this self-induced, self-applied belief in emotion can be a very powerful tool for a Red Pill man in his dealing with women – and not just the ones he’s intimately involved with. Separating your ego from the religion of emotion and coming to terms with the science of emotion is a very difficult step for Blue Pill invested men to make. As I said, it’s like killing your gods, but it’s also killing the notion of the emotionalism you think you need to identify with in order to connect with a woman.

The Unbearable Rightness of Being Female

unbearable

The following post quote has been making the rounds in professional circles. It’s from Sallie Krawcheck, CEO of Ellevest, an investment firm dedicated to helping women with financial investment (no jargon, no ‘playing’ stocks for sport, no mansplaining, you got this). She’s also the “chair” of Elevate Network, a global professional women’s network. I’m adding this here to make a later point, but it’s important to understand how normalized it’s become for women to create a sexually exclusionary organization for women who will simultaneously complain about men’s sexism for not accommodating their (presumably successful) business culture to the interests of women. More on that later.

I thought I’d riff on this click-bait for, I assume, professional women because I expect we’ll see more of this prefabricated outrage in the coming years as a response to what will undoubtedly be the suffering of the Trump era in America. I’ll be the first to admit I was surprised by Trump’s win, but the denial of the First Female President® into the White House will be the cause du jour for every jilted woman who believes she’s a “professional”. Even if Clinton had won the mainstream would’ve been inundated with how ‘we still have a long way to go’ stories, however, with Trump in the Presidency the same tired narrative of systemic male sexism will get reinvigorated in the coming years.

From, A Letter to young women, in the age of Trump:

When I was your age, I thought it was over. My mother was a feminist, so I wanted to call myself anything but a feminist. And anyway, I seemed pretty welcome at work. Even though it was Wall Street, my analyst class was about a third women. We weren’t just on our way — we’d arrived.

But then…there were the inappropriate pictures left on my desk. The guy miming a sex act when my back was turned. I wasn’t given the great assignments; the more senior woman I worked with was likewise dismissed as “lightweight” (and, lest you think that might have been true, that woman was Safra Catz, now the co-President of Oracle). Then the women started to fall away in their 30s…more in their 40s. But the worst of it, I thought was over.

And now Trump has made it clear to everyone that the battle for us women is not over.

In femopshere there will always be an ‘us’. As I’ve outline in many prior essays, the Sisterhood will always take precedence above religion, politics, personal conviction and even family affiliations for women. Largely this is due to women’s evolved propensity for collectivism among their own sex. In our hunter gatherer beginnings women had an interdependent need for collective support for keeping tribal cohesion as well as child rearing.

This intrasexual collective support has carried over into what’s become the Sisterhood today. If you look at the interactions of young girls and their social group interdependence you begin to see that nascent tribal collectivism naturally come through. In terms of larger societal scope this collectivity becomes about acknowledging a shared experience of an imagined oppression by men. Between all women there is a gestalt understanding of “the plight of women” and a presumption of an endemic sexism no matter how culturally or socioeconomically dissimilar those women are.

As I mentioned, Trump is now a universal icon of that presumption of sexism and oppression. Granted, it could’ve been any man who displaced a woman in the history books, but the fall back presumption is that whoever ‘he’ is, he becomes emblematic of a ready narrative of sexism irrespective of merit. We presume sexism, we presume a guy would mime a sex act behind a woman’s back and leave ‘inappropriate’ pictures on a woman’s desk despite decades of workplace harassment legislation. We believe it because it sounds right; it sounds like something a typical sexist guy would do.

I can’t stop thinking about this and what we can / should do:

Remember that gender bias in the workplace is not a thing of the past. I’m sorry if I didn’t act when I should have. I thought we had left sexism behind us by the time I was in more senior roles. After all, we had complaint hotlines and diversity plans and requirements for diverse slates of candidates for every job. But now I’m remembering one of the members of the senior leadership team who would kiss younger women on the cheek at the beginning of meetings. Creepy, right? I now wonder what was being said when I wasn’t in that room.

What’s creepy is that in spite of years in a professional field that’s been the domain of men she’s just now remembering this fact. Would it have been less creepy if he’d kissed only his age-appropriate women on his leadership team? Professional women’s default presumption is that it is always sexism that is holding them back from breaking through a mythologized ‘glass ceiling’, but as is women’s solipsism, their first thought is that their problems are caused by externalities. Never is there an insight that they may simply lack the skills or that they don’t perform at their peak in a job they were told should be rewarding to them.

Gender biases will never be a thing of the past because to suggest they ever might be so is to presume a default state of egalitarian equality between the sexes. The gender biases in the workplace are most evident in the peer selection and peer evaluations of women – not some secret group of guys getting together in a private office room to expressly talk about a their co-workers’ tits.

As it stands in today’s modern office men are scared shitless every time they are called to cooperate with a woman on work projects for fear of being accused of sexism or harassment:

“In a lawsuit-happy culture, where claims can be made on a ‘he said/she said’ basis, men are now trying to ensure their actions are always covered by a third party witness”

“The terror of being accused of sexual harassment is now so common it has its own term, ‘backlash stress”

There’s a reason HR departments are largely staffed by women, because they want to be positioned in a way that they can execute policy. HR departments no longer exist to serve the company with regards to employees, rather they exist in order to protect that company from lawsuits and enforce feminine-primary conditions in the workplace.

Ask tough questions, and call the guys out when necessary. I recently asked my best guy friend: “Do guys really talk like Donald Trump and Billy Bush behind closed doors?” His response: “No, but…” And the “but” was that the conversations are more along the lines of: “Boy, she has great legs,” or “she’s a looker” or “Whew. Wouldn’t touch her with a ten-foot pole.” When I asked him how he responded to this, he said he didn’t say anything; after all, he has to work with these folks.

But so do we. And breaking us down to our body parts or our appearance dehumanizes us in some way. Maybe it’s only in some small way. But it’s clear that for some years, we (and by we, I mean I) were likely too complacent about the inevitability of gender progress in the workplace and relaxed perhaps just a bit too much.

It’s funny and irreverent when all the girls in the office get together for drinks or a male revue strip show after work, but it’s dehumanizing when men do the same. I’ve known very few men who would ever comment on a woman’s anatomy in a workplace environment. I have known men who would scold other men for staring a little too long at a female co-worker. I have known women to actively flirt with guys and wear inappropriate outfits to get attention from them. I’ve known women who’ve called me and other men I’ve worked with their “work husbands”.

I’ve worked in the liquor and casino promotion businesses for two decades now. I see some pretty wild behavior on the part of women who are not unlike the poor victimized dears Krawcheck describes going to work on Monday mornings.

The modern workplace culture has conditioned men for fear of women thanks largely to strict codes of conduct, but also because these men have been raised from birth to be dutiful Betas and White Knights who look for every opportunity to correct a ‘typical man’ for his sexist and rude behaviors. They look for these backroom boys clubs where women are rated on their looks so as to expose their heinous misogyny and institutionalized sexism, but they are disappointed when they don’t actually find it. So instead they contribute to an atmosphere of fear in some lame form of Beta Game they hope will be recognized and rewarded for by workplace women.

If you’re in a bad work situation, it’s ok to quit. So many women think that it’s a “failure” if you quit your job; and you know how hard we females take failure. But sometimes it’s not us: it’s them.

I recently left the board of a non-profit that I LOVE. I had been on it for years (and years). At nearly every meeting I asked how much we were spending on our investment managers, in comparison to the return we were getting. Meeting after meeting I was told that the answer was complex, it was hard to calculate, it would take a lot of work – and why did it matter anyway? It was really the net returns that matter, regardless of how much we paid for them. And then, last spring, before I could bring up the topic, one of the men did; and all the other guys eagerly agreed with him, that we need to keep an eye on fees because those are really all we can control.

I quit the next week.

Life is too short, and I can have a lot more impact with the week-a-year I get back instead of being ignored in meetings.

I know not everyone is in the position to quit; I wasn’t earlier in my career. So the onus is also on those of us who are more senior to be more supportive of women who leave these situations. I am hopeful that an outcome of this election will be greater understanding of this.

If it had been a woman who’d made the same suggestion would we be hearing about this? Shit like this happens all the time in the workplace. One reason The 48 Laws of Power resonated with men so well is because it was relatable to exactly this kind of situation. Law 7: Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit for it yourself. Sallie sees this as sexism because it happened to be a guy who pulled it on her, but would she have quit the non-profit had it been a woman who outplayed her?

This is the reality of even the most seemingly benign of companies. They are defined by the interplay of power dynamics, but when women are bested in it the sexism narrative is ready on standby to comfort and explain their failure. So it becomes OK to quit, because the environment is always sexist. The business environment is one defined by competition and this grates on women’s expectation of it to be cooperative and collective. Women like Sallie expect recognition for merit, but wish for things to be easier rather than developing the skills to play the game better.

Get yourself a senior, successful – preferably female – mentor, who can help you navigate the politics of your company. This includes the gender politics. Can’t find one on your own? Speak to HR about helping you find one; this is their job, after all.

Your company doesn’t have a senior, successful female? Get the hell out of there.

Really the only sexism I’m seeing in this piece has been one coming from and endorsed by Krawcheck. She bemoans a lack of gender equity and then suggests a female mentor would be preferable to a male one. Her sexism is blatant here – the only definition of a solid reputable company is one that ensures it has a senior, successful female in it. Since most HR departments are staffed primarily with women it’s their job to help you find a senior, successful and female mentor? I’m not a business insider, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t their job.

I made this point in Male Space, but what happens when women insert themselves into a traditionally male dominated domain is that the enterprise becomes about accommodating the female influences rather than the enterprise itself. This entire article is an indictment of this. Again, the solution to a woman’s problem of not being successful is sought externally.

Do your best to make sure that your success is quantified. Be it a sales goal, a client satisfaction rating, an output metric, a quality target. Numbers count here because they’re black-and-white, cut-and-dried. Were you successful or not? I recommend this even if you work in a “normal” company, because implicit gender biases and expectations still exist for all of us.

Solid enough advice, but it’s couched in the context of an expectation of gender biases (at least the type of bias Sallie finds unacceptable). There’re implicit gender biases, but the ones we see dominate even ‘normal’ companies are ones that favor a feminized workforce.

Think about starting your own thing. This is what’s exciting; we have the ability to start our own businesses today, in a way we didn’t in the past. Why not take our marbles to our own playgrounds and build great businesses and cultures? Our mothers couldn’t do this because the cost was so high – but the costs of everything-about-starting-a-business, including technology, people (i.e., freelancers), real estate (co-working spaces) and support services are coming down. And then no one can relegate you to the less-interesting jobs.

Women are taught that they deserve the luxury of interesting jobs. In fact this is the sole reason for even wanting to enter the workforce most times – a rewarding career that’s fulfilling, but as I wrote in She’s Unhaaapy… that fulfillment is always elusive. Therefore it must be that uncooperative men are holding women back from this happiness.

I’m not sure opening another gourmet cupcake eatery counts as contributing to the status of women in business, but I would say that women ought to be encouraged to start up their own businesses rather than rely on the proven successes of established ones to prove their business acumen. Carly Fiorina and Sheryl Sandberg are not innovators in any sense. Neither started a company from scratch, but they are lauded as powerful businesswomen because they supposedly had the moxie to compete with the big boys and their sexist enterprises – not actually as a result of their companies wanting to present a feminine-correct public image.

I would love to see women’s organic business successes despite themselves, but my guess is that every failure or setback would have some tinge of external sexism attached to them. The truth is there are very few women who actually create something of worth because the easier path to success is to create a social convention that shames men for not including women in their own successes. It will always be easier for women to appropriate the success of men rather than create anything for themselves.

I am going to go out of my way to support other women. It’s clear now: we can’t do this alone. Another woman who is promoted or celebrated or funded clears the way for another. I am actively looking to buy from women-owned businesses, which is much easier these days — Glossier, Outdoor Voices, and Project September are just a few of a new wave of startups led by women — and avoid companies that remain all-men. I’m just so over supporting them.

And here we have yet more fem-centric sexism in a piece decrying male sexism. Weren’t we just reading about how surprised Sallie was about gender bias not being a thing of the past in the workplace? Because Trump won the election she calls for a boycott from buying anything from male owned companies?

One thing I’ve always found ironic about women’s call for collective, gender-exclusionary support for other women is that women are often guilty of even worse infighting than men are in the workplace. Lets face it, women hate other women to a degree that most men are unaware of. Their capacity for sub-communication and psychological warfare among themselves makes intra-sexual competition more brutal than having to deal with any so-called sexist male co-worker. From women’s collectivist perspective one would think that women’s intra-sexual support of other women would make them all outstanding successes in business, but we find the opposite is true. Women have a very hard time making an all-female enterprise a success. Naturally this is blamed, again, on men’s sexists brinksmanship and outmaneuvering them, but by and large it’s internal conflict that destroys all-female run enterprises.

Invest. Having spent my career on Wall Street and now being the founder of Ellevest, a digital investment platform for women, I know I’m a broken record on this topic. But men invest to a greater extent than women do, and it costs us. Indeed, I believe investing is the best career advice women aren’t getting. Think about it – are you more able to tell your boss to take this job and shove it if you have more money or less money?

That’s what I thought. At the end of the day, money is the real key to gender equality.

Of course we get the sales pitch at the end. Women don’t invest because it’s not sexy. It requires a degree of commitment and a depth of insight that goes well beyond what an average woman has any interest in. I do find it entertaining that Sallie finally gets to the real reason for a gender inequality she claims she wants to see abolished. Money is most definitely a key to establishing social dominance and that creates a fundamentally unequal condition between men and women.

Businesses, successful ones, are founded on competition, not cooperation. This is the fundamental conflict we are experiencing in today’s corporate culture; women’s collectivism promotes what they believe should be a successful enterprise based on egalitarian cooperation while men largely see the enterprise as competition. Sometimes this is a win-at-any-cost type of competition, other times it may be more subtle, but the crux is that women’s propensity to want for a more collectivist approach to a successful enterprise is at odds with men’s competitive approach. Success in business is fundamentally unegalitarian, there are winners and losers, not co-equal participation trophy winners. But as women continue to insert themselves into the unegalitarian male spaces of enterprise we will see this push for cooperative hopes for business success fundamentally alter the purpose of these businesses as we attempt more and more to accommodate them.

Transitioning

As most of my readers know I’m presently editing the final draft of my third book. A very large part, almost a third, of this new book will be dedicated to Red Pill Parenting. I’ve written several series-posts about parenting from a Red Pill perspective and I felt it was an important enough topic to deserve a category itself in my sidebar links. I’ve expanded significantly upon these essays in the book as well as adding more material and some general advice for Red Pill aware men in their parenting efforts.

One thing I’m asked of from men who are Red Pill aware fathers is what to look out for and what to apply themselves to in raising a son or daughter using a Red Pill Lens. While prospectively it will give women some parenting insights, I’ve written this section with the intent of informing men about what they can expect from a feminine-primary social bent on conditioning a man’s children to assimilate to a Blue Pill mindset.

Without giving too much away, I’ve tried to express the dangers of a system of feminine-primary acculturation that contributes to what we term ‘Blue Pill Conditioning’ in the manosphere. What defines a ‘Blue Pill‘ mindset means different things to different men, but what conditions him to literally think, and invest his ego into that feminine-primary identification is initiated at a very early age. One thing I think gets lost on guys becoming Red Pill aware is just how much of his very natural-feeling sense of self is the result of a conditioning that’s taken the better part of his lifetime to develop in him.

The main reason I began developing a Red Pill parenting dialog is because it’s vitally necessary for Red Pill fathers – really any father with a sense of conventional masculinity – to come to terms with how his sons’ and daughters’ upbringing will be defined by what I call ‘The Village’ in the book. I coined this from the popular meme that “it takes a village to raise a child”, and the Village we have today is one that is dead set on instilling and normalizing a state of deliberate gender confusion – and hopefully perpetuate that state into a person’s adulthood.

The Village

This Village is a catch-all term and I mean to have it represent all of the influences a child receives in its upbringing that contributes to its Blue Pill sense of self. This includes the influences of media, popular entertainment, academia, their pre and grammar school education, popular culture that actively seeks to instill its own ideological base, etc. These are fairly recognizable sources of the Village’s systemic influence, but it’s also important to understand that this influence will be reinforced by your child’s peers, their Village family and relatives.

‘The Village’ will raise your kids if you don’t. You will be resisted, you will be ridiculed, you will be accused of every thought-crime to the point of being dragged away to jail for imparting Red Pill awareness to them (in the future I expect it to be equated with child abuse). The Village will teach your boys from the most impressionable ages (5 years old) to loath their maleness, to feel shame for being less perfect than girls and to want to remake their gender-identity more like girls – to the point that transitioning their gender to girls’ will be the norm.

The Village will raise your daughters to perpetuate the same cycle that devalues conventional masculinity, the same cycle that considers a father’s presence as superfluous and their sacrifices as granted expectations. It will raise your daughters to over-inflate their sense of worth with unmerited confidence at the expense of boys as their foils. It will teach them to openly embrace Hypergamy as their highest personal authority (publicly and privately) and to disrespect anything resembling masculinity to be less than some silly anachronism or reverse it into being all about men’s insecurities.

The good news is that for all of these efforts in social engineering, the Feminine Imperative is still confounded by basic biology and the psychological firmware evolved into us over millennia. That basic root reality is your greatest advantage as a father. If there’s one underlying truth upon which to base your parenting it’s this; children are still motivated by evolved influences that are relatively predictable. Begin from the root truth that we evolved our psychology and our behaviors from intergender complementarity that made us the preeminent species on this planet. It takes a global Village to distort this by teaching failed notions of egalitarian equalism.

Useful Tools – Blue Pill Fathers

Although the Village would assert its influence to be the primary one in your child’s life, and although it would have women believe that father’s are both necessary when convenient and superfluous, father’s are not without their uses. The Feminine Imperative (by way of the social system of the Village) needs fathers to help reinforce its feminine-primary influence in their children’s lives. Thus, Blue Pill fathers must also carry the feminine-primary water in their parenting. They must be taught to believe that parenting a daughter is preferable to parenting a son:

I realize that everything I could do with a boy I can do with my daughters (i.e. play basketball, teach them how to throw a punch, and play in the dirt). Yes, I know that’s a big fat “duh” for many of you, but I’m a recovering knucklehead with minimal relapses, so please humor me. And yes, I’m going to teach them much more than those three things – but I promise you that I will teach them those three things.

The Feminine Imperative needs men to constantly reaffirm the fallacies of egalitarian equalism, but it is The Village that needs a father to instill them into the minds of their own flesh and blood as well as those of other fathers. The meme is always a pretense of gender-neutral equity, but the latent purpose is one of devaluing the very existence of boys, and, by extension, conventional masculinity.

And this is the crux of the effort to enlist fathers in the system of the Village; masculinity and maleness are always portrayed as problems to be solved – the solution always being more feminine identification. The main goal of the Village is to destroy and redefine conventional masculinity in a way that only benefits the feminine.

I realize that being “girly” is just a myth. What does that mean, anyway? Would my kid be less girly if she dressed up as Spider-Man for Halloween instead of a princess? (and that’s exactly what she did, by the way). Would she be less girly if she wanted to tackle little boys on the football field instead of taking ballet classes? Not to me.

This is precisely the degree of gender obfuscation the Village requires fathers to endorse. The squid ink here is the idea that masculine and feminine, boys & girls, male and female are all one, undifferentiated whole; in fact the old ideas of gender differences that brought the human race to where it is today, we are taught, were nothing more than “myths”. The underlying note is that girls are the functional equals of boys, but girls have the social and sexual advantage of being female.

The social narrative of the Village, the one it needs fathers to internalize and parrot back, is one of Fempowerment, but simultaneously one of male disempowerment. The idea then evolves into a sense of conventional masculinity being a defect of men; men are just unperfected women who are in need of women (or their daughters’) innate correction.

The idea here is that men with daughters make for better men” as defined by the Feminine Imperative and approved by The Village. What Red Pill fathers need to acknowledge in this that their sons will be taught that their maleness is inherently flawed. All of the attributes and evolved instincts that make him a boy will be connected with his masculinity being “toxic”.

“Toxic Masculinity” or “Hyper-masculinity” are common tropes in the Village. We’ve gotten to a point that any form of traditional, conventionally masculine behaviors are now equated with a character flaw in men. So thoroughly has the Village distorted the old books definition of manhood that anything resembling a characteristically masculine behavior is, by default, an act of ‘hyper’ or “over-the-top” masculinity. This, of course, makes characterizing those acts as toxic, or ridiculous.

The Preferred Gender

In my essay, Environmental Stresses I added this quote from the book The Red Queen:

Contrary to popular belief a preference for boys over girls is not universal. Indeed, there is a close relationship between social status and the degree to which sons are preferred. Laura Betzig of the University of Michigan noticed that, in feudal times, lords favored their sons, but peasants were more likely to leave possessions to daughters. While their feudal superiors killed or neglected daughters or banished them to convents, peasants left them more possessions: Sexism was more a feature of elites than of the unchronicled masses.

[…]Lower down the social scale, daughters are preferred even today: A poor son is often forced to remain single, but a poor daughter can marry a rich man. In modern Kenya, Mukogodo people are more likely to take daughters than sons to clinics for treatment when they are sick, and therefore more daughters than sons survive to the age of four. This is rational of the Mukogodo parents because their daughters can marry into the harems of rich Samburu and Maasai men and thrive, whereas their sons inherit Mukogodo poverty. In the calculus of Trivers-Willard, daughters are better grandchildren-production devices than sons.

These quotes are a part of a much more in depth look at how both environmental and social stresses contribute to a ‘preferred gender’ dynamic in both animal populations and human social structure. As I was reviewing this book recently it hit me how western cultures have blatantly been endorsing ‘female’ as the preferred gender for the past 60-70 years now.

I realize this assertion grates on popular culture’s sensibilities when it comes to gender, but as I stated in that essay, at no other time in human history has it been more advantageous to be female than today. Whether you want to argue that assertion from socioeconomic, education, gender identity, social ‘progress’ or any other metric, women in this era enjoy a condition that places their sex as the primary one in terms of social advantage. Women today live in a social condition that advantages, ensures their relative successes and directly or indirectly provisions for their personal security while simultaneously seeking to handicap being male and ridiculing the conventionally masculine.

In many a prior essay I’ve made the assertion that this effort in feminizing boys – in “perfecting” them with feminization – has been a long effort in social engineering. And while I still believe this is true, I think that in recent years the adaptive response to this preferred gender dynamic for Blue Pill fathers, men and boys is now an effort in socially engineering boys to imagine their gender identity as being transitionable to that of girls. Needles to say this push for gender self-reassignment has been embraced by the Village.

Olivia loves Disney’s Frozen princesses, all things sparkly, bright tights and ballet. During her family’s Cuban vacation last summer, she danced in the children’s “mini-disco” before the evening shows, twirling and leaping across the stage. One night another guest turned to her parents, exclaiming, “Your daughter is the girliest girl I’ve ever seen!”

Olivia was born a boy.

She “socially transitioned” from male to female, in nursery school last year. She was four years old.

Today, she attends kindergarten at a Montreal primary school. Only her teachers and the school board know she is transgender, for now.

Olivia (not her real name to protect her identity) is part of a growing phenomenon that is being celebrated but which is also raising strong emotions: an increasing number of children as young as preschoolers appearing at gender identity-clinics across the country, convinced they are of the opposite sex.

The new push to normalize transgender acceptance relies solely on the presumption that gender identity is a social construct rather than influenced by biological, and evolved psychological dynamics inherent in both sexes. The idea again comes back to the egalitarian presumption of a blank-slate equalism and a rejection of gender as a binary determination. Yet in over 90% of transgender identity shifts we see it is boys who opt to “become” female in their self-reassignment. Left to their own non-abstract decision making – and reinforced by Blue Pill parents and the Village – boys will, in the binary, shift to a female / feminine gender identity in overwhelmingly greater numbers than girls shifting to a male / masculine identity.

I would argue that this greater transgender preference for boys is a direct result of the Preferred Gender dynamic and reinforced by the Village conditioning boys for it while normalizing the idea of it in a larger cultural respect. This is the next step in cultural feminization of boys and men that began in the touchy-feely days of men needing to “get in touch with their feminine sides.”

It is no longer enough for boys just to be educated in a feminine-correct manner. It is no longer enough to teach them to despise the gender they were born into, “hoping their penises will fall off”, and it’s no longer enough to condition them to defer to girl’s perfectness. Boys must literally be transitioned to be girls from as young an age as 4 years old.

This is the degree to which the Village and the Feminine Imperative will go to condition future men into a Blue Pill mindset. I outline this in the upcoming book, but this is vitally important for Red Pill fathers to understand because these will be the ‘boys’ they may eventually need to mentor and unplug from their very early psychological damage. Many voices in the manosphere call this damage child abuse and it’s easy to understand why; this damage works on a boy’s most intimate part of his sense of self.

Red Pill fathers need to recognize this perversion of conventional masculinity for what it is and protect their sons (as well as daughters) from it while still anticipating the fall that will result from the “men” this re-engineering of gender will create.