Inter-gender Communication

The Crying Game

SANYO DIGITAL CAMERA

Not Carrie Bradshaw (?) made an observation in last week’s post I wanted to riff on a bit:

…..A conclusion I’ve come to in the past couple years is: a woman crying gets support while a man crying gets shunned.

Only to an extent. A crying women will elicit support and sympathy from men only if she is young and beautiful. Otherwise she is just an irritation that needs to be shut up,

A crying woman will elicit support and sympathy from women only if she belongs to the same “tribe” as the woman offering support and sympathy. Will a crying old black woman get any sympathy from a young white chick ? Not so much.

Men are not biologically pre-disposed to crying (not as much as women anyway) so when they do, no one really knows how to respond. Particularly if it is in front of strangers and the reason for his tears is not clear at all. Admittedly this is a very very rare occurance – usually when a man has mental issues or is having a mental breakdown.

Normally men cry in front of family, very close friends, people whom they trust implicitly or in front of medical emergency personnel so I don’t think he will be shunned in those circumstances, especially if it involves death or loss of something very very important to him.

Since 2010 I can think of only three instances when I broke down and cried – my father’s death, my wife’s younger brother dying suddenly at 39 and the loss of one of my best dogs. It’s not because I’m some unfeeling badass that nothing affects, but I think it’s more about what moves me, or any guy, beyond that threshold. I’m pretty good at holding back that lump in my throat from crossing the line.

Since its inception, part of the of the package feminization sold men about “getting in touch with their feminine sides®” included the encouragement of boys learning to be in touch with their emotions and cry more often. It was part of their ‘sensitivity training’, and they were acculturated to believe that women would appreciate them more for their honest tears. You’d think guys who’d learn to cry on demand would have it made, right?

Vestiges Revisited

NCB’s comment was in response to Hero’s observation from that same thread:

A conclusion I’ve come to in the past couple years is: a woman crying gets support while a man crying gets shunned.

A woman crying is still biologically valuable. She still has a vagina and a uterus. She could still successfully carry and care for a child. Thus she is embraced and supported by the tribe.

A man crying is a liability. His crying will alert the predatory animals and invading gangs to his position. His distress is actually a problem for the tribe.

It is a blatant lie that feminism is about creating equality. We have been misled into thinking that men should emote and talk about their feelings. Very few people in a man’s life will give a shit when he is going through a rough time in his life.

Women are afforded vast support and provisions that men will never know.

One of the most annoying sounds for me, and if the studies are accurate all human beings in general, is the sound of a crying infant. It was a species survival trait that this sound psychologically evolved to prompt such an irritated response in humans. No matter who’s child was doing the crying, you damn well couldn’t ignore the distress coming from the baby.

It’s easy to make the association of how this ‘check-the-baby’ dynamic is a vestige of what evolved to make our species so successful; if it didn’t annoy us, more distressed babies wouldn’t have made it to semi-adulthood. However once we pass a certain stage of development, overt emotional displays (the most obvious being crying) diverge drastically for us by gender. As Hero observes, graphic displays of emotionalism were a sign of weakness to protohuman tribal societies. Women generally took care of crying infants and the association of infantile helplessness, in addition to being a general annoyance,  would necessarily be a liability to the group’s survival integrity. From a male-only perspective we can see the implications of this, but expand that to the social cohesion of the tribal unit and you can see that overt displays of emotionalism from men would also be associated as signs of implicit weakness for tribal women. Thus a rational control of emotion became hardwired into men’s psyches.

So you see when the feminine imperative makes attempts to feminize men, as with all of feminization’s efforts, it struggles against thousands of years of species-valuable, in-bred psychology.

She Cries

The parallel to this dynamic is women’s crying. Have a listen to the interplay of emotionalism in the woman’s voice in this radio bit and article.

White Knights will come out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible in spite of the circumstance responding viscerally to a woman weeping. How did you feel when you heard the girl cry?

Once again, as Hero points out, the sound of a woman crying elicits the innate protector response for men, but as NCB examines, only insofar as that woman presents a viable reproductive prospect. Since this woman’s vocal intonation is within a feminine pitch as she weeps and pleads her case we’re more predisposed to sympathy for her, even in light of her redhanded betrayal of trust. Imagine this woman’s voice being raspy from years of smoking, lower from a higher testosterone  level or chordless like an old woman’s. Our male reflexive response, while still humanistically sympathetic as manageable, would be far different than what a young and associatively breed-worthy woman’s vocal intonations would cue us in to.

Again, we’re seeing hearing a species-valuable evolutionary vestige in the reflex men experience when they hear a reproduction-viable woman cry. To a degree it overrides even our rational capacity to separate the implications of her behavior with the empathy we want to establish with a woman we perceive as being a potential mating opportunity. It’s not that men can’t resist this empathy and apply a rational solution to a problem, it’s that it requires an effort for a man to do so.

It comes back to the Cap N Save a Ho dynamic and the Savior Schema. Empathize, protect and bond with a woman in distress (particularly emotional distress) and the potential payoff will be sexual intercourse.

Men’s effort to sublimate this empathetic sexual opportunism in favor of rational action has not gone unexploited by the feminine imperative. Thus you have women’s facility to cry (even under conditions of culpability) in order to provoke that male protector response. It’s like the crying baby example, stimuli and response.

Also, it’s important to mention women’s preferred method of communication, that is to say covert. When a woman cries she’s moving into an overt form of communication she knows will register with men, and this is usually the result of her having exhausted all her covert utilities. When women opt for overt communication it generally means one or two things have occurred: 1) she has reached the point of exasperation using covert means to convey her message, or 2) she has reached a point of desperation in her condition and needs the visceral response men will react to in order to defend and/or empathize with her (often in spite of herself).

Choreplay

Gardening

One of the more entertaining debates I’ve had in my post-red pill awareness has been discussing the issue of men doing more “chores around the house” so as to more equitably distribute domestic duties amongst couples. The operative beneath this canard is that a more idealized state of gender neutralized bliss can be attained in a couple if only the male partner would feel it incumbent upon himself to assume chores that the female partner feels she’s entirely overburdened with.

Hmmm,..this presents a quandary for the Feminine Imperative; how would a Strong Independent Woman® motivate her live-in lover (sometimes known as ‘husbands’) to pick up the domestic job slack? Why of course, resort to the strategy that worked so well in convincing him to monogamous commitment – bait him with the obligation promise of unrestricted less restricted sex! It’s so simple in its form, so elegant in its function,..enter Diane Mapes’ Choreplay.

Gals make passes at guys who wash glasses.

I had a party not too long ago where a funny thing happened. One of the guests — a 30-something, single straight guy — came out to the kitchen and volunteered to do my dishes. “That way you won’t be stuck with a huge mess after everyone leaves,” he said, filling the sink with hot, soapy water.

As he started scrubbing wine glasses, I glanced over at my guests. Every woman in the room was staring at him with what can only be described as pure, unadulterated lust.

Behold the appeal of the dishy man.

Yes, that’s right gentlemen, Roissy had it all wrong, in girl-world washing the dishes is the undiscovered catalyst for ‘gina tingles. Athol Kay and his MAP? Get the fuck outta here, it’s vacuuming and dusting that inspire “what can only be described as pure, unadulterated lust.”

Side Note: Have a look at the date this article was published (2/13/2008, just before Valentines day) it’ll be important when we get to today’s bonus round.

Are there any benefits, aside from soulful glances and the satisfaction of a sparkling clean floor, that exist for men who share the load (laundry and otherwise)?

That’s hard to say, although there are some interesting indicators. A recent survey by Parenting Magazine found that “choreplay,” i.e., husbands pitching in around the house, was what put 15 percent of moms in the mood.

Ooh, a whole 15%?! Would this mean the other 85% were turned off?

You know, I’ve been married for over 16 years now and in that time, on occasion, I’ve performed many domestic duties for no other reason than it was a necessity. I have changed my daughter’s diaper, I have cleaned toilets, I’ve done laundry, I’ve vacuumed, etc. However, in 16 years never have I had my wife be consumed with an uncontrollable lust to give me a spontaneous blow job or pin me down on the kitchen floor, tear my pants off and ride me to glory after my having put away the dishes. Neither have I ever heard the words, “damn, you looked so hot ironing my blouse yesterday, fuck me you stud, fuuuuhhck MEEE!!” proceed from her lips while in the throes of passion.

And in the interest of being fair, I’ve never been turned on, nor do I consider it foreplay with my wife, when she’s the one doing the chores. I have been greatly turned on by the sight of her in lingerie; sweat pants, a t-shirt and a toilet bowl brush in hand? Not so much.

However some of the most memorable sexual experiences I’ve had with her (and other women in my sexual past) have come after I’ve done something particularly masculine or I performed well doing something that benefitted me with a lot of social proof. For instance, my wife seems to like sex after I’ve had a good heavy lifting day at the gym. She also seems very amorous after social engagements I bring her along to for my work.

So the moral of this story is, as always, base your assessments on a woman’s behavior – NEVER on her words. Any woman telling you you look hot in an apron or she loves how you pee sitting down is selling you something. It’s up to you to determine what she’s selling.

Ah, but what is she selling?

Research conducted by Laurie A. Rudman, a psychologist at Rutgers University, also seems to point to a hot soapy love connection. Her study, recently published in the journal Sex Roles, looked at feminism’s impact on romantic relationships. Among other things, she found that men with feminist partners reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.

“We didn’t ask who was doing the dishes or taking care of the kids,” says Rudman. “We asked broadly about the quality of the relationship and about the agreement of gender roles in the relationship. But we did find that if men were with a feminist woman, they had more sexual satisfaction and their relationship was more stable. Men benefit from having a feminist partner.”

Oh ho ho, that’s it! Feminist women get hot seeing their men in an apron, and boy dothey ever benefit. So you see guys, you’re going about this all wrong; you benefit from locking down a feminist woman and embracing the gender neutral sexiness of traditionally feminine household chores.

Back to the Future!

Ah, 2008 what heady time it was, but unfortunately I need to step back into my phone booth DeLorean time machine and fast-forward to January 30th, 2013 where, not to be outdone by her 2008 assertions of Choreplay, the exact same media has a new take on intergender chore assignments. Take it away 2013 feminine imperative Diane Mapes:

Hey, fellas, put down those vacuum cleaners and pull out the lawn mowers.

Married men may think helping around the house may up their hotness quotient in the bedroom, but what really matters is the type of chore. Heterosexual married men who spend their time doing yard work, paying bills and changing the oil have more sex than husbands who spend their time cooking, cleaning and shopping, according to a new study on the subject of housework and sex.

“Households with a more traditional gender division of labor report higher sexual frequency than households with less traditional gender divisions of labor,” says Sabino Kornrich, lead author of a study that appears in the February issue of the American Sociological Review. “Housework is something that people use as a very important way to express gender, masculinity and femininity. We weren’t surprised to think that sex might be more tied to this type of gender expression.”

So, let me get this straight, the yard work, manual labor, auto maintenance, home remodeling and pressure washing hotness that I replaced with soapy dish washing, ironing boards and laundry detergent was actually what inspired “what can only be described as pure, unadulterated lust?” Whoda thunk?

You mean to tell me all that shit I ate in 2008 about being a neanderthal 50’s throwback for expressing that Men’s work is what women really find sexy was all just horse shit slung from the feminine imperative?

I realize I’m goofing on this, but I remember reading Mapes’ first article in 2008 and started thinking about why a man doing “woman’s work” would be in any way sexy or at all arousing for a woman. As usual it’s always a good start to reverse gender roles in order to get a better understanding of any social contrivance or perceived “double standard”. The equalist mindset can never logically stand up against this reversal.

Would a guy get sexually excited to see a woman doing traditionally masculine housework? In 16 years of marriage I’ve never had my wife do, much less offer to do, things around the house (on a regular basis) that I assumed as a husband from day one. I get the dirty jobs. I mow the lawn, clean up the dog shit in the back yard, I have trash duty, clean the pool/spa, install the nice new acrylic sinks and marble countertops she picks out, plunge the toilets when they back up, install the garbage disposal, fix what I can on her car, wash the cars,…you get the idea. And of all those (with the exception of maybe seeing her wash my car in a thong bikini) I can’t say as I’d get turned on by seeing my wife do any of that. So what is the intrinsic appeal of seeing a guy doing the dishes Mr. & Mrs. Gender Equalist?

The role reversal of putting a man into a traditionally feminine role doesn’t have real arousal value. It has a power value for sure, in that it temporarily casts a man in a submissive role, but after the novelty of having a guy perform those behaviors repeatedly wears off, does it still have that arousal value? My wife doesn’t wear lingerie for me every night, but she does so often enough that the arousal value of it still turns me on. However doing the dishes is something so mundane and so monotonous that any thrill that might be associated with it wears thin in a month.

The Mapes Effect

I can’t end this article without drawing attention to what I’m sure most of my readers are getting about the 5 year shift in attitude with regards to these articles. It’s easy to pass these off as some flighty progression in feminine self-understanding, but remember Diane Mapes draws a paycheck for writing these articles in well read media sources. She’s a media arm of the feminine imperative.

What we’re graphically witnessing is the fluidity with which the feminine imperative can realign itself socially to better affect its propagation. You see in 2008 the message to men (that resonated with women) was Fem-Up; stop being so insecure in your masculinity and do the dishes and laundry – the payoff will be more sexual access. In 2013 the message to men (again resonating with women) is Man-Up; stop being such a house frau and get out int the yard and mow – the payoff will be more sexual access.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that this is just another example of women’s fickle duplicity. A lot has happened socially in the five years between these articles; the End of Men, Kate Bolick, feminine triumphalism, men “checking out”, kidults, ‘late term’ spinsters unable to find “acceptable” men, etc. and a whole slew of other gender shifts occurred between both these articles. What Mapes’ most recent article represents is the feminine imperative reworking an outdated feminine social convention to accommodate women’s Man-Up needs in 2013 that it actively extinguished itself in the Fem-Up years leading up to 2008.

Mister Softee

mr_softee

I have friend named Floyd. Floyd is in his early 50’s and spent the better part of his life in the military. He’s in fairly good shape for his age and has the rough, but stoic attitude of a soldier who’s seen actual combat. He doesn’t talk too much about those years, but he is an interesting guy and has a wealth of world-learned experiences that he’s more than ready to let you know about.

Floyd is not what I’d call a Type A personality, but he does have the pragmatic ‘get it done’ personality taught in the military, and he’s prone to being opinionated. At the risk of splitting hairs again, I’d definitely say he’s Alpha, but in a subdued, matter-of-fact, self-evident sense rather than the stereotypical in-your-face douchey Alpha caricature most beta chumps like to associate it with. Being a Man comes natural to him, and his expressions (or non-expressions) of such irritates the betas we know – but in a passive sense rather than an aggressive one. Just being who he is, often enough, gets eye rolls from our more plugged in friends.

Unfortunately Floyd’s Game-ignorant. After his discharge, he followed the ex-military formula for marriage by getting involved with a very domineering woMAN who promptly got ‘accidentally’ pregnant 12 years ago. They have a son whom they share custody of, the divorce not being final until last year. For all his Alpha cred, he followed the ‘do the right thing’ script right up until the finalization of his divorce. In the military, he was ostensibly a badass; with his ex he was always trying to find a solution to her problems with a rational ‘get the job done’ approach. He didn’t see the method behind her madness then, he does now.

Since the finalization Floyd has gotten together with a new girlfriend, Ann, who is the polar opposite of his ex. Against my advice he’s moved her into his home, but the bright side of this arrangement is that Floyd has learned the importance of maintaining Frame with her. Maintaining Frame with Ann isn’t too difficult for him as she’s about a point below Floyd in SMV. She’s not unattractive, but Ann loves Floyd because he takes care of business like the Alpha  her ex never was.

I was hanging out with Floyd last weekend and the conversation got around to how unlikely it was that Ann would get with a hard ass like Floyd. She say, “Oh that’s just his schtick, he’s really a big softee. Underneath all that he’s really a sweet guy.”

The Scripting

Now I realize these are the words of a 48 year old woman who’s vested interest and second chance at long term security are in my tough-guy friend, but it struck me that no matter how genuine a Man can be in his personality, no woman wants to accept a personality that is incongruent with her own imperative.

The main reason for this is rooted in women’s innate solipsism. If the reality doesn’t fit with her interpretation, rationalize the reality to force fit it to that interpretation. The nuts and bolts of it is that Floyd represents a valuable prospect at a second chance for provisioning. Floyd is not an overly emotional or emotionally available guy, but to reconcile the wish that he would be, Ann must tacitly endorse that he is; “you just don’t know him like I know him.”

A lot of freshly unplugged guys have trouble accepting Game as being anything more than an act – a series of behaviors meant to elicit a response in a woman, and once she’s been attracted they can go back to their regularly scheduled personality. They rely on rote memorization instead of learning and internalizing Game. What a lot more don’t understand is that even in their blue pill Beta Game days they also followed a similar ‘acting’.

This acting is encouraged in much the same way as Ann was attempting to distort her own reality. As with most women, they fall in love with a dichotomy; they want a sweet guy, who’s tough and gets shit done. If one of these aspects is out of balance her rationalization engine (i.e. Hamster) will make subconscious attempts to compensate for it in her words and beliefs. “I want a sweet guy with a good heart” is boilerplate for the feminine imperative because it ‘sounds right’. Men hear this and ‘act’ on it in the deductive belief that it will endear him to women in general.

The greater truth is that, for all the conflicting messages about men needing to get in touch with their feminine sides, and then men need to Man-Up, your personality is still going to be rationalized to fit a woman’s psychological ideal.

Upping the Alpha Doesn’t Mean Offing the Empathy

I think too many critics in the manosphere believe that the underlying message is about men needing to kill off the emotional, sentimental or impassioned aspects of their personalities. I would never advocate this. Firstly because I don’t think it’s entirely possible, but more importantly, you shouldn’t have to. No man should lessen himself or his human experience to accommodate the feminine imperative.

When I wrote Kill the Beta people assumed I meant that doing so would also include killing of the better parts of their  personalities. Beta is a mindset in the same way Alpha is. You can be an emotional Alpha, and women will swoon, but be an emotional Beta and you’re doomed to feminine pity. Emotions and passions only reinforce a self-defeating loop for a Beta mindset, but in careful, self-controlled measure they strengthen an Alpha mindset.

The problem is in the measure. Most Betas, raised from birth to believe that women want a “sweet man with a good heart”, build a personality around that message. Thus we have several generations of men trying to out “sweet” one another. In the end of The Game Neil Strauss worried that PUA practitioners would turn into “emotional robots”; men only aping the behaviors that have value in their getting laid and not genuinely emotional. I think his worries are unfounded, because most men of the last generations have such a foundation of ‘being in touch with their emotions’ the issue is more about the self-control necessary to maintain that emotionalism.

Upping the Alpha doesn’t mean offing the empathy. Game doesn’t mean learning sociopathy – it means learning control of one’s psychology. Most Betas find themselves miserable because they’ve been raised to believe that self-expression and open communication of emotions are the keys to successful living with women. It’s interesting that for all the understanding about how women are wired for emotion and men are wired for reason that it should be the men of the last generations who are more emotionally expressive than any preceding generation.

Guys like Floyd aren’t any less emotional or compassionate or sentimental, they simply know the value in controlling their more ephemeral aspects. They know when to apply it and when to withhold it. They know the reward value a rare display of emotion means to women who want to write their own script for the Man they’re in love with.

House of Cards

house-of-cards

Rational Reader Martel (who’s blog I’ve only recently become aware of) trapes into the shark infested waters of the manosphere with another attempt at defining the elusively subjective definition of Alpha. It’s almost a red pill right of passage now; become Game-aware – offer self affirming definition of what makes himself a Man an Alpha.

Before I begin here, let me state emphatically that this is not a take-down piece. Martel’s observations here made me consider a few things I’me not sure I developed adequately when I wrote the Desire Dynamic.

Martel does make a good stab at the beast. Most anyone familiar with my reductionist approach to Alpha mojo knows I don’t mince semantics into the debate. Alpha is as Alpha does – as popular as Vox Day’s delineations of degrees of Alpha, beta, sigma, delta, omega, etc. are I’ve always held that Alpha is a mindset and not a demographic.

I do agree with Martel’s observations, I’m not sure he’s considered a few things in forming his Alpha perspective. I think one of the primary stumbling blocks Game-aware men have with regard to Alpha-ness is the disparity of defining it in male terms. When Martel uses Michael Jordan’s example as a male definition of Alpha, he’s disappointed that women don’t share that estimation. Rationally, logically, and certainly perceptively, men see and appreciate the accomplishment, status, talent and stature of Jordan. Why wouldn’t women see and appreciate the same?

Martel figures that it’s women’s innate solipsism and irrationality that makes them count Alberto Tomba as an athlete to be reckoned with (actually I was surprised it wasn’t David Beckham, but that Spice Girl in the picture ruins the fantasy I guess). However, it’s not solipsism or illogic that brings women to this, it’s that men have a different criteria amongst themselves for what makes a man an Alpha. It seems illogical, and yes I’m sure Tomba inspired tingles of imagined self-role fantasies, but the fundamental disconnect is the disparity in men’s ideal of Alpha and women’s perception of Alpha.

Relational Equity

One of the more rage inspiring posts I’ve ever published here was Hypergamy Doesn’t Care. It’s become a manosphere meme now. It was simplistic in its measure, and it struck a nerve. I got so much enthusiastic follow up on that post (thanks red pill reddit) I had to elaborate and explain the dynamic in greater detail with Relational Equity.

It is from the male concept of relational equity that much of what men determine as Alpha characteristics for men comes into conflict with what women perceive as Alpha. Martel’s male expectation was that Michael Jordan, or even one of his peers, would be the obvious athlete that either sex would agree upon as being an elite example. As men, we understand the dedication, determination and personal investment necessary to achieve this level of accomplishment.

Jordan’s is one extreme example, but in other arenas, and by order of degrees, men have an appreciation of  the achievements of other men – even if only because they have a common frame of reference. Those positive character attributes – determination, confidence, fidelity, humility, sacrifice, dedication, commitment, etc. – even in marginal degree, men believe should have Relational Equity. These virtues should be factors in attraction for a woman.

It seems logical and entirely rational that women would have the same appreciation for this equity, but time and again men’s expectations are trumped by women’s hypergamous response. From Relational Equity:

As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.

Women love opportunistically, men love idealistically. Much of men’s idealism is rooted in the mistaken notion that women have the capacity to appreciate their sacrifices and they’ll be loved for who they are rather than what they represent to women. As I’ve argued in the past, attraction and arousal are two separate elements for women. As Martel elucidates, a couch surfing Alpha will be arousing enough to pull tail despite his impoverished condition. He has no relational equity, and so frustrates the efforts of men who believe that the definition of Alpha ought to be based on the equity they hope women will appreciate.

Women will return (even if just mentally) to the callous or cavalier Alpha because he arouses her, but she will stay faithful to her husband because what he offers is attractive to her. This is why I say, by and large, women love most men for what they represent – once they cease to represent that, once they stumble in maintaining that, hypergamy is free to run. On a personal level this may be you losing a job or how you failed a shit test, on a meta scale it may be women’s social capacity to provide for themselves.

House of Cards

From Martie Hasslton on Sexual Pluralism and Mating Strategies:

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

The vast majority of men (i.e. betas) fall into this latter category. One of the reasons the scattershot sexual strategy of more Alpha men is considered a social deviance (Playa’s) is because it’s in direct conflict with the socially normalized, investive mating efforts of beta men – as well as the maternalistic, security side of women’s sexual pluralism. Betas are invested in relational equity as a sexual strategy.

The problem inherent in this mental model is that it is entirely dependent upon maintaining that singular, personalized investment in their mate. The root of male providership, the personal sacrifices men endlessly expect themselves to make, are all contingencies against feminine hypergamy. Once those provisions and sacrifices falter, the house of cards risks collapse.

In the words of Chris Rock, “Men, if you lose your job, your woman will leave you. It might not be right then, she might tell you, ‘It’s OK baby we’re gonna get through this’, but just know, the clock is ticking.” This is the time you will hear “I love you, but I’m not in love with you” or “You’ve changed, you’re not the man I fell in love with.”

Men’s idealistic love expectations being to conflict with women’s opportunistic love expectations. His idealism predisposes him to believe the strength of his relationship is dependent upon his intrinsic qualities – fidelity, compassion, empathy, sacrifice, humor, determination, etc. – qualities he’s convinced make him Alpha and up to this point his wife or girlfriend claimed were appreciated. It’s only under conditions where he’s unable or less able to provide extrinsic resources, or conditions in which she (or women in general) can provide for themselves that feminine hypergamy takes mental precedence.

It’s at this point of disillusionment that these men realize that his self-perceived Alpha status, based on what he believed women, his woman, would appreciate, has no equity for her.

Genuine Desire

Martel continues:

Even if reliable beta-boy wasn’t as exciting as the greaser, there was a chance the reliable guy could get the girl. The tingle had to compete with her reputation, the chance of unwanted pregnancy, advice from her elders, her own moral code, and curfews.

She might want to bang the butler, but there was a chance she’d be faithful to her husband instead. There’s more at stake than women deciding who they want to boink, there’s also who they actually boink.

Genuine desire is a very difficult trail for most guys to follow. I emphasize the want part of Martel’s quote here because while hypergamy is often mitigated by personal and social elements, the underlying, ambient desire for a hypergamously optimal mate (or mating) is always the operative for women.

The problem with Martel’s assessment here is that it’s founded on a definition of Alpha rooted in an expectation of Relational Equity on a woman’s part. Intrinsic attributes, invested effort and extrinsic rewards will never be enough to make a woman desire to bang you. In various combinations they may be a sufficient buffer against her hypergamy, they may be endearing qualities she loves about you, but they aren’t sexy in and of themselves. She may not fuck the pool boy due to moral convictions, fear of loss, or simply because she lacks the capacity to attract him, but it wont stop her from wanting to.

There will come a point when a woman’s conditions will make her more dependent on a man’s intrinsic qualities. His empathy, love, loyalty and compassion makes a world of difference once she’s past the Wall.  As her ability to remain a sexual competitor diminishes, her dependency on her husband’s emotional and security provisioning takes precedence. This may even be a genuine appreciation for a woman, but it’s important to understand that this new appreciation is the result of her opportunistic understanding of love. At some point she will need to love these intrinsic qualities.

Nice Like Me

NGOKC

Lib Arts Major:

“Generation AFC” has done a great job of producing Brevik, Cho, Laughner, Sodini, Holmes, and now recently Lanza among scores of others who never got a bodycount high enough to make the news.

Here’s to a new generation of defects.

Or should I say products working as intended?

Furious Ferret:

This is just standard way of tearing down beta males. Most of the guys that are nice are geniuely nice guys but being guys they still want to fuck. They were taught by women that being nice and respectful lead to being attractive so they were brought up to behave this way. It’s no uniqueness or virtue for a woman to call ‘nice guys’ as really horrible digusting perverts while rewarding the bad boy.

Mumtaz elaborates in response to a female commenter:

‘ From my own personal experiences, I’ve found that being nice does not equate to attraction from men. ‘
Actually, it’s being nice man that doesn’t equate to attraction from women. Nice woman means sweet and pleasant , that is attractive.

‘ Nice is boring. ‘
That’s exactly what women think.

‘ And the average person appears to NEED drama or kaybe just more vivacity. ‘
No , it’s average WOMAN who seeks drama . For a man , coming home after day of hard work , drama is the LAST thing he wants…

‘ It seems that a lot of men look to women for something akin to entertainment ‘
Again, swap sexes and it rings true.
Also notice anecdotal evidence…

When I wrote Play Nice I elaborated upon the recent fem-centric trend of ridiculing self-professed Nice Guys. The notion of Nice Guys only using the monicker as a ruse for an assholish reality has been a staple response for Alpha-burned women for decades now. However, an interesting threshold is being crossed when a globalized internet society begins a campaign of mass ridicule of Nice Guys.

Nice Guys of OK Cupid is one such effort.

While I’ve come to expect women’s rationalizations about Nice Guys as foils for their attention needs, what NGOKC illustrates is an escalation in beta male in-fighting. Some have called this ridicule cyber-bullying on a global scale, but there’s more to this than that. The progression from rebuking forum white knight to online attack blogger is evidence of a new comfort level the femosphere has in sowing discord amongst the beta orbiters they rely on for fem-centric male affirmation.

NGOKC is really a clever new twist on Dalrock’s proposition of “lets you and him fight.” In viscerally exposing OKC Nice Guy profile pictures and pairing them up with subjectively contradicting statements about being ‘nice guys’, NGOKC is (perhaps unwittingly) attempting to define what makes a guy genuinely “nice” based on the terms that indicate feminine supremacy.

If you peruse the sampling of ‘nice guy’ case subjects on the blog you’ll begin to see a pattern form. A, most likely out of context, declaration of ‘Nice Guy-ness’ paired with some horribly incongruent statement about expectations of women’s legs being shaved or men being the head of the household. The social experiment that NGOKC is involved in starts with its efforts in qualifying ‘Nice’ as being compliant with what best serves the feminine imperative. Do you like the feel of a woman’s smooth legs that she painstakingly shaves 7 times a week? You’re not a Nice Guy. Do you believe that men should be confident, decisive, heads of the household? You’re not a Nice Guy either. In fact if you indicate on your profile any belief that is inconsistent with absolute, equalitarian gender neutrality, you’re not a nice guy.

For all the semantics debates the manosphere gets into over the proper usage of “Nice” for men, the binary nature of the femosphere is definitive; if a belief is contradictory to the feminine imperative, it is decidedly “not nice”.

Beta Fights

Being that beta men constitute the vast majority of men in modern society, one of the larger problems of being an abject beta is the sheer volume of sexual competition they experience from other betas. When a beta chumps is AMOG’d by an Alpha there’s an almost tacit understanding by the beta that the Alpha held an advantage over him. The Alpha had the physical, Game and status tools the beta does not. However, put two (or more) betas in contention with each other and they will resort to ever escalating feats of greater beta qualification amongst each other. When all you know is Beta Game, only more intense applications of that game is the natural response to competition within Beta Game.

NGOKC is one such escalation in the Beta Game arms race. From Enter White Knight:

Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ‘changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical observations of how women ‘are’, etc. – understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster. That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism.

By essentially doxxing the Nice Guys on OKC, NGOKC is a blog dedicated to beta white knights attempting AMOG other betas while the women of the femosphere egg them on. The social impetus behind the blog is one of beta men jockeying for feminine approval by ever increasing declarations of being more suitable, more feminine identifying betas, than the so-called fraudulent Nice Guys they hope to expose. They’ve made a game of qualifying for the approval of the femosphere by looking for chinks in their competitor’s beta armor:

“I’m a nice guy,..”

“Charlatan! You want to oppress women by expecting to be the head of the household! I’m the real nice guy,..”

“STFU rape apologist, says here you’re open to first date sex, and what type of guy has tats and piercings like that? Rapists, that’s who! I’m the real nice guy,..”

“Misogynist, looks like you expect women to shave their legs,…FOR YOU!,..only fucking patriarchs think women should make themselves ‘acceptable’ for men,..I’m the real nice guy,..”

The feminine influence naturally loves the beta dystopia between guys they’d never want to fuck otherwise because it primes their need for indignation while simultaneously satisfying a woman’s need for attention and affirmation of her own imperative.

Obligation

One of the things that solidified this beta in-fighting for me was reading Hugo Schwyzer’s Jezebel endorsement of NGOKC.

Hugo Schwyzer has a rightly earned reputation in the manosphere for being a manboobed captain amongst the vichy males feminization has made so common through its selective breeding efforts . The lengths to which he’s ego-invested his life, career and personality into a feminine identification schema is truly grandiose. Hugo’s gender self-loathing is a monument to the dictates of the feminine imperative – he is what feminized men would ultimately become in a society defined by the feminine imperative.

While I have patience for the likes of Manboobz and even the information deficient members of the PUA Hate forums, Hugo is a step beyond their simple mockery.

What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the socially awkward; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of male sexual entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young men who were told that if they were nice, then, as Laurie Penny puts it, they feel that women “must be obliged to have sex with them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young men feel cheated. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to women’s bodies in exchange for rote expressions of kindness, these boys have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Sex Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Nice Guys sabotage their chances of ever getting laid with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.

Nice Guys of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to have sex.

This represents the basic disconnect that a feminine conditioned male like Schwyzer can’t grasp. He’s very concerned that self-avowed Nice Guys harbor this endemic, deep expectation of obligatory sex in lieu of ‘being nice’, yet remains willfully ignorant of the nature of exchange inherent in the sexual marketplace. Of the hundreds of self-professed nice guys I’ve known or counseled, not one of them expressed an expectation of reciprocal sex. In fact the genuine ‘nice guys’ are so self-sacrificing that the idea of a social contract of reciprocal sex is alien to them.

The new popularity of Nice Guy demonization that Hugo and the predictable, gender trend vultures piling on at The Atlantic isn’t about expectations or entitlements it’s about the underlying and unspoken reciprocal nature of the sexual marketplace being exposed. When a ‘nice guy’ does express some angst over his sexless and solitary life, or does bring his Savior Schema to the surface in a public fashion it becomes an ugly reminder for the feminine that the SMP is actually that, a marketplace. A fem-centric society doesn’t like the idea of a visceral resource exchange, because it ruins its humanist/equalist social pretense. Solution? Ridicule and marginalize the one doing the exposing.

Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Nice Guys is their contempt for women’s non-sexual friendship. They rage about being “friendzoned,” and complain about the hours spent listening to women without being given so much as a hand job in return for their investment.

Because Hugo has been so well conditioned by his feminization he lacks any frame of reference to understand the reflexive rage these “false-flag nice guys” experience. This rage response isn’t the disappointment of some societal masculine influence convincing these guys of a sex-debt obligation, it was the entirely feminized influence which convince them of myth of Relational Equity:

…I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

Hugo’s preoccupation with the sex-debt obligations for being ‘nice’ is a convenience for his inability to address the concept of relational equity. In a sense he’s correct, men should never presume that anything they do, any personal sacrifice, any emotional investment they make for a woman will EVER be appreciated, much less reciprocated, because hypergamy doesn’t care about any of it.

If these ‘nice guys’ are guilty of anything, it’s in their ego-investment in the lie that any woman might have the capacity to appreciate his investments in them. That rage isn’t about the disappointment of not getting an expected lay, it’s the self-rage associated with the disillusionment of a belief in a relational equity that women (often times the same women they want to become intimate with) continue to convince them of. It’s a rage that comes from the loss of investment and being ridiculed for ever having invested by the same women who convinced them to invest.

So thank you Hugo, you’ve unwittingly made the manosphere, Game and red pill wisdom all the more attractive for ‘nice guys’ with your exposé. The obvious moral to this story is to drop the pretense of being a ‘nice guy’ and embrace a self-concerned Game perspective. In other words, unplug. Drop any expectations of a mutual respect, shared purpose or infantile visions of an idealistic love – because you have no ‘right’ to something women fundamentally lack the capacity to reciprocate. Your idealized relationship doesn’t exist in a feminine frame, it only exists in a positive masculine frame of your making. The only thing ‘nice guys’ have to lament is not embracing these truths before they posted their profile pic on OK Cupid.

First Man Awake

As most readers know I rarely engage in political discourse unless it has relevance to intergender dynamics. This video is an exception. If you need a clear example of a feminist controlled state, this is it.

I actually went through Women’s/Gender Studies course when I was in college. The main reason I took the class was because there were only 2 classes being offered on campus that completed a Capstone, Humanities and Diversity requirement in a single class – Holocaust Studies and Women’s Studies. That’s basically the estimation most women want you to think their ‘sufferage’ is on par with; the Holocaust. I chose Women’s Studies because I basically wanted to put my money where my mouth has always been (literally and figuratively ) and also get inside what popular media, and the feminization that it’s gone through for the last 40+ years, has been selling both men and women. I enjoyed debating these ladies as I was one of 2 guys in the Women’s Literature class.

I didn’t know it at the time, but one of the beacons of positive masculine hope I had back in the days before the internet, before understanding Game and even the term ‘red pill’ was reading Why Men are the Way They Are by Dr. Warren Farrell. It opened my understanding of intergender relations in a way I’d never understood. If I had a red pill moment in my past reading this books was it. It was published in 1986 so the specifics might be a little dated for a modern reader, but for an overall perspective of how our gender landscape has evolved it will always be on my ‘must read’ list for guy just now taking the red pill.

My phone-it-in feminist stepmother and beta-confused father had picked up the book in order to eviscerate it in some proto-SWPL home book club they belonged to at the time. Oddly enough it ended up on their bookshelf after that (replete with my stepmother’s penciled in margin notes), and I remember picking it up in the hope that it would give me some self-effacing insight into how I could be a more accommodating beta schlub for my BPD girlfriend who was slowly eroding the last vestiges of my former Alpha self.

What it did was enlighten me.

Farrell is anything but a rape apologist, I would compare him with the first man to wake up in the Matrix. Most of his insight, research and writing were prompted by his involvement in the early 70’s feminist movement. He even self-identified as a male feminist back then, but it was this experience that brought him to a fuller understanding of the feminine imperative.

Intellectual Lethargy

What offends me about this protest isn’t the actual protesting, but the sheer ignorance behind it. If it were the easily digestible blatherings of Rush Limbaugh they were protesting I could understand it, but Dr. Farrell isn’t even in the same universe. All this is is an example of intellectual lethargy, which is really a shame because I would expect that the young men and women involved in the protest, all students at U of T, would be acquainted with research and critical thinking skills necessary before formulating such strong opinions and visceral reactions.

To be educated takes a constant effort. Most people in modern society simply do not have the time, inclination or motivation to be in any way knowledgeable about more than a peripheral understanding of the world around them. The ridiculously ironic part is that we live in an era when communication of information has never been more easily accessible to us.

Now add to this that we’re expected to be at least somewhat well informed due to this access. Our ego-investments with regards to politics, religion, social dynamics, gender relations etc. all depend upon a belief that we’re actually well informed enough know what we’re talking about and draw our own conclusions. We would have to be, right? It’s expected of us as intelligent human beings.

The truth of the matter is that unless we are immediately benefitted by educating ourselves about a particular subject (i.e. as short term a profit as easily manageable), for the vast majority of modern society, educating oneself is a hobby at best. We live in a fast-food, fast-information society. We can’t be bothered to, or in some cases really afford to, develop critical thinking skills – particularly when they might challenge our own ego-investments. This is why the feminine Matrix flourishes today, it’s easier not to think about things that are counter to our social conditioning.

But we want to be right, and to be right we have to believe that we have these critical thinking skills. In fact our personalities and well being depend upon being correct in our beliefs. This is an age of ego-investment. Ego investments are beliefs we associate with, and internalize, so strongly that they literally become elements of our personalities. So to challenge that belief is to literally attack the personality of the person with that ego-investment. It would make no difference how empirical your evidence to the contrary of that belief might be; you attack the belief and you attack the person. Religion, racism, political affiliation, gender dynamics, social dynamics, world view, all find their roots in individual ego-investments in those beliefs.

Needless to say this has an extremely polarizing effect upon lazy people who’d rather not put forth any effort to objectively educate themselves in ways that would ever challenge their core ego-investments. So we see a factionalizing of people into camps where those ego-investments are reinforced in spite of any controverting evidence. Thus a team mentality evolves; our red team is better than your blue team irrespective of any factor that might be contrary. So long as my team wins and your team loses my ego-investments remain validated. It becomes a clash of who’s ego-investments get validated and any value the “other’s” might have had are never acknowledged.

This is a shame because Dr. Warren Farrell has dedicated his life –most of it spent in the feminized cultural wastelands of the late 80’s and 90’s – to researching, understanding and revealing the uncomfortable truths of intergender dynamics. He’s the godfather of the manosphere that most red pill men aren’t even aware of.

Awareness and Intent

coma

 

My good friend DJ Damage had an interesting question regarding last week’s post and the time-tested classic LJBF rejection:

Hey Rollo would you say that women consciously know what they are doing to their male friends?! I mean lets take the AFC out of the equation for a moment and focus on the women. When a woman lays the LJBF’s line on her “male friend” doesn’t she realises that this AFC who is standing before her wanted to fuck her for the longest time?! Doesn’t she see anything wrong with the fact that in her eyes its not ok for a man to reject the LJBF’s line yet its ok to string a man along, pepper him with false hopes and some physical contact and then be surprised (or act surprised) he may want more??!!

Or is it just to accept the fact that women are women and you shouldn’t worry about their predictable behaviour but rather accept it and follow the rules of engagement.

I think it kind of depends on the individual, but to varying degrees I’d think no. As I stated in Playing Friends, the LJBF rejection has been so provably time-tested that it’s entered into a standardized feminine consciousness. In other words, it doesn’t need a formal teaching to understand how it’s useful. It’s simply demonstrated in so many different ways (media, personal interactions, etc.) that it becomes subconsciously learned. 12 y.o. girls don’t sit around at slumber parties discussing the best way to deliver a LJBF rejection to boys that like them. They learn the convention from TV, their big sisters, their mothers, etc. examples.

This is what makes it all the more jarring for a woman to have what’s always been a useful social tool explained to them. And of course the fail-safe for it is the risk of social ostracization on the guy’s part for outright rejecting her LJBF, making it far less likely an occurrence.

Now, that said, you’re really asking two questions. The second is, does the LJBF girl know the “friend” wants to bang her? I’d say most definitely. Not that any woman would admit it, because in doing so it puts the burden of her being straightforward with him on her. It’s plausible deniability. It’s far easier to deny, what by early adolescence girls know (boys want to fuck them) than to accept responsibility for leading him on. Bear in mind, attention is the coin of the realm in girl-world, but the guy also bears a good amount of responsibility for his own illusions.

When you think about it, it’s really a self-perpetuating cycle. Guy wants to qualify for girl’s intimacy, girl knows this, but isn’t attracted to the guy for the exact reason he is qualifying himself. Girl should be forthright with the “non-interest” guy, but still enjoys the attention and the affirmation that comes with it. Girl plays ‘friend’ and only becomes flirtatious when the attention flow breaks to reestablish it. Guy gets to make-or-break point, initiates intimacy and girl falls back on LJBF. Guy believes he still needs to qualify more and the cycle repeats.

Now, is any of that a conscious process? If a girl says ‘yes’, she’s a self-serving, grand manipulator, and this causes a cognitive self-image conflict. Due to a  fear of ostracization from attention she can’t exactly cop to a foreknowledge of the process. But that’s OK because there are many other feminine social conventions she can fall back on to avoid this. The feminine prerogative (she can change her mind) being the most useful, or The Feminine Mystique (women are unknowable) being a close second .

If the answer is no, and she’s not aware of the process, our social sense of personal responsibility takes over; she’s naive or at least immature. However, even in this event she’s also excused from culpability.

Regardless of whether a woman is aware of her own motives, it’s up to men to see her behavior as the only reliable indicator for them. As I’ve said before, there are no mixed messages, women will tell you exactly what their intent is. You just need the ability to read the behavior. As I’ve said before, the medium IS the message. The LJBF IS the message. Women with a high interest level don’t get to this point with a guy they want to fuck.

Awareness

I sometimes get critics telling me that what I reveal at Rational Male is very negative or disproportionately biased against women. I understand that perception, but it’s not my intent to do so. I’ve stated on several occasion that all I do is hold up a mirror, you’ve got to want look – and the main trouble with women (and men in some instances) is that after having been immersed for a lifetime in a fem-centric , feminine primary reality they don’t really like what’s being reflected back at them. It’s a very foreign experience for most women to see the root motivators of their own behavior, so the natural reflexive response is to demonize the one illustrating them, or really even making an attempt to understand and educate others about them. When the feminine Matrix is your most favorable and comfortable environment, it follows that attempts to unplug someone from it are met with considerable resistance.

From Moral to the Manosphere:

“,..when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.”

When I explore the War Brides dynamic, the amoral aspects of Hypergamy or any of the more moralistically uncomfortable dimensions of Game, people want to apply their own perceptions of justice or moral sensitivity to what are sometimes very inhumane conditions. I realize that’s going to happen, in fact, in the interests of inter-gender civility it should happen – but what gets (sometimes intentionally) confused in coming to those conclusions is the demonizing of the revelations behind what motivates those dehumanizing realities. We want to hold people responsible for the motivators who have no idea what they are in the first place.

Hypergamy has served an evolutionary purpose for the human species; it doesn’t mean we have to like it, but it doesn’t mean we can ignore its influence, nor does it mean the person revealing it or attempting to better understand it is inherently an asshole for doing so. It also doesn’t excuse us from the consequences of being unaware of it.

As DJDamage asked in the beginning of this post, women for the greater part are unaware or casually oblivious to the motivators of their own behavior. Recently some notable ‘red pill women’ have been making what I believe are sincere effort to better understand those motivators as well as the feminine primary social environment that favors and reinforces them. While I’m not sure that they’ll want to throw their lot in with the manosphere wholesale, it’s at least a small step in the direction of better understanding.

Shouting in the Wilderness

Hat tip to reader BoxerRearZenith for bringing this to my attention:

Rollo, I’ve been a reading your blog since it’s inception. I love how eloquently everything is written and presented; therefore, I’d like your written opinion on this following Youtube video, if possible. It’s from ESPN First Take that was shown yesterday and Stephen A Smith was discussing Red Pill rhetoric (Being Anti-Oprah, lol) on a national platform. It was based off Chad Johnson and his wife Evelyn Lozada. And I had this similar discussion with friends who are also fans of this show and they couldn’t understand Stephen A’s point; even though, he illustrated and demonstrated his points so well. I tried to explain his position and why he went off but I got berated so I let it go. Is there anywhere to simplify his point of view to where my guy friends would somewhat understand? Btw, these are blue pill guys trying to figure why women are the way they are. Basically trying to find the red pill but not knowing to look for it if that makes any sense.

I’ve used the end summation of Stephen A Smith’s opinion here just for brevity’s sake, but if you have 15 minutes the entire clip is well worth watching, I’ll start by saying that it’s good to see even a marginally red-pill aware Man make a statement like this. We’re told all the time how football is really the last refuge for masculinity, but I’ve never agreed with this, and Smith’s bold and confrontational words here illustrate exactly how deep fem-centrism has saturated into even the most male of arenas. Smith is attempting to provide just a marginal consideration for a male perspective here and the reactions by Skip and his female co-host Cari Champion are an excellent example of how efficiently the feminine imperative shuts down that perspective. While Smith is obviously agitated and raises his voice, not once is he fumbling for words, nor does he slip and use expletives. He knows his perspective, has done his due diligence and is ready to express it.

And express it he does, but like most Men making public declarations attempting to bring awareness to fem-centrism, Skip and Cari, both obvious Fem-Matrix plug-ins, look at Smith as if he were speaking a foreign language. They can’t believe what’s coming out of his mouth. So saturated into our social fabric is feminine primacy that the thought of expressing a male-centric consideration, even as measured as Smith’s, is alien to those steeped in it.

Even Smith is guilty of this conditioning in his feeling it necessary to constantly footnote his perspective by repeating that he’s not endorsing violence against women. He has to do this because, like any other Man attempting to vocally expose fem-centrism, he’s learned that the first, reflexive response plugins will acuse him of is misogyny. So he must preface his words repeatedly or be dismissed as an evil patriarch. This constant qualification is necessary because the first resource of fem-centrism is to associate any perspective counter to the feminine imperative, no matter how remote, as an act of violence against women itself. Even women expressing a male perspective critical of fem-centrism are subjected to this association.

White Knights of the Feminine Imperative

For all of Smith’s intensity his message is entirely lost on an avowed white knight like Skip Bayless. Skip’s reaction is that of a well conditioned male in the feminine Matrix. As I wrote in Enter White Knight:

Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ‘changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical observations of how women ‘are’, etc. – understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster. That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism.

If you watch the full clip, Skip’s calling Chad Johnson to the carpet about his domestic violence and impending divorce is exactly what I’ve come to expect from white knight Beta Game. Skip’s provocation of Chad isn’t about his desire to ‘get to the bottom of things’, but rather to establish himself as a champion of the feminine imperative – and by association make himself more attractive to women by being the tough male advocate for women everywhere. Guys like Skip look for opportunities to appear like upstanding responsible Alpha men by scolding true Alphas like Chad in as public a way as possible. Essentially they use the same shaming tools of the feminine imperative in an effort to better align and identify themselves with the women they subliminally hope to impress – and yes, even the married ones.

A beta game response is what I’d expect from this mentality, but I think what red pill viewers of this clip need to understand is the subconscious fluidity with which this reflex occurs. Chad was ready to lay Skip Bayless out on the studio floor, but this doesn’t even occur to Skip until after he’s embroiled in the confrontation. White knights seldom realize the real danger they put themselves in until that white knightery backfires on them; that’s how internalized the mentality is, it overrides a capacity to see danger cues.

Redirect

Cari Champion’s reaction is also a predictable, feminine-centric response. Where Skip will fall back on the convenient excuse of wanting to ‘get to the bottom of things’ Cari will do what most women will – presume that any man declaring a male-centric counterargument to the feminine ‘has issues’ with women. He’s “expressing a lot of anger” about women, even when the issue isn’t about women, but the societal circumstances of men. Then, as is the standard feminine reflex, Cari makes attempts to reframe Smith’s point to be individually specific to women. Smith makes a good effort of not allowing this reframe, but notice that in order for him to stay on point he must once again reiterate that ‘he’d never harm a woman’ just so he can get back to it.

Recently there’s been some great discussion over at Sunshine Mary’s blog regarding the validity of the feminine imperative as a concept in and of itself. Unfortunately it’s easier to show examples of the feminine imperative than it is to definitively describe it. I think Smith’s efforts here are an attempt to make plugged-in people understand just what the feminine Matrix is. But no one can tell you what the Matrix is when you’re in the Matrix. So when you see the lone man shouting truths in the wilderness, it isn’t what he’s saying that’s important, but who is listening.

To answer Boxer’s question, I’m not sure there is a way to simplify Smith’s message. Your friends aren’t going to understand it because they have no frame of reference to relate his message to. Everything is fem-centrism for plugins, and the feminine imperative already has long established social contingencies (like the one’s observed in this clip) to dissuade any real awareness of it. I have no doubt that Smith’s inbox was filled with the hatred of countless plugged in men and women arguing for him to seek therapy for his misogyny – which ironically was exactly the point he was trying to make. One of the most effective social conventions the feminine imperative ever established was disqualifying those critical of it from ever having credibility about it.

Unfortunately Boxer, your friends, like most men, will have to learn from harsh experience to ever be open to seeing the feminine imperative as Smith does.