Operative Social Conventions

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.

She’s Unhaapppy,…

controlling-parent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worst Case Scenario

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

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

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

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

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

Social Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Perfecting the Fantasy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blue Pill Alphas

beta-white-knight-101_o_5320043

A comment from Softek gets us started today:

My friend was telling me the other night how seeing multiple women “isn’t worth it.”

I’ve heard that more than once from more than one of my friends.

And how “living with the guilt and shame” and “hating themselves” was destroying their lives….

Very hard schema to break out of when it’s been imprinted on you. My own father self-proclaims to be “in favor of the damsels in distress,” including his recent, unquestionable defense of my friend’s mom, who divorced his dad after 35 years of marriage.

My dad didn’t even question her motives for a second and after she spent the evening hanging out with my mom and him, and told them the supposed “real” reasons she got a divorce, my dad automatically cut contact with the guy and again proclaimed his belief that men should protect all “damsels in distress.”

He’s even taken shots at me when my girlfriend’s been over, clearly siding with her and telling her things like “Keep him in line” and “Straighten him out” and calling me an idiot and scolding me if I don’t pull her chair out for her or put her coat on for her when she stands up.

No doubt, my self sabotaging of a clear opening for a hookup with an HB8 23 year old has been influenced by all of this. I didn’t realize how Beta I was until I actually got into a relationship.

I didn’t even know I HAD these programs because I was incel before, and had a couple one night stands that never developed into anything more. I also didn’t even know my DAD had these programs until he started doing shit like actually scolding me in front of my girlfriend and instructing her to “train me” and things like that.

To be honest I was kind of in shock that my own father would think like that. It felt like he was turning on me and it pissed me off. Even in a small way, to let his Blue Pill conditioning get in the way of his relationship with his own son — that really got to me, and not in a good way. I felt like my dad is supposed to be on my side, and to see him treating her better than he treats me and having conversations with her and helping her work out her finances and giving her career advice and all that while he won’t even give me the time of day….

….simply, it’s eye-opening. It’s tough to truly go Red Pill when everyone around you, including your own father/family members/friends are Blue Pill, and especially when they’re an active, regular part of your life, not just a figment of your imagination.

But there is no other way.

Alpha is a mindset, not a demographic. Softek’s father’s reflexive responses are endemic of men who are Alpha White Knights. Their reactions are behaviorally Alpha, but their reasoning is founded in their investments in Blue Pill conditioning. The usual schema revolve around an attempt to display higher value by identifying with and qualifying for women whom they presuppose have default authority and correctness above men in general.

This then manifests as an exaggerated AMOGing of any guy who would not affirm his investments in that Blue Pill ego-investment. So you get a guy who blusters like Softek’s Dad at Red Pill awareness – it’s both an opportunity to prove value as a White Knight and a resistance against any truths that would challenge his Blue Pill ego.

In my own life I’ve known several men who anyone in the ‘sphere would objectively call Alpha. Their default is to action, dominance, authority and control of whatever life puts in front of them. They handle their shit, they own their business ventures, they have all the Dark Triad traits you might expect from a guy like this – but put them in a social setting with a girl and they go as Beta as any Blue Pill guy you’ll ever know. Their Blue Pill conditioning predisposes them to compartmentalize this aspect of their personality to effectively put their dominant personality to the use of the Feminine Imperative.

Dangerous White Knights

Maybe I’m the only guy who watched both seasons of Daredevil on Netflix, but if you watch the first season where they go into the origin and character of Wilson Fisk (Kingpin) this is exactly the type of guy I’m talking about. Wildly Alpha, wildly unstable, but still in control of his empire. Put a woman in his life and he transitions all of that Alpha energy to essentially worshiping that woman. In fact, this prioritizing of women above his own interests is the motivation for his empire building. These are the Alpha White Knights who channel that Alpha energy to making his Blue Pill idealisms a reality for any woman who fits his ideal.

And when that Blue Pill ideal reveals itself to be a fantasy – or God forbid, a Red Pill aware guy should take this fantasy away from him intentionally or not – you will see him self destruct, and likely take either that woman, that Red Pill guy, or both along with him.

That’s one type of Blue Pill Alpha. Another is the guy who is Alpha in one context, but Beta in another. These are the guys I describe when I talk about my military friends who’ve faced live ammo being fired at them by people intent on killing them who hold up like nails and get their job done while commanding other men. Put them in a domestic situation or a position where they have to fall back on their Blue Pill conditioning in dealing with women and they’ll defer automatically to the Frame of their wives without a thought. When their wives up and leave them, these are some of the first men to swallow a bullet by their own hand.

Again, this is an Alpha who’s never been awakened to his Blue Pill conditioning. Say even one marginally critical word about women in general and they’re the first in line to kick your ass. But they’re also the most likely to self destruct when their Blue Pill idealism is challenged or crushed.

A lot gets made about the status of ‘Paper Alphas’, but I’m beginning to think term is a bit in error. I’m dropping this here today because I think there’s a misunderstanding about how Alpha energy is channeled with respect to a guy being Red Pill aware, and a guy who is still plugged into the feminine-primary Matrix and at the mercy of how women (and other men) will exploit his Blue Pill ego-investments. In the manosphere we tend to conflate Alpha with Red Pill, but as I always say, Alpha is a mindset and not representative of whether that man is in fact ‘woke’ to his conditions and manipulations.

When I watched how the Marvel writers handled the character of Wilson Fisk I got chills because I have personally counseled Blue Pill, but predominantly Alpha, guys who’ve stabbed the new boyfriends of their ex-girlfriends because he was perceived as the catalyst to the destruction of his Blue Pill ideal – union with his ONEitis girlfriend.

I’m emphasizing this because I think it’s important for Red Pill aware men to understand the dangers of being perceived as the antithesis of these men’s ego-investments in Blue Pill idealism. This may take the form of him just despising you for revealing uncomfortable truths to him with your own presence and lifestyle, or it may be him pinning his failures to consolidate his Blue Pill ideals to you and wanting to eliminate both you and the truth you represent.

I’m sorry if this is a bit sobering, but it needs to be said. As most readers know, I consider Alpha and Beta abstract terms; they are placeholders for concepts, thus, it is entirely possible for a largely Alpha man to be thoroughly invested in his Blue Pill conditioning. Likewise, it is also possible for more Beta men to be some of the most Red Pill aware men you’re likely to meet. It’s when a Beta man is ego-invested in the Blue Pill that he’s most to be pitied, while a Red Pill aware Alpha is likely to be the most celebrated. But that’s not to say the Red Pill and Alpha, or the Blue Pill and Beta are mutually exclusive concepts.

Is Provisioning Inherently a Characteristic of a Beta Mindset?

In this week’s post the proposition came up that any provisioning was inherently a Beta trait. I’ve read this before and not just on my blog, but also coming from both the MGTOW and the PUA sides of the fence. The idea is that any form of monogamy and/or provisioning for an LTR girlfriend (and I would count a live-in arrangement as provisioning), a wife and any kids (prospectively) is itself evidence of a Beta mindset.

I think the problem with this presumption rests in defining what the act of provisioning means both an Alpha and a Beta mindset. For both, this depends on their approach to their primary sexual strategies and reconciling it with the eventual necessity of his own parental investment in raising children, and/or maintaining relational Frame (or not) within a monogamy that at least promotes the wellbeing of any children.

As a reference here, I’m going to link Myth of the Good Guy to give a bit of perspective in this.

While it’s true that lower SMV men generally, necessarily, opt for a sexual strategy of primary investment in one mate (via provisioning) and higher SMV men can afford a sexual strategy of lower investment while seeking more sexual opportunities, those strategies are not necessarily reflective of each man’s mindset. As I mentioned in the beginning here, it is entirely possible for a subjectively Alpha man to subscribe to a Blue Pill conditioned mindset and vice versa for Beta men becoming Red Pill aware.

So yes, provisioning can be Beta if that provisioning (and what it took to achieve it) is the result of an effort to secure the sustained sexual interests of a single woman, as motivated by his perceived necessity to invest himself as I mentioned above for a low SMV man. However, if you have a high SMV guy who’s provisioning capacity is the byproduct of his Alpha mindset (or nature if you prefer) and not the result of his sexual strategy to build it to invest in any single woman, is that guy’s provisioning inherently a Beta characteristic?

We’ve had an interesting discussion about this in the last comment thread, and In the interests of full disclosure here, I’m still on the fence about this concept. I’ll have a forthcoming post about mindset soon.

Provisioning is certainly a value added aspect to a guy who a woman sees as an Alpha sex prospect already, and not a necessary a prerequisite for fucking him, but it’s not a disadvantage (being Beta) if that Alpha guy also has means, affluence, status, looks, etc. That said, and I’ve related this before, some of the most memorable sex experiences I’ve ever had were when I was an unemployed semi-pro musician in the late 80s-early 90s with almost zero means, but was somehow able to bang over 40 women then.

Provisioning is not a prerequisite for any man with Game, but is it inherently Beta? Possibly, when a guy has the Blue Pill mindset that makes him believe in the Relational Equity fallacy and he subscribes to the Blue Pill conditioned idea that he’s inherently lower SMV than ANY woman (like Softek’s Dad), thus he must improve his odds of successfully breeding by being a “good provider”. And as I, and anyone in the manosphere, will relate this old books providerhood is fast becoming an obsolete sexual strategy for Beta men.

This is, I think, the hesitation that most guys wanting to avoid the stink of ‘Beta Provider’ will argue for. But is a nominally Alpha guy, who has excess means and resources being “Beta” by providing for his wife & family? If that man’s dominant personality is ‘Alpha’ does this predispose women (or his wife) to rationalize his provisioning as an Alpha trait, or is it just an endearing (positive), comforting Beta trait / behavior that solidifies her attraction (if not arousal) to him?

I don’t think that the act of provisioning itself is inherently Beta or Alpha, rather it’s the mindset and status of that guy that makes it so. What do we call a an Alpha with ample means who refuses to adequately provide for his wife and/or kids? What do we call a Beta who’s based his life and marriage on his capacity to provide once he’s lost his job? Why do women statistically look down on men who don’t provide in equal or greater measure to their own contributions? Despite all the equalist boilerplate beliefs to the contrary, why do women feel little or no attraction to a non-provisioning house-husband? If provisioning were a net Beta trait why is its absence a source of decreased attraction for men?

I should also add that this perception of whether a man is Alpha or Beta in his provisioning is subjective to whatever phase of maturity a woman find herself in, and is modified by her own necessitousness – which, as has been argued in the ‘sphere ad infinitum, has become increasingly less dependent on men. It’s no coincidence that back in the early 90s for me, the women I was banging were largely girls in their SMV peak years (21-24) or they we’re the occasional cougars of the time who were already divorced and still reasonably attractive enough to pass the boner test for me. My capacity to provision for either of these demographic of women made little difference to my sex appeal, but for different reasons.

Roissy even covers this aspect of women’s sexual prioritization in The Difficulty of Gaming Women by Age Bracket:

31 to 34 year olds

In some ways, women in the 31-34 age range are the toughest broads to game. (By “toughest”, it is meant “most time consuming”.) It’s counterintuitive, yes, but there are factors at work besides her declining beauty which mitigate against the easy, quick lay. For one, it is obviously harder to meet single 31-34 year old women than it is to meet single younger women. Marriage is still a pussy-limiting force to contend with for the inveterate womanizer, but Chateau apprentices are hard at work battling the scourge of mating market disturbances caused by the grinding and churning of the marriage machine.

But the bigger reason 31-34 year olds are harder to game than any other age group of women has to do with the wicked nexus of entitlement and self-preservation that occurs at this age in women. When you combine a disproportionate sense of entitlement fueled by years of feminism, steady paychecks and promotions, and cheerleading gay boyfriends with suspicions of every man’s motives and a terrible anxiety of being used for a sexual fling sans marriage proposal, you get a venom-spitting malevolent demoness on guard against anything she might perceive as less than total subjugation to her craving for incessant flattery and princess pedestaling.

Note that Chateau guests aren’t necessarily complaining. A harder-to-game 33 year old is kind of like getting bumped down from a Honda Civic rental but driving off the lot with the consolation prize of a Ferrari.

Listen to any man who is good with women and they will tell you the same thing:

“I have an easier time bedding and dating 23 year olds than I do 33 year olds.”

While I do concur with the assessment about women’s exaggerated sense of entitlement, I would also argue that this difficulty is a result of women’s prioritizing long-term security (emotional and provisional) as part of their sexual strategy reprioritizations that come in the wake of their Epiphany Phase. Ergo, this would explain the ease in gaming women pre and post Epiphany Phase. Provisioning and long term security are low sexual priorities for these demographics of women.

But does that make a capacity for provisioning inherently a Beta trait? I think it’s easy to misconstrue that capacity as Beta, because provisioning is a high-value attribute that is expected from Beta men according to their own sexual strategy. Provisioning is associated with Betas because it is integral to their sexual strategy, and also part of the Blue Pill plan for which women are hoping to fulfill at a point in their maturity when they are subjectively at their most necessitous.

What do you think?

SMV and the Aging Process

aging_process

A comment from a woman on enotalone.com:

I am 31 years old, and not looking for anyone, but I have a lot of guy friends/acquaintances my age and the trend I see is a bit disheartening. There’s about 8 different ones that I know who are between 29-32 and EVERY SINGLE ONE IS DATING A 21-23 YEAR OLD.

I just don’t get it. There are plenty of women closer to their ages and single, but yet they all go for the young women. I feel kind of sad for women entering the dating market, at least where I’m from because it seems women my age have no hope in competing with these younger, perkier women.

Just a rant I suppose. I don’t have anything against younger women of course, but I can’t help but feel a bit unnerved by the trend I see here.

This is an overt observation of what women understand from a very early age – women’s sexual marketability declines with age, while men’s (should) increases as they age. This woman’s concerns should come as no shock to any Red Pill aware man. It’s the clarion call of a woman who’s aging out of the SMP and on the tail end of her Epiphany Phase.

All women have conditions (prerequisites) for men in order for them to become intimate (sexual) with them; he’s got to be good looking, he’s got to be financially stable (surplus resources), he’s got to have some status, respectability, ambition, be confident, he has to be the initiator, he’s has to be decisive, he has to make an emotional connection with her, he’s got have ‘provider’ potential,..etc., etc. And the list goes on and on for any individual woman and according to her ability (i.e. looks) to demand each condition. Each of these personal conditions for intimacy is set in a priority order depending on her ability to demand them and this demand is mediated by her age relative to her attractiveness to men.

It’s no secret that a woman’s sexual marketability declines as she ages and men’s increases as he ages. As a woman ages she progressively loses her ability to physically attract a mate (his one condition for intimacy), thus her conditions and their priority order shift accordingly because she is forced to compete with younger, more attractive women for the same pool of eligible men.

These men tend to be the ones best able to provide for her long term security and any resulting offspring. Thus, well established men (with status, money, hopefully good looks, etc.) in their early 30’s are the prime targets and the more they exemplify her conditions for intimacy, in their existing priority order, the more suitable he becomes for that intimacy and the harder she will compete with other women to achieve his long term commitment.

Pop-psychology would have us believe that women in their late 30’s to early 40’s are in their sexual prime. This may serve to increase the self-esteem of women finding themselves unable to command the male attention they did in their youth, but nothing could be further from the truth. While pre-menopausal women do in fact experience a spike in their testosterone levels and a resulting sex drive increase prior to the last of their eggs dropping, it is women between the ages of 18 and 26 that are in fact in their prime fertility stages. Women’s bodies in this age range are far better prepared for the rigors of pregnancy. At no other phase in her life is she more sexually active and most capable of commanding the attentions of the best male meeting her conditional criteria and in their most strict order. However these conditions are still mediated by her physical attractiveness – thus, if she’s fat her conditions (and their priority) will be adjusted accordingly – but she is nonetheless at her personal prime in this phase.

Unsurprisingly we see in most cultures older males striving for the attentions of the younger and more attractive females, but in western culture he becomes vilified and shamed for this – or at least that’s what western feminized women would like to be the case. The most common complaint women in their mid-thirties bemoan is that “There’s no good men” or they can’t understand why men just can’t “grow up” and find them more attractive than the young women they used to be themselves.

Increasingly, ‘careerist women’ desiring to finally start a family at age 35 find that men – particularly the ones that meet their conditions – in their age range (33-38) are not interested in women (to say nothing of ‘careerist women’) of their own age range. They’re interested in the 22 year olds who wouldn’t give them the time of day when they didn’t have the status (or maturity) that they’ve just discovered they now have. And of course the 35 year old career woman was one of these 22 year old girls, only 13 years prior, who was doing precisely the same thing the 22 year old girls are doing today.

But that doesn’t stop 30 something women from complaining about how men their age are ‘infantile’ for wanting to breed with ‘little girls’, rather than mature, intelligent, respectable career women such as themselves. They are incapable of conceiving why men ‘wont live up to their responsibilities’ and commit to a lifetime with them. They write article after article about how men are in fact threatened by their ‘successfulness’ or their ‘status’, when the simple fact remains that his breeding choices are dictated by one single condition – she’s got to be hot. Unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. The mid-thirties woman is (with a few notable exceptions) simply not as attractive as younger women.

So as an unspoken reaction to this predicament we get to see the popularity of the idea that “You can be 40 and still ‘have it'” among women. “Those men and their fragile egos just don’t know what they’re missing. How dare they be aroused by, and date younger more attractive women, we’ll show them”, they’d have them believe and pander to this dynamic while encouraging the fallacy that ‘men ought to be ashamed of their sexual impulse.

And finally we encounter the 40+ woman looking for what she couldn’t get in her 30s. Her priorities and conditions for intimacy have been altered radically now. At 40, the career woman has abandoned the idea of long term commitment; she may make up some sort of internalized blame for men not accepting her, but the truth comes that time has or is running out.

Perhaps she’s divorced, perhaps she’s a single mother, but at 40+ the importance becomes sex as empowerment for her. She still wants to know she’s ‘still got it’ and since none of the men of the age she’d like to be in an LTR with are biting she’ll be more than happy to get with a 22 year old ‘hunk’. They’re easy pickin’s since none of the girls their own age are interested in them.

They’re virile, young, dumb and full of cum. That’ll show those immature older men who don’t know how to commit! She’ll beat ’em at their own game. “Look at what I’ve got! A hot guy (relative, actually) who knows how to pleasure an older woman”; again shaming and insinuating older men’s sexual performance isn’t up to ‘women’s standards’. All conditions for intimacy and the priority orders she had before are out the window with the exception of physical attractiveness now, which, interestingly enough, has been a man’s only condition since he hit puberty. She’s come full circle, only now she makes an effort to enhance her appearance in the gym, with plastic surgery, Botox, breast augmentation, anything that will increase the attraction for young guys.

And of course the young guys are all too happy to ‘fill that hole’ (pun intended) since the effort required to get after it with the 40+ is practically nil and the rejection ratio is far lower. In addition most 22 year old guys know an LTR is more or less out of the question; they may be a booty call for her, but that’s an ideal situation for him, sex on demand with no expectation of any form of security for her. They like to make up reasonings like “she’s more experienced in bed” or “we’re both in our sexual primes”, but this just serves to justify him being a booty call, as if he’d have a problem with that.

The real irony of the whole situation is that 40+ woman is now doing exactly what she mercilessly criticized these ‘immature’, problematic 30-40 something men for doing. However, we don’t see any articles telling women to grow up, or to do the right thing or how infantile they are for sexually desiring younger men. On the contrary, they’re applauded for ‘bucking the system’ and embracing their sexual natures (as if they were formerly repressed) and “You go girl!” using isolated celebrity examples like Demi Moore fucking Ashton Kutcher as a role model.

The SMP After Marriage

For a long while I’ve been content to let bloggers like Athol Kay address sexual dynamics post-marriage (or LTR). I don’t think it’s any real secret that Married Man Sex Life has been more than compromised by a feminine-correct influence and the discussion is now directed by women’s imperatives there. This has been the forum’s state for some time now. So as such, I feel it’s kind of incumbent upon me to open myself up to addressing Red Pill issues within marriage (or LTRs) for the foreseeable future. This is just an avenue I’ll be opening up here, not a particular focus, don’t worry.

The following was a comment from YaReally in last week’s thread. I thought this more or less summed up the disconnect he believes exists between Old Married Guys (OMGs) and Young Single Guys (YSGs) who both have enough Red Pill awareness to want to employ it in their marriages as well as the plates they’re spinning as a PUA:

Keeping your 70yo wife attracted to you simply doesn’t come with the same obstacles modern men trying to keep a <25yo 8+/10 in 2016 attracted face. This is just objective reality. Again we’re happy for you and your wives that you find them attractive still, that’s awesome, but no one over at the RVF is posting your wives’ pics in the “post your idea of a 10” threads…they OBJECTIVELY have low SMV, and lower SMV than you super badasses as they age, and it’s simple logic that a a man keeping a low SMV woman is a different situation than a man keeping a high SMV woman.

This is an interesting paradox for OMGs, but I think it’s also not accounting for how sexual priorities and Frame shifts as a couple matures. The most glaring shift is of course maturing men’s SMV comparative to their wives’ will almost always be an order of magnitude above that of their wives’. As I laid out in Preventive Medicine, at this stage of maturity the task for wives becomes one of keeping that husband in the dark about his real SMV status; the concern being his sexual disinterest in her and him coming to a realization of his SMV and he leaves her for ‘younger, hotter, tighter’. Whether this is an actual threat is often inconsequential – unless that guy is so thoroughly Beta and ridiculous he’ll overtly acknowledge it – what occurs at this phase of a woman’s maturity is either a passive form of Dread or a feeling of regret for not having better optimized Hypergamy for herself so late in life.

Most men (i.e. Blue Pill Betas) never make this connection and blunder through their peak SMV years with a wife whose late-life competition anxiety sounds like nagging most of the time, or else it’s a possessive Frame grab with the latent purpose of keeping him focused on “her needs” rather than coming to understand he’s in the best position to capitalize on his SMV in his lifetime. This is actually part of the Blue Pill, feminine-correct plan for maintaining an optimal Hypergamy (or at least the impression of it) for women.

I’ve mentioned countless times on this blog that men’s peak SMV years are generally around the age of 34-38 depending upon how well he’s established himself in a variety of ways that contribute to it. As Red Pill awareness grows I (hopefully) expect more men will be able to capitalize on their moment of clarity as well as use this peak moment to enjoy and choose what’s best for themselves and their futures with regards to women. When men reach this peak it is generally a point at which women are also at their most necessitous (i.e. the Epiphany Phase). This simple matter of logistics also contributes to that man’s peak SMV in the form of making his commitment a valued commodity – presuming he’s built himself into that peak in the years prior to it.

My hope would be that men simply forestall any and all monogamous commitment until this phase, but for the men who find themselves in this peak phase while married, it is the most opportune time in which you can push the envelope with your wife from a Red Pill perspective. One grave error I think Athol Kay has made is in his “mindful attraction plan” – a feminized, feminine-correct watering down of his previous version’s attraction plan – his emphasis is to not go too overt or exaggerate a husbands SMV or make a Red Pill Alpha impression so threatening that it causes dread in his wife. I would argue that this is precisely what he needs to inculcate in his wife, and particularly if, up until this phase, she’s firmly dictated the Frame of their relationship since marriage.

I should add that this advice isn’t meant as some form of punishment or a big ‘get even’ with a man’s wife, but rather, a man pressing his SMV advantage at this point, to the point of instilling dread, will form a more solid attachment with his dominant Frame being the primary one – which is something his wife has likely craved for their marriage since the outset.

What YaReally (probably inadvertently) is revealing here is that women of lower SMV are far easier to attract and keep attracted than high (peak) SMV women. As women age that SMV advantage decreases, but the majority of men – and particularly married Beta men – still believe that their older wives and lower SMV women require the same or more attention to maintain that attraction.

Feminine-primary social conventions build this into a man’s Blue Pill conditioning so he believes that a marriage “always requires a lot of work” before and after he’s been married. This is why Athol’s Blue Pill advice of not overdoing the Alpha is so in error; it proceeds from the same sentiment that women need security during the part of a man’s life where he’s at his SMV peak and she’s at her most necessitous. A man’s “Burden of Performance” is then distorted by the Feminine Imperative to be defined as how well he will can quell his wife’s insecurities about him being in the best SMV status of his life.

Pop culture likes to call this effect “wife goggles”, but that’s a euphemism for how feminine-primary social conventions have conditioned men to feel a need to pander to their wife’s insecurity. In doing so they self-defeat any positive effect that this natural dread would benefit him and his relationship with his wife. If a man makes a conscious choice to limit himself in the phase of his life where he can best capitalize on his peak SMV this lifts the burden of a woman being the focus of him having to do so to make her feel secure.

And all of this has been about married men; feminine-primary social conventions have a whole set of social dictates intended to get a single man in this phase of life to willfully limit his own options. This is why we get shaming tactics and presumptions of ego-centrism for men in this demographic. This is why they’re called commit-o-phobes; because the hope is that these men will feel some measure of inappropriateness about their natural sexual impulses and choose an older women as a choice of mate. A woman who, again, is at her most necessitous and insecure about her future in the SMP or her long term prospectives.

For Better or Worse

betterorworse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instant Gratification

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

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

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

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

The Open Hypergamy Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary LTRs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalling for Time

stalled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Real Reason Women are Freezing their Eggs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How’s that for an interesting social cycle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advancing Gender Dynamics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Losing My Religion

fem-christ

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating Religion in the Image of the Feminine Imperative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religious men will be synonymous with a Beta mindset.

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

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

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

SeventiesJason from Dalrock’s blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Culture Informs Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trust Issues

I was driving with a friend of mine and his wife to a promo last month. The parking at this particular gig was packed so it made sense to take one car and as I sat in the back seat I observed the behaviors and connected them to the conversation his wife and he were having while we drove. He was driving as well as any other guy I know; observant, careful, efficient, casual, basically a good driver, I didn’t even give his driving much mind. However, judging from the nervousness and fidgety behavioral tics of his wife you’d think he was drunk and reckless.

She clung tightly to the “oh shit” handle you see above the passenger-side window in most SUVs today. Her body language was one of fear trying to maintain polite composure, but every time we’d slow for traffic or a stop she would gesture with her hands as if she were bracing herself for impact. She simply did not trust her husband in the driver’s seat. She’d insist he switch lanes miles ahead of a turn so as to be ready to make the turn, or she’d coyly ask him to slow down when we were on the highway.

I see this a lot in couples where the power dynamic is one where the woman is the tacit authority of the relationship. These two were a textbook example. The buzz word term for it is ‘passive aggressive’ behavior, but that behavior is prompted by a root-level influence of women’s security need. My friend, being the Beta he is, made every attempt to calm his wife’s fears by accommodating her passive (and some not so passive) posturing and requests. It still wasn’t enough. She simply doesn’t trust the man she’s been married to for 10 years with her safety – regardless of his actions.

Now, from a Red Pill perspective, it’s important to bear in mind that women are always looking for an emotional rush whether positive or negative. I detail this in Indignation but in the absence of indignation, women will actively create it for themselves. Any PUA worth his salt knows that leaving an emotional impression on a woman is a key to seduction. Some men can do this effortlessly and often unaware depending on the social context and circumstances he surrounds himself with. These are guys we think are ‘naturals’ even though the learning process and the trial, error, reward mechanisms of it for him are just an internalized part of his personality. However, making this emotional impression can be learned, expressed ‘naturally’ and it can be internalized.

When we look at the dual nature of Hypergamy we tend to focus primarily on the Alpha Fucks side of women’s sexual strategy. For obvious reasons, it’s the part guys tend to have the most interest in, and since seduction is the key to STRs and LTRs, it’s also the part guys need to develop most. It’s tough for most Blue Pill men to behave counter to what their conditioning has taught them. Just like my friend’s driving here, most guys believe that comfort, trust, rapport, friendship, appeasement, and generally self-sacrificing are what’s at the heart of a good relationship. All of course based on the mystical “open communication” trope.

Selfish vs Self-Interest

Vox Day had an interesting back and forth with Kitten Holiday about this dynamic this weekend:

For men who’ve been conditioned to believe that the key to success with women is to play nice and solve women’s problems for them with patient understanding, suggesting selfishness is attractive to women is counterintuitive. However, agreeableness and humility in men have been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners. So is it selfishness that makes a guy attractive or arousing?

I’ve suggested in the past that it is actually men who dare to place themselves at the center of their lives who make the most significant emotional impact upon women. This emotional impression is a byproduct of men who make themselves their first priority and when this prioritization becomes an internalized second nature to a man we say that he’s made himself his Mental Point of Origin.

I’m clarifying this here because it’s easy to conflate ‘enlightened self-interest’ with “selfishness”. A common criticism among the MGTOW set is that a man investing himself into anything with the express purpose of attracting women is vanity or wasted effort. However, it’s defining the point where this personal investment in oneself crosses over into having the effect of being an attractive trait to women that needs some more clarification. I covered this in Crisis of Motive, and unfortunately, it’s a line that’s subjective to the man who’s invested himself in virtually anything that uniquely benefits him and is attractive/arousing for women.

So we have two countermanding imperatives here. Men are conditioned, personally and publicly, to believe that niceness, comfort, and trust are the keys to success with women (whom we are told will have an affinity and appreciation for it). All of these Blue Pill qualities are pro-social attributes, yet in practice, in the real world, we observe men with anti-social, ‘selfish’ interest are rewarded with women’s attention. Self-interested men make a more significant emotional impression.

When we contrast this with the two aspects of women’s sexual strategy we see that the Blue Pill (pro-social) traits align with the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy, while the ‘selfish’ (anti-social) aspects align with the arousing Alpha Fucks desires of women. For the Blue Pill invested man, it’s baffling to see how ‘selfish’ men are rewarded with intimacy, genuine desire, and sex. What they lack is a complete understanding of women’s dual sexual natures.

“So I gotta be an asshole to get women to notice me? Chicks really dig jerks?”

I’ve been reading this response from newly unplugged nice guys for as long as I’ve been writing. It’s the binary response I’ve come to expect from guys still on the fence with regard to Red Pill awareness, but it goes back to the negative associations they have with making themselves their own mental point of origin. It’s ‘selfishness’ not self-interest and this is exactly the opposite of what they’ve been taught will resolve problems for them.

This then comes back to my first point about women’s need for security. I’ve been married for over 20 years now, and for as good a marriage as I have, I still have my doubts that Mrs. T trusts me implicitly with her life.

It’s ironic because I actually saved her life when we were first married. There was a very swift moving river we used to walk our dogs along when we lived in Tahoe. It was spring and the river was high from snowmelt runoff, and it was cold – as in take your breath away before you’re paralyzed cold. One of our dogs had spied a few ducks on the opposite side of the river and bolted into it to go after them. About half way across he realizes it was a stupid idea and turns back. He couldn’t make it and the river swept him downstream. We both ran down the river after him to a point where he’d pass and Mrs. T jumped in to catch him. She goes numb in seconds, but she caught the dog by the collar. I know I’m going to have to go in to get them now so I prep in my head what to do. I get in now and grab the dog and bodily throw him up on the steep bank. Then I do the same with Mrs. T right before the water is so cold I can barely move. I managed to grab a large tree root in the bank I’d seen earlier to haul myself out.

In spite of that very memorable event, I’m not sure I have my wife’s implicit trust in this respect. I know that sounds bad, but even after all of that, there was no acknowledged appreciation for it. I was just doing what a man is expected to do. In many other aspects, I have my wife’s trust, but I wonder if the want for an emotional impression isn’t buffered by a need for security.

In my friend’s case, this lack of trust is manifested in his wife’s demeanor and interactions with him. The more Beta the man a woman’s paired herself with the more evident her need for security becomes a part of their relationship. Remember that security comes in many different forms. It’s entirely possible for a dutiful Beta to be a great provider, but still not be trusted with his decision making or his capacity to protect his woman from harm.

Women today are already raised to never put their trust in men as it is. Men are at best lovable buffoons, at worst untrustworthy incorrigible players. Popular culture directs women to only rely on themselves, to only trust in their own, implicitly correct decisions and directions – and then absolve them of any negative consequence of those decisions. Thus, we have several generations of women who claim the authority role in their LTRs and relegate their men to only marginally trusted companions.

All of that said, I would suggest that men opt to not concern themselves with so-called “trust issues” with women. Women’s feral nature is founded in Hypergamy and part of that nature will always be to doubt the quality of the man she’s paired herself with. It may seem ‘selfish’, but placing yourself as your first priority will be far more appreciated and accepted than a man attempting to endlessly earn the trust from a woman that can only be temporal at best. Your lack of concern over her status of trusting you will have much more impact than trying to appease her for it.

Beta men are endlessly told that a woman’s trust and rapport, her comfort level with a guy, is essential to her being intimate or sexual, or having a good relationship. Those are the guys who feel the sting the most when they see a woman at her feral best fuck the hot guy she met the same night who made a significant emotional impression on her. The guy who invested his interests in himself and she happened to be along for his ride.

Trust is just a convenient term used by women to vet for Beta men. ‘Trust’ only amounts to a list of prerequisites and rules for a Beta who believes it’s his duty to fulfill them, which are never an afterthought for women with more Alpha men.