Operative Social Conventions

The Abdication Imperative

Rationalmale regular and all-around red pill evangelist MikeC had an interesting Matrix experience recently. This comment was drawn from yesterday’s Respect post:

“This is another socialized manifestation of hypergamy: the man must always perform for her, ***always qualify to her.***“

Yup….I actually got engaged over the weekend, and when we got back in town we visited her parents. Me and her on one couch, her parents on the other, and I have a friendly relationship with them (her Mom loves me).

Anyways, we were talking some plans and stuff, and her Dad chimed in about getting used to just saying “Yes, dear”….”Yes, honey”, etc. First thing that popped into my head was the femcentric thinking involved. I didn’t think it was the time or place to call that out for the crap that it is…but I didn’t need to as both myself and my fiancee chimed in at the same time that our relationship isn’t one where she calls the shots and I just go along with it.

It truly is mind-boggling. It almost seems like at some point, a mass brainwashing took place that instilled in men that to “RESPECT” women you simply had to go along with whatever they wanted to say or do in that moment.

[Congrats Mike, and I mean that sincerely since I know you have your roots planted firmly in positive masculinity and Game-awareness. RT]

I was listening to a local talk radio show on my commute home last Friday and a caller tells the hosts that he’s getting married for the first time over the Memorial Day weekend. After all the ubiquitous congratulation, he petitions for advice from the show’s hosts as well as any listeners who call or text or IM into the show.

I can’t say as I was surprised, but predictably, every guy who dropped some words of wisdom couched it in exactly this “just say ‘Yes Dear’ to anything she asks, she’s always right” mass groupthink. “Happy wife equals happy life” was literally what at least 5 of these guys called in or texted to say. Everything after this was autonomously, automatically implying that a husband’s primary duty in a marriage was to ‘keep her happy’. “Make sure you get to all the things on her Honey – Do list and you’ll be alright” was another caller’s advice intoned in a voice that sounded as if he were telling a new arrival at Auschwitz of how best to survive in the camp.

Last week I wrote about how the Unplugged become progressively more sensitive to the group-speak of the Matrix, and MikeC’s experience is a a textbook example of this. However, it’s one thing to identify the code in the Matrix, but it’s quite another to see the latent purposes behind the memes, the clichés and the idioms that the PluggedIn take for common sense.

Hypergamy and Cognitive Function

As MikeC astutely highlighted from Respect, Men’s preoccupation with performance is a direct psychologically, sociologically evolved response to qualifying for women’s hypergamy. Perhaps the most important reason women’s primary drive revolves around security-seeking is due to hypergamy, by definition, being an inherently insecure proposition. In fact so insecure is feminine hypergamy in principle that it was necessary for women to evolve psychological fail-safe schemas on the subconscious level (i.e. involuntary shit tests).

In general, when a psychological dynamic is pressed into the limbic, involuntary, subconscious level of our psyche’s, it’s primarily due to that dynamic requiring too much mental attention for our conscious minds to process effectively and maintain a cognitive awareness of other dynamics, stimulus, etc. in our environment that require our more immediate attention. Mother Nature has evolved humans with a wonderful ability to muti-task our awarenesses, but there are limits to how much information a person can process efficiently before that psyche becomes overwhelmed. Taken to the extreme this processing overload has potentially life threatening and species survival implications. Thus these processes that would overwhelm our conscious cognitive abilities are relegated to our peripheral awareness and/or pressed down to a subconscious / preconscious level.

This then is the mental realm of feminine hypergamy. When Roissy writes about women’s hindbrains or imagination/rationalization hamsters, this is the conceptual, psychological region from whence they issue. It’s easier to think of hypergamy – and its manifestations such as shit tests – in terms of breathing. We can control our breathing when we think of it, but when our mental attention is required elsewhere our autonomous nervous system takes over and we breath on autopilot until such time as we become aware of that breathing. Whether we are under stress or running a marathon, that autonomous system kicks in to allow us to focus on more important stimuli. So too is it with hypergamy – women are aware of it, and may adress it consciously, but more often hypergamy is pushed into women’s peripheral consciousness to allow them to focus on other stimuli.

The Abdication Imperative

Hypergamy is rooted in doubt. Hypergamy is an inherently insecure system that constantly tests, assesses, retests and reassesses for optimal reproductive options, long-term provisioning, parental investment, and offspring and personal protection viability in a potential mate. Even under the most secure of prospects hypergamy still doubts. The evolutionary function of this incessant doubt would be a selected-for survival instinct, but the process of hypergamy’s assessment requires too much mental effort to be entirely relegated to women’s subconscious. Social imperatives had to be instituted not only to better facilitate the hypergamous process, but also to reassure the feminine that men were already socially pre-programmed to align with that process.

In an era when women’s sexual selection has been given exclusive control to the feminine, in an age when hypergamy has been loosed upon the world en force, social conventions had to be established to better silence the doubt that hypergamy makes women even more acutely aware of. And nowhere is this doubt more pronounced than in the confines of a monogamous commitment intended to last a lifetime. Thus we have the preconception “Happy Wife equals Happy Life” pre-programmed into both gender’s collective social consciousness. It’s as if to say “It’s OK Hypergamy, everything’s gonna be alright because we all believe that women should be the default authority in any relationship.”

When you disassemble any operative feminine social convention, on its most base, instinctive level the convention’s latent purpose is to facilitate and pacify hypergamy.

As I covered in Hypergamy doesn’t care,.. it isn’t enough to profess love, promise support, exemplify dedication, etc., no, in a social context hypergamy demands a total pre-abdication of authority. Hypergamy wants social assurances before it makes a decision it has to live with. And even under the condition of total contrition hypergamy will not be pacified, but feminization, since the sexual revolution, has defined society in hypergamic terms, and that imperative will insist that the general populace internalize that “Happy Wife equals Happy Life.”

Respect

I can remember a period in my 20s when I heard countless times “Rollo, you need to / you don’t respect women” from both women and (who I thought at the time were) men as if by saying this to me I would stop wanting to hook up with the strippers, groupies and club girls I was getting with then. In hindsight it’s interesting to see how my dalliances with less than ‘pristine’ women elicited such a shaming tactic. The 2012 Rollo knows the ‘respect’ ploy for what it is now; a social convention which attempts to disqualify a guy’s personal/sexual experiences as being less than ‘quality’ in comparison to the personally identified ‘quality’ they hope to embody.

It’s comedy of course to conflate genuine respect with a person’s character – that may sound odd at first, but I personally know (and you probably do too) some truly despicable people who I nonetheless have a respect for, if not an admiration of. Respecting one’s enemy is a hallmark of a learned Man.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

From the late 80’s into the mid-90’s I didn’t give much thought to it, but I do remember thinking how odd it was that women were entitled to my respect by default. I never heard anyone, male or female, ever tell a woman that they “needed to respect men”. There was never an onus on women to respect men by default.

Now, of course I think we’d agree that men must earn respect from each other and from women. However, from a very young age boys, at least by and large, are taught never to hit a girl, watch your language, carry her books, respect HER, but there is no opposite dynamic for women. This is another socialized manifestation of hypergamy: the man must always perform for her, always qualify to her. For her, everything is fair game; kick him in the nuts if he cross the line. Obviously I’m referencing things from a traditional standpoint, but now extrapolate this into modern culture where single mothers and emasculated men cover the cultural landscape. Even in traditional Latin cultures where women tend to prefer masculine men, it’s not formally taught to them to respect men. Their respect is reserved for the men who qualify for it.

Masculine Respect

So this is my point, women don’t respect men, or rather, they don’t respect the masculine – and most certainly don’t have a default respect for it. They’re taught to be adversarial, not cooperative. Women are taught to relinquish respect, and then only begrudgingly when a man has proven his quality beyond the reach of most men. Masculinity is popularly ridiculed in western culture as it is, but to respect a man is to compete with him, to out-masculine him. Cooperation or even recognizing that the genders could be complimentary is viewed at best as antiquated, at worst, sublimation to the male imperative.

I should also add that I don’t think this dynamic is limited to the Daddy-Issues strippers or coed sluts. I’ve personally known very well standing, church going puritanical women, who’d cringe to be called a feminist, parroting back the very ideologies, practicing the behaviors and subscribing to the mindset (albeit in different context) of disrespecting the masculine. They were just as loud and just as obnoxious about it as any girl in Panama Beach, Florida on spring break.

Over There

Part of my job is to travel. I’m in Europe (Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and France) generally twice a year. I can say I’ve noticed pronounced differences in demeanor among women there in contrast to American women. I live in the U.S. so I’m not going to pretend I know everything about women in different countries. Neither have I banged any woman in a foreign country, but I am a keen observer of behavior. I’m not sure it’s necessarily an ethnic issue per se, but certainly a cultural one. I’ve been to Aruba, Guatemala and Panama, and from a Latin perspective I don’t see these women as any more reserved than American women, however they have a definite masculine expectation for their Men. A Man has to live up to being a Man in Panamanian culture, that’s a baseline expectation, but respect is something different.

I think that the double standard guys will run into in pointing out “how American women are” with regard to respect is that they’ll be accused of not being Man enough to handle respect them. You’ll get the standard “powerful women are a threat to men’s egos” line implying that women in other countries are ‘less powerful’ due to weak men preferring them. So the Catch 22 becomes a guy being dominant enough to master her as being the abuser, and the one pointing out her flaws being the whiney bitch who needs to man-up. Then we come full circle and see default respect for what it is – an element of the male Catch 22. To be considered a Man he must respect women (boys don’t respect women), but to be a Man he mustn’t be afraid to disrespect women.

And as with all no-win social conventions, it’s always best to err on the side of appearing too dominant than to accommodating.

Chick Crack

Of all the strippers I’d ‘dated’ in the past every one subscribed to some form of non-mainstream spiritualism. This girl Angie I used to bang kept Tarot cards in her pink lady’s devotional Bible, another professed to be a psychic; in fact the only people I’ve ever known who self-seriously wanted me to believe they were in fact psychic were all women.

These types look for that connection in a guy. For instance I bought a little silver yin-yang ring that I’ve worn for almost 18 years now when I was in college. I don’t really have any eastern mystic beliefs, I just bought it from a street vendor when I felt I needed a reminder to keep balance in my life. But damned if I didn’t have (and still do) more women point it out and ask me about it, and have it be some karmic conversation starter since I got it. The thing is tiny, but that’s what they gravitate to.

For the stripper set this seems to be par for the course, but I wish I could say this chick-crack phenomenon was limited to just women who had some vacuous spiritual/emotional hole in their lives to fill. No, all women (yes I said all) are predisposed to the intrigue that metaphysical imaginings sparks in them. If it smacks of secret, covert knowledge, privy only to a chosen few, then you’ve got an attentive listener in a woman. UFOs, palm reading (always a classic), psychic premonition, ‘gifts of prophecy’, really anything that hints at knowledge beyond the ordinary is fair game. Chick Crack is not just limited to off-brand spiritualisms either, you’ll find that far more women than men will develop (conveniently) an affinity for, and are more invested in, religion than men.

Feminine Mythology

Women’s natural pull towards the mysterious and metaphysical has its roots in the sex’s historical characterizations. In keeping with the very useful associations of women’s unknowability and feminine mystique, it’s perhaps unsurprising that we find most mythologized representations of women and femininity cast as brooding, fickle, rapacious and often as a temptress, possessing secret knowledge that foolish men (the mere mortals) are neither capable of, nor encouraged to understand. Sometimes childlike, often conveniently eroticized, women are literally cast as forces of nature – whether sexualized nymphs or tempestuous witches, each characterization relies on women possessing some form of secret or forbidden connection to the metaphysical. Even the commanding presence of Joan of Arc, while leading the armies of France, had a connection to something otherworldly. By their very nature, feminine mythology, by default, presumes women are more in tune with the nature of reality, while surpassing the ignorance of brutish men.

Women revel in their mythology. Since covert forms of communication are the preferred language of women, their affinity for secret information is a natural fit. Ever wonder why gossip seems to be uniquely endemic to women? Look no further than women’s innate impulse to acquire secret knowledge. Take away the Vampires and Werewolves – the metaphysical component – from the Twilight series and what you’re left with is a relatively bland romance novel. Add the otherworldly and you have a runaway hit popular with every female age demographic, from tweens to octogenarians.

In women’s evolutionary past, concealment meant everything. Confusing a man as to the true genetic heritage of his children was often a matter of life or death. Pursuing pluralistic sexual strategies depends upon creating a characterization of women as legitimately unknowable, thus the feminine mystique is instituted. Ergo, the sociological PR campaign over the course of millennia has been to perpetuate the mystery of woman.

Doing Crack

If it weren’t so predictable, it would almost be ironic that one of the first useful Game observations PUAs made about feminine nature was their tendency to entertain magical thinking to varying degrees. It wasn’t too hard to figure out that women could be engaged more easily if you started an approach topic, at least playfully, regarding some metaphysical belief. The association is one where (albeit disingenuously) a Man would seem ‘in the know’ about something a woman has a private belief about, thus establishing a point of identification that both would otherwise want to keep secret. Currently the most popular (at least in the circle of women I know) metaphysical concept is actually called The Secret. On the surface of it it’s sheer idiocy, but you’d be surprised how thoroughly the feminine has embraced this new age Jabez Prayer.

Single + Hot = Crazy

I heard this theory come up on a local radio talk show this morning. The idea is basically for men to be wary of exceptionally hot women who are chronically single. The point being that a hot woman ought to be more likely to be monogamous by virtue of her easy ability to attract guys, but if she is constantly single that it’s indicative of emotional / psychological issues that prevent her from getting involved, or deters men in spite of her beauty (i.e. pump & dump-able but not LTR material).

I’ve experienced this phenomenon played out in the past, but I was wondering what other’s takes on it was.

From our Game-aware side of the equation we can certainly see the logic of this, but for men, to be single, childless and never married after 30 carries a social stigma. Of course they’re presumptions, but how many times have your married friends attempted to set you up with a girl who they think has LTR / Marriage potential for you when you’re single? You’re either a workaholic, status seeking, a latent homosexual or must have some other personality flaw if you’re not following “life’s plan” (see, fem-centrism’s plan) like everyone else. In fact in some respects being married (or at least in a serious LTR) serves as social proof of a certain degree of maturity that might be beneficial for a guy in his career. At the very least it encourages the perception that you’re not gay, irresponsible or overly status seeking and family oriented, irrespective of the actual truth.

Now, that’s as it applies to Men; I’m not so sure that it benefits women as much. We can play the career woman meme and forgive her for not being married and childless, and she garners a relative respect because “she’s fighting her way up the corporate ladder to break the glass ceiling in a world controlled by men” so the Matrix respects that personal sacrifice. In fact if she’s a single parent or married we afford her that much more respect because she’s “doing it all” and at a perceived disadvantage. But, is all this girl-power acceptance really masking what would otherwise be considered a retardation in maturity?

It’s socially acceptable to shame a man for being a ‘kidult’ if he hasn’t gotten with life’s program – he has an underlying maturity problem – but for women, bucking the ‘program’ is evidence of integrity and independence. This begs the question, if she’s attractive enough to retain male attention, but has never solidified a monogamous relationship is there something wrong with her?

The Hot Ones are Crazy

That’s all about the career driven people, but what I was getting at is, is there a corollary between an average woman’s attractiveness, her being perpetually unable to establish a healthy LTR and a personality disorder or mental imbalance? Maybe using the term “chronically single” was a bit of a misnomer. What I mean is an otherwise healthy, dating, attractive woman who, for whatever reason, has been unable to establish a long term connection with a guy. That may be due to men becoming wary of her, or by her own inability to make a lasting connection due to her own insecurities, or by attention whoring. Essentially, is an HB 9 who’s never been in a healthy LTR by age 30 a woman that men should wary of? Is it a red flag?

If you asked 100 different women whether the degree of attractiveness was corollary with how mentally balanced a woman is, my guess is that you’d get answers biased by how relatively attractive each woman was. This is similar to how most very attractive women aren’t as bothered by sexualization in varying degrees as they become less and less so. In other words the HB5 will rail against sexism of skimpy bikinis and beauty pageants, while the HB10 could care less. It serves the less attractive women’s imperative to disqualify more attractive women’s chances of taking the men they’d want to pair with. This is competitive hypergamy 101. So the gorgeous blonde HB10 with huge tits is automatically cast as a bimbo. Women would like nothing more than for a high value men to think of more attractive, chronically single women to be considered damaged goods.

The Maninstitute has a great breakdown of The Hot/Crazy Scale

The Savior Schema

“Every time a man is being nice to you, he’s offering dick. That’s all it is. ‘Uh, can I get that for ya? How ’bout some dick? Can I help you with that? Can I help you with some dick? Do you need some dick?’ ” – Chris Rock

The Savior Schema – the beta male expectation of reciprocation of intimacy (usually sexual) for problems solved.

This is a learned/developed behavior that results from men’s natural push to deductively search for the most rational solution to a problem. It’s really a linear logic; I need sex + women have sex + I must discover what is required for me to get sex from women + I will perform/embody/identify with said requirements = woman will reciprocate with her intimacy. Needless to say this is simplistic at best, but men have a tendency to believe that women will respond as rationally as they themselves would in qualifying for her stated desires. The manosphere is full of men who can tell you this simply isn’t the case for any number of reasons, but sadly they still think that women ought to live up to their implied “agreement.”

The fundamental flaw of the Savior Schema (also, Captain Save a Ho) is that it is essentially negotiated intimacy, and negotiated intimacy is never genuine. You can fix a woman’s flat tire, help her out of a financial jam, fix her a nice lasagne, give her the perfect shoulder to cry on, take care of her kids and listen to her drone on for hours on the phone, and she’ll still go fuck her outlaw biker boyfriend because her intimacy with him is genuine, unnegotiated, unobligated desire. She wants to have sex with him, she doesn’t owe him sex.

What AFCs fail to understand is that all the financial, emotional, dependable support you could possibly offer a woman is no substitute for raw, unmitigated, chemical desire. Some of the most irresponsible, unreliable, poverty level washouts often get more sex than any dutiful AFC suffering from a Savior Schema, because there is no obligation.

Reciprocity

In the wild, the law of reciprocity and fair exchange is a fairly obvious one. Most high-order social animals have some innate understanding of exchanging resources. In fact you could argue that pair bonding, family structure and social collectives are for the most part based on this shared exchange arrangement. So it stands to reason that in the course of human evolution we too developed this innate psychological wiring, thus making men prone to seeing it as the shortest distance between what we have and what we want.

The difficulties arise when (perhaps cleverly) women learned to covertly use this  innate psychology of exchange within the context of a social framework that gives them a resource advantage for little or no exchange of their own. Thus women modeled a social norm, that mirrors men’s natural default position of disposability, and put their attentions and intimacies as unassailable resources so valuable that no effort on a man’s part can merit it. When a woman is appalled by the notion that she should be obligated to have sex with a man in exchange for a dinner and a movie (even over multiple occasions), this social convention is the root of that insult.

The Protector Dynamic

Of course the flip side to this argument is the Protector Dynamic which is the natural propensity for a man to want to provide protection for his mate. Over the course of our evolutionary history certain psycho-biological behaviors proved to be beneficial to the survival of our species. Specific hormonal releases prompt different emotions and behavioral reactions as a response to our environments. Women, for instance, produce higher volumes of oxytocin and estrogen thus prompting a natural instinctual feeling of wellbeing and nurturing her children (which also, interestingly enough, is released after female orgasm). The same is true for men. Being generally physically stronger and posessing 17 times the testosterone, men have evolved chemical cocktails of their own and thus feel a natural protection instinct when prompted.

The conflict comes when the AFC confuses this Protector Dynamic with a Savior Schema. The natural feelings derived from his biochemistry only serve to reinforce his Savior mentality and solidify it as part of his personality. Even when a woman’s repeated behavior directly contradicts this notion of reciprocating intimacy for help (or his idea of ‘protection’) the Savior Schema only rationalizes it as being inconsistent with a single, individual woman.

This then is the root of the White Knight schema; exchange protection for intimacy (i.e. sex). And, once again, women cleverly, almost subconsciously so, use this dynamic to arrange a beneficial, but unequal, exchange of resources.

You Be the Boy

The following is a poem by Marie Howe that I recently became aware of from an NPR ‘Fresh Air’ interview:

Practicing

BY MARIE HOWE

I want to write a love poem for the girls I kissed in seventh grade,
a song for what we did on the floor in the basement

of somebody’s parents’ house, a hymn for what we didn’t say but thought:That feels good or I like that, when we learned how to open each other’s mouths

how to move our tongues to make somebody moan. We called it practicing, and one was the boy, and we paired off—maybe six or eight girls—and turned out

the lights and kissed and kissed until we were stoned on kisses, and lifted our nightgowns or let the straps drop, and, Now you be the boy:

concrete floor, sleeping bag or couch, playroom, game room, train room, laundry. Linda’s basement was like a boat with booths and portholes

instead of windows. Gloria’s father had a bar downstairs with stools that spun, plush carpeting. We kissed each other’s throats.

We sucked each other’s breasts, and we left marks, and never spoke of it upstairs outdoors, in daylight, not once. We did it, and it was

practicing, and slept, sprawled so our legs still locked or crossed, a hand still lost in someone’s hair . . . and we grew up and hardly mentioned who

the first kiss really was—a girl like us, still sticky with moisturizer we’d shared in the bathroom. I want to write a song

for that thick silence in the dark, and the first pure thrill of unreluctant desire, just before we’d made ourselves stop.

Before you get titillated by this or think “WTF Rollo?” read the poem again. Despite reader compliments, I wish I could say I was more of a poetry aficionado; and yes Howe fits the man-jawed, womyn’s studies archetype to the letter, but after hearing this I had to look up the poem and read it for myself to really get the message. This is a message that I’m not even sure if Howe is really aware of, or intended communicating – You be the boy.

I’ve written in the past about sexual fluidity and the brilliance of it becoming the redefined, reinvented social convention du jour of feminization. I say ‘brilliant’ because it so deftly and conveniently places the inadequacies of its ideology on the backs of the men who wont (really can’t) play along in affirming women’s primacy. Men’s evolved biological predilections and sexual strategies simply refuse to be unengineered into complying with feminized utopian ideals. This has always been the bugbear of feminism. Empowered single mommies can raise a boy to pee sitting down, to leave the toilet seat down, but he still finds he has a natural compulsion to want to take a piss standing up, and seat be damned. It takes half a lifetime of psychological conditioning to repress the male sexual experience.

Similarly, sexual fluidity doctrine also gives the aging spinster a new outlook in her post-Wall years. “Never mind that men wont man up to our your mythologized standards, it appears you’ve been a lesbian all these long years and didn’t know it! But don’t worry, masculinized lesbians make for better ‘men’ than men.”

From Sexual Fluidity:

If you read through the article Why Women are Leaving Men for Other Women, you can’t help but notice the commonalities of the testimonies coming from otherwise feminine women being attracted to more dominant, masculine women. Often these come from long married-with-children women who’ve divorced their beta husbands in favor of a more dominant, butch, Alpha lesbian.

Ironically—or not, as some might argue—it is certain “masculine” qualities that draw many straight-labeled women to female partners; that, in combination with emotional connection, intimacy, and intensity.

“Men can’t understand why I want to be with Jack, a lesbian, when I could be with a biological man,” says Gomez-Barris. “And at first I thought it would be threatening, but I have a rebellious spirit. He’s powerful, accomplished, and appealing. And in some ways, the experience is better than in heterosexual sex.

So what are we seeing here? Heterosexual women, still crave the masculine dominance that men cannot or will not provide her.

Uncle Roosh has an uncanny knack for posting complimentary articles around the same time I’m contemplating a topic, and this offering was no exception. One thing his study on Eastern European women seems to have a consensus on is a lack of masculinity in feminized men (see: American Betas). Roosh’s article provides an interesting contrast to the sexual fluidity convention in illustrating a natural dominant/submissive dynamic that is an in-born imperative for women.

Hypergamy prompts a natural contradiction for women – security and provisioning versus sexual impulse and genetic preselection – this is the root of women’s evolved pluralistic sexual strategies, get the Alpha seed, get the long term provisioning. In the past I’ve gone into detail outlining the innate compulsion women have for desiring security (and parental investment) in the long term, but I think the idea of what represents security to women needs a better explanation.

Case Study

My friend Dave was a stereotypical beta chump and his shrew of a wife was the typical ballbusting so-con feminist who was only too willing to browbeat reminders of it into him constantly. In other respects Dave was a great guy, the sole provider for his family, a great handyman who renovated his home with his own hands (he even built me a nice wood guitar rack for my guitars), but to anyone who’d see him and his wife together it was clear that he was on the receiving end of what I’d consider borderline abuse. He essentially married his mother, who was also a domineering bitch over his father, which is ironic since his wife was already a single mother of two boys when they wed. They had a single daughter who, in her teenage years, took her cues from her mother and picked up the browbeating when mom wasn’t available.

Yet for all the domineering and all the derision she was so comfortable in laying on Dave, she would rip into anyone who would think he was less than a man. She could call him a pussy, but anyone saying the same would be met with a list of his manly credits to such a degree that you’d hardly think you were talking about the same person in the room. She would defend his manliness with the same zeal she had in abusing it. For all of Dave’s wife’s invectives she couldn’t allow anyone to think that the man she was paired with was anything less than the ideal of manhood. On some level of consciousness she wanted him to be dominante even if that meant she had to manufacture the appearance of it for people who knew them.

You be the Boy

The impetus that brought this post about has been the recent discussion thread about Rational reader Ted D’s situation at home. He’s been stuck for some time over at Hooking Up Beta, but his story, and others like it are all too common in a fem-centric socialization that encourages equalism in favor of complimentarianism. It’s the triumph of blank slate ideology that men should be shamed out of a natural position of dominance that women’s own in-born need for security has need for. It’s tragic that it’s been conditioned to the the point that men have internalized equalism to such an extent that the desire to assume a necessary position of dominance, even a marginal position of guidance or leadership is equated with a tyranny. Even the word ‘dominance’ is conflated with power and control in a negative context.

From the first Iron Rule of Tomassi:

What these men failed to realize is that frame, like power, abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of the frame security a woman naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide that security for herself. Thus we have the commonality of cuckold and submissive men in westernized culture, while women do the bills, earn the money, make the decisions, authorize their husband’s actions and deliver punishments. The woman is seeking the security that the man she pair-bonded with cannot or will not provide.

There is no such thing as egalitarian equality. Even for homosexuals, there is a dominant and submissive partner. It doesn’t make one an evil controller, nor the other a complacent doormat, it’s just that someone has to drive the car. Either you trust that person to drive or you take that control away from them. Someone has to be the boy.

Power abhors a vacuum, if you are unable or unwilling to be in control of the frame, a woman’s innate need for security will compel her to control it for you – in spite of her subconscious need for you to be the boy. You can be the Dom or the Sub, just know that you’ll only be the Sub for as long as it takes her to find a Dom to drive the car. This is the paradox of Hypergamy; that her desire for the best genetic/provisional partner would conflict with his ability to dominate her, all while professing a desire for equality masquerading as control just in case he can’t or wont take the driver’s seat.

Is There Anything Good About Men?

As I am flying off to Las Vegas for the WSWA show today, my blog posting may be getting a bit more sparse next week. To hold readers over for a bit I wanted to drop a quick post on an article I read back in 2007 that wasn’t very well received by the fem-centric establishment, but is nonetheless one of the seminal articles I think should be required reading for (especially young) Men.

I thought this was brilliant. I think this message is severely lacking in how we raise boys into Men. There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and masculine respect. Jews have a Bar Mitzvah, certain native American tribes had similar traditions, etc. I think that if there’s a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it – we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when it’s due.

There’s been a lot made of feminist triumphalism recently and how the new gender paradigm is challenging hypergamy, at least in the sense that it applies to women’s imperatives being the cultural imperatives – not the inescapable, bio-evolutionary kind of hypergamy. If momma aint haaaappy, well the whole damn world shouldn’t be haaaappy. This may be rather depressing news for average men, but after reading  Roy F. Baumeister’s fantastic piece you might actually begin to understand the lies fem-centrism is selling you with a little more optimism.

I look forward to the comment discussion.

Is there anything good about men?

The Burden of Control

One of the primary ideas I’ve offered since starting this blog is that of the socially insaturating influence of the feminine imperative. I’ve even dedicated a particular category for it on my sidebar. It’s a recurring theme for my outlook on gender relations because I believe it’s the environment we subconsciously accept as the default. Women of course have little reason to question the primacy of their own imperative when it serves them, and men are less willing to analyze the social fabric they exist in if it intuitively means they might be rejected for intimacy, sex and social affirmation. Unplugging from the feminine Matrix takes an act of will.

I euphemise this environment at times when I refer to the details and social conventions of the imperative as “girl-world“, and often I think that readers may interpret the rise of fem-centrism as something unique to the late 20th century up to the present. And while it’s certain that 3rd wave feminism was the catalyst for the present day “girl-world” society we find ourselves in, I don’t think that it adequately accounts for the prime, directive motive that the feminine imperative demands, and has demanded since before our present feminization.

That prime motivation is control.

Risk vs. Security

It’s easy to simply pass off this feminine need for control as a grab for power, and to an extent that may be true, but this would be interpreting that need from a male perspective. Men tend to want power; power over others, and their own lives, to affirm status, esteem, affluence, etc. From a female perspective, there may be a minority of women who crave male power, but the vast majority seek control in terms of satisfying an innate need for their security. For women, security comes in many different varieties, financial, emotional, self-worth, etc., but their need for control is rooted in minimizing the risk and uncertainty associated with achieving that security.

Through a combination of testosterone and evolved neural wiring, Men thrive and grow in risk taking endeavors – we have a propensity for behaviors that are rewarded in risk. We will go to great lengths in order to take risks. Women’s primary impulse is to avoid risk; being the primary vehicles through which the next generation will pass and be nurtured it’s logical that women’s neural software and biochemistry be evolved for risk aversion. In seeking security, women developed their own set of uniquely evolved propensities for security. Ergo, they became the sex with the better developed capacity for communication, after a need for determining the most secure decisions available to them.

With the catalyst of the sexual revolution, the power dynamic shifted to the feminine imperative in a way it never had before in society. Once freed from the old societal norms, women were encouraged by the feminine (and their new found male sympathizers) to pursue their independence as they saw fit, but what generations of women did with this new freedom was more vigorously pursue what hundreds of thousands of years of evolved psychology had designed in them – to consolidate their own security.

Every law men see as blatantly misandrist from marriage to divorce, alimony to child custody, employment to sexual harassment and more, are primarily rooted in women’s inborn need for security. Virtually every feminine social convention is designed for women to consolidate on a long term security for themselves. Security is their reason for control. If they can control for the options, control the risk management, control the preconditions of their decisions-to-be, they can more definitively consolidate on their security need. Girl-world, our modern, fem-centric society molded by the feminine imperative, was founded on making a better environment for women to exercise this control in order to better facilitate their security motive.

Every browbeaten husband who’s abdicated his frame to appease his wife does so because she doesn’t trust him with controlling for her security. Encouraged for generations to be the self-sufficient, independent woman, and combined with generation of masculine ridicule, she predetermines for herself that men cannot be trusted to provide for her security. In order to meet this need she must take the reigns as a precondition for any marriage or pairing in spite of her wanting a man to do so.

Men are shamed for not being the men women expect them to be because they seem incapable of providing for their security. In girl-world this is the preconceived norm, men wont do it so we have to.

Rewriting Evolution

However the confounding element in this push for feminine control is Men’s influence and cooperation with their imperative. I took a lot of heat for declaring that Men define what is sexy for women. In girl-world this is an affront; women need to control men’s desires in order to make them compliant to their overall security need. Hypergamy can’t function efficiently if men are allowed to define women’s value in the sexual market place. That need for control is aggravated by men’s biologically hard-wired predisposition to prefer women THEY find sexy. Solution? Rewrite the societal rules for what men are allowed to find sexy. Thus we have a fem-centric societal push to encourage men to care about “what’s on the inside” and define their physical attraction cues as “superficial” and “shallow”. It’s the height of the feminine imperative’s arrogance and solipsism to think that it can rewrite the environmental cues for men evolved over centuries.

Entitlement

Feminine entitlement is a topic of much rancor in the manosphere, but one element I think is lacking in that discourse is the role that the feminine security need plays in it. Feminine entitlement is an extension of this need for control – men should owe women the security that their provisioning affords them, and they’re mad about it. In a recent post on In Mala Fide, Ferdinand details the lastest entitlement push for this feminine control – the new ‘dating’ site,

Tawkify.

The basic premise is an overt illustration of exactly the one-sided need for security control women feel entitled to have with men. The premise?

You give the site your name, phone number and email. After getting a code from a robocall, you fill out ten questions — your age, your state, your sex etc. — and upload your photo. Then you select whether you want one match or three (the former costs $8, the latter $15), pay via PayPal, and that’s it. The site’s owners will personally match you to someone based on the info you’ve provided and you’ll get a seven-minute long phone call from them the following Monday.

The kicker is that no woman is expected to tender a picture of herself for the man’s benefit. His interest is dependent entirely on the controlling factor of the ‘matchmaker’ and her determination of his acceptability. And what was the motivation for starting this service?

THE WOMEN ARE IRATE. The women are talking about men, young men, the men they’d like to date and marry, and are they ever pissed. Here’s what they’re saying:

“All they want is sex. They don’t care about relationships.”

“They’re so lazy.”

“All they do is play video games.”

“They aren’t men. They’re boys.”

The women are a little bewildered. They’re good girls. They followed the script: did well in high school, got into college, worked hard there, got out, got jobs, started looking around for someone special to share life with, and …

“I met a guy the other night. Good-looking, smart. Twenty-eight years old. He still lives at home. With his mom.” Young men are now nearly twice as likely as young women to live with their parents; 59 percent of guys ages 18 to 24 and 19 percent of 25-to-34-year-olds live at home. Based on those Census Bureau stats, 64,000 young Philly men have returned to or never left the nest—and they all have mothers, ex-girlfriends, grandmothers, dads and other friends and relations worrying about their plight.

Essentially the site’s founder, E. Jean Carroll, has taken the Kate Bolick / Kay Hymowitz ‘Man-Up’ model of dating in the new masculine paradigm to the next level – simultaneously monetizing women’s insecurities about male ‘Kidults’, reinforcing feminine security entitlement and absolving women of the decisions they made that put them into this new dating paradigm. Bottom line, Carroll is selling hypothetical dates with “real” men with the means to provide the security that women are owed them. And once again the theme repeats itself; men can’t be trusted to provide for your security ladies, so Carroll will do it for you