Parenting

Family Integrity

As most of my readers know I have my third book in the Rational Male series coming up soon (very soon, promise). When I began this new book I had an initial working title – The Rational Male, The Red Pill – however, as I progressed I shifted this to Positive Masculinity. I spoke briefly about this in my last two interviews, but there came a point in my compiling, writing and editing where I’d taken a different path in the purpose of the new book. Where I had wanted to explain and / or defend the initial, intersexual, definition of what the term ‘Red Pill‘ has increasingly been distorted away from, I found myself leaning more into expressing ways in which this Red Pill awareness could benefit men’s lives in many ways in and apart from intersexual dynamics.

I’d hit on this in my Red Pill Parenting series from a couple years ago and I knew I wanted to revisit and make that series a prominent part of the book. As it sits now, it accounts for a full quarter of the book’s content, but as I moved into my writing more I decided that the best way to really define ‘The Red Pill” as I know it was to go into the various ways men might benefit from redefining masculinity for themselves in a conventional, Red Pill aware sense.

When I finished the parenting section I realized that I was really laying out general, if not prescriptive, ideas for ways men might better raise their sons and daughters in a feminine-primary social order that’s determined to condition them. My purpose with both the series and section was to equip fathers with Red Pill aware considerations in making their sons and daughters Red Pill aware themselves in order to challenge a world that increasingly wants to convince us that fathers’ influence is superfluous or dangerous.

It was from this point that I’d made a connection; what I was doing was laying out a much-needed reckoning of sorts with regard to what conventional, positive masculinity might mean to future generations of Red Pill aware men. Since my time on the SoSuave forums and the inception of this blog I’ve used the term positive masculinity. I’ve even had a category for it on my side bar since I began too. From the time I began writing I’ve always felt a need to vindicate positive, conventional masculinity and separate it from the deliberately distorted “toxic” masculinity that the Village of the Feminine Imperative would have us believe is endemic today.

In Vulnerability I described this deliberate, but calculated, confusion thusly:

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

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

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

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself.

From my very earliest writing I’ve always seen a need to correct this intentionally distorted perception of masculinity with true, evolved, biologically and psychologically inherited aspects of conventional masculinity.

As you may guess this isn’t an easy an task when a Red Pill man must fight against many different varieties of this masculine distortion. We live in an age where any expression of conventional masculinity is conflated with bullying or ‘hyper-masculinity‘. The Blue Pill teaches that inherent strength ought not to be considered “masculine”, if a boy acts in a conventionally masculine way he’s to be sedated, and boys as young as four can decide their gender to the extent that doctors are chemically altering their physiologies to block hormones and transition them into (binary) girls.

To the Blue Pill Village, a definition of masculinity is either something very obscure, subjective and arbitrary or it’s something extraordinarily dangerous, ridiculous and toxic. As I said, even the most marginal displays of anything conventionally masculine are exaggerated as some barbaric hazing ritual or smacks of hyper, over the top displays of machismo. With so much spite arrayed against masculinity, and with such an arbitrary lack of guidance in whatever might pass for a form of masculinity that feminine-primary society might ever find acceptable, is there anything positive about the masculine at all?

There is only one conclusion we can come to after so much writing on the wall – there is a war on conventional masculinity that’s been going on in progressive western societies for generations now.

I found it very hard to describe what exactly a Positive Masculinity  might mean to Red Pill aware men. One of the more insidious ways that Blue Pill conditioning effectively neuters masculinity is in the recruiting of men to effect their own emasculation. Usually these men themselves have had no real guidance in, or embrace of, conventional masculinity precisely because this Blue Pill conditioning has robbed them of maturing into an understanding of it. Blue Pill fathers raise Blue Pill sons and the process repeats, but in that process is the insurance that Blue Pill sons are denied an education in what it means to be a man.

Thus, we get masculine apologists like The Good Man Project who think ‘real’ masculinity can be found in an egalitarian parity between men and women – rather than our evolved, complementary gender roles. This is a manifestation of years of gender-loathing indoctrination. If men would just apologize for their maleness and all the negative aspects that it’s characterized and defined by, all can be made well. These are the Nice Guys who are accused of using their niceness as a ploy to win over women’s sexual favor. These are the male feminists, who never acknowledge that they are, but who still place the “divinity of the feminine” above their own self-loathed gender identity.

Next we get the men who are all made of honorable intent. These are the guys for whom a rational, firm, no-nonsense appeal to a woman’s reason should be enough to not only convince her of his quality, but he expects her attraction to be based on it. These are largely Red Pill aware men who still hope that old books virtue is something they might parlay into some form of attraction with women.

These tend to be the long game kind of men. When a guy is given to aspirations of virtuousness-as-game they’re generally cut from Beta cloth. I’m very familiar with this from my younger days. I too believed in the Boy Scout 12 point law: a scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. In and of themselves these are noble aspirations, and ones that an old books / old social contract rightly endorsed. The problem is that none of them translate into an ounce of arousal for women.

Dean Abbot tweeted this recently:

I would argue that since the rise of our feminine-primary social order and the dissolution of the family in terms of conventional (and evolved) gender roles, even with a family, men have little idea of the impact their influence makes. As I’ve written before, women fundamentally lack the capacity to ever appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate a woman’s reality. Few, if any, women understand just how their lives are made possible by the ceaseless efforts men make directly or indirectly to ensure their safety, provisioning, security, ambitions and support. This is only exacerbated in a social order that entitles, coddles and overemphasizes women as the gender whose imperatives define our social context.

Family isn’t what defines men’s virtue or integrity, ideally it ought to be a result of it. However, I tend not to deal in “what ought to be” on this blog, I deal in what is. The fact remains that Virtue is only valued and estimated by men on an individual basis.

“There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

A lot of well-meaning Red Pill aware men want the old order, old books noble aspects of men to have a reinvigorated worth today. As we make Red Pill awareness applicable in a broader perspective in men’s lives we get to an impasse over what a ‘legitimate’ use of that knowledge ought to be. I believe we get a couple of extreme positions in this respect. I touched on this in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaining the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;

“Yeah, OK, you got us, Game is really what women want, hypergamy is the law of womankind, but now it’s your responsibility that you use it for the better benefit of society by molding a new breed of improved Betas to accommodate fem-centric monogamy. You owe us our security for having admitted to the grand illusion that’s kept you in thrall for so long.”

It’s an indictment of Game-aware women, and sympathizing men, that they should feel a need to delineate some aspects of Game into good camps (pro woman, pro feminized monogamy) and bad camps (manipulative, polygynous, male-centered). Even in the admission of the truth that Game has enlightened Men of, the feminine imperative still seeks to categorize the application of Game to its own end. That Men might have some means of access to their own sexual strategy is too terrible a Threat; Game must be colored good or bad as it concerns the imperatives of women and a fem-centric societal norm.

I think it’s important that we not allow ourselves to fall into a similar trap with regards delineating what is appropriate use of the Red Pill advantage we have. This isn’t an endorsement for or against ethics in the Red Pill – I’ve already written that post – but it is to emphasize that I think objectivity should precede any pretense to what may or may not be on or off limits in Game or Red Pill awareness.

The Red Pill Moralist

On one end of the spectrum we get men who’ve accepted Red Pill awareness and the truths it presents as a guiding influence to varying degrees. I think it’s a mistake to think the Red Pill moralists are always an ‘Old Married Guy’ who wants to justify his decision to ‘do the right thing’ (no matter how disastrous his personal outcome may be). There are an increasing number of younger idealists who believe the Red Pill aware man has a civic duty to use that awareness in an ethical way that promotes the reinstitution of the conventional family. That may be a noble cause, but I don’t think it should be a straightjacket for Red Pill objectivity.

For the Red Pill Moralist, proper application of the Red Pill is to use that knowledge to vet women for a marriage suitability and a prospective family. With full knowledge of the inherent downsides and liability risks of modern marriage, the moralist takes it as his masculine duty now for the future to still assume the “sucker’s bet”. Needless to say this masculine social-sacrificial position seems more like men running back to the plantation of marriage for unresolved Blue Pill rationales, but I would argue that in a post-Red Pill awareness the belief is that a strong, dominant Red Pill aware Frame control can make the difference to offset the overwhelming risks. The core notion is that reestablishing the conventional family as a man’s civic duty warrants the almost certain prospect of a man’s own detriment.

The moralists have a tendency to disdain or moralize any other application of Red Pill awareness that would facilitate a self-serving or hedonistic purpose. Usually this comes after their living their own lives hedonistically, but also because they were “awakened while married” or just post-horrible divorce. This mirrors a Trad-Con position of encouraging men to “Man-Up” and volunteer for their own fleecing and disdaining the trappings of anything that doesn’t serve women’s imperatives for their own lives – but again as a kind of self-imposed noble duty of masculinity.

This is the flip-side of moralist’s position might be the self-serving use of the Red Pill solely for individual pleasure or gain. This is characterized by the PUA, Game-is-all, guy whose only purpose ends with himself. To the moralist, this use of Red Pill awareness is furthering the destruction of a family archetype that seems to be a solution to societal decay. The Rational Male comment threads are no stranger to the debates of PUAs whose pass or fail, Alpha or Beta benchmark for success rides on what would likely be considered sitting poolside while the world burns.

The last hurdle most men still refuse to get over is that they want women to meet them half way because, despite their Red Pill awareness, they still believe in egalitarian equalism. The most intelligent men still think that women use the same operating system that men do. They don’t, and that’s why these otherwise great men fail with regard to their approach to women. They believe women have the functional capacity to understand men’s motives as if they were any rational being’s motives and agree and comply with them. They simply do not, but unlearning the programming that women should have the capacity to reach some mutually acceptable bargain between men and women’s sexual imperatives is something intelligent men can’t seem to factor.

In Moral to the Manosphere I wrote this:

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should’ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to fuck just for the sake of fucking – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning. If you think it means something more, then that’s your own subjective perspective – even in marriage there’s ‘maintenance sex’ and there’s memorable, significant sex – but it’s a mistake to think that the totality of the physical act must be of some cosmic significance.

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.

While I do think that whatever becomes the Red Pill family unit needs to have some structure similar to that of conventional gender roles, I think it’s important to understand that the new Red Pill ‘family’ will live or die by men’s capacity to accept and apply their awareness of intersexual dynamics. This is one very important difference between an idealized, pre-sexual revolution family and what will evolve in a post-feminist social awareness.

Pickup, Game, really the use of any aspect of Red Pill awareness that isn’t bent to the reconstitution of what I assume would be a Red Pill family unit, is an illegitimate use in the moralist perspective. I think this also goes too far in that Red Pill awareness shouldn’t be limited to what anyone might consider a pro-social purpose for it. Much of what I go into in the parenting section of the new book centers strongly on a man, a father, a husband applying his broader understanding of intersexual dynamics to create a better marriage and family for himself; but I think it needs to be said that all of that Red Pill awareness comes to those men courtesy of the hedonists who wanted to simply crack the code of how to get laid. Too much of either will lead to an imbalance.

Transitioning

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

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

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

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

The Village

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

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

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

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

Useful Tools – Blue Pill Fathers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Preferred Gender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olivia was born a boy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Something Else

workaholic

New commenter batfish55 had a stroke of genius in this weeks post.

 I do blow hours on my XBox, but even if modern graphics weren’t amazing and there was no XBox, I’d find something else.

This is exactly what male-feminist concern troll bloggers and ‘Man Up and Marry those Sluts’ Pastors refuse to understand because it completely fucks up their feminine-centric rationales and ham-fisted Beta AMOGing attempts to shame men for the disincentives that their ‘perfect women’ represent to men. The constant drone is how video games are to blame for paralyzing men’s maturation – a maturation that is always merited by how well he serves the Feminine Imperative.

What they refuse to acknowledge is: If it wasn’t X-Box it would be something else.

Countless guys do this already, because on some level of consciousness they get that the cost-to-benefit equation isn’t rewarding with women. As I wind my way through the third book, I’ve read through countless articles written by thoroughly feminized men, all shaking their heads over the reasons for the generation of “Lost Boys” who are so inured by the instant gratification of hi-res graphic video games and free online porn they have no incentive to ‘grow up’ and fulfill some nebulous form of manhood idealized by whatever shifting definition of masculinity their feminized minds think is relevant in that moment.

These hacks are so fundamentally locked into their ego-investment in blank-slate, gender-neutral equalism that it never registers for them that if it weren’t X-Box or widely available online porn it would be something else.

Thus, we have generations of Men in the Garage who feel some desperate need to claw out a tiny space where they’re free to be men in a home they own. These men need something else that’s just marginally rewarding set apart from their unrewarding spouse. And even in this attempt at Male Space, women feel entitled to insert themselves into it or do something compensatory.

Thus, we have married men who’d rather become “workaholics” and pour themselves into their careers rather than rush home to the minimal reward that his wife represents, the negligible appreciation for him as a man or, at best, his answering to the male indenturement that he was taught he should find intrinsically rewarding. Instead, work becomes his something else that he occupies himself with.

And thus, we have men who’ve bought into the feminine-primary conditioning that their highest sense of reward ought to be found in fulfilling the ideals of Fempowerment who instead find that women’s solipsism and their own, life-long approach to appeasing it has instead driven them to find that something else more intrinsically and/or extrinsically rewarding.

It’s not just “lost boys” staring at X-Box, smoking weed and snapping their radish to free porn, those are just young guys being pragmatic in solving the cost-to-reward equation women give them. But married men, men of all walks of life, are solving that equation for themselves now. They’re forced to solve an equation presented to them by women who feel entitled to having their Hypergamous natures optimized and appeased, with no insight as to how disposable men might adapt to their conditions.

These aren’t lost ‘boys’, they are mature, relatively accomplished men responding to their condition.

Men are deductive problem solvers. Our mental firmware will consciously or unconsciously make attempts to solve problems within the context of what we consciously or unconsciously have presented for us. Blue Pill conditioned bloggers, distraught over the ‘lost boys’, aren’t concerned with these guys’ making something of themselves. What they White Knight over is the lack of suitable husbands to join them in their own indenturement. That, or they fret over the possibility that their empowered daughters might not have a suitable Beta ready to marry her once she’s “found herself” at the end of the Epiphany Phase. They argue from the feminine-correct perspective they’ve only ever known. Complacency, like misery, loves company, especially when it confirms the rationales men use in their own denial.

These pearl-clutching Vichy men can’t see the disincentives of forming long-term monogamous bonds with women that their ‘drop out’ generation boys are just pragmatically avoiding. It is indeed a form of Soft MGTOW, but what’s harder for these manginas to acknowledge is the Soft MGTOW that’s been a part of modern marriage for four decades now.

As an aside here I should mention that a foundational tenet of the Red Pill is that a man must always put himself and his passions at the forefront of his life, or as Roissy put it, you shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority. The something else I’m detailing here may in fact be a man’s genuine passion, but his impetus to engage (or over-engage) in it comes as a result of a need for escapism rather than genuine fervor for it. This is an important distinction because what formerly was a dynamic passion for a man can turn into an unrewarding refuge if his perception of it becomes one of escaping his reality.

Market Reset?

Reader Kaminsky had a question in that same comment thread:

How do we incentivize them? (honest question, not loaded snark)

—Do we incentivize by withdrawing?

—Or by becoming yet better men?

I sought to answer this question in Spare the Rod, but I neglected to use the examples from my post Bachelor Nation in that one. This was the video I based the Bachelor Nation essay on.

I’d like to think of this as an example of the sexual market correcting itself, but when you listen to the self-important, solipsistic reasonings as to why these women believe the most desirable men ought to alter their own sexual strategies, change their minds, and rewire their arousal cues to accommodate sub-optimal women such as themselves, you begin to see why MGTOW, even soft MGTOW is a pragmatic response.

The logic of today goes something like this: Alphas change behavior, women respond and Betas follow along to women’s response.

I would argue that Alphas change behavior, women do or do not adapt, and then Betas follow the dictates of the sexual market. Whether you consider them Alpha or in some way marginally desirable by the women in this video these men have taken it upon themselves to find their something else.

In this video you have an example of men who both withdraw and make themselves better men (even if just by assuming some degree of control over their place in the SMP), but the attitude on the part of women isn’t, “Oh shit, we’d better make ourselves more acceptable mates for these desirable men or they’ll outsource us to Brazil.” Instead it’s the same entitled response we expect from women raised in a feminine-primary social order, “These men betterchange to accommodate us! It’s our game they need to play or they’ll be ass-out when they get older and lonely.” It’s this or else it’s some variation of “I make my own damn money” and they end up with the hapless Beta who would accommodate her because he too was raised to fall in line with feminine-primacy.

In all honesty I think correcting women has to begin at home. It needs to come from Red Pill fathers raising daughters from a Red Pill aware perspective. It’s got to come from a bottom up methodology, and quite honestly I don’t think that can happen until more men become Red Pill aware and accept their new role of mentoring the next generations as well as unplugging Blue Pill men today.

We have a generation of women today who are the products of fempowerment and ‘participation trophy’ equalism. That they’d EVER need to self-correct in order to have a better man in their lives is never an afterthought. Look at the women in this video, they are genuinely shocked that guys would be independent enough to save their money and take it upon themselves to look for romantic options outside of their ‘approved’ roles that ought to be in their lives. They literally don’t get it, so they fall back on male shaming and call them ‘sex tourists’ which is one degree away from ‘human trafficking’.

These women are the products of the oblivious entitlement that’s come from a feminine-primary social upbringing that’s taught them women can do anything and be anything. They’re taught to expect men to be compliant with their sexual strategies, but yet be their SMV equal-or-better without any qualifications on their part other than to have a vagina.

I believe the market can correct itself, but it must come from the bottom up and that starts by raising daughters and mentoring young women into more realistic self-understanding and more realistic expectations from themselves and others. I can hear the cries of “well good fuckin’ luck with that”, but at some stage Red Pill aware men will need to have the courage to go against the fempowerement zeitgeist. While encouraging boys to become girls is lauded in today’s world I also understand that encouraging girls to be even marginally realistic or to recognize the realities that their gender necessitates they be concerned with is this side of child abuse.

If women are to be corrected it’s going to need to begin with Red Pill fathers educating their daughters from an early age. If not, their daughters will find a generation of young men who are already looking for something else before she meets them.

The Princess Experience

‘Fallen Princesses’ –  photographer Dina Goldstein

Children of Men

david

In last week’s comment thread, we were linked to a study that purported cuckoldry is far rarer than previously suspected. While I and many others are skeptical of the methodology of the findings I think it’s far more telling about the state of the Feminine Imperative that such a “study” (really meta-study) would be so triumphantly emphasized in the femosphere, thus highlighting the latent purpose for such a study to begin with.

Culum Straun links it for us:

New research suggests that the percentage of men (unknowingly) raising children who aren’t their own is only around 1-2%, as opposed to the 10-30% figure previously accepted over decades.

Reasons are unclear – the first hypothesis was that birth control may have reduced the *pregnancy* rates of women but not the infidelity rate – but apparently the 1-2% figure holds steady going back centuries, so that can’t be it.

The study authors conclude that in all probability the benefits of “superior genes” are outweighed by the risks of being caught and the social stigma etc.

I’d be really interested in seeing what you guys think – is this information that needs to be used to revise our view of the world around us, or is there some flaw in the reasoning/logic leading to 1-2%? The most obvious thing I can see is that we don’t know the methodologies of the underlying studies which were combined to find the meta survey..

I found it interesting that the first reflexive from the femosphere was to wave this in the air as if it were some kind of vindication or a refutation of Hypergamy. “See guys? We don’t actually lie about paternity; if we marry and fuck you we statistically have your kids.”

It’s important to remember that the definition they are exploring here is one where men are “unknowingly” raising the progeny of another man. From the article:

This challenges evolutionary psychologists who have suggested that human women “routinely ‘shop around’ for good genes by engaging in extra-pair copulation to obtain genetic benefits.”

They conveniently ignore the genomic evidence that shows roughly 80% of women bred with 20% of men in our evolutionary past (including Neanderthals), but the basis of the study is flawed because they ask the wrong question. Whether or not the women in our evolutionary past were pair-bonded in whatever social arrangement that passed for institutional monogamy at the time is functionally irrelevant to the latent purpose of cuckoldry.

It does, however, expose the mental point of origin of author . If she had cited the source for her quote I’d be less skeptical because no evo-psych researcher worth their salt would presume that women exclusively seek better genetic stock while within a pair-bonded relationship. It’s an indictment of the openness with which women embrace Hypergamy that they’d still need a janitor to sweep its ugliness back under the rug occasionally.

For the greater part of evo-psych research, the emphasis of study has centered on biological and evolutionary motivators (Estrus) that prompt women to Hypergamous predispositions and the end-purpose implied in women fulfilling their sexual strategy.

The Ends of Cuckoldry

The term “cuckoldry” isn’t strictly confined to duplicitous women duping husbands/boyfriends into believing the kid is theirs when it’s some other guy’s. Consider the marked increase in single motherhood since the Sexual Revolution; the statistic for abortion, the declining marriage rate and the fact that now, in westernized society, and the majority of births (close to 60%) are born to unwed mothers.

Now consider the social imperatives and zeitgeist of the past 70 years that promote women’s Hypergamous choices to the point that every woman’s sexual strategy and breeding choices are legislatively mandated to be supported. Men are mandated to support women’s breeding imperatives both directly and indirectly. Is that not the end purpose of cuckoldry?

Cuckoldry is implicative of far more than this woman’s narrow definition. And it’s narrow because women like Newitz are selling a salve to misdirect men in a larger society from considering that their cuckolding is really by and of their own volition. This is because men have been conditioned over the course of successive generations to think they are some kind of hero for ‘saving’ a woman from her own breeding decisions by directly or indirectly forgiving indiscretions and supporting and raising a child he didn’t father.

Just because a man knows the child isn’t his own doesn’t make it any less cuckoldry.

The question that needs to be asked, and is conveniently avoided in the article, is “what is the latent, evolutionarily motivated purpose of cuckoldry that would best serve women’s dualistic sexual strategy?” This is the uncomfortable question those nefarious evo-psych researchers really ask.

In the past, duplicitous, concealed, cuckoldry was a very risky prospect from a social perspective. It could mean family/tribal ostracism or even being stoned to death. So the larger, most deductively efficient way to achieve the same Hypergamous ends of cuckoldry is to reengineer a society where men are either ignorant of their own role in that cuckoldry or provided social rewards for their knowing participation in a socially acceptable form of cuckoldry. The latter is where we’ve progressed since the Sexual Revolution.

The ends remain the same, but it is cuckoldry by a different name. When we can restructure a social order that accepts and excuses both proactive and retroactive cuckoldry before the fact, we normalize it and defuse the consequences for women, while holding men accountable for its consequences or their unwillingness to participate in it. And even when a woman aborts a child – the ultimate confirmation of Hypergamous disapproval – that social order pre-approves her choice, pre-approves holding her unaccountable for it and concurrently makes the men who would find fault in it villains for judging her pre-approved act.

Sons of Cuckolds

Reader Petherton linked me to a fascinating article which not only illustrates that Hypergamy was an issue for the Greatest Generation, but also details the wages of ‘secret’ cuckoldry. Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill’s last private secretary after taking a DNA test to prove his paternity.

Petherton:

This is a perfect example of women’s hypergamous nature. She rides the cock carousel and gets impregnated by an Alpha who’s already taken. She quickly marries a Beta who is hovering in the background and cuckolds him. He never unplugs, she loses respect for him (if there ever was any in the 1st place) and he drinks himself to an early death.

Eventually the truth comes out. Instead of taking responsibility for her actions, she paints herself as a victim. The pregnancy is blamed on alcohol, and she successfully generates pity from everyone. In fact she generates admiration from everyone for her brave and successful fight against alcoholism, and for putting up with an alcoholic husband.

No one anywhere suggests the truth: that she had a strategy (whether conscious or subconscious) to find the best genes for her offspring, while fooling another man into providing for that offspring. When she gets busted, she successfully paints herself as the victim. You couldn’t make it up!

Needless to say, I found this article and the blatantly revealed cuckoldry oddly karmic in its timing coinciding with the “cuckoldry” study’s release. However, we should now consider the Arch Bishop’s response to his mother’s proveable cuckoldry of his “father”.

“His deepest identity isn’t about which man was his father, but who his heavenly Father is.”

This is exactly the diplomatic response I’d expect from men (albeit a religious one in this instance) steeped in a feminine-primary social order and conditioned from birth to affirm his Blue Pill existence. While egalitarianism is ostensibly about baseline equalism and “it’s what’s on the inside that counts”, on the outside, there is no better social mandate that serves the evolutionary ends of Hypergamy. The Arch Bishop’s response to his mother’s cuckoldry is a textbook example of how the Feminine Imperative conditions men to excuse, affirm and perpetuate its ends.

He said the right thing.

From Schedules of Mating:

Cheating
For this dynamic, and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to ‘cheat’. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively.

In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in a extramarital or extra-pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That’s not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action of infidelity itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is (or was) capable of supplying.

Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dilema. This form of ‘cheating’ relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.

I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously constructed and recognized master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather, the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying social rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. For the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to its influence. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she’s able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring’s survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.

The Cuckold
On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women’s justifications for it. Or, they become frustrated by the social pressures to ‘do the right thing’, are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed to a feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to steer clear of single mothers, either by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for – no matter how involved or uninvolved – another man’s successful reproduction efforts with this woman.

Men often fall into the role of the proactive or reactive Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mates short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father’s progeny. It could be argued that he may contribute minimally to their welfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man’s genetic stock in exchange for a limited form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contributes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology.

However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to ‘see past’ the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother’s bad decisions (bad from his own interest’s POV) with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. Furthermore, by reinforcing her behavior thusly, he reinforces the social convention for both men and women. It’s important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, soley responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) AND giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgement that decides her and her children’s fate

Who’s the Daddy?

Finally, we complete the cuckoldry trifecta with the Spectator article, Who’s the Daddy. Again, serendipitously, the rationale of this article exposes (perhaps obliviously) the social underpinnings of the Feminine Imperative’s motives in getting men to accept women’s Hypergamous choices as the preeminent social norm.

Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter? You can feel quite as much tenderness for a child you mistakenly think to be yours as for one who is.

[…]Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them.

If the definition of cuckoldry ought to be confined to deceptive duplicity, as AnnaleeNewitz suggests in her article, why then should we need a push to legally mandate men to being accountable fathers by default when they proveably are not?

paternity

Ironically, the very same DNA swab test that betrayed the Arch Bishop’s mother’s cuckoldry is the test  proposes we make illegal or irrelevant in a court of law. And unironically, the Arch Bishop parrots back the mantra of the Feminine Imperative to excuse his own mother’s birth-fraud.

But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice. I’m not sure that many people are much happier for it.

Novaseeker had an excellent comment on this:

From the time paternity tests became more available and reliable, and men started using them to avoid paternity claims, the same argument has been made: it’s bad for the kids. Who cares if he isn’t the bio-dad, fatherhood isn’t about biology, it’s about a parental relationship. We should trust women who determine who the father is, so that she can choose the best man she thinks to be the father, etc., etc. The same arguments have been made for some time. In fact, medical ethicists also make the same arguments, to a large degree, in support of not disclosing non-paternity when it comes up in tests that were not specifically undergone to determine paternity — in other words, if your kid is getting tested for inherited disease, and the hospital finds out that it isn’t your bio kid, they don’t tell you that, for all the reasons stated in the article.

This really is a visceral issue for women. Paternity tests strike at something fundamental in women, even if the actual cuckolding rate remains low: the possibility to cuck, if needed. It’s a visceral issue for women, at a very deep and basic hindbrain level, for fairly clear reasons. If paternity tests were ever to become standard/mandatory at birth, the cucking strategy, even if it is a rather uncommon one, would become completely unavailable, and almost every single woman finds that to be a problem based on her hindbrain (and regardless of how her forebrain will formulate that deep, basic discomfort).

I’ve stated it in the past, but as the Feminine Imperative becomes more comfortable with Open Hypergamy and Open Cuckoldry more men will find its machinations unignorable. Thus, as increasingly more men refuse to participate in the game of their gender’s debasement the imperative must pursue legal mandates and fluid social restructuring to force men to comply with it.

Novaseeker again:

An amazing thing is how easy it is for women to dismiss the significance of biological fatherhood. It’s almost as if it simply doesn’t matter to them.

If that’s not an obvious flag of the FI, and the attendant idea that one sex’s sexual strategy must always impinge on the other sex’s sexual strategy, I don’t know what is. It places zero, zilch, nada importance on the male interest in having genetic progeny — again, it’s as if that interest simply doesn’t exist, and is illegitimate to even take into consideration.

There was a time when I had difficulty explaining the difference between men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept of love. I’ve recently come to see that the best explanations and contrasts come from the openly embraced examples set by women that can’t be ignored.

There is no better example of women’s opportunistic love, indeed, women’s innate solipsistic nature, than the phrase “it shouldn’t matter to the man who the biological father of the child really is – he just needs to accept it and support it.”

And there is no greater evidence of the Feminine Imperative’s purpose than a society structured to ensure that men and women believe this, as well as perpetuate it.

Neofemininity

Left: A child shows off his favorite nightgown. Right: Throughout the weekend make-up is applied, removed and reapplied and wardrobe change is constant.

I’ll admit my reluctance to address anything written by Kevin Powell, but as his most recent CNN pandering to the Feminine Imperative was the Twitter topic du jour in the manosphere this week I thought I’d make a perfunctory stab at it. I’m reluctant to do so because in doing a take-down article I’ll only be preaching to the choir and revisiting many well established topics I’ve covered on The Rational Male for years now.

What convinced me was a conversation I had with Mrs. Tomassi while walking my greyhounds this week. She asked me, “What the hell is wrong with boys these days? The all have no balls. It’s like they want to be girls or something.” We’ve had this discussion before. It usually gets brought up after she’s heard some story about the boys at my daughter’s high school or she sees it first-hand at a football game or some other event.

“Pretty soon, everyone is going to be a woman. Look at Bruce Jenner, “Woman of the Year”?! In the next ten years everyone will be a woman.”

I told her I think ten years might be too long.

When I read male-apologetics like Kevin Powell’s tribute to his own feminine ‘transitioning’ and his efforts at identifying and qualifying to be considered a more ‘perfected man’ in the terms set for him by a feminine-primary social order, it’s not hard to believe that social switch is right around the corner.

A Crisis of Manhood

Masculinity in “crisis” is a hot seller for click-bait articles these days. Women embrace the meme because it offers the tacit prospect of wrangling men into a more definitive control by the Feminine Imperative. Like all popular characterization of conventional masculinity, men have a problem and the cure is to become more like women.

Average men, the ones who make it their sexual strategy to better identify with the feminine, get behind the meme because it offers an easy opportunity to present themselves as the ‘evolved’, not-like-other-guys men they’ve been conditioned to believe women will sexually respond to favorably. Embracing this men-as-problem meme also offers them the opportunity to passively compete intrasexually with the conventionally masculine men then would otherwise never engage.

Before I dig into Powell’s article here I think it’s important to revisit my essay about Vulnerability. Powell’s ego is invested in the ‘strength in weakness’ theme his feminine conditioning has taught him is ennobling and as you read through his pleas for a more feminine-perfected social order he’ll return to it often.

From Vulnerability:

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

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

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

Masculinity and vulnerability are defined by a female-correct concept of what should best serve the Feminine Imperative. That feminine defined masculinity (tough-guy ridiculousness) feeds the need for defining vulnerability as a strength – roll over, show your belly and capitulate to that feminine definition of masculinity – and the cycle perpetuates itself.

[…]Men are ridiculous posers. Men are socialized to wear masks to hide what the Feminine Imperative has decided is their true natures (they’re really girls wearing boy masks). Men’s problems extend from their inability to properly emote like women, and once they are raised better (by women and men who comply with the Feminine Imperative) they can cease being “tough” and get along better with women. That’s the real strength that comes from men’s feminized concept of vulnerability – compliance with the Feminine Imperative.

[…]It’s indictment of the definers of what masculinity ought to be that they still characterize modern masculinity (based on the ‘feels’) as being problematic when for generations our feminine-primary social order has conditioned men to associate that masculinity in as feminine-beneficial a context as women would want.

They still rely on an outdated formula which presumes the male experience is inferior, a sham, in comparison to the female experience, and then presumes to know what the male experience really is and offers feminine-primary solutions for it.

It’s important to understand the machinations in which the Feminine Imperative will define masculinity for men. In order to maintain social preeminence the Feminine Imperative must keep men perpetually confused about what masculinity really is. This is precisely why the “crisis” of masculinity will, deliberately, never be solved to the satisfaction of the imperative. To solve the ‘crisis’ would be to deny the Feminine Imperative a method of ever changing, fluid control over men.

Tail Chasing

Thus we get inquisitive articles or mandatory gatherings to discuss “what is manhood?” In a state of feminine social primacy men discussing new definitions of masculinity is always a proposition of men chasing their own tails, but the ambiguity of that question is a calculated one.

Men are encouraged to continually attempt to answer “what is manhood?”, but the touchy-feely equalist appropriate answer is never one defined by the men asking it; the answer is always provided to them and this is always “whatever serves women the best”. Their confused state is a deliberate perpetual one.

As I stated in Vulnerability the narrative of the Feminine Imperative about masculinity is one that’s based falsehoods. If men define masculinity for themselves, and that definition serves men’s exclusive interests it is equated with posing or a front men falsely wear to mask the real masculinity that feminine primacy has ordained as legitimate.

So even when men collectively compare notes and prioritize their needs and their sexual strategy in the context of a legitimate definition of masculinity, the social narrative of feminism and feminine primacy readily disqualifies it as a being a macho bravado worn by men to cover their real vulnerable sensitive feminine-corrected egos provided for them by the imperative.

One of the ways of determining whether the propaganda you’ve dropped from the planes is sinking into the general populace is that your language, your narrative and your public relations material is willfully being professed by the people you hope to conquer. To say Powell is a Vichy Male wouldn’t do his obliviousness to being so credit. Powell is a testament to the degree to which feminine-primary, feminine-correct thought has saturated into men confused about their own masculinity, and the feminine correct definitions of it he’s ready to evangelize.

Neofemininity

Powell’s ego-investment in his feminine-defined masculinity is glaringly apparent.  To attack his belief is to attack his personality, but it’s important to note that his evangelizing reveals his obliviousness to his Blue Pill conditioning. Powell isn’t making a case for a ‘healthier masculinity’; he’s advocating for men adopting a neo-femininity in place of conventional masculinity. Powell is essentially advocating men become more perfected women and renaming that state “masculinity”.

I knew the guys were not comfortable with these mandatory gatherings, so I started each with a simple question:
What is a man?

Sighs of relief and phrases such as “leader,” “protector,” “caretaker,” “responsible,” “head of the house” fell from their mouths. Each session, I told them that they had just described my single mother and most women I’ve encountered in my life. These young men would grow quiet.

Powell kicks things off here with the blank-slate “men and women are functional equals” I described in Hypergamy Knows Best. This is the same “women are just as good at fathering as any man could be” rationale that reinforces men’s superfluousness with women. However, in doing so he sets the stage for defining masculinity in neo-feminine terms.

I grew up as most heterosexual boys did: I played every sport possible. I learned early on the rite-of-passage of seeing girls as sexual objects, as playthings, as anything except my equal. I fought because boys were taught to fight, be rough, antagonistic, to never show weakness, not even to cry, at least not in public. I digested every kind of pop cultural icon one could name, on television, in movies, in books, in my beloved hip-hop culture, who represented the mighty male figure that armies of us were instructed we must become.

This behavior led to catastrophic results for me. I had no clue how to express a balance of emotions for many years: It was either thunderous silence or raw explosions of rage. I did not know how to give love to myself or women and girls, and by the time I got to college, I merely did what other young males on my campus did: I had sex as casually as I slipped on my jeans and sneakers, and often did not give much thought to the woman on the receiving end. And I eventually pushed a girlfriend, post-college, into a bathroom door as we were arguing, the culmination of years of backward and very warped definitions of manhood imprisoned in pain and trauma.

Powell attempts to frame his case for a neo-feminine definition of masculinity in what are now very clichéd, very expected personal vignettes. It follows the Script.

We have the ostensibly ‘tough’ boy who grew up to be so thanks to a comically stereotypically male acculturation that taught him how to adapt and survive in his environment, but all of which stunted his capacity to balance his emotions. Emotional expression and an overemphasis on understanding emotion (in favor of reason) in men is the hallmark of a social narrative that prioritizes the feminine as the correct social context.

The story continues as expected. The kid who had no positive model of masculinity presented to him has an epiphany, renounces his unhealthy masculinity and adopts a non-toxic feminine-defined ‘healthy masculinity’ that prioritizes women under the auspices of “equality”. Most of his corrupted upbringing of course being the fallout from not having his superfluous father around to instruct him. My guess is Mom wasn’t quite the ‘equal’ of being the man he hoped to equate her with earlier.

Just as the feminist movement in America has challenged male domination in every form, a men’s movement is needed now more than ever before. The movement must be inclusive of males of all ages and backgrounds, rooted in peace, love and healthy definitions of manhood that include viewing women and girls as our equals. It should be a movement that is not in opposition to women, not trying to return to the days of “the rugged man,” but one that makes room for every kind of man possible (including men on the LGBTQ spectrum), where we can be vulnerable, emotionally available, truly free.

This is the crux of Powell’s misinformation. The ideal ‘masculinity’ in Powell’s estimate isn’t one of rugged individualism, but rather one that is more feminine-corrected; one in which a believes that society has progressed to a point where his personal vulnerabilities and emotionalism will not only be appreciated, but a source of intersexual attraction. His ideal simply amounts to a common plea for men to identify with women so thoroughly that they answer the question “what is a man?” with “a better woman.”

That Powell subscribes to egalitarian equalism is a given here, but what he needs to truly grasp is that men and women are not, and never have been functional equals. It’s ironic that he should describe his single mother ‘as a man’ and then go on to tell the story of his misspent masculine youth – he makes the case for necessary complentarianism without even realizing it. While I do agree about the necessity of understanding individuals other than ourselves, Powell never makes the connection that it is men upon whom the onus of understanding women always falls. You will never read deep soul searching testimonials like this from women who look to redefine femininity in ways that better accommodate the emotional health of men.

Caricatures of Masculinity

I undertook this post today because of a story I heard on NPR recently. It was about a tribe of Native Americans (I believe in Montana) who were struggling to preserve their indigenous language. The problem was that most of its native speakers were dying out and there were less than six tribe members who still used the language.

During the late 1800s there was a program instituted by the government that made great, often cruel, efforts to assimilate these Indian children into western society. That meant forbidding them from speaking their native tongue and adopting an American social identity. Being young, the kids had little choice and not the same sense of ethnic belonging to really understand why their parents would resist this assimilation.

I think a similar dynamic has been in effect in western culture with regard to masculinity for over sixty years. It’s come full circle now to the point where ‘men’ like Powell only know the caricatured, ridiculous portrayals of conventional masculinity when they need a convenient straw man to blow down. It’s like Indian children seeing the grotesque cartoon parodies of people of their ethnicity in the movies or media; after the laughter and denigration they come to a point of self-loathing where they gladly embrace the new racial identity that’s prepared for them.

The point of Powell’s article was a plea to more thoroughly assimilate young men into a neo-feminine definition of masculinity. He believes that a re-education of boys would help avert more mass shootings by these same young men.  So invested is he in this narrative that the question of whether doubling-down on the re-education in feminine primacy already in place might in fact be the associative cause of these shootings, men’s 4-times higher rate of suicide or PTSD. This isn’t even an afterthought for him.

To Powell the only cure resides with women. To become more like women is masculinity to him. We will denigrate and admonish the overt sexualization of young girls, but when young boys wish to ‘transition’ into being girls themselves we praise them for it, we celebrate it. Feminine primacy consolidates power by replicating itself in men.

The primary reason I went to the effort of writing the Red Pill Parenting series was to help men stave off the total, ethnocidal-like destruction of any semblance of conventional masculinity by men like Powell bent on replacing it with ‘perfected’, male-embodied femininity. The problem isn’t one of boys adopting toxic masculinity, it’s the institutionalized gender-loathing re-education that Powell so desperately endorses. Neofemininity will be the realm of boys and men in tomorrow’s idealism.

Red Pill Parenting – Part II

Father-Son1

What I’m about to detail here will be a revolutionary act; I’m going to give men some prescriptive advice on how I believe they should go about raising their children from a Red Pill perspective. As most of my readers know I do my best to provide observations and connect dots, from there I expect men (and women) to form their own takes on what I’m seeing and either challenge those observations or develop some actionable practice that best suits their own circumstances.

I’ll be breaking that protocol here, but the premise still applies; what I think might be universally applicable to raising and mentoring the next generation may need to be modified for what your experience and circumstances dictate.

That said, the very idea that I would inform or instruct men (and by association women) on how I think a healthier, more durable generation of men might be developed in a Red Pill awareness is tantamount to being a hate crime today. My suggesting that boys and girls would benefit greatly from a Red Pill aware father is a frightening, seditionary act in a feminine-primary social order.

As things stand on a societal level now, just the mention of Red Pill truths in casual conversation will engender either ridicule or hostility. As Red Pill awareness spreads it will be considered subversive, particularly in a social order founded on the Feminine Imperative and feminine-primary social prioritization.

I don’t have too much positive to say about Roosh these days, but one thing I had to agree with was his recent assessment of how it’s necessary for men to meet in secret gatherings and maintain (as best as possible) a state of constant anonymity if they wish to discuss anything counter to feminine-primary social doctrine. Main stream media in feminine-primary society will characterize this need for anonymity as indicative of cowardice or a lack of conviction; bitter men just contenting themselves in their private anger and poisoning the minds of whomever will listen to them.

They need this characterization for now because men have something to lose. They fear having their bread taken away from them – the same bread that feminine-primary society expects men to provide the very women who would use it to extort a desired complacency from men. Cowardice is rooted in the fear of having something to lose. Once men become largely indifferent to that bread being forthcoming, that’s either when they snap, or that’s when they start a revolution.

ScribblerG (a.k.a. Glenn) had a good reminder for men in the last thread:

Being a dad isn’t all that great in many ways these days. At best it’s mostly thankless, but for most men they are fathering into a culture that denigrates them, laughs at them and is hagiographic of motherhood. If you think this won’t effect how your children see you as a father, you are fucking kidding yourself.

I used to ride the train back and forth to the city – leaving my home at 6:30 in the morning and returning at 7:30 or later, wondering if my daughter would ever realize all I sacrificed to provide for her and her mom? I’d wonder if she’d ever get that I sacrificed being as close to her as her mother is to her for her wellbeing? That her closeness with her mom as a result of having a stay at home mom until she was 5 was a consequence of my efforts, not her Mom’s?

Guess what – nobody wants to hear it. Nobody gives a shit what sacrifices you make to be a good father and provider – it’s all about Mom. It’s all about the kids. Dad’s are at best seen as second best Moms most of the time. And even when we are “in charge”, we can be dismissed as superfluous in myriad ways.

Many men adapt by becoming second mothers and wives in the household – and the entire culture encourages this. Try being a traditional male at parent teacher night or at the pre-school or even the Boy Scout troop…Fatherhood and a family is not what it once was either. Trust me, learn from my experience. Your kids will very likely not appreciate all you’ve done for them.

Of course, I excuse all the fundo-christian-demi-god-uber-alpha-ripped-11 inch cock-men of steel™ here from this commentary. For you guys, it’s 1956 and your life is like Wally and the Beav…

Just like men subscribe to two sets of books – old and new social rule sets that contradict the other – I think our ideas of marriage fall into this same contradiction. When marriage was a social contract and not so much a legal one involving the state, the old set of books applied well to that institution. This old set of rules about marriage and what men could expect from that largely socially-enforced institution worked well and in a complementary paradigm. From the Little House on the Prairie days up to the post-war era, the first set of books worked well with regard to marriage and fatherhood.

After the sexual revolution, the second set of books took social preeminence. Optimizing Hypergamy and all of the social and legal paradigms that make it the foundation of our present social order took priority. Yet, both men and women still cling to the old order, the first set of rules when it comes to a man’s role as a husband and a father, and simultaneously expect him to adopt and promote the feminine-primary interests of the new feminine-primary order.

Fathers are expected to follow the edicts of conventional masculinity with regards to their provisioning for a family, but are also expected to adopt, embrace and internalize their popularized role of being superfluous, ridiculous or even angry and abusively resistant to the second set of rules.

In other words, the expectation is that he should  be happy in his sacrificial role of provider, happy in his lack of appreciation for it or his presence, and happy to have the ‘village’ of society raise his children into the next crop of confused, frustrated adults while he’s doing it. He should be happy in his presence being devalued, but be held responsible for his lack of presence that his sacrifices demands.

Oh, and he should also feel a sense of smug pride when he see another man being pilloried for the same lack of his superfluous presence in his family’s life.

Raising Kids

I’m sure all of this sounds like a bridge too far for most men. Yes, the prospect of becoming a father is depressing, and I can see how these truths would make the average man despondent about becoming a new parent. However, I feel it’s incumbent upon me that I’m honest with men about what they’re up against before I advocate how to be a Red Pill aware father.

You will never be appreciated for your sacrifices, and certainly not while you’re making them. Your presence is only as superfluous as you allow it to be. While you will never be appreciated for it in any measurable sense, you will be liable for it, so my advice is to make the most of it in a Red Pill respect. Your reward, your motivation, for being a Red Pill parent and a positively masculine example in your kids’ lives needs to come from inside yourself because it will never be rewarded by a feminine-primary social order. If you don’t think you will ever find being a parent intrinsically rewarding, get a vasectomy now because it will never be extrinsically rewarding.

Understand now, the Feminine Imperative wants you to be despondent about your role.

Understand this, your presence, your influence, will only be as valuable or as appreciated as you are willing to make it to yourself. Your Red Pill aware influence in your kids’ lives needs to matter to you first, because it will never be appreciated in your time, and in fact will be actively, hostilely, be resisted by a world saturated in feminine-primacy.

Being a mother and birthing a child is a constantly lauded position today. By virtue of being a mother, women are rewarded and respected in society. Men must add fatherhood to their burden of performance just to avoid the societal default of being vilified.

The Feminine Imperative wants you to give up and allow the ‘village’ to raise your sons and daughters to perpetuate the cycle of the second set of rules. It wants you to feel superfluous; the Feminine Imperative’s maintenance relies on you feeling worthless. The reason men commit suicide at four times the rate of women is due exactly to this sense of male-worthlessness cultivated by the Feminine Imperative.

In Preventive Medicine I detail part of our present feminine-primary conditioning and how the imperative raises boys to be Betas and girls to be caricatures of Strong Independent Women®. Part of this was based on the essay Teach Your Children Well and the early ages at which this begins. The first, most primary truth you need to accept as a father is that if you don’t teach your children Red Pill truths there is an entire western(izing) world that is already established to raise them in your absence.

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

The Village will raise your daughters to perpetuate the same cycle that devalues conventional masculinity, the same cycle that considers men’s presence as superfluous and their sacrifices as granted expectations. It will raise your daughters to over-inflate their sense of worth with unearned confidence at the expense of boys as their foils. It will teach them to openly embrace Hypergamy as their highest authority and to disrespect anything resembling masculinity as more than some silly anachronism.

The good news is that for all of these efforts in social engineering, the Feminine Imperative is still confounded by basic biology and the psychological firmware evolved into us over millennia. That basic root reality is your greatest advantage as a father.

Raising Boys

I’m often asked when I believe would be the best time to introduce a boy to the Red Pill. A lot of guys with teenage sons want to hand them a copy of The Rational Male before they hit 18, or maybe when they’re 15, some even say 12 is really a good time. While it’s flattering for me to hear men tell me how they gave their teenage sons a copy of my book, I have to think that this is too late.

I’ve been a father to a teenage daughter for a while now and in my 20’s I was a mentor (big brother figure) to a young man I watched grow from a 10 year old boy to a 30’s man today. One thing I’ve learned from dealing with kids as I have is that the Feminine Imperative conditions children from the moment they can understand what’s playing on a TV or in a movie. By the time that kid is 10 they already have the ideological conditioning that came from a decade of meme’s and messaging taught to them by schools, Disney, Nickelodeon, popular music, feminine-primary parenting from their friends parents, even your own extended family members.

By the time that kid is 10 they’ve already internalized the stereotypes and social conditioning of the Blue Pill and they will start parroting these memes and behaving and believing in accordance with that conditioning. By the time they are in their tweens and beginning to socially interact with the opposite sex, the Blue Pill feminine-primary conditioning will be evident to any man with a Red Pill lens to hear and see it. That Blue Pill internalized ideology will seem natural and logical to them even though they couldn’t tell you how they came to their formative beliefs.

The time to start exemplifying Red Pill awareness in a parental capacity is before you even have kids. As I detailed in the first of these posts, an internalized Game that results from strong Red Pill awareness and a positive, dominant Frame control are imperative before you even consider monogamy. That Frame becomes the foundation for your parenting when your children come along.

I realize this isn’t exactly helpful for men who came to Red Pill awareness after their kids were in their teens, but it needs to be addressed for men considering becoming a father. Ideally you want to impart that same Red Pill awareness during a boy’s formative years. Children completely lack the capacity for abstract thought until their brains fully form and they learn to develop it. The age of 5 is the time when kids are most impressionable and learn the most, but they do so by watching behavior. So it’s imperative for a Red Pill father to demonstrate positive, conventional masculinity during these years.

Include your son in male-space, where only men are allowed to participate. Even if all he does is sit and play, it’s important for him to understand male tribalism. Eventually, as he gets older, he’ll feel more a part of that collective. In a feminine-primary world that is bent on his devaluation as a male human it’s important for him to feel valued in male-space and to institute his own male-space as he gets older.

Within this male-space your son needs to learn about his eventual burden of performance.I’d also advise you institute some kind of rite of passage for him from being a boy to being a man. There needs to be a delineation point at which his manhood is marked. This is important because it not only teaches him to value his masculinity, but also to accept the responsibilities of his burden of performance.

Most Beta men are uncomfortable even calling themselves ‘men’, so the earlier a kid understands this the better he is in accepting his manhood. The Feminine Imperative is all too ready to teach him his masculinity is a mask he wears; something he puts on and not the ‘real’ him. He needs to proudly reject this notion that his masculinity is a show.

He needs to learn that men and women are different and only deserving of earned respect, not a default respect granted to the female sex. Eventually he needs to learn to accept his own dominance and mastery in a world that will tell him his sex is a scourge on society.

Your presence in his life is an absolute necessity if you are to thwart the efforts of fem-centrism. I was asked about Red Pill fathering in my last Christian McQueen interview and my first inclination was to say do things with your son. Even if that’s playing chess, being the man, his model for masculinity is vitally important and to impart this to him you need to have a mutual purpose. As I’ve written before, women talk, men do. Men get together socially with a purpose, an action, a hobby, a sport, a creative endeavor, etc. and then they communicate while working towards that purpose.

Your son must learn this from a very early age, particularly when he’s likely to be forced into feminine-primary social structures and conditioned to communicate like girls do in school as well as in popular media. One of the tragedies of our age is a generation of Blue Pill men raising their sons to adopt feminine-primary communication preferences because they themselves had no experience with conventional masculinity. They can’t teach what they don’t understand.

Demonstrate, do not explicate is true of dealing with women, but it is also an imperative of Red Pill parenting. Your son (and daughter) needs to see his mother’s deference to your dominant Frame and beneficent authority. He needs to understand on a rudimentary level that his mother responds to your positively masculine Frame. Again this is imperative since your kids will see a much different narrative being displayed in popular culture and their schooling.

Show him how a man presents himself, how a man reacts to a threat, how a man commands a dog, how a man interacts with, and helps, other men he values. Do not think that you’ll start teaching him Red Pill awareness when he’s old enough to understand it. By then it’s too late, he’s resistant to it and thinks his Beta Game is more appropriate. Your son will follow your lead, but that must start from day one, not age 12. I have a good friend now who’s 16 year old son is literally following the same path his Beta father; he’s moved in with his estranged ex wife because he was closer to his ONEitis girlfriend. Now she’s bailed on him and he’s stuck with his neurotic mother.

The consequences of a Blue Pill conditioned mindset also start early. I’ve seen 10 year old boys despondent over not having a girlfriend. I’ve counseled a girl who’s former teenage boyfriend stabbed and killed her new boyfriend 32 times because she was his ONE. They get ONEitis because they are taught to be predisposed to it.

As your son moves into his teenage years that connection you began in his formative years should strengthen. You can begin to introduce him to Red Pill awareness, but in all likelihood you’ll notice him using his own Red Pill lens when it comes to dealing with girls. His grasping the fundaments of women’s dualistic sexual strategy, Hypergamy and how this will be used against him in the future is something imperative that he learns later.

This is the time to reinforce that Red Pill sensitivity and capitalize on his own awareness by introducing him to Red Pill ideas he wasn’t aware of. Bluntly, overtly declaring Red Pill truths might make sense to you, but plucking out bits of his own Red Pill observations and expanding on them in his teen years will probably be received better and more naturally.

One thing I know about teenage boys and girls is that if you try to tell them something profound they roll their eyes and blow you off, but if you wait for the right moment to let them come to that thing you want them to learn on their own then they’re receptive to it. Your demonstrating Red Pill awareness doesn’t stop when they’re teens.

Raising Girls

Much of what I’ve outlined for raising boys would cross over into raising a daughter, however there are some differences in approach. Exemplifying a Red Pill ideal, and demonstrations of positive, dominantly masculine Frame control are still the highest priority, but more so is the modeled behavior of the girl’s mother toward you and that Frame. If your wife resists, ridicules or mocks your Frame, this is the lesson your daughter will be taught about masculinity. You must model her perceptions of masculinity while your wife models the aspects of femininity – for better or worse.

A lot of how you approach raising a daughter can be based on your Red Pill understanding of how to deal with women, and based on much of the same basic gender-complementary foundations. The same Game principles you would use with women are actually founded on behavior sets that little girls learn and enjoy while they’re growing up. Amused Mastery is a prime example of this.

You will notice that root level Hypergamy manifests itself in girls at a very young age. In Warren Farrell’s book, Why Men Are The Way They Are he notes that girls as young as 7 already have a a definition of the (celebrity) “boys they’d like to kiss and the boys they’d like to marry.” No doubt girls’ acculturation influences their preferences, but the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks archetypes are part of their mental firmware.

As a father, your primary role will be one of modeling the provider security seeking aspect of the Hypergamous equation. While that comfort and control is necessary it tends to be a trap for most Betas. The challenge most Beta fathers fail at is embracing and owning the very necessary Alpha / Dominant role that makes up the other side of that equation.

The challenge is exemplifying Amused Mastery with your daughter, but in such a way that it balances Alpha dominance and control with rapport, security and comfort. In my post Myth of the Good Guy I make the case that adult women don’t really look for this balance in the same man. Alphas are for fucking, Betas are for long term security, and men who think they can embody both are neither sought after nor really believable. The root of this AF/BB mental separation of Hypergamous purpose-specific men can be traced back to the impression of masculinity that woman’s father set for her in her formative years.

Lean too far toward Alpha dominance and you become the asshole abuser who domineered poor mom while she was growing up. Lean too far to the Beta, permissive, passive and feminine side of the spectrum and the future men in her life will be colored by your deferring to the feminine as authority – thus placing her in the role of having to create the security she never expects men to have a real command of.

The challenge of raising a boy is modeling and exemplifying the positive, dominant masculine role you want him to boldly embrace in spite of the same fem-centric world arrayed against yourself. The challenge of raising a girl is embodying the dominant masculine man you will eventually be proud to call your son in law. Your daughter needs to be able to identify that guy by comparing him to the masculine role you set for her.

Most contemporary men (that is to say 80%+ Beta men) are very uncomfortable in asserting dominance with their daughters for fear of being perceived as misogynists according to their feminine-centric acculturation. The zeitgeist of this era’s approach to fathers parenting girls is one of walking on eggshells around their little princesses. The fear is one of avoiding instilling a crushing of their independence or limiting their future opportunities by being more permissive with girls. The gender-correct hope is that in doing so they’ll all go on to be the future doctors and scientists society needs, but that permissiveness and coddling does them no favors in the long run.

If you were uncomfortable experimenting with Red Pill concepts while you were single, you’ll be even more so in raising a daughter. The most important impression you need to leave her with is that men and women are different, but complementary to the other. She needs to know that your masculine dominance is beneficial to both her and her mother, and your personal mastery of you conditions and environment as an aid to her and the family. She needs to understand that girls and women are, sometimes, excluded from male-spaces, particularly if you also have a son. In fact it’s boon if you have a son to teach while you bring up a daughter as she’ll see his upbringing as a model for positive masculinity.

 

The Vetting Process

vetting

I apologize for interrupting the flow of this series’ posts, but I felt this question from reader Andy deserved a full stop:

I could care less who I’m talking to. IMO if you’re looking to disqualify a woman based on her sexual history you’re doing yourself a disservice because you better believe that the high quality chicks have been fucked in every way imaginable. If not you it’s somebody else… Might as well be you!

Have a look at this guy’s story in Saving the Best:

“I married a slut who fucks like a prude.”

Andy, I do agree with you in part. Too much overt concern (i.e. asking) about a woman’s sexual past is indeed demonstrating lower value. Men whom women consider Alpha, the men that women already have a mental impression of, don’t overly concern themselves with women’s sexual pasts because those men have multiple options going.

On some level of consciousness women know that if what he can glean from interacting with her about her sexual past is off-putting to an Alpha he’ll simply eject and move on to a better prospect. An Alpha mindset is often very minimalist, blunt and direct, but there are aspects of interacting with women that come as a default for a man who is his own Mental Point of Origin. One of those unspoken aspects is a self-understanding that he has options (or can generate more) and this is manifested in his indifference to a woman’s long term sexual suitability. If she doesn’t enter his Frame, to his satisfaction, he moves on to the next prospect with very little communication.

However, we weren’t discussing non-exclusive dating/fucking; we’re discussing making an investment in a woman we’re vetting for our own parental investment. When you consider the all-downside risks a man must wager on that investment it behooves him to be his most particular about that woman’s sexual past and the consequences that YOU will be burdened with if you don’t vet wisely.

Most men (myself included at the time) have very sparse prerequisites when it comes to their considering a woman for marriage or even an LTR. This lack of insight is the result of a constant battery of shame and preconditioning by the Feminine Imperative that tells men any requisites they would have of a woman for marriage are ‘passing judgement’ on her character. He should consider himself “lucky” that any woman would have him for a husband (or “put up with him”) and his concerns about her are shameful, typically male character flaws on his part.

Consequentially men rarely permit themselves the luxury of putting their own considerations above that of a potential mate.

Vetting

If you asked a woman whether she would be wary of marrying a man who was a recovering alcoholic or a cleaned up heroin addict she’d probably disqualify him as a marriage prospect from the outset. And were she to go ahead and marry him anyway with full disclosure of his past addictions, would we be sympathetic with her if he were to relapse and she to bear the brunt of his past indiscretions?

Now suppose that woman married this former addict, but due to his being offended about her prying into his past, she was ignorant of his old addictions. She has her suspicions, but society tells her it’s not her purview to hold him accountable for anything that happened in his past.

He’s moved on and so should she, right? Any lingering consequences from his addictions (such as a DUI, criminal record or his unemployability) shouldn’t be held against him, nor should she judge him, nor should she consider those consequences whatsoever when she’s assessing his suitability for marriage now.

In fact, she should feel ashamed to even consider his past with regard to her feelings about who he is. Her judgementalism only points to her own character flaws.

Now, would we praise that woman for “following her heart” and marrying him? Would we hold her accountable for the decision to marry him if he relapses?

Reverse the genders and this scenario is precisely why women become so hostile when men even hint at ‘judging’ women’s past sexual decisions. There is a very well established operative social convention that the sisterhood will all unanimously get behind; and that is the ruthless shaming of men who would ask any questions about any woman’s sexual past. This is the degree of desperation that women feel during the Epiphany Phase when they acknowledge men becoming aware of their long term sexual strategy.

They understand that, in their Epiphany Phase, the clock is ticking down to zero. That’s the cause of a lot of anxiety. They are just beginning to understand that their marriageability (Beta Bucks) now conflicts with their previous short-term mating strategy (Alpha Fucks). As I detailed in Betas in Waiting, women of this age cannot afford to have their short term sexual strategy count against them at a time when they are at their most necessitous of what that Beta can provide towards her long term security.

Again, on some level of consciousness, women understand that were the ignorant Beta she’s decided to marry (start a family with or help her raise her illegitimate children with) becomes aware of what she did in her sexual past he too might expect that same degree of sexual performance. The performance she reserved for the men she perceived as Alpha and freely gave to them.

Women must keep the details of that past secret and obscured. So grave is this anxiety that men must be punished for having the temerity to be curious about it. It is vitally important because a woman’s capacity to bond with a man is reduced with every new sexual partner. Every new sexual partner is a potential Alpha to be widowed by, but the man who marries her must be kept ignorant of those men if she is to secure his resources and his parental investment.

This social convention operates on absolving women’s past indiscretions by redefining them as a period of learning who she would become. It was her “journey of self-discovery” and she’s “not that person” any more. Cleverly enough this is exactly the same convention and same rationale of women who divorce their husbands later in life to “take the journey of self-discovery” of Eat, Prey, Love she passed up when she was younger.

Knowing this, it is also vitally important for men to keep women’s dualistic sexual strategy in mind at every age of her maturity.

Lets not forget the advice of Sheryl Sandberg here:

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

Open Hypergamy is triumphantly crowed about when women are at their SMV peaks, and sometimes again once that woman has secured her long-term provider or divorced him, but when a woman is in her Epiphany Phase, when she’s anxious and frustrated in securing her own long term provisioning, that is when she will fall back on the social convention that shames men for their own awareness of the same Open Hypergamy they would otherwise flaunt for him.

So, now that we understand the latent purpose of this social convention, let me explain to every gentleman reading – vetting a woman’s sexual past is not just your prerogative, but an absolute imperative to the health of any future relationship you hope to have with her. When you consider the dire risks you are essentially setting yourself up for – risk no woman will EVER acknowledge or appreciate – the single most important thing you can do is vet that woman’s sexual past.

That doesn’t mean you make weak, DLV, overt inquiries about her past. It means you subtly, covertly and discretely pick up on the many cues and tells she will reveal that past with. Most men would rather use a direct approach to this, and while there’s merit to that, it’s far better to do your vetting by drawing out freely offered information. It’s much more honest and reliable. Once you go the direct route the jig is up and she will play the role she thinks you expect from her, not the honest one you need to make your determinations.

Sex is the glue that holds relationships together. It’s the height of irony that a woman would place so high a priority on her own sexual experiences while in her SMV peak yet completely disqualify that importance when she gets to the phase where it becomes a liability to her. As a man it is vitally important for you to know whether you’ll be her apex Alpha lover or if your burden of performance will be measured against the ghosts of Alpha men from her sexual past – all while you endure the stresses and joys of raising children with her.