‘Fallen Princesses’ – photographer Dina Goldstein
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 Annalee Newitz. 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.
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:
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.
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?
Ironically, the very same DNA swab test that betrayed the Arch Bishop’s mother’s cuckoldry is the test Melanie McDonagh 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“If I’m not going to have children, she told herself, then I’m going to have lovers.” – Robin Rinaldi, The Wild Oats Project.
In last week’s essay I put an emphasis on men’s understanding women’s rudimentary doubt of their Hypergamous choices with regards to rearing children and the overall health of a family. There are a great many social factors in our westernized feminine-centric social structure that encourages women to delay both marriage and becoming a mother well past their prime fertility windows.
In the Myth of the Biological Clock I detailed the misconceptions women hold with have with regard to their own capacity of having children later in life:
Popular culture likes to teach women and, by association, unenlightened men that there is an innate biological clock inside each woman that slowly ticks down to a magical period where her maternal instincts at long last predispose her to wanting a child. Perhaps, not so surprisingly, this coincides perfectly with the Myth of Women’s Sexual Peak as well as conveniently being the age demographic just post or just prior to when most women hit the Wall.
[…]I wont argue that women actually possess maternal instincts, I will argue that their understanding of when they manifest has been deliberately distorted by a feminine-centric cultural influence. If women are “angry” about the revelation their inability or difficulty to conceive in their post-Wall biological conditions presents, their anger is misdirected. Rather than come down from the heady pedestal of ego-invested female empowerment psychology, they’ll blame men for not being suitable fathers, or lacking a will to “play-by-the rules” and satisfy the dictates of the feminine imperative by whiling away their time in porn and video game induced comas.
The “have it all” mentality popularized by feminism has led to some very bad social effects for women on whole. While a great deal of “having it all” is couched in messaging that appeals to enabling ’empowered®’ women get a similar deal from career life that men are supposedly enjoying, the subtext in this message is one of never settling for a less than Hypergamously optimal (better than, not equal) monogamous pairing with a man.
The “have it all” advertising is about life fulfillment from a distractingly equalist perspective; meaning an ostensibly equitable or better fulfillment than the Feminine Imperative would have women expect that men are getting from life. Women want to be men. Thus the push for female college enrollment that imbalances men’s enrollment, etc., but in so doing the life course women are directed to by the imperative also limits their Hypergamous optimization efforts by putting unrealistic expectations upon it.
As a result women either delay childbearing until ages that put them and any offspring at a health risk, or they simply forego marriage altogether and birth a child with the foreknowledge that the father (though maybe an adequate provisioner) will never be a contender to quell her doubts of his Hypergamous suitability.
If Momma Aint Happy, Aint Nobody Happy
I’m fleshing out this aspect of Hypergamy here because I believe, as with all thing female, that a broad understanding of Hypergamy is essential to a man’s life and has far reaching effects that go beyond just learning Game well enough to get the lay on a Saturday night when a woman is in her ovulatory peak phase.
A byproduct of the societal embrace of Open Hypergamy is the degree to which women are largely disposed to delaying commitment until what I call their Epiphany Phase and then transitioning into a need for security once their capacity to attract and arouse men decays and/or is compromised by intrasexual competition (a.k.a. The Wall). I detail this child-birth postponement process in Preventive Medicine where I outline women’s Party Years through their Epiphany Phase, however it’s important for men to understand that this phase is largely the result of women believing they should have a similar window as a man in which they can have both a career and find the “right guy” to partner in parenting with.
Equalism’s fundamental flaw is rooted in the belief that men and women are both rational and functional equals, separated only by social influence and selfish imperatives (uniquely attributed to men). The grave consequences women accept in this belief is that their sexual market value declines with age, both in terms of intrasexual competition and fertility.
As such, we entertain the bemoaning of generations of women frustrated that they were unable to consolidate on a Hypergamous ideal because they believed they had ample time to do so while pursuing the Alpha Fucks aspect of their Hypergamy in the years of their prime fertility window.
Furthermore, they believe that the men who are available and ready to fulfill the Beta Bucks aspect of Hypergamy simply don’t measure up to their socialized, overinflated, sense of Hypergamous entitlement (and particularly in comparison to the men who made them Alpha Widows in their Party Years).
So distressing is this prospect, and so keenly aware of it are women that they are beginning to mandate failsafe measures in anticipation of not being able to optimize Hypergamy – such as preemptive egg freezing and legislating that men pay for their infertility while married in alimony settlements.
It’s come to the point where the ages of 29-31 are no longer being considered a crisis point for women with regard to child bearing. With the cultural popularization of the false hope in frozen ovum extending a woman’s birthing timeframe, now, even 35-38 years old seems to magically grant women some bonus years in which to secure a man for parental investment. The question is no longer one of a woman making herself suitable for a man’s parental investment (by his late 30’s no less) – her default suitability is inherent in her femaleness according to the Feminine Imperative – but rather, she believes, a magical-thinking proposition of waiting out the Hypergamously right father for her children.
I’m stressing these points here before I move on to Red Pill parenting ideology so men who are, or want to become fathers, husbands, LTR boyfriends, understand the import that Hypergamy plays in any family arrangement they hope to create.
Just to head off all the MGTOWs reading first; don’t get married. Under contemporary western circumstances there is no advantage for men in a state of marriage and 100% advantage for women. Unfortunately, as things are structured, marriage will always be a cost-to-benefit losing proposition while women insist on making marriage a legalistic contract of male-only liabilities.
That said, also remember that an entire world steeped in feminine-primary social imperatives is arrayed against your efforts in being a positively masculine father to your kids. Those anti-father efforts start with women’s own fem-centric conditioning that leads them to both manically push for Hypergamous optimization personally and societally, but yet they will delay that optimization until all opportunities for her have been exhausted. If you are considering marriage and starting a family with a woman between the ages of 27 and 31, statistically this is the situation and mentality that woman is likely experiencing.
I’m presenting these things to you as a father or potential father, because it’s important for you to discern what women have been conditioned to believe and expect from men and for themselves. In the coming weeks I will post an essay on the complementarity both sexes have evolved for to make our species what it is today; and that conventional complementarity is something idealistic equalism would distort. However, for now it’s important to realize that women have been thrust into this zero-hour, jump-at-the-last-second, cash out of the sexual marketplace schedule of mating that their very biology rebels against.
Single Moms and “Good” Fathers
It’s also important for men to understand that, while there is a constant ‘Man Up’ beratement of fathers for their lack of willing involvement in a child’s life, men are simultaneously presented with the female ’empowerment’ meme. That meme proposes these fathers’ parental involvement is effectively superfluous to that child’s maturation because Strong Independent Women® can reportedly fulfill a fathers’ role equally as well as any man (the equalist narrative).
For all the public awareness campaigns extolling fathers to be fathers, the message is always one of being “better” fathers and placing them into a default position of being less than ‘good’ by virtue of their maleness. In fact a ‘good’ father is a rarely appreciated commodity because that ‘good’ quality is always tied to a man’s never ending and ever shifting burden of performance.
On the other side, the single mother empowerment meme is endemic. However it’s important to use our Red Pill Lens with this meme because the message is one that forgives women of their inability to make themselves appropriate prospects for men’s parental investment. At the same time this meme also foist the blame for men’s unwillingness to parentally invest squarely on men’s presumed responsibility to women optimizing their Hypergamy to their satisfaction:
I’m Stupid Picky.
In my 15 or so years of dating, I’ve been around. I don’t mean that to sound skanky, but … it’s not like I haven’t given love a chance. The problem? Out of all the men I’ve ever dated, there has only been one or two that I felt a genuine connection with. It is a rare thing indeed for me to meet someone I feel like I could picture spending forever with. Sadly, I can’t even remember the last time I met a man who gave me butterflies. It’s definitely been years.
I Want the Fairytale.
There are very few relationships I’ve witnessed in my life that I would actually want for myself. Which begs the question, what do I want? Well, I want a man who is great with kids and totally open to adopting a houseful with me. I want a man who is smart and driven, sexy and hilarious. One who gets me, and who challenges me, and who makes me weak in the knees. Basically … I want everything. And I’m not sure the image I have in my head of what love should be is something that actually exists in real life.
My Daughter Will Always Be Priority Number One.
If you think my expectations of what I want for me are implausible, we probably shouldn’t even discuss my expectations of what I want for the man who steps into that paternal role for my daughter. Truthfully, as much as I want that father figure for her, I am also absolutely terrified of choosing wrong, of messing up our dynamic by choosing a man who isn’t worthy of being her father.
This article’s entire checklist reads like a manifesto for the Strong Independent® single mother with no consideration given to how men, potential fathers or husbands might interpret it. As expected, Campbell perpetuates the ‘put your kid first’ religion of motherhood here, but after reading through her single-mom rationalizations, and then combined with men’s presumptive servitude to the beneficiaries of the Feminine Imperative, it’s easy to see why most, if not all men, might be hesitant to sign up for their expected duty.
My point here isn’t to dissuade men from wanting to be fathers, but rather that they enter into being a parent with their eyes open to how Hypergamy, and a cultural imperative that’s built around it, influences women’s life choices today. I mentioned earlier in this essay about women between the ages of 27 and 31 experiencing the first harsh realities of the consequences their choices have predisposed them to. Understand, as a man, your desire, your potential, for parental investment puts you into a position of being very sexually selective. So much in fact that the Feminine Imperative has long-held social conventions to pre-established with the purpose of convincing men they are not only obligated to fulfilling women’s Hypergamous strategy, but should feel lucky to do so.
The truth is that it is women who are at their most necessitous of men during this phase of their lives – thus placing men with the means and desire to become a parent into a prime selector’s position. Feminine social conditioning has done all it can to predispose Beta men to wait out and forgive women their short-term Alpha Fucks indiscretions during their Party Years, but as Red Pill awareness becomes unignorable the pressures of maintaining the image of being the prime selector will wear on women.
That said, I’ve had many men ask me how best to go about becoming a Red Pill parent. I’ve had many men express that the only advantage to marriage is in creating a healthy, hopefully complementary, environment in which to raise children. However, I’m not sure even women would concur with this assessment in the face of a social narrative that tells them they can raise a child as well as any father can. Yet, by the definition of the Feminine Imperative, a ‘good’ father is one who will sublimate his masculinity and assume a feminine, subservient gender role, thus making his superfluous whether he’s available or not.
In the last essay I emphasized establishing a strong, dominant, yet positive masculine Frame. This is the vital starting point for any long term relationship a man might hope to raise children in. The next imperative a man must confront is the Herculean obstacles he faces in a western culture that devalues him as a father, but obligates him to be an involved ‘good’ father who can only ever qualify himself to the mother of his children (who should place them above his interests) and qualify himself to a society that’s been conditioned to hold him to her standards.
Finally, a potential father needs to understand the circumstance in which women’s never ending quest to satisfy their Hypergamous doubt places them in at various phases of their maturity. For Red Pill men, a lot gets made of ‘vetting’ women for personal attributes and character to make them contenders for being the mother of their children. While this is important, I can’t stress enough how important it is to account for the Hypergamous choices women make prior to his consideration, as well as the consequences she should be held accountable for, yet attempts to avoid by his obligated graces.
In Part II I will expand on what to expect when raising sons and daughters from a Red Pill perspective.
One of the most basic Red Pill principles I’ve stressed since I began writing is the importance of Frame. The dynamic of Frame stretches into many aspects of a man’s life, but in a strictly intergender sense this applies to men establishing a positive dominance in their relationships with women. In a dating context of non-exclusivity (plate spinning) this means, as a man, you have a solid reality into which that woman wants to be included in. Holding Frame is not about force, or coercion, it’s about attraction and desire and a genuine want on the part of a woman to be considered for inclusion into that man’s reality.
Being allowed into a man’s dominant, confident Frame should be a compliment to that woman’s self-perception. It should be a prize she seeks.
This is a pretty basic principle when you think about it. The main reason women overwhelmingly prefer men older than themselves (statistically 5-7 years difference) is because of the psychological impression that men older than a woman’s age should be more established in his understanding of the world, his career, his direction in life and his mastery over himself and his conditions. From an Alpha Fucks perspective, the ambience of mastery makes an older man preferable, while a Beta Bucks older man represents the prospect of dependable provisioning.
In our contemporary sexual marketplace I think this perception – which used to hold true in a social climate based on the old set of books – is an increasing source of disappointment for women as they move from their post-college party years into the more stressful Epiphany Phase.
And once again we also see evidence of yet another conflict between egalitarianism vs. complementarity. Because all things should be equalized, equalism espouses that this age preference should make no difference in attraction, yet the influence of this natural complementary attraction becomes a source of internal conflict.
Women’s self-perception of personal worth becomes wrapped up in a tight egotistical package that’s tells her men – the men she’s convinced she deserves – should be attracted to and aroused by her based on whatever nebulous personal conviction she has, fat-acceptance approved ideas of what men should be hot for, and he ought to be ready to settle into a coequal parental ‘partnership’ when she’s finally ready to do the right thing.
It’s an interesting paradox. On one hand she’s expects a Hypergamously better than equitable pairing with a self-made man who will magically appreciate her for her self-perceptions of her own personal worth, but also to be, as Sheryl Sandberg puts it, “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.” In other words, an exceptional, high SMV man, with a self-earned world and Frame she wants to partake of; but also one who will be so smitten by her intrinsic qualities (the qualities she hopes will compensate for her physical and personal deficits) that he will compromise the very Frame that made him worthy of her intimacy, and then reduce himself to an equality that lessens him to her.
The Red Pill Father – Frame
The reason I’m going into this is because of a basic tenet of Frame: The Frame you set in the beginning of your relationship will set the tone for the future of that relationship. That isn’t to say men don’t devolve from a strong Alpha frame to a passive Beta one, but the Frame you enter into a relationship with will be the mental impression that woman retains as it develops. Your establishment and maintenance of a strong control of Frame is not just imperative to a healthy relationship and interaction with a woman, but it’s also vital to the health of any family environment and the upbringing of any children that result from it.
At the Man In Demand conference I was asked about my thoughts on the influence family plays in conditioning boys/men to accept a Beta role in life. Mainly the question was about a mother’s dominant influence on her children’s upbringing and how an unconventional shift in intersexual hierarchies predisposes her to imprinting her Hypergamous insecurities onto her children. It gave me a lot to think about.
A common thread I’ve occasionally found with newly Red Pill aware men is the debilitating influence their domineering mothers and Beta supplicating fathers played in forming their distorted perception of masculinity. I made an attempt to address this influence in the Intersexual Hierarchies posts, however, I intended those essays to provide an outline of particular hierarchical models, not really to cover the individual health or malaise of any of them.
The default pedestalization of women that men are prone to is a direct result of accepting that a woman’s frame is the only frame. It’s kind of hard for most ‘plugged in’ men to grasp that they can and should exert frame control in order to establish a healthy future relationship. This is hardly a surprise considering that every facet of their social understanding about gender frame has always defaulted to the feminine for the better part of their lifetimes. Whether that was conditioned into them by popular media or seeing it played out by their beta fathers, for most men in western culture, the feminine reality IS the normalized frame work. In order to establish a healthy male-frame, the first step is to rid themselves of the preconception that women control frame by default. They don’t, and honestly, they don’t want to.
Post LTR Frame
In most contemporary marriages and LTR arrangements, women tend to be the de facto authority. Men seek their wive’s “permission” to attempt even the most mundane activities they’d do without an afterthought while single. I have married friends tell me how ‘fortunate’ they are to be married to such an understanding wife that she’d “allow” him to watch hockey on their guest bedroom TV,…occasionally.
These are just a couple of gratuitous examples of men who entered into marriage with the frame firmly in control of their wives. They live in her reality, because anything can become normal. What these men failed to realize is that frame, like power, abhors a vacuum. In the absence of the frame security a woman naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide that security for herself. Thus we have the commonality of cuckold and submissive men in westernized culture, while women do the bills, earn the money, make the decisions, authorize their husband’s actions and deliver punishments. The woman is seeking the security that the man she pair-bonded with cannot or will not provide.
It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized.
The primary problem men encounter with regard to their marriages is that the dominant, positively masculine Frame they should have established while single (and benefitting from competition anxiety) decays to a Beta mindset and the man abdicates authority and deference to his wife’s feminine primary Frame. This is presuming that dominant Frame ever existed while he was dating his wife. Most men experience this decay in three ways:
Of these, the last is the most direct result of an upbringing within a feminine-primary Frame. I think one of the most vital realizations a Red Pill man has to consider is how Red Pill truths and his awareness of them influences the meta-dynamic of raising and instructing subsequent generations.
As I’ve intoned in many a post, Hypergamy is both pragmatic and rooted in a survival-level doubt about its optimization. When a woman’s insecurity about her life-determining Hypergamous decisions are concretely answered by the positively, conventionally, masculine Man who is both her pair-bonded husband and the father of her children, that doubt is allayed and a gender-complementary environment for raising children proceeds from that security.
In a positively masculine dominant Frame, where that woman’s desire is primarily focused on her man, (and where that man’s SMV exceeds his wife’s by at least a factor of 1) this establishes at least a tenable condition of quieting a woman’s Hypergamous doubt about the man she’s consolidated monogamy and parental investment with.
In a condition where that husband is unable or unwilling (thanks to egalitarian beliefs) to establish his dominant Frame this leaves a woman’s Hypergamous doubt as the determinant of the health of the overall family. That doubt and the insecurities that extend from Hypergamous selection set the tone for educating any children that result from it.
In the last post I made the case that deliberately single, primarily female, parents arrogantly assume they can teach a child both masculine and feminine aspects equally well. In the case where a wife/mother assumes the headship of family authority, both she and the Frame abdicating father/husband reverse this conventional gender modeling for their children.
That woman’s dominant Frame becomes the reality not just her husband must enter, but also their children, and also their family relatives. That feminine dominant Frame is one that is predicated on the insecurities inherent in women’s Hypergamous doubts.
“Is he really the best she can do?”
Play Don’t Pay had an observation from the last post:
I think this “putting the kids first” phenomenon is very simple to explain. She DOESN’T WANT TO FUCK YOU!
She is using the kids as a shield, a barrier to deflect your UNWANTED BETA SEXUAL ADVANCES.
It is generally accepted that women are only interested in the top 20% of men, and if you are talking about as marriage partners I would agree with this.
However if you are talking about as SEX partners that they are genuinely hot for I would estimate this percentage to be north of 5% add in the frame required to maintain her SEXUAL interest in a marriage / LTR and your probably closer to 1-2%.
It’s really that simple! the women that are with these top tier men, the top 1-2% don’t need to be told to put them before the kids, they do it because he IS more important to her than her kids, because if he leaves she will never be able to replace him with another top tier man now she has his kids in tow.
Top tier men don’t raise other mens children and she knows this instinctively.
If you think you can mitigate this by being top 20% and reading a few articles on frame and dread game then I think you will be disappointed.
Sure you can improve your relationship but your probably not going to be able to command the visceral raw desire that women have for the top tier men that makes the do this shit naturally under their own violation.
“Is he really the best she can do?”
In a feminine-primary Frame, that question defines every aspect of that family’s life and development together. It’s important for Red Pill aware men to really meditate on that huge truth. If you do not set, and maintain, a dominant masculine Frame, if you do not accept you role in a conventional complementary relationship, that woman will feel the need to assume the responsibility for her own, and her children’s, security. Women’s psychological firmware predispose them to this on a visceral, limbic, species-survival level.
I’ve met with countless men making a Red Pill transition in life who’ve related stories about the burdening influence of their domineering mothers and Beta supplicating fathers leading to them being brought up to repeat that Blue Pill cycle. I’ve also counseled guys who were raised by their single mothers who had nothing but spite and resentment for the Alpha Asshole father who left her. They too took it upon themselves to be men who sacrifice their masculinity for equalism in order to never be like Dad the asshole. I’ve met with the guys whose mothers had divorced their dutiful fathers to bang their bad boy tingle generating boyfriends (whom they equally despised) and they too were molded by their mother’s Hypergamous decisions.
And this is what I’m trying to emphasize here; in all of these upbringing conditions it is the mother’s Hypergamous doubt that is the key motivating influence on her children. That lack of a father with a positive, strong, dominant Frame puts his children at risk of an upbringing based on that mother’s Hypergamous self-questioning doubt. Add to this the modern feminine-primary social order that encourages women’s utter blamelessness in acting upon this Hypergamous doubt and you can see how the cycle of creating weak, gender confused men and vapid entitled women perpetuates itself.
Finally, to the guys who are psychologically stuck on the shitty conditions they had to endure because of this cycle, to the men who are still dealing with how mommy fucked them up or daddy was a Beta; the best thing you can do is recognize the cycle I’ve illustrated for you here. That’s the first step. The Red Pill is great at getting you laid, but it’s much more powerful than that; it gives you the insight to see the influences that led to where you find yourself today.
Once you’ve recognized the Red Pill truths behind your Blue Pill conditioning, then it’s time to realign yourself, and recreate yourself in defiance to them. The longer you wallow in the self-pitiful condition that your mother’s Hypergamy and your father’s passive Beta-ness embedded in you, the longer you allow that Blue Pill schema to define who you are.
This week I’ll be exploring a new angle in the Red Pill: how parenting and family relations influence and direct the Blue Pill conditioning of a generation, and what Red Pill aware men can do to redirect this. It was encouraging to see fathers and sons together at the Man In Demand conference. I honestly wasn’t expecting this, but it was a humbling experience to see fathers and sons coming to a Red Pill awareness together. I also met with a few men who told me their sons had either turned them on to my books or that they would be required reading for their sons before they got out of their teens.
One of the greatest benefits of the conference was the inspiration and material I got from the men attending. A particular aspect of this was addressing how men might educate and help others to unplug and in that lay a wealth of observations about how these men’s upbringings had brought them to both their Blue Pill idealisms and ultimately their Red Pill awareness.
I’m beginning this series with some of these observations, but I plan to break protocol and be a bit more proscriptive in the last essay with regard to what I think may be beneficial ways to be a Red Pill parent. In The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine I included a chapter which outlined how men are primarily conditioned for lives and ego-investments in a Blue Pill idealism that ultimately prepares them for better serving the Feminine Imperative when their usefulness is necessary to fulfill women’s sexual (and really lifetime) strategies.
That chapter is only available in the book, but if you have it, it might be helpful to review it after you read this.
Reader (and MiD conference attendee) Jeremy had an excellent observation from Solipsism II:
The only thing I take issue with is the advice, from the book that his wife read, which told her to place her husband above her children. Children come first for a mother, and they should for the father too. I’m not advocating to neglect her husband, but he needs to accept some biological facts and not be hurt because of it
What you’re repeating there is actually the first steps of a hostage crisis. That is first-wave-feminism boilerplate response. It is the first redirection in a misdirection perpetuated by women in order to sink any notion that men should have some authority on matters. Think of the children. It’s been repeated for so long, it’s a cliche…
It’s typical crab-basket behavior. Women seek power over their lives and somehow instinctively believe that the only way to achieve power is to take someone else’s power away. So they attack male authority by placing children above the man. This then becomes a stick with which to beat male authority into submission, as the woman is allowed to speak for the needs of the children. This is literally textbook subversion, and plays out on so many levels of human culture it tends to make one consider how boring humanity must look to any alien life that happens to stumble across our unremarkable corner of the universe.
When the children’s needs become the “throne” of the household, and the wife is allowed to speak for the children’s needs, then the authority of the household becomes a rather grotesque combination of immediate child needs and female manipulation. Worse still, the children are now effectively captives of the wife, because at any time she can accuse the husband of anything the law is forced to throw him in handcuffs for, and take away the kids.
What you’re repeating is the first steps in that hostage situation. Equalists will try to convince you of the logic that children come first, that children are the future, that all of that which makes them better is more important than anything else. This is bullshit.
Do you think cavemen sat around in caves all day playing and socially interacting with their babies? Do you think they had some kind of fresh-gazelle-delivery service that allowed him to interact with the children directly? Do you think the mothers were not under exactly the same survival condition, needing to forage for carrots, potatoes, berries, etc, while the men hunted and built structures? Do you think the “children” came first in any other era of humanity? If so, you are very sadly mistaken.
Children are more than capable of getting everything they need to know about how to live simply by watching their parents live a happy life together. This is how humans did things for eons, changing that order and putting the “children first” is frankly perverse and the beginning of the destruction of the family. Children are more than information sponges, they are blank minds that want desperately to be adult. Children want to understand everything that everyone around them understands, which is why a parent telling a child that you’re “disappointed” in them is more effective than a paddling. If you focus on children, you are frankly just spoiling them with attention that they will never receive in the real world. If instead you focus on yourself and your spouse, you will raise children that see you putting yourself as the MPO (as Rollo calls it), and your marriage/partnership as an important part of what you do each day.
Don’t put the children first. That’s essentially like negotiating with a terrorist, they’ll only make more demands on you until the cops storm the plane and lots of people get shot.
Your Mental Point of Origin should never waver from yourself.
Of course, Ayelet Waldman’s blasphemy was not admitting that her kids were less than completely wonderful, only that she loved her husband more than them. This falls into the category of thou-shalt-have-no-other-gods-before-me. As with many religious crimes, judgment is not applied evenly across the sexes. Mothers must devote themselves to their children above anyone or anything else, but many wives would be offended if their husbands said, “You’re pretty great, but my love for you will never hold a candle to the love I have for John Junior.”There are doubtless benefits that come from elevating parenthood to the status of a religion, but there are obvious pitfalls as well. Parents who do not feel free to express their feelings honestly are less likely to resolve problems at home. Children who are raised to believe that they are the center of the universe have a tough time when their special status erodes as they approach adulthood. Most troubling of all, couples who live entirely child-centric lives can lose touch with one another to the point where they have nothing left to say to one another when the kids leave home.In the 21st century, most Americans marry for love. We choose partners who we hope will be our soulmates for life. When children come along, we believe that we can press pause on the soulmate narrative, because parenthood has become our new priority and religion. We raise our children as best we can, and we know that we have succeeded if they leave us, going out into the world to find partners and have children of their own. Once our gods have left us, we try to pick up the pieces of our long neglected marriages and find new purpose. Is it surprising that divorce rates are rising fastest for new empty nesters? Perhaps it is time that we gave the parenthood religion a second thought.
I think these quotes outline the dynamic rather well; a method of control women can use to distract and defer away from Beta husbands is a simple appeal to their children’s interests as being the tantamount to their own or their husbands. If the child sits at the top of that love hierarchy and that child’s wellbeing and best interests can be defined by the mother, the father/husband is relegated to subservience to both the child and the mother.
This gets back to the preternatural Empathy myth that women, by virtue of just being a woman, has some instinctual, empathetic insight about placing that child above all else. That child becomes a failsafe and a buffer against having to entertain a real relationship with the father/husband and really consider his position in her Hypergamous estimate of him.
If that man isn’t what her Hypergamous instinct estimates him being as optimal (he’s the unfortunate Beta), then “she’s tolerating his presence for the kids’ sake.” Jeremy was responding to a comment made by Capper about an incident where a woman was being encouraged to put her husband before her kids in that love hierarchy priority. The fact that this is so unnatural for a woman that it would need to be something necessary to train a woman to speaks volumes about the facility with which women presume that their default priority ought to be for her kids.
Most men buy into this prioritization as well. It seems deductively logical that a woman would necessarily need to put her child’s attention priorities well above her husband’s. What’s counterintuitive to both parents is that it’s the health of their relationship (or lack) that defines and exemplifies the complementary gender understanding of the child. Women default to using their children as cats paws to assume primary authority of the family, and men are already preconditioned to accept this as the normative frame for the family.
As with all your relations with women, establishing a strong Frame is essential. The problem for men with even the strongest initial Frame with their wives is that they cede that Frame to their kids. Most men want the very best for their children; or there may be a Promise Keepers dynamic that guy is dealing with an makes every effort to outdo, and make up for, the sins of his father by sacrificing everything, but in so doing he loses sight of creating and maintaining a dominant Frame for not just his wife, but the state of his family.
It’s important to bear in mind that when you set the Frame of your relationship, whether it’s a first night lay or a marriage prospect, women enter your reality and your frame – the same needs to apply to any children within that relationship. Far too many fathers are afraid to embody that strong authority and expect their wives (and children) to recognize what should be his primary place in the family.
The fear is that by assuming this position they become the typical asshole father they hoped to avoid for most of their formative years. Even for men with strong masculine role models in their lives, the hesitation comes from a culture that ridicules fathers, or presumes they are potentially violent towards children. Thus the abdication of fatherly authority, in as positive a tense as possible, is abdicated before that child is even born.
At the Man in Demand conference last weekend I had a young guy ask me what my thoughts were about a man’s being interested in becoming a single parent of his own accord. I had this same question posed to me during my second interview with Christian McQueen and essentially it breaks down to a man supplying his own sperm, buying a suitable woman’s viable ovum to fertilize himself, and, I presume, hire a surrogate mother to carry that child to term. Thereupon he takes custody of that child and raises it himself as a single father.
In theory this arrangement should work out to something similar to a woman heading off the the sperm bank to (once again Hypergamously) select a suitable sperm donor and become a single parent of her own accord. It’s interesting that we have institutions and facilities like sperm banks to ensure women’s Hypergamy, but men, much less heterosexual men, must have exceptional strength of purpose and determination to do so.
Despite dealing with the very likely inability of the surrogate mother to disentangle her emotional investment in giving birth to a child she will never raise (hormones predispose women to this) a man must be very determined financially and legally to become a single father by choice. In principle I understand the sentiment of Red Pill men wanting to raise a child on their own. The idea is to do so free from the (at least direct) influence of the Feminine Imperative. However, I think this is in error.
My feelings on this are two part. First, being a complementarian, it is my belief that a child requires two healthy adult parents, male and female, with a firm, mature grasp of the importance, strengths and weaknesses of their respective gender roles (based on biological and evolutionary standards). Ideally they should exemplify and demonstrate those roles in a healthy fashion so as a boy or a girl can learn about masculinity and femininity from their respective parents’ examples.
Several generations after the sexual revolution, and after several generations of venerating feminine social primacy, we’ve arrived at a default collective belief that single mothers can perform the function of modeling and shaping masculinity in boys as well as femininity in girls equally well. The underlying social message in that is that women/mothers can be a one woman show with regard to parenting and thus men, fathers or the buffoons mainstream culture portrays them as, are superfluous to parenting – nice to have around, but not vital. This belief also finds fertile ground in the notion that men are obsolete.
Secondly, for all the equalist emphasis of Jungian gender theories about anima/animus and balancing feminine and masculine personality interests, it is evidence of an agenda to suggest that a woman is equally efficient in teaching and modeling masculine aspects to children as well as any positively masculine man. With that in mind, I think the reverse would be true for a deliberately single father – even with the best of initial intents.
Thus, I think a father might serve as a poor substitute for a woman when it comes to exemplifying a feminine ideal. The argument then of course is that, courtesy of a feminine-centric social order, women have so divorced themselves of conventional femininity that perhaps a father might teach a daughter (if not demonstrate for her) a better feminine ideal than a woman. Conventional, complementary femininity is so lost on a majority of women it certainly seems like logic for a man to teach his daughter how to recapture it.
This was the trap that 3rd wave feminism fell into; the belief that they knew how best to raise a boy into their disempowered and emasculated ideal of their redefined masculinity. Teach that boy a default deference and sublimation to feminine authority, redefine it as respect, teach him to pee sitting down and share in his part of the choreplay, and well, the world is bound to be a better more cooperative place right?
So it is for these reason I think that the evolved, conventional, two-parent heterosexual model serves best for raising a child. I cannot endorse single parenthood for either sex. Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the complementary relationship between a mother and father.
It’s the height of gender-supremacism to be so arrogantly self-convinced as to deliberately choose to birth a child and attempt to raise it into the contrived ideal of what that “parent” believes the other gender’s role ought to be.
This should put the institutionalized social engineering agenda of the Feminine Imperative into stark contrast for anyone considering intentional single parenthood. Now consider that sperm banks and feminine-specific fertility institutions have been part of normalized society for over 60 years and you can see that Hypergamy has dictated the course of parenting for some time now. This is the definition of social engineering.
I’ll admit that when I got the question of single fatherhood I was a bit incredulous of the mechanics of it. Naturally it would be an expense most men couldn’t entertain. However, as promised, I did my homework on it, and found out that ectogenesis was yet another science-fiction-come-reality that feminists have already considered and have planned for:
Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.
Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important. Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.
Women already have the power to eliminate men and in their collective wisdom have decided to keep them. The real question now is, will men, once the artificial womb is perfected, want to keep women around?
[…]“We may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain,” she writes. “We have to ask, if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete?”
This was a great article and it came at an auspicious time – the time we find women sweating about having their sexual market leverage with men potentially being undercut by sex-bots and/or immersive virtual sex substitutes.