Category Archives: Positive Masculinity

Tribes

tribes

I received this email some time ago, but I felt it needed some serious consideration to give the concept the justice it deserved.

Rollo — You’ve been a major help to my understanding the underlying dynamics between men and women. I’ve observed them in bits and pieces over the years but never really understood the whys behind them or how to turn them in our favor.

It seems like one mid-term focus you have is on male-male dynamics, specifically fathers and sons. But I also wonder whether you’d consider writing more about bonding and support between men and how those relationships can anchor men’s lives at a time when male relationships are regarded with skepticism by larger society. Lately it’s struck me that men tend to innately trust the men they know and distrust those they don’t (and that it’s often the reverse for women). This inclines us to believe women when they decry the “assholes” who have mistreated them in the past while women are empathetic and credulous toward women whose character they don’t know and whom they’ve never met.

Many of us out here are lacking strong male relationships, and our small social circles translate to fewer men we innately trust and more men we innately don’t. Women seem to regard male friendships as a luxury at best–we should be focusing on career, family, and her needs–while women’s friendships are seen as a lifeline in their crazy, have-it-all world. Indeed, a man discouraging his SO’s friendships is widely seen as a sign of emotional abuse, whereas the reverse is “working on the relationship.”

This strikes me as a deep but largely untapped Red Pill well and could provide essential guidance for men looking to live a proud, constructive Red Pill life however women and children might fit into it. I’d definitely welcome your insights in future entries.

Look forward to every post!

Back in February Roosh proposed (and attempted to initiate) a worldwide event that would be a sort of ‘gathering of the tribes’ with the intent of having men get together in small local gatherings to “just have a beer and talk amongst like-minded men.” My impression of the real intent of in putting this together notwithstanding, I didn’t think it was a bad idea. However, the problem this kind of ‘tribes meeting’ suffers from is that it’s entirely contrived to put unfamiliar men together for no other purpose than to “have a beer and talk.” The problem with unfamiliar men coming together simply to meet and relate is a noble goal, however, the fundamental ways men communicate naturally makes the function of this gathering seem strange to men.

Women talk, men Do.

The best male friends I have share one or more common interests with me – a sport, a hobby, music, art, fishing, lifting, golf, etc. – and the best conversations I can remember with these friends occurred while we were engaged in some particular activity or event. Even just moving a friend into his new house; it’s about accomplishing something together and in that time relating about shit. When I lived in Florida some of the best conversations I had with my studio guys were during some project we had to collaborate on for a week or two.

Women, make time with the express purpose of talking between friends. Over coffee perhaps, but the act of communication is more important than the event or activity. Even a ‘stitch-and-bitch’ is simply an organized excuse to get together and relate. For women, communication is about context. They are rewarded by how that communication makes them feel. For Men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the interchange of information and ideas.

[…]From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that our hunter-gatherer tribal roles had a hand in men and women’s communication differences. Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort; in fact the earliest cave paintings were essentially records of a successful hunt and instructions on how to do it. Early men’s communication would necessarily have been a content driven discourse or the tribe didn’t eat.

Similarly women’s communications would’ve been during gathering efforts and childcare. It would stand to reason that due to women’s more collectivist roles they would evolve to be more intuitive, and context oriented, rather than objective oriented. A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predisposition is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.

From this perspective it’s a fairly easy follow to see how the tendency of men to distrust unfamiliar (out-group) men might be a response to a survival threat whereas women’s implicit trust of any member of the ‘sisterhood’ would be a species-survival benefit to the sex that requires the most parental investment and mutual support.

Divide & Conquer

In our post-masculine, feminine-primary social order it doesn’t take a Red Pill Lens to observe the many examples of how the Feminine Imperative goes to great lengths to destroy the intrasexual ‘tribalism’ of men. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution the social press of equalism has attempted to force a commonly accepted unisex expectation upon men to socialize and interact among themselves as women do.

The duplicity in this striving towards “equality” is, of course, the same we find in all of the socialization efforts of egalitarian equalism; demasculinizing men in the name of equality. A recent, rather glaring, example of this social push can be found (where else?) at Harvard University where more than 200 female students demonstrated against a new policy to discourage participation in single-gender clubs at the school. You see, women were very supportive of the breaking of gender barriers when it meant that men could no longer discriminate in male-exclusive (typically male-space) organizations, but when that same equalist metric was applied to women’s exclusive organizations, then the cries were accusations of insensitivity and the banners read “Women’s Groups Keep Women Safe.”

That’s a pretty fresh incident that outlines the dynamic, but it’s important to understand the underlying intent of the “fine for me, but not for thee” duplicity here. That intent is to divide and control men’s communication by expecting them to communicate as women do, and ideally to do so on their own accord by conditioning them to accept women’s communication means as the normatively correct way to communicate. As I’ve mentioned before, the most effective social conventions are the ones in which the participants willingly take part in and willingly encourage others to believe is correct.

Tribes vs. The Sisterhood

Because men have such varied interests, passions and endeavors based on them it’s easy to see how men compartmentalize themselves into various sub-tribes. Whether it’s team sports (almost always a male-oriented endeavor), cooperative enterprises, cooperative forms of art (rock bands have almost always been male space) or just hobbies men share, it is a natural progression for men to form sub-tribes within the larger whole of conventional masculinity.

Because of men’s’ outward reaching approach to interacting with the world around him, there’s really no unitary male tribe in the same fashion that the collective ‘Sisterhood’ of women represents. One of the primary strengths of the Feminine Imperative has been its unitary tribalism among women. We can see this evidenced in how saturated the Feminine Imperative has become into mainstream society and how it’s embedded itself into what would otherwise be diametrically opposed factions among women. Political, socioeconomic and religious affiliations of women (various sub-tribes) all become secondary to the interests of ‘womankind’ when embracing the collective benefits of being women and leveraging both their victim and protected statuses.

Thus, we see no cognitive dissonance when women simultaneously embrace a hostile opposition to one faction while still retaining the benefits that faction might offer to the larger whole of the Sisterhood. The Sisterhood is unitary first and then it is broken down into sub-tribes. Family, work, interests, political / religious compartmentalizations become sublimated to fostering the collective benefits of womankind.

While I can speculatively understand the socio-evolutionary underpinnings of how this psychological dynamic came to be, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out just how effective this unitary collectiveness has been in shaping society towards a social ideal that supports an unfettered drive towards women’s gender-coded need to optimize Hypergamy. This unitary, gender-primary tribalism has been (and is) the key to women’s unilateral social power – and even in social environments where women still suffer oppression, the Sisterhood will exercise this gender-tribalism.

Threat Assessments

Asserting any semblance of a unitary male tribalism is a direct threat to the Feminine Imperative. In The Threat I began the essay with this summation:

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

When I wrote this essay I did so from the perspective of women feeling vulnerable about interacting intimately with men who understood their own value to women and also understood how to leverage it. One of the reasons Game is so vilified, ridiculed and disqualified by the Sisterhood is because it puts this understanding into practice with women and, in theory, removes women from the optimization of Hypergamy. Red Pill awareness and Game lessens women’s control in that equation, which is sexy from the standpoint of dealing with a self-aware high SMV man, but also threatening from the perspective that her security depends on him acquiescing to her Frame and control.

Up to this point, Game has represented an individualized threat to women’s Hypergamous control, but there has always been a larger majority of men (Betas) who’ve been easily kept ignorant of their true potential for control. However, on a larger social landscape, the Feminine Imperative understands the risks involved in men forming a unitary tribe – a Brotherhood – based solely on benefitting and empowering men. The manosphere, while still effectively a collection of sub-tribes, represents a threat to the imperative because its base purpose is making men aware of their true state in a feminine-centric social order.

As such, any attempt to create male-specific, male-empowering organizations is made socially synonymous with either misogyny (hate) or homosexuality (shame). Ironically, the shame associated with homosexuality that a fem-centric society would otherwise rail against becomes an effective form of intra-gender shame when it’s applied to heterosexual collectives of men. Even suggestions of male-centered tribalism are attached with homosexual suspicions, and these come from within the collectives of men themselves.

tribalism_1a

The above picture is from an “academic” conference (class?) Mediated Feminisms: Activism and Resistance to Gender and Sexual Violence in the Digital Age held at UCL in London. There’s quite a bit more to this than just collecting and codifying the sub-tribes of the manosphere, more can be found here.

Now, granted, this conference is replete with all of the uninformed (not to mention willful ignorance) concern to be expected of contemporary feminists, but this does serve as a current example of how men organizing for the exclusive benefit of men is not just equated with misogyny, but potential violence. As a unitary collective of men, the manosphere terrifies the Feminine Imperative. That fear, however, doesn’t stem from any real prospective violence, but the potential for a larger ‘awareness’ in men of their own conditions and the roles they are expected to play to perpetuate a feminine-centric social order. They fear to lose the control that the ‘socially responsible’ ignorance of men provides them with.

Men’s predisposition to form sub-tribes and intrasexual competition (“lets you and him fight”) has always been a means of covert control by women, but even still the Feminine Imperative must insert its influence and oversight into those male spaces to make use of  them. Thus, by assuring that feminine primacy is equated with the idea of inclusive equalism, all Male Space is effectively required to be “unisex space” while all-female sub-tribes must remain exclusively female. For an easy example of this, compare and contrast the reactions to Harvard’s unisex institution of campus club equalism to the worldwide reactions to, and preemption of, the “Tribe” meetings only attempted to be organized by Return of Kings in February.

Making Men

By controlling men’s intrasex communications with each other the Feminine Imperative can limit men’s unified, collective, understanding of masculinity and male experiences. Feminine-primary society hates and is terrified of men defining and asserting masculinity for themselves (to the point of typifying it as potentially violent), but as connectivity progresses we will see a more concentrated effort to lock down the narrative and the means of men communicating male experiences.

I’ve detailed in many prior posts how the imperative has deliberately misdirected and confused men about a unified definition of masculinity. That confusion is designed to keep men guessing and doubting about their “security in their manhood” while asserting that the feminine-correct definition is the only legitimate definition of healthy, ‘non-toxic’, masculinity. This deliberate obfuscation and ambiguity about what amounts to ‘authentic masculinity’ is another means of controlling men’s awareness of their true masculine potential and value – a potential that they rightly fear will mean acquiescing to men’s power over their Hypergamous social and personal control. Anything less than a definition of masculinity that fosters female primacy and fempowerment is labeled “toxic masculinity” – literally and figuratively poisonous.

This is the real, operative reason behind the obsessive, often self-contradicting, need for control of male space by the Feminine Imperative. Oversight and infiltration of male sub-tribes and instituting a culture of self-policing of the narrative within those sub-tribes maintains a feminine-primary social order.

Building Better Betas

Since the time in which western(izing) societies shifted to unfettering Hypergamy on a social scale there has been various efforts to demasculinize – if not outright feminize – the larger majority of men. Today we’re seeing the results of, and still persistent efforts of this in much starker contrast as transgenderism and the social embrace of foisting gender-loathing on boys becomes institutionalized. A deliberate promotion of a social constructivist narrative about gender identity and the very early age at which children can “choose” a gender for themselves is beginning to be more and more reinforced in our present feminine-primary social order.

As a result of this, and likely into our near future, today’s men are conditioned to feel uncomfortable being “men”. That discomfort is a direct result of the ambiguity and misguidance about conventional masculinity the imperative has fostered in men when they were boys. This feminization creates a gender loathing, but that loathing comes as the result of an internal conflict between the feminine-correct “non-toxic” understanding of what masculinity ought to be and the conventional aspects of masculinity that men need to express as a result of their biology and birthright.

Effectively, this confusion has the purpose of creating discomfort in men among all-male sub-tribes. These masculine-confused men have difficulty with intersocial communication within the sub-tribes they’re supposed to have some sort of kin or in-group affiliation with.  Even the concept of “male bonding” has become a point of ridicule (something typical of male buffoons) or suspiciously homosexual , so, combined with the feminine identification most of these men default to, today’s “mangina” typically has more female friends and feels more comfortable communicating as women communicate. These men have been effectively conditioned to believe or feel that male interaction or organization is inherently wrong, uncomfortable or contrived, possibly even threatening if the organizing requires physical effort. Consequently, interacting as a male becomes ridiculous or superficial.

Pushing Back

What then is to be done about this conditioning? For all the efforts to destroy or regulate male tribalism, the Feminine Imperative still runs up against men’s evolved predispositions to interact with the outside world instead of fixating on the inside world of women. Below I’ve pieced together some actionable ideas that might help men come to a better, unitary way of fostering the male tribalism the Feminine Imperative would see destroyed or used as a tool of soci0-sexual control:

  • While it is vitally important to maintain a male-specific mental point of origin, together men need a center point of action. Women talk, men do. Men need a common purpose in which the tribe can focus its efforts on. Men need to build, coordinate, win, compete and problem solve amongst themselves. The ‘purpose’ of a tribe can’t simply be one of getting together as like-minded men; in fact, groups with such a declared purpose are often designed to be the most conciliatory and accommodating of the Feminine Imperative. Men require a common, passionate purpose to unite for.

 

  • Understand and accept that men will naturally form male hierarchies in virtually every context if that tribe is truly male-exclusive. There will be a reflexive resistance to this, but understand that the discomfort in acknowledging male hierarchies stems from the Feminine Imperative’s want to make any male authority a toxic form of masculinity. Contrary to feminine conditioning male hierarchies are not necessarily based on Dark Triad manipulations. That is the ‘fem-think’ – any male created hierarchy of authority is by definition evil Patriarchy.

 

  • Recognize existing male sub-tribes for what they are, but do so without labeling them as such. Don’t talk about Fight Club, do Fight Club. As with most other aspects of Red Pill aware Game, it is always better to demonstrate rather than explicate. There will always be an observer effect in place when you call a male group a “male group”. That tribe must exist for a passionate reason other than the express idea that it exists to be about men meeting up. Every sub-tribe I belong to, every collective interest I share with other men, even the instantly forming ones that arise from an immediate common need or function, all exist apart from “being” about men coming together.Worldwide “tribe” day failed much for the same reasons an organization like the Good Men Project fails – they are publicized as a gathering of men just “being” men.

 

  • Push back on the invasion of male space by being uncompromising in what you do and organize with passion. Make no concessions for women in any all-male space you create or join. There will always be a want to accommodate women and/or the fears of not being accommodating of feminine-primary mindsets within that all-male purview. Often this will come in subtle forms of anonymous White Knighting or reservations about a particular passion due to other men’s Blue Pill conditioning to always consider the feminine before considerations of themselves or the tribe. It is vitally important to the tribe to quash those sympathies and compromising attitudes as these are exactly the designs of the Feminine Imperative to destroy a tribe from within.Make no concessions for competency of women within the tribe if you find yourself in a unisex tribal situation. Even the U.S. military is guilty of reducing combat service requirements for women as recently as this month. If you are a father or you find yourself in a role of mentoring boys or young men it is imperative that you instill this no-compromise attitude in them and the organizations that they create themselves.

 

  • The primary Red Pill / Game tenets that you’ve learned with respect to women are entirely applicable in a larger scope when it comes to resisting the influences of the Feminine Imperative. Frame and a return to a collectively male-exclusive Mental Point of Origin are two of the primary tenets to apply to non-intimate applications of resistance in terms of aspects of society. Observations and the Red Pill Lens should inform your interactions with women and men on a social scale.

 

Finally, I want to close by restating that my approach to resisting the influences of the Feminine Imperative on a meta-social scale is the same bottom-up approach I used with unplugging men from their Blue Pill doldrums. Once men have taken the first steps in Red Pill awareness this new perspective has a tendency to expound into greater social understandings and a want for applications beyond hooking up with desirable women. That Red Pill awareness becomes a way of life, but moreover, it should inform us as men, as tribes, about how best to maintain ourselves as masculine-primary individuals and organizations.


The Rational Male Audio Book

TRM_Audible_Cover

Well, it’s been a long time coming, but I’m proud to announce that the audio version of my first book The Rational Male is now available on Audible, Amazon, and iTunes.

As I mentioned in November, the book was narrated by professional voice talent Sam Botta. Sam has been my shadow for about as long as I’ve had the blog up and has made a great many personal investments on his own to see this book through. In November, I also mentioned Sam’s medical issues and I’m happy to say that I’ve worked out a beneficial royalties arrangement to help him with his exorbitant medical bills. So when you buy the over 14-hour long audio version of The Rational Male you’re also helping Sam.

A lot of readers have asked me why I didn’t have an audio version available from the get go, or why it’s been about two and a half years since I published the first book that I’m now releasing the audio. I had actually considered an audio version when I published in 2013, but I had little idea of how influential and well received the book would be then so I figured I’d give the book a year to allow it to mature.

I’m glad I did now because there’s a lot to digest in The Rational Male, to say the least. I’ve mentioned it before, but I didn’t think I’d be publishing any other book after TRM so I wanted to make it as comprehensive as possible. I’m not an author by trade, but I do enjoy writing both on this blog, essays and now two books.

Exploring Red Pill awareness and spreading the collective experiences of men from all over the world has always been the point of both books – and soon, the third book. So I view this audio version as another means to accessing Red Pill awareness. I was a bit hesitant to do an audio version because I’ve always intended my work to be referenceable and relative to my other essays or stories I use to bolster my points. It’s kind of difficult to deliver the same message, one that’s meant to be well considered, while it’s being read to you and then

I was a bit hesitant to do an audio version because I’ve always intended my work to be referenceable and relative to my other essays or stories I use to bolster my points. And that’s to say nothing about the involved discussion of my commenters on each post. It’s kind of difficult to deliver the same message, one that’s meant to be well considered, while it’s being read to you and then moving on to the next topic of thought.

So it was for that reason I initially delayed the first book’s audio, however, I do feel the book has made a significant impact in Red Pill awareness and the manosphere to the point where I think its accessibility makes it useful.

The other reason was that I was determined to have Sam Botta do the reading after his having done so much for the reach of my work. I won’t belabor his hit-and-run accident – I hope Sam will explain how he’s doing in the comments here – but, suffice to say he was involved in an accident that meant he basically had to relearn how to speak, walk, sleep and do many other things we regularly take for granted.

I wanted him to do the read and his work on the audiobook, he says, was instrumental in his year-long recovery.

So there you have it. I’m glad it’s finally been released into the wild and I’m already getting positive feedback on it. I would hope you’d buy this version of the book with the same intent you bought the physical copy; to share it and discuss the essays with other men (and women) who aren’t (or as) Red Pill aware. Obviously, I’d like others to buy the book as well, but more importantly, I’d like it to be shared and explored, so with that in mind, please, loan it or listen to it with other men you think will benefit from it.

And, just at the end here, yes I do plan to release an audio version of Preventive Medicine soon, but it also suffers from a need for visual aids from the book so I’m brainstorming ways to do this. Also, yes, I am in the beginning stages of compiling and writing the third Rational Male series book, and if you have any thoughts on it, please let me know in the comments.

Thanks all.


Women ‘Improving’ Men

Improving_men

“I’d honestly love if the manosphere would actually focus on helping men in relationships and self-improvement.”

I had this comment offered in a recent thread. It’s a common gripe from women who believe they’re in some way Red Pill and want to divert their new acceptance of Red Pill truths to serve the same tired ends of the Feminine Imperative. The operative, of course, is always whose definition do we base the measure of ‘improvement’ on? For most women the term ‘improvement’ always aligns with whatever best serves a female sexual strategy – because from a feminine-solipsistic perspective whatever serve women should necessarily serve men.

As with most uneducated women’s concerns I’d already addressed this long ago in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

A lot gets made of the Dark Triad or the Dark Side of Game where a skillful player can sadistically use his newly learned red-pill super powers for evil instead of for the greater good of mankind. Game-aware women – the ones who have been forcibly exhausted of all pretense of maintaing the illusion that Game is a lie – feel as though it’s owed to them, in their concession of Game’s reality, that Men should use Game to women’s benefit. Even to the last effort women still cling to the tools of a feminized acculturation;

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

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

As the default, socially correct and virtuous concern, women have an easier time of this. As Game becomes increasingly more difficult to deny or misdirect for the feminine, the natural next step in accepting it becomes qualifying its acceptable uses. While hypergamy is an ugly truth, the characterization of it becomes “just how women are” –an unfortunate legacy of their evolution. However for Men, the characterizations of the harsher aspects of Game in its rawest form  (contingencies for hypergamy) are dubbed “the dark arts”.

In her trolling ignorance she fails to understand that she and many “Red Pill Women” before her all want a better Beta. They want a Beta with a side of Alpha – in essence a better slave; one that’s just ignorant enough of female nature and the consequences that ignorance represents, but one who also Just Gets It and satisfies their need for amused mastery, masculine dominance (when it’s convenient and affirming), and ‘just gets women’ so well he never needs to be made aware of women’s nature.

The difference in this case is that the ostensibly “Red Pill” woman now looks to the manosphere’s best and brightest to provide them with such men via some distortion of Red Pill social proof. Not only that, but, in their entitled hubris, they are all too willing to pander to exactly the male idealistic nature I described in the last post. Their appeal is to Red Pill aware men’s sense of duty, honor or integrity in mentoring other Blue Pill Beta men (the ones they hope to improve) in an acceptable Purple Pill fashion – just enough ‘self-improvement’ to serve women’s sexual strategies, but just enough watered down ignorance of women’s feral nature to serve as what they believe would be their ‘right guy’.

You’re just not a “Man” if you don’t promote a feminine reviewed and approved version of the Red Pill to other men.

Many of the wives and women that participate in formerly Red Pill married forums follow this invasion into that previously male space and then turn it to similar ends.

The worst part of this bastardization of course is that they only need to encourage the parts of Red Pill awareness that serves their ends. They feel entitled to Red Pill men educating the plugged-in in how to become the ‘improved’ men they believe they deserve. Thus it’s an easy bandwagon to get aboard so long as their redefinition of what actually is Red Pill jives with what they feel is their due in men.

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

The ideal situation for Red Pill women here is to have a group of respected Red Pill men educate the next generation of plugged-in men to provide the attractive aspects of this awareness while stifling the uncomfortable threatening aspects that might require women to actually prove their own worthiness of those men.

Sexy Psychopaths

My good friend Dagonet had a bit of a misguided hope in this tweet today:

Once again, male idealism gets the better of one of our own. I wish it were in fact the case that women’s innate, evolved Hypergamy could be overridden so they would find men’s higher-order virtues and ideals to be arousing and attractive. This, however, is not the reality we are dealing with.

Reader Gregg brought up an interesting, and as you’ll read timely, comment about why Dag is in error:

Men think that women want “confident, strong” men. Why do we think that way? Because women told us so, or we have read it in some “wise” 500 pages psychology book. Our old provider needs to believe this, so that he has some “noble” manly goal he can pursue. Of course it is very beneficial for women to have STRONG, CONFIDENT slave that protect her. Put aside our male ego, our goals and aspirationas when we want to understand women. They know that our male ego will side with them, will help them in their game. Unhampered by ego, woman can easily enslave man like that.

Male ego tells us – we have to be strong and confident..cos it is “manly”, it’s “respectable” and women SHOULD respect that! So it is a given that they respect that! While in reality…nothing is further from the truth. She wants strong and confident men as her protecting slaves but she tingles and craves for emotionally unstable man. Like attracts the like. Is Tyler Durden a strong, confident man? He is unstable, knows weak spot of women, he can live in a moment, is more unpredictable than woman. He is emotionally intelligent, more so than typical women. He behaves more like a woman than like a man. Therefore he HAS POWER over them! Is Mystery a strong, confident man? Anyone who’s read “the Game” knows how he was driven mad by one, single chick.

What are the traits of men, women are madly enslaved to? Is it confidence, is it strenght? NOPE. It is unpredictability, unstability, emotional COLDNESS, psychopathy! In this case he is more unstable than her, so SHE is trying to fix the relationship, she is trying to give them some rules, some stability, some “security”. She must do all the work, otherwise there is nothing. She fills the void. He who cares less…..

We still do not want to confess hard, dark truth about women and about ourselves. We still talk about this burden of performance, confidence, strenght, emh..POSITIVE masculinity. We still discuss with women, try to persuade them with logic, try to impress them with our “performance”, knowledge, experience. So can our man with innate need to perform rule/care less about, the realtionship? How? He is enslaved by his very need to perform which performance will be judged by women!

Ultimate lotharios are neither strong, nor confident. They behave more like women than like men. They do not feel the need to perform, to protect, to build, to be confident, to answer, to be responsible. Take Charlie Sheen as an example. This man is emotionally damaged, unstable, irresponsible, weak. Majority of women are much more stable than him. Yet he has fucked more then 5000 of them. You think it is due to his fame? I am sure each of us know weak men, psychopatic men with no fame, yet with harems of women.

It is still the same…discussion of slaves how to be worthy of women. Maybe mentality, maybe genetics, do not know which one more. And new generations of lambs arises…primed for slaughter as the last. We are loosing my friends, big time.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but I’ll drop a two of the responding comments before I do. YaReally provides some counterbalance here:

YaReally:

And here we come to two different results because Gregg isn’t entirely inaccurate that a lot of fucked up damaged dudes are catnip for girls (and not just damaged fucked up girls, hi madonna/whore complex). Whenever we get two different results we have to drill deeper to find the commonality.

It comes down to the guy having an emotional impact on the girl. It doesn’t matter whether you make her feel good or bad emotions (ideally you make her feel both at various times), all that matters is that you have emotional impact on her. The damaged basketcase hot & cold guy who treats her like a princess one minute then tells her to fuck off because his life is falling apart the next is giving her a full range of emotions. So is the super confident guy with his shit together who’s running push/pull on her.

The biggest thing no one will talk about because it sets guys on a bad path is how fucked up and falling apart your life can really BE and you can still attract and keep hot poon around. Ideally we want men to go the TRP route where they build their careers and hit the gym and don’t booze it up etc. But the reality is you can be a fucking MESS and still get hot girls, as long as you have emotional impact on them. It’s why chicks will whore themselves out for ugly pimps and go back to abusive relationships, and on the flip side it’s why they’ll leave dependable boring guys who give them an emotional flatline day to day.

Personally I think that in the old days a chick had a baby at an early enough age to fulfill her need for crazy emotional impact drama to keep her happy and not craving it, but these days since they don’t want kids till they’re 30+ they fill that voice with the cock carousel, cats, Eat Pray Love adventures, hundreds of hours of Netflix (shows/movies full of emotional ups and downs), fucking guys like me, etc.

And finally I’m going to paraphrase SJF’s comment here for another perspective:

What makes you think “lothario” is the kind of man some of us want to be? (although I’m not sure if you are advocating being one or not.) A lothario is an unscrupulous seducer of woman. Unscrupulous means having or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair.

Just because a man has an innate desire (not need) to perform, doesn’t mean he is enslaved. The Rational Male certainly confesses/explicates/describes truths about women and ourselves. Some of us aren’t shackled by knowledge of the burden of performance and having confidence, strength and positive masculinity. Some of us have found that not to be a burden. To be a low hurdle to real power. With low downside and potentially huge upside.

As an aside here I would also point out that Gregg’s focus on men’s Burden of Performance is entirely on serving women’s interests rather than a natural order of male idealism. This is a common mindset among Blue Pill, plugged-in men, they can’t imagine an existence where their finding of an idealistically male purpose or passion in life is set in a context that doesn’t relate to how women perceive it. It’s a logical trap that most MGTOWs find themselves in – they want a world where their performance burden is removed with regard to women, but still refuse to accept that this burden exists independent from women’s perceptions.

In other words they can’t exit the Game, the fundamental rules persist; whether they choose to play or not the Game proceeds in spite of their involvement.

That being what it is, I’ve set these two concepts together here for a reason. First we have a set of Red Pill women seemingly desirous of Red Pill aware men that serve their imperatives within their acceptable frame of what “Red Pill” ought to be for them. Second we have a parallel between Gregg’s take and YaReally’s take on what women are honestly seeking in an ‘improved’ man – a more perfected slave; one who can embody the worst contradiction to positive masculinity (from Gregg’s perspective), and one who despite his performance burden is really only required to provide emotional polarity to generate tingles and genuine desire.

Toxic Masculinity

Liz’s comment from the last thread (emphasis mine):

Masculinity is not bad, it is good.

The poster responded that toxic masculinity refers to behaviors that cause distress (telling a son not to cry and so forth). I didn’t go further into the argument with her, we didn’t see eye to eye enough to really engage anyway […]

Juxtapose this with the feminine way of going things. He is told everyone has his or her own unique specialness and he just needs some encouragement.

Sometimes I think our idea of “bad” and “good” are skewed, and that’s just feminist poisoning.

Toxic masculinity is yet another narrative buzz word the Feminine Imperative has made endemic in the same way it repeats the “rape culture’ meme. By adding the term ‘culture’ to any article you find offensive you make that article an endemic phenomenon – Rape ‘culture’, Bro ‘culture’, a ‘Culture’ of Corruption, etc.

‘Toxic’ Masculinity is another such exercise. It presumes a universally agreed upon definition of what exactly is toxic – very similar again to the good and bad uses of Game in the Dark Art / Dark Triad associations I made at the beginning of this article. And in Liz’s exchange that definition is whatever male-specific behaviors women find “distressing”.

However as we see in Gregg’s example of ideal masculinity, those distressing attributes are in fact the most arousing attributes of men. I’ve used this example before, but the most pussy I’ve ever enjoyed, the most freely given and most genuinely sought after of myself by women was when I was virtually penniless. I didn’t need to signal parental investment and provisioning cues to get women’s sexual interest, I just need to fit the bill for what YaReally defines as the “fun guy” – or as Sheryl Sandberg agrees, “the bad boy, the crazy boy, the cool boy, and the commitment-phobic boy in order to prompt a woman’s genuinely inspired sexual best.

Women & Altruism:

Altruism plays a role in mate choice, particularly in women’s preferences and in long-term (LT) relationships. The current study analyzed how these preferences interacted with another important mate choice variable, physical attractiveness. Here, female participants were presented with photographs of men of varying levels of physical attractiveness, alongside descriptions of them behaving either altruistically or not in different scenarios. The results showed women preferred altruistic men, particularly in LT relationships and that this interacted with physical attractiveness such that being both attractive and altruistic made a man more desirable than just the sum of the two desirable parts. Also, being altruistic made low attractive men more desirable but only for LT relationships. Finally, men who were just altruistic were rated more desirable than men who were just attractive, especially for LT relationships. Overall, these findings are discussed in terms of the role of altruism in mate choice, particularly in LT relationships and directions of future research.

There’s subsection of Red Pill thought (Athol Kay in particular) that believes that Beta attributes align with the effects oxytocin has on men and women. I’m adding this here to provide a balance to that misguided idea:

It has been suggested that the degree of compassion—the feeling of warmth, understanding and kindness that motivates the desire to help others, is modulated by observers’ views regarding the target’s vulnerability and suffering. This study tested the hypothesis that as compassion developed to protect vulnerable kinships, hormones such as oxytocin, which have been suggested as playing a key role in ‘tend-and-befriend’ behaviors among women, will enhance compassion toward women but not toward men. Thirty subjects participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subject study. Following administration of oxytocin/placebo, participants listened to recordings of different female/male protagonists describing distressful emotional conflicts and were then asked to provide compassionate advice to the protagonist. The participants’ responses were coded according to various components of compassion by two clinical psychologists who were blind to the treatment. The results showed that in women and men participants oxytocin enhanced compassion toward women, but did not affect compassion toward men. These findings indicate that the oxytocinergic system differentially mediates compassion toward women and toward men, emphasizing an evolutionary perspective that views compassion as a caregiving behavior designed to help vulnerable individuals.

Those example might seem a bit abstract, but I’m putting them up here to make the point that women’s sexual selection filtering is a two-fold prospect rooted in the dual nature of women’s Hypergamy. What best serves Alpha Fucks is contradicted by Beta Bucks.

Thus we have notions like the attributes that make up “Toxic Masculinity” being arbitrarily whatever aspects of the male nature women find themselves most lacking in men. And by way of that we get a definition that fluctuates according to the Feminine Imperative’s needs. Because of this women, Red Pill or otherwise will never be honest arbiter of ‘improving’ men’s states of masculinity.


The Red Pill Balance

Before you move on to reading today’s post, please take 14 minutes and listen to Niko Choski’s latest here Man:the being made of stone, it’ll be relevant in the second half of this post.

Niko is MGTOW, and from what I know is fairly highly regarded in that sphere. I did an interview with him back in August and since then have become a semi-regular listener of his youtube channel. We’ve occasionally bounced ideas off one another since the interview and I hold Niko in the highest respect for his intellectual approach and insights.

So it’s with that in mind that I’m going to use his latest offering here as a contrast to what I’m going into today.

Reader Divided Line stopped me in my writing tracks on another post with this comment from the last post thread. Not the least of which because I’d just finished listening to Niko’s audio here, but also because it was an interesting juxtaposition to what I’d planned to go into today. I’m going to quote Divided Line here and riff a bit as I go (emphasis mine):

@reloadedbeats

A lot of what you’ve said here echos my own thinking to such a degree that it’s as if you read my mind. I agree 100%.

What you’re talking about here, I think, is the inherent value of goodness or justice. I think Plato took up this question in the Republic and nailed it better than most.

In the beginning of the dialogue the question is “what is justice?” But it quickly transforms into “what is the value of justice?” In other words, if goodness wins us no reward, then what value does it have? Is it valuable in its own right? Would it have value even if it cost us something, or indeed cost us everything?

Glaucon puts the question like this (paraphrasing): “What if the perfectly just man is seen by everyone as perfectly unjust, while the perfectly unjust man is seen as perfectly just?” He then puts it on Socrates to effectively prove that, even in this scenario, justice would be worth it.

We could gender this question and simply ask “what if the perfectly good man is seen as perfectly unattractive to women, while the perfectly evil man is seen as perfectly attractive?”

Is goodness worth it even if it isn’t profitable sexually or socially? It’s the same question.

Why be a ‘good’ man when what we consider good by both personal and social measures isn’t rewarded (or only grudgingly rewarded), while what we consider ‘bad’ is what is enthusiastically rewarded with women’s genuine desire and intimacy? In other words, Hypergamy doesn’t care about what men consider good or bad.

It seems like this is the predicament red pill awareness puts us in when we have to consider the value of our formerly beta self. What makes the beta the beta is his weakness, of course, but it is simultaneously his civility. We’re not defective people for wanting or even needing the possibility love, empathy, truth, friendship, kindness, and – above all else – trust in our lives. It just makes us human. If we project our deeply rooted desires for these things and treat others the way we want to be treated, wouldn’t society be better off for it? And isn’t this what the supplicating, loyal beta does when latches on to a woman he believes to the “the One?”

No Quarter Given

In my post (and book chapter) Of Love and War I quote a reader who summed up this want for relief from men’s inherent Burden of Performance:

We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.

We want to, so badly.

If we do, we soon are no longer able to

When I consider Niko’s perspective alongside this I begin to see a stark paradox; mens’ want for a relief or a respite from that performance burden tends to be their undoing. I wont get too deep into this, but one reason I see the MGTOW sphere being so seductive is the hopeful promise of that same relief. Simply give up. Refuse to play along and reject the burden altogether. Japan’s herbivorous men crisis is a graphic example of the long term effects of this.

However, this is the same mistake men make in their Blue Pill, Beta conditioning. They believe that if they meet the right girl, if they align correctly with that special ONE, then they too can give up and not worry about their performance burden – or relax and only make the base effort necessary to keep his ONE happy.

The Beta buys the advertising that his Blue Pill conditioning has presented to him for a lifetime. Find the right girl who accepts you independent of your performance, and you can let down your guard, be vulnerable, forget any notion of Red Pill truths because your girl is a special specimen who places no conditions on her love, empathy, intimate acceptance or genuine desire for you.

And this is also very seductive and inuring for the Beta who’s been conditioned to believe there can realistically be a respite from his burden.

That’s how it seemed to work in my own life. Looking back on it, I was so grateful to my ex, who was easily the most attractive girl I’d ever been with, that I would have taken a bullet for her. I didn’t want anybody else. I didn’t even think about other girls – the first time that had ever happened to me in a relationship. I can remember thinking that even if she gained weight, lost her looks, and got old, I’d still want her. I would have “loved” her forever. I was good and ready to cash in my chips, exit the SMV, and retire. I would have arranged my whole life around making her happy and would have felt lucky to have had the privilege.

At the time, all of that felt noble and brave, but looking back on it, it just seems pathetic and pathological, the result of my neediness. But the thing is, what if she had reciprocated it? Wouldn’t it have been a relationship worth having? Had she reciprocated it – if any woman was capable of reciprocating that – it wouldn’t have been Disney movie bullshit, but the real thing. We’re supposed to think such a thing is possible and that’s what keeps us playing along. The Red Pill is really about recognizing its impossibility, I think. There is no possible equity. To be sure, a woman can be loyal and dedicated to you, in theory, but she’ll only give that loyalty to the guy who needs it least. It’s like a cruel, cosmic joke.

Such as it is, that girl lied to me, ran for the hills the moment I showed weakness and needed her the most, and cheated on me. Big surprise, right? With a red pill awareness now I can see how predictable that result was, but at the time I was blindsided by it. I never saw it coming. I couldn’t understand how she could do such a thing when I’d invested so much in her, when I was so willing to give her all the things I’d always wanted most. I assumed she wanted the same things – men and women are the same, right? That’s what the egalitarians tell us. I couldn’t understand how those things could be so valueless to her that she would just throw it all away like that. She didn’t value them at all.

On occasion I’ve suggested that men watch the movie Blue Valentine. You can check out the plot summary on the IMDB link there, but you really need to watch the movie (on Netflix) to appreciate what I’m going to relate here. The main character suffers from the same romantic idealism and want for a perfected, mutually shared concept of love between himself and the single mother he eventually marries.

It follows along the same familiar theme of Alpha while single / Beta after marriage that most men experience in what they believe is their lot. More often than not the Alpha they believed their wives or LTR girlfriends perceived they were was really just a guy who’d do for their needs of whatever phase of maturity she found herself in.

By itself this would be enough for me to endorse the movie, but the story teaches a much more valuable lesson. What Dean (Ryan Gosling) represents is a man who idealistically buys the Blue Pill promise that men and women share a mutual love concept, independent of what their sexual strategies and innate dispositions prompt them to. Because of this misbelief Dean gives up on the burden of his performance. He drops his ambitions and relaxes with his ONE girl, contenting himself in mediocrity, low ambitions and his idealistic belief in a woman sharing and sustaining his romanticized Blue Pill love ideal – performancelessness.

He relaxes, lets his guard down and becomes the vulnerable man he was taught since birth that women would not only desire, but require for their false, performanceless notions of mutual intimacy. The men of this sphere who don’t find themselves divorced from their progressively bored wives are often the ones who trade their ambitions and passions for a life of mediocrity and routine,…so long as the security blanket of what they believe is a sustainable, passable semblance of that love (but not desire) exists in their wives or girlfriends.

Their burden of performance is sedated so long as their women are reasonably comfortable or sedate themselves. That false sense of contentment is only temporary and leads to their own ruin or decay.

No Quarter Expected

I’ve since watched something similar happen to a friend not once but twice. It’s textbook, standard shit. AWALT.

Cultivating these unrequited beta aspects of somebody’s character, if we did it on a mass scale, creates a society worth living in. It’s a civilized society where these things are most possible and it’s a truly worthwhile relationship where both parties regard each other this way and can full expect it to be reciprocated. It requires faith and trust, but we all know better. Our survival depends on knowing better, post sexual revolution. Women were never worthy of such trust and they’re entirely incapable of it. They were never capable of it. We were just supposed to think they were and cultivate the better aspects of our natures in order to be worthy of them.

The ugly truth of it is that women were never worthy of us.

Women’s sexuality doesn’t reward justice or goodness – if it did, reciprocity would be the norm and none of us would be confused about relational equity. Women reward not goodness, but strength. And strength is amoral, meaning it can be either just or unjust, good or bad. The guy with strength can either be the villain or the hero – it makes no difference to women. They can’t tell the difference and in truth don’t care anyway.

There is a set of the Red Pill that subscribe to what I’d call a ‘scorched earth‘ policy. It’s very difficult to reconcile the opportunistic basis of women’s Hypergamous natures with men’s hopeful, idealistic want for a love that’s independent from their performance burden. So the idea is again one of giving up. They say fuck it, women only respond to the most base selfishly individualistic, socio or psychopathic of men, so the personality they adopt is one that hammers his idealism flat and exaggerates his ‘Dark Triad‘ traits beyond all believability.

It’s almost a vengeful embrace of the most painful truths Red Pill awareness presents to us, and again I see why the scorched earth PUA attitude would seem attractive. Women do in fact observably and predictably reward assholes and excessively dominant Alpha men with genuine desire and sexual enthusiasm.

Agreeableness and humility in men has been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners.

The problem inherent in applying reciprocal solutions to gender relations is the belief that those relations are in any way improved by an equilibrium between both sexes interests. Solution: turn hard toward the asshole energy. Men understand the rules of engagement with women and they know Game well enough to capitalize on it so why not capitalize on that mastery of it?

The dangers of this are twofold. First, it lacks real sustainability and eventually becomes a more sexualized version of MGTOW. Secondly, “accidents” happen. MGTOWs will warn us that any interaction with a woman bears a risk of sexual harassment or false rape claims, but for the scorched earth guy a planned unplanned pregnancy on the part of a woman attempting to lock down her Alpha is far more likely to be his long term downfall. Emotional and provisioning liabilities for a child tends to pour cold water on the scorched earth guy.

It wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that women are philosophically, spiritually, and morally stunted. They have a limited capacity for adherence to higher ideals and this is why they don’t know or care what actual justice or goodness is. Like Schopenhauer said, they “mistake knowledge for its appearance.”

It took me a long time to be able to accept this. That is women’s true inferiority – and women are profoundly inferior. And I take no pleasure in recognizing that, as if I’m somehow touting the superiority of team men. It’s awful, in fact. Dealing with it is the ultimate burden of performance for us as individual men, but also as a society. At some point we’re simply going to have to confront women’s moral inferiority. If we look at our institutions, the very same that are crumbling now all around us, we can see that previous generations of men already figured this out. We just forgot what they knew.

So what’s the answer? Is justice valuable for its own sake? All of us would probably on some level want to be able to say yes and argue the case, but I don’t know if I can do so convincingly.

I’m with you on this, part of me thinks “Fuck this. It can’t be like this.” But it is. I wish I had the answer.

Niko attempts to redress the assumption that men feel some necessity to be someone they really aren’t. In Vulnerability I go into how the Feminine Imperative is only too willing to exploit this self-doubt by labeling men as existential posers and their conventional masculinity is a ‘mask’ – a false charade – they put on to hide the real vulnerability that lies beneath.

Unfortunately many men accept this as gospel. It’s part of their Blue Pill upbringing and is an essential aspect of their feminine ‘sensitivity training’ and gender loathing conditioning. When masculinity is only ever a mask men wear the only thing real about them is what real women tell them it should be.

What we don’t consider is the legitimacy of our need for strength, independence, stoicism, and yes, emotional restraint. That need to be bulwark against women’s emotionality, that need to wear psychological armor against the Red Pill realities of women’s visceral natures is legitimate and necessary. If a man’s vulnerability is ever it’s because his display of it is so uncharacteristic of his normal impenetrability. The woman’s demeanor, and the narrator’s voice, in the last post’s Campbell’s soup commercial is an example of the weak, vulnerability women expect from lesser child-men – and a commensurate expectation of him to just get that he needs to be strong.

That’s the inconsistency in women’s Hypergamous nature and the narrative of the Feminine Imperative’s messaging. Be sweet, open, vulnerable; it’s OK to cry, ask for help, be sick and weakened, we’re all equal and empathetic – but, Man Up, “what, you need your mommy?”, assert yourself, the asshole is sexier than you, where’s your self-discipline? – but, your masculine identity is a mask you wear to hide the real you,……

I play many roles in the male life I lead today, and I’ve played many others in my past. I’m Rollo Tomassi in the manosphere, I’m a father to my daughter, a husband and lover to my wife, a brilliant artist and pragmatic builder of brands in my job, an adventure seeker when I’m on my snowmobile and a quiet contemplator of life and God when I’m fishing. All of those roles and more are as legitimate as I choose to make them. Do I have moments of uncertainty? Do I waiver in my resolve sometimes? Of course, but I don’t let that define me because I know there is no real strength in relating that.

The Red Pill Balance

Red Pill awareness is both a blessing and a curse. The trick is balancing your Red Pill expectations with your previous Blue Pill idealism. It’s not a sin for you to want for an idealistic reality – that’s what sets us apart from women’s opportunism. You do yourself no favors in killing you idealistic, creative sense of wonderment of what could be. The trick is acknowledging that aspect of your male self.

KFG had a comment to this point:

If men did not hold heroism as a higher ideal, we wouldn’t be here.
If women did not hold survival as a higher ideal, we wouldn’t be here.

This was precisely the dynamic I was referring to when I wrote Idealism.

Men’s idealism and idealistic concepts of love are the natural counterbalance to women’s pragmatic, Hypergamously rooted opportunism and opportunistic concepts of love and vice versa. Those differing concepts can be applied very unjustly and very cruelly, or very judiciously and honorably, but they are the reality of our existence.

Red Pill awareness isn’t just about understanding women’s innate natures and behaviors, it’s also understanding your own male nature and learning how it fits in to that new awareness and living in a new paradigm. Is something like justice valuable for its own sake? I’d say so, but that concept of justice must be tempered (or enforced) in a Red Pill understanding of what to expect from women and men. Red Pill awareness doesn’t mean we should abandon our idealism or higher order aspirations, and it certainly doesn’t mean we should just accept our lot in women’s social frame because of it. It does mean we need to balance that idealism in as pragmatic a way with the realities of what the Red Pill shows us.

 


Ladders & Snakes

Br-gYXWIgAA6Xec

All men are created equal. What you do from there is up to you.

Law 7: Get Others to Do the Work for You, but always take the credit

Use the wisdom, knowledge, and legwork of other people to further your own cause. Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy, it will give you an aura of efficiency and speed. In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered. Never do yourself what others can do for you.

When I was first introduced the the 48 Laws of Power the seventh was the one I had the most trouble accepting. I should really say I have trouble ’employing’ this law, because I’ve spent my entire life as an artist in some capacity and I’m very particular about the integrity and character of what it is I create. Obviously we have rights management and plagiarism laws to ensure against the more blatant ‘stealing’ of ideas, but a lot of what accounts for taking unwarranted credit occurs in more nuanced social situations.

It’s usually in these social circumstances that the average person makes use of Law 7. It’s hardly a law at all considering how naturally humans will use it. In a purely ethical sense it’s kind of a no-brainer; don’t assume credit that you’re undeserving of, but bending the perceptions of what we base our estimates on is where the real art comes in.

On a personal level, my investment in what I create and how that creation is received is what matters most to me. I understand the want for a quick reward, but I’m more concerned with a cheap imitation of what I’ve created debasing the quality and effort it took to create it. For instance, I’ve spent the better part of my career creating products and brands for people with a lot of money who really had no real investment in what it was I was making for them. All they wanted was a “product” that they could promote and sell.

Naturally the quality and integrity of that brand or product had to be something they could get behind (the horse must at least look like it could win), but not be held too personally accountable should that product end up being less than ideal. That’s a nice way of saying most salesmen I’ve known love a widget if it’s something that sells, but they’re never really on the hook for if it sucks – that accountability rests with the creator.

While we were dining after the Man in Demand conference we had discussion about exactly this dynamic. I make an effort to keep my business endeavors as businesslike as possible, but there are brands and things I create that I will personally invest myself into. I have to be very careful of this because it took me a long time (and more than a few failed attempts) to develop the discernment to know what’s worth putting myself into. However, it is especially satisfying for me to travel to another country and see one of my bottles in the duty-free stores at the airport and then be at a bar & grill somewhere on vacation and see one on the backbar.

I explained to the guys that what I create (and own) are not “products” to me. I dislike that term in that sense. I understand the utility of that word to salesmen; product is an easy unit of measure, but to the person creating that thing it’s a measure of the quality of their idea. To refer to that creation as a product impersonalizes that creation and allows the seller to remain at arms distance should the creation be wildly popular or a horrible failure.

That pride of ownership or the abandoning of it is a convenience for someone only invested in promoting that thing, but on some level it is never really theirs with the same responsibility as the one who created it. So ultimately the noncommittal position of selling, promoting, endorsing, etc. becomes an arrangement of convenience since the creator’s idea is where the ‘product’s’ strengths lie – and also where the real accreditation should too.

I’ve occasionally been accused by the ignorant on Twitter of being dependent on The Rational Male for my revenue. Most of my regular readers know what I do for a living and understand why that’s silly, but I don’t think it’s any real secret that what I write here and in the books is something very personal to me. The Rational Male has always been something I’ve invested myself in for obvious reasons, but I’ve always resisted turning it into a brand per se. There wont be any TRM T-Shirts coming in the foreseeable future.

I’m proud to be responsible for what I do here and I will never be beholden to making what I create into a ‘product’ for others to sell. One of the best things about being in the position I am is being anti-fragile enough to write what I believe is important while still keeping myself solvent on what I do apart from it. This allows me a much greater freedom than needing to write something to stay solvent.

Bargain Debasement

You’ll have to forgive my intro here, but it got me to thinking about a larger point I had in mind about how and why a man invests himself in various endeavors in life. I’ve worked hard to get to a point in life where I can say my personal successes (and failures) are my own and not the result of others’ funding or some fortunate dispensation, but rather based on the strength of ideas and responsibly owning them as the creator. Yet another reason I have a problem with Law 7; for as much as you may gain by employing it you rarely develop the insights that failing of your own accord teaches you. Experience teaches harsh, but it teaches best.

I think one of the reasons men find the popularized, feminist, social convention of ‘male privilege‘ so disingenuous is because we want to be appreciated for the sacrifices and perseverance needed to even have what looks like a meager, hand-out, kind of privilege. An atmosphere of default privilege debases what men have honestly invested themselves in. I’ve always held that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate their feminine-primary reality, but that’s not to discount men’s want to still be appreciated for them.

Whether that’s manifested in financial wealth, personal freedom, status or earned wisdom there’s a fundamental want for an appreciation that is rarely ever forthcoming. One reason I believe many men have a self-fulfilling definition of what it is to be Alpha is because they feel they’ve earned that identification through hard work and playing by a set of rules everyone else should, but get frustrated when their efforts go unappreciated, if not outright exploited. Again, Law 7. It’s galling to see others rewarded for exploiting what you think should be appreciated.

There’s a subset of MGTOW reader/writers who question every man’s motive for doing what it is he does thinking that appeasing women is at the root of every effort. Nothing is a genuinely inspired passion if the end result is women’s affectations. I covered this in Crisis of Motive, but what exactly is a genuine motive in that sense? If the byproduct result of my genuine interests is having sex with gorgeous women and/or a beautiful wife and a couple of well adjusted kids should that then discredit my unique talents and interests in what I do?

What if, after all a man does, he seeks an appreciation that will only rarely be unsolicited on his part? It’s one thing to command respect; it’s quite another to demand it.

Institutionalized Success

In this sense I think what is most egregious about the present state of marriage is that, for the greater part, all of the personal equity a man invests in himself over the course of his lifetime is only a divorce settlement away from being halved for him (if not more so). A man’s personal equity (not to be confused with relational equity) is only one false rape allegation away from ruin. This is the institutionalization of Law 7: that a woman can largely and legally get a man to do all the work and then take (at least half) the credit from his own success – or at least that’s the social expectation.

Granted, a woman can also be on the hook for her lack of character judgement should she pair with a man who becomes a burden to her. There are rare instances when a woman may find herself financially beholden to a bad choice in marriage, but then it’s a situation of that man’s genuine achievements in life and usually an inability to take his burden of performance and make the most of it. For the most part, the role of support falls to the man in societal expectations; women and feminized men are the ones supported.

In fact, it’s a point of shame for men to be supported in such a fashion. Whether that’s warranted of not, it is men who are expected to make more of themselves than what they started with. A needed provisioning from women only puts his achievements’ validity in question. Like it or not, men should avoid the perception of themselves not pulling their own weight.

Doing More

A while back I was asked why the Burden of Performance should be called a “burden” at all. Should it not be a “challenge” or a “opportunity”? All optimist semantics aside, it is uniquely men whose character is judged on what he started with and what he made of himself.

I’m sure equalist critics will want to cast women into the same performance role, but in a uniquely male sense, it is men who are expected to make more of themselves. To be a ‘man’ is to produce in excess of what you consume – thus having the potential to support a family, an extended family, ensure security, give back to his community and/or reinvest that excess in greater endeavors or passions. While it may be part of the Feminine Imperative’s media campaign to popularize the character of the Strong Independent Woman® there is still room for women to expect the best out of a man while being provided for herself. In other words women have both the option to strive for independence while also retaining the option to be provided for by her husband or an LTR. And failing either of these, they retain an institutional right to Law 7.

Men must be independent resource providers, they must make more of themselves than what they began with, independent of dispensations or special privilege. There is no safety net, no other socially acceptable option to be provided for and still retain his being definitively a ‘man’. One of the hesitations I have with endorsing the Red Pill idea of going ‘Monk Mode’ is less about the isolation and more about the motivation men need to find within themselves to better themselves.

We look down on men who are dependent on women. Whether that’s financially, emotionally or physically, there is no option for dependence. One of the primary complaints professional, educated, independent women bemoan is their inability to pair off with a man of ‘like’ (or above) status. They’ll make euphemisms to characterize the men who would be their ‘equals’ who wont date them, but what they fail to acknowledge is the fundamental, root level truth of men’s burden of performance. For all the high-minded hopes of equalism, women’s Hypergamy still wants to filter for both sexual and provider acceptability in men.

Back in 2012 I based a post on Creative Intelligence from a study about how improvisational skills and creativity factored into a woman’s Hypergamous considerations. I wont quote it in length here, but suffice it to say that there is a measurable difference in how women perceive men with a trained or innate ability to improvise in, and overcome, times of adversity. As might be expected a man with a proven capacity to produce more than he consumes – especially when he’s had to come back from failure or misfortune – tends to be a more attractive mate choice that the man who chances into his own affluence.

Bear in mind that attraction and arousal are different sides of the Hypergamy coin (AF/BB), but many cross-cultural studies suggest that a capacity for creative, innovative, adaptive intelligence has been an evolutionarily selected-for socio-sexual trait in men – much less so in women. That’s important for the MGTOW critic to remember, it’s not as simple as a feminine-primary social order dictating men being slaves to their burden of performance. Just as gender is primarily biological, and not a social construct, neither is women’s evolved, Hypergamous sexual filtering.

Filters

Now, with the evolutionary basis of attraction in mind, it’s also important to consider that in our evolutionary past women evolved to take calculated risks in optimizing their Hypergamous sexual selectivity. The utility such Red Pill concepts as social proof, dread, Game, amused mastery, etc. are evidenced because they work with (or sometimes against) this Filter.

From The Curse of Potential:

Hypergamy wants a pre-made Man. If you look at my now infamous comparative SMP curve, one thing you’ll notice is the peak SMV span between the sexes.

Good looking, professionally accomplished, socially matured, has Game, confidence, status, decisive and Just Gets It when it comes to women. Look at any of the commonalities of terms you see in any ‘would like to meet’ portion of a woman’s online dating profile and you’ll begin to understand that hypergamy wants optimization and it wants it now. Because a woman’s capacity to attract her hypergamous ideal decays with every passing year, her urgency demands immediacy with a Man embodying as close to that ideal as possible in the now.

Hypergamy takes a big risk in betting on a man’s future potential to become (or get close to being) her hypergamous ideal, so the preference leans toward seeking out the man who is more made than the next.

The problem with this scenario as you might guess is that women’s SMV depreciates as men’s appreciates — or at least should appreciate. As I outlined above, the same hypergamy that constantly tests and doubts the fitness of a man in seeking its security also limits his potential to consistently satisfy it.

As I’ve mentioned in many prior posts, Hypergamy demands assurances. In fact so paramount is that need for Hypergamous certainty that women have evolved peripheral awareness to be sensitive to psychological and socio-sexual cues that confirm a man’s Hypergamous acceptability to her. Furthermore, so important is this need of assurance that in a society founded on feminine social primacy, the Feminine Imperative will legislate legal institutions to prevent men from misrepresenting themselves as a more optimal Hypergamous choice – as well as legislate penalties that insure women against both Hypergamous fraud and less than optimal mating choices.

As you might guess, the development and evolution of Game is one such psycho-social contingency men refine and use to workaround this Hypergamous filtering; and one that the imperative is still making efforts to restrict. However this doesn’t discount the way men have, in the past, built themselves up based on both social expectations, but also genuine interests and passions. Naturally, if a man is the genuine article and as a byproduct attracts women as a result of it, that might be preferable to ‘faking it till you’re making it’ – but if that’s the route you go be sure that you do in fact ‘make it’ because it’s what you feel passionate about.

Warnings

The primary reason I wrote Preventive Medicine was to help men avoid having women’s institutionalization of Law 7 ruin their long term personal efforts and achievements. Many critics want to lock horns with me as to when a man’s Peak SMV generally occurs in life. That’s fine, but whether or not you agree with my accuracy in this regard the fact remains that it takes much more concentrated, long term effort to reach that peak than women’s fast-burn peak SMV. I don’t just mean this in terms of his professional status, but also his maturity, his acquired wisdom, his judgement of others’ character, the lessons learn from the bruises of his failures and near misses.

All of this requires an investment in oneself that simply the having of resources handed to you will never satisfy. That personal investment in oneself, as it should, amounts to a lot of internalized equity – an equity that will never be appreciated by women whose Hypergamy is looking for a pre-made man. Hypergamy doesn’t care about the effort and perseverance required to achieve the status you (should) enjoy at your SMV peak.

I’ll be the first to admit that when it comes to short term sexual selection, the most wanton sex I had was at the time in my life when I was the poorest. As an underemployed semi-rockstar I used hit it with the best of them, and from a purely sexual perspective, it’s true, criminal and Alpha cads will still fuck 80% of women. But there’s more to the worth of a man than just his notch count. Sexual experience constitutes a very important measure of that, but a man should want more for himself as a man, as a father, as leader, as a creator, even as a cad.

Life experience and the benefits that a man should draw from it are personally valuable. In fact, men feel the equity of these efforts are so valuable that men will commit suicide at 5 times the rate of women; and in particular between the ages of 45-49. Why do you suppose that is? What assurances of long term security does the common man have for himself? What is he faced with when the plan he sets forth for himself in his life is destroyed in one precarious instance?

Once again, using the male deductive logic, it may seem a better option for him to hit the reset button than to be faced with having his life’s equity, his largest investment, his creation, stolen from him. This is a graphic illustration of men’s Burden of Performance, a burden women simply don’t face.


Storytelling

storyteller2

“If a story is not about the hearer he will not listen. And here I make a rule – a great and interesting story is about everyone or it will not last.”  – East of Eden

About 3 months ago there was a very interesting side conversation of the main article topic in the comments. The movie 300 came up and how it was or wasn’t a good illustration of conventional masculinity. I’ll just say that from a purely pulp fantasy perspective I loved the movie. And as a fantasy it was great, but both men and women like to romanticize various times and stories in history to suit their desires, as well as reinforce their beliefs.

I think many retromasculinty subscribers get caught up in what YaReally calls LARPing – live action roleplaying – with regards to how these fantasies become romanticized ideals that were neither true of that period, nor are they really relevant for contemporary times. With today’s communication and ubiquitous movie animation it’s all too simple for the less socially savvy to latch on to old books heroic ideals.

But as I said, I loved the movie and I can see how heroic movies in this theme appeal to men frustrated by modern societal circumstance. If that mythological fantasy inspires them to greater aspiration I would say they do serve some purpose – for personal visualization if nothing else.

Unfortunately anything that celebrates masculinity today just becomes a target of ridicule and homosexual shaming for heterosexual men. It’s ironic how a fem-centric society will embrace flagrant homosexuality as normative yet when a heterosexual man celebrates his maleness he’s shamefully suspected of being homosexual himself. This in effect is a way to contain conventional masculinity in something that the Feminine Imperative hopes will control it.

I have on 3 separate occasions at 3 separate evangelical churches seen the ‘going off to war’ scene from 300 used as a ridiculous marketing tool to inspire ‘christian’ men to go to a Christian Men’s weekend retreat. It’s the part where the 300 are ranked up in front of Leonidas and he’s surveying their fitness for battle. The language is in french and the english subtitles are swapped in for some suitably ridiculous dialog between the men and Leonidas and Leo’s wife (whom he refers to as “snuggle bear” or some shit).

This is a good example of the feminine-primary ridicule of masculinity that Churchianity co-opts into Christian Culture. They are all too ready, maybe even more ready, to pander to men’s LARPing instinct while simultaneously ridiculing anything that might hint at men celebrating their maleness – much less finding any realistic empowerment from it. And the real tragedy is that it’s these self-same christian men who are creating these parodies of themselves.

The Imperative Awakens

I’m going to paraphrase a bit here, but there’s an idiom that states if you can control the art and imagination of a culture you can subdue that culture. I may be butchering that, but the drift is that when you supplant an ‘organic’ idealism with the ideological seeds of what you believe ‘ought to be’ you begin by stirring the imagination at an early age.

When we’re in our early youth we’re like intellectual sponges from the age of 5 on into (and beyond) our teenage years. So it should come as no surprise that male idealism finds its most formative roots when we’re kids. Even when our imaginations aren’t fed by myths and stories boys will take up the role of creating them for themselves. The details of exactly what we create and romanticize are less important than how we came to identifying with it and how it influences our identities later in life.

I’m prefacing here with this to give you an understanding of just how easy it’s become for a feminine-primary social order to influence this nascent idealism in boys and later men. The human race is one based on stories. First it was oral histories and later those were recorded in written languages. Telling stories is how we used to learn, and really still do in a more detailed fashion with the rise of technology and global communications. When boys are playing out the roles of characters presented to them they are enacting the ideals of what’s represented in those stories.

SPOILER ALERT – If you haven’t seen Star Wars, The Force Awakens yet, you’ll want to skip this next part until you do.

I recently watched the latest installment of the Star Wars series, The Force Awakens, and as you might guess it’s virtually impossible for me to see any popular media without my Red Pill Lenses on. Going in I had no doubt that I’d be subjected to the messaging of the Feminine Imperative, but I loved the original series and even the much maligned prequels, so I knew I’d want to see this one.

I fondly remember seeing the original Star Wars in the theater when it released in 1977. I was 9 years old and I absorbed the fantasy and mythology of it as you might expect a boy would. Heroism, daring, fighting, and all the comic book bravado I was already steeped in was more than satisfying, but there was also the element of mythology and moralism that crept into the story arc in the sequels.

Of course I couldn’t appreciate it then, but that mythology was a carefully crafted aspect of the original stories. There’s a great book, and I think documentary, called The Power of Myth about the Star Wars series that I later found an appreciation for as I got older and made the connections with the classics I also loved in college.

So with this in the back of my head I went to see The Force Awakens, and with a Red Pill perspective I could appreciate the complete, feminized, bastardization of this original, well crafted mythology.

Granted the story arc carefully followed from the original Star Wars movie; Death Star, small weakness, heroic last minute attempt to destroy it, galaxy saved when the bigger Death Star explodes, the end. The basic plot is essentially the same and left me thinking that this was more of a rewrite than any real progression from the original trilogy.

Overall it felt very hurried. There was the presumption of familiarity with, and between, all of the new characters, but within the familiar formula-theme (you know the Titanic sinks and you know the Death Star explodes) the lack of character development is obviously something the writers will explore in future sequels.

It’s important to keep this copping of the old formula in mind, because what J.J. Abrams does in this effective retelling is important when you begin to see the bastardization and the influence of the Feminine Imperative in the story. For the past decade there’s been a popular push to assimilate old, formulaically successful films and story franchises and retell them from a feminine-primary perspective. Recently that was the Mad Max rehash that casts the main character as an ambiguously masculine woman. In 2016 the ‘all-female-but-don’t-call-it-all-female’ version of Ghost Busters is slated for release. Hell, even 300 got the ‘make it feminine primary’ treatment with its sequel.

It’s no secret that there’s been a dearth of original storytelling in Hollywood for the better part of the 21st century. Thus, the want to return to the old magic that got the last 3 generations inspired. 80’s cartoons, now classic sci-fi and fantasy franchises, and golden era comics serves as a deep well of movie-ready stories, but none are retold without the ubiquitous pervasiveness that the Feminine Imperative requires of its storytellers today.

Killing Heroes in Male Space

I was not shocked in the slightest that the first heroic casualty of the film would be Han Solo; and slain by his neurotic, identity conflicted son no less. It was apropos for a retelling of the classic formula that would see all semblances of conventional masculinity erased from what is intended to be a new classic. Han Solo represented the last of a kind, the brash, self-assured, cocky scoundrel that women cannot resist – the “I love you.” “I know.” brand of rake.

In an earlier iteration Captain Kirk from the original Star Trek series held the same old books bravado, and minus the outlaw, anti-hero aspect of Solo, Kirk was essentially the same character (if not with a bit more responsibility). If I had the stomach to do so, it would be an interesting social experiment to do a cross-generational comparative analysis of the characters from the original Star Trek series cast with the Next Generation cast of the early 90s. Even if you only have a cursory understanding of both series, you can see the generational capstones evident in the main characters of each generation, separated by less than 30 odd years.

It might seem a bit foolish to use flights of fancy as archetypes that define the character of a generation, but remember this is science fiction, and that genre describes a want for how that generation sees the future unfolding – even when it is just fantasy. Were it not de rigueur for the franchise I might expect J.J. Abrams to delete the iconic “A long time ago”, part of a galaxy far, far away.

What Star Wars and other long established story franchises represent to the prophets of the Feminine Imperative is twofold. First and foremost they represent familiar vehicles into which the ideological messaging of the imperative can be palatably digested. Second, they represent opportunities of the retribution and restitution for perceived wrongs that feminism has always sought after.

Paint it Pink

As I mentioned earlier, these classic feminine-interpreted remakes are glaring examples of the lack of any truly creative storytelling for some time. I had to laugh a bit when I’d seen that The Mighty Thor (classic conventional masculine archetype) had been “bravely” replaced by a female Thor in the comics recently. The story formula remains the same, but the gender is swapped. Not for nothing, but if Marvel were truly ‘brave’ about a gender swap they’d make Red Sonja a ginger male barbarian who goes around wantonly killing women to prove he’s as good as any woman in combat.

However, the gender swaps, the killing of long established, storied masculine characters, and the appropriation of classic, heroic masculine story formulae (even all-male comedies) all represent the jealous need to retell and rehash in a way that denies and discredits Male Space. The attempts (like Star Wars) are feeble retellings of exactly the same stories with women characters and women’s interests inserted into what formerly accounted for male space storytelling.

Blue Pill readers may read this last assertion and think, well, that’s kind of a stretch, but what you should ask yourselves is why those well established franchises are such attractive, more attractive, endeavors than making the efforts to create a new story to tell that conveys the same, feminine primary, social narrative? Why remake Mad Max as a woman? Why give Thor a sex change rather than create a new character in a new franchise that embodies the same ideals the imperative hopes will ride on the old ones?

Because that ideology, by and of itself, is neither believable nor admirable to men. Those bastardized, contrived notions of feminine empowerment are only legitimized in a world, fantasy or otherwise, that was created by men. So we get a girl Jedi (my guess is Disney will eventually make Rey a princess) who is all things to everything. And we get a bumbling, reluctant male “hero” who’s stumbles along needing her aid at every obstacle. Compare the character of Finn with that of Han Solo and you begin to understand why Solo needs to die when the Star Wars franchise playground passes into the hands of a director who’s been steeped in feminine-primacy for a lifetime.

Now, all of this might seem like an effort in pointing out the obvious for most Red Pill aware men. After all, it was this time last year that I wrote the Red Pill Lens, and even if I hadn’t most Red Pill men are painfully aware of how saturated in the imperative that popular media/culture truly is. Bear in mind, the Disney marketing juggernaut had the entire world aware of all the new characters’ names, the basic plot and a million different co-branding effort in every imaginable, and unrelated, variety since the beginning of June this year.

But all this comes back to the stories we tell ourselves. What flights of fancy we romanticizes and idealize (idolize?) in our youth, as well as the ones we reminisce over later in life. It’s one thing to point out how boys are taught to gender loathe in school or how our teachers instill us with their own ideological bents, but that learning goes far beyond the formal institutionalized kind. Flights of fancy, imaginative storytelling, the games we play as children and adults are indulgences we want to play a part in willingly. We like that kind of teaching, we look forward to it; but even so, feminine-primacy is ready to co-opt that desire for it’s own ends.

And that is how you subdue a culture.


Christian Dread

christian_dread

A couple of interesting things happened over the last week and a half that made me think it might be time to reconsider the principle of Dread once again. The first was a comment I made over at Biblical Gender Roles which Larry Solomon then devoted a blog post to address. This was my comment to him:

While I might not endorse overt Dread for Christian men I would advise they become more aware of the opportunities that passive Dread represents in their marriages.

Most Beta Christian men (which is to say 90%+) will proactively try to diffuse the sexual anxiety and tension necessary to inspire the ‘desired’ sex you describe here. They believe the pro-feminine lie that rapport, comfort and familiarity is what leads to sexual desire so they make every attempt to convince their wives that they have no need to worry or feel insecure that any other woman would want them sexually, much less appreciate them for being ‘good christian men’.

What they fail to grasp is that passionate sex inspired by genuine desire is the result of insecurity, anxiety and sexual tension. Most Christian men are conditioned to bypass this phase in seducing their wives, thinking that comfort and security are what will prompt her to being more sexual, but in doing so they kill the vibe before it can build. Comfort and rapport are post-orgasm, oxytocin effects, but Christian men believe they are prerequisites for sex. For the most part they are deathly afraid to embrace and exaggerate the uncertainty, spontaneity, anxiety and tension women need to feel sexual urgency.

You make sex another chore for a woman when you negotiate for her desire. Genuine desire cannot be negotiated. If you find yourself in a sexless (or passionless sex) relationship with your wife you need to embrace using soft dread situations to prompt her imagination. A woman’s imaginings are the best tool in you seduction toolbox, learn how to inspire them.

Make your wife unintentionally uncomfortable. Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. By its very nature passionate, desired sex is a result of being uncomfortable, uncertain and urgent. It might be an uncomfortable truth to most Christian men, but the best, most memorable, married sex you have won’t be the result of a pre-planned “Date Night” where you stage manage every event and nuance in advance; it will be the rough, hard-core, make-up sex you never thought you’d have after a near breakup inspired by the anxiety of the thought of never having you around anymore.

Just to give you a quick run down here, I found BGR quite by accident. One of Solomon’s post actually got shared in my FaceBook feed by a notorious Christian feminist I follow just for such stories. I’ve written about it in the past, but I find contemporary evangelical Christianity (or ‘Churchianity’) to be one of the most fertile grounds for egalitarian feminist mores to propagate.

Standard disclaimer: I don’t do religion on this blog, but I do intersexual dynamics and sometimes these have effects that are very intertwined with religion, politics and social orders. It’s long been my own and Dalrock’s observation that Christianity has been co-opted by the same feminization that secular society has been saturated by.

As things progressed, this post and my exchanges with Solomon in the comments were picked up on by Raw Story and at least 4 other reblogs from various culture news “journalists” happy to pull anything and everything out of context, provided no links to the actual article and, as would be expected, deleted any post of my own from the Disqus comment threads I vainly tried to leave. I was happy for what spillover traffic came in from it, but I know the indignation crowd’s flavor of the minute doesn’t really count for much.

However, for all of that, I did reexamine my two previous posts on Dread: Dread Games and Soft Dread. It was interesting to see the knee-jerk response to ideas like “passionate sex inspired by genuine desire is the result of insecurity, anxiety and sexual tension”  from the Blue Pill commentariat. The problem I see is that there’s only one manner in which terms like ‘insecurity’, ‘anxiety’ and ‘sexual tension’ are really interpreted by those steeped in the Feminine Imperative. They are always going to be viewed from a position of absolutism; therefor the drive-by impression is that myself or Solomon were advocating for heavy handed abuse of wives by their husbands.

And as expected, the straw men got more blown out of scale, and then it was a story of how Christian husbands ought to force themselves on their wives irrespective of their actual desire, and then comes ‘Rape! Rapety rape rape!’

How to Get Your Wife to Want to Fuck You

I’ll admit, I’m not familiar with Solomon’s writing, but from what I gather on his blog it’s fairly heavy on the “how to get your wife to have the Biblically mandated sex the Lord obligates her to” posts. I fully understand the ease with which the “spiritual, but not religious” crowd would have a field day with a majority of his posts.

As some of my readers are aware I’ve been an active reader of Dalrock’s blog for years now. I don’t do religion, but if I were to I expect a lot of what I’d write would be better done by Dal. A handful of commenters on his blog think I’m the Devil for laying bare the frustrations they observe in the church in the secular, nuts & bolts, psychology and intersexual dynamics. I think most there have a pretty good grasp of the feminization and egalitarian efforts that have taken root in a religion that still preaches the old set of books to men while simultaneously expecting them to recognize the new set of books for women.

I imagine a lot of contemporary Christian men would embrace some degree of the MGTOW mindset if marriage weren’t the only doctrinal means for them to have ‘ordained’ sex. Mainstream, pop-culture Christianity loves to adopt and ‘sanctify’ christianized versions of secular social trends, and the Red Pill is no exception. One theme I see repeated on sites like BGR as well as Focus on the Family is a push for married Christian couples to have more sex. Solomon’s tact is literally enforcing Biblical gender roles on couples and therefor obligating wives to ‘Duty Sex’ they apparently are reluctant to have. For the Focus on the Family side, there’s an embrace of men’s constant need to qualify themselves for their wive’s intimacy; ergo making it their fault for their sexlessness.

I imagine this situation doesn’t bode well with the contemporary Christian young man who actually takes his conviction with some degree of seriousness. Not only does his Burden of Performance include a constant qualification to women in a sexless pre-marriage state (to say nothing of the hormones of youth), he “struggles” with rubbing it out to porn, and then has a sexless marriage waiting for him on the other side of the marriage contract that is all down-side risk for him.

The Quest for the Righteous Fox will always persist, but I can’t say that sounds like a great opportunity for an 18 year old guy raised on Purity Rings and taught to defer all authority to the woman who will become his only source of sexual release for a lifetime. So the appeal of a christianized form of the Red Pill should be obvious.

My comment to Solomon was motivated from the perspective of wanting to help these men better understand their Christian conditioned Blue Pill predicament. I know a common refrain of more traditionalist Christians is that Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill, and in an Old Testament respect I guess I can relate, but the problem isn’t one of doctrine, it’s about the readiness with which the church has adopted egalitarianism as doctrine. I get that it’s largely a business decision – appeal to the feminine or go out of business – but after several generations the same Blue Pill conditioning of the past 60+ years is only amplified in a religious context.

Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy. I understand that in the past religion was used as a control on Hypergamy, especially in respect to men’s burden of performance and the necessity of their provisioning to women.

There was a section in the London Real video interview of Nick Krauser where he explains the distribution of labor aspect of how religion and the 80\20 aspect of the Pareto Principle interact with Hypergamy and intersexual dynamics. I may explore this in another post, but the idea is that monogamous marriage in a Christian sense relatively ensured that the 80% Beta men could reasonably expect to get a woman for exclusive sex and pass on his genetic lineage.

Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks are still the order of the day, but that Beta could, through a social and religious contract, be pacified with a wife and the responsibilities inherent in his burden of performance as a father and husband. Thus the distribution of labor could be maintained without the fear of a ‘Beta Uprising’ to claim control of more Alpha dominant men.

Stay at Home Dad Documents His Sex Life on a Fitbit

Unfortunately with the advent of the sexual revolution that Beta Christian man’s sex life is far more likely to resemble this guy’s. Egalitarianism has saturated itself not just into the social structure of the church, but it has reshaped the very doctrine upon which this old set of books and monogamous marriage was founded upon.

Thus we see men looking for answers to their sexless marriages and the hope that Red Pill awareness can bring to them. Old order marriage only exists with regards to men’s responsibilities under it. These husbands must balance those old order expectations with a new order egalitarianism that the church has embraced for their wives. And few are ever aware of their balancing act.

The Red Pill would have to be made Christian Kosher®, but the psychological and sociological underpinning of Red Pill awareness clashes with the ‘traditionalism’ of old order Biblical gender roles based on that old division of labor/monogamous marriage model.


Neofemininity

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Crisis of Manhood

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

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

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

From Vulnerability:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tail Chasing

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

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

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

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

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

Neofemininity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caricatures of Masculinity

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

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

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

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

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

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,216 other followers