The Evolution of Game


If you ever need a reminder as to how you came to a particular belief or set of beliefs, the best way to consider (or reconsider) that process is to write a book about it. As most of my readers are aware I’m in the process of publishing my first book based on the writing of the past ten years of my involvement in the manosphere. It wasn’t even known as the ‘manosphere’ back then.

For the men (and women) who’ve read my ideas since the inception of the SoSuave forum almost 12 years ago, I expect they’ll find the book kind of remedial – like going back over old classics they’d internalized and take for granted now. If I make a reference to Hypergamy or the Feminine Imperative, for most, there’s a standard level of pre-understanding about the elements associated to each of these and many other concepts. However, a problem of familiarity arises when I, or anyone else familiar with red-pill awareness makes an attempt to educate the unfamiliar. The Red Pill reddit community makes a good effort of this, but after going through 2 revisions of my book it’s become evident to myself and my editor that familiarizing the uninitiated is a major obstacle to reaching the men who’ll benefit most from unplugging (yet another manosphere term).


The majority of the requests I’ve received over the years for a comprehensive book of Rational Male ideology has come from readers expressing the desire for a condensed version in book form which they can give to family and friends (mostly male) in the hopes that they’ll better understand their need for emancipation from their fem-centric mental models. Of course that’s always been my goal from day one, but it presumes that a large part of those reading will be unfamiliar with common terms and concepts I, or familiar readers, will already have a grasp of.

Another issue I often run into is the presumption that readers new to my blog or commenters on other blogs have a familiarity with my work. I often find myself having to link back to articles where I covered a specific topic that a critic or an inquisitive reader might want to take me to task about. For the most part I make a conscious effort not to repeat something I’ve addressed, sometimes years, before, but that’s simply a part of this medium. For convenience I’ve recently added a new page to the top of the blog with all the relevant links I think cover most of my basics from the Year One post.

It’s a difficult enough proposal to unplug men from their blue pill conditioning, but leading them to an understanding of principles they mentally have a resistance or aversion to is a particular challenge. My editor is only peripherally familiar with these principles which is kind of a blessing and a curse. In one sense it requires me to revise old posts and concepts to be more ‘noob friendly’, but it also challenges me to review how those concepts evolved over the years to be what I and other red pillers now consider common foundations. For instance, while I might rigorously debate the Feminine Imperative with those familiar with it on Dalrock’s blog, I had to spend over an hour defining it further with my editor after he’d read my seminal posts about it.


Of these concepts the one I return to the most frequently is that of Game. My editor asks, “Just what is Game?” Throughout the upcoming book, this blog, and virtually every major manosphere writer’s blog there’s a constant presumption that readers will know exactly what Game is when it’s referred to. Game has been lifted up to an almost mythical state; like some panacea for the common guy struggling with achieving women’s attentions and intimacy. It’s gotten to the point where familiarity with Game has become a flippant aside for manosphere bloggers – we have varieties of Game, we have internalized Game, we have ‘natural’ Game, direct Game, Beta Game etc., but defining the term ‘Game’ for someone unfamiliar with the very involved intricacies, behaviors and the underlying psychological principles on which Game is founded is really tough for the uninitiated to wrap their heads around in the beginning.

For the unfamiliar, just the word ‘Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ‘just be himself‘ with women and how women allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.

At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.

Early Game

In its humble beginnings, Game was a set of behaviors, learned, adapted and modified with the express purpose of bettering a guy’s prospective sexual ‘success’ with the women he had only limited (if any) access to. Game was defined as a series of behavioral skills and techniques observationally experimented with, and developed by the burgeoning PUA culture of the early 2000’s. While there was a peripheral acknowledgement given to the psychology that made these behavior sets effective, the purpose was more about the result and less about the head-mechanics that made the result possible.

This introduction was many of the current manosphere’s first contact with ‘formalized’ Game. The quality of the Art in pick up artistry was (and still is) really left up to the practitioner’s capacity to understand the basics of behavioral psychology (with regards to women) and refining a deft ability to adapt and react to his target’s changing behavioral cues on a given environment and/or context..

If this were the only extent of Game it would understandably be very short sighted and limited in scope. In the beginning Game had a utility in that it helped a majority of men lacking the social intelligence to approach and develop a real, intimate rapport with women they fundamentally lacked. The problem was that beyond Game’s “in-field” uses it wasn’t really developed past the point of ‘getting the girl’, and left even the most socially adept PUAs unprepared to deal with the real psychology motivating women on a greater whole. It was just this feminine meta-psychology that drove men, unaccustomed to enjoying and then losing the affections of women formerly “out of their league”, to depression and suicide.

Game was a wondrous tool set of skills, but without the insight and foresight to deal with what these tools could build, it was potentially like giving children dynamite.

Evolving Game

From the earliest inception Game was more or less viewed as a solution to a problem. Game has been described as a logical social reaction to the women that the past 60+ years of feminism, social feminization and feminine primacy has created for the men of today. Courtesy of modern connectivity, the internet and collectivized social media, evolving Game or some variation of it was inevitable for men.  Despite the public social stigma and ridicule attached to men attempting to understand the psychologies of women, privately the internet facilitated a global consortium of men comparing experiences, relating observations and testing theories.

The behavioral psychology that led to Game which prompted the desired reactions in women began to take on more import for men. Sure, the now classic Game techniques like being Cocky & Funny, Amused Mastery, Agree & Amplify, Neg Hits, Peacocking, etc. were effective in their own artfully used contexts, but the latent psychology that made those behavior sets work prompted the questions of why they worked.

The psychological aspects of effective (and ineffective) Game began to take on a new importance. Through this broader exploration of the role biological, psychological and sociological factors affected Game sprang new ideas, theories and experimentative models leading to new behavioral sets and the abandonment of less effective ones.

As connectivity grew, so did the knowledge base of the Game community. No longer was Game exclusive to the PUA pioneers; Game was expanding to accommodate the interests and influences of men who’d never heard of the earlier version of Game, or would’ve rejected it outright just years before due to their feminine conditioning. Married men wondered if aspects of Game could reignite the sexual interests of their frigid or overbearing wives. Divorced men embraced the Game ridiculed when married to improve their potential for new sexual interests, but also to relate their experiences and contribute to that Game knowledge base. Men, not just in western culture, but from a globalizing interest began to awaken with each new contribution not only about how women were,  but why women were. Game was making the unknowable woman knowable. The enigmatic feminine mystique began unraveling with each new contribution to the Game knowledge base.

Game was becoming something more. Men could now see the code in the Matrix: we knew the medium was the message, we began to see the  feminine social conventions used to control us, we began to see the overarching reach of the feminine imperative and fem-centrism, and we came to realize the insidious, but naturalistic, influence feminine hypergamy had wrought in both men and women. Game was prompting Men to push back the iron veil of feminine primacy and see what made her tick.

Predictably, fem-centric society sought to cast the rise, and expansion of Game as a modern version of the ridiculous macho archetypes of the 50’s-70’s. The threat of an evolving, more intellectually valid form of Game had to be ridiculed and shamed like anything else masculine, so the association with its infamous PUA forerunners was the obvious choice for the feminine imperative. The feminine standard appeal to the Masculine Catch 22 was the first recourse: any man who desired to learn Game was less than a man for that desire, but also less of a man for not already knowing Game (as approved by the feminine imperative). Any guy actually paying for, or personally invested in, Game was associated with the PUA culture that was characterized as a throw back to the ‘Leisure Suit Larrys’ of the 70’s.

Contemporary Game

For all its marginal efforts to shame Game back into obscurity, the feminine imperative found that the Game movement wasn’t being cowed as easily as it might have been in the mid 1990’s. The Imperative was falling back on the reliable tropes and social conventions that had always pushed the masculine back into compliance. At the apex of fem-centrism in the 90’s these social constructs worked well on an isolated, shamed and ignorant masculine imperative, but with the evolution of the internet, by the late 2000’s Game was snowballing into a threat that required new feminine operative conventions.

Game evolved beyond the behavioral sets, and beyond the psychological and sociological mechanics that underlined women’s psyches and larger socializations. While still encompassing all that prior evolution, Game was becoming aware of the larger social meta-scale of the feminine imperative. Game began to move beyond the questions of why women are the way they are, and into piecing together how the intergender acculturations we experience today are what they are. Game asked how did we come to this?

Game branched into specific areas of interest in its scope to answer these broader questions and solve more expansive problems. While we still have all of the prior iterations of Game, we have expanded into christianized Game, married Game, divorced Game, socialized Game, high school Game, etc.

However, underpinning all of these areas of specialization was still the need to internalize and personalize Game in a Man’s life. Game was the path to male re-empowerment; an empowerment that even women today still feel men should Man-back-Up to. Game required a reinterpretation of masculinity towards something positive, beneficial and competent – something entirely apart from the negative, shameful and ridiculous archetypes 60 years of feminization had convinced women and men of. Call it Alpha, call it Positive Masculinity, but Game necessitates the reimagining of the importance of the masculine imperative. Game needs Men to change their minds about themselves.

Needless to say, even in its most positive of contexts, the male re-empowerment that Game led to was a Threat too great for the feminine imperative to allow. Controlling the intrinsic insecurities that the feminine imperative is founded upon has alway depended on men’s ignorance of their true value, and true necessity to women. Men have to remain necessitous to women in order for their insecurity to be insured against, and the feminine imperatives control to be insured of.

The well of knowledge and awareness that Game represented had to be poisoned. The social conventions the feminine imperative had relied on for decades was no longer effective. The continued expansion of Game into the social, psychological, evolutionary and biological realms was evidence that Game was something those old convention couldn’t contain, so the imperative evolved new tacts while reinventing old ones.

Shaming and ridicule were (and still are) the rudimentary tactics that the less intellectual of the feminine imperative would resort to, but the expansiveness of Game needed something more distorting. Proponents of the feminine imperative began to concede certain universal points that Game had long asserted about feminine nature (and the FI had long rejected) in an effort to co-opt the social momentum Game had taken over a decade to develop.

The Feminine Imperative couldn’t argue with the extensive validity of the tenets of Game, so it sought to reengineer Game from within and modify it to its own purpose. The Feminne Imperative wants just enough male empowerment to return men to an improved (really an older) state of usefulness to its ends, but not so much that true male emancipation from the imperative would threaten its dominance. In co-opting Game and conceding to the truths it finds less threatening the imperative hopes to build better betas – men who believe they are empowered by Game, but are still beholden to the Feminine Imperative.

True emancipation from the imperative threatens its dominance, so Men with the vision to see past this are labeled Dark, Sociopathic and Deviant by the imperative. It wasn’t enough just to infiltrate Game and sanitize it fot its benefit, the Feminine Imperative had to categorize Game for itself – Evil vs. Good Game. The good of course being characterized with whatever aspects benefitted the imperative and the bad being whatever ‘selfishly’ benefited the masculine. The Feminine Imperative doesn’t care about the various branchings of Game – natural, internalized, marriage, etc. – it only concerns itself with what aspects can be distorted to its advantage and what aspects cannot.

This brings us to Game as we know it today. Game is still evolving, and had I the prescience to see where it will go next, I would veture that it will come to a real emancipation with the FI. Not an emancipation from women, but an emancipation from their imperative. Not a ‘men going their own way’ negligence of women in the hope that they’ll come around to behaving as men would like being given no other choice, but a true Game driven emancipation from the control that fem-centrism has maintained for so long.

Make no mistake, the Feminine Imperative needs men to be necessitous of it, and it will always be hostile to the Men attempting to free other men from that necessity. In this respect, any Game, even the co-opted Game the imperative will use itself, is by definition sexist. Anything that may benefit Men, even when it associatively benefits women, is sexist. Freeing men from the Matrix, breaking their conditioning and encouraging them to reimagine themselves and their personalities for their own betterment is sexist.

Encouraging men to be better Men is sexist.

Master & Servant


Evan12 on the SoSuave forum has an interesting observation:

I’ve noticed in many lesbian couples the submissive woman in the relationship is not embarrassed from that , and she showed her love and submissiveness to her partner without shame. For example they write on their facebook “I want to worship you” or “you are my goddess ” etc.

Also in real life they took some clear orders from their dominant partner, that if a man would’ve ordered a woman in-front of others they would consider it degrading to them .

In the workplace, I find women submit to other female managers very easily and sometimes even voluntarily, but when a man is manager they play a lot of power games to challenge/question his authority.

Is this because of public shaming from the figure of woman following a man, so women feel more free to show her submissive side when it is toward a woman and not a man ?

The inimitable Burroughs (who is cordially invited to comment more on this blog) then picks up the next salient point:

The next time you switch on the television, count how many programs have the token ‘stupid boyfriend’ or ‘abusive husband’ or ‘paedophilic father’ figure.

Switch over to a children’s channel / time window and watch how many cartoons or programs reflect ‘silly daddy’ characters or ‘bullying big brother’.

Don’t forget, of course, nearly all the women in these same programs will be smart, sexy, sassy and full of beans, capable of juggling a career lifestyle with children, a husband and a social circle

– let’s not forget that she’s undoubtedly a wonderful cook and always remembers everybody’s birthdays.

If these images are being constantly spread out over our airwaves, what does that tell our children who are growing up watching & learning daily, hourly, that men are just so stupid, abusive and … well, useless?

I addressed a good portion of Evan’s observation in Sexual Fluidity:

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

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

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

Burroughs accurately notes the social symptoms of the dynamic. It’s not difficult to outline how the institutionalized social feminization (via mass media ridicule and shaming of masculinity) of men over the past 60 years has greatly contributed to men uncomfortable in their innate masculine predispositions. However, by the same means, the other side of the story is women’s fem-centric conditioning predisposes them not to expect masculinity to be anything other than negative when coming from a human being born with a penis. Masculinity paired with a vagina however is the only legitimate form of masculinity acknowledged.

It takes a feminized society of millions and half a lifetime of institutionalized feminization conditioning to repress the male definition of masculinity in a man. As I’ve noted before, feminization seeks to redefine masculinity to better fit with an egalitarian equalist doctrine, but what thwarts the effort is men’s biological, and in-born psychological, bent to manifest a uniquely male defined masculinity.

Hypergamy’s Doms & Subs

This is only one half of the dynamic though. The other half being women’s innate desire, through natural hypergamy, to be submissive to that male-defined masculinity; but only to the man who is dominant enough to satisfy a woman’s hypergamy.

In an era when Hypergamy has been given free reign, it is no longer men’s provisioning that dictates her predisposition to want to be a submissive partner in their relationships. To an increasingly larger degree women no longer depend upon men for the provisioning, security and emotional support that used to insure against their innate Hypergamous impulses. What’s left is a society of women using the satisfaction of Hypergamy as their only benchmark for relational gratification.

Men with the (Alpha) capacity to meet the raw, feral, demands of women’s Hypergamy are increasingly rare, and thanks to the incessant progress of feminization are being further pushed to marginalization. The demand for Men who meet women’s increasingly over-estimated sense of Hypergamic worth makes the men women could submit to a precious commodity, and increases further stress the modern sexual market place.

But women want to be submissive –preferably to the dominant Man qualified to quell her Hypergamy, but in his absence (thanks to mass feminization) substitutes needed to be created. One of the most important points doubters of the Feminine Imperative need to understand is that every social dynamic must work to the benefit of the feminine. When we observe modern social variances on traditional themes, understand that these are modification intended to ‘re-provide’ women with a previous benefit lost due to the distortion of feminine primacy. No men around to provide that masculine dominance? Turn women into men.

Enter the Hyenas

One thing you’ll notice amongst the majority of homosexual couples is an inherent hierarchy of dominance. With all the debate about gay marriage and civil rights these days, I find it fascinating that a subculture founded on non-traditional values, to the point of  subverting them, would demand with such fervor to participate in one of “traditional society’s” most traditional institutions – marriage. Even homosexuals want that heterosexual, interpersonal social structure.

For all of the sermonizing about the want for egalitarian equality, the observable establishing dynamic is still one of a dominant and a submissive partner in a monogamous framework. As our collective gender identities become more homogenized, the role of whom will play the part of dom and sub becomes based upon who better has the stronger personality to live that role out.

Combine this with a collective social consciousness that, by default, puts men into a position of masculine ridicule, and you get the now stereotypical ‘whipped’ husband seeking his dominant wife’s permission as part of his internalized sense of identity. You also see the homosexual woman ‘worshiping’ her dominant partner – a partner more hypergamy-satisfyingly masculine than any man she’s ever encountered, or ever had the capacity to attract. We see the ‘tough bitch’ fearlessly making demands of her female (and male) subordinates that would be grounds for harassment were a man to issue them.

The Meta-Shit Test

We have a society based on presupposed male incompetence, but women still want the hypergamic satisfaction of submissiveness that men should provide for them. It’s in their fantasies. Women’s literature from classical antiquity to modernity is characterized by a want for masculine dominance.

This is the great social shit test of our time. In spite of a world arrayed against him, a Man needs the fearlessness of purpose to pass what has become a meta-scale test of hypergamy. The provisioning, support, emotional investment, and security a man could establish that used to buffer Hypergamy are all ancillary to satisfying Hypergamy now. Feminization has seen to it that in defying its purpose you are identified as being less than a man, but still challenges men to be Men by defying it.

Quality Women


Reader Coy expressed a need for illumination on the myth of the Quality woman:

I would really appreciate your thoughts on “the quality woman”. You have touched on the phenomena in many of your previous posts but i really feel my self subconsciously slipping into that binary circle jerk of madonna/whore . A dedicated post would be nice.

I briefly touched on this in AFC Social Conventions:

The Myth of the “Quality” Woman

It seems like all I read about on SoSuave these days is a never ending quest for a “Quality Woman.” There’s threads asking for clear definitions of what constitutes a “Quality” woman and others that conveniently set women up into 2 camps – Quality women and Hors, as if there were no middle ground. How easy it becomes to qualify a woman based on her indiscrretions (as heinous as they’re perceived to be) for either of these catagories. This is binary thinking at its best – on or off, black or white, Quality woman or Hor.

I think the term ‘Quality’ woman is a misnomer. Guys tend to apply this term at their leisure not so much to define what they’d like in a woman (which is actually an idealization), but rather to exclude women with whom they’d really had no chance with in the first place as an ego-preservation method, or mistakenly applied too much effort and too much focus to only to be rebuffed. This isn’t to say that there aren’t women who will behvae maliciously or indiscriminately, nor am I implying that they ought to be excused out of hand for such. What I am saying is that it’s very AFC to hold women up to preconceived idealizations and conveniently discount them as being less than “Quality” when you’re unable to predict, much less control their behaviors.

The dangers inherent in this convention is that the AFC (or the DJ subscribing to the convention) then limits himself to only what he perceives as a Quality woman, based on a sour-grapes conditioning. Ergo, they’ll end up with a “Quality” woman by default because she’s the only candidate who would accept him for her intimacy. It becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy by process of elmination. Taken to its logical conclusion, they shoot the arrow, paint the target around it and call it a bullseye, and after which they’ll feel good for having held to a (misguided) conviction.

So why is this a social convention then? Because it is socially unassailable. Since this convention is rooted to a binary premise, no one would likely challenge it. It would be foolish for me to say “Yes Mr. DJ I think you ought to avoid what you think of as Quality women.” Not only this, but we all get a certain satisfaction from the affirmation that comes from other men confirming our own assessment of what catagory a woman should fit into. Thus it becomes socially reinforced.

Be careful of making a Quality woman your substitute for a ONEitis idealization.

Back when he had a terrestrial radio show Tom Leykis did a topic about this: He had everyday women call in and tell their stories of how they used to be sexually (i.e. slutty) and how they are now. He came up with this after driving past a grade school on his way to the studio and seeing all of the women there waiting for their kids to come out and wondered about what their lives used to be like in their childless 20s. This was a wildly popular topic and the confessions just poured in like all of these women had been waiting for years to come clean anonymously about the sexual past that their husbands would never dream they were capable of. Each of these women sounded proud of themselves, almost nostalgic, as if they were some kind of past accomplishments.

This is why I laugh at the concept of the Quality woman. Don’t misinterpret that as a “women = shit” binary opinion. I mean it in the sense that most guy’s concept of a quality woman is an unrealistic idealization. There’s not a guy in the world who committed to monogamy with a woman who didn’t think she was ‘quality’ when he was with her. Even if she was a clinical neurotic before he hooked up with her, she’s still got “other redeeming qualities” that make her worth the effort. It’s only afterwards when the world he built up around her idealization comes crashing down in flames that she “really wasn’t a Quality Woman.”

Force Fit

The Quality Woman is defined by how well she fits a man’s conditioned ideal. Good Luck Chuck lamented in last week’s Hyenas that after a certain age all women are Alpha Widows, or, progressively lose the idealization of embodying the Quality Woman. While I understand the frustration, there’s an eerily similar tone that men use when they bemoan the lack of Quality Women in the world that echoes women’s when they ask “what happened to all the real men?” The only difference being that in girl-world a woman is entitled to a real man irrespective of her own quality, while a man is less of a Man for his complaints of her lacking those qualities.

I don’t envy the situation monogamy minded men in this era find themselves in. As we become a more and more connected society the indiscretions of a woman’s past will become increasingly more difficult to hide, much less temper. Whereas before, unless a woman had worked in porn, documenting her sexual and/or intimate past may have been an effort best reserved for private investigators. Now it’s as easy as reading her social media footprint archived for all to read.

This is tough on a guy sold on idealistic notions that his virgin bride is awaiting him somewhere in the world. That may be a bit binary for all but the most white knight of guys, but by order of degree, and with a measured prudence, I think it’s important for men to disabuse themselves of finding the virgin slut, who’ll only be his virgin slut.

And while I would never advocate a guy to hurry up and marry those sluts, the problem with this idealization is that men want to force fit the woman who most closely resembles his Quality Woman into that fantasy role. It becomes a psychological feedback loop – connect with a “Quality Woman”, discover her flaws, personal conditions and the decisions she made that resulted in them, then (after attempts at rationalizing them himself) disqualify her from the Quality Woman designation. The cycle comes full circle when her disqualification as a Quality Woman sets the environment for finding his next ‘jewel in the rough’.

The bad news and the good news of this is that, as connectivity and communication among men increases, so too do they realize that the Quality Woman is an impossibility even for the most gracious of women. Thanks to the rise of the manosphere we have a global consortium of men exchanging their individual experiences with women to compare and contrast with their own. The good part is it’s easy to generate a list of red flags to watch out for or read about the consequences men have suffered as a result of their blue pill existences. The bad part is that with that greater understanding comes the realization that even the best of women are still subject to hypergamy, the feminine imperative and the fem-centric environment they find themselves in.

A little bit of knowledge is sometimes dangerous – after a lot of this realization and the discernement that comes from it men are likely to have a very long list of prerequisites and red flags develop. I’m not saying men should surrender to the inevitability of marrying some raging former slut, but I am saying that an important part of unplugging oneself from the Matrix is letting go of the idealization of the Quality Woman. There are a lot of caring and nurturing former sluts, and there are pristine and chaste women only lacking the proper motivation to move them in a direction no one would ever expect of them.




It never fails. Whenever I think I have a good post developing in my drafts folder, along comes a reader’s comment that abruptly halts that process and demands my full attention. Rational Reader, Eric had one such comment today:


Military men ought to be a targeted audience for your red-pill teachings.

As an Army veteran, I can attest that being socialized as a soldier is to learn positive masculinity in terms of a man among men. While not immune from political correctness, there is a stand-off distance from civilian society that preserves within the military perhaps our last best repository of traditional masculine values and culture.

Before I joined the Army, the military seemed alien and threatening. What I found, instead, is the nature of soldiering just made sense to me on a basic level as a man that I had not experienced before the Army. Soldiering opened my eyes to the intrinsic higher value of manhood. I have not found the same masculine fit since returning to civilian society. (Granted, I didn’t become a cop.)

However, the Army does not cure Beta. The military – as you imply – does not teach soldiers how to handle women and deal with feminism. When soldiers apply the 7 Army values (loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage) to women, they simply don’t receive the same positive feedback they get from applying the Army values on the job among soldiers. If anything, their heightened engagement with masculinity in male terms obscures their understanding of women. Editorially, I believe the disjunction between the masculine culture of the military and the feminized culture of civilian society is an unacknowledged reason why many seemingly capable veterans are tripped up in their transition from military life to the civilian world.

The masculine values that soldiers learn are invaluable, and our society would be made healthier and stronger if veterans could spread those values upon their return to civilian society. However, in their current condition, military-sourced masculine values are fragile in the context of feminized civilian society.

I believe the solution is adding formative red-pill teachings to the traditional masculine lessons received by impressionable young soldiers. Doing so will empower and protect the soldiers in their immediate personal lives, especially important for the soldiers who are anxiously distant (Dear John, Jody) from their love objects. And, by the time they are mature veterans returning to civilian society, their traditional masculine values hybridized with red-pill awareness should be robust enough to thrive in feminized civilian society. From their success, the combination of red pill and traditional masculine values can spread.

I attempted to address this in Casualties.

For whatever reason I seem to be held in high respect with military guys. It’s kind of strange thinking about this post-red pill, but a majority of my male friends have been soldiers and marines, and the common theme with every one of them has been their ‘get it done’ attitude and the conflicts it has with a beta relationship they all had with women.

I’ve got a guy in another dept. who was a former Marine who served 3 tours in Iraq and is an amazingly organized and responsible guy. Alpha as fuck in all respects but one; he too is saddled with an overweight fianceé (soon to be his 2nd wife I might add) who barks at him via cell phone while he takes his smoke breaks. I hear them bickering occasionally and all the guy does is attempt to appease her – this former Marine, who had live ammunition fired at him, is crushed mentally and emotionally by a woman who should never have a position to question him. Why? because he subscribes to the societal fem-centric default mentality when entreating with women.

At the risk of encouraging some ecumenical debate in the comment thread, the great failing of most military guys is the expectation of relational equity with regards to their commitment to the 7 Army values. In a military sense, in a sportsmanship sense, in a business sense men believe that the personal investments of sacrifice, loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage, etc. will be appreciated, considered and rewarded with respect, value and/or status. Whether or not this is the actual case on an individual basis, the expectation from amongst a man’s peers is one of an appreciable equity he can build upon and have his eminence increase upon.

The rude awakening for most soliders is that Hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity. All of the social value he should be able to accrue through his steadfast commitment (actual or imagined) to principle isn’t recognized by feminine hypergamy. Hypergamy doesn’t care about his belief in the 7 Army values, it only cares about its own imperative. It’s not that women can’t learn to appreciate these virtues in a man, it’s that her natural state of hypergamy (and solipsism) doesn’t facilitate it.

I have no doubt I’ll get female commenters explaining to me how they in fact do recognize and appreciate men’s commitment to duty, but I’d argue that this appreciation came from learned necessity, not a natural appeal to her hypergamy. When hypergamy is satisfied for a woman, mitigated by her capacity to attract better male prospects, only then is a woman in a position to consider men’s integrity and character.

This is naturally frustrating for a young soldier wondering why his sacrifice and commitment to duty doesn’t make him any more attractive, more arousing, more deserving of his girlfriend or wife’s monogamous commitment. He’s done everything ‘right’ yet there is no advancement, no appreciation, and in fact sometimes outright abandonment of him and his ‘principles’. The reflex of course is to amplify that sacrifice to levels above and beyond what he’s previously committed himself to, or to rationalize disqualifying a woman lacking the capacity to appreciate that sacrifice.

The real tragedy is that young soldiers (and sometimes old) are easy marks for the feminine imperative looking to consolidate on a security derived from those sacrifices without ever appreciating them. I have a friend back in Reno who after 16 years, and 4 children, had his wife leave him after a military marriage. In her unhaaaaapiness she decided to go to back to school (funded by him) to be a dental assistant and promptly divorced him just 3 months prior to his discharge. They share custody now, but she ended up getting with a dental surgeon soon after the divorce. His disappointment and depression didn’t come from her abandoning him and the kids as much as it came from his bewilderment that she’d leave everything he’d built for them as a family, and himself personally. He couldn’t imagine that his investments had been less valuable to her than a life with a more resource rich man.

Parting Shot: Military Suicides exceeded combat deaths this year. While this is sobering, what most media covering the story fail to illuminate is the overwhelmingly disproportionate number of men who take their lives in comparison to women.

Tom says the military’s suicide problem is a complex one. “Most of those committing suicide are young men, 18-24,” he says, who are worried that asking for help will undermine their career.

While some of the deaths can be linked to the stresses of being deployed in a war zone, a third or more of those who killed themselves were never deployed, Tom says. They seem to have been made desperate by financial or personal problems.

Personal problems, yeah, personal problems.

Nice Like Me


Lib Arts Major:

“Generation AFC” has done a great job of producing Brevik, Cho, Laughner, Sodini, Holmes, and now recently Lanza among scores of others who never got a bodycount high enough to make the news.

Here’s to a new generation of defects.

Or should I say products working as intended?

Furious Ferret:

This is just standard way of tearing down beta males. Most of the guys that are nice are geniuely nice guys but being guys they still want to fuck. They were taught by women that being nice and respectful lead to being attractive so they were brought up to behave this way. It’s no uniqueness or virtue for a woman to call ‘nice guys’ as really horrible digusting perverts while rewarding the bad boy.

Mumtaz elaborates in response to a female commenter:

‘ From my own personal experiences, I’ve found that being nice does not equate to attraction from men. ‘
Actually, it’s being nice man that doesn’t equate to attraction from women. Nice woman means sweet and pleasant , that is attractive.

‘ Nice is boring. ‘
That’s exactly what women think.

‘ And the average person appears to NEED drama or kaybe just more vivacity. ‘
No , it’s average WOMAN who seeks drama . For a man , coming home after day of hard work , drama is the LAST thing he wants…

‘ It seems that a lot of men look to women for something akin to entertainment ‘
Again, swap sexes and it rings true.
Also notice anecdotal evidence…

When I wrote Play Nice I elaborated upon the recent fem-centric trend of ridiculing self-professed Nice Guys. The notion of Nice Guys only using the monicker as a ruse for an assholish reality has been a staple response for Alpha-burned women for decades now. However, an interesting threshold is being crossed when a globalized internet society begins a campaign of mass ridicule of Nice Guys.

Nice Guys of OK Cupid is one such effort.

While I’ve come to expect women’s rationalizations about Nice Guys as foils for their attention needs, what NGOKC illustrates is an escalation in beta male in-fighting. Some have called this ridicule cyber-bullying on a global scale, but there’s more to this than that. The progression from rebuking forum white knight to online attack blogger is evidence of a new comfort level the femosphere has in sowing discord amongst the beta orbiters they rely on for fem-centric male affirmation.

NGOKC is really a clever new twist on Dalrock’s proposition of “lets you and him fight.” In viscerally exposing OKC Nice Guy profile pictures and pairing them up with subjectively contradicting statements about being ‘nice guys’, NGOKC is (perhaps unwittingly) attempting to define what makes a guy genuinely “nice” based on the terms that indicate feminine supremacy.

If you peruse the sampling of ‘nice guy’ case subjects on the blog you’ll begin to see a pattern form. A, most likely out of context, declaration of ‘Nice Guy-ness’ paired with some horribly incongruent statement about expectations of women’s legs being shaved or men being the head of the household. The social experiment that NGOKC is involved in starts with its efforts in qualifying ‘Nice’ as being compliant with what best serves the feminine imperative. Do you like the feel of a woman’s smooth legs that she painstakingly shaves 7 times a week? You’re not a Nice Guy. Do you believe that men should be confident, decisive, heads of the household? You’re not a Nice Guy either. In fact if you indicate on your profile any belief that is inconsistent with absolute, equalitarian gender neutrality, you’re not a nice guy.

For all the semantics debates the manosphere gets into over the proper usage of “Nice” for men, the binary nature of the femosphere is definitive; if a belief is contradictory to the feminine imperative, it is decidedly “not nice”.

Beta Fights

Being that beta men constitute the vast majority of men in modern society, one of the larger problems of being an abject beta is the sheer volume of sexual competition they experience from other betas. When a beta chumps is AMOG’d by an Alpha there’s an almost tacit understanding by the beta that the Alpha held an advantage over him. The Alpha had the physical, Game and status tools the beta does not. However, put two (or more) betas in contention with each other and they will resort to ever escalating feats of greater beta qualification amongst each other. When all you know is Beta Game, only more intense applications of that game is the natural response to competition within Beta Game.

NGOKC is one such escalation in the Beta Game arms race. From Enter White Knight:

Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ‘changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical observations of how women ‘are’, etc. – understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster. That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism.

By essentially doxxing the Nice Guys on OKC, NGOKC is a blog dedicated to beta white knights attempting AMOG other betas while the women of the femosphere egg them on. The social impetus behind the blog is one of beta men jockeying for feminine approval by ever increasing declarations of being more suitable, more feminine identifying betas, than the so-called fraudulent Nice Guys they hope to expose. They’ve made a game of qualifying for the approval of the femosphere by looking for chinks in their competitor’s beta armor:

“I’m a nice guy,..”

“Charlatan! You want to oppress women by expecting to be the head of the household! I’m the real nice guy,..”

“STFU rape apologist, says here you’re open to first date sex, and what type of guy has tats and piercings like that? Rapists, that’s who! I’m the real nice guy,..”

“Misogynist, looks like you expect women to shave their legs,…FOR YOU!,..only fucking patriarchs think women should make themselves ‘acceptable’ for men,..I’m the real nice guy,..”

The feminine influence naturally loves the beta dystopia between guys they’d never want to fuck otherwise because it primes their need for indignation while simultaneously satisfying a woman’s need for attention and affirmation of her own imperative.


One of the things that solidified this beta in-fighting for me was reading Hugo Schwyzer’s Jezebel endorsement of NGOKC.

Hugo Schwyzer has a rightly earned reputation in the manosphere for being a manboobed captain amongst the vichy males feminization has made so common through its selective breeding efforts . The lengths to which he’s ego-invested his life, career and personality into a feminine identification schema is truly grandiose. Hugo’s gender self-loathing is a monument to the dictates of the feminine imperative – he is what feminized men would ultimately become in a society defined by the feminine imperative.

While I have patience for the likes of Manboobz and even the information deficient members of the PUA Hate forums, Hugo is a step beyond their simple mockery.

What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the socially awkward; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of male sexual entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young men who were told that if they were nice, then, as Laurie Penny puts it, they feel that women “must be obliged to have sex with them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young men feel cheated. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to women’s bodies in exchange for rote expressions of kindness, these boys have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Sex Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Nice Guys sabotage their chances of ever getting laid with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.

Nice Guys of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to have sex.

This represents the basic disconnect that a feminine conditioned male like Schwyzer can’t grasp. He’s very concerned that self-avowed Nice Guys harbor this endemic, deep expectation of obligatory sex in lieu of ‘being nice’, yet remains willfully ignorant of the nature of exchange inherent in the sexual marketplace. Of the hundreds of self-professed nice guys I’ve known or counseled, not one of them expressed an expectation of reciprocal sex. In fact the genuine ‘nice guys’ are so self-sacrificing that the idea of a social contract of reciprocal sex is alien to them.

The new popularity of Nice Guy demonization that Hugo and the predictable, gender trend vultures piling on at The Atlantic isn’t about expectations or entitlements it’s about the underlying and unspoken reciprocal nature of the sexual marketplace being exposed. When a ‘nice guy’ does express some angst over his sexless and solitary life, or does bring his Savior Schema to the surface in a public fashion it becomes an ugly reminder for the feminine that the SMP is actually that, a marketplace. A fem-centric society doesn’t like the idea of a visceral resource exchange, because it ruins its humanist/equalist social pretense. Solution? Ridicule and marginalize the one doing the exposing.

Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Nice Guys is their contempt for women’s non-sexual friendship. They rage about being “friendzoned,” and complain about the hours spent listening to women without being given so much as a hand job in return for their investment.

Because Hugo has been so well conditioned by his feminization he lacks any frame of reference to understand the reflexive rage these “false-flag nice guys” experience. This rage response isn’t the disappointment of some societal masculine influence convincing these guys of a sex-debt obligation, it was the entirely feminized influence which convince them of myth of Relational Equity:

…I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

Hugo’s preoccupation with the sex-debt obligations for being ‘nice’ is a convenience for his inability to address the concept of relational equity. In a sense he’s correct, men should never presume that anything they do, any personal sacrifice, any emotional investment they make for a woman will EVER be appreciated, much less reciprocated, because hypergamy doesn’t care about any of it.

If these ‘nice guys’ are guilty of anything, it’s in their ego-investment in the lie that any woman might have the capacity to appreciate his investments in them. That rage isn’t about the disappointment of not getting an expected lay, it’s the self-rage associated with the disillusionment of a belief in a relational equity that women (often times the same women they want to become intimate with) continue to convince them of. It’s a rage that comes from the loss of investment and being ridiculed for ever having invested by the same women who convinced them to invest.

So thank you Hugo, you’ve unwittingly made the manosphere, Game and red pill wisdom all the more attractive for ‘nice guys’ with your exposé. The obvious moral to this story is to drop the pretense of being a ‘nice guy’ and embrace a self-concerned Game perspective. In other words, unplug. Drop any expectations of a mutual respect, shared purpose or infantile visions of an idealistic love – because you have no ‘right’ to something women fundamentally lack the capacity to reciprocate. Your idealized relationship doesn’t exist in a feminine frame, it only exists in a positive masculine frame of your making. The only thing ‘nice guys’ have to lament is not embracing these truths before they posted their profile pic on OK Cupid.

The Couch

Romance according to Tomassi, A Field Report

Oddly enough this happened last weekend so it’s still pretty fresh in my head. Friday night I was going to meet up with my partners for a holiday drink promo, but due to a scheduling error we cancelled it. Rather than call my wife to tell her I’d be coming home (which would only make her expectant of me), I waited until I was about 2 blocks from my home to call her on my cell phone. I said to her, “I’m thinking about doing something, if I blow off this thing tonight, I want you wearing that hot, white lingerie I like when we fuck.” (presume the sale) I could tell I’d caught her off guard and I was telling her we were going to have sex later that evening (no asking permisson or “can we please fuck tonight?”). She laughed and said “uh sure,..”, this was right as I pulled into my driveway and I still had her on the phone when I walked in the door and said “OK, here I am.”

Our daughter was at a friend’s place so I made martinis for us and purposely only had a light one for myself. I used C&F on my wife while we chatted on the couch. Now, she’s used to this from me, but because I’d prefaced the evening with giving her the impression that I was taking time away from other things to come home and knock it out with her. She was eating it up and mirroring my advances back to me. I never saw the lingerie that night because we were too busy going at it right on the couch and then moving to the bedroom. I kept up the C&F while we were at it and there was no “let me get cleaned up before we do it” there was no “we better hurry it up so I can be asleep by 10:30” – it was Game On and we had some fantastic sex all because I was setting the frame.

This is how you “keep it fresh.” Understand, this is the same woman I married 16 years ago. There were no roses, there was no ‘date night’, no wine or a candle lit dinner. There were martinis in my home and me setting the frame. And Monday I brought her a few flowers to reinforce a desired behavior.

Primary Focus

There’s a part in American Beauty where it looks like Kevin Spacey’s character is going to actually reconnect with his sexually ambivalent wife (actually she’s cheating on him, but we don’t discover this until later). They’re getting hot and bothered with each other for the first time in a long time on a very nice (and apparently expensive) couch.

This is significant because the guy and his wife are on the verge of divorce due to their lack of a sex life and for the first time in a long time she genuinely responds sexually for her husband, and you think for a moment there’s some hope for them.

As they get more into it his wife becomes fixaed on her husband’s hand holding a beer and almost spilling it on the couch that they’re on. He is totally focused on her, kissing her and not thinking about the beer in his hand. Her eyes are locked on the beer though until he finally notices what is distracting her from him – the beer.

He tries to take her mind off it by focusing more on her, and she becomes even more concerned that he’ll spill beer on the couch while they’re going at it. She says, “Lester you’re going to spill beer on the couch,..” he says, “it’s just a couch,..” she then gets indignant about how expensive it is and then he yells, “IT’S JUST A COUCH!”

Do you see what this gets at? This is the real challenge of marriage. Making desire and passion go beyond the mundane. That is what needs to be kept fresh in the face the routine. Single people in the throes of passion don’t care if a bottle of wine is spilled on the carpet in the process, married people do. Most marriages aren’t destroyed from the outside, but rather the inside. External temptations are easy to resist; it’s when it’s coupled with internal conditions that predispose us to it that it happens. Telling right from wrong is easy, determining right from right is difficult.

This is the perfect illustration of what marriage has become for most women – there is more attention directed toward externalities and little or none devoted to genuine desire. People experiencing genuine desire for one another don’t care about externalities. Nothing else exists to them but the object of their passion (and consummating it); there is no dirty laundry, no stain on a carpet, no neighbors who may hear them fucking, there is only them. Today’s couples don’t have a problem with trust or comfort or logistics, or even respect for the most part – what they have a problem with is desire. Men forget how to create it, women for get how to respond to it.

The New York Times had a recent article detailing the short shelf life of love (particularly in marriage). It’s essentially a fluff piece written by a woman obviously looking for an answer to her failing desire by expressing a similar lament for other women in her position. The irony of this article is that when men consider the biological / psychological reasons for why they want to bang other women, they’re shamed for lacking self-control or personal conviction. Let a woman do the same and it’s a new scientific discovery of self-enlightenment. I also thought the reframe about women actually being the more ‘novelty seeking’ of the sexes only lacquered on yet more irony.

Be that as it may, it’s interesting that the aspect of desire-killing familiarity is finally entering the popular consciousness in our feminine defined world. When you’re single, women love to prattle (mostly to betas and themselves) about how necessary it is for them to feel comfortable with a guy before having sex. Of course Alphas learn the lie of this earlier than most, but how telling it is then when the same comfort and familiarity that single women cry for is the marriage-killing factor that married women lament.

Boys will be Boys

There is an interesting subset of men that has evolved in our feminized social environment over the past 60+ years. I can’t quite refer to them as Betas since that seems too broad, and though Roissy’s initial coining of the term “Herb” (as in ‘herbivorous’) seems useful, these ‘men’ are something belonging to that set, but actively embracing and advocating for the feminine imperative. “Vichy Males” is probably a good starting point; men who are so invested in the conditioning of the feminine imperative that, unaware of how it affects their own interests as men, actively collaborate with and promote the feminine imperative’s social reengineering of masculinity.

These ‘men’ are not the oblivious blue-pill guys that the manosphere takes efforts to unplug from the feminine Matrix. They are the advocates of gender realignment, the male feminists, the men whose perspective it is that a more “equal” society is one in which masculinity is redefined to better convenience the feminine imperative. These are the ‘men’ who emphatically define “healthy masculinity” in a feminine framework where the results of testosterone and all of the innate traits that make one male are character flaws that disturb a feminine defined ‘equality’.

For the better part, Vichy Males are more or less oblivious to the feminine imperative that’s conditioned them. Whether this is a willful denial or simple indifferent ignorance is debatable, but in either case these men take the identification schema of Beta Game to the logical extreme. In some instances I’m certain the most successful amongst them make a livable wage from their dependent feminist evangelism (the feminine imperative rewards only the most Alpha-like crusaders who tow the feminist line), but for most, their advocacy is really an extreme form of identification-for-intimacy Game. In a world of White Knights, to seem unique requires a greater devotion to the feminine imperative.

Social Engineering

I had originally intended to use The Frisky’s most recent ‘feminizing boys’ article as my example for today’s post. It certainly raised the hackles of a few commenters from yesterday’s Chauvinism post, but unfortunately it’s too easy a target – it’s an incomplete beginning that doesn’t show the inevitable result of the feminization of boys. Women are encouraged to teach boys to be more like girls, teach them to pee sitting down, embrace their emotionality, cry on demand, and basically act less like little boys have an innate knack for, etc., but this is only half the picture. Those boys grow up into the gender-confused feminized men women later despise.

For the other half of the picture I present to you the most recent gender-fare from (once again) The Atlantic – The End of Violent, Simplistic, Macho Masculinity. Kudos to The Atlantic for its gender neutrality in allowing a Vichy Male like Thomas Page McBee to join the ranks of Kate Bollick, Hannah Rosin and Sandra Tsing Loh for their monthly serving of feminist triumphalism. McBee and his male-apologist sympathizers are the end result of “teaching boys to be feminists.”

While McBee is barking up the Hugo Schwyzer tree, this article reads like an exposé into the mental reasoning of a fully feminized Vichy Male. It’s more or less what I’ve come to expect from masculine apologists but I thought I would highlight the parts of it that give us an insight into the conditioning of the feminine imperative.

From the opening sentence we get an overview of how the Vichy Male’s perspective aligns with his feminine assimilation.

Boys aren’t supposed to do a lot of things: show fear or pain, compassion or tenderness; but of course men feel a full range of emotions, whether we’re “supposed to” or not.

There’s never a question about the dynamic of boy’s / men’s expectations of restraining their emotionality. The main presumption that the feminine imperative indoctrinates in its adherents is that gender is a social construct, and as such the “supposed to” aspect of this assertion is really a presumed societal expectation. Not even an afterthought is given to the idea that perhaps men aren’t wired for emotions in the same way as women. This of course might give pause to the idea of a blank-slate people-are-people equalism so the imperative conditions those questions away from any critical analysis.

However, even if this were the case, and gender was a social construct, might there have been a good reason that boys were  taught in the past to suppress their emotionality and rely more on rationalism and determination to endure pain? Perhaps it led to better, more pragmatic decision making? Again, these are question the imperative can’t afford to have concrete answers for.

The other is more personal. I know that if you are a man, you’re reading this with awareness or resistance, that how you interpret these men says a lot about the type of man you are. It’s easy to pretend to be objective, to describe a movement as if I’m not invested in its outcome, but as I researched this story I realized that I couldn’t tell the truth without exposing all of it: healthy masculinity as a sea-change, and why I want my own counter-narrative to be part of the turning tide.

Here we have a man parroting the standard male-shaming the feminine imperative conditions into women. The circular argument goes like this; if you’re a Man with a different interpretation of masculinity and this redefinition offends you it’s because you are insecure in your masculinity. This is a standard trope feminism has bred into the past 4 generation of men and women – “if you don’t agree with the feminized interpretation of masculinity it’s due to your insecurity in your own masculinity.”  Ergo, you’re less of a man for disavowing the interpretation. And this interpretation of ‘healthy masculinity’ is one which more perfectly aligns with, and doesn’t inconvenience, the feminine imperative.

He points to data: Generation Y men do more housework and are more involved fathers than any generation in American history. They also have more cross-sex friendships, which Kimmel suggests means that young men see women increasingly as true peers—equals—in life and work.

Again, more feminine-centric presumptions about male intent. Nowhere is there a consideration given towards motive or the socio-economic variables that may have led to these data.

He lists some of the words the men at the summit used to describe healthy masculinity: nurturing, kind, positive, good, caring, courage, confident, inclusive, courageous, honest, accountability, and respect. Not your father’s Marlboro man—but maybe closer to the reality of your father. Which is the point. “We have an exercise we do where we ask men and boys to name the strongest man in their life and then talk about what it is that makes him strong,” McGann says. “Most of the time, it’s their father or a counselor or a minister, and the ways in which they care for them. Or it might be about integrity, or it might be about their willingness to stand up for what they believe in, their compassion, all those kind of qualities—which are much more qualities of character. Those are always the things that we’ve associated with healthy masculinity.”

Here we see the feminine imperative evident in the qualities that should make for a “healthy masculinity.” Dropping a few of the more subjective qualities on this list, you could easily describe women having a “healthy femininity” with these characteristics. The aspersion of the ‘Marlboro Man’ is simply one more caricature of masculinity that’s been a go-to derision of the feminine imperative for decades.

The main problem with the Vichy Male characterization of a new “healthy masculinity” is that their comparative definition of ‘traditional masculinity’ has been so distorted by the feminine imperative over the past 60 years that it’s become a straw man parody that’s easily knocked down. The former “masculinity” they oppose is the ridiculous, beer swilling, fart joke, boob mesmerized, borderline abusive masculinity that’s been reinforced in pop-culture courtesy of feminization. A masculinity that requires a uniquely feminine correction is the mental image these men cling to while establishing themselves as the perfected, new and feminized version of masculinity. In other words, masculinity can only be positive in a feminine defined social framework.

The toxic narratives of unhealthy masculinity are often unquestioned, and they start very young. “There are no four more depressing words in educational policy circles then ‘boys will be boys,’ ” Kimmel says. “Because when do we say that? We say that when we throw up our hands in resignation that we can’t do anything. Why don’t we say ‘boys will be boys’ when a man wins the Noble Peace Prize?

Because doing so would give unique credit to masculinity as being the source of a man’s ability to achieve a Nobel Peace Prize through sheer determination – and that’s a credit the ‘equalist’ agenda can’t afford to have men think about. Boys will be boys and truly, despite the feminized bleating, women wouldn’t want it any other way. Boys will take risks, boys will injure themselves, boys will leave the security of the safe side of the sidewalk their mothers forbid them to leave, because that’s what boys do.

Compassion might be a place to start, for yourself and others. “Trying to hold men accountable connects to unhealthy masculinity,” McGann says. “I’ve said for years that one of the things about unhealthy masculinity, or dominant stories of masculinity, is that men are socialized to push past pain, ignore pain, like it doesn’t harm you in any kind of way, you’re not vulnerable. If you can’t really recognize and experience your own pain, then how can you do it with anybody else?”

Men push past pain for good reason – it is the key to growth into a healthy maturity. Men push past pain, not just a social expectation from other men, but because of the same expectations from women. It’s by necessity, not social pressure.Very few men fail to recognize their own pain, but a feminine mindset determined to vilify masculinity would rather we believe that not expressing that pain is always a net negative. The irony this mindset is oblivious of is that at the first mention of a man’s pain, at the first expression of his own self-concern he is accused of bitterness. “You must’ve been really burned to think what you think.” This is the root of the Male Catch 22.

Like a lot of guys, I had a shitty dad. He was uneasy in himself, abusive, shut down. Being a guy to me seemed located in his hamstrung emotions, his uncomfortable displays of drunken vulnerability. I remember him singing Frank Sinatra in this mournful voice, how I pitied and hated him, how I never wanted to become him.

“No Luke, I am your Father.”

“That’s not true!,….THAT”S IMPOSSIBLE!!”

I suppose I should mention here that virtually all Vichy Males are Promise Keeper.

Whether or not men know the phrase “healthy masculinity,” signs of changes are blooming everywhere. I think about Kimmel, who says the roots of the shifting gender roles are a movement away from rigidity. Feminism allowed women to unlock the parts of themselves society kept from them, and now men are doing the same. He posits that a cure for what ails us that sounds familiar to me, the work I’ve done to become my own man embodied: “I don’t see us as becoming a more masculine culture or a more feminine culture, I see us becoming a more balanced culture,” he says. Look at the last election: men helped vote women into power all over the country, including a transgender woman in New Hampshire.

Mark Minter, paging Mark Minter, please report to the comments section, thank you. One element I find interesting in feminist men is a desire to experience the same so-called liberation from a masculine gender role assignment that feminist women claim to have. It’s as if the feminine identification isn’t complete unless they can tap into that same gender straightjacket indignation release women do – they can’t be ‘equals’ unless they suffer a similar (albeit self-constructed) gender role release. This is the level of conviction Vichy Males strive for.

One part I do agree with though, “Feminism allowed women to unlock the parts of themselves society kept from them, and now men are doing the same.” The tragic irony of women’s innate Hypergamy’s unfettered release on men is entirely lost on McBee. And yes, Men, Alpha Men, are now released from the same previous constrictions.

Men are embracing a more nurturing fatherhood with zeal, from Michael Chabon to the super-engaged, former stay-at-home dad Chris on Up All Night. And Modern Family‘s dinosaur patriarch, Jay, is as old-school as they come, especially next to his touchy-feely son-in-law, Phil. In a reversal of past tropes, however, Jay’s blundering inability to connect to his feelings makes him the joke to be tolerated and Phil’s the man of the moment. More techy than macho, he’s thoroughly nonplussed when he realizes he’s on a gay date just as he’s being kissed.

As I stated above, the only model for masculinity these ‘new men’ have for comparative purposes are the distorted archetypes of masculinity that a feminized pop-culture and media has characterized for them, and here we have the perfect example of this. When all you’ve ever had representative of a masculine archetype has been ridiculous cartoon characters of men, it’s not such a daunting task to “be a better man” than them. In fact, the episode McBee describes here not only props up a “dinosaur patriarch” archetype, but also knocks him down with a character he identifies with in being the ‘new’ definition of masculinity. Yay, for team ‘new man’!

You can read the article in its entirety if you have the stomach, but it essentially ends on the same note as my last highlight here.

Positive Masculinity

Our popular conscious perspective of masculinity has been remolded by the feminine imperative and fed back to the likes of Vichy Males like McBee here. I wish I could say he was an outlier, but he’s not. He’s one more crab in the barrel pulling frustrated, confused and conflicted men back down into feminization. Maybe unwittingly, maybe as a form of Beta Game, but men endorsing and evangelizing the feminine imperative are the most effective ambassadors of the imperative. It’s men, and particularly ones other men respect, who make the best tools for feminization – in fact men’s participation is an integral part of the imperative’s effectiveness in social engineering.

One aspect of McBee’s misgivings I do agree with is the need for a Positive Masculinity. A masculinity not predicated on the social interests of the feminine imperative. One defined by uniquely male standards that embrace our natural capacities for focused agression, that accepts rather than derides the effects of testosterone as a constructive (and yes, destructive) part of our natures. We need a masculinity that recognizes women’s innate arousal and attraction to it as something that sets men apart by its difference from women, not one that attempts to homogenize and androgynize it to be more palatable to women. A masculinity that is respected for being the predominant driving force in what our species has become as a result of it. A masculinity that is unapologetically dominant and beneficent.

We don’t need men to get in touch with their feminine sides, feminization has reinforced this for far too long. Masculinity isn’t about ‘men behaving badly’ in a feminine context, nor is it about parodies of men rediscovering “manly pursuits” pre-manufactured by what the feminine imperative laughs at men for.

Masculinity is about Boys being Boys, and Men being Men.



1: excessive or blind patriotism — compare jingoism
2: undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3: an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also :behavior expressive of such an attitude. Compare male chauvinism.

I had an interesting conversation over the long weekend about my Shallow post with a few red pill friends. The topic of NLP (neurolinguistic programing) and how select terms are ‘owned’ by the feminine imperative was discussed. It’s interesting to dissect how the terminologies of certain feminine social conventions have entered our contemporary lexicon as the ‘official’ definitions we simply take for granted in our blue-pill ignorance.

The subjective nature of terms like “Shallow” and “Superficial” are easy examples of this feminine repurposing, but then you get to “Misogynist”, “Sexist” and of course “Chauvinist” and you can see how these ‘official’ terms evolved into what they are today. In fact, “Sexism” was so universally defined as male-specific, Websters needed a new word to describe a female form of sexism, “reverse-sexism.” And of course “Misandrist” still gets the red underscore of a misspelled word in my WordPress spellchecker.


The problem I see is in defining ‘Chauvinism’, particularly as opposed to ‘Misogyny’ – they’re practically synonyms in the lexicon of the feminine imperative. The biggest fallacy I think most AFC guys and all women I’ve read write on Chauvinism subscribe to is that women own this term. It is absolutely possible to describe a woman as a Chauvinist, but in a modern context it has been uniquely defined in the masculine. In fact, to get down to the roots of the term when it was defined as a masculine attribute, the original terminology was “male chauvinist pig” courtesy of Gloria Steinem and the militant feminist movement of the 1970s.

However, more important is how the term has become synonymous with masculinity. For the past 40 years it’s been developed in westernized society that masculine = chauvinism and that any uniquely masculine trait, behavior or characteristic is at the very least suspect, if not outrightly so, chauvinism.

Why is this? Why should a man be labeled ‘chauvinistic’ for expressing his masculinity? Masculinity and the behaviors that are derived from it are no more negative than those expressed in the Feminine depending upon individual conditions. But it’s the masculine that is vilified by both sexes (at least in the last 60 years).

Positive Masculinity

Why can’t the masculine be a positive? The underlying theme for Rational Male is an effort to get back to a positive definition of masculinity. Thatt’s not advocating a wife-beating, caveman ideology, rather it’s a move back to defining the masculine in terms that don’t equate it with chauvinism. The difficulty occurs in attempting to relate to both men and women a need to unlearn this pre-described terminology, that even our own parents helped brow-beat into cultural consciousness. Chauvinism as masculinity has been parroted constantly for so long now that a new generation of AFC sons from AFC fathers now resort to internalizing this doctrine and ego-investing themselves in avoiding anything even remotely construed as masculinity in a desperate attempt to identify with what other women repeating the same ideology (masculine equals domineering opression) have been socially conditioned to accept as what a man should be to achieve the ‘gift’ of their intimacy.

Then men are ridiculed (even by their own) for even prompting the thought that something might not be entirely equitable in gender relations when behaviors consistently don’t match ideology. The man to even subtly point out inconsistencies in women’s behaviors is automatically a Chauvinist for exposing a feminine weakness in their argument. And now we come full circle and hear a constant bemoaning from feminized pop-culture, “Where are all the REAL men these days?” Why can’t we have Superman again? All in complete, blissful ignorance of the history and circumstance that have lead to the decline of positive masculine males.

The only reason men outside the sphere have any impression that the manosphere is based in Chauvinism is because they have no grasp of the true definition of the terem, nor do they understand the engineering which evolved the term to what it is now. It’s far easier to engage in misguided attempts to identify with the feminine; to spit back the rhetoric women say they approve of as a condition for their intimacy while simultaneously contradicting themselves with their own behaviors.

For far too long young men have bought the basic Carl Jung psycho-babble women have repeated since the 60’s – “Men need to get in touch with their feminine side” as if this were the ultimate in female identification and an avenue to their intimacy. In fact the opposite is true – men need to rediscover their masculine sides and be unafraid of the consequences. In my experience the manosphere makes the single best attempt to do this in modern culture, without resorting to actual misogyny.

It’s time to stop buying the lie that masculinity is laughable, ridiculous or definitively negative. The world desperately needs Men. Men with strength of will to pass the meta-shit test of a feminized popular culture when it tells him he’s pitiable because he’s been poisoned with testosterone and the traits that make him masculine are to be controlled as character flaws.