The Feminine Imperative

The Myth of the Alpha Female

On last Saturday’s Red Man Group we took a call from a woman who has apparently just discovered the “red pill school of thought” and looked up what ever convoluted definitions she could find from the ‘normie web’ to better understand it. For context, the whole exchange began around the 2:04:00 mark here, but the bit I want to dissect I’ve cued up to 2:09 in the above video. The Red Pill as a praxeology is often something most uninitiated people don’t have the patience to really want to understand. So when they’re confronted with a Red Pill truth that conflicts with some ego-invested belief they often just resort to what I call “point and sputter” – they spit out some school yard taunt, tell you how unbelievable it is anyone could ever believe such a thing in this day and then move along to whatever ideological site they’re comforted by.

Credit where it’s due, this woman (and I apologize for not getting her name) at the very least was prompted to ask some questions about how we come to whatever misattributed ideas she read were what it is we think. Listen to the whole exchange for context. In the beginning I was asked the standard “what do you tel your daughter about all of this?” as if this is going to somehow shame me back down to earth, but the part she was most distraught over was the idea that “women are only valuable for what they look like”.

My response to her was based on an essay I wrote 4 years ago titled Separating Values. In that piece I tried to outline how women today have trouble separating their sexual market value from their self-perceived personal worth:

Conflating Values

One of the major problems women have, and more than even some red pill men have, is the conflation of sexual market value with their intrinsic personal value as a human being.

It needs to be emphasized that while personal value is influential in sexual market value, SMV is distinct from your value as a human being. I’m stressing this because, in the age Disney Princess empowerment, this conflation of the two has become a go-to social convention; and not just for women.

What [Robin] Korth suffers from is presuming her personal value is her sexual market value.

It’s disruptive to her self-perceptions and ego-investments when that presumption is challenged by a man who doesn’t want to fuck her for reasons based on the intrinsic value she believes she’s entitled to by virtue of maturity and imaginings of self-sufficiency. Just as women aren’t aroused by men’s own self-concepts of virtuousness and aspirations of higher purpose, men aren’t aroused by whatever ephemeral self-perceptions a woman may have.

Listening to this woman’s concerns, it’s a fairly common refutation and one we come to expect from a mindset that presumes men callously objectify women out of hand, or due to their being taught to be so by a chauvinistic toxic masculinity. Women cling to this because it sounds right and reinforces the victimhood narrative that defines the collective identity of the Sisterhood. So when they read it or see it openly embraced, or spoken about men in a positive context it’s confirmation of an offense they want to believe is endemic in men. Thus, we get the “literally shaking”, sound of a quavering voice.

However, all of this gets in the way of women really understanding that they’ve been conditioned to conflate their personal worth with their sexual market value. As I mentioned in my response, a woman can be a wonderful humanitarian, a great mother, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or someone who adds value to the depth and breadth of humankind, but it won’t make her look any better in a bikini. And that is where sexual market value starts for women when it comes to men’s arousal and attraction. For as long as I’ve been writing this blog I’ve tried to explain this in as simple a way as possible; men and women are different. Part of our differences is that what constitutes sexual market value for one sex is not an equal evaluation for the other. For as much as the equalist mindset pervades our social consciousness, the reality is men and women are different in many fundamental ways.

One reason Red Pill awareness in men gets vilified by women is because it nakedly exposes, discusses and develops sexual and life strategies around some very Darwinistic and unflattering realities of intersexual dynamics based on those differences. But exposing these differences is only offensive to this social order because there is a presumption of a blank-slate equalism that’s been embedded into every aspect of our gender understanding for almost 70 years now. This offensiveness is less about the actual nuts and bolts of evolution, biology and psychological differences between men and women, but more so it’s about the ego-invested idea that men and women should be blank-slate, functional equals in all respects. Even this presumption is a horse-shit cover story for the latent purpose of feminism floating the lie of “equality” – fundamentally disempowering men so women can aspire to be their masters in various ways.

The woman from our discussion expressed this barely containable angst that men only value her as a sexual object, and it’s important to suss out the reasoning for this confusion and rage. As I mentioned, the problem women have is an inability to separate their sexual market value from their personal value a ‘basic human being‘. A quote I’m known for is “virtue is anti-seductive.” No guy ‘virtues’ a woman into bed, and while I get push back for devaluing the importance of virtue occasionally, what I don’t get is any disagreement from men or women on that point. Virtue, intelligence, honor, duty, wisdom and any number of other esoteric features that would make a man a terrific human being do nothing (or sometimes work against him) for his raw visceral sexuality that women are aroused by. For men, however, these traits and many more will definitely add to his attractiveness as a long term prospect for women.

In men, affluence, status, intelligence, improvisation, creativity, ambition, drive, perseverance, humor, positive-conventional masculinity, and many more aspects make this man an attractive choice for a long term relationship with women. These are attributes that contribute to a man’s sexual market value, but they are incomplete without a raw, visceral physical component. Hypergamy serves two masters, Alpha seed and Beta need – and as such it hates the one and loves the other depending on what a woman’s most pressing necessity happens to be at that point in her life. Women have an innate, limbic understanding of what makes a man a complete package – a great catch.

Where this and most other women fail is that their own Fempowerment conditioning teaches them that what makes a man attractive, what makes his SMV appealing to women must necessarily be what makes for her own personal value and sexual market value. The reason this woman is shaking here is because this conditioning has convinced her and generations of women to build a life predicated on a fallacy: What makes her a “good person” should necessarily make her attractive and arousing to men. This is a great falsehood that is the root of many of the gender conflicts and misunderstandings we see around us today.

Gendered Differences in Attraction

The things that make a woman’s sexual market value high are not the same things make her sense of personal worth high. Yet, this is exactly what the Feminine Imperative conditions women to believe and seeks to shame men for not complying with this fallacy. When men opt for younger, hotter, tighter at all ages of their own maturity, the visceral message is clear – it makes no difference what a woman’s personal value is when it comes to sexual valuation. Where women fall short is they presume that men cannot appreciate women for anything but their sexual value.

This is an interesting dynamic since the Imperative teaches women never to implicitly do anything for a man.

The prime directive of feminism for the past 50 years has been founded on women striving to achieve the ideal of the Strong Independent Woman® (SIW). This SIW ideal is the carrot that gets the mules to pull the cart. That ideal is never fully attainable because if it were it would make an end state for feminism a realizable goal rather than the self-perpetuating social mechanism it is. The SIW ideal is intentionally ambiguous, but the concept is based on selling women the idea that they can not only “have it all” but they can be it all too. The ‘independence’ feminism sells predicated on being a self-sustaining, self-satisfying, autonomous ‘thing’ that doesn’t need for anything. A woman is every bit as good a feminine role model as she is a masculine one, ergo, she has no need for men beyond the physical aspect. In fact, an independence from men, from any form of dependency on men, has been part of the feminist charter since Seneca Falls in 1848.

From a Red Pill perspective, and in my opinion, this independence from men has been the single most damaging aspect of feminism in its history. Men and women evolved to be complements to the other and in evolutionary terms are far stronger together than apart. Each compensates for the one’s innate weaknesses with the other’s innate strengths. Feminism preaches two lies in this respect – the first being that a woman can “have it all”, but also she can be an autonomous being with no intrinsic needs beyond what she can provide for or address herself. The lie is that she “don’t need no man” when a hundred thousand years of evolution says different. Men and women need each other, but it’s feminism that’s selling the lie that they don’t.

The ironic part about this socialized lie is that in emancipating women from the ‘dependency’ of men feminism has founded the basis of ‘having it all’ on how closely a woman can emulate a man. The definition of a successful Strong Independent Woman is how closely she can replicate the success of men. This ideal for SIW success is based on a masculine ideal. As feminism has refocused women’s goals on these masculine ideals it has systematically altered the definition of femininity to align with its ideal of ‘success’.

The Myth of the Alpha Female

As part of that new masculine ideal of female success, along came the concept of the Alpha Female. I’ve read dozens of articles about this fantasy creature; how she’s a boss who takes no shit and turns companies around from the brink of bankruptcy by virtue of being female. A woman of the future who emulates and exceeds the successes of any apex-male CEO of those sexist Fortune 500 companies. Even if she’s not a high powered exec, the match (literally) of any man, women still love to imagine themselves in this “alpha” role in their own little worlds.

“I’m an Alpha Female, and maybe I’m not a jet setter, but I’m a Type A personality and as such I’m headstrong, a go-getter woman who knows what she wants.”

This sloganized mental model is part of the new Strong Independent Woman® costume that feminism is selling to women today.

If you’re a woman who’s bought into the Confidence Porn narrative that’s so popular today, allow me to ruin that image for you. There is no such thing as an “alpha” female – at least not in the respect of the idealistic Fempowered fantasy you think applies to you. The Feminine Imperative likes to convince women that they are ‘Alpha’ using that same masculine model definitions I detailed above here. The Strong Independent Woman meme only holds up insofar as it emulates masculine success and a masculine defined concept of ‘Alpha’. By this definition every woman has a potential to be an ‘alpha’ female in her own little way. Like I said, the Confidence Porn women gobble up is so tasty because it’s so achievable – all you have to do is cop the “I’m the boss, I’m a Type A person” attitude, put some foam inserts in the shoulders of your ‘power suit’ and you too can be Alpha because you say so and you walk the same walk as an Alpha Male.

The push for female-primacy has conditioned generations of women to expect an entitled, default respect, and a deference to their authority from men. They’re told at every opportunity from the time they’re 5 years old that they can do anything, have it all, be it all, and they’re the “natural leaders of the future”. By extension this leads women to the Alpha Female trope.

Ironically, the same people who love to ridicule the idea of ‘Alpha Males’ completely accept the concept of an Alpha Female. They’ll make funny videos ridiculing the Red Pill for using ‘alpha’ as a referential term – “These jokers think they’re wolves or Silver Back Gorillas, hur hur!” – but they’ll eagerly embrace the idea of an ‘alpha’ female. That conditioned deference of the feminine makes it believable; and they like the idea that identifying with women’s delusions of empowerment might get them laid.

Attribution Bias Error

The error that women and feminism make in the ‘Alpha Female’ respect is an attribution bias error. Women are conditioned to believe that if they value the aspects of what makes men attractive, what makes them a good pairing, that men must also value those traits in women. If status, power, social proof, affluence, careerism, drive, etc. is what gets them hot for men (in the long term) then possessing those traits themselves must also be attractive in the reverse. Unfortunately for women, they’re painfully (but slowly) learning that men and women are in fact different and the lie of egalitarian equalism has essentially cost them a future with a husband, children and family living.

In order to counter this harsh reality an industry in biotech egg-freezing has sprung up around the very real female insecurity that these confident Alpha Women wont find a suitable man to start a family with now that they are well past the Wall. Feminine-primary society is capitalizing on this fear.

But the reverse is true; men’s sexual selection criteria is far more simplistic than women’s. From an evolved, naturalist perspective men select women based on looks and sexual availability – and on a subconscious level women know this, yet they rationalize that men should be interested in their coequal professionalism, status and any number of intrinsic qualities they believe they possess. The root of this misunderstanding is once again the socialized lie of egalitarian, blank-slate equalism. Only now women expect that if they invest themselves in the same pursuits as Alpha men that this should compensate for their lack of physical appeal. If men and women are functional equals what defines male dominance should also define female dominance. Evolution says differently.

The woman on the left (Reneé Sommerfield) is the true Alpha female by the standards of evolutionary realities. The woman on the right (Sheryl Sandberg) is what our gynocentric social order would have men believe should be considered an ‘alpha’ female. This is the conflict that’s at the heart of so many manufactured crises of attraction for women and the failure of their long-term plans to have a family.

The Alpha Female is really the woman who best embodies what men’s evolved, biological imperatives determine what makes her an attractive breeding and long-term mate choice. Men’s criteria is very simple; fitness, youth, assertive sexuality, playfulness, conventional femininity and genuine desire to please him. Beyond this, submission, respect, nurturing (potential mothering qualities), a natural deference to male authority, humility, admiration and an unobligated desire to recognize that man as her complementary partner are just some of the long-term attributes that make a woman someone a man might want to invest himself in a family with.

Unfortunately all of this criteria is counter to the message ‘alpha‘ Females are taught are valuable today. They are taught that anything a woman might do for the expressed pleasure of a man is anathema to the Strong Independent Woman® meme. The presumption is that a desire to meet any of this criteria is a failure on the part of a woman who demands to be the ‘equal’ of a man. Even acknowledging the innate, complementary natures of men and women is an affront to the equalist narrative. Furthermore, any man who would base (much less express) his own decision making criteria as such is shamed via social conventions. The narrative is that he must be needy, or threatened by a “strong woman” or he must want this woman to be his Mommy substitute. All of this is a social mechanic meant to force fit that natural complementary criteria into the box of egalitarian equalism.

Value Added

I don’t write for a female readership per se. In fact, I don’t really direct my writing towards any audience, but in this instance I want to end here with a message for my female readers. Take this message to the bank: the sexes evolved to be complementary to each other, not adversarial. But that adversarial feeling you get when you read me describing some unflattering aspect of female nature is the product of your own Blue Pill conditioning that’s taught you the lie of egalitarianism-as-female-empowerment. If you truly want to ‘empower‘ yourselves set aside your self-importance, look inside yourselves and ask this question –

What is it about me that a man would find attractive from a naturalistic perspective?

What do I possess that a man would truly believe is Value Added?

That may feel a bit counterintuitive to you, but understand that the reason this introspection is alien or offensive to you is because you’ve been conditioned to believe that your masculine qualities are what men should find attractive about you. You turn this offense back on men and make it their fault for not finding your ‘alpha femaleness’ the root of their attraction to you. Is the idea of changing yourself, to add value to your package, for the pleasure of a man a source of anger for you? Why is that?

I see far too many otherwise beautiful women who destroy themselves on the lie of the ‘alpha’ female and a never ending struggle to perfect an equalist archetype in themselves. They rail on about infantile men, or bemoan that men are afraid to ask them out, or ask “Where are all the good guys nowadays?” Understand that these efforts to shame men into finding something attractive about you based on your masculine criteria for attraction will always fail; leaving you a lonely childless middle aged wreck all because you refused to accept that you need to be someone worth marrying.

Men and women are better together than they are apart. We evolved to be complements to the other. But, feminism, the Feminine Imperative and an endemic Fempowerment culture have taught you to believe “you are enough”, you are complete, you don’t need a man because you can satisfy all of your own needs. This is the most damning lie ever perpetrated on womankind – that you can be it all – and only when it’s too late do women realize that they’ve been had.

The Nature of Power

From Truth to Power:

Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.

Are women attracted to Power? Yes. Why? Because a man who has it is in control of his own circumstances (to the best of his ability). People need to be reminded of this because we tend to think of power as some tyrannical dominance over others. Sometimes power is exercised as such, but that’s not what defines real power.

There exist a set of Beta men who hold this idea because it fits into their self-loathing binary understanding of intersexual dynamics. On my Incels post comment thread there’s a conversation with a 25year old guy who considers himself an Incel and his self-awareness is one that he’s hopeless to be anything else. He believes he has no power and therefore nothing a woman would ever want from a man. As he persists in this belief he’s not wrong.

I’m proud of my commentariat for giving this guy some kind of hope and inspiration, but according to the Black Pilled set all they’re doing is setting him up for failure and disappointment. Because if he attempts to empower himself he’d just be making himself a more efficient pussy-beggar and or/setting himself up for more failure. The game is rigged so stop playing it, right? And even if he had the kind of access to women he wished for ‘the juice isn’t worth the squeeze’ is the circular logic, and he’d only be a failure from within a success – or something like that.

The old saying goes, ‘Everything is about sex, except sex; sex is about power’. But what is ‘power‘? The degree to which a person has control over circumstances that would otherwise govern their lives. But power is always measured by how it fits into a particular context, so in this instance that power is a control over sexual experience, gratification and ultimately reproduction. And really, this is the basis of how Hypergamy has become the socialized, prime-directive that is gynocentrism. What is the latent purpose of a feminine-primary social order? Empowering women to unilaterally control their reproductive circumstances and then as much of their own lives as follows that imperative.

Power is one aspect of attraction (sometimes arousal) for women. I would also say, by this definition, that power is an aspect of a man being Alpha, but it isn’t the only aspect. I can point to a lot of men who have no real power, influence, affluence or even social proof who nonetheless pull women and have women pull him because they have a look that fit a woman’s sexual ideal and/or had an Alpha mindset. I have been that guy.

Power is not a prerequisite for being Alpha, but the appearance of, the potential for, power certainly is. Remember, women are hardwired to seek out competency in men as part of their innate need for security in all its forms. This is why I make the distinction between power being ‘attractive’ to a woman (in the long term Beta Need side of Hypergamy) and not always an element in arousal – though when paired with an arousing man power is intoxicating for women sexually.

The appearance of, or potential for, real power in a man represents competency in his capacity to control the circumstances that would dictate the terms of his life. If a woman is to ultimately pair monogamously with a man, his access to power will ultimately dictate the terms of her life while paired with that man. So it follows that power would be a selected-for aspected of female attraction.

This is probably pretty remedial. “Duh, chicks dig power Rollo.”

Power is a part of that Alpha ideal, but the question to ask is why is power attractive to a woman? This is where militant MGTOWs and Black Pill nihilists show their colors. Most will say it’s because they want control or some parasitic association with a powerful man to further their own ends. In essence it’s about a need to control their circumstances by using a male proxy to exercise their own self-serving plans. It’s all very melodramatic until you pick apart the latent purposes of female power.

From an evolutionary perspective, what these guys think is “power” is really just social dominance, preselection and a good physique. That’s why they’re obsessed with the “Chad” archetype that bullied them in high school. That guy seems “powerful” and made a lasting impression on them because he effortlessly got women and reminds them of what they’re not. Whether or not the guy is genuinely ‘powerful’ in the sense that he’s in control of his own destiny is irrelevant – he has the appearance of what these guys think power should look like and he’s rewarded with pussy for it.

So, what to do? Do the same shit feminists do; change the game and try to convince everyone that they are the real deal and the world that they figured out (really constructed) on their own is the ‘real’ game everyone ought to be playing. Unless you’re Thundercock the Barbarian, which you never are, all you’re doing is trying to be like him, which amounts to you accruing ‘power’, (however they define it) no matter how self-interested you think you are, with the sole purpose of giving it away to a woman – which she will use to more completely own you, because, that’s “just how women are.”

Feminists do the same thing from their own base of interest. They cannot compete for Darwinistic reproductive success with women whose SMV outclasses their own.

Solution: Change the game to suit their lesser capacity to compete; embrace fat-positivity, shame men for their innate sexual choices and expressions, disqualify hot women by disempowering and stigmatizing their strengths. Ban Grid Girls, cheerleaders on TV and remove the swimsuits from Miss America.

All of these are adaptive strategies for increasing reproductive success. The problem is nature confounds these efforts over and over again. The idea is to change the rules of the game; to literally control the reality and context in which it’s played in order to make the ones changing it the superior players. Rather than find the cheat codes to play the existing game in ‘God Mode’ the idea is to just rewrite the game to suit their skills.

Ostensibly, the cover story of feminism has always been about some effort to achieve an idealized state of equality between men and women. This has never been the actual case, but even if we were to presume that this equality was tenable it still requires the players to ignore their strengths and weaknesses in playing the existing game and pretend that a new game, based on contrived rules, is now the true game. The problem is they can never get everyone to participate in the new game. The fact remains that we evolved to compete in a naturalistic game and most people instinctively get this reality even when they espouse a belief in the new game.

Beautiful women will aspire to a feminist-contrived norm, but on a root level of consciousness they understand that their beauty and sexuality puts them above their less beautiful sisters. This again is a form of power. It provides them a control advantage over their life circumstances and their hindbrains wont allow any pretense of a level playing field stop them from exercising it.

End Games

The same principle applies to the ends of MGTOW. I’m not even sure what the consensus is as to what an idealized outcome between the genders might be for a MGTOW mindset. Every time I’ve tried to parse out what happens when enough men go MGTOW that society shifts I’m usually met with some equalist future where women ‘come to their senses’ and take responsibility for their own actions. That and crypto currencies seem to be what the future MGTOW utopia looks like.

I’m not being flippant here. I’m genuinely curious as to what the end state of a MGTOW society ought to look like. Feminists seem to think that egalitarian equalism and gender neutrality, and a world where men and women are coequal agents is a future that’s possible. I’ve read the comparisons of feminism with Marxism and it’s not too far off with regard to their stated future hopes. I don’t buy any of it of course. It’s been proven over and over that feminism is a supremacism movement, but I’m interested in what the hopes are for the the cover story of feminism.

I wonder the same about MGTOW. Both MGTOW and feminism are ultimately interested in power – in the respect that power is the control over the individual circumstances that govern our lives. MGTOW make it very clear that dealing with women is an unacceptable risk (by order of degrees) and that until such time as the risks diminish to an acceptable tolerance they’ll simply ‘go their own way’ and avoid potentially dangerous entanglements with women. Sounds perfectly logical in a male deductive logic way, but what does the intended goal-state look like for MGTOW?

I’ve yet to get a clear consensus on this. Most of it seems to be awaiting an expected societal collapse whereafter women ‘come to their senses’ and somehow realize they really need men and voluntarily relinquish the power they hold today in favor of treating men more fairly. I’m doubtful of how realistic this is, but perhaps I’m mistaken in this being the perceived end game. Women of course would see this as being an abdication of their own interests – a surrender of feminism so to speak, but what does an acceptable ‘truce’ between men and women look like to feminists as well as MGTOWs?

I ask these questions because it seems to me that both movements depend on an adversarial state existing between the sexes. What would the inter-gender landscape need to look like for MGTOWs to deal with women or compete with other men? What would that landscape need to look like for feminism to dissolve and relinquish the abusive power it’s established over the lives of men?

The Goddess Movement

Six years ago I wrote a post outlining what the PUA community referred to then as “Chick Crack“. It was a pretty straight forward post that I delved into just to explain why playing to women’s propensity to believe in the spiritual – or what women would consider spiritual – is an effective technique in Game. I always thought it was funny how accurate this presumption about women was when I came across it.

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

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

In the wake of the Anthony Bourdain “suicide“, and the scramble to absolve Asia Argento of any complicity in his decision to hang himself, I came across this post about Asia’s penchant for Witchcraft. Apparently Wicca is somewhat more than a hobby for her. As you look at these pictures it’s important to remember that this is a 42 year old woman (and her friends) who sincerely believes in this stuff.

In Chick Crack I also made reference as to why I believe women’s being predisposed to beliefs in the supernatural is a desire for secret power from an innate position of female powerlessness.

Feminine Mythology

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

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

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

From an evolutionary perspective it makes sense that physically weaker tribal women would seek some sort of mastery over the men in their lives who could punish or kill them and their offspring at will. As I’ve covered in many essays, women are biologically and psychologically more attuned to deeper communication and the emotive states of other people. Women have a far greater capacity to understand subcommunications and subcommunicate themselves among their own sex. This is borne out by multiple brain scan studies and research on the architecture of men and women’s brains.

To the blunt, overt, relatively nuance-less interpretive processes of men this subcommunication can be both frustrating and mysterious. It’s the mysterious part that women learned to reinforce and exploit in their dealings with men long ago. This is where we get the idea of the seductress or the ‘keeper of mysterious secrets’ archetype (witch, midwife, nature goddess) for women. It’s less important that women would actually be more in tune with the supernatural, but rather it’s more important that they believe it’s a general truth about all women. Men might be skeptical, or they may buy into that mystique, revere it and encourage other men to believe something similar. Usually how a man adopts or rejects that archetype is determined by his own self-understanding and his Game according to it and his sexual market value.

There are a lot of derivative character archetypes that stem from the basic ‘mysterious woman’ root. That might be anything from a healer, nurturer, mother type rooted in what used to be the mystery of women’s life-giving capacity, to the force of nature sorceress, to the eroticized sexual seductress (nymph, siren) or even the high-priestess of the holy temple of prostitution (an ancient brothel madame). Over the course of history, since our hunter-gatherer beginnings, this means to influence and power for women has coalesced into what we popularly imagine about women’s mysterious nature. Only today we call it a ‘woman’s intuition’ and we make appeals to fortune and fate when a guy get’s “lucky” and a woman favors him with her sexuality. It’s all socialized solutions to evolutionary problems, but if we add an element of ‘magic’ to the equation it makes explaining failures and appreciating successes that much easier.

Today, the belief in this nature is still very much reinforced in society. Thus, we get women subscribing to what amounts to a collective pathology – they are encouraged to believe in their ‘magical’ sensitivities to spirits and forces beyond the sensitivities of (ostensibly) “powerful” men. To fight the mythological Patriarchy women rely on a mythological tool. In Chick Crack I made mention of a stripper I used to have as a friend-with-benefits who was very attuned to the “spirit world”. As such the whole gamut of the supernatural was free game for her to use. She’d read my Tarot cards, my palm, throw in some eastern mysticism and wash it all down with a read through her pink ladies’ devotional Bible. Granted, ‘Angie‘ was an extreme case, but all women are in someway, or say they are in someway, privy to metaphysical understandings which men are not. And today we read and listen to male leaders in mainstream religions adopt and parrot back this “women are closer to God than men” mantra which is directly linked to the ‘spiritual women’ mystique.

The old trope of a Woman’s Intuition is an example of this belief in something beyond the ken of men. And this is also an important aspect of boys’ Blue Pill conditioning – girls/women possess some unearthly connection to God or something supernatural which further cements the idea that they should to defer authority to girls and women if they want to “please God the Goddess”. You might think this hard to believe in our age of technology, but only the context of the supernatural has shifted. Even the most objectively rational boys and men strongly believe in the ‘soul mate myth despite atheism or agnosticism. This belief of the faithless is directly related to the unknowability of the female. Even modern atheists have a tendency to fall prey to the “someone for everyone” religion when it comes to connecting with the opposite sex.

It’s my belief that this presumption of a greater sensitivity to the supernatural is an aspect of women’s evolved mental firmware. Regardless of how false it may be, a woman with the disposition to encourage men to believe that she has some otherworldly connection despite the world or circumstances around them, one that would lead men to venerate her in the long term, would’ve been a powerful social adaptation in ensuring her and her children’s security. No doubt women readers will trot out the reflexive “Well men have been shamans and soothsayers and the patriarchal leaders of churches too”, and this is true, but those men lacked the female elemental advantage in their believability. Even their own belief sets encompassed the ‘spiritual woman’ tropes for better or worse. The wise old wizard is definitely an archetype, but that wizard lacks the feminine mystique and the sexual components only women possess in exercising that power.

Modern Witchcraft

Today we see a distinct falling away from the old order of acknowledging the supernatural. Less and less people subscribe to religion in its conventional sense. The Millennial generation wants nothing to do with “organized religion”, yet they still seek the structure to life it used to provide. So instead we hear the compromise about being “spiritual, but not religious” as if accepting the possibility of the metaphysical is something expected, but the taint of the “religious” is left for older generations. Even in what passes for contemporary religion the influence of the Feminine Imperative is ever-present. The spiritual, the metaphysical, the religious, all are still useful tools for women to consolidate power with. As men abdicate more authority to the feminine, as they themselves are the products of a continuous social feminization, we see a wholesale handover of the spiritual to the direction of women. The male leadership of mainstream religions is itself compromised with the imperatives and priorities of women who are already presumed to be “more in tune with God or the supernatural”. As such they exercise the Feminine Imperative and assimilate women’s stake on the spiritual by being proxy agents for women’s authority.

Today I was linked a story about how Episcopalians have begun to Remove the Man from their religion. Apparently this marks the beginning of rewriting the doctrine of this religion by erasing all masculine pronouns for God. Of course I expect the predictable retorts that Episcopalians aren’t real Christians, but theirs is just one of the more glaring examples of how the feminization of religion progresses. The latent purpose is a wholesale removal of anything conventionally masculine from religion, and/or placing the feminine as the primary connection with the supernatural. Whether it’s mainstream religion or psychic reading, a woman is at the center of that mysticism. If you want a perspective into the things to come for a female-led mega-religion look no further than the teaching of Rev. Shannon Johnson Kershner (dual surname noted). God is not male is the clarion call of the priestesses (and their male ‘ally’ priests) of this new religion.

Why should we view God as female? Well, it’s so that little girls can become pastors, with Kershner saying, ““I wanted to make sure that little girls knew that God could call them to be pastors, too.”

For the MeToo / Time’s Up generation God is female, the supernatural is more aligned with the feminine. I’ve made this observation before (before the #MeToo moral panic arrived) but there’s been a growing push on the part of men to relinquish any spiritual authority from a masculine perspective for decades now. The largely secular impetus of the MeToo movement is now finding its way into a religious environment that has been primed and ready for it (largely due to its acquiescing, complicit, and thoroughly Blue Pill male leadership) for a long time. MeToo was a natural fit for a feminine-primary church that needed its push to consolidate power even in the most patriarchal of religions. MeToo has given women license to finally be overt in their design on religion and spirituality – not unlike Open Hypergamy has been embraced in the mainstream.

In celebration of this conversion of religion to feminine-primacy we get the feminist Beyoncé “worship” services in formerly traditional cathedrals. Millennials may be falling away from the old church, but they fill the new church to overflow-capacity when ‘god’ is female.

The take home message for this essay is this; womankind has been intimately aware of the complicity of men in granting them a default connection to the supernatural. While we may not profess a formal belief in such, men are eager to accommodate female power in this arena – especially if in doing so it endears women to the men who play along with it. Professing a belief in the supernatural is simply good Game. The early PUAs picked up on this and used it to their advantage. However, this abdication of moral authority – an authority founded in masculine pretenses – goes far beyond getting your palm read by an earthy stripper you want to bang. This compromising of moral authority to the feminine by men is just the next phase in conceding all social and political authority to the Feminine Imperative. If God or a ‘higher power’ is the foundation of moral authority, and women are universally presumed to be more in touch with that higher power, the next step is to cede that authority to the sex that has a more direct line to that power.

What prompted me to consider writing this essay was a link I was sent in response to the story about Asia Argento’s involvement in modern day Wicca. I listened to a bit of a podcast by Vox Day recently in which he was asked his thoughts about modern paganism. He said, and I paraphrase, “Paganism today is just kids LARPing to the idea of old world religions. They’re role playing something akin to Dungeons and Dragons with no real belief.” I thought this was interesting in light of the article I was sent on Neo-Paganism and the Feminist Spirituality Movement:

However, some women were not willing to identify themselves as “witches”, and there arose a form of Goddess worship without any of the trappings of witchcraft. As Nevill Drury explains, “Although some Goddess-worshippers continued to refer to themselves as witches, others abandoned the term altogether, preferring to regard their neopagan practice as a universal feminist religion, drawing on mythologies from many different ancient cultures.” This has been called “Goddess worship” and the “Goddess movement”. These terms are frequently used interchangeably with, but should be distinguished from, “feminist spirituality”, which includes the Goddess movement, but also feminist Christianity, feminist Judaism, etc.

[…]

The principal beliefs of the Goddess movement are that the Goddess is a radically immanent deity and she can be experienced directly. The Earth is seen as the body of the Goddess and women are understood to connect to the Goddess through their experience of their own bodies, as well as the “body” of the earth. Goddess feminists also believe that the Goddess is constantly changing, manifest in the changing of the seasons and the human life-cycle, and perpetually self-renewed.

The Goddess movement offers women a new self-image and facilitates women finding their own innate goodness and natural divinity. It enables women to redeem and revalue the “feminine principle” and offers them positive images and symbols of female empowerment.

It may seem easy to dismiss the influence of the feminine on what is re-evolving into a new feminine-world order of spirituality, but I think it would be foolish dismiss the influences of the Feminine Imperative – the Goddess Movement – that is manifesting itself incrementally in the power vacuum left by the abdication of masculine moral authority to the feminine. We read that Millennials may not be “as religious” as previous generations, but that doesn’t mean they don’t seek out ‘spiritual, but not religious’ metaphysical connections. They seek direction, and connection in religion, but they seek it in the secular, gynocentric terms they’ve been conditioned to believe they should define themselves by. A similar parallel exists on the masculine side too. One of the reasons for Jordan Peterson’s popularity is his ‘ministering’ to a generation of “lost boys” seeking direction in life. He is every bit one of the Lords of the New Church in the same way that the Goddess Movement speaks to another demographic of lost souls who seek absolution in the “divine feminine” – also a term Peterson is fond of.

Old Lies

Apparently no one has bothered to let this poor sap (I don’t know who he is) know that the “Toxic” masculinity  narrative has now been replaced with “masculinity is toxic“. I find it interesting that when it comes to the mainstream societal understandings of what masculinity once was and what it is now – or what the mainstream believes it should be now – much of these interpretations are based on fanciful, anachronistic, ideas of what contributed to our understanding of masculinity now. I’ve gone into my own definitions of what constitutes ‘conventional’ masculinity for men many times before so I won’t belabor it now, however, as the popular narrative changes I’ve noticed some very common presumptions that masculinity critics like to use and are repeated over and over.

The first of these, and the most common, is the deliberate misconception that a boy’s learning to be masculine never left the 1950-60s. In the wake of the Nikolas Cruz shooting this rationale surfaced quite a bit. It still is. The idea is that boys are born as these tender, delicate souls, all naturally ready to emote and sensate like precious little girls – that is until the nebulous evil ‘patriarchy’ gets ahold of them and batters them into “being tough”, not crying and told to stop being such pussies. This is the old anachronism that presupposes western society never left the ‘macho tough guy’ preconditioning of boys to raise them to be these future murderers, wife beaters and misogynists.

This is, of course, the “boys are broken” narrative I addressed in Good Humans. It’s kind of ironic when you think that this narrative would have us believe boys naturally wanting to be boys is a net social negative and it takes some strong intervention in their upbringing to turn them into good humans. So what is it? Are boys being their natural selves by wanting to be rambunctious, risk taking, shit-giving, masculine boys, or are they naturally these tender little emo-beings coming fresh out of the womb only to have their ‘genuine’ sensitive emotional souls crushed by “hyper-masculine” fathers, male teachers and school coaches. This is one of the more stupid, but deliberate, paradoxes the Village and the Feminine Imperative conveniently switch between as circumstances require yet one more anti-masculine response.

Lies for Boys

You can see this confusion in the above Tweet.

Our society teaches boys to “toughen up”.

Actually no, the feminine-primary social order that has been systematically feminizing boys into feminine-identifying men for the past 50 years does nothing of the kind. Since the mid-seventies the cultural narrative took a hard turn to the feminine-correct in raising boys into pacified ‘harmless’ men. We’re going on five generations of telling boys it is incumbent upon them to get in touch with their mythical feminine sides if they want to evolve beyond ‘traditional masculinity’. There is no ‘toughening’ being taught to boys in a female primary education system that teaches boys in a manner that presumes they are defective girls.

…which is okay, but not okay when “toughening up” also means suppressing feelings.

Feelings are perhaps the only thing boys are being taught to prioritize in their feminine-primary educations today. This fact deserves a bit of explanation here. Male and female humans process emotions differently. Women in particular process negative emotions in a much different way than men. Men tend to prioritize information through a filter of rational discernment first and then sort out how they feel about that information in an emotional context. Women are much the opposite; girls process information through an emotional filter first and then sort out what the information actually means to them (and after that, how it might affect others). If this sounds like the essays I’ve written about how men’s and women’s communications methods differ you’re not too far off. Men prioritize the content (information) of a conversation while women prioritize the context (the feels she gets) from a conversation. This is how our brains work, and when one method isn’t socially favored above the other both methods can be complementary to the other.

But in a feminine-primary social order this is not how things work. As I mentioned, for the past 50+ years our educational system has shifted to favor the learning methodologies of girls at the expense of boys. This ‘girls style’ teaching has been the standard for so long now that we largely take it for granted that it is the only correct style of teaching. Today, men account for less than 25% of all teachers in the United States. In the UK it’s 25% and n Canada only 17% of elementary school teachers are male. Teaching is a female dominated profession and especially for younger kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics only 2% of pre-K and kindergarten teachers, and 18% of elementary and middle-school teachers, are men. How do you think stats like these affect the learning methodologies applied to boys and girls?

Yet still this lie that boys are the victims of some overwhelming toxic masculinity in their upbringing is the first reflexive explanation we hear from women and feminized men when a kid commits a criminal act. Why?

Lies for Equalism

Because it sounds right. It sounds like it should be right. The presumption is that boys are, in fact, girls; or at least they should be a functional equivalent of girls when it comes to educations. Over the past 50 years the baseless presumptions of blank-slate egalitarian equalism has not only inserted its lies into our social consciousness, but also into our presumptions about educating kids. I’ll repeat, men and women are biologically and psychologically different and boys and girls are equally different. The ways they learn are distinct to their sex. Yet for the past 4 generations egalitarian equalism has convinced (mostly female) educators that boys and girls are functional equals and gender differences are learned rather than innate.

While equalism informs (mostly female) teachers that boys and girls are the same, the teaching methodology that works best for girls and women is the predominant one today and for the recent past generations. The only way to justify this method as the universal one is to presume that boys are the same as girls – just ‘defective’ girls that must be taught to quash their innate maleness. If boys and girls are presumed to be blank-slate equals then it must follow that boys are just as emotion-prioritizing and sensitive as any girl, and it is through a process of an imagined patreo-misogyny social conditioning that boys psychologically cover over their “true” natures – that of precious little (defective) girls. In essence the equalist belief is that all babies are born as little equal blank-slates, but the ideal template for those blank-slates is a female nature irrespective of the sex of the child.

When a boy’s real, masculine, inborn nature expresses itself the first thing it meets in this equalist-but-feminine-primary education is derision and shame. For as much as boys would be boys they are taught that they aren’t good for being so. They’re encouraged to self-repress, self-deprecate their gender and self-police their brothers. They’re taught that the correct way to think is to emote like girls because that’s correct for the template of a “good human”. Despite the female-centric teaching boys innate nature still find ways for boys to be boys and when this happens an egalitarian (feminine-primary) social order presume the ‘bad behavior’ must be the result of the influence of an evil patriarchy that truly hasn’t existed in the way they believe it does for 50 some odd years.

 

As I’ve detailed in past essays, society only sees fathers as tolerable and superfluous when it comes to raising boys. Single mothers are celebrated as super-human and in the equalist lie that would have us believe that women can not only ‘have it all’ but they can ‘do it all’ we rarely question the necessity of a masculine influence in a child’s life. We give it lip service and parrot back the need for a man to “step up and take responsibility as a parent”. The message to dads is always “do better”, because the pretense for fathers is that they are inherently irresponsible and ‘broken’ just like all boys are.

The Village might even concede that a father is some advantage to a child, but ultimately he’s superfluous – that is until that kid is involved in some kind of criminality. Then the questions become “Where was this kid’s father? Why wasn’t he around to teach this kid some discipline and respect for human life?” The children of single mothers are overwhelmingly more likely to be come involved in criminality, but we don’t look at her half-measure parenting as a possible cause. Remember, she’s a super-hero and blameless, so any blame for this kid’s acts fall on the shoulders of a weak or absent father. Then fathers are necessary. Then the kid needed to ‘toughen up’ and dad should’ve taught it to him. And all of this comes full circle and feeds into the idea of father’s inherent incompetence again.

Lies for ‘Defective Girls’

The next lie is that boys can be,…

…both tough and fragile, vulnerable and resilient. Being vulnerable doesn’t affect your manliness.

I’ve written a lot about the lie of transvaluation and  Vulnerability in the past, but this was really in terms of how women perceive men and require strength and dominance. Another aspect of masculinity that is encoded into women’s mental firmware is to seek out men with superior competency. A woman just is, a man must become is the first maxim of a man accepting his Burden of Performance. Part of this masculine competency involves strength, know-how and determination; all things that have been replaced with feminine-primary emotionalism and naval gazing for boys.

Men are expected to know how to do everything and what they do not know, what they are not competent in is one criteria of how they are judged by women. A lot of guys might think, “So the fuck what? I don’t base my self-worth on the opinions of women.” As well you shouldn’t, but it doesn’t change the truth that if you don’t know how to change a tire when you get flat, or you need another man who does know how to do it to change it for you, a woman sees you as less competent – and by extension less capable of providing her with the security she needs from a masculine ideal. Women evolved to see men as a Jack of all trades, master of some.

A man’s vulnerability (taught to him as a child by his female-primary teachers) most definitely affects his manliness. Vulnerability is, by definition, a weakness. It is a flaw in the design, a chink in the armor and vulnerabilities will be exploited by enemies and rivals to ensure that man fails while a stronger one succeeds in all things. This is Darwinism so simple that to question it seems illogical, but in our equalist utopia toughness and fragility find no contradiction; vulnerability and resilience are bed partners. Again, we must consider that this illogical balance can only exist in the female ‘good human’ template and the idea that everything is learned and nothing is innate about male and female humans. Promoting the idea that ‘vulnerability doesn’t affect manliness’ presumes that the person declaring it is in some way an authority on a manliness that has been already demonized and conditioned out of our boys today.

They hate the very idea that a boy might act in accordance with an inborn masculine proclivity. They hate the idea that a boy might learn to be tough and resilient at the expense of a vulnerability (weakness) because it contradicts the equalist belief set. They hate the idea that boys and girls have innately, biologically, different ways of dealing with emotions that don’t align with their belief in a blank-slate. To force them to accept this would be to force them to abandon deeply ego-invested beliefs that they themselves had conditioned into them by the same feminine-primary education.

Boys don’t naturally emote like girls, but when they refuse to align with the female-correct way of emoting we say that some patriarchal macho man, somewhere, in some movie, in some song, in some household taught that kid not to feel. He somehow learned that allowing his emotions to rule over him, to be vulnerable, to prioritize his feelings above his sense of rational self is what it actually is – a weakness that in our evolutionary past was far likelier to get him killed than to earn the praise of his equalist teachers.

Boys are simply not as emotional as girls – our brains did not evolve that way – but because we value the feminine above the masculine today we say this kid is doing it wrong. We say he learned to be an asshole from his macho dad or he learned to love firearms because of the latest rap song or a toxically masculine society that doesn’t exist. A kid like Nikolas Cruz was bound to happen in a world that teaches boys to prioritize feelings above rationality. He was taught like a defective girl. He never learned the masculine inspired discipline, determination and resiliency because all that conflicts with the lie that vulnerability is ever a strength. All that conflicts with his feminine-primary upbringing.

As such, these ‘defective girls’ are unequipped to handle the rejection of a girlfriend. The participation trophy generation, the one where everyone’s a winner and no one ever has to deal with defeat, never teaches these ‘defective girls’ what to do when they finally do taste a bitter defeat. They never learned how to come back from it because that would mean admitting that vulnerability and emotionalism (the female-correct way to handle it) are in fact weaknesses. So, predictably, a ‘defective girl’ like Nikolas Cruz does what any petulant teenage girl would – he has an emotional outburst. Only his outburst consists of gunning down 17 kids with an assault rifle.

The answer to incidents like this doesn’t lie in gun control or further feminization of boys. It lies in reimagining how we educate boys and how we see masculinity as a net positive that can deter exactly this kind of emotional outburst. If you truly want these shootings to stop it’s time we embrace real men teaching real toughness and resilience in our boys. It’s time we teach boys like they will become tough, strong, invulnerable young men we may need to provide future generations with a much needed security. And the time where we’ll need them is coming faster than anyone today really thinks.

Good Humans

As was expected this week, there’s been an extensive and eager effort on the part our feminine-primary social order to once again further shifting the narrative of “toxic” masculinity to ‘masculinity is toxic. I addressed this in Male Control. Directly after the Las Vegas mass shooting we began to see articles from the femosphere decrying the evils of masculinity as being the cause of the violence.

It is no longer enough to foster the falsehood of varieties of masculinity as being “toxic” or “hyper”– now, any masculinity is a disease to society. The Feminine Imperative is all too ready to conflate any semblance of conventional masculinity with mass murder, rape, violence, harassment and any other social malaise that might viably be wiped off on men ‘being’ men. And in the wake of every new tragic act of violence this narrative shift will be more adamantly promoted by misandrist authors.

I covered a lot of this in Positive Masculinity and the Red Pill Parent series of essays, but even when I wrote these the cultural narrative was still promoting a distinction between what was acceptable masculinity and what was ‘toxic’ masculinity. This is what the Village has been instilling in our boys for some time now. Before the loss of Hillary Clinton and the Future is Female militancy took root there was some concession as to what might be considered an acceptable form of masculinity.

Naturally that ‘good’ masculinity was always defined as something uniquely benefitting the feminine. Before this cultural shift the Feminine Imperative still recognized the need it had for a masculinity that could be exploited for its purposes. There was still a need for men to Man Up and Shut Up. To be sure, boys were (and are) still taught by the Village as if they were defective girls. Boys had to be conditioned to hate their own gender in order to grow up into compliant and feminine-identifying men, but there was still a utility in masculinity that the Village recognized. Thus, there was a need to foster some kind of hopeful appreciation in men ‘being of service’ to women’s needs. There still needed to be a carrot for the mule to follow if men were to accept the old books social contract and that was the hope that their usefulness might ever be appreciated and rewarded.

The ‘Broken Boys’

Selling men on the old social contract while playing by the new set of rules worked for the Feminine Imperative throughout the late 80s, 90s and the early 2000s. However, what this narrative shift represents is a turning point in women acknowledging men as no longer (as) useful to their imperative. By 2012 it was the beginning of the End of Men, and there was little doubt, even back then, that we’d have the First Female President in office right after Obama’s exit. In the wake of that obsolescence the idea that masculinity was in any way beneficial to the Feminine Imperative, and maintaining the facade that masculinity in men might have some redeeming aspects, is no longer necessary. The feminine meta-frame has no reason to prompt men into believing their gender has anything ‘good’ to contribute to society. And thus we see the shift from qualified forms of ‘bad’ masculinity – toxic, hyper, Patriarchy, “culture of ____” – to the intended, non-qualified form of all masculinity being bad.

For the moment gyonocentrism must content itself to capitalize on human tragedies to emphasize its new masculinity = bad narrative. The Las Vegas shooting was the first paradigm shift in this respect. Once the obligatory, and now entirely boring, gun control sermons are published as a reason for the carnage, then the demonization of masculinity can be served up.

However, in the case of the most recent Nikolas Cruz shooting the Feminine Imperative gets a double bonus. The message is not only are men and masculinity the reason for all violence ever, but our boys are being taught to be these violent psychopaths because some outdated (and entirely mythical now) macho masculinity is making them so. Our boys, they say, are “broken”.

“Comedian” Michael Ian Black had a rash of post-shooting tweets that sum this narrative up:

Black is a perfect example of a Blue Pill conditioned ‘ally’ of the Feminine Imperative, but his sentiments here sum up exactly the tact that the femosphere has been using for a while now. There will always be a utility in appealing to the old male social contract as a horrible, chauvinistic, misogynistic, insensitive facade of what masculinity should be. It serves the imperative well if the Village can convince the larger populace that boys are still being taught by horrible masculine men and a society that hasn’t existed for 50 years which bully them into being potential Nikolas Cruzs.

They say boys are broken because it’s the only easy explanation that vaguely sounds right in the face of the Village systematically feminizing boys for the past four generation. Boys are “broken” because of an “outdated masculinity” that was replaced with a feminine-primary educational system decades ago. They’ll blame men for perpetuating that lie, and in the next breath blame men for not being “men” enough to engage with these young men so as to deter them from tragedies like this. The Village has been so effective in blurring conventional masculinity that its adherents themselves have no idea what masculinity entails.

When the 2018 Women’s March took place I, and a lot of other men in the sphere, noticed a common theme in the protest placards that mothers were creating for their sons. The message for girls was the standard “girls can do anything” pablum, but for boys the message was all the same:

“BOYS WILL BE BOYS   GOOD HUMANS”

The message of today’s Village is that Boys are never to be boys, never to be male, never to be masculine in any positive aspect,…boys are born as not ‘good humans’. At least, boys are not good human beings until they acquiesce to the Village that is teaching them and to the authority of The Future is Female paradigm. In order to create the genderless, masculine-less, gelded men of the future they must get to boys earlier and earlier in their development.

In the interests of full disclosure I’ve had a handful of women defending this ubiquitous messaging tell me that it’s meant to teach boys not to blame their “shitty behavior on just their being male” – boys will be boys – but what even its defenders don’t recognize is the deeper message that boys of this age register; and particularly in an acculturation process that considers them defective girls.

But this is where we’re at in the intersexual environment today. To the imperative men are no longer men today, they are “allies”. This is the next logical step in Removing the Man from our social context. Boys are no longer ‘boys’, and they can only ever be ‘good humans’ so long as they continue their Blue Pill conditioning to become ‘allies’ later.

 


The following is a reblog of Josh Ishiro Finney’s A Letter to Boys & Young Men of America. Josh had this post and his blog attacked in the wake of the school shooting in Florida this week and I felt it was impactful enough to warrant a reblog here. Having written many a post on the war on conventional masculinity – and really the better part of my book Positive Masculinity – I wanted to extend my support for his commentary.


A response to mass shooting in Florida.

The bodies aren’t even cold yet and already you are being blamed.

Yes you.

All of you.

The boys and young men who will grow up to become one half of America’s future.
Once again, due to society’s failure to raise you, to teach you, to properly guide you on your path to manhood, your mere existence is being held responsible for seventeen more deaths—this time in Florida, and once again, at a school. The headlines of the last few days say it all:

  “Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people, experts say”
  -USA TODAY

  “Michael Ian Black reacts to Florida shooting: Boys are broken”
  -New York Daily News

  “How Gun Violence And Toxic Masculinity Are Linked, In 8 Tweets”
  -The Huffington Post

  “Toxic white masculinity: The killer that haunts American life”
  -Salon

  “Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Us”
  -The Boston Globe

  “Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Us”
  -Harpers Bazaar

  “Don’t Blame Mental Illness for Mass Shootings; Blame Men”
  -Politico

In the handful of decades I’ve been alive, I’ve seen America shift from a culture of responsibility to one of blame. We don’t solve problems anymore. We cry, we pray for, we seek to find closure, and then finally, slaughter a sacrificial lamb for our sins. When I was young and Columbine happened, that lamb was Marilyn Manson and video games. Before that, it was D&D and Twisted Sister. These days, though, as body counts continue to rise and excuses continue to vanish, the lamb America has chosen to sacrifice is you. Rather than take responsibility for the seeds we’ve sown, the culture we built, and the disaster you’ve been left to inherit, we as a nation have chosen to lie to ourselves. To listen and believe those who claim that the answer is simple: “Boys are simply born bad.”

As an aging Gen Xer watching this tragedy unfold, I can’t help but look back at my youth and realize we were the dry run for this “crisis of masculinity” as the media likes to call it.

In my time I’ve watched as fathers were pushed out of the home, separated from their children, and their role in society debased and devalued. Like you, I was taught male behavior was bad behavior. That I was broken and needed to be fixed. Drugs, therapy, mass socialization were required to save me from my most innate instincts—

—the need compete.

—the drive to create.

—the urge to protect.

—the desire for female affection.

Like you, I was told these instincts were not only wrong, but dangerous. That due to my Original Sin of being born a boy, I was destined to mature into a lustful monster and an oppressor of women. All this was burned into me before I even reached college, where campus policy actually assumed all men to be rapists waiting to happen.

It isn’t hard to see how we got here, to an age when America is more than willing to sacrifice its boys. To quote Fight Club, “We’re a generation of men raised by women.” And the women who raised my generation had a saying: All men are pigs. But there’s another saying those same women were enamored with and that is: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

So here we are, coming close to fifty years of single mothers raising their boys as if they were animals. Two generations of young men raised to believe they’re broken, immoral, and dangerous. That their natural state, if left unchecked and unmedicated, is a sexual ticking time bomb of rape and abuse. Half a century of academia peddling a grim version of history that holds your gender personally responsible for all the wrongs ever to have happened in the world. And a press, that at this very moment, is blaming YOU for every school shooting to have ever occurred.

After all this, how could there not be a crisis of masculinity?

So to the boys and young men of America, believe me when I say it isn’t you who should be apologizing for the state of our world today. This mess was set in motion long before you were born.

You are not bad.

You are not broken.

You are not inherently evil or a sexual abuser in waiting.

You are boys who were robbed of your right to be men.

All your life you’ve been told to act, think, and behave like women. To suppress your passions, your pride, your need to compete and drive to achieve.

Now society is crumbling around us.

Feminizing boys didn’t make better men. It’s resulted in broken homes and shattered families and record suicide rates. It’s destroying any notion of a healthy partnership between men and women, and is pushing us ever closer to total collapse of gender relations.

Boys, we don’t need you to be like women, the world has plenty of women, already.

What the world needs now more than ever is for you to be men.

For you to grow-up, to grow strong, and do what men do.

For it is men’s strength and determination that tamed the wilderness, built civilization, and has kept the world fed despite all predictions we’d all die starving before the year 2000. It’s men’s curiosity that lead us to explore the oceans, to conquer space, and peer into the tiniest of microcosms of the human body. It was men who built the cities we inhabit, the luxuries we enjoy, the medicines that keep us alive. Men built the road, the plumbing, the electrical grid, the phone in your hand, the internet it’s connected to.

Men have always been innovators, explores, defenders, and leaders.

But most importantly, men have always been fathers.

So to the boys and young men of America, please read this and take every word to heart.

The world needs you.

Thoughts on Aziz Ansari

I’m going to make a confession here; until a week ago I had no idea who Aziz Ansari was. I get he was some low limit comedian, and in today’s social environment that means he lectures an audience about social justice issues for an hour while trying to insert some humor into his act. I’ve pretty much given up on most comedians these days, and I’m a guy who used to love standup. However, my unfamiliarity with Aziz was actually a benefit in assessing his recent pillory in the mainstream. Had I known about him before all this, and his comedy activism, I likely would’ve just dismissed his case as the next guy to be put into the MeToo deadpool of celebrity men – and I’m being generous about the “celebrity” part.

I had actually resigned myself to blowing off his whole story until I started digging into the particulars of the ‘date’ he had with the anonymous “Grace”. On first pass this whole incident is easy to dismiss even for Red Pill aware men with better things to do than bother themselves with another Hollywood chump to go down to the open power grab that MeToo and TimesUp have become. There is, however, a lot to unpack in the whole thing though. If you want the whole story you can read about it here on Babe.net, the blog for “Girls who don’t give a fuck”, which is interesting because apparently they give a lot of fucks according to the story.

Just to break down some of the particulars here:

  • She (Grace) approaches Aziz in the beginning. Flirts with him and then goes back to her date she was with that evening. They would catch each other glancing at the other durning the night (IOIs). They ‘ran into each other’ later and he number closes.
  • Aziz Beta texts her almost immediately and tries to text Game/flirt with her before he asks her out
  • Before meeting Ansari, she tells friends and coworkers about the date and consulted her go-to group chat about what she should wear to fit the “cocktail chic” dress-code he gave her. She settled on “a tank-top dress and jeans.” She showed me a picture, it was a good outfit.
  • After the white wine she didn’t like, they end up back at his place. She complimented his marble countertops. Ansari turned the compliment into an invitation. “He said something along the lines of, ‘How about you hop up and take a seat?’” Within moments, he was kissing her. “In a second, his hand was on my breast.” Then he was undressing her, then he undressed himself.
  • Ansari tells her he was going to get a condom within minutes of their first kiss, Grace voiced her hesitation explicitly. “I said something like, ‘Whoa, let’s relax for a sec, let’s chill.’” She says he then resumed kissing her, briefly performed oral sex on her, and asked her to do the same thing to him. She did, but not for long. “It was really quick. Everything was pretty much touched and done within ten minutes of hooking up, except for actual sex.”
  • Ansari repeatedly attempts ‘The Claw’. on her “The move he kept doing was taking his two fingers in a V-shape and putting them in my mouth, in my throat to wet his fingers, because the moment he’d stick his fingers in my throat he’d go straight for my vagina and try to finger me.” “It was 30 minutes of me getting up and moving and him following and sticking his fingers down my throat again. It was really repetitive. It felt like a fucking game.”
  • Ansari physically pulled her hand towards his penis multiple times throughout the night, from the time he first kissed her on the countertop onward. “He probably moved my hand to his dick five to seven times,” she said. “He really kept doing it after I moved it away.”
  • Ansari presses her for sex. He asks repeatedly, “Where do you want me to fuck you?” while she was on the countertop. She says she didn’t want to fuck him at all. He keeps asking, so she says, ‘Next time.’ Aziz says, ‘Oh, you mean second date?’ and she says, ‘Oh, yeah, sure,’ and he goes, ‘Well, if I poured you another glass of wine now, would it count as our second date?’
  • She later says she doesn’t want it to seem forced and this wakes Ansari up from his sexual stupor. “He said, ‘Oh, of course, it’s only fun if we’re both having fun. Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’ Ansari instructed her to turn around. “He sat back and pointed to his penis and motioned for me to go down on him. And I did. I think I just felt really pressured. It was literally the most unexpected thing I thought would happen at that moment because I told him I was uncomfortable.”
  • Halfway into the encounter, he led her from the couch to a different part of his apartment. He said he had to show her something. Then he brought her to a large mirror, bent her over and asked her again, “Where do you want me to fuck you? Do you want me to fuck you right here?” He rammed his penis against her ass while he said it, pantomiming intercourse.
  • They got dressed, sat side by side on the couch they’d already “chilled” on, and he turned on an episode of Seinfeld. While the TV played in the background, he kissed her again, stuck his fingers down her throat again, and moved to undo her pants. She turned away.  “I remember saying, ‘You guys are all the same, you guys are all the fucking same.’” Ansari asked her what she meant. When she turned to answer, she says he met her with “gross, forceful kisses.” After that last kiss, Grace stood up from the couch, moved back to the kitchen island where she left her phone, and said she would call herself a car. He hugged her and kissed her goodbye, another “aggressive” kiss. When she pulled away, Ansari finally relented and insisted he’d call her the car.

All of this detail is important to consider because Ansari’s actions here are classic Beta Game desperation tactics. It is literally one Beta move after another. Many of the reviewers of this incident like to point out that it was really a misunderstood date gone wrong, or else they use it as proof-positive of a sexual assault, but I’m going to argue something different here – Ansari is simply a Beta chump with very little Game savvy who, if he’d had even a hint of Game awareness could’ve had a good sexual experience both for himself and her.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not a proponent of men attempting to push past last minute resistance. For as much as “enthusiastic consent” will be used as a tool of fear to dissuade Beta men from even attempting to approach, I can’t say that I wouldn’t want a woman to have a genuine desire to fuck me in any sexual episode. I can remember in my ‘rock star 20s’ doing exactly this. If a woman wasn’t into having sex with me or she had some reservations or some hoops she expected me to jump through in order to get her to “come around” to fucking me I would simply excuse myself from the situation. I was at a point in my life where I had many other (proven) options, and if a new prospect wasn’t an absolutely ‘enthusiastic’  “Hell Yes!” girl I had at least six other women who were eager to come over and fuck me. This was just a subconscious awareness I took for granted at the time, but it was an attitude that stemmed from abundance.

That was essentially my Game back then. It was the natural reflex of an Alpha man and women responded to it. The behaviors and attitudes I exhibited just flowed from my unrehearsed subconscious. It was who I was. Dread is much more effective for a man when a woman sees that he’s oblivious to his causing dread.

Most men never really experience this kind of sexual abundance and as such it colors their outlook and how they expect sex to work for them. One big problem inherent to men’s Blue Pill conditioning is the idea that sex must be negotiated for a woman to feel comfortable enough to fuck a guy, but more importantly in this era, to avoid any misunderstandings that would lead to his getting a sexual misconduct allegation. The Blue Pill teaches men to respect women by default, for no other reason than she has a vagina, but also that open communication, full disclosure and negotiation are necessary elements of sex. We can see this played out in the ludicrous expectation that every sex action a man involves himself in requires vocal enthusiastic consent. This is the acculturation; men are expected to negotiate every sexual detail of a sexual experience.

Needless to say this is patently ridiculous, but it’s also the surest way to kill the actual enthusiasm a woman might actually have for a guy. One thing that will separate Alpha men from Betas in the future will be that man’s honed capacity to remove himself from any sexual situation that is negotiated. Women want to play the Game, they don’t want the Game explained to them. They want a man who Just Gets It and the men who don’t get it will be the ones whose dutiful Blue Pill conditioning prompts them to start any and every approach at intimacy by negotiating the terms for a woman’s desire.

You cannot negotiate genuine desire, but this negotiation is exactly what modern feminism simultaneously fosters and struggles against. The idea of ‘enthusiastic consent’ is really a want on the part of women to have the sex they genuinely have a desire to experience with a man. This is all women want to write about now and the Ansari incident is a textbook example of the kind of negotiated sex women don’t want to have, but sometimes go through with for transactional reasons. Remember, sex with Alpha men is validational for women – lackluster ‘meh’ sex with Beta men is transactional sex. If you only read what women are writing about sex today you’d think that transactional sex is all they’ve ever been having – and sexist men see women as ‘soft’ prostitutes. Now it’s suddenly some revolutionary act for women to have the sex Alpha sex enjoyment they’ve always “deserved” but have been repressed by transactional sex with Betas.

That said, I can’t disagree entirely with the want for an enthusiastic sex partner who genuinely wants to fuck me 12 ways to Tuesday. And this is women’s rationale today, “Don’t you want to fuck a woman who really wants to fuck you?” It’s hard to argue against the “Hell Yes” girl, until you realize that the sex they are describing is only reserved for the guy they really want to bang and mistakenly believe their overinflated self-value warrants.

Now, I’ve read the debate from PUAs who make the point that it is entirely possible to make a ‘No’ girl into a ‘Hell Yes’ girl. I’ve seen the infield videos so I’ll spare you the linking. My question then is, after deftly applying Game and calibrating all the minutiae to do so, how does this compare to a woman who has a genuine desire for you from the start? I think one huge hurdle for guys unplugging from their Blue Pill conditioning have to face is the presupposition that sex is only the result of a process of negotiation. That negotiation is what the Blue Pill teaches boys and men from a very early age.

Aziz! Light!

The Ansari incident has a lot of Red Pill lessons to teach. First and foremost is the fact that Ansari is a consumate Beta. Looking at the guy he resembles any number of Indian computer programmers frustrated by a want for the secret formula to make a gorgeous American blonde with big tits fall in love with him. Don’t get me wrong, I counsel these men personally, but he fits that schema. Next, Ansari is a vocal and outspoken White Knight for feminism and regularly proves his male self-loathing as part of his standup act. I mean, the guy wears a Time’s Up pin. But like most male feminists, he gets hung by his own Beta Game bullshit – this is the fate of all male feminists.

Lastly, Ansari is a Beta who made good. I’ve talked about the Blue Pill White Knights and self-righteous AFCs in many a post, but I’m not sure I’ve emphasized how dangerous this mindset can be for a Beta who has a combination of affluence, celebrity and social proof. There comes a self-validation in that Blue Pill mindset when women want to be associated with him. He develops a belief that it’s his Blue Pill conditioning, and his adherence to it, that is the reason for his relative success with women. This insulates these guys from ever disconnecting from that conditioning, but it also lessens an incentive to see women in any other perspective. The result of this is exactly what Ansari experienced in this incident. He was too comfortable in presuming his pro-woman, female identifying, Beta Game would make his sexual expression ‘Okay’ with any woman who gave him positive sexual interest.

Another big indicator of this, and really much of Beta Game, was his repeated pawing of Grace and repeated sexual expressions with her. It wasn’t working as he believed it should, so what was his solution? Continue with the negotiation and hope for a positive sign of reinforcement from her. Every act that Ansari attempted with Grace was a form of negotiation. I can’t get sex? How about a blow job? No? Okay how about if I go down on you? She feels forced? Woah, default to female identification persona. Presume the sale, “How do you want me to fuck you?”

This is all one big negotiation – there is no genuine desire and no enthusiasm of the part of Grace – but since Ansari has never had the incentive to learn Game he keep going back to what he thinks should work on her.

To wrap all of this up, I should mention that the reason this whole affair went viral is should really be no surprise. It’s one more example of everything MeToo has been harping on for almost 5 months now, yes, but it’s also an illustration of exactly this new sentiment of the “grey area” sex I brought to light in Dangerous Times – Part 2. It’s sex women have out of courtesy (Aziz got a courtesy hummer) or convenience or just as something to do. It is exactly the obligated sex I’ve been talking about since The Desire Dynamic. This incident is exactly the story this ‘grey sex’ sentiment had needed, but in the larger picture it highlights the difference between transactional sex and validational sex.

As Open Hypergamy becomes yet more normalized it’s now time that the Feminine Imperative acknowledges the type of sex women desire and enjoy, and the type of sex they feel obligated to perform as part of a negotiation or transaction. And naturally the need to define what women’s Hypergamy dictates becomes a new form of shame for men. Evil Patriarchal men are to blame for women having to openly acknowledge that they only want to fuck Alpha men with any real enthusiasm. Men are to blame for validational and transactional sex, and now absolved, women can take the next steps in consolidating on Hypergamy.

No, there’s no current legislation that makes ‘unenthusiasitc sex’ a sex crime (yet), but remember that the sexual arms race is always fought in the court of public opinion before anything is written in ink.

Dangerous Times – Part 3

In writing and editing this series for the last few weeks a lot has happened in the Future is Female movement. I’m not a big fan of awards shows for obvious reasons; they have all gone from being a celebration and acknowledgement of creativity and performance in entertainment to being little more than a stage upon which political and social protests are aired by pampered celebrities. However, the recent Golden Globes anti-male / anti-masculinity screed by Oprah Winfrey initiated the next step in what can only be described as socially accepted misandry. I have no doubt that the (now annual) Women’s March planned for January 20th will see this anti-male, female supremacism go far beyond what it did in 2017 and echo Oprah’s open hatred for men and an unapologetic call for the removal of men and the criminalization of any semblance of conventional masculinity.

The original intent of this series was to raise awareness of the dangerous inherent in our coming intersexual social relations. And in the time I’ve been considering this I had to finally take a birds eye view of where we’ve come from and where we’re likely to end up with regard to the social direction I see the sexes headed today. For the final installment of this series there are a couple of articles I’m going to reference that got me thinking recently. The first was an article on Quillette by William Buckner titled Romanticizing the Hunter Gatherer. I’m using this as a starting point today because I think this piece speaks to some common misperceptions of our evolutionary past as hunter gatherer, tribalist beings.

When it comes to evolutionary psychology (evo psych) and biology (evo bio) there is always a tendency to want to focus certain speculations on particular ideological bents. In fact, there is a current push to typify all science as being inspired by male-primary sexism and a motion to reform the sciences by requiring them to basically concur with what ever serves the Feminine Imperative’s most flattering interests. Another popular idea amongst egalitarian equalists is the speculation (really romanticization) of our hunter gatherer ancestors being natural egalitarian equalists themselves. Equalists love to presume that human beings’ natural state is one of collective cooperation and gender equality, but according to new studies there’s no evidence to support these ideas (emphasis mine):

But what about egalitarianism? In a 2004 study, Michael Gurven marshals an impressive amount of cross-cultural data and notes that hunters tend to keep more of their kill for themselves and their families than they share with others.12 While there is undeniably a great deal of sharing across hunter-gatherer societies, common notions of generalized equality are greatly overstated. Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.

[…] In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.

Much of this article confirms a majority of what the Red Pill has been observing and considering for a long time now. The Pareto Principle being the highlight in this last part here; 20% of men reproducing with 80% of women. I’ll also draw your attention to the studies that suggest that only one man for every 17 women reproduced as little as 8,000 years ago (after the advent of agriculture). The Quillette article is a fascinating read, particularly from a Red Pill perspective, and I’d encourage you to read it. The operative point in this is that this research confirms that, despite the feel-good belief that human beings are naturally monogamous and naturally egalitarian, our hunter gatherer ancestors were largely polygamous.

The second article I’m going to reference is The Link Between Polygamy and War from the Economist last month. This is a very in-depth research that breaks down the connection between modern polygamous social orders and their tendency for political unrest and unstable societies. The Economist is a paywalled site, but again it’s well worth the read. This is a very thorough detailing of how men in these countries are systematically disqualified from reproduction in polygynous social and religious societies due to their lack of resources. Only wealthy men are permitted a wife (the only sanctioned way a man can have sex) and if a man can afford more it is a sign of his prestige that he can take as many as he has the resources for.

Men in South Sudan typically marry as often as their wealth — often measured in cattle — will allow. Perhaps 40 percent of marriages are polygamous. “In [our] culture, the more family you have, the more people respect you,” says William, a young IT specialist in search of his second wife. Few South Sudanese see the connection between these matrimonial customs and the country’s horrific civil war. If you ask them the reason for the violence, locals will blame tribalism, greedy politicians, weak institutions and perhaps the oil wealth which gives warlords something to fight over. All true, but not the whole story. Wherever it is widely practiced, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilizes society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10 percent of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30 percent of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state.

The article goes on to link the unemployment of young men to their resorting to criminal (and often open war) means to take the wealth necessary for them to procure a wife. This then leads to violent and social unrest. When we look at militant Islamic organizations one of the first, and probably most convincing, rewards young fighters are offered is the guarantee of a wife – even if she is the spoils of war. Much of what prompted the Arab Spring uprisings has been attributed to the unemployment rates in these countries and the consequent result that those young men cannot ‘legitimately’ afford to marry or have a family. They literally have nothing to lose and a wife (sexual release) and a family to gain.

When one man can monopolize 20 wives and thereby force his rivals from the gene pool we have a similar condition to that of our hunter gatherer ancestors. Only in this instance polygamy (really polygyny) is a socially mandated, socially approved convention.

One persistent debate I read in the manosphere is the contention that human society, achievement, stability, etc. is the result of post-agrarian monogamy. Usually this debate crops up between the more traditionalist faction of the sphere and the more brutally pragmatic of Red Pill aware men. I understand the premise from the traditional perspective; there is every evidence that the conventional family structure has been the lynchpin of social progress. I agree with this assessment, but from an evolutionary perspective human beings are not innately monogamous. Our conventional monogamy and family structure, and the resulting progress is really in spite of ourselves. The evidence is there in our genomic records. Our success as a culture was due to controlling the feral aspects of both men and women’s natural sexual strategies via social conventions, religion and personal conviction. And the result of this control is a social contract that is based on monogamy.

That said, there is no denying that monogamous societies make for the most stable societies – or at least they have up to this point in history. Even the Economist article highlights this fact. Monogamy reduces reproductive stress on Beta men – or at least until recently. One reason we have Disney myths of soul mates so prevalent in the past generations is as social a social reinforcement for monogamy. The social convention of idealistic love being a mutually accepted concept between the sexes is also a social reinforcement for monogamy. These were conventions that held men in an idealized state of monogamy. Even the worst Beta still had a hope to reproduce if the mythology was such that “there’s someone for everyone.”

But again, all of this idealization of monogamy is really in spite of ourselves. Left to our own means and our unfettered sexual strategies men will be ruthlessly polygynous and women will resort to ruthless Hypergamy.

The New Polygamy Polyandry

You can probably see where I’m going with this now. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution (and unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control) we have seen a systematic degradation of this monogamous social order in favor of a female-primary social order. This social order is predicated on women’s complete control over the reproductive fate of society. Whereas before there were social checks and balances in conventional monogamy, these have been replaced with the unrestrained, unquestioned imperatives of women’s sexual strategy – Hypergamy. In just 5 short decades men have ceded any claim to not only our own sexual strategy and interests, but to any right to paternity.

When we look at how social trends have shifted with regard to women’s sexual selection process we can see the end game more clearly. We’ve gone from ’No Means No’ to ‘Yes Means Yes’ , to itemized permission documentation of every sex act, and now to “enthusiastic consent”. Women’s end game is not unlike our original state of polygamy in that only the most desirable Alpha men will be allowed breeding rights to women – with the social contract being all women are entitled to Alpha Fucks. Enthusiastic consent is a ‘thing’ because on some level of consciousness women loathe the idea of transactional sex with Beta men. And as women’s provisioning and security needs are already met by the state and men’s own direct or indirect resource transfer, there is no longer any desire for “sex they’re really not that into.”

If not for ubiquitous, free online porn and soft prostitution (Sugaring, Tinder, Seeking Arrangements) western culture might find itself in a similar situation to the polygamous countries described by the Economist.

I think it’s important for Red Pill aware men to consider that as women consolidate more and more power via social conventions that only apply to men (MeToo, Times Up, etc.) the end game is one of polyandry for women. This cartoon was a funny one because it accurately describes women’s sexual selection process, but it’s unfunny because it also belies women’s idealized state – one in which men are either draft animals or breeding stock. 

I had quite a few men ask me where I think we’re headed with regards to intersexual social dynamics and I would say that what I’m ultimately seeing is an erasure of conventional monogamy replaced with a Hypergamous polygamy in which women will have uncontested control over reproduction. I see a lot of similarities occurring with men who drop out of life, and either neglect or refuse to build their lives around supporting a family or entertaining a wife. The guys I talk to very much want to get married and have kids, but the downsides are so unimaginably dangerous for men it seems hopeless to them. The old monogamous social contracts no longer exist, but men are still being held responsible for not putting themselves on the line to take risks that only apply to them.

So, not unlike the young unemployed men in the Arab Spring, today’s drop out guy has very little hope for a monogamous future with a woman. But this hopeless circumstance is being instituted by western women, not a religious dogma. Un restrained Hypergamy leads us back to our feral, tribalist polygamy, simply because women have no use for Beta men. Sex with Betas is (or soon will be) considered rape and without porn or some other sexual sedation Betas would likely resort to violence to solve that problem.

What to Do

Anonymous Reader hit me with this comment:

Distilled to it’s essence this is how women in uncontested control of men and masculinity will view men: according to their basest Hypergamous needs and in the context of complete solipsistic self-interests.

Something more like an ant colony or beehive than a civilization of humans. A society of women owners, a handful of males allowed to breed and a whole lot of neutered workers.

I’ve used the Sadie Hawkins’ World analogy for some time now, but this is what the new order of Fempowerment has created for men and women going forward. As much as it goes against every evolved instinct for women, it will be women who must pursue and make the effort to initiate sex and intimacy with men. There will likely be some pushback from more traditional/conventional women who truly desire men to pursue them – nothing is more flattering for a woman’s ego – but the social environment will be such that the risk of personal destruction will become so high, and the juice not being worth the risk of the squeeze will be so low, that even the top tier men in the SMP will be incentivized to allow women to make the first move.

Essentially what MeToo, Enthusiastic Consent and Fempowerment is establishing is an even higher standard of what constitutes an ideal Alpha. It is a tightening of the market of sorts. Women are reluctant (and then resentful) to settle for a less-than the best Hypergamy with a suboptimal male as it is now, but add to this the condition that only the most ideal of Alphas represents the only legitimate sexual experience

Some Solutions:

  1. Play the Game better: Learn Game so thoroughly that you can use the corrupted system to your best advantage. The bar is set so low for men today that even marginal self-improvement, Red Pill awareness and Game savvy can set a man apart from the overwhelming majority of Beta, feminized symps. In essence men can make themselves into commodities women will compete for. There is a danger in this though; women who want to consolidate on the Alpha who wont commit open themselves up to false accusations in reprisal.
  2. MGTOW: As there are varying degrees of MGTOW I can’t say that the most isolationist of MGTOWs response is really a solution. Distilled down, MGTOW is an abdication of meta-Frame to women. However, not all MGTOWs are cut from the same cloth. Many will explain that MGTOW is just men not using women as a benchmark for their ego validation, and my response is, great, I think any Red Pill aware man ought to do the same. Taking womankind off the pedestal and replacing them with your own Mental Point of Origin is key in any man’s unplugging. That said, isolation may not be the best approach to dealing with the Future is Female crowd.
  3. Transactional sex: Reducing intersexual relations to Tinder hook ups, Sugar Baby/Daddy contractual agreements, or ‘Seeking Arrangements’ will preclude a transactional understanding and imply specific positive consent. This still has its dangerous though. Even a Tinder hook up can go bad for a guy if a woman still has regrets at a later date. However, at least from a social standpoint a woman seeking a sexual encounter can be thought of as being proceptive about the experience and not a victim of coercion.

I’d encourage more solutions in the comments. I’m sure a lot of this series seems overly reactionary or disheartening for men who are looking for a return to that stabilizing monogamy. There is an element in the manosphere today who are looking for their Red Pill Trad-Con woman who will police the worst of herself in order to return to the golden era of monogamy. I have my reservations about the real motives of the few women who subscribe to this story, but the issues isn’t about what they will do, but rather what they can do in a feminine-primary social order that allows them to renege on their convictions without consequence.

Dangerous Times – Part 2

The fulfillment of your own sexuality is nothing less than your battle for existence. – Pook

If you’ve been wondering what I’ve been doing lately over the past week I took it upon myself to read through the 7,000 word short story “Cat Person” that’s recently gone viral. The author, 36 year old Kristen Roupenian, was also offered a one million dollar book deal to expand the story even further. You too can read the whole thing if you have the stomach, but it reads every bit like the passive-aggressive indirection I’d expected it would coming from a less-than Hypergamously satisfied woman who’s well past the Wall. Rather than craft a concrete article about her own inner conflict (and by association all women’s conflict) of having ‘inconvenient’ casual sex, she thought she wanted, we get an overwritten fiction that sock-puppets herself as the main character.

If this book does publish, trust me, it wont be a new 50 Shades of Grey. Cat Person  resonates with women today because we now live in the #MeToo era of moral panic inspired by the same Future is Female outrage brokers who brought us pink pussy knitted caps and the women’s march in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat. I decided to split this series of essays into two parts because at this moment in history we are beginning to see the culmination of the predictions I alluded to in my essay, The Political is Personal. We are seeing, in real time, just how a feminine-primary social order and a growing female supremacism consolidates its power. But as I outlined in that essay, this power is always predicated on the hope of ensuring the largest pool of women are legally and socially entitled to the unquestioned, and unmerited, optimization of Hypergamy.

Any man with a Red Pill Lens reading through Cat Person will easily pick out the social conventions and rationalizations unique to women’s ‘hamstering’ (“Flirting with her customers was a habit she’d picked up back when she worked as a barista, and it helped with tips.”) that the manosphere has been picking apart for almost two decades now. And, like most women, the female readership find nothing inconsistent or conflicting about any of it. Roupenian breezes through the ins and outs of women’s sexual pluralism and the differences between transactional (Beta) and validational (Alpha) sex without so much as an afterthought – and her readers eat it up with the same solipsism.

However, the overarching concern for women about this story is the issue of the newly coined term “enthusiastic consent”. Our poor Margot (the main character and proxy for the author, and ultimately all women) is torn up by a casual sexual encounter that at first she thought she wanted, but later, even after giving the guy the green light to have sex with her, she loses enthusiasm to bang him. Yet, not to be rude or to create an uncomfortable scene, she goes through with the inconvenient, lack luster, sex because it was easier to say yes than to say no.

There are other names for this kind of sex: gray zone sex, in reference to that murky gray area of consent; begrudgingly consensual sex, because, you know, you don’t really want to do it but it’s probably easier to just get it over with; lukewarm sex, because you’re kind of “meh” about it; and, of course, bad sex, where the “bad” refers not to the perceived pleasure of it, but to the way you feel in the aftermath.

Essentially, this shift from Yes Means Yes consent to Enthusiastic Consent ask the last questions in women’s social consolidation of Hypergamy:

“Must I still have to have transactional sex with Betas if all my provisional needs are more or less met?”

“If I’m an ’empowered’ woman, am I not entitled to the sex I want to have with Alpha men that validate both my hindbrain and my ego?”

“Can transactional sex with Betas be used as leverage to extort resources from them at any future date by redefining that undesired sex as ‘rape’?”

Curb Your “Enthusiasm”

The reason I believe that Roupenian’s future book will fall flat is because the viral conversation her short story elicits is about a new terminology that the Feminine Imperative hopes to insert into the public sphere – that of ‘enthusiastic consent‘ being the only legitimate form of consent a woman can give a man. Anything less than genuine enthusiasm (however this is arbitrarily defined by women) is at best illegitimate consent and at worst rape – even if every indicator a woman gives a man prior to, during and after sex says ‘yes’ she still means ‘no’ and, as we’ll see here, it will be incumbent on that man to be an adequate mindreader and sexual evaluator to determine her real degree of ‘enthusiasm’ both in the moment and into the future.

There’s a lot to unpack here, but I wanted to begin with a comment I received last week:

If you read feminist literature, the intent behind “enthusiastic consent” seems to have good intentions. Its based on the following purported beliefs:

  • That there is a huge incidence of coerced sex and sexual contact, which is mostly inadvertent rather than malicious. The best way to correct this is to teach men the principles of EC. 
  • That the idea of a sharp Alpha/Beta divide in men’s sexual attractiveness is a myth propagated by the misogynistic Right. Furthermore, girls and women have a realistic idea of their own SMV and will be attracted to their male equivalent.

Thus, feminists believe a free sexual market will see assortive mating with both men and women being able to get a similar amount of sex. This is why when men complain of the difficulty of getting sex, many women will retort that it must be because they are only chasing “supermodels”.

Look at Charlie Rose, is this a man with any Red Pill at all? Giving shoulder rubs to office girls, showing porn to a couple, this is all high school Beta stuff. But he had a TV show that lots of famous people wanted to get on. Clearly Beta-ized, but a situational Alpha. In my not so humble opinion most of the #MeToo girls are going after former situational Alphas because they turned out to be Blue Pill Beta after all…they feel cheated, and are just so sure that all the other girls got to ride a real Alpha pony on the carousel, so the fury comes out.

The ‘enthusiastic’ consent social push we are just on the cusp of today is the next progression in the larger goal of feminism – removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality. ‘Enthusiastic consent’ will be the raison d’etat for the legislation leading to the outlawing of any form of male sexual expression.

From The Political is Personal:

The inherent insecurity that optimizing Hypergamy poses to women is so imperative, so all-consuming, to their psychological wellbeing that establishing complex social orders to facilitate that optimization were the first things women collectively constructed when they were (nominally) emancipated from men’s provisioning around the time of the sexual revolution.

Ensuring the optimization of women’s biologically prompted Hypergamy is literally the basis of our current social order. On a socio-political scale what we’re experiencing is legislation and cultural mandates that better facilitate Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.

[…]As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

As much as I’d like to believe that normalizing ‘enthusiastic consent’ may lead to women overplaying their hand, I have to consider how the specificity of defining consent will also redefine past sexual norms and intersexual dynamics; not just among single individuals having loosely defined “consensual” sex, but also married couples and how sex (or lack thereof) defines their relationships. As if the men of today needed one more reason to be wary of marriage and how it will eventually affect their sex lives, now we can add the potential for ‘marital rape’ accusations based on EC (enthusiastic consent) to that list; and all in light of women’s less than enthusiastic response to any of her husband’s advances. God forbid a mewling Beta pouts his way into this grey zone ‘duty sex’ with his unenthusiastic wife.

What were witnessing here is the insertion of college campus consent laws into Marriage 2.0, and as designed its intent is to further disrupt marriage and family. Even in the old books presumptions about marriage a man could expect his commitment to a wife and family meant a plenary exchange of sexual access. But when enthusiastic consent is a prerequisite for legitimizing sexual encounters, anything resembling a woman’s putting out duty sex for her husband, even starfish lack luster obligatory sex is defined as rape.

I got the following comment from last week’s Red Pill Reddit forum repost:

The fundamental driver is removal of female responsibility for her actions, pushing all responsibility onto men. Whatever happens between a man and a woman, women universally agree that the man is to blame for any and all results, including her subsequent regret.

Responsibility used to be on women to say “no” if she wanted to claim rape. This responsibility has been removed. No longer does she have to verbalise lack of consent. No longer does she even have to verbalise actual consent. She can decide after the fact…. years after the fact…. whether her consent was in fact enthusiastic enough, and she can base that on her future feelings. “But did you enthusiastically scream yes?” her friends will ask, which is more than the police or the public will subsequently ask of her.

Women side with women. Whiteknights, weak Betas and naive Blue Pill fools side with women. Everyone agrees women are right and men are wrong.

And this is the intended result: women are not to be held responsible for their actions. They are not to be held responsible at any cost – including the destruction of male lives.

I presented this point in Men and Suicide, but just to recap, on a subconscious level women will always seek to absolve themselves of complicity in men’s personal destruction. This extends from destroying mens lives due to regrets over not optimizing Hypergamy, to any concern over men committing suicide. At present, women are attempting to reconcile ‘bad sex’ with ‘inconvenient sex’ they have in spite of themselves. However, the same absolution of any inherent complicity in this ‘transactional’ sex ends with blaming men for women’s lack of agency or self-moderation:

Bad sex isn’t even necessarily coercive. I’m talking about having a sexual encounter you don’t want to have because in the moment it seems easier to get it over with than it would be to extricate yourself.

Young women say yes to sex they don’t actually want to have all of the time. Why? Because we condition young women to feel guilty if they change their mind. After all, you’ve already made it back to his place, or you’re already on the bed, or you’ve already taken off your clothes, or you’ve already said yes. Do you really want to have an awkward conversation about why you want to stop? What if it hurts his feelings? What if it ruins the relationship? What if you seem like a bitch?

The problem in this rationale isn’t about women changing their mind or feeling guilty – those are excuses for male-initiated victimhood for women and absolve women’s complicity – rather, the focus should be on the fact that women going through with this type of sex presently have the option to ruin a man’s life at any future date by defining it as ‘unwanted sex’. Ella Dawson may not want to conflate transactional, Beta sex as rape, but that’s where this conversation is leading us to.

Is it OK for Alpha Males?

I apologize for forgetting who it was that sent me this link, but the present day #MeToo moral panic combined with notions of “enthusiastic consent” and a resulting atmosphere of fear in intersexual dynamics was predicted as far back as 2004, and by a woman no less:

Sexual harassment is a crime committed by beta-males who think they can get away with alpha behavior. But that is a distinction too delicate for the blunt instrument of the law. How do you explain to a judge why one man’s comedy is another man’s bone-chilling lechery? And can we really expect the beta-males themselves to understand the difference?

I found this article very prescient about our present moral panic. In the last two posts I’ve made the case that what were finally seeing on a social scale is the consolidation of women’s entitlement to an almost socialistic guarantee of optimized Hypergamy. Through any number of direct and indirect institutions we’ve now virtually guaranteed women a right to Beta men’s resources, protection and provisioning as well as a dominant social status above them both at home and in the workplace. Whether overtly or covertly, women dominate Beta men; the last piece of consolidating Hypergamy is then the (at least partial) control of Alpha Fucks.

As we move into 2018 – an era to be defined even more thoroughly by the Future is Female, #MeToo and Enthusiastic Consent – I believe we’ll see a push for the following:

  • Sexual harassment will indeed be a crime committed by Beta males who fail at a convincing ‘Alpha’ behavior. As such the push will be to get Beta men to self-police their behavior via fear. There will be a doubling down on the part of Blue Pill White Knights and ‘Feminist Allies’ in the wake of the social and legal options women will have to be believed of men’s sexual misconduct allegations by default. Feminized men will “try harder” and rat out their rivals for any hint of misconduct in an Orwellian effort to be more appealing and identifying with women.
  • Only confident Alpha men, or men well versed in Game, will be allowed to approach women from a perspective of social acceptability. However, even then it will be a woman’s prerogative to later define that approach or subsequent interaction as harassment if that Alpha doesn’t comply with a woman’s long term security needs, provisioning and parental investment ‘entitlements’. The latent purpose of a suspension of the statutes of limitation for sexual harassment will center on locking down (perceptually) Alpha men in a long term relationship.
  • This new feminine-primary sexual paradigm will further limit Beta men’s sexual access and increase reproduction stress in the few Beta men who don’t pragmatically drop out of the sexual marketplace altogether. This will also reinforce boys/men’s conditioning of loathing their own gender. They will be taught to accept this feminine-primary sexual strategy, as well as the legal restrictions  on his power of choice and his life’s direction as the societal norm.
  • Legal mandates and societal mores will directly and indirectly ensure Beta men’s compliance in all aspects of parental investment in children he was not biologically responsible for, as well as women’s long term security.

Now, more than ever it is imperative that men become Red Pill awakened and see the writing on the wall with a Red Pill Lens. All of this may seem horribly unavoidable, but let me emphasize, it’s not for men who are aware of, and have internalized intersexual dynamics and can plan accordingly.

In the last installment of this series I’ll be delving into some of the larger socio-sexual implications of where we find ourselves today and where I see present day intersexual relations leading us in a larger scale as well as what Red Pill men can do to win at whats becoming a very dangerous game.