The Feminine Imperative

Surrender

Most of my readers are aware of my stand on the myth of male vulnerability. Weakness is not strength, but the Village of the Feminine Imperative, would have us believe that the more a man displays honest signs of vulnerability the more endearing he’ll be to women. The Blue Pill conditions men to believe that crying, or being more emotionally sensitive, or really anything that makes him identify with the feminine in his personal character is a form of this endearing vulnerability that women can (by appealing to equalist reason) be expected to respect in a man. While adopting this mindset may open a man up to ridicule (and unspoken disgust on the part of women), this is not true vulnerability. The Village might try to convince a man he’s being brave by avoiding conventional masculinity, but this emasculating vulnerability is nothing compared to what a man has to lose from real vulnerability.

What I think most men, certainly all Blue Pill men, miss is that the ultimate form of vulnerability a man can engage in is ‘catching feelings’ for, or emotionally investing himself in, any particular woman. And this is especially so if that man’s Blue Pill conditioning makes him oblivious to the risks of that vulnerability.

Nothing leaves a man more vulnerable in life, love, family, career, finances and really power over the direction of his life than to invest himself in a woman. The very act, the very thought, of surrendering his life’s imperative to the trust that a woman wont exercise the unimaginable control and potential for damage she has in his life is a vulnerability no woman will ever recognize or acknowledge; nor will the sacrifices that come from this vulnerability ever be something she has a capacity to appreciate.

Even in the best case scenarios, where a man’s investment is reciprocated, or a somewhat idyllic relationship grows between a man and a woman, such is the state of our modern sexual marketplace that a potential for a man’s ruin still colors that relationship. Our feminine-primary social order has, through legislation and social pretense, made the proposition of any man navigating the sexual marketplace one of inherent vulnerability. Women rarely understand the vulnerability a man is opening himself up to because our social order makes that potential for his harm invisible to her. In fact, if he resists opening himself up to potential ruin he’s considered to be insecure, and this in turn is attributed to his maleness.

I have no doubt there will be women reading this last paragraph and think, “Well, women are putting themselves at risk too, we have to be vulnerable too.” No, you really don’t. Since the beginning of the Sexual Revolution every potential aspect of vulnerability for women in the SMP has been meticulously compensated for, or insured against the worst. Whether that’s the grossly female-weighted divorce and custody laws, or legal abortion, or arbitrary consent laws that only serve women, or the special dispensation for women academically or vocationally, any and all vulnerability risk is mitigated for you. The emotional vulnerability you believe is so costly pales in comparison to the risk and consequences that vulnerability represents to men. Men commonly have more to risk, more to lose and invest more of themselves into that risk proposition.

True vulnerability, the kind that opens you up to life-destroying consequences, is when a man’s idealism for women, despite knowing all the very likely, very destructive, consequences is something he willfully ignores. For a Blue Pill man, his vulnerability is rarely ever recognized. Thanks to his life-long preconditioning he believes in a romanticism that insulates him from ever acknowledging the risks and the all-downside potential of that vulnerability. This obliviousness – keeping a Beta-in Waiting blind – is a primary goal of Blue Pill conditioning.

Idealizing Surrender

Women would rather be objectified than idealized. The reason for this really gets back to evolved gender differences; women want a man who other men want to be and other women want to fuck. In other words, women want to be the object of desire of a worthy man. When a man surrenders himself to the primacy of the feminine, when he makes a woman his mental point of origin, when he alters the course of his life to accommodate her, that’s when he ceases to be someone for whom she’ll willingly submit to. When she becomes his center he knowingly surrenders Frame.

It is, however, the innate idealism that predisposes men to outward thinking, to the belief in what could be realized, that also predisposes them to idolizing women on whole and idolizing a woman at once. A man’s idealism makes a lot of things possible for him, but it also puts him at terrible risk with regard to being truly vulnerable. Furthermore, men’s fundamental romantic nature is also attributed to our innate what-is-possible idealism. The Feminine Imperative has used this idealism to its benefit for millennia, but the most common (seemingly sensible) utility of it results in men’s surrender of self to the feminine.

When we read through the romantic poetry of the ages – almost all of it written by men – the most common reoccurring theme is that of a helpless ‘surrender’ to the love a man bears for a woman. From Ovid to Shakespeare to Byron the dialog and sentiment is the same; that of the inherent ‘correctness’ of a man surrendering his soul to the love – requited or not – of a woman. If there is a psychological root to the disorder of ONEitis it can be found in this poetic idealism.

However, there is nothing that makes a man more vulnerable to a woman, to the feminine, than his idealist’s nature. The Feminine Imperative knows this thumbscrew of men. One hallmark of the conditioned Beta mind is an eagerness to put themselves into a state of surrender to the feminine. I go into this a bit in Pre-Whipped:

These are the men I call pre-whipped; men so thoroughly conditioned, men who’ve so internalized that conditioning, that they mentally prepare themselves for total surrender to the Feminine Imperative, that they already make the perfect Beta provider before they even meet the woman to whom they’ll make their sacrifice.

But what should predispose men to so eagerly want this surrender? Certainly there’s an element of a (false) belief in the possibility of a mutual concept of love between that man and a (potential) woman. It’s what he believes should be possible.

What else? There’s the pre-conditioned belief that this surrender is his masculine duty. Countless Blue Pill pastors make a living belaboring the narrative that men can’t be Men until they mold themselves over the course of a lifetime to be a (once convenient) a woman’s ideal. Literally, manhood is denied to him until he surrenders to the feminine.

The Family Alpha made this observation last week:

Many men have given the power over their inner self entirely to the women of their lives.

While I completely agree, what I’m wondering is why this need to surrender self is an intrinsic aspect in men? The majority of men (80% Betas) are pre-whipped to expect a need to surrender to the women in their lives. Their abdication is so matter of fact that it becomes something subconscious for them.

Is this a characteristic that separates Betas from Alphas? I’d like to think so, but then a distinction needs to be made between being a Strong Independent Alpha who lives up to a positive, pro-social, conventionally masculine role (despite a world arrayed against it) and the same who, though still respectively Alpha, surrenders his sense of self to the woman he idolizes.

SFC Ton had a great comment about this surrender:

“Women do not really have more power……The first step is to realize that this is indeed the case. Men cede power. Men are taught to cede power. Men look for opportunities to cede power. Women just take advantage of men’s largess. A man does not have to be full on Alpha to get this, or to use it to his best advantage in life.”

One thing to consider is how much power have men ceded and to what effect. The surrender is real, both individually and socially. Reclaiming the power ceded in that surrender will be fought in many different scopes. In The Family Alpha’s article, the concern is two fold: the ceding of a man’s inner self, the surrender of identity to the approval of the feminine, and what the consequences are for men once they reclaim or recreate an identity apart from what he allowed the feminine to create for him.

This a significant thing to ponder for men. One reason I believe men become so despondent, so nihilistic, after some trauma that shook them into Red Pill awareness is that their identity, their sense of self, was a result of this ceding of power to women. They literally do not know what to make of themselves once they are cut free from that paradigm, but moreover they must confront the fact that who they are now (at the time of their unplugging) is, in large part, due to that self-surrender. Prior to their unplugging this surrender may have been involuntary for them, but still perhaps not. Their vulnerability and the true potential of permanent damage from it is put out in the open for them and others to realize.

It’s easy to think of men having difficulty getting over their Exes as in some way damaged. Family Alpha’s point was to encourage men to get back on the horse and back in the game and be competitive again, and that’s what I believe is most beneficial for these men. I also believe that it does men no service to prolong feeling sorry for themselves, but again, that’s part of the process of recreating a man. The risk then becomes a sort of new surrender wherein men drop out and isolate themselves aways from the system that held them and caused them to believe in, and then confront the consequences of their first vulnerability and surrender to the feminine. Isolation becomes their new form of surrender.

However, it’s also important that they recognize the potential for damage that surrendering, that ceding power, to the feminine represents to them. Red Pill aware men should acknowledge that their real vulnerability will be implied in any relationship they enter into beyond a perfunctory pump & dump. That knowledge should be a source of power that prevents them from overextending themselves once again into surrender to the feminine. They are aware now and that awareness now implies a responsibility to it. It demands that they keep their heads out of the sand and make calculated risks according to that awareness.

Your new Red Pill self has no more excuses of ignorance – your life’s been handed back to you with the full knowledge of the system you’re a part of.

No surrender.

The Utility of Beta Men – Part II

Before I get started today I thought I’d relate a few things to think about from the first installment of this series.

No Neutral Balance

Reader Boxcar had a pertinent comment on last week’s thread:

Frankly, losing the “beta” qualities would make it difficult to live a happy, successful and fulfilling life. But they have become stigmatized because they are associated with men being used by women.

I used to lock horns about the necessity of Beta traits with Athol Kay on Married Man Sex Life back before women took over his messaging. The problem with this idea is that 80%+ of men in a feminine-primary social order, that has systematically engineered a majority of men to be predominantly Betas, possess all these Beta behavioral and psychological attributes in spades.

As such, there will always be a gross overemphasis on the value of those aspects. I don’t believe in a balance of Alpha to Beta traits. It’s my opinion that men should make Alpha traits their predominant, default set, only expressing Beta traits as necessary to maintain a minimum comfort level – and even then, this comfort level should only be apparent to reinforce a necessary anxiety level for a woman’s continued interest in a man.

Also, I believe there needs to be a distinction between Alpha and Beta behavioral sets and Alpha and Beta mindsets. Most men today are raised into a Beta mindset and this manifests in their behaviors. Vice versa for Alpha mindsets. However, that isn’t to say that a man of a predominantly Alpha mindset can’t deliberately display a Beta attribute in order to serve his own ends. Same with Beta men displaying a Alpha attributes. The problem with this lies in what is congruent with the overall perception of that man’s status to a woman.

In the case of the Australian guy whom Goldmund schooled in last week’s post, the woman already had a preconceived understanding that his mindset was that of a Beta. Had he displayed some brief “flash of Alpha” it would’ve seemed inauthentic and incongruous with her preconception. However, going from an Alpha preconception to a brief “flash of Beta” can be endearing and affirming for a woman.

Ergo, there is no neutral balance of Alpha and Beta that a woman will ever find attractive in a man. His mindset and behaviors must be predominantly and consistently Alpha to hold her Hypergamous sexual and relational interests. While occasional, strategic and brief expressions of a Beta-like trait are necessary for comfort, there is no advantage in a man trying to maintain some equilateral balance of Alpha to Beta, and if anything it only serves to confuse a woman about her estimate of your status. Moments of Vulnerability can be reassuring for women, but only when that vulnerability is uncharacteristic for a predominantly Alpha man.

Relational Equity

One very common hindbrain presumption most well-trained Betas have is a that their emotional, financial and loyalty investments in a woman will be appreciated and reciprocated by the women they invest in. This ‘pre’-sumption is integral to a mindset founded on the old books social contract. Beta men’s approach to intimacy going in already expects a woman to appreciate his investing in her as some quality that sets him apart from “typical guys who just want to bang her”.

So, when when a guy like Goldmund effortlessly seduces the woman that Aussie Guy has been investing so much into (like all-expense paid trips) it represent two very frustrating realities for him. The first, as I mentioned, is the destruction of his ego-investment in his old books mindset. The second is the sense of loss of so much relational investment he was trying to figure out how to get a return on. All of the preconditions he believed were necessary to get this woman’s intimacy are tossed out of the window when Goldmund arrives and she willingly and (to him) unconditionally becomes sexual with him.

He believed he had to earn her sex, but in no uncertain terms, along comes a guy who did almost nothing to earn it and she reflexively responds to him with sex. In prior posts I’ve proposed that women will break rules for Alpha men while creating and imposing new/more rules for Beta men to access her sexuality. I would expand this to say that Beta men will, via their preconditioning, impose those rules upon themselves before they even meet a woman with whom to invest themselves in.

The presumption of relational equity comes before a Beta even has a woman to invest in. This is the source of Aussie guy’s frustration. I covered this dynamic in Prewhipped and Betas in Waiting.

Giving Value

Commenter Trent Lane had an excellent insight about what ought or ought not to be a Red Pill aware man’s duty to his fellow, unenlightened Blue Pill man.

Ethic responsibilities in a red pill paradigm for those who are not in it is an interesting concept. If we all accept Red Pill principles like Hypergamy, AF/BB and so on as truth (which most of us do, since we‘re here) and as you advance in Game you see, know and can do more with social and intergender dynamics than 99% of the men around you.

You can use this for destruction and mayhem. You can use this to selfishly get your needs met with zero fucks given about anyone. Or you can use it to get your needs met AND give value to the people you interact with.

The question is, why should you?
The answer is, aside from metaphysical reasons like religion, Karma and so forth, in which you can chose to believe or not: you mainly do it for yourself.

By fucking others up this way you fuck yourself up. Is it possible to go down the route of destruction this way with zero fucks given about anyone and lead a happy, fulfilled life long term? Probably for some. More likely you‘ll end up fucked yourself, without purpose, unable to ever satisfy your raging narcissistic urges, burning out and getting more and more shallow as you chase the next kick.

Giving value makes you happier than taking value. It sounds corny like a cliche, but if long term happiness in life is your concern, it‘s true.

I’m going to jump off here because this comment speaks to what I want to cover next in this series – dealing with Blue Pill men in a Red Pill aware man’s life. Just as I’m inclined to tell guys of the MGTOW persuasion that there really is no exiting the game, so too is it next to impossible for the Red Pill aware man to insulate himself from having to deal with, work with, relate to, men who are thoroughly invested in a Blue Pill defined existence.

In the first part of this series I mentioned how Blue Pill orbiters are often an untapped resource of social proof for a Red Pill aware man. Sometimes all it takes to stand out in the crowd is to simply allow the mediocre to display their status and be ready to capitalize on it. It’s like the part of Game where once you get to attraction all you have to do is not fuck things up. That’s not to say Game doesn’t take effort, it does, but when you have a connection with a woman who herself has orbiters’ attention in spades it easy to see that her attraction cues and ego are built around quality not quantity.

I also mentioned in last week’s essay that actively AMOGing these guys can actually be counterproductive to Game. Women may not ever want to bang their orbiters or really have them mean anything more that easy attention, but on the same note they likely don’t want to have anything too cruel happen to them. Fortunately there are ‘lightest touch’ ways to use these guys’ inability (or willful rejection) to really embrace Red Pill awareness to your advantage if you have the art. There’s a tendency to want to help these orbiters, but I would say the real test is having the confidence to use them as SMV comparisons. Adopting an Amused Mastery with an orbiter is one such method – building social proof by artfully pointing out their Beta Game strategies. The risk you run is women taking this as arrogance on your part, at first, until that Beta confirms your measured analysis of him.

Betas at Work

One of the most arduous aspects of modern work life is having to cooperate with well-conditioned Blue Pill men. God forbid you have a business partner or a boss with whom your financial wellbeing depends. I would argue that the single most dangerous environment in which to attempt to ‘help’ a Blue Pill man with Red Pill awareness is in the workplace. For all the talk of mythical “glass ceilings” and back room boys clubs, modern corporate culture has been at the mercy of the Feminine Imperative’s influence for several decades now. This social environment was a Male Space that was invaded long ago by feminine-primary interests, but for the sake of this discussion I’d have readers consider the following: imagine a Blue Pill conditioned Beta who’s been educated and acculturated in feminine primacy (as equality) for the better part of his lifetime. Now, take that guy and put him into a workplace social structure, steeped in feminine-primary work laws, HR departments and corporate bylaws (all designed to avoid charges of endemic workplace sexism). Finally, base that man’s livelihood, the health of his marriage and the future wellbeing of his children on how well he adheres to that feminine-primary office culture and you get a guy who’s a veritable time bomb for any Red Pill aware coworker.

This reminds me of a great article in the Telegraph about how men are so afraid of sexual harassment accusations they resist the urge to extend the most basic courtesies to women in the workplace.

Elsesser cites examples of men who have been dragged in by their HR departments for simply opening a door for a female colleague or complimenting her on a new suit. “Stories like these spread around workplaces, instilling a fear that innocent remarks will be misinterpreted,” she says.

The upside to this situation is that a Red Pill savvy man can use the predictable foreknowledge of how a Blue Pill colleague will respond to various workplace circumstances to his advantage. While it may be prudent to accommodate that guy’s Blue Pill mindset at work, it also presents some opportunities to use Red Pill awareness and Game in a context that can advance your career. Female bosses are still female, and as noted earlier, the same dynamics you can use to ping social proof from a Blue Pill orbiter can similarly be used with a Blue Pill coworker and a female supervisor.

If you know a guy is trapped in a Blue Pill marriage, odds are he’s in a dead bedroom situation. If he’s got kids, especially a newborn, it’s fairly easy to predict his life priorities based on what we know of his Blue Pill mindset. Happy wife, happy life is probably his ego-investment. There’s quite a lot you can read from a Blue Pill coworker or supervisor, and as a Red Pill aware man, this puts you at a strategic advantage in the workplace. As such you are not at the disadvantage he is and can opt in on work opportunities his mindset and his life’s resultant conditions wont permit him to.

As a side note here, I should also mention that being Red Pill aware has various advantages in dealing with women in the workplace too. In the same vein as the Blue Pill supervisor, it’s important to get a ‘read’ on a female boss and how she interacts with male and female subordinates. Corporate culture is often the most visceral teacher when it comes to understanding intrasexual competition amongst women. However, as a Red Pill aware man we can also apply our predictive Red Pill Lens towards what most women in the workplace are experiencing in their lives. We know the common dissatisfaction professional women experience when it comes to their personal lives. We also know that even the married ones are likely to be discontent with husbands whom they can never feel comfortable in submitting themselves to – especially after 8-10 hours at an office where lesser men must submit to her and the greater men she is beholden to don’t see her as anything but an instrument for their own success. The trick is using this tactical understanding to your own benefit by getting inside their heads and making female nature work for you.

So, after all this we’re left with a few of considerations. The first is the degree of calculated risk a Red Pill man is comfortable in taking with a Blue Pill colleague. Even if the guy is a personal friend, there is always a risk that using your Red Pill Lens with him can backfire on you. There’s only one thing worse than a woman scorned and that’s a deeply committed Blue Pill guy who’s just had his mindset used against him by a superior player. Most will pass it off as the result of an unfair life, but others, the less stable Blue Pill guys, they can have an explosive potential.

Then there is the ever present ethical considerations that will always dog this question – should you do it? If Goldmund’s story from last week’s essay was an object lesson in mate poaching it was also a subjective lesson in the ethical consideration of it too. Much of what constitutes attractiveness in men to women is found on the Dark Triad personality traits. Sometimes Red Pill awareness and Game application gets called an education in psychopathy. Having written about Red Pill awareness for as long as I have, I know there’s far more to this, but to an initiated reader, one steeped in Blue Pill conditioning, I fully understand why it would look like psychopathy.

Now the question is, does a Red Pill man use his awareness to his advantage outside of the intersexual realm? In the case of using it with a female supervisor that might be an easy, yes, but in the case of using a Blue Pill man’s handicap of his mindset that answer may be subjective by order of degree. Even if there is no malice involved, and even if just by fact of having that awareness, a Red Pill man has a distinct advantage over men given to a Blue Pill belief set and their resultant life conditions.

So the question might be, are we our Beta brother’s keepers? Do we have an obligation to give Blue Pill men value or does that idea end where that man’s capacity to accept what Red Pill awareness offers him end? Obviously I have two books and five and a half years of blog posts all written with the intent of ultimately unplugging Blue Pill men and making them aware of the true nature of intersexual dynamism. My purpose has always been to give men the tools they need to do that, but is it my obligation to do so?

State Control

Reader, constrainedlocus had an interesting thought in the Anger Bias essay comment thread:

“The point is that a feminine-primary social order readily makes this nature a useful tool in dismissing what would otherwise be valid, but uncomfortable Red Pill truth. This anger bias mechanism is a tool for message control.”

What I find interesting is that, from my own personal observations of men in both marriage and long-term relationships, is that this dismissal happens readily and frequently at the micro level in sexual relationships as well. It’s impossible for men not to notice the hypocrisy.

A man need not experience the trivialization of his anger from “the sisterhood” response in the media, in the corporate setting, or even while at a party with other couples.

I think it now common for a wife or long-term girlfriend to assume a certain privilege or “authority” to express and direct her own anger, indignation and outrage rather freely and loudly – whenever she wishes – toward her male companion, without much consequence.

But should her male companion ever lose his composure, raise his voice in anger toward here, then this is either considered “verbal abuse”, an uncalled for overreaction, or his complaint is simply trivialized, ridiculed or disqualified by her, much like she would belittle the tantrum of her own young child.

Who has not witnessed wives scold their husbands in public at a restaurant or at a park like little children for his getting angry at her attitude or behavior? “Don’t you EVER raise your voice at me, mister!”.

I realize this is all about a man’s frame in the relationship.
I know that it is a weak man who tolerates this, while a wise man just ignores or nexts it.

Indeed, it is all about control.

But I still find it fascinating the confidence level with which so many women feel they can just scoff and ridicule the anger of men in relationships overtly, while unilaterally assuming the validity and overriding importance of their own anger whenever convenient for them.

It’s seems like an added bolt-on power up of feminist triumphalism.

Even among ourselves, we men are not supposed to show such angry emotions, at risk of verbal abuse or a humiliating well-deserved fucking beat down. Us dudes are to be these rational Vulcans walking around and doing shit, deleting emotion commands from our code. Because the thought is this: allowing someone else’s behavior to determine your feelings and emotional response is regarded as a sign of male weakness.
Anger should be expressed infrequently, and when expressed, done decisively and with brevity and action.

I think a lot of dudes recovering from blue pill conditioning struggle with this immensely, and are not sure what to do when their anger and frustration is openly minimized, trivialized or negated by their wife or LTR.

In a feminine-primary social order men are expected to show exactly this emotional restraint out of fear for being considered a typical, angry bully for any marginal display of aggressiveness. Yet, men are simultaneously conditioned to be emotionally expressive, emotionally available, in order to be ‘fully actualized’ human beings. They’re taught that strength is weakness and weakness is strength, and that vulnerability and emotionalism makes them whole persons.

Then the narrative changes again as per the needs of the Feminine Imperative. Men who are agreeable and show humility are punished with a removal of women’s sexual interest in them, while more conventionally masculine men, more Alpha, potentially more aggressive men who display outward signs of it – the emotions they’re taught to repress – are more commonly rewarded with women’s sexual interests.

When you have a social structure based on a calculated duplicity and confusion of purpose is it any wonder we see a generation of frustrated Betas with a perceived potential for violence? We’re supposed to delete emotional commands, but also to be more emotionally available and in touch (whatever the fuck that means) with our emotions. What it really comes down to is men are socialized to be automatons whose emotional connection should only apply to those emotions that benefit and complement with the Feminine Imperative and repress the emotions that frighten or potentially threaten the Feminine Imperative. In other words, to become more like women is to become a more perfected ‘man’ by today’s metric.

Blank-slate Feminism

We presently live in a feminine-primary social order that wants to convince us that egalitarian equalism is the normative presumption between men and women. The blank-slate idea is that men are the functional equivalents of women, but, for all the social constructivism, men need to train, learn, be conditioned to constrain the aspects of themselves that conflict with their identities becoming more like women in their emotional nature. If boys and men can be conditioned (or medically treated) to repress every evolved aspect of their maleness that conflicts with aligning with the feminine they can be trained to be ostensibly more ‘equal’ beings. In this mindset, for a man to become more ‘equal’ he must be more feminine.

The normative belief is that boys and men are simply unperfected women, but the subtext to this is that men and women, binary genders, are (or ought to be) functional equivalents. This too is based on the (I believe flawed) Jungian theory of anima and animus; that no matter the sex, every ‘person’ has some counterbalancing elements of male and female nature to them. I believe this is a flawed theory for the simple fact that men and women have never been functional equals from an evolutionary standpoint and modern science is disproving Jung’s (often metaphysical) presumptions with neurological and hormonal (and the functional behaviors that derive from either sex’s innate structures) understanding that didn’t exist in Jung’s time.

I’ve dug into why I have a problem with Jung in the past, but the point I’m making is that, in Jung, the Feminine Imperative and 2nd and 3rd wave feminist agendas have had an incestuous affair with his theories and conflating overwhelmingly disproven blank-slate equalism. This conflation of flawed theory has been the foundation for normalizing the social feminization of boys and men for almost a century now.

With this equalist presumption as a point of origin, the first step is to condition boys for emotional control.

State Control

Emotions have an evolutionary purpose in men and women. We can trace the manifested behaviors of emotional response to survival-specific functions. Oxytocin, for instance, predisposes human beings to feelings of trust and nurturing which primarily affects women most. The effects of testosterone, which men produce 12-17 times the amount that women do, are well known and masculinize the human body. These are just some basic hormonal differences, but the function behind the effects of those hormones (as well as men and women neurological structure) is where we run into conflict with the Feminine Imperative.

For millennia, boys and men have been taught to control their emotive states. This practice in control isn’t something that sprang up a few hundred years ago, we’re talking ancient cultures teaching their young men to resist losing their rational state-control over to an emotionalism that had a potential to get a man into some serious trouble. In some respects this self-control has been a necessary part of men’s upbringing, but also because men and women experience emotional states differently as a result of evolved biological differences. Women tend to process negative emotions differently than men. This processing isn’t due to some socially constructed acculturation, it is the result of the differences in men and women’s mental firmware. This is also a primary reason why making an emotional impact on a woman, positive or negative, is a source of stimulation for them. Men’s arousal may be founded on visual cues, but women are wired for emotional cues.

Likewise, men’s emotive states run a different gamut than that of women. As I mentioned in the Anger Bias essay, men are less predisposed to emotional states that women believe are beneficial in their own experience. In a feminine-correct social state, where women’s experiences define the norm, and in a social constructivist perspective, this amounts to a ‘repression’ of emotions. The idea is that an overly masculine acculturation of boys leads them to holding back the emotions that women tend to build their lives around. The real truth is that men process emotions, and prioritize the expression of those emotions, much more as a result of our own mental firmware than social repression.

That’s not to say there isn’t some social influence over teaching men to learn self-control over those emotions. As I just mentioned, young men have been taught for millennia to have state control by each other, their mentors and their peers, but since the time of the sexual revolution and the rise of a feminine primary social order this state control has been turned into a net negative.

So, in a sense, young men of the last 4-5 generations are caught between pleasing two masters. To be considered the ‘equal’ that feminine-primary egalitarianism would have them be they must first get in touch with their emotions. However, the only emotions they are taught are valid are those that make them more alike and identifying with women; nurturing, crying, expressing vulnerability, etc., essentially anything not characteristic of conventional masculinity. This of course has the effect of women subconsciously perceiving them as they would other women, and not potential intimates. Essentially, this aligning with women’s experience of emotion desexualizes men.

Yet, on the other hand, men are expected to repress their emotions in terms of having a state control that appeals to women’s Hypergamous need for security. Thus, the emotions that might better serve men in a survivalist utility are exactly those which feminine-correct society considers negative or ‘toxic’ and therefore must be controlled. The problem inherent in all of this is that it is feminine-primacy that is defining what men’s experience of emotion is acceptable despite it being the cause of so much of women’s frustration with men.

As the saying goes, women get the men they deserve and the emotive, masculine-confused men of today are simply the result of a social order that’s standardized the female experience as the definition of what blank-slate equalism should be for both sexes – but really as a means of social control for women whose experience is defined by an unsolvable need for certain security.

None of this is to say men ought not to express themselves emotionally or avoid being artists and poets or whatever in favor of some uninspired stoicism, but it is to say that Red Pill aware men should also be aware of the feminine-primary influences informing their expectations of expressing any or no emotion. That may seem like a drawn out way of saying ‘own your emotions’, but it’s my belief that for men to reclaim conventional masculinity it will require them to honestly assess why and how they choose to express or control their emotional states based on their own definition of what is correct from a male perspective, not the female perspective.

Family Integrity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dean Abbot tweeted this recently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Red Pill Moralist

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

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

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

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

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

In Moral to the Manosphere I wrote this:

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

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

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

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

Blue Pill Conditioning and Equalism

Rational reader Playdontpay had a very poignant comment in last week’s thread:

I’ll stick with the “boner test”. Women are only playthings anyway!
Do I enjoy fucking her? After sex is she good feminine company? This is all I need to know, if shit goes sideways I’ll just get another one.

She’s only going to lie and present a fictional version of herself based on what she thinks you’re looking for anyways. Women don’t do real self improvement they just convince themselves that they already are “better” because if she can’t convince herself it will be more difficult for her to sell it to you.

She will rewrite her sexual history and “because she’s a different person now”, well, that’s the way she has always been. Stop taking them so seriously, how are you going to vet a Machiavellian liar that’s been learning game from the age of 12?

His perspective on women is exactly why I tell men to avoid marriage altogether even though I’ve had a fantastic marriage myself for over 20 years. A lot of my haters, and more than a few supporters often get hung up on this.

Most of the criticism I get for writing what I do and still maintaining a good relationship with Mrs. T comes from men who cannot wrap their heads around the very simple, accepted truths described in this approach towards women. They think there must be something more to it. They think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are. So, naturally, the easy presumption is that any self respecting woman would never put up with a Red Pill man’s outlook and approach, because they believe the blank slate lie.

If an egalitarian ideal between men and women were tenable I’d completely agree, but it isn’t. So, in order to protect their ego investments, the rationale follows that any woman who falls for a Red Pill man must, by definition, be lacking in self esteem, self respect, low quality, etc. They believe that because anything else destroys their equalist fantasy world. This stems from a much deeper, root level, ego-investment in egalitarianism and I think this is a perspective a lot of Red Pill aware men have a tough time with to say nothing of men still plugged into the Blue Pill world view.

If you’ve read me for any length of time you’ll know I’m rarely prescriptive in my writing. I’ve always been of the belief that men need to find ways to utilize Red Pill awareness of intersexual dynamics for themselves on an individual basis. However, I will say that there are certain general aspects of that awareness and how to put it into something applicable in a man’s life that seem self-evident to me. First and foremost among these generalities is that in killing your inner Beta and disabusing oneself of his Blue Pill conditioning, a man needs to understand that the foundational belief that informed and defined his Blue Pill existence is equalism. The presumption that an idealized, blank-slate egalitarian state between the sexes is both possible and desirable informs all Blue Pill beliefs that follow it.

This equalist presumption often forms the mental point of origin for most Blue Pill men. Ostensibly, this mental prioritization of some equal state between the sexes is what most Blue Pill guys will tell you attracts women. This notion is also fundamental to Blue Pill guys’ drive for identifying their own psyches with the feminine and forms the basis of Beta Game.

Transitioning this early equalist ideology to a sexual strategy is a simple, deductive process for men. Little boys are raised on feminine primacy memes and the narrative of Fempowerment, all the while being conditioned to believe that, beyond some insignificant biology, boys and girls are identical beings with the same potential and proficiencies. It’s gotten to the point where this process is normalized and pushed to the backgrounds of most people’s consciousness. We’ll raise boys in feminine-primary educational standards, we’ll teach them they’re the same as girls, but we’ll also teach them they’re defective for not aligning themselves with girls, for not getting in touch with their feminine sides.

I’m fleshing this process out a bit here because unlearning this equalist’s mental point of origin is a key transition in a man’s unplugging. Often the hardest part of killing the Beta and accepting Red Pill awareness is replacing equalism with oneself as a mental point of origin. This is a hard step for most guys because it requires he shift his opinion of himself and risk being called a selfish asshole. Remember, anything that would disagree with or challenge the idea of intersexual egalitarianism will always be equated with misogyny, intolerance, tyranny, etc. Questioning the validity of equalism (however it’s applied) will always be countered with a  binary extreme.

This is exactly why Playdontpay’s comment appears so outrageous and self-indulgent to anyone not Red Pill aware. HIs pragmatism will be conflated with anger.

Interghangeability

Anonymous Reader posits:

Rollo
…men who cannot wrap their heads around the very simple, accepted truths you describe about your approach towards women. They think there must be something more to it.

Often because they’ve been told since they were toddlers that there is “more to it”, also known as the Blue Pill.

They think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are.

Exactly so and very important. The feminist fallacy of “interchangeable” leads to this. The mental habit some men have of projecting themselves onto others, believing “Well, I’m like this, so everyone else must be also” leads to this. It is extremely frustrating to encounter female behavior that is so obviously stupid it is like catching someone peeing in the kitchen sink.

Many betaized men will put up with bad behavior for far too long, then have a major blowout of anger and expect behavioral change. That doesn’t work with toddlers or dogs or women. Constant, low key, correction does work. Neuroplasticity points to a “why”; daily reiteration of a desired habit works better than once per week, etc.

It’s important to recognize the difference between real introspection and brooding or ruminating, too. Some women will brood over wrongs done but not connect that up with their own behavior. That’s not introspection. That’s not “failure analysis”. That’s rewiring neural pathways to perpetual resentment.

It is extremely difficult for an equalist, betaized man to accept the fact that women want and need to be dominated, because they for sure would hate and resent that. It is even worse for the churchgoing men, because the equalist chant from the conservative feminists in churches is almost always slathered with a layer of “sisterly love”.

What Anon is driving at here is my second point in Blue Pill and Red Pill men understanding the depth of their conditioning. Equalism and feminism depend on interchangeability. In order for little girls to grow up to be anything they want to be there must be an agreed upon “level playing field” from a socio-sexual point of view. This means that if little girls want to grow up to become football players and little boys want to grow up to be prima ballerinas there (at least ostensibly) must be an agreed upon equalist environment in which this can happen.

The egalitarian ideal the Blue Pill conditions us to believe is possible presumes there is a mutually agreeable state of intersexual equality. In reality this state is entirely contradictory to our evolved sexual strategies and our biological realities, but in theory, an egalitarian ideal can only exist in an environment that is deemed equal by both men and women. If such a state were possible, if evolved influences of our biological realities for both sexes were non-factors, then this state would also presume a mutual interchangeability between the sexes.

The combination of our equalist conditioning and this interchangeability is the root of much of the dysfunction we see between men and women today. Because we are taught all-is-one, because we presume we’re all the same except for the plumbing, there is also a presumption of uniformity of purpose between the sexes. Equalism is really just the religion of the Feminine Imperative, but it hides behind this feminine-primary advertising that men and women are playing by a mutually agreed upon set of rules, striving for mutually agreed (Blue Pill) goals and all in spite of our natural predilection or any competitiveness. No other social condition in the history of mankind could place women in a more socially controlling position than Hypergamy excused by equalism.

In such a state women can mandate their unilateral control over Hypergamy, but there is one downside – men expect a mutual interchangeability. Blue Pill men actually expect women to play by that mutuality of purpose. That’s the interchange. Women will still ensure that optimizing Hypergamy is the prime directive, and they’ll hide behind equalism to keep men in check and absolve themselves of the worst of their predations in doing so, but men still expect women to feel as men do. Blue Pill men believe that women can and will love them in an idealized way that runs contrary to their Hypergamous opportunism. Why? Because they were conditioned to believe, from a very early age, that interchangeability exists between men and women.

The difference between men and women’s concepts of love is a prime example of this equalist interchangeability fallacy. Men’s concept of love is rooted in idealism; love for the sake of love. This is a result of men’s outward looking idealism and existential experience being male. Women’s concept of love is rooted in opportunism. This is a result of natural solipsism and the need to optimize Hypergamy. It is intrinsic and inward looking and based on security and ensuring survival. When we introduce a condition of egalitarian equalism to men and women only one of these concepts can be the mutually correct concept. Both can exist in a natural state of complementarity between the sexes, but if all-is-one, there can only be one concept of love that decides for both sexes.

The confusion Blue Pill men have is presuming that men’s idealistic concept is the mutually accepted one. This then wars with women’s natural opportunistic concept; and by extension her intrinsic need to optimize Hypergamy. Of course, I’m under no illusion that equalism is anything more than a social utility to ensure a feminine-primary social order, but this is one illustration of how deeply conditioned equalism is what a majority of men base their intersexual understandings on.

I see this conditioning persist even amongst men I would otherwise think had a firm grasp of Red Pill awareness. As I said, they think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are. They still want to hope in that Blue Pill goal of interchangeability. For all of the Red Pill and self awareness I could credit men of the MRM with, they still cling to this equalist mindset. This Blue Pill ideal of true equality between the sexes ultimately works against their best intentions since it is women who are more perfectly placed to take advantage of this ‘equality’. Once again, you will never achieve Blue Pill idealistic goals with Red Pill awareness. Most men are taught that those Blue Pill goals are worthwhile, but they are carrots proffered by the same builders of the cart who hope to get the mule to pull it.

I have read and heard the words of many otherwise brilliant, otherwise Red Pill aware men who simply cannot unlearn the falsehoods of egalitarian equalism. Nothing’s more frustrating to me than to hear a guy I have a deep respect for parrot back some meme or catchphrase of a feminine-operative social convention, or what he thinks is a funny, gender-deprecating quip that belies his ego-investment in the same equalism he just spent a book’s worth of research to debunk. I see brilliant men like Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Warren Farrell or Steven Pinker, who I would hold up as guys who have a lot figured out, still rattle off the same memes I would expect to see from equalists on Facebook. I find it the height of irony that the same men who would systematically destroy the idea of the blank slate still pander to the hopes and goals of the equalists who built those goals based on a blank slate ideology.

Understanding how your prison is constructed, how it works, who your jailers are, is not the same as understanding how to escape it. It’s interesting how refined our Red Pill Lenses can become yet we still never drill down to the root beliefs that still keep us ignorantly hopeful. It’s time we embrace an ideology of true complementarity between men and women. It’s time we accept that we are not equal and in some circumstances that puts men and women at respective advantages and disadvantages based on what any challenge poses to us. It’s time we threw away the Blue Pill goals that equalism has taught us are ‘correct’ and replace them with realistic ones founded on Red Pill awareness.

The Anger Bias

I don’t think it will come as a shock to my readers, or anyone who follows me on Twitter or on the Red Pill Reddit forum, that I’ve gone to bat in recent months to combat the (often deliberate) misperception that self-described ‘Red Pill’ men are inherently angry men. As such, we’re also meant to presume these ‘angry men’ have a potential for violence or at best self-loathing.

The idea, of course, is proposed that “the guys in TRP are just embittered, deeply hurt men who’ve taken the truths that Red Pill awareness has presented to them and converted it to a real, genuine misogyny”. Furthermore, the convention is proposed that these guys cannot come to terms with their own failures and want to blame them all on women, or at the very least an unkind, unforgiving, pro-female world in which they’ve always struggled (i.e. “losers want to blame their losing on women”). Thus, these ‘bitter terpers’ (TRPers) promote either hostility towards women, or they attempt to check themselves out of the sexual marketplace entirely by “going their own way”. In either case, it’s proposed that it’s men’s inherent anger that motivates them to an anti-woman mindset.

I addressed much of this misguided argument in my essay Anger Management:

But are we angry? I can’t say that I haven’t encountered a few guys on some forums and comment threads who I’d characterize as angry judging from their comments or describing their situations. For the greater whole I’d say the manosphere is not angry, but the views we express don’t align with a feminine-primary society. Men expressing a dissatisfaction with feminine-primacy, men coming together to make sense of it, sound angry to people who’s sense of comfort comes from what the feminine imperative has conditioned them to.

Most of the men who’ve expressed a genuine anger with me aren’t angry with women, but rather they’re angry with themselves for having been blind to the Game that they’d been a part of for so long in their blue-pill ignorance. They’re angry that they hadn’t figured it out sooner.

I understand that a lot of what is written in the manosphere can certainly be interpreted as coming from a source for anger. When I (or anyone else) outline the fundaments of hypergamy for instance, there’s a lot to be angry about for a man. Women get pissed because it exposes an ugly truth that the feminine exhausts a lot of resources to keep under the rug, but for men, learning about the feral reasons for feminine (and masculine) behaviors often enough cause a guy to become despondent or angry. That impression should never be the basis for a Man’s Game, nor is it ever really an aspect of internalizing Game that will benefit him personally.

Anger bias and attribution to men is an easy follow for a social order predicated on empowering and protecting the feminine. From an egalitarian mindset that insists on socially constructed equalism between the sexes it’s ironic that the attribution of a default anger to men, and the conventionally masculine, is something entirely unique to the male sex. To the feminine-primary mindset, all-is-one until a negative trait unique to the male biology serves a purpose, and a positive trait unique to women is flattering for them. Then the ideals of social constructionism are suspended insofar as biology agrees with a feminine-primary social order.

I would also argue that predisposed anger is just one attribute the Feminine Imperative finds useful in men to create operative social conventions. The default presumption of mens predisposition to anger is the basis of most domestic legislation (paternity, domestic violence, child custody, etc.) between men and women.

This is a convenient social constructivism based (ostensibly) on egalitarian equality until a particular emotion or personal quality is predominantly attributable to one sex in the positive or negative; then it’s the ‘differences’, not the similarities, between the sexes that make for social control. It’s funny how we’re all equal, blank-slates until anger is better attributed to “toxic” masculinity and some preternatural capacity for empathy in women are beliefs the Feminine Imperative reinforces in its cultural context.

Anger is a useful emotion for fem-centrism. It’s all too easy to classify men’s propensity for anger (and associated violence) as ‘toxic’ yet women’s anger is something transformative and empowering. This connects back to the social efforts of the past five generations designed to feminize men and masculinize women; the inverse traits that would be conventional to one gender are encouraged as positive traits in the opposite gender.

This may be somewhat remedial for my regular readers, but I’m reviewing this because it illustrates a dichotomy that a Blue Pill mindset is all too ready to accept. To the equalist ideology, biological gender-specific truths are only a minor factor in the human condition – unless the truth of that gender-specific biological fact is something advantageous to the feminine and disadvantageous to the masculine.

For instance, to suggest that women’s evolved neurological capacity for communication makes them more intuitive and sensitive to verbal and nonverbal sub-communication we’re supposed to embrace this biological fact as something that sets women apart as ‘special’ or evidence of women being “more evolved”. But when we suggest that men outclass women in cognitive spatial ability, or neurological gender differences in rational abstract thinking gives men a biological advantage in areas like mathematics, then male professors lose their tenured jobs for expressing these facts publicly. If a biological difference is flattering to women it’s an exception to the blank-slate ideology; if a difference is unflattering to women it’s considered evidence of an institutionalized sexism on the part of men.

For all purposes, a social order founded on the blank-slate ideology of egalitarian equalism (serving the Feminine Imperative) regularly, and ruthlessly, quashes any discourse of biological gender differences – unless those factual differences are flattering to the feminine and/or damning of the masculine.

Anger Bias

One biological difference equalism is happy to promote is the notion that men are biologically predisposed to anger, aggression and violence. The motivating impetus behind this anger is rarely something the equalist mind will consider, but that men are predominantly, naturally, more ‘angry’ than women is a meme that is actively encouraged. If anything, this biological fact is a root basis for the cultural concept of “toxic” masculinity.

However, the fact does remain, healthy men possess 12 to 17 times the biogenous serum testosterone that women do. This naturally predisposes men to be more muscular, hairy, lower voices, libidinous and yes, aggressive. It’s no secret that statistically men are biologically more prone to anger, aggression and potentially violence. In a feminine-correct social context this natural predilection is the basis of all masculine attributes being ‘toxic’, if for no other reason than it presents a threat to women’s social control.

For all this, the male gender-bias towards presumption of anger has a foundation in evolutionary psychology. Men will always be considered more angry than women because of an evolutionary adaptation known as Error Management. And in men’s case, this anger attribution is a species-survival adaptation. The following quotes originate from a study called, Seeing storms behind the clouds: Biases in the attribution of anger. This experimental study, and another similar study (If looks could kill), come to us courtesy of Dr. Martie Haselton and her colleagues in the evo-psych department at UCLA. These studies outline the inherent biases towards anger all humans theoretically harbor subconsciously.

Anger-prone individuals are volatile and frequently dangerous. Accordingly, inferring the presence of this personality trait in others was important in ancestral human populations. This inference, made under uncertainty, can result in two types of errors: underestimation or overestimation of trait anger. Averaged over evolutionary time, underestimation will have been the more costly error, as the fitness decrements resulting from physical harm or death due to insufficient vigilance are greater than those resulting from lost social opportunities due to excessive caution. We therefore hypothesized that selection has favored an upwards bias in the estimation of others’ trait anger relative to estimations of other traits not characterized by such an error asymmetry.

Anger attribution to physical and gender cues is an “adaptive rationality”. In other words, it’s probably better to err on the side of caution and misattribute anger to an individual displaying even marginal cues of a potential for aggression (for instance, they hold implements or tools that could cause physical harm) than to miss that cue and wind up dead or injured.

Moreover, we hypothesized that additional attributes that 1) make the actor more dangerous, or 2) make the observer more vulnerable increase the error asymmetry with regard to inferring anger-proneness, and should therefore correspondingly increase this overestimation bias.

This is an important distinction to make when we extrapolate this theory to a larger social scope. When the actors (men in our case) are made to appear more dangerous, or the observers (women & feminized men) are made to feel more vulnerable there is an increase in the perception that the actors are in fact more prone to anger (asymmetrical error attribution).

Adaptive rationality and error management

The “adaptive rationality” approach contends that the mind was shaped by selection to enhance fitness in ancestral environments rather than to yield accurate judgments. Therefore, human cognition can manifest seemingly irrational biases that are, in fact, “adaptively rational.”

I explored this topic in my essay, Vestiges.

Anger attribution is one domain in which this might occur. Perceivers can commit one of two errors: underestimate an individual’s trait anger (false negative) or overestimate it (false positive). On average, underestimations will have been costlier than overestimations in ancestral populations: assuming that an anger-prone individual was temperate placed the perceiver at risk of assault, whereas assuming that a temperate individual was anger-prone merely led to foregoing potentially profitable interactions. Thus, overall accuracy (i.e., committing false negative and false positive errors with equal frequency) did not maximize fitness over evolutionary time. Rather, in line with error management theory, we hypothesize that selection favored a biased tendency to commit the less costly false positive — overestimating trait anger. Although the same logic applies to the estimations of state anger, our predictions focus squarely on trait anger because traits predict future behavior, and it is costly to underestimate an individual’s anger not only in the moment, but also in future interactions.

For the Red Pill aware, what I’m suggesting is that there is an evolved predisposition to perceive men as generally more prone to anger, and thereby more susceptible to aggression/violence, than may in fact be the actual case with men individually. Largely, as a man, you will always be perceived as potentially angrier than a woman.

Contextual factors can influence this asymmetry, resulting in a concomitant increase in biases in the perception of a given emotion. Anger motivates aggression, hence an important contextual factor in anger perception is the capacity of the perceived individual to inflict harm. The greater the capacity to harm, the more costly it is to underestimate the extent to which the target is angry, and therefore the more that perception should be biased in favor of overestimation.

I would argue here that men’s state in western(izing) cultures is one that grossly exaggerates men’s overall potential for anger, and by extension violence. Presuming that Red Pill men are “a bunch of angry misogynists” is one such error, but it is also a useful one in that it plays upon this overestimation of anger in men on whole. This anger attribution in men will always be an easy method of poisoning the well or creating straw men arguments from which opponents of Red Pill awareness will dismiss valid, factual arguments.

As you might guess, this male anger bias is a simple tool to use – and one I unfortunately see being employed by many Purple Pill dating coaches who’d like to dissuade their clientele from the less marketable aspects of Red Pill awareness. Anything Red Pill that disagrees with their feminine-sanitized advice is conveniently dismissed as “negative” or the rantings of angry, bitter, burned men. It becomes “Truthful Anger”, but their emphasis is always on the anger part rather than the truth that would kick a leg out from under their positivity marketing scheme.

The default state of women and feminized men is one of a presumed vulnerability due to a persistent social characterization of a default female victimhood in popular culture and media. Likewise, men are portrayed as quick to anger – all in spite of generations of effort spent in Blue Pill conditioning of men to be ideally passive, supportive, non-assertive and entirely less masculinized. Despite all that sensitivity conditioning, from the earliest ages, the default presumption that’s still popularly reinforced is that men are always the angry/violent ones. Domestic violence laws presume a man is always the attacker and always the party to be removed from the home because of this preconception.

Both the Feminine Imperative and even well meaning Red Pill men default to this overestimation. I get that this is largely merited on whole as a characteristic of men. This error management is a useful and pragmatic adaptation, but it is also a useful foil for dismissing men on whole. It’s interesting that I’d be pilloried for expressing that the realities of women’s menstrual cycle predispose them to ovulatory shift, as well as anti-social, behaviors, yet were I to explain that testosterone predisposes men to aggression we largely accept this as a given.

My intent in this essay isn’t to say men aren’t as angry as their evolutionary nature makes them. The point is that a feminine-primary social order readily makes this nature a useful tool in dismissing what would otherwise be valid, but uncomfortable Red Pill truth. This anger bias mechanism is a tool for message control.

Teaching Slaves to Read

Ehintellect had a very enlightening comment in last week’s thread. I’ve edited it for relevant content, but you can read the whole thing here. This touched on an essay topic I’ve been considering since my conversation with Ed Latimore and Mark Baxter:

[I] was at a home party a few years back. Highly successful surgeons, wives, husbands; quickly devolved into quarters, college games. 

My wife loves the parties as she gets compliments and conversation she’d otherwise not get. She’s not plugged into that crowd, and I assume doesn’t want to. In a way, that’s fortunate. There is tremendous value in my marriage, parenting. I’m astonished at the change.

Mrs. Eh’s shit tests continue, but are a whole different breed. Comfort, mostly, and usually because I don’t calibrate enough. Easily dealt with, I’m astonished at the dynamic. I was bar rail with wife, and my erstwhile suicidal, now RP, TRM acquaintance called asking me to celebrate his 2 (!) plate spinning / back at school / ”I know your trick, EhIntellect!” / ”Now I understand the true nature of women.” / “My life has never been better.” life. I was celebrating on the phone with him. Well, yeah, after the 5-10 minute chat, Mrs. Eh. wasn’t too pleased. She started to test about me treating her as a “whore” and my daughter shabbily.

Still upbeat, I kissed her forehead and whispered, “You’re no whore. You’re MY whore.” Well, that didn’t work as intended, she sulked, I got up and said let’s go. Nope she sat and I, dropping her jacket on my chair, wordlessly left out the back. The bar waitress walked her out by the arm 3 minutes later.

I’d have never been able to do that without you guys.

I had a karaoke night planned, for me, so kept on. In a way I “bounced” her to another venue, ran with her happily sprinting with me to the new pub. It’s like the dust up never happened, she was crazy sexual for the rest of the night. That’s what we’re to do right? Spike that test! I wanted to sing, and raised the roof that night. Did I reinforce bad behavior? IMO, no. The test is to be passed, my burden of performance, she holds me tighter, begs me for affection as never before. Sex is plentiful. More frame for me, no snark, much laughter.

Reader SJF comments next:

Your wife’s response to overhearing your conversation is normal operating procedure for women. I’ve been through this scenario and could shed some more light on it.

Sure it is a shit test. Sure it is a comfort test. Doesn’t matter. It’s not about passing a shit test. It’s about using it to your advantage. “You’re no whore. You’re MY whore” was an Agree and Amplify response to the test. Not the best way to accomplish your goals. Your goals here were to mentor your buddy. Not to game your wife–you already have that in hand 

What this situation calls for is to conduct your discussions with men in fight club in private.

What’s going on with your wife in this situation is and INDIGNATION of the SISTERHOOD scenario. (How fucking dare you help another man to implement his strategy to compromise the strategy of the Sisterhood? The Sisterhood’s Social Conventions and their Feminine Imperatives to implement their strategy are more important in a Feminine Supreme Society than you buddy gaining agency).

Your wife on behalf of her and your daughter is affronted by you giving him tactics. (She figures on your part this is you giving her and your daughter and indignity because you are giving this: insult, offend, mortify, provoke, pique, wound, hurt to the Sisterhood Strategy and Imperatives.) You are poking the mother of your children in the ribs with riposte. She protests. She figures it’s not fucking fair.

So this talking red pill to red pill with guys is best kept off the grid and out of sight and earshot.
Now keep in mind this is not abdicating frame any more than a Machiavellian strategist is embarrassed by his tactics being kept secret.

Tyler Durden in fight club would not agree about using overt, rather than covert discussions about blowing up the edifices (buildings, social conventions and imperatives) in society to achieve ends.

And finally Novaseeker adds this most salient comment:

“You should know this stuff, but you shouldn’t know this stuff, if it were up to the Sisterhood. You guys are taking away OUR POWER and I’m going to shit test you about that with some INDIGNATION.”

Yes, it’s because it violates the “Just Get It” principle. It’s fine if a man “just gets it”. It’s not fine if a man has to learn it in order to get it, because in the latter case there is a concern that he doesn’t actually really “get it”, because he isn’t a man who “just gets it”.

More fundamentally, they do not trust themselves to be able to tell the difference between a man who “just gets it” and man who has learned from other men how to “get it”, and they fundamentally do want to distinguish between the two types of men because that is a critical Alpha filter. What you’re doing is sabotaging their filter, which of course will be unwelcome, never mind that they will generally be just as satisfied with a man who learns to get it as they would with a man who just gets it, in practice (as long as the former guy maintains frame and so on properly). So, yes, don’t talk about fight club outside fight club and all that.

Women want a man who ‘just gets it’ but they despise a man who has to be told how to ‘get it’.

This is the first law of the Sisterhood, a man who must be told how to be a man, how to be dominant in his dealings with women, or fluidly, naturally be the Alpha who is in control of his environment(s) isn’t the man for her. If masculinity or the value of social dominance had to be explained to him, he had to make a conscious effort to act contrary to what his ‘true’ nature would otherwise be for women.

Hypergamy always seeks the better-than-deserved situation with men. In the past I’ve discussed how the nature of Hypergamy is such that it cannot wait for a man to realize his potential. Hypergamy looks for the ‘sure thing’. This is why women prefer the romantic attentions (at least as far as long term prospects go) of men who are 5 – 7 years or older than themselves. On a limbic level, women are aware that men’s accrual of sexual market value takes much longer than for women. Men who would be intimately acceptable are the men who are already made-men. There is no (or certainly less) uncertainty for her Hypergamous doubt to resolve for her when that man possesses SMP equity that time has made of him. This is also the root reason women are attracted to men who naturally, effortlessly, display higher value and Amused Mastery, as well as men for whom social proof is socially and organically confirmed for her.

Women’s sexual agency –their only true commodity value to men – is perishable. This then is the nature of women’s very intimate relationship with the Wall; they know on a hindbrain, limbic level and from a very early age that their sexual agency rises quickly and burns out fast. Their peak competitive years in the sexual marketplace (SMP) spans only 10-12 years at best before their younger sisters replace them in the SMP. They know that there will come a point that their capacity to compete in the SMP will diminish.

Every cosmetic ever created, every plastic surgery or implant devised (by men) every fashion trend or clothing style for women has been created with the express purpose of both making a woman appear younger than her actual age and/or to convince her that her sexual agency has an indefinite shelf life. Every social convention for women the Feminine Imperative has ever devised is rooted in the latent purpose of convincing women that their sexual market value ought to be based on some esoteric or intrinsic quality (rather than the biological and evolutionary reality) once they’ve moved past the age of being able to effectively compete intrasexually with their sisters.

They are conditioned to believe the fault in ‘unrealistic beauty standards’ is due to the horrific sexual objectification of men’s base (biological) natures and/or the social constructivist narrative that would have them believe it’s a nebulous ‘society’s’ fault that they are unable to consolidate their Hypergamy once the expiration date for their sexual market value has passed and their younger sisters outcompete them.

Id vs. Ego

On a subconscious level this is the internal conflict women fight within themselves. The desires of their Ids war with the dictates of what Hypergamy demands of them, knowing all the while that their capacity to consolidate on it is limited to a very short window in their lifetimes. Women’s Egos are then fed on the narrative of the Feminine Imperative that the worries of their Ids, and the crushing doubts that Hypergamy biologically wires into women, are unfounded and they have an almost indefinite timeframe in which to consolidate on the ‘perfect guy’ ; The guy who will satisfy both the Alpha Fucks sexual excitement of Hypergamy with the stable, comforting, dependable security the Beta Bucks side of Hypergamy needs for her long term security. A woman’s Id knows this is a lie, but her Ego is convinced she can wait out her Party Years at least to sample as many ‘bad boys, wrong boys, commitment-phobic boys’ as the Sheryl Sandberg plan for Hypergamy has convinced her Ego she has the time to work her way through.

A woman’s Id is having none of it, beyond enjoying the sexual pleasures of the Alpha men she prefers in her peak sexual market value (SMV) years. Hypergamy demands the complete package, the already-made man. The guy for whom she’s so certain will be the best of both worlds (despite the unbeliveability of it) that it quells her Hypergamous doubt. On a rudimentary level a woman’s Id knows she deserves a better-than-warranted situation with regard to her Hypergamy; it’s the only situation that will ever be truly satisfying to her. Only a man who rates 1-2 degrees above what she feels her own SMV merits (however unrealistic that’s become to her) will be the man she can truly submit herself to.

This is what her Id knows. On some level of consciousness it knows she is choosing a life in which she can either submit herself and entrust her life, body and soul to the long term security of a deserving man (one who rates a full to two steps above her own self-impression), or she will resign herself to her own ‘independence’ and self-reliance with respect to long term security in a life with a man who doesn’t “deserve her” and who she will never submit herself to.

There are many variables that interfere with a woman making this consolidation in her younger years, but the fact remains, the longer a woman delays consolidating on the guy she could comfortably submit herself to the less likely she is to actually do so; and the more likely she is to resign herself to insisting on her own Frame to supply the security she would otherwise get from a man she could’ve submitted herself to.

This is why we see a majority of older women – women who’ve cycled out of the SMP – falling back on the tropes of the Strong Independent Woman® narrative. The truth is they are unlikely to ever lockdown the perfect guy with whom they could comfortably submit to. This is also compounded by her Hypergamous doubt and long term security having to be self-provisioned for a longer and longer period of time. A never-married 40 year old woman will likely have been so necessitous in her own provisioning that she will never allow herself to submit to any man’s Frames for the remainder of her life.

All of this interpersonal back and forth revolves around women’s capacity to attract a suitable man while simultaneously filtering for men’s requisite qualities to satisfy the dual nature of Hypergamy. From an evolutionary perspective, women’s breeding potential cannot afford to be tricked or deceived into her consolidating on a less than optimal man. That’s the paradox of Hypergamy and the prime reason women seek pre-made man (or a man with such overwhelming potential it satisfies Hypergamy). So important is this filtering mechanism that it evolved to be a part of women’s neurological firmware – it’s baked in.

In a larger respect, this filtering is part of the prime directive amongst the collective social influence of the Sisterhood. Women want, and expect, a default, and completely honest, evaluation of a man’s intimate potential in satisfying Hypergamy from her peers as well as the larger social collective of women. Anything that confounds or deliberately confuses the veracity of this Hypergamous assessment about a guy is equitable with deliberately attempting to sabotage a woman’s life. Accurate evaluation of a man’s Hypergamous potential is the highest order for the Sisterhood.

Teaching Slaves to Read

In my interview with Ed Latimore we discussed exactly this dynamic and what Ed said was profound. I paraphrase him here, but the sentiment was, “Men learning Game, men teaching men about the intrinsic psychological and biological natures of women, men making other men Red Pill aware, is like teaching slaves to read in the time of slavery.”

Men becoming aware of the nature of women is a Threat; and that threat is primarily dangerous because it deliberately confounds women’s accurate assessment of a man’s true value in satisfying her Hypergamous doubt. Educating men about Game, about Red Pill awareness, must be prevented on both a personal level and a sociological level if women are to maintain a feminine-primary, feminine-correct and feminine-dominant social order. Thus, we encounter the social situations that Ehintellect and SJF describe in the above comments.

This reminds me of a story I read on the Red Pill Reddit forum about a guy who’s girlfriend discovered my book he’d been reading. She began picking through various sections and, expectedly, got really pissed off at the chapters on SMV (the chart in particular). They both discussed the parts she’d read and she admitted she wanted to read the whole thing, but from what they talked about she confessed that there wasn’t really anything she disagreed with. Her words were, “You men shouldn’t know this stuff!

It wasn’t that she was irritated by the truth in those sections of the book, but rather, her concern was that men might become aware of women’s sexual strategies as laid bare by the SMV sections and chart. Essentially, men teaching men to become Red Pill aware, to unplug them from the Matrix is anathema to women’s long term sexual strategy. Teaching men to Just Get It is a deliberate effort to bypass women’s subconscious and overt filtering processes to evaluate a man’s Hypergamous value.

Furthermore, Red Pill aware men represent an existential threat to women unilaterally making Hypergamous decisions for their lives – a unilateral power women have taken for granted since the unfettering of Hypergamy in the Sexual Revolution – and thus represent a threat to their making a less than optimal choice. Men becoming Red Pill aware, in effect, prioritizes men’s control over the Hypergamous process. That may be only by order of degree, and subjective to men’s real grasp of the Red Pill and their capacity to implement it, but the fear remains. Even a nominal control or increase in control of men over the Hypergamous process must be criminalized, marginalized or shamed to eliminate the threat that a man might convincingly misrepresent himself for a woman’s Hypergamous approval.

This is interesting in light of women’s hubris of embracing Open Hypergamy on a societal, cultural level. It’s not that men would be aware of women’s Hypergamous sexual strategies – this they triumphantly flaunt in very public ways – it’s that men would collude together to deliberately exploit that knowledge to wrest some marginal control over women’s sexual selection process.

Novaseeker’s assessment is correct, this convincing deception centers on men teaching men to passably appear to, if not actually, Just Get It. There’s a maxim in the manosphere that states women are not interested in how a man becomes a man. They are uninterested in the process of a man becoming anything, just that he is. If there is one thing Hypergamy demands to satisfy its inherent doubts is that men be genuine. How they became ‘genuine’ is irrelevant to women, just that they are genuine is enough. This is the conflict between women’s Ids and Egos – that a man might appear to be genuine in his quality is enough, yet not enough. 

The First Female President®

As a matter of policy I’ve always kept this blog’s topics about intersexual dynamics and left direct issues of politics, religion, economics, race, etc. to other blogs. The only time I cross into these issues is when they relate to inter (or intra) sexual dynamics, and usually when I do it makes for some heated discussions about whatever ideology seems to be the most “Red Pill”. In these circumstances I’ve learned (the hard way) that it’s wise to wait and reserve my opinions until all the cards have hit table. With respect to the gender-social landscape of a Trump presidency I think that time might be now.

If you’ve listened to any of my recent interviews over the last year (and American campaign cycle) you’ll understand my take on how I believe Red Pill issues have colored the last campaign. With the first real shot of a female president on the table I could hardly not be asked about what I expected. If you follow me on Twitter you’ll also know I made a prediction that it would be Red Pill issues, from the intersexual perspective, that would be a defining catalyst of the campaign. I was not disappointed.

While I’ve never been an ardent Trump supporter, my political decisions were made for me with the campaign of Hillary Clinton being his opposition. I didn’t vote for Trump, I voted against Hillary, and I don’t think I was alone in that assessment. As far as I’m concerned the jury’s still out on a Trump presidency, so I’ll reserve my skepticism, but one thing I am eminently thankful for is that Hillary was denied the presidency. From a socio-sexual standpoint, and being a Red Pill writer for some time, my analysis of this being a campaign rooted in Red Pill dynamics, those the manosphere has been sussing out for going on 15 years, centered on the fact that Hillary was the Feminine Imperative’s best hope for the First Female President®. I think it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that it wasn’t Hillary herself who was running, but the ideal of the first real hope for a woman in the White House.

As a long-time Red Pill author, the feminine-primacy narrative in her campaign was blatantly obvious to me. Even ‘Obama-the-feminist’ carried the Fempowerment water for her. That was to be expected, but what I found equally predictable was the pro-woman narrative using many of the Social Conventions I’ve detailed for a decade now. Naturally, there were the feminist tropes, but the feminine-primary ‘Village’ couldn’t just pander to women, it needed some outreach to men. So, the predictable appeals to “real manhood”, the Male Catch 22 and the ever-present shaming of conventional masculinity had to follow. Men needed to declare, “I’m with Her”. It was a ham-fisted hope that male Hillary supporters would ostracize other men into supporting her – or at least they might self-police men’s vocal opposition to her.

Again, as expected from the Feminine Imperative, any dissent, any criticism, any doubt or about Hillary (no matter the issue debated) was tantamount to misogyny. This has been the spoken and unspoken presumption of any man who might be critical of anything pro-female for sometime now, but the Bitter Misogynist narrative needed some freshening up to remind women and men about their duty as responsible members of a feminine-primary social order to elect the First Female President®. This played out on a larger scale in the Clinton campaign’s late-game efforts to dig up the endless words Trump might’ve said that proved his misogyny. However, it didn’t matter what Trump did or didn’t say; the fact that any man would oppose the First Female President® made him a misogynist by default.

He versus Her

From my Red Pill perspective, the campaign wasn’t about Hillary and Trump, it was about the Feminine Imperative vs. conventional masculinity. I believe the feminine-primary hope was to definitively defeat all vestiges, all semblances, of conventional masculinity. I’ve written on numerous occasions about feminine-primacy’s efforts to remove men from all aspects of our collective thought, but a Hillary presidency was to be a decisive victory over the mythical Patriarchy and the symbolic defeat of all that is men. Hillary and Trump were mere caricatures, effigies, placeholding representative of the ridiculous extremes we’re meant to presume of women vs. men – Trump, the living image of Patriarchy and Misogyny, Hillary, the pinnacle of exaggerated female empowerment that’s been culminating since the time of the suffragettes.

It was the school yard, boys-against-girls, battle of the sexes writ large on a geopolitical scale, and the end-game victory of the First Female President® was all but a given certainty. I will admit myself, I thought Hillary had it in the bag. That’s what anyone plugged into the narrative was certain above all doubt would happen. She was supposed to win. On countless female-supremacist blogs the mantra was “Its Her turn” – it wasn’t specifically Hillary’s turn, it was Her turn, it was women’s turn. That was the foregone conclusion and anyone could see it. Even the polls who we’d later wonder “how could they have gotten it so wrong?”, even they just knew it was “her turn”. If you believed TrumpHis‘ would win it was just a sign of your stupidity in the face of such overwhelming surety.

In fact, such was the surety of the First Female President® that companies, social organizations, advertising agencies, publications of every ideological stripe, all banked on Her winning the White House – and all prepared to be ready to welcome the First Female President®. With the surety of a woman president came the surety of an ushering in of a new Era of the Woman. It was simple pragmatism to prepare well in advance for what everyone was convinced would be the zeitgeist of the next 4 (and likely 8) years of the First Female President®. Him winning was inconceivable, so it made sense to get advertising, commercials, corporate policies, special events, preliminary legislation, etc. all in readiness and in line with the coming Era of the Woman. The smart money was ‘being on the right side of history’, especially given the certainty of it and the idiocy you’d be accused of for betting against it.

But then Election Day came, and with it came the inconceivable, the unbelievable. ‘He‘ won, not ‘Her‘.

We were then treated to the tearful videos of young women in disbelief, sure that their efforts to elect Her were wasted and the certainty of their empowerment left in doubt. Their part in ‘history in the making’ was to be denied.

We had the hurriedly written concession speech only after a day or so, such was the hubris there was no need to write a ‘concession’ speech prior. Then came the existential cries of soul-destroying anguish when He was sworn in. And we were introduced to protests of a hostility never before exhibited by the followers of Her. His character was no longer about misogyny so much as it was converted to fascism. A vote for Him was considered a hate-crime, mirroring much of the same fluidity and ambiguity applied to the definitions of ‘rape’ and ‘consent’, before He came along.

With the inconceivable Trump presidency those pre-bought ad campaigns, those forward-thinking companies had to switch the narrative from a feminine-supremacism victory lap to one of ‘we shall overcome’ in spite of the same old sexism we’re supposed to presume is lurking under every male CEO’s desk. You can see this in stark contrast when you look at any of the multi-million dollar Super Bowl commercial spots that are shot a year well in advance of their air-time date. Audi’s commercial being the most glaringly evident of the presupposition of a woman president.

Turning Over Stones

What His victory has really exposed for us as a society is a condition of feminine-primacy I have been writing about for well on 14 years now. When I wrote Fem-Centrism and The Feminine Reality I was attempting to bring to light the ways in which we exist in a feminine-primary social order. I caught a lot of flack for those posts back in the day, but they’ve served as a keystone understanding for many of the social paradigms and the intents of feminization efforts I’ve written about over the years. For several generation we’ve been conditioned to believe “it’s a man’s world” and we accept notions of the evil Patriarchy to be a settled truth. Along comes Rollo Tomassi and he turns over the stones to reveal that it is in fact a feminine-primary social order men serve in – gynocentrism, gynocracy, misandry – and all pretense of ‘Patriarchy’ is really part of one more operative social convention to sell men and women on the idea of female victimhood.

All of that changed on Election Day, 2016. All of the preplanned victory lap celebrations, all the feminist triumphal marches scheduled to follow in the wake of the First Female President®, were converted to protests marches, riots, violence and demonstrations against the prospect that He might potentially remove Her rights. All of the pretense of our feminine-centric, feminine-primary social order being a social undercurrent has been, and will be tossed to the wind now. The Empress has no clothes (often literally), and all she wears is a knitted pink-pussy hat; the new uniform of female supremacism. In the span of one election cycle virtually every premise I asserted about the validity of the Feminine Imperative has been confirmed. But moreover, that imperative, so angered by the denial of the First Female President®, is comfortable in its existence being laid bare.

For years I’ve addressed the comfort women now have in openly acknowledging their Hypergamy. Open Hypergamy and Open Cuckoldry are not just embraced, they’re celebrated among women and among the feminine-primary social order to the point that we make commercials and sitcoms based on women’s sexual strategy. Now that we’ve achieved Peak Hypergamy the final step is casting off all pretense about the designs on Female Supremacism. His victory appears to be the catalyst for this.

The jig is up and the Sisterhood Über Alles has revealed the true nature of the Feminine Imperative. Even the pretense of a desire for ‘equality’ among the sexes is now replaced with a visceral contempt for all things male. More attempts to remove the man from all language is the first initiative in both the military and on campus. No longer does the femosphere feel a need to hide or sweet talk its agenda; the intent isn’t lofty dreams of gender-equality, it is, and always has been Female Supremacism and the complete erasure of anything conventionally male or masculine. If it is male and can be replaced with a female proxy, so be it. If it cannot, its complete destruction is preferred.

The Women’s March on Washington last January was the most glaring confirmation of everything I’ve ever written about the Feminine Imperative. My timing of publishing this post with tomorrow’s Day Without Women international protest is no coincidence and I have no doubt that the embrace of feminine supremacism will offer increasingly more evidence of what I’ve asserted about the Feminine Imperative. Men, Red Pill or otherwise, need to be aware of this embrace of Open Female Supremacism and their complicity in it. The Era of the Woman has now shifted to one of a blatant, naked, power grab that likely would’ve been made all the easier had the First Female President® not been denied “her turn”.

Had Hillary won the presidency I have no doubt we’d still hear platitudes of how feminism is really about ‘equality’, and how it really benefits men too. Instead we have open contempt for all that appears masculine. Even the protests themselves are converted into programs meant to emasculate men. Instead of notions of ‘equality’ we get further atomization between the sexes in the name of Fempowerment. And instead they will openly make masculinity a disease to cure.

In the coming year(s) I predict we’re going to see more of the “women-as-oppressed” in advertising, in our cultural narrative, in or social dialog, because this is what a feminine-primary social order believes will resonate with damn near every demographic. And for those whom it doesn’t, then those who disagree will have to deal with those it does. It would be easy to dismiss all of this as over exaggeration; after all this isn’t really anything new to Red Pill aware men. I’ve been writing about for almost 14 years. What is new is an increased social urgency combined with the denial of the feminine entitlement the Red Pill community has been talking about among individual women for a decade.

It’s as if women everywhere were promised the First Female President® and then had her snatched away by the living embodiment of misogyny they’ve been taught to exaggerate for generations. They were ‘entitled’ to her winning – so much so that they would change the rules of the game in order for that certainty – but He took it away. He stole it, he cheated, he,…did anything but legitimately win it. That is a very BIG hit to the collective ego-investments of a feminine-primary social order. Thus, we will see in the years to come even grander displays of this entitlement, yes, but also the stripping away of all pretense women ever had of coexisting with anything looking like masculinity.

Masculinity is misogyny now. If you thought intersexual Red Pill awareness was derided before, it will be reviled as a hate-crime in the coming era. I once joked that if things kept going the way they were socially, The Rational Male would need to be secretly smuggled to groups of men to read by firelight like Bibles in Mao’s China. I’m not laughing about that these days.