The Feminine Imperative

Riff on This

A week ago I had a reader send me a link to this helpful list of “mother-may-I’s” and feminine-primary etiquette by Nicole Silverberg. Presently I’ve got a very in-depth essay in the works about exactly this shifting of the ‘toxic’ masculinity narrative to one that presumes all forms of masculinity are inherently toxic. However, as a prelude I guess, I think it’s impossible for the manosphere and Red Pill writers to ignore the debacle that was the Harvey Weinstein admissions of chronic sexual harassment with the up and coming starlets who (along with a long list of ‘male feminist’ celebrities) didn’t feel emboldened enough to not keep Harvey’s dirty little not-so-secret until now. This, as I predicted, was then repurposed by the Feminine Imperative to be presumptive proof that all men are prospective sexual harassers with the #metoo viral hashtag.

As I mentioned in Male Control, in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting the Feminine Imperative took this as an opportunity to change lanes with regard to its gestalt perspective of masculinity. In previous eras, as with this one, the reflexive response to a shooting of this nature is to blame it on the accessibility of firearms in the US. That’s to be expected, but what follows this always-impotent reactions is usually some deep, ostensibly soul-searching, introspective as to the motives of the shooter. And in this the imperative always comes to the ‘angry male’ narrative.

The presumption we’re expected to come to is that it is men’s toxically masculine socialization that makes them all potentially violent. Overwhelmingly it becomes an argument about traditional masculinity and raising boys into men in a laughably clichéd, laughably anachronistic way that is always founded in social constructivism. Yes, the allusions to testosterone being the most volatile chemical on earth gets bandied about, but usually the proponents of the Feminine Imperative rely on the ridiculous lie that boys are being raised in some hyper-masculine tribal order that tells them to “toughen up” and “don’t cry, boys don’t cry”.

However, not to get ahead of myself, in this new shift it’s no longer “toxic” masculinity, it’s masculinity that is toxic. It ought to be interesting to see how the Village eels its way around men’s biological nature to get to some suitably social constructivist rationale for this shift. The difference now is that just being a man makes one a potentially violent criminal – or a potential sexual harasser.

What Weinstein and dozens of other accusation of (usually ‘male feminist’) men following in his wake has reinforced is that masculinity makes us inherently evil. So evil, in fact, that men must be reeducated by the Feminine Imperative to ensure that one’s fellow man (a prospective harasser/rapist/gunslinger) is acting in accordance with the dictates of the Great Masculine Scare of 2017.

The list below, which I intend to riff on, is one of many recent attempts of feminist writers to enlist the aid of sympathetic female-allies men (yes, the ones they say they implicitly distrust) to help police social discourse and intersexual interactions. There are lots of other ‘helpful lists’ like this, and before I dig in I’ll declare that this is a tongue in cheek response to what is really a very serious shift in the popular narrative about perspectives on masculinity.

  • Talk to your friend who is “kind of a creep” at work.

And what exactly would Nicole have us say to our creepy ‘friend’? What is it that makes a guy ‘creepy’? Rarely is ‘creepy’ ever concretely defined by women, but I’d define it as a guy who’s so socially unintelligent and sexually destitute that he’d unwittingly bet his personal life on the very low prospect of a woman responding positively to his ‘creepy’ approaches of her. I could likely write an entire essay about this ‘creepy’ dynamic (likely will), but what ‘creepy’ distills down to is a woman’s Hypergamous-level revulsion of a man believing he may be someone she would eventually have sex with. Creepy is an insult to Hypergamy.

  • Don’t talk over women.

Ah, the old mansplaining chestnut, only this is its newer cousin, men over-modulating women. Men and women communicate differently. We are different creatures and we have our own preferred forms of communication. Women place far more import on context (feeling) in conversation. Yes, this demand is presumptuous in that it presumes anything a woman would say is more important than men’s need to get to the damn point efficiently (we prioritize content/information in conversation). However, a lot of this gripe is about women’s wanting to prioritize their own communication style above that of men’s.

  • If you are asked to be on a panel/team and see that it’s all men, say something. Maybe even refuse the spot!

So, refuse a lucrative position on a work team project with the potential for advancement, greater status and maybe a higher state in the male dominance hierarchy (that attracts all the women who insist on never settling for a less than ‘equal’ pairing) all to appease what passes for women’s moral imperatives? If it ever were all men on the panel in today’s work culture I’d be thanking my cubicle Gods that we’d all get something done and have time to go home to see my wife and kids that evening.

  • When you see another guy talk over a woman, say: “Hey, she was saying something.”

This is the “lets you and him fight” social convention women are all too happy to use when there is absolutely no contingent consequence to themselves. This suggestion already appeals to Blue Pill White Knights who believe that their AMOGing at work will go appreciated and maybe get them laid for championing women at work. Ironically, it’s the ‘creepy’ Betas we’re supposed to say “something” to who are most likely to employ this if they thought it would get them in good standing with women.

On a serious note, all this convention reveals is the solipsistic self-assured certainty that anything a woman might say is, by default, worthy of undivided attention.

  • Learn to read a fucking room.

Most Red Pill aware men already know how to read socially. What this is is an appeal to Betas to know when to shut the fuck up socially.

  • Don’t call women “crazy” in a professional setting.

I would suggest not calling anyone ‘crazy’ in a professional setting, but again the intentional ambiguity of not defining what constitutes ‘professional’ is why this is disingenuous. Can I call a woman crazy if the project team is having drinks after 5 on a Friday?

  • Don’t use your “feminism” as a way to get women to trust you. Show us in your day-to-day life, not in your self-congratulatory social media.

The reason this is chaffing for Nicole is that most of the male-feminist / female-allies are usually facing sexual harassment lawsuits within months of publicly declaring they are male feminists. I get that this is just Nicole venting, but that need to vent comes from knowing that the only reason men say (or even show in their daily lives) they are feminists is because it’s a deductive form of Beta Game.

  • Don’t touch women you don’t know, and honestly, ask yourself why you feel the need to touch women in general.

Good advice, don’t touch women you don’t know; you are giving a woman the keys to your castle by doing so. In today’s workplace women are constantly looking for even a hint of impropriety they can take to HR for the next harassment suit. Better still, refuse to work in situation where just the impression of her advancement depends on your hard work and behavior around her.

Nicole, the Beta need for physical contact is a desperation born from dealing with women who think he’s creepy.

  • Do you feel that any woman on earth owes you something? She doesn’t. Even if you’re like, “Hm, but what about basic respect?” ask yourself if you’ve shown her the same.

There is a constant presupposition on the part of fempowered women to believe that men feel entitled to anything from. The real truth is that it is women who feel entitled to virtually everything in their solipsistic experience – this very extensive list is a prime example of what women believe they are owed from men.  In 2017 no man ever concerns himself with notions of being owed anything (even basic respect) from women. But what confuses men is women constant (Hypergamously incentivized) implications of a transactional nature. If you don’t want men to feel like they are owed your time, concern, respect or attention then don’t present a transactional pretense to your interactions with them.

  • Don’t send pictures of your penis unless she just asked for them.

Never send a woman dick pics, especially if she asks for them. Never send a woman dick pics, even to your wife. In 2017 this is a red herring for women who are planning to file for sexual harassment.

  • If a woman says no to a date, don’t ask her again.

Agreed. Next her, and move on. That said, no guy asks a girl for a date today. They hook up on Tinder or bump into each other at the club. It’s so quaint Nicole still thinks dating works like it did on Happy Days.

  • If a woman has not given an enthusiastic “yes” to sex, back the hell off.

Guys learn this part real easy, what they don’t learn, and what women deliberately keep ambiguous, is that even after “enthusiastic consent” is officially declared, he can still be charged with rape for touching her boobs (or anything else for that matter) the wrong way. Again, control the narrative, control the definition of the language and control what the consequences are and you can control the frame.

  • If a woman is really drunk, she cannot consent to you and she also cannot consent to your buddy who seems to be trying something. Your buddy is your responsibility, so say something and intervene.

Funny how we never see public service announcements stating that women still need consent from drunk men to have sex; but my buddy is not my responsibility, just like driving a drunk woman too hammered to drive home isn’t my responsibility. Good intentions get you put in jail today. If a woman is really drunk is she now ‘owed’ my assistance?

  • If you do the right thing, don’t expect praise or payment or a pat on the back or even a “thank you from that woman”. Congratulations, you were baseline decent.

Oh, trust me, every Red Pill aware reader I’ve ever had has come to realize that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate anything a man does for her.

  • Involve women in your creative projects, then let them have equal part in them.

Why would a woman deserve being included in any creative project I endeavor in just by virtue of being a woman? Why still would I allow her to have an equal part in a creative project I envisioned? Is it because they are owed that honor for being female?

  • Don’t punish women for witnessing your vulnerability.

But wait, I thought ‘vulnerability was sexy‘? Weakness is strength right?

Okay, sorry, I can’t possibly subject my readers to more of this inane list. You get the picture. My point is that lists like this only serve to highlight the new gender landscape that’s been brewing for years now. We now live in the “future is female” years and this is what we can expect from the Feminine Imperative that’s now comfortable in in asserting its true agenda of disempowering, disenfranchising and eradicating men and masculinity from popular discourse.

The War on Paternity

One of the most pressing imperatives human males (really most primates) have evolved is a need for certainty in their own paternity. Up until the last century with the advent of DNA testing it has been an imperative that has really been at the control of any female with whom a man copulates with. Indeed, even today a ‘father’ is really whomever’s name a woman puts on a birth certificate, generally no questions asked (and no information relayed) of that mother by the OBGYN doctors. Prior to the Sexual Revolution and the millennia leading up to it social and religious controls were instituted to keep rampant Hypergamy in check. An argument could be made that, even in a post-agrarian social order, ubiquitous monogamy and marriage were socially mandated as a way to not only control for women’s Hypergamous impulses, but were also the only practical means of control over certifying that a man’s child was of his own genetic line. And even this had its flaws.

Up until the advent of genetic testing the only practical, somewhat assured failsafe for knowing paternity was long term, pair-bonded monogamy and the social conventions that were instituted around it. Men’s sexual strategy (our masculine imperative) is scattershot. Our biology functions such that we can father countless children with each ejaculation and continue to do so well into our later years of life. This strategy is a counterbalance to women’s quality-over-quantity approach to their own sexual strategy. For each environmental obstacle one sex’s reproductive imperatives poses, the other will evolve contingent strategies to compensate for it.

To understand this conflict all we need to consider is the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies – For one sex’s strategy to be fulfilled the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. 

For men, in a social order founded on monogamous pair-bonding, this means abandoning his scattershot sexual strategy and adopting the strategic goals of women’s strategy. What were looking at here for men is exactly the type of evolved contingent strategy I mention above – abandoning his sexual imperative to essentially bet his genetic legacy on one horse, rather than diversifying his odds with, potentially, many sexual opportunities. This is a very important distinction for Red Pill aware men to make with regards to their own sex; opting in for long-term monogamy over a man’s evolved sexual strategy (scattershot) represents adopting a woman’s (ultimate) sexual strategy as his own. This dynamic is defined by what’s called strategic pluralism theory:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

If we consider that men are overwhelmingly (80%+) rated as unattractive by women today we begin to see the adaptive logic of strategic pluralism for men. Less opportunity equals less potential to follow a man’s sexual imperative. Solution: invest all your sperm and all your efforts into one long-term bet; reproduction with one or relatively few sexual partners – and if you can build social and moral conventions around this adaptive strategy to reinforce it, so much the better.

If men can compel intrasexually competing men, and women (whose strategy might be compromised by adopting it), to believe that monogamy is a social and moral imperative, then they increase the odds that they’ll successfully circumvent what would otherwise be the natural limitations of their own reproduction.

As you can probably guess, this adaptation for singular parental investment imposed a much higher premium on men’s need for certainty of their own paternity. To be sure, the Alpha Males of most primates have a habit of killing the offspring of any prior Alpha that had access to fertile females in a group prior to his own breeding with them. This infanticide is yet another adaptive insurance that a male primate can be certain that any resources, protection and parental investment he put into any progeny would be of his own paternal line. If it can be assumed that the importance of paternity is a primary, evolved drive in primates, how much more imperative must it be for human males adopting a sexual strategy of singular investment? How much more imperative must it be for women to collectively confuse paternity within a social collective (tribe) and protect against a perceived threat of infanticide or loss of resource provisioning if left on their own?

Even in our march towards ‘civilization’ we find this anti-paternity bias in the killing of male members of a social collective while preserving fertile females for potential breeding purposes. Today we may not be killing the sons of rival clansmen, but we can certainly see the paternity bias in how we regard kin affiliation above out-group affiliation in our personal dealings. Concerns of paternity, for men, evolved to be part of our mental firmware – and certainty of it became of paramount importance.

Strategic pluralism, however, is not without its own counter contingencies. Even within a social and moral environment that restricts Hypergamy, women are still psychologically compelled to optimize their own sexual strategy to its fullest. 8,000 years ago 17 women reproduced for every 1 man – and this was after the advent of agriculture. There’ve been other studies that reduce this number to a 5 to 1 ratio, but still the fact remains that even in a social order that (ostensibly) prioritizes pair-bonded monogamy, women have provably found ways to optimize Hypergamy and confuse paternity to a socially stable degree. Thus, we see counter-adaptations in behavior on the part of men to mate guard, to once again, insure certainty of paternity. Even in the relative stability of monogamy, men’s psychological imperative for paternity supersedes the social environment.

Cuckoldry by Any Other Name

As I’ve mentioned in prior essays, cuckoldry deserves a much broader definition today; one that goes beyond the obvious duplicity of birth fraud. Women have found that by tweaking the social conventions that would limit their own sexual strategy they can circumvent the monogamous side of sexual pluralism socially enforced by men. Thus, we get new feminine-primary social conventions that celebrate, socially reward and positively reinforce men’s acceptance of the parental investment responsibilities of other men who fathered children with a woman they’ve pair-bonded with. Step-dads get the big thumbs up and we rejigger the positive reinforcement to downplay father’s day and replace it with special person’s day.

Now, consider this with respect to the potential for infanticide that a woman’s hindbrain believes men are capable of. That fear of infanticide represents a root-level limbic part of women’s evolved need to optimize Hypergamy and the great potential for loss of having optimized it in her offspring. So imperative is this to the female psyche that it became necessary to socially condition men’s evolved paternity need out of them once women and the Feminine Imperative became the dominant social driver.

On a larger social scale, one that is defined by a post-Sexual Revolution, feminine-primary social order, the answer is simple and total; men must be convinced to completely abandon their biological imperative of parental certainty before they commit to a monogamous relationship with a woman. Socially, we make paper heroes of men who will accept the parental investment responsibilities of a child he didn’t sire. That ‘heroism’ of the guy who accepts his assigned role as a retroactive cuckold is short-lived, but the archetype of that guy who ‘man’s up’ and adopts the children of a single mother is now embedded into our modern folklore.

I would also argue that a large part of the Blue Pill conditioning of men for the past 5 generations can find its roots in women’s need to optimize Hypergamy while ensuring the security that once she does a provider-male will step in to fulfill his role as a dutiful cuckold. In order to achieve this, free from the fear of infanticide, boys and men must be conditioned to unequivocally revoke any need for certainty of their own paternity.

A few years ago I outlined the next step in Open Hypergamy would be transitioning to a state of normalized and accepted Open Cuckoldry. Wrapped into this transition is also the social efforts to normalize a feminine-controlled form of polyamory – one in which primarily a woman is presented with the options and control of exercising both the short-term sexual, and long-term provisional, sides of Hypergamy. Today this is what’s termed a polyamorous relationship with male partners representing Alpha seed and Beta need. In moving from a normalized state of Open Hypergamy to Open Cuckoldry there are a series of social changes that need to occur and find acceptance in the general population of men. One of these changes is a large scale, socialized effort to get men to accept that their biological imperative to ascertain paternity – even the questioning of paternity – be equated with “toxic” masculinity.

The War on Paternity

Increasingly we are seeing a push on the part of the Feminine Imperative to delegitimize the innate need of men to ensure their paternity. It’s actually an aspect of a war that’s been going on since the Sexual Revolution to redefine masculinity and fatherhood. As I mentioned in Positive Masculinity the definition of what makes a father is becoming more and more ambiguous, while fathers become increasingly more superfluous. In order to complete this delegitimization of masculinity men must be convinced that their innate need to know paternity, and the importance they inherently place on it, is something to be ashamed of.

Every social mandate we see today puts the interests of the mother and child well above that of any father. This is why paternity is rarely ever a factor in issues of child support; even for children that a man didn’t father but is held legally liable for. Socially, even religiously, any importance of paternity for men is being systematically erased. From doctors being gagged from informing cuckolded fathers of genetic tests, to limiting their access to DNA tests themselves, to encouraging men to ‘man up’ and marry single mothers as a moral imperative, paternity for men is now some sort of shameful insecurity.

Why would the Feminine Imperative seek to root out what has been a fundamental, evolved, part of men’s mental firmware since the time of our hunter/gatherer beginnings? Because Hypergamy needs security. Hypergamy needs assurances to quell the doubt that a woman has optimized both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of her sexual strategy. I would argue that men’s psychological need for certainties in his paternity is on par with the need women have of certainties in their need for optimizing Hypergamy.

All this war on paternity amounts to is an ensuring that women’s unquestioned, unilateral control over Hypergamy is baked into men on a societal level. Convincing men to abandon any claims on certainty of paternity, and at the same time shaming men who put any importance on it, is an effort on the part of the Feminine Imperative to get men to surrender their sexual strategy by abandoning it wholesale, while praising them for playing a willing role in fulfilling women’s sexual (and life) strategy. Even when that sexual strategy is one where a man acknowledges his lesser sexual market value and seeks to put all his investment into one woman, the push to delegitimize men’s need for paternity circumvents this strategy.

Delegitimizing men’s need for paternity cancels any and every upside that long-term monogamy had for Beta men using this sexual strategy. Thus, a return to a scattershot, some would say ‘less civilized’ sexual strategy becomes the only obvious alternative for men who want parental certainty.

Erasing the importance of paternity for men is literally the last nail in the coffin that is now contemporary marriage. It reduces men to little more than draft animals and livestock for women’s breeding purposes by erasing any claim a man may have to know his children are his own.  Most well-conditioned Blue Pill men adopt this archetype unquestioningly. There are no ‘Fathers’ anymore; all men are interchangeably either breeding stock or simply childcare workers in this new social framework. And boys and young men’s pre-acceptance of this state of men is part of their Blue Pill conditioning.

To fully effect Open Cuckoldry the goal of the Feminine Imperative is to have men define masculinity as accepting parental investment as separate and apart from evolved concerns of paternity.

Male Control

Back in October, 2016 I wrote an essay called Sexual Zoning. In that post I explored the social inconsistencies and potential for (sometimes catastrophic) consequences for men in misunderstanding what were, and what have become, particular zones in which men and women covertly acknowledge the potential for an intersexual connection.

In the bygone Western social system, young people were expected to regularly interact with one another in controlled, regulated environments, in a way that fostered productive, long-term, monogamous, assortative relationships. This was a sort of “holistic” milieu, so to speak, where young people treated one another as potential future partners, sexual and otherwise, in a socially regulated manner, in all cases when they were permitted to interact. This was even the norm in workplaces where both men and women were present. The average man found a girlfriend through his extended family or social circle, because families and social circles were normally large.

What we have today is the complete opposite: “sexual zoning”. Some mixed-sex environments, like the workplace, schools and campuses, are made completely asexual – sterile, so to speak. No sexualized interactions are permitted to take place. This is demanded by law and expected by society. In such environments, you’re supposed to treat members of the opposite sex strictly as colleagues or professionals, non-sexual beings. (Hot men are allowed to get away with more, of course, but that’s another issue.) Other mixed-sex environments, on the other hand, like nightclubs, are expected to be full-on sexual. Everybody there knows that all interactions entail the future possibility of casual sex. It’s basically a meat market. You’re expected to hit on girls, and girls expect to be hit on by attractive men. Socializing in these environments requires action, engagement. If you want to find a partner, either just for sex or something more, you have to go there, you have to have Game etc.

The video I’ve chosen to dissect here is a prime example of how generations of men have been raised to deliberately misunderstand intersexual dynamics and at the same time demonize the conventional masculinity that so much of western culture has been founded upon. To be thorough though, really every culture throughout history has been primarily founded on conventional masculinity and the aspects that contribute to maleness.

Jonathan McIntosh finds an easy mark in the archetypal masculine characters of Harrison Ford, but there’s a very important reason the 80’s icon is so egregious to the men of McIntosh’s generation. Han Solo, Indiana Jones, etc. are all the Alpha male rogues this generation has been taught to love in terms of bravado, but to hate because they ‘always get the girl’; and they get her in such a way that it grates against all that their feminine-primary upbringing led them to believe was just this side of sexual assault.

McIntosh relates that he was part of a generation that idealized Harrison Ford’s most iconic characters, yet now he feels pangs of regret and resentment for having looked up the characters’ archetype. This is a perfect illustration of how conventional masculinity has been reverse engineered by our feminine-primary social order since the Sexual Revolution. I’ve mentioned in many prior essays that while overt masculinity is vilified as the cause of all social evils, it still remains the most arousing aspect of men for women. Boys like McIntosh saw this archetype and made that connection to female attraction, but it took generations of Blue Pill reconditioning to make them feel bad for ever attempting to adopt that bravado into their own personalities.

While growing up the message was the same Blue Pill identifying with the feminine (in fact Beta Game depends on that identification). Play nice, play equal, respect all women by default and never assert yourself too overtly or too crudely lest you risk offending her sensibilities. These are the boys who were raised by family, media and their schooling to expect a rationality that women could be expected to say what they mean and then do what they said. Yet that never seemed to gel when they would deductively see the girls they wanted, the ones who told them they wanted a ‘nice guy’ who respected them, consistently reward the asshole jerk with the intimacy and sex they thought would come to them if they followed what they were told.

In the end, Han Solo and Indiana Jones get the girl and she genuinely desires him – not because this is some odd fantasy of the writer’s imagination, but because this is (was) a standard aspect of women’s genuine attraction to men. The aberration is the idea that the attraction and affair would go any other way. Only in this feminized generation does thousands of years of male-female interaction seem at all unsettling.

So, here we have conventionally masculine archetypes – sometimes rakish, sometimes bold and dutiful – following their own path, making themselves their Mental Point of Origin, and making their mission (not their woman) their priority. Whether it was Captain Kirk, Han Solo or Conan the Barbarian the mental order was always firmly focused on the individual man and his action. Between the time of the Sexual Revolution and 2017, the Feminine Imperative has systematically erased the conventionally masculine archetype; so much so that the gender-loathing men of this generation are either appalled at displays of masculinity or they simply have no frame of reference with which to contrast it with the distorted and blurred ideas of what masculinity should mean to them.

For some ‘men’ the notion of conventional masculinity itself is rejected altogether. It doesn’t mean anything to be a man for this generation, so conventional archetypes of men are offensive.

As a result of these four to five generations of progressively more feminized men we now see the confusion and disgust at conventional masculinity coming from this generation of men. We see a generation of males who have no positive association with their own gender. They become increasingly more isolated because they are convinced that anything that might be gender-exclusive to men alone is, by default, a form of misogyny. There is nothing ‘positive’ about being a man, yet for all of the misconceptions about gender being social constructs, exclusively female organizing of women and fempowerment is still viewed as beneficial; a sign of society ‘evolving’.

I recently read an article in the Boston Globe about middle aged men’s increasing social isolation. I would argue that for all of the raising of awareness about this phenomenon it is primarily generations of men’s inability to interact with other men that is at the root of this isolation. For decades now men have been discouraged from meeting with other men in any formalized fashion. Men are either suspect of misogyny or homosexuality if they get together for the sake of being men. What were seeing now is generations of men who no longer understand how to socially interact with other men.

Furthermore, when this isolation becomes a concern of women, those men are again berated for not interacting with other men in the ways that women do. Women talk, men do, but a feminine-primary social order only approves of one way for men to associate with one another – in the way that women do. Thus, we see the confusion of women that men don’t call each other up to schedule a coffee date for the express reason of conversation. Men and women have different forms of communication, but the socially approved form is only ever from the feminine context. Men interacting “as men do” – in a conventionally masculine way – is always misogynistic. Thus, we see overseers in the locker room, if only symbolically, to regulate what and how men communicate with each other.

The End of Toxic Masculinity

Dalrock had a great quick-hit post recently about how Michael Moore was suggesting that men be required by law to seek their wife or long-term girlfriend’s (or most recent Ex) signed permission to purchase a firearm in the wake of last week’s mass shooting in Vegas.

That this idea would ever be a serious consideration speaks volumes about how masculine gender-loathing has become endemic in western culture. I get that Michael Moore is a self-inflicted cuck, but all I’m seeing in the wake of the Vegas shooting is less about gun control and more about male control.

It’s no longer about categorizing masculinity as “toxic” or “hyper” – that narrative is officially dropped after this shooting. Now, any masculinity is a threat, any expression of conventional masculinity is the true problem. Suggesting that a woman’s oversight and discernment should be necessary for a man to have access to a civil right only further reinforces what I’ve been saying for some time now – only the feminine is ‘correct’ in any social discourse. Only the feminine is legitimate in exercising judgement, educating new generations and deciding which man will breed and which will not.

Think about this; what’s being suggested is that men be denied a civil right that apparently only women should legitimately have. For all the fallacious blathering of women in pink pussy hats about how they think they’re losing rights today, here we have an actual right of men being denied by women, by the Feminine Imperative.

The ‘toxic’ masculinity narrative made a qualitative distinction between a feminine-acceptable form of masculinity and a potentially dangerous form. Needless to say the accepted form always consisted of whatever aspects of masculinity that was immediately beneficial to womankind. ‘Toxic’ masculinity was always characterized as Man Up or Shut Up masculinity:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

Now, in the Feminine Imperative’s unceasing efforts to Remove the Man a distinction between a useful masculinity and a dangerous masculinity is no longer something that resonates. All masculinity, all aspects, beneficial or detrimental, are to be considered the problem:

That the problem might just be masculinity, plain and simple, is not something we’re eager to countenance. While we might be prepared to apply a little structural analysis to the situation – yes, there is something about men and the way they are conditioned that leads us to this place – we’re unwilling to draw any final conclusions. Masculinity doesn’t kill people; it’s those mysterious toxins that are to blame.

[…]But strip away the so-called toxic aspects of masculinity: the aggression, the violence, the hate, the guns, and what are you left with? Strength, endurance, a woody-scented perfume, a liking for the colour blue? Certainly nothing that need be associated with manhood or maleness. These are simply individual qualities. The only reason to code them as “masculine” is to preserve a social hierarchy that ought to be destroyed.

[…]What would be so terrible about a world in which boys were treated no differently to girls from the day they were born? In which there are no pink/blue codifications to hide behind? In which a man’s anger and aggression were considered every bit as aberrant and unnatural as a woman’s?

The problem we’re facing isn’t toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. It’s time we questioned even its most subtle manifestations.

Going forward this will be the narrative. There will be no distinction between misogyny, masculinity and maleness. What this author, perhaps deliberately, doesn’t want to address is that masculinity and all the associated ways our thinking and our behaviors that manifest from the biological side of our nature aren’t something that can be dissociated from us without killing us or erasing what we were evolved to be. There are no truly positive or negative aspects of masculinity, just as there are no positive or negative aspects of Hypergamy. They just are, and what makes them beneficial or detrimental all depends on the context in which they are applied. That may seem strange coming from the author of a book titled Positive Masculinity but understand that what is positive about masculinity is made so by need and by circumstance.

In a world created in the image of the Feminine Imperative masculinity itself is a horrible evil, until it’s needed to save women from rising floodwaters.

You see, for as much as the imperative would like to remove the ‘man’ from our language, our cultural consciousness, that man will always be needed in spite of the hate directed towards masculinity. This is what a feminine-primary society would have us redefine as some other term, something not unique to a male human being. But conventional, evolved, masculine strength and purpose will always manifest in men who unapologetically embrace it without an afterthought.

In my interview with Craig James we discussed men’s higher order thinking and purpose as well as our vital animal nature. You don’t separate one from the other. This is what the Feminine Imperative would have from men; a unilaterally female controlled utility-based masculinity that saves them from the worst consequences of both their environments and their decisions and simultaneously disappears when inconvenient. We hear women bleating about a lack of Real Men and the disappearance of true grit, and in the next article linked we see efforts to erase men entirely from social influence.

As I told Craig, when I’m in the squat rack I’m glad I have a feral, animal nature. It’s a survival aspect of human evolution. I’m not suggesting with this essay that men will become extinct; on the contrary I think what will help define our new conventional masculinity will largely be determined by how we express it in spite of a world arrayed against Man-kind. An equalist culture based on blank-slate equalism doesn’t see that you don’t separate the animal side of the human being from the high-order side. It is unwilling to accept that we need both; that we benefit and sometimes suffer from both.

Band of Brothers

Peterson drops the ball in a couple of forgivable instances here. First, many contemporary studies show that women do in fact enter an estrus state. Secondly, while he is entirely correct about women’s Hypergamy never seeking its own level, he implies here that it is singularly a man’s capacity to produce and share resources that forms the basis for women’s attraction. This is an interesting overlook when you consider how often he’s made reference to how women primarily look for sexual dominance in men. From the Beta Bucks, provisioning, side of women’s sexual strategy, a man’s capacity for production and sharing resources is certainly an attraction cue, but it is only a cue insofar as it applies to women’s long term security needs. From the Alpha Fucks, short term mating perspective, it is a man’s capacity for sexual arousal and his sexual availability to her that is the basis for assessing a man’s SMV.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Peterson. I count him amongst the greatest minds of Red Pill awareness, however, his analysis is often subject to a Blue Pill conditioning that predisposes him to a default belief in the inherent ‘goodness’ of the female psyche. That isn’t to say women are inherently ‘bad’, but it is to say his objectivity is colored by a want to see the feminine on a pedestal. Peterson tends to pepper in a Blue Pill conditioned masculine ridicule into his observations about men when he’s detailing gender differences and it’s his habit to presume the best from women. He accurately makes the case here for how men are continually driven by an existential crisis when it comes to being accepted by (‘perfectly well-intended’) women in passing on their genetic material, but falls into the trap of believing that women would only, logically, want to breed with men who have good long term prospects for providing and sharing resources. There’s a 30+ year body of evo-bio / evo-psych research that contradicts his presumption.

However, in this instance, Peterson hits upon the fundamental reasoning as to why men are by nature more competitive than women. Over the millennia of human evolution, the stresses of men’s breeding strategies and realities has become hardwired into the male mental firmware, and as such it has selected-for men having a more competitive nature than women. I would go so far as to suggest that competitiveness is a primary aspect of conventional masculinity – and one that requires a constant effort to socialize out of modern males today.

On the female side we have to consider how women evolved, socially and psychologically, in hunter-gatherer, foraging tribes, and how the environmental stress of maintaining a social collective shaped women’s mental firmware. It’s my belief that women’s intense need for long term security (as well as Hypergamous doubt) is directly descended from the need to hedge against the environmental uncertainties of our evolutionary past. The rigors of gestation, carrying a child to term, child birth and then rearing that child to puberty – all while gathering food and resources and defending that child and the collective against external (and sometime internal) threats selected-for women with a collectivist / cooperative mental firmware. While the men of the tribal society were off hunting game or defending the tribe, it would follow that women would develop a more unitary, collectivist social order of intrasexual cooperation in order to survive and, as Dr. Peterson points out, ensure that the genetic material of the men they selected (or were selected by) survived for posterity.

In several essays, and in my latest book, I describe women’s natural social order as the Sisterhood Über Alles. That is ‘women above all else’, and from an evolved psychological perspective this solidarity, collectivism and cooperative bent is the mental vestige of an evolution that demanded women to be so in order to survive. Evolution doesn’t care how women breed and survive, just that women breed and survive. Flash forward to modern times and we see women of every and any social, political, religious and racial stripe preempt any conviction inspired by them with the concerns of womankind.

There are several studies that indicate that collectivism is a characteristic of women’s mental firmware. When presented with the distribution of a common wealth (or resource) it’s women’s predisposition to mete those resources out to the familial, feminine-primary social group (tribe) in as even a distribution as possible, or by an individual’s most pressing needs. Again, this is convincing evidence of a mental framework that leans towards a collectivism that finds its roots in our evolutionary past.

This fundamental prioritizing of the survival, needs and best interests of women as a collective is what now forms the basis of, and drives, what I commonly refer to as the Feminine Imperative. And from the Feminine Imperative, combined with a male-permissive social structure that has allowed for women’s social primacy, we have largely developed into a feminine-primary social order that is founded on the evolved, collectivist social structure that women’s mental firmware naturally predisposes them to.

Collectivism, socialism, is a fundamental aspect of the female psyche. In a social order that prioritizes female interests above all else we see the rise and perpetuation of an egalitarian equalism that finds its roots in women’s natural predisposition for collectivism. I would argue here that the egalitarian equalism we contend with today is really a convenient cover-term for female social primacy, and one that is a result of women’s collectivist nature.

Male Dominance Hierarchies

As Dr. Peterson briefly details in this clip, it is primarily men’s performance burden (and a man’s capacity to share the fruits of it) that has historically been the basis of women’s selection criteria for the long term provisioning aspect of women’s Hypergamous natures. And as I mentioned, this only covers half of what makes for women’s true assessments of men’s sexual market value. DNA mapping of our foraging ancestors reveals the real story about the importance sexual arousal and strategic pluralism played in women’s sexual selection. Historically, only 20% of men bred with 80% of women. If we only look at this fact from Peterson’s perspective we’re left to conclude that this 20% looked like good long term prospects with resources to share, rather than consider the uglier side of Hypergamy and women opportunistically breeding with the best physical specimens they had access to and, proactively or retroactively, cuckolding the ‘good provider’. The mental schema of mate guarding didn’t develop in a vacuum – there are very good evolutionary reasons why men developed a subconscious, peripheral sensitivity to the behaviors that indicate women’s ovulatory phase.

Hypergamy doesn’t care, but it did indeed play a part in the evolution of men’s dominance hierarchies as Peterson suggests. Whether the criteria for selection was physical prowess or provisional prowess, the breeding pressures placed on men by women’s sexual strategy is responsible for a great deal of what we consider the male nature and conventional masculinity itself. While it may be a pleasant fiction for men to apply terms like strength and honor and fidelity to male-kind, those concepts exist outside the evolved male-competitive nature. Kings and emperors had breeding rights to harems while their subjects, by order of degree, had sexual access to progressively diminishing opportunities with women.

One aspect I think Peterson didn’t get around to explaining in this clip is that women have only had unilateral sexual selection opportunity in the past century due to the social and physical unfettering of Hypergamy. Being a king may’ve meant that man had more breeding opportunities than that of his lessers, but it in no way made him the best, or even the willing, choice for the women he bred with. Up until the rise of feminine social primacy, men have always had social, moral, ethical and yes, physical, means of exerting their own control over Hypergamy.

Competitiveness is what defines masculinity for every generation of men. While it may be part of women’s mental firmware to consider the collective first with regard to resource distribution, it is most definitely an evolved characteristic of men to accrue resources in order to be considered a good prospect for women’s long term security needs. When we consider the criteria women have in order for a man to represent an optimal Hypergamous prospect, it makes pragmatic sense that an innate competitiveness would be part of men’s psychological firmware. Nature would select-for a natural competitiveness in men. As such we observe that men consider merit and performance first in distributing resources (rewards) in order to recognize, in theory, an exceptionality in men. Even if it is within our selfish-gene nature to want to retain as much for ourselves (and thus make ourselves better prospects for Hypergamous optimization) we still recognize merit, or lack of it, in men’s burden of performance.

So, with regard to the bigger societal picture, what we’re seeing in our egalitarian equalist social experiment of today is not just a conflict in men and women’s social approaches, but also a fundamental conflict in which sex’s sexual strategy will be the socially predominant one. In a social sense it is a conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution the answer has been clear; it is women’s sexual strategy that has been allowed to define our social order.

Brotherhood

Jack Donovan had a great post back in February titled We are not Brothers. I entirely cosign his sentiment in this essay – today men bandy around the term Brother without really considering the deeper implications that true, in-group, exclusively male, brotherhood entails. It’s a good essay, but I think one reason Jack is sensitive to the term losing its meaning is due to the efforts the Feminine Imperative has made in destroying men’s understanding of conventional masculinity. It’s deliberate, so Brotherhood means whatever the feminine feels comfortable in allowing it to mean, and it can effect control over its significance for as long as it can continue to confuse men about the sacrificial nature of conventional masculinity.

Men’s dominance hierarchies and breeding strategies predispose men to maverick independence (sigmas) or intrasexual rivalries within a fraternal group (tribes). Men’s collective, cooperative social structures – traditionally, exclusive male spaces – existed in spite of this intrasexually competitive nature. Even amongst the most steadfast, cooperative and loyal of brotherhoods there will always be intrasexual rivalries for breeding opportunities. And as Jordan B. Peterson notes, it is women’s Hypergamy that gives rise to male dominance hierarchies, but moreover it has led to the necessity for developing an evolved predisposition for men’s being competitive.

It is precisely this competitive mental firmware in men which makes it next to impossible for their to ever be a Brotherhood Über Alles – and in an age where men are shamed for masculinity, an age in which women will force themselves into male space as overseers, an age where men will adaptively define masculinity to mean whatever suits their weakest proficiencies, it’s easy to understand the difficulties in men cooperatively coming together to enforce their own collective best interests as men. In ages past, when masculine cooperation determined the fate of a tribe, a people, a nation, etc. this fraternity was a much more imperative concept for men.

It’s been noted before that in earlier eras formalized monogamy was a social adaptation with the latent purpose of solving men’s evolved imperative to ensure his own paternity. Whether this adaptation was (is) a successful hedge against women’s Hypergamy is debatable, but the relative insurance a man was afforded by formal monogamy was that he could send his genetic material on to successive generations. From an evolutionary perspective, men’s primary existential crisis is reproduction, and in order to successfully solve this problem women’s Hypergamy must be controlled for. As this push for male control superseded women’s imperatives it’s made for a social guarantee that a man would reproduce with a lessened need for competition and a lessened burden of performance for men. While high SMV men were guaranteed reproduction, the monogamy adaptation meant that, theoretically, only the lowliest of men wouldn’t find a mate.

That was the latent socio-sexual contract prior to the Sexual Revolution. Today, we see parallels for this struggle between men and women’s sexual strategies and women’s own social push to unilaterally control and institutionalize Hypergamy. Now the script has been flipped to socially create and enforce a new feminine-primary structure that has the latent purpose of ensuring even the lowest SMV woman can fulfill Hypergamy to a greater degree. Just as formal monogamy sought to ensure men could solve their reproductive purpose in spite of his performance burden, now we have women as the primary beneficiaries of a society structured to, theoretically, ensure they have access to both the best genes (Alpha Fucks) and the best provisioning (Beta Bucks) – all to the point that men are conscripted into doing so.

As women have less and less need of men who can (directly) produce and share resources the concept of masculine cooperation in enforcing their best interests becomes a farce at best, a ‘hate crime’ at worst. The more women can produce and/or consume resources, or conscript men to involuntarily produce and share, the more women lean towards the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy in prioritizing their sexual selection. As a result, male dominance hierarchies will continue to develop around the short term sexual breeding criteria of women. In the past, as per Dr. Peterson, that hierarchy may have been centered on long term provisioning; today it is all about women’s pleasure in accessing the best genetic material her evolved hindbrain determines is in her best interests.

Yet still we hear women bemoan a lack of marriageable, long term producer/sharers who are their (perceived) status equals or better (always better). The evolved need for that security providing, competent male is still part of her mental firmware, no matter what the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative are telling her conscious self. And in a pragmatic, adaptive response, men will continue to define masculinity for themselves, continue to prioritize short term sexual arousal above long term attraction, and continue to be befuddled or embarrassed by the ideas of forming Brotherhoods with any deeper meaning than what pop culture will define them for men as.

Late edit: Reader Novaseeker had a brilliant observation about the reasons women’s collectivism evolved.

The innate sisterhood, or herd, also arises from the reality that most human tribes were patrilocal and not matrilocal. That is, the core of the tribe was a group of males bonded by kin, and they brought in females from other tribes (trade/conquest) routinely for mating. Thus, the males had relatively high levels of cooperation due to being kin-bonded (not perfect levels of cooperation — rivalries always exist, violence happens in kin bonds as well — but much higher than among non-kin-bonded males), whereas the females had to adapt to cooperate with the other females despite the lack of kin bonds between them as a kind of counterweight to the innate solidarity that the kin-bonded males had vis-a-vis the females. The kind of female sisterhood/collectivism that we see in women evolved, in addition to what you write about, as well from the need to counteract the male solidarity in patrilocal tribes — women evolved to cooperate with other “strange” women in the face of this male solidarity which was based on kin bonds.

A key point of this — and something which explains much of the behavior of women *politically* in the last 200 years or so — is that the context in which this evolved was specifically to counterweigh male power. That is, because females would otherwise have remained weak and isolated in the face of a tribe of kin-bonded males, they evolved this sisterhood/collective mentality specifically to provide a counterweight to male power. This is important, because it’s this specific context in which this mentality comes to the fore most prominently in women, even today. Women can fight and scratch and claw with each other and be bitches with each other incessantly, but when one of them comes into conflict with a man or “with men”, the sisterhood/collective mindset kicks in in high gear, precisely because this is the specific context it emerged to counter. In other words, it’s specifically evolved to offset male power, to counterbalance male power, by forging solidarity between females who otherwise would not have any reason to act like a sisterhood (and who may even dislike each other).

Contemporary feminism is perhaps the most obvious form of this, but it isn’t the only one. The pronounced female in-group preference is another easy to spot one as well. But in any case, a key point to understand is that the sisterhood isn’t neutral — it’s evolved to counterbalance any kind of male power that threatens women’s interests as a group. This is the case even though women haven’t lived in patrilocal conditions for a long, long, long time, and even though contemporary men have no solidarity to speak of at all which could possibly threaten women’s interest as a group. That evolutionary history casts long shadows, and the tendency for women to see men as a cabal acting to control women — when in fact, as we all know, we’re kind of the exact opposite of that — arises from the collective evolutionary memory of adaptations to deal with the very real male solidarity females faced when they were imported into patrilocal male tribes of kin-bonded males.

Misperceptions of the Red Pill

One of the most common criticisms of “those Red Pill guys” I read today is the misperception that any guy devoting any headspace to the nature of women, how to go about changing his outlook in intersexual dynamics or really understanding intersexual mechanics is only applying himself in order to get laid. Old school Roissy addressed this as a common form of Red Pill hate long ago:

From The Unbearable Triteness of Hating:

12. Fallacy of Misdirected Obsession Hate

Hater: A guy who spends his life obsessing over how to get women is a loser.

A guy who spends his life obsessing over climbing the corporate ladder to get more attention from women is a loser.
A guy who spends his life obsessing over mastering guitar and playing in a rock band to get more attention from women is a loser.
A guy who spends his life obsessing over pursuing financial rewards and acquiring resources to get more attention from women is a loser.
A guy who….. ah, you get the point.

I made an effort to address this in Crisis of Motive as well, however, that essay took a more general look at the reasons people behave as they do.

A common (often deliberate) misdirection is that the only purpose men apply themselves to when considering Red Pill truths is that it’s all about PUA and chasing pussy. From there the argument becomes one of men becoming ‘pussy beggars‘ because they mistakenly believe this is all that studying intersexual dynamics is good for.

I get this a lot from MRAs as well as MGTOWs and trad-con guys who believe men shouldn’t ever bother themselves with the nature of women or the underlying mechanics, and focus themselves on whatever ‘higher-order’ principles or ambiguous virtues their belief set predisposes them to valuing. Usually these tend to be old books, old social contract ideals that they believe men need to return to.

Then the focus centers on how unburdened they’ve become with women, because they’ve either given up or have otherwise dissociated themselves from caring enough to understand the nature of women. Then, a sort of self-righteous AMOGing follows in some feigned pity about how other men are stuck following their penises instead of applying themselves to whatever it is they think ought to be valued. It’s a very convenient cop out for guys who’ve either attempted to understand Red Pill truths or applied Game and failed in some capacity, or for Blue Pill men unwilling to let go of the idealism it’s taught them, but still see some undeniable truth in the Red Pill.

I find this kind of ironic when I consider how hard-line PUAs tend to value the practice and repetition of Game above (not necessarily to the exclusion of) really looking under the hood and understanding why theses same intersexual mechanics make a man fully Red Pill aware. These are the “just get out there and do it” guys, and I do see the necessity of practice and learning. However, in either instance, it becomes all too easy to dismiss a man’s interest in understanding these mechanics as being motivated by hedonistic impulses. This is half the reason Red Pill awareness is shunned in religious contexts. A good part of understanding the fundamental nature of women aligns directly with old-school doctrine, but the disqualifying concern is that men would use it for their own self-important pleasures. It’s easy to presume that all the Red Pill is about is facilitating men’s obsession with getting laid because men are taught that this is all men think about. But whether it’s in a religious context, or an old books ‘man up’ context, the element of shaming and pathologizing men’s sexual impulse to promote an ideologic bent is always there.

That’s the heart of this misperception; the belief that the Red Pill is only about banging women or it’s in some way giving men reasons to encourage them to give up on women in despair. It’s only about building a man’s life around women (pussy beggars) to the exception of all else or it’s wasting one’s life trying to understand something not worth the effort. Those are the binary rationales attached to accepting the truths that the Red Pill reveals to men. These are usually the result of some irreconcilable conflict between that truth and an ego-investment in his Blue Pill idealism.

Ostensibly, the concern stems from some ideal of personal responsibility and that Red Pill awareness is in some way encouraging guys to ignore anything like responsibility and just following their most base impulses. Anyone who’s been involved in the Red Pill as a praxeology of intersexual dynamics understands this is a wrong impression, however, it does serve to stroke the egos of guys who need an easy dismissal of the truths they’re uncomfortable with. In a sense it becomes a new form of Game to them; AMOGing those pussy beggars by being maverick examples of a guy who is enlightened above his animal sexual nature. The belief is not unlike Blue Pill men’s dedication to their identifying with the feminine as a means to make himself unique and “not like other (typical) guys.”

There are a lot of different variations of this ‘Game’. Maybe it’s the tough-guy pastor who adopts just enough Red Pill awareness to pretend he’s got the masculine experience to tell men how they ought to ‘man up’ – while absolving women of any personal responsibility in their own natures. Sometimes it’s the Power of Positive Thinking guru who plays a similar, though secular, game with his flock – if you just ‘think differently’ you’ll be unique and have no reason to “chase pussy”. Then there’s the trad-con “authority” who also perpetuates the “nothing’s sexier” myth about men who ‘do the right thing’ by accepting their own indenturement to women, but are also ‘above it all’ enough to never have to worry about the risks men put themselves into by doing so.

The Importance of Hypergamy

A lot gets made about a perceived over-emphasis on Hypergamy. While Hypergamy serves as a very important foundation to many Red Pill truths it’s not the straightjacket critics want to make of it. However, the misperception critics like to harp on is that just the simplest most basic understanding about the mechanics of Hypergamy are too paralyzing for most men. Again, it’s something believed to be deterministic to the point that a lot of men simply throw up their hands and give up. It would be better for them to stay totally ignorant (or less aware) of how Hypergamy influences not just their personal lives, but also their work, social, family and political lives. In being ignorant of Hypergamy a guy might develop some irrational self-confidence in spite of its influence that would help him.

Some critics like to promote the idea that because Red Pill awareness, as a praxeology, doesn’t plainly present hard and fast actionable solutions for men that it is promoting some endemic culture of victimhood. Thus, we get comparisons of men complaining or whining about their own miserable (often sexless) state, or the state of unfairness in a world that is aligned against them. These are the critics who want easy answers and when none come, or the ones that are obvious conflict with the Blue Pill idealisms they refuse to disavow, they believe it’s the Red Pill’s duty to give them some bullet point list that tells them what to do. Thus, the Red Pill doesn’t make it easy enough to be useful.

What they fail to wrap their heads around is that the Red Pill is not one-size-fits-all and that anyone promoting a universal cure-all is selling something dangerously close to Dream Girls and Children with Dynamite. Rather than bothering with the introspection necessary to use what the Red Pill is telling them, they seek simplistic formulas to remedy their conditions. Most critics who believe Red Pill awareness promotes a sense of male victimhood resort to this opinion because they lack the personal investment necessary not just to understand intersexual dynamics, but also the harsh necessity of abandoning their Blue Pill ideals completely.

Often enough what the Red Pill is showing them is requiring that they stare at the abyss of a past life based on Blue Pill fallacies. Solution? Conflate the praxeology, the studying of intersexual dynamics, with complaining and a victimhood belief. Rather than invest the time and attention needed to understand intersexual dynamics it’s far easier to conflate what Red Pill men debate with angry feminists’ easily disprovable rhetoric.

The Scope of the Red Pill

In the linked podcast above I addressed another common misperception with Anthony Johnson; that of the belief that all the Red Pill is about is limited to the personal situations of men. All of the misbeliefs I’ve led up to here are founded on the idea that Red Pill awareness is exclusively compartmentalized to the personal states of men, and beyond that the social and political landscape is caused by social constructionist reasons. The misperception, as I said, is that understanding intersexual dynamism is only about getting laid or complaining about not getting laid. Learning anything more in-depth only indicates some degree of obsession with getting sex.

In The Feminine Mystique I outlined the latent purpose the Feminine Imperative foments in the mythology of women being these fickle, unpredictable and unknowable enigmas to men.

Perhaps the single most useful tool women have possessed for centuries is their unknowablity. I made that word up, but it’s applicable; women of all generations for hundreds of years have cultivated this sense of being unknowable, random or in worse case fickle or ambiguous. This is the feminine mystique and it goes hand in hand with the feminine prerogative – a woman always reserves the right to change her mind – and the (mythical) feminine intuition – “a woman just knows.” While a Man can never be respected for anything less than being forthright and resolute – say what you mean, mean what you say – women are rewarded and reinforced by society for being elusive and, dare I say, seemingly irrational. In fact, if done with the right art, it’s exactly this elusiveness that makes her both desirable and intolerably frustrating. However, to pull this off she must be (or seem to be) unknowable, and encourage all of male society to believe so.

What critics and Blue Pill men do by discouraging a fully developed understanding of what makes for Red Pill awareness in men is a surrender to this unknowable social convention. Either women are unknowable or not worth the bother of men having figured out their nature the effect is the same; keeping men ignorant of how the Feminine Imperative directs their lives. This ignorance has ramifications that go far beyond just the individual man and whether or not he gets laid.

I mention this in the above interview, but what critics don’t want to confront is the far greater scope that understanding the praxeology of the Red Pill implies. Those dynamics stretch from the biological, to the psychological, to the personal and familial, to the political and the global. A man can use Red Pill awareness to get laid, deal with an unresponsive wife, challenge a female boss at work, better understand the sexual marketplace as well as the latent purposes of feminine-primary legislation designed to maximally limit men and maximally unfetter women. However, just understanding this, just discussing it or a want to have a more complete grasp of Red Pill awareness is not an effort in bemoaning a man’s state within it. This is the danger I see coming from some elements within the Red Pill community; there’s a tendency to see the education (or even the want of an education) in Red Pill awareness as some substitute for acting on it. It is not, and it’s high time men in the ‘sphere realize that Red Pill awareness, and making it useful to an individual man, consists of both the theoretical and the practical.

I’ve had critics tell me that the Red Pill is only desperate guys learning to get laid, and to them I’ll point out the recent story of Daniella Greene, the FBI translator who left her military husband to marry the very ISIS fighter she’d been tasked to investigate. Watch the video at this link and then think about how many Red Pill truths this story confirms. Think about the far greater scope and importance an understanding of Red Pill intersexual dynamics has here. Are we just going to say “well, bitches are crazy, she must be damaged” or do we see the mechanics behind her actions with a Red Pill Lens? This is only one example of the scope of the importance a developed Red Pill awareness should mean to men.

The Feminine Imperative in Corporate Culture

The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy. But when you are inside and you look around, what do you see; businessmen, lawyers, teachers, carpenters. The minds of the very people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of the system and that makes them our enemy.

You have to understand that most of these people are not ready to be unplugged and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.

I apologize for breaking up the continuity of last week’s post with this one today, but I felt it was necessary to address the recent firing of James Damore by his employers, Google, for allegedly breaking company conduct codes for raising many of the issue I and other’s in the Red Pill community and the Manosphere have been dissecting for a long time now. I generally don’t like to get too wrapped up in current events until more information develops about an incident I think is relevant to how the Red Pill (as it correctly applies to intersexual dynamics) is perceived in mainstream society. It’s easy to make mistakes so if I miss anything here please feel free to correct me or add to things in the comment thread.

To the best of what I’ve been able to ascertain James Damore posted what mainstream media wants to define as a 10 page “manifesto” (really a ‘memo’) about why it is he believes certain gender/sexual stereotypes persist in the tech field. After reading it, there is really nothing all that shocking from a Red Pill perspective in his essay. If anything, Damore is still deluded by Blue Pill conditioned idealistic hopes for gender equalism not dissimilar to those held by the MRM. Really there’s nothing in this PDF that the Manosphere and even the sexual sciences haven’t been revealing for over a decade now. Damore just had the balls to post it on what Google promoted as an anonymous inter-corporate intranet forum, ostensibly established to allow their employees to voice their opinions and concerns about the company in anonymity. Google is only one of many multi-national companies to have these forums set up in some lame effort to make it seem as if they value the opinions and engagement of their employees.

Now we see just how private and dangerous these forums really are to the livelihood of their employees. To be fair, I doubt that Damore is the first guy to get fired for expressing himself on one of these forums. I’m sure there’ve been countless other men shown the door by many companies with a lower profile than Google. What made Damore a target wasn’t so much Google from a corporate sense, but rather the ‘progressive’ feminine-primary corporate culture that is endemic to Google. Once Damore had published his very well-thought op-ed about the fundamental biological, psychological and neurological differences between men and women, and how this affects innovation and employment in the tech industry, the intra-corporate witch hunt was on for the guy who anonymously posted. No doubt Google code monkeys would have little problem identifying and doxxing James, but where this witch hunt stemmed from was far more likely his co-workers and fueled by the egalitarian-equalist, postmodernist mindset that pervades Google.

This is a snapshot of the Google corporate culture. The last gal, Danielle Brown is Google’s “Diversity VP”.

The official line from Google is that Damore’s “manifesto” constitutes a breach of Google’s code of conduct. Yet for all of Google’s insisting that they respect the right’s of speech within the company, Damore’s doxxing came from within Google’s corporate culture:

The employee memo — which was up for days without action by Google — went viral within the search giant’s internal discussion boards this weekend, with some decrying it and others defending it. Sources said the company’s top execs have been struggling with how to deal with it and the fallout, trying to decide if its troubling content crossed a line.

Apparently it did. In a memo to employees titled “Our words matter,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai said that the employee — who has been named on Twitter, although his identity could not be verified — had violated its code of conduct. (I am not publishing his name, because he — and others who disagree with him — have been threatened with violence online.)

Well, apparently James was doxxed identified and was threatened with violence both from within and without Google now. Thus, the predictable constitutional excuse that ‘you can say what you want, but you’ll be held accountable’ and Google was within its rights to fire Damore doesn’t hold water when Google promoted its internal forum as an anonymous place for employees to provide their input so the company can get honest feedback. I’m not a lawyer, but I think Google’s got a really sticky situation on their hands in that their actions technically constitute entrapment.

Furthermore, I get the feeling that Google’s campus is not unlike many other large corporate cultures – a core of skilled labor that actually puts numbers on the board as far as productivity is concerned working within a larger bureaucracy of basically superfluous positions that define the company’s corporate identity to the world around it. The writing on the wall now, that this skilled labor pool is seeing, is that this bureaucracy set of the company can have them fired for daring to voice a dissenting reality to their own ego-investments. How long before that talent pool opts for a more secure jobs in a corporate culture that looks less like the “people’s” revolution in China?

Now, all that said, James Damore, unwittingly or deliberately, has fallen into the trust-trap that I outlined back in 2013 in It’s Their Game. And while I think he’s got a pretty good case against Google, he had to have understood to some degree that Google owns his Frame. Perhaps this was his intent all along (nowhere have I seen how long he’d been employed there), but he was either very naive or very cunning in his in publishing his ‘memo’. Maybe he thinks this is his Atlas Shrugged moment, or maybe he actually bought the lie that Google (any company) cared about his employee feedback – that fact remains that the Feminine Imperative has assimilated every aspect of western society. The frame in which the overwhelming majority of men depend upon in their corporate, career, job, lives is one into which the Feminine Imperative seized social control over long ago.

For as much as it seems that standing up to systemic, calculated, postmodern ignorance is a heroic act of Red Pill aware defiance, never forget the insistent frame of the system you find yourself in. A lot of men in the ‘sphere like to tout the virtues of being ‘anti-fragile’ enough to weather the inevitable retaliations of the postmodern herd for their dissenting world view, and that may well be the case for a few men, but remember, everyone, with rare exception, is fragile about something – family, respect, integrity, personal relationships, the people who depend on him as well as his revenue (and the capacity to generate more) all apply.

Feminine Correctness

Every social, religious and corporate institution has been saturated with feminine-correctness. It’s important for Red Pill aware men to make this distinction because it will inform your decision making for as long as you remain in most corporate environments. I know many ideological and political factions like to trot out the idea about how they are against “Political Correctness”. That term, PC, has been with us for a long time now and its definition has been passed back and forth along political lines almost interchangeably for decades. Whatever it is one side isn’t allowed to address in public discourse becomes politically incorrect conversation. However, the distinction that conveniently (calculatedly) goes unnoticed is what I described as the Sisterhood Über Alles in my most recent book. Feminine Correctness permeates both sides of the political spectrum, but this is only one social arena amongst many where the appeasement of women’s perspectives as being the only correct perspective has been saturated.

Anyone who’s read my essay, Losing My Religion regarding how the Feminine Imperative has covertly (and recently overtly) assimilated authority of church culture – and ultimately doctrine – in mainstream religion can get an idea of what I’m talking about here with regard to corporate culture. The corporate workplace, big and small, has similarly been assimilated over the course of over six decades now; to the point that a feminine-primary influence has become a de facto authority under the premise of diversity, gender-neutrality and combating a presumed endemic male-sexism. All of which feed into the default, feminine-correct, presumption of female victimhood. Thus, we see the rise of the ubiquitous, almost universally female staffed, Human Resources departments whose true purpose is not about hiring, company morale or corporate culture, but rather an enforcement of feminine-correct initiatives and bylaws intended to give unquestioned authority to the feminine-correct social narrative.

In our modern corporate culture we’ve seen a meta-scale enforcement of what I termed Overseers in the Locker Room in my essay, Male Space:

Overseers in the Locker Room

The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; According to their proper feminized conditioning, they embrace the opportunity to impress these ‘trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their feminine overseer(s), or they become easy foils of an “out moded” way of thinking that the new ‘in-group’ happily labels them with.

Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ‘feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space, while in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on out-group men’s failure to comply with, or the rejection of, the Feminine Imperative’s ‘correcting’ influence on the in-group.

In all honesty, Jame Damore’s rationales in his ‘memo’ were very measured, bordering on Blue Pill, in his attempts to preempt what he obviously knew would be a workplace viral insult. However, his experience is a high-profile illustration of how corporate culture has been taken hostage by a mindset fed and raised by the Feminine Imperative. When you consider that this is the corporate culture of a company dubiously responsible for global access to information – ostensibly legitimate, authoritative information by the larger populace – you begin to see the extent to which the imperative as assumed control not just of our social discourse, but the unquestionable authority to direct the acceptability of personal belief and critical thought.

When I wrote The First Female President, I attempted to reveal just how globally extensive the reach of the Feminine Imperative really was. So encompassing is the presumed understanding of feminine-correctness, so ensaturated is it into our societal subconscious that we tend to take its presence for granted until Hillary (the she) was denied the presidency (to the he). Then the societal scale outrage comes to the surface because what was presumed to be correct is not a universally accepted foreknowledge as their social subconscious had presumed was believed.

That outrage was on a geopolitical social scale, yet it was due to the same presumptions that cause the outrage we see over a kid at Google who dared to say ‘no’ not just to Google’s corporate culture, but to all corporate cultures that have been subsumed by the Feminine Imperative for over 60 years now. That any company would need a Vice President of Diversity is an indictment of how deeply embedded the Feminine Imperative is in corporate culture.

Divorce Incorporated

What I’m going to get into today is going to be kind of dark. I’m doing this not to exacerbate any guy’s negative feelings, but to shed some light on the reality of how divorce operates in the United States as well as many other western societies. A lot of guys tend to focus on the logistics, the laws, the process of how a divorce proceeds. Much of what I see coming from Men’s Rights advocates about divorce centers on the need for legal and institutional reform of the process in their misguided hopes of creating a more ‘equal’ state between men and women. From what I understand, MRA’s primary hope (for most every issue they address) is that this reform can come from a top-down approach – changing the system to be more fair – rather than confronting the fact that these laws, divorce and others, are manifestations of an endemic social dynamic that is based on a fundamentally unfair, unequal interrelation between the sexes.

What I’m going to focus on here is dissecting this process, but doing so from a Red Pill aware perspective. While it may be the purview of the MRM that this process is fundamentally corrupt and in need of reform (I agree), what they willingly ignore is the root level inequalities that are part of men and women’s evolved differences that are the source of this process. This isn’t meant to be some take-down of the MRM; I find their causes worthy enough, but I believe their approach to solving them to be fundamentally flawed due to a refusal to accept the core, evolved differences in men and women and a stubborn refusal to reject the ideals of egalitarian equalism that the feminism they claim to hate is ostensibly founded on.

This system is designed to create conflict, but that conflict is rooted in the presumption that men are always at fault in it. This is why there can never be an equalist solution to correcting the endemic problems of modern divorce procedures.

At present I have a personal friend I’m counseling who is in the opening phases of this process. He and his soon to be Ex are also in ‘marriage therapy’. First thing I ask, “is it a man or woman therapist?” He says woman. I say, you’re fucked; start planning your exit now.

He agrees, but still has that Blue Pill hope he’s not wasting his money (she’s a SAHM) and they’ll be able to negotiate some mutually amicable feigning of her desire for him. When we invest ourselves in something we’ve accepted is supposed to be effective we’ll hold on to hope that it will because there’s a part of us (especially in idealistic men) that doesn’t like to think we are able to be conned. This is a very well studied psych phenomenon. We convince ourselves that we ‘got something out of’ an experience regardless of it being a provably bad investment. We like to believe that in all labor there is profit, but reality shows us, quite often, that this simply isn’t true.

I gave him a list of things to keep in his head as he was going to these counseling sessions, but I also told him the truth that marriage counseling is almost always ‘last stop before toll’ and that he needs to be careful now because his wife will eagerly use this therapist’s testimony to destroy his character at a later date. That’s the profit model for therapists in divorce proceedings. They’re getting paid when you’re coming and going.

I told him she will turn into someone he never thought she could become and most of it will be at the prodding of their therapist and her attorney (who he’ll also be paying). It’s in all of their best interests that they create a monster of him. The male anger bias I write about here will be the primary basis for his character assassination.

Anything even remotely, positively masculine or Alpha is still a ‘man being a man’ and this can always be reinterpreted as potentially aggressive or violent. In a feminine-primary social order where feminized men and women are taught that men are inherently evil and prone to anger and violence (the “culture” of masculinity) there’s an army of women and White Knight sympathizing men who want nothing more than to stick it to the ‘man’ symbolically. And when they draw a paycheck from doing so they’re all the more eager. Add to this that they feel a sense of moral justification in “making the world a better place” by burning him in an effigy of all men and you get to where we are now. We presently live in a social order that presumes any masculinity is “toxic” or “hyper” masculinity. So disassociated from anything positive has society become with regard to conventional masculinity that just the term is now masculinity is a negative connotation.

Needless to say this will be the starting point from which a soon-to-be-divorced man will have his undoing begin. So prevalent is the presumption of abuse on a man’s part that even the most saintly father can be remade into a secret monster. It’s just ‘how guys are’ and this presumption also serves as a point of justification for women, and Blue Pill male sympathizers, to feel okay about pillorying him.

Yes, I understand that there is at least a reportedly higher incidence of men being the abuser in domestic cases, but we also have to understand that the definition of “abuse” has been rendered so ambiguous that most men don’t realize virtually anything they do in a domestic confrontation can fit the definition of “abuse”. Just raising one’s voice is enough to qualify as psychological abuse. Denying a woman access to money also fits a new definition of abuse. I once counseled a guy who had been taken to jail for snatching the car keys away from his drunk wife so as to prevent her from driving drunk. She called the police and, as you likely know, the man is always the party removed from the home by police. Snatching the keys was enough to qualify his removal. 5 months later he’s living with his parents (at 43) and paying rent on a home and car payments on a car only his now ex is allowed to occupy and drive.

I know how my friend’s story is going to end. I’m doing what I can to give him fair warning – it’d be better for him to completely pull up stakes and remove himself from the situation than stick around and ‘try to make it work’ because the longer he lingers the more ammunition she and the therapist potentially get. I think this is also the profit model; keep the Blue Pill chump husband around the house for as long as it takes to build him up as a stereotypical ‘man’ and then escalate the most marginal conflict as a ‘typical’ domestic violence incident and he’s gone. If you watch the above documentary on the divorce industry you’ll see how many lucrative profit opportunities there are at every stage of divorce; and there is no incentive to dissuade divorce profiteers from doing anything different. And, as I stated earlier, there are many ready-made social and moral conventions available to help them justify their profits.

Old Books and New Books

‘No one cares how mean your ex was, how unfair she was to you and so on … at the end of the day, the system can’t right wrongs, they only process your case’

The above and following  quote was from an article in the National Post, Family court advice for men, from one who’s made it through;

I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of notes; on a gender breakdown, probably 80 percent are from men, 20 percent from women.

I’ve heard from family court lawyers, some of whom are angry at my suggestions that fathers get the tough end of the stick in child custody cases (though the actual evidence is reasonably clear that they do), some of whom say “the whole system is B.S … one of the first things out of my mouth when I see someone is, ‘What’s your budget and how much does he/she dislike you?’” I’ve heard from judges and former judges and psychologists and counsellors.

Without exception, they agree that the system is beyond broken.

What we have, fundamentally, in the state of modern divorce is a conflict between old books social contracts serving as the ethical basis of a new books resource transfer from men to women (Thomas Ball even described it as such). Really this conflict is at the root of much of what Red Pill awareness (from the social perspective of intersexual dynamics) describes, but in this instance there’s an entire social complex that influences policy and profit. Judges, attorneys, psychologists and counselors all make a very good living from this fundamental conflict; and if you watch the Divorce Incorporated documentary I linked you’ll see that there’s no incentive to ever change that profitable conflict at any stage.

However, all of the people involved in even a typical western divorce are all subject to the belief sets that the Feminine Imperative has predisposed them to about men and women. We presume a default state of victimhood is to be applied to a woman and the benefit of that victimhood doubt runs deep. We see it evolve into the kangaroo court systems that govern what we’re told to believe is an endemic ‘rape culture’ on college campuses – up to and beyond denying a man his civil rights.

We’re taught that any slight appearance of abuse towards a woman is an opportunity to teach any man doing so a lesson, but should a man be the victim of the same abuse? Well, he probably had it coming. The Feminine Imperative has (and still is in some senses) prepared women and Blue Pill men to believe that women are untouchable; always to be believed, by default, in their victim status no matter the circumstance.

Now we can expand this presumption to every party involved in a divorce proceeding. We get female therapists whose livelihoods depend on following the victimhood of women and demonization of men (and masculinity) script the Feminine Imperative has laid out for them for most of their lives. We get Blue Pill Alphas eager to prove their authority by punishing any man who might remind them of their asshole fathers or who fits their idea of what the imperative has taught him is a “misogynist”. The imperative plays to the natural ‘protector’ impulse of these men. We get well-conditioned attorneys, counsellors and judges ready to follow that same script by legally enacting the retribution and restitution upon which feminism has always been based.

But underneath all of this we have the fundamental inequalities in ideology between what the old books social contract expects of men while the divorce industry enforces, almost unilaterally male, punishment based on a new books social paradigm to better empower women – presumably to right the past wrongs they believe were endemic in that old books paradigm. What we have today are new books divorce and marital laws based on those old books presumptions of men’s evils, indiscretions and addressing the toll it allegedly took on women. The result is a system that is designed to psychologically, financially and personally ruin any man whose idealism led him to believe that men and women share some mutually recognized concept of love; enough to compel him to a lifetime commitment in modern marriage. It is a system calculated to destroy the same Blue Pill conditioned men who will eagerly stand up to defend their ego-investments in it.

The common refrain to this is always “just don’t get married”, and it is precisely this system’s goal to disincentivize long term commitment between the sexes so that this response is the only logical one. Thus, we get women spending small fortunes to freeze their eggs in the hopes that one day some man will be foolishly idealistic enough to look past all the inherent life-threatening risks marriage and divorce uniquely disposes men to. Thus, we get old books moralists berating men for wanting to prolong their adolescence (never mind women doing so is considered empowerment) by avoiding the dangers of marriage that they’ve been smart enough to understand, or have been a party to in one way or another.

In my next essay I’ll be addressing the misguided opinion of some ‘stand up’ Purple Pill moralists that the Red Pill is “just for guys who are obsessed with sex and make getting laid their life’s mission”. I’ll elaborate on why this is simply a distraction from the much larger meta-scope of Red Pill awareness and intersexual dynamics. However, understanding how the divorce industry is based on the same dynamics the Red Pill has described for a decade and a half is a good illustration of why the Red Pill isn’t just about men basing their lives on getting laid. This system is fundamentally unegalitarian and unequal, and the designed imbalances are entirely founded in Red Pill intersexual principles. This is why the MRM will never be successful in their hopes of a top down institution of social change. The laws and the social imperatives that crush men are symptoms of a deeper problem that requires a bottom up changing of men’s minds about women and themselves.

Competency

A while back reader Looking for Zion had a great comment wondering why it is women seem to have such a preoccupation with complaining to men so much:

Yesterday I was listening to a blogger talking about that Antifa Girl, then I saw a video by Camille Paglia on how women need to stop blaming men. By the time I read this essay I was already wondering, Why do women blame men (for everything)?

I mean, for example, no matter how good women have it here in the US, it’s never enough. They say, “We still have far to go.” What the fuck does that mean? They’ve achieved everything except becoming President and Vice-President – and only failed at that cause the worst possible candidate was put up. They’re astronauts, brain surgeons, CEOs, soldiers, pilots, MMA fighters…. I mean, short of a penis, what are they really missing?

Then I read this essay and it dawned on me: Women are biologically programmed to blame men for any and all perceived failures or shortfalls, because for millennia they have depended solely upon men (at the societal, tribal, and family level) for everything, particularly their very survival.

Whether it’s the nagging wife blaming her husband for her unhappiness, or the feminist harpy blaming men for WHATEVER, it is in female DNA and thus beyond their control to stop blaming “men” for anything they perceive to be wrong (in the absence of men standing firm and telling them to STFU). Males are always the scapegoat because men, until recently, were always the protectors and leaders of the female species.

When I woke up this morning, that realization led me to connect another dot: The patriarchy is not some ephemeral construct, or a male conspiracy. The patriarchy is IN WOMEN’S DNA.

From the time that the first single-celled creatures sprang forth from the waters of the Earth, life evolved toward the creation of homo-sapiens. Billions of years of genetic code formed a male dominant human dynamic that feminists and cultural Marxists have tried to re-engineer for a comparatively measly 50-60 years. But social engineering can NOT overwrite biology.

So good luck trying to “smash the Patriarchy” ladies, because the patriarchy is inside you. It was a survival mechanism selected for over eons. The patriarchy will always be there, like a splinter in your mind – unless and until enough time and genetic mutations have passed after men as a whole have given up and let you completely rule the world however you see fit.

With this, Zion is coming into an understanding of the evolved psychological underpinnings of intersexual relations. Women’s innate predilection to complain is just one aspect of women’s evolved nature that socialization or, if you like, “higher order thinking” finds ways to cover up, but never really change. Whether it’s women’s capacity to move on from a former lover (War Brides), women’s subconscious shit testing for men’s fitness, or the uglier aspects of Hypergamy, the underlying motivators for much of what we dismiss as ‘women just being women’ is rooted in how they evolved to interact with men.

Recently I cam across a video of Jordan B. Peterson explaining the evolutionary logistics involved in women’s sexual selection process. You can watch the video here, but the short version confirms exactly what Zion is coming to realize; the seeds of Patriarchy is literally written into women’s DNA, and by extension into larger human society’s social and intersexual make up.

Women’s sexual selection, women’s Hypergamous sexual strategy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks), is what creates the condition of the male dominance hierarchy. By the social extension of this hierarchy, based on women’s evolved conditions for male Hypergamous acceptability, we see what perceptually looks like Patriarchy. Indeed, this has been the dominant social order – with women creating covert personal and social contingencies to exploit it – up until the time of unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control and the subsequent sexual revolution.

As Zion noted, billions of years of genetic code formed a male dominant human dynamic that feminists and cultural Marxists have tried to re-engineer for a comparatively measly 50-60 years. And it’s correct that social engineering cannot overwrite biology. However, that isn’t to say that social and scientific engineering can’t give women more control over their sexual selection process as well as making every effort to absolve them of the responsibilities associated with this new control. If I disagree with anything Peterson asserts in this video it’s that our social order for the last 60-70 years has been one founded on unfettering and insuring women’s sexual strategy and applying the consequences and costs of women’s control over it directly to men. Presently, we live in a feminine-primary social order, but it’s founded on the default presumption of an oppressive, inherently sexist, misogynistic Patriarchy that still clings to a social contract that hasn’t existed since the time of the Sexual Revolution.

Our feminine-primary social order is a reflection of how intersexual dynamics have shifted to favor the female and the female sexual strategy. The male dominance hierarchy and the qualifications of it are still dependent upon women’s evolved Hypergamy, only now, in light of how women have been insured against any real liability for their sexual selection choices, the prioritization of those hierarchal qualifications have shifted. There is still a “patriarchy” created by women’s sexual strategy, but now this male dominance hierarchy is primarily founded on the Alpha Fucks side of the Hypergamous equation.

Evolution of Complaining

The fact that complaining seems to come so natural to women is something we kind of take for granted, in fact so much so that we will make jokes about it and think nothing of it. We can interpret this also from the ‘men display, women choose’ principle. There is an expectation that men will qualify themselves for a woman’s intimate approval – whether or not they do so is irrelevant, it is women’s expectation of performance from men. Men being innate idealists, as well as deductive problem solvers, it only follows that men (majority being Beta) would make their best efforts to solve women’s problems as a primary element of their sexual strategy. The deductive logic is: Solve a woman’s problems and in exchange she will reciprocate with her intimacy.

This, in a nutshell, is what constitutes most men’s Game in their earliest attempts to get with a woman, and really why wouldn’t it? Boys are taught a default deference to “respect” the female sex from an early age. This deference is where the expectation of performance begins, and taken to the extreme it can end up as the Savior Schema and expectations of women reciprocating in Relational Equity. This is where many Betas have their ‘game’ disillusioned for them. They see the guys who do not perform for women in a direct manner being rewarded with intimacy while they are shamed for their ‘Niceties’ – the behaviors they’ve always been taught will endear women to them – and shamed for expecting intimacy in exchange for solving women’s problems.

But really, what is women’s complaining about? The facility with which women will complain to men makes evident their need for security and this security need flows from the provisioning side of Hypergamy. As I’ve said many times before, Hypergamy is rooted in an existential doubt – is this guy the best she can do? It’s important to put this doubt into context though; bear in mind that there are two sides to Hypergamy – short term sexual, genetic optimization (Alpha Fucks) and long term security, safety and parental investment optimization (Beta Bucks). Both sides of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy always have doubt attached to them. And as Zion implied, even when women are assured of security that doubt still persists.

When we consider women’s subconscious need to shit test men we also need to see that women’s complaining is part of her subconscious attempting to reconcile this doubt with a man she’s invested herself in. It is indeed written into women’s mental firmware that men are to be looked to as the problem solvers.

A while ago Deti had a great comment on one of Dalrock’s posts:

Some of the best depictions of shit testing and comfort testing in media are in Mad Men, where Betty brings some concern to Don. Some concerns are serious; some are frivolous and trivial. Almost all the time, Don faces her and says something like “Bets, you’re tired. You’re upset. And it’s all understandable. It’ll be OK. Just go get some sleep, and we’ll figure it out in the morning.” And that’s all Betty needed to hear. Don has it under control. He explains to her what’s going on, and says he (or they) will get it taken care of.

That’s passing comfort tests with flying colors.

A shit test is depicted where Megan (his second wife) is cleaning their apartment in her bra and panties. She taunts him, saying “you can’t have any of this”, while on hands and knees in a clearly sexually provocative position, all the while looking back at him to gauge his response. He then proceeds to pull her to her feet, kisses her, and has sex with her on the living room floor. She willingly submits to him.

That’s passing a shit test with flying colors. And that really is a shit test – she’s being a total bitch to Don and stating a literal challenge to his masculinity. It’s “I’m here, calling you less than a man and depriving you of something we both know you want. You don’t have what it takes to stand up to me. What are you gonna do about it?”

You cannot make a woman “Happy”, however, this does not preclude a woman’s innate need to see you as either a confident problem solver (as in Draper’s exchange with Betty) or a guy who “Just Gets It” (as in the shit test example with Megan). I believe Deti is correct here, but I think we can make a distinction between a woman’s need to test for a comfort versus a shit test of sexual selection.

I would argue that a comfort test comes from women’s deep need for security in a chaotic world. A comfort test, and I would include complaining and nagging in this, is rooted in a woman’s Hypergamous need of certainty and consistency in provisioning. A persistent complaint is really a cry for security and confirmation of a man’s competency. Male dominance will always require a superior competency in virtually all matters. That may not be realistic or pragmatic, but it is the expectation, and this need for competency finds its roots in men understanding and accepting their Burden of Performance.

A shit test, on the other hand, is a challenge of a man’s savvy with regard to reading, interpreting and acting upon a woman’s covert communications of sexual competency. Shit tests, even subconscious or unintentional ones, are initiated to gauge whether a man Just Gets It with regard to a woman’s sexual subcommunications. It is a test designed to determine a man’s Alpha potential and his capacity to push past his social programming and go after (even physically) what he wants sexually – hopefully that’s the woman giving him the indicators. It is a test of a man’s capacity to understand that the Medium is the Message.

One reason that Amused Mastery is such an effective PUA technique is because – when understood and applied well – it serves to satisfy both sides of these tests. It implies competency in both problem solving and sexual viability.

Lastly, I should also point out that both of these tests of competency are part of women’s evolved, psychological firmware. Women can certainly deliver these tests with malice, intent and forethought, but as to why these tests would be significant from an evolutionary perspective, only her subconscious is aware of it. Both tests have the latent purpose to establish a man’s competency in either the Alpha Fucks or Beta Bucks aspect of a woman’s Hypergamy.