A Man in Demand Radio – Talk 3

blah-blah-blah-day-764x382-525x263

Last Friday I had the opportunity (and time) to talk with Christian McQueen once again – this time for a solid three hours. I hardly noticed the time passing since it’s like an exchange among friends, very casual, and a little upbeat I think.

We went into quite a bit and my going on longer is always the first request I get after most interviews so I thought I’d accommodate.

You can pick up the audio for free at Christian’s A Man in Demand Radio here.

As I said, it’s three hours so you may want to download it and listen at your leisure. We did this last Friday which was the day after the Brexit vote so, yes, I did get asked for some political opinions, but as always I stay on what my take is from an intersexual perspective.

We went into the state of Hypergamy in 2016 and how personal and social dynamics are being influenced by it, and I offer some practical solutions for guys dealing with it in the now. We discuss marriage and how and why it’s changed. I also answer some Twitter questions ranging from dealing with one’s family through a Red Pill lens to answering the common question, “Where do you see this going?” or The Talk.

There’s a lot more in this than anything I’ve done with Christian previously, so tell me what you think and feel free to ask me questions about anything or discuss anything I go into in this interview.

Enjoy!


The Princess Experience

‘Fallen Princesses’ –  photographer Dina Goldstein


Late Life Hypergamy

Commenter YaReally dropped an interesting set of videos in last week’s comment thread and I thought I’d riff on them for a bit today. I’m not familiar with Loose Women (the TV show anyway), but from what I gather, it’s on par with The View or any similar mid-day women’s talk show. I don’t make a habit of watching shows dedicated to entertaining women’s need for indignation, but I regularly have readers email or tweet me segments asking for my take on certain aspects of them or how they relate to Red Pill awareness.

It should come as no shock to my readers that shows of this formula are a social manifestation of women’s base natures. Every conversation takes on a sense of seriousness and gravity, but the tone and the presumptuousness that drives these conversations are rooted in women’s solipsism. All iterations of this show are presented from a perspective that assumes a pre-understood feminine primacy. It’s also no coincidence that the rise in popularity of women’s talk shows has paralleled the comfort women have in embracing Hypergamy openly.

Whenever I get a link to something the women on The View discuss it’s almost always a confirmation of some Red Pill principle I’ve covered previously, and in this instance Loose Women doesn’t disappoint. Saira Khan (I apologize for my lack of knowing who she is or why I should care to) related to the panel of women – and the expectedly disproportionate female audience – that at 46 years of age and two children (only one by her husband) she has entered some commonly acknowledged phase where she finds herself lacking all libido for her husband.

I decided to write a full post on these clips because Saira amply demonstrates every facet of the latter phases of maturity I outlined in Preventive Medicine. She begins her self-serving apologetics by prequalifying her previously “fantastic sex life in her younger years” and moves on to her bewilderment over her lack of arousal for her glaringly Beta husband. We’ll get to him later, but she’s a textbook example of a woman in what I termed the Alpha Reinterest phase from Preventive Medicine. Granted, at 46 Saira is experiencing this “stage” a bit later than most women, but we have to consider the difficulty she had in having and adjusting to children later in life – all undoubtedly postponed by her obvious fempowerment mentality and careerism.

I love you, but I’m not in love with you

It’s likely most men in the Red Pill sphere have experienced and discussed this very common trope. Saira is quick to apply a version of this standard self-excusing social convention. She “loves her husband” and “he’s a great man”, but lately(?) she simply has no desire to fuck him. I’m highlighting this because it’s an important part of the psychology and the self-excusing rationales that revolve around the less-than-optimal outcome of women’s dualistic (AF/BB) sexual strategy.

It may serve readers better to review the Preventive Medicine series of posts, but the short version is this: Once a woman has settled on a man for her post-SMV peak life plans, and the routine and regimen of a life less exciting than her Party Years begins to reveal the nature of a (usually Beta) man she settled on, that’s when the subconscious sexual revulsion of him begins. The feral nature of

Hypergamy begins to inform her subconscious understanding of her situation – the man she settled for will never compare to the idealized sexuality of the men she’s been with prior to him. Alpha-qualifying shit tests (fitness tests) naturally follow, but Saira herself describes her sexual revulsion for Steve as a sense of “panic” at the thought of him expecting her to be genuinely sexual with him.

As such, there becomes a psycho-social imperative need to blunt and/or forgive these feelings for the “lack of libido” women experience for their Beta husbands. Thus, we get the now clichéd tropes about how “it’s not you, it’s me” or “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.” Both of which amount to the same message – I love you, but I have no desire to fuck you. You’re a great guy and a swell husband, but my pussy only gets wet for Alpha.

Saira exemplifies this in her assessment of her husband (Steve), but more so, she illustrates the disconnection she knows is necessary to insulate her ego from knowing exactly what’s “wrong” with her. The problem with her lack of libido becomes separated from the source, Steve. So she says it’s not him, she just doesn’t want to do it.

She qualifies herself as someone loveable (she still cuddles and gets comfort from Steve), but this lovable ‘good person’ doesn’t want her lack of arousal to be something to disqualify her from feeling good about herself.

Solution: make sex separate and ancillary to her relationship with her husband.

For women in this phase, sex is equated with a chore. It’s a chore because it’s not something she has a desire to do, but still feels obligated to do. Steve walks through the door at 6 and her subconscious understands that the expectation of her is that she should be aroused by this Beta man she’s trapped into living with for the rest of her life. Hypergamy informs her subconscious and the manifestation is to find ways to avoid sex with a man her Hypergamous sense acknowledges is a suboptimal sexual pairing. Her conscious, emotive, female mind understands that she should want to fuck him, but it wars with her hindbrain that is repulsed by just the imagining of it.

In order to contend with the internal conflict created by Hypergamy, and a woman’s settling on a poor consolidation of it, social conventions had to be created to make separating sexual arousal (Alpha Fucks) from women’s personal worth (Beta Bucks investment) and the attending bad feelings it causes for them.

Ironically, this show’s original premise was based on the question of whether sex was even a “must” on a couple’s wedding night. This is a prime example of separating desireless sex from women’s sense of personal worth. I wrote about this in Separating Values. If sex is ancillary or only an occasional bonus, it ceases to be a deal-breaking factor in marriage for women when they don’t have a desire to fuck their Beta husbands.

Conflating Values

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

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

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

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

In Khan’s case, she (and the many women in the audience who nod in agreement with her) must devalue sex as an article or an object rather than accept that it’s something she wants to engage in, just not with Steve.

There are many other social conventions that aid women in avoiding sex with Beta husbands. An even more common convention is the popularly accepted idioms that “sex just naturally declines after marriage” or “men and women often have mismatched libidos.” Both of these have filtered into our popular consciousness, but they serve the same latent purpose – excusing a lack of desire caused by women interpreting their husband’s lack of Alpha sub-communications. Wives don’t get tingles from Beta husbands, thus, they need to find ways to offset the bad feelings for themselves first, and their husbands secondarily.

The trick in this is women not personalizing their lack of arousal with a husband’s self-worth – “it’s not you, it’s me” – and deferring to some naturally occurring biological or psychological event that can be conveniently attached to the mystique of women.

It’s not you, but it is you

Thus, the rationale morphs from “it’s not you, it’s me” into “it’s not you, it’s the time/circumstance/effort/need for help with the chores/phase of my mysterious woman-ness” that’s causing her lack of sexual desire.” She’s got a busy life, she’s got kids, and in her pursuit of perfection in these arenas, sex somehow falls by the wayside – or at least the kind of non-obligatory, hot, urgent sex she used to enjoy in her fantastic youth. It’s not you, it’s just life.

It’s not you, it’s wives ‘naturally’ lose interest in sex. It’s not you, it’s that she panics at the thought of you expecting her to be aroused by you.

If sex can be delimited to being all about the person then a lack of women’s arousal can’t be blamed on the mechanics of sex. So when men complain about a lack of sex from their wives or a lack of enthusiastic genuine desire, we get the response we hear from the panel of women on the show; a sarcastic shaming of men who raise the issue that their wives are frigid with them.

“Oh, how can men survive without sex?” or a sarcastic “No bloke can be in a relationship without sex” is a deemphasizing of the importance that the role of sex plays in a marriage and any intersexual relationship. Once again this is due to the separating of personal worth of a woman from the sexual mechanics of Hypergamy that prompt her to genuine arousal. The easiest solution is to cast men into the same sexual expectations as women; if women can forego sex then men ought to be able to “survive” without it too.

This normalized idea stems from the equalist perspective that men and women being equal should also share equal attitudes, prompts, and appetites for sex. This is a biological impossibility of course, but the conversation serves as a stark illustration of women expecting feminized men to identify with the feminine and prioritize that identification above any and all considerations about their experiences of being male.

Ultimately this is self-defeating for women because the nature of the Alpha guy that women crave pushes him to have sex, not to deny himself of it.

In fact, that sexual insistence is a prime indicator that a woman is dealing with an Alpha. The man agreeing to the patience and effort needed to “wait out” his wife’s frigidity is indicating that he’s not accustomed to insisting on, and getting what he wants. If he can sublimate his most powerful biological imperative – to get sex – what else is he willing to sublimate?

Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

The ladies on the panel mock this idea for exactly the same reason Saira is tying herself in knots about not being hot for Steve. He needs sex, but he shouldn’t really need sex because it’s all about the person and not the mechanics. But it is exactly the mechanics of Hypergamy that are at the root of Saira’s need to solipsistically feel better about herself to the extent that she’ll publicly emasculate her husband on national TV.

As the show grinds on, all of the predictable rationales for wive’s self-consolations for a lack of sex get run down like a check list. Kids? Check. Career? Check. Never do they address that she’s a

Kids? Check. Career? Check. Never do they address that she’s a

Never do they address that she’s a 46-year-old woman raising small children or that her so overstressed condition is only one consequence of delaying what passes for motherhood to her for so long. I understand Saira and Steve struggled with infertility, but my guess is that this too was a physical result of the life choices she made and the difficulty of conceiving and carrying a child to term well after her fantastic sexual prime. I’m 48 and my daughter graduated high school this year so I can’t imagine facing parenthood in my mid/late 40s. This isn’t even an afterthought for the panel because it exposes the costs of the feminist-inspired careerism the show is triumphantly based upon.

Shit Tests and Marriage

As I mentioned earlier in this post, wives in this state will still shit test their husbands just as readily as any single woman. We are meant to believe, no we are expressly told, that Saira’s sexual revulsion is “normal” and it’s not Steve or his dedication that’s at issue. Yet during all of Saira’s journey of self-discovery about her lack of libido, she suggests that Steve go out and find a woman who will fuck him. At some stage in their great open communication, Saira gives Steve express permission to go out and bang another woman because she just can’t.

Naturally she couches this in the idea that she’s so devoted to him “as a person” that she just wants him to be happy, however, she is so repulsed by him, sex is a happiness she can’t find within herself to even feign for him. For all the shocked gasps from the women in the audience, what this amounts to is a very visceral shit test for Steve.

The purpose of the ‘dare’ for Saira is meant to determine whether Steve can still (if he ever) generate genuine sexual desire in other women. I’ve covered this dynamic in at least a dozen different posts – women want a man who other men want to be, and other women want to fuck. Steve’s steadfast devotion to his wife is anti-seductive and Saira, on some level of consciousness, knows this. If another woman found Steve attractive enough to bang it would generate Dread, social proof and confirm his preselection among other women. And as I’ve mentioned countless times, breakup sex (or near breakup sex) always trumps contrived, preplanned special occasion “date night” sex, which predictably is the suggestion that ends the second video.

And as I’ve mentioned countless times, breakup sex (or near breakup sex) always trumps contrived, preplanned special occasion “date night” sex, which predictably is the suggestion that ends the second video.

Steve, the dutiful Beta, is also predictably dumbfounded by her “suggestion”. He’s heartbroken from a feminized emotional perspective, but also because, like most Beta men, he’s heavily invested in the fallacy of Relational Equity. He’s observably sexually optionless so it’s a moot point, but if he were to muster up the balls and the Game to take her up on her oh so caring suggestion to fuck another woman, he risks losing the relationship equity he believes his rational, empowered wife should appreciate and factor into her attraction for him.

Thus, Steve comes up with rationalizations for why he didn’t take her up on her offer of permissive infidelity. He makes his necessity (really his optionlessness) a virtue and sticks to the standard Beta wait-it-out supportiveness he’s been conditioned for but is actually the source of his sexless marriage. He defaults to the “open communication” solves everything meme while ignoring the message that the medium of his wife’s sub-communication is telling him. Steve attributes everything (accurately) to his conditioning that most men, “typical blokes”, are Betas whose responsibility ought to be unconditional supportiveness when in fact they really have no other choice but to be so.

She doesn’t want to be ‘fixed’

One last thing occurred to me while I picked these clips apart. At the end, the panel of women defaults to the “it’s not you Steve, you’re a great guy, Saira’s just experiencing a normal frigidity that comes along for women in marriage.” I thought this was interesting because there’s a push to accept this frigidity as a normal phase women experience, but it still relies on the idea that sex and personal worth are two separate aspects of this problem.

If the root of this ‘normal’ problem is one about mechanics (it’s not Steve, it’s Saira’s physical/psychological malfunction) then I would expect there could be a mechanical solution to the problem. Even the fat brunette panelist suggest that all it takes is a better ‘effort’ on Saira’s part to get herself into the mood, but she even rejects this. Her problem isn’t a pharmaceutical one or a behavioral one, it’s a holistic one rooted in hardwired Hypergamy. So repulsive is the thought of fucking a Beta that Saira cannot psych herself up to do so.

I wondered if she would even consider taking the new “pink pill”, the female form of viagra, but I’ve read enough counter argument articles from women about it to know that women’s hardwired psychology prevents them from even chemically altering themselves to want to have sex with a man her Hypergamy cannot  accept. My guess is that even a cheeky holiday in the Maldives won’t be enough to convince Saira to want to fuck Steve.

However, this simple fact, that women will refuse to take the Spanish Fly to work themselves up and bypass their Hypergamy for their Beta husband’s happiness, destroys the convention that her frigidity is the result of her biomechanics. She doesn’t want a pill to fix her because she knows it’s a holistic problem.

Saira knows how to please Steve sexually, she simply doesn’t want to, and it’s because Steve is Steve.

 


The Talk

the_talk

Softek has had the almost predictable move for The Talk from his current (I believe BPD) “girlfriend”. Just to clarify a few things here before I dig into Softek’s questions I think it’s necessary to define what “The Talk” is. Generally, there comes a point with a  particular plate you’re spinning when a woman believe it’s within her feminine entitlements to force the issue of exclusivity upon a man. I’ve written several foundational posts about non-exclusivity and the reasons men should opt for (Plate Theory) and I’ve also covered The Talk from practical considerations in Ultimatums, but feminized pop-culture has made what essentially amounts to a Frame shift into a life event.

The Talk is literally the defining of a relationship, and in a feminine-primary social order that defining power is presumed to always reside with a woman according to her “needs”. I should also add here that as men have become more feminized and uncomfortable in describing themselves as masculine, the feminine security need for a confirmed relationship status puts these men into the feminine role of initiating The Talk themselves. There are few grosser indications of a Beta / Blue Pill mental point of origin and a self-confirming lack of options than a man negotiating for exclusivity by formalizing it with a feminized relationship event.

What does Negotiated Desire mean for a relationship when a woman has resorted to it?

They’re powerless, yes, they feel helpless, yes.

But what does this mean for their perception of the man they’re trying to Negotiate for?

Ultimatums are declarations of powerlessness. Let me be clear before I get the standard, “you need to be a Man and set boundaries with her” retort – as with all things for men, it is better to demonstrate than to explicate.

However, in this instance, we have a woman issuing the ultimatum and the sense of powerlessness comes into contrast. The very act of having The Talk is a negotiation of desire. The medium is the message. We can separate a woman’s entitlement to an “official” relationship with it, but the fact that a formal talk would be necessary to legitimize it is the message she ignores or hopes you won’t recognize  – it’s a negotiated obligation, not a genuine desire.

Making a euphemism out of this ultimatum by calling The Talk and dancing around the want for a long term security is a form of Buffer for women. And as with all Buffers, the intent is to lessen the impact of rejection by preemptively buffering the seriousness of it should it come to that.

There are a few reasons women will move for something like The Talk. First and foremost is the Hypergamic need for certainty. When a woman presses for exclusivity with a man she tips her hand in the Hypergamic scheme of things. In this instance the root message is twofold – she perceives you as high enough value to seek some kind of exclusive permanency and / or she acknowledges (or is beginning to) that her capacity to attract other prospective men is depreciating. Women with greater sexual market options and a commensurate self-impression rarely push for this relationship formality.

Another reason for The Talk is that women, on some level of consciousness, seek to alleviate the competition anxiety that comes with making an emotional investment in a man she perceives is 1-2 steps above her own sexual market value. A passive form of Dread almost certainly plays a role in the prompt to formalize an LTR, however, what’s prompting that Dread can range from an emotional investment based on a genuine desire to the pragmatic necessity to settle on a guy who meets her security needs in contrast to her ability to attract a better prospect.

As women enter the Epiphany Phase the need for a Talk becomes more urgent. As a woman’s attractiveness wanes Hypergamy cannot afford uncertainty or the risk of a loss of emotional investment. This is yet one more reason women tend to opt for dutiful Betas during the Epiphany Phase. Unattached higher SMV men entering their peak SMV phase are less inclined to look for or agree to, exclusivity when they have more available sexual options. Blue Pill men, unused to a sudden interest from women, are usually eager to formalize on exclusivity irrespective of a woman’s sexual history or her necessitous reasonings for exclusivity.

Have they lost respect for him? What is Negotiated Desire, on the woman’s part, indicative of in the relationship?

Again, this is somewhat subjective and depends on the man and woman’s conditions. As I mentioned above, the push for exclusivity on her part is prompted from necessity or Hypergamous anxiety. Genuine desire cannot be negotiated and it’s important to consider that this is equally true when it’s women doing the negotiating. Blue Pill conditioning has acculturated generations of women to expect that a man formalizing monogamy with her is not just her right, but that men will understand and accept that it is “the right thing to do” if he want’s to be accounted as a man.

We have an entire fem-centric world of women and men reinforcing this male-shame narrative in every branch of society – from church to popular media, you’re not a “man” if you so much as question your role in an exclusivity founded on a woman’s correct need of it.

This presents an interesting conflict for women. Women want men who just get it, but the necessity of petitioning a man for The Talk in the first place conflicts with the organicness of his understanding of women. Pushy, loud-mouthed, outspoken women raised on the Fempowerment narrative are often the most insecure in respect to this conflict. On one hand the narrative has bred her to expect a man to be her-equal-who’s-better-than-her-equal and ‘man up’ and formalize on his own. On the other hand, when he doesn’t, the anxiety that comes with the countdown to her Wall pushes her to force his compliance or to provide her own security for herself.

Now imagine this scenario with an Empowered Woman® dealing with the Beta in Waiting who represents her only viable LTR option. Yes, she may have lost respect for him, but her situation frustratingly compels her to force the issue of exclusivity with a guy who doesn’t get it.

Is it a sign of a failed relationship?

I don’t have any other experience, so my base assumption is that ALL WOMEN will push for commitment eventually, and want to pressure you into it, and ‘make things official.’

What does this mean for the health of the relationship?

Should it just end?

The necessity of a Talk in the first place puts this assessment into doubt. Women who don’t eventually push for commitment understand the nature of that relationship is temporary or there really is no potential, so there won’t be a Talk. The problem I see with making this formality something overtly public is that it has the opposite effect of qualifying what may be genuine desire without it. When The Talk enters into out popular consciousness it then becomes yet another ‘typical male’ fault.

Men become infantilized for not understanding women’s correctness in wanting a formalized declaration of monogamy. Once that infantilization becomes the accepted truism for women, what might’ve been a very good pairing of a man and a woman based on an organic genuine desire, turns into an obligation on his part to convince her that he’s not a child by living above that truism. The relationship becomes less about the genuine interest between the two and more about satisfying the “official” nature of it among men and women plugged into a Blue Pill social conditioning.

Should it just end at that point? If a man’s first act of a coerced monogamy is his capitulating to what amounts to a socially mandated ultimatum I think the woman he surrendered to will subconsciously lose the respect she had for him while they were “undocumented lovers.”

In a case like Rollo’s, or any other married guy here:

How did it happen? How do you get married without Negotiated Desire?

Is it IMPOSSIBLE, and it’s just a matter of minimizing the degree of Negotiation?

Same with having an official girlfriend. When you COMMIT even on the level of a ‘steady girlfriend,’ isn’t that Negotiating Desire by default?

I get this question a lot and for a lot of hard-line guys, even the best thing a married man (or LTR man) can say will always sound like he found a unicorn. You have to understand in my case the last woman I’d been in a formal LTR with before my wife was the BPD I described in the Two Guitars post. I had no intention of getting into an LTR at the time and for a long while, Mrs. Tomassi was one of four plates I was spinning at the time. All of this was above board and we dated non-exclusively for the first 3-4 months.

I began with a rock solid Frame at this time not because I was focused on establishing it, but because I had three other women in rotation and I was entirely indifferent to any idea of exclusivity with any of them. Of those four, Mrs. T was hottest and funnest in and out of bed so I gravitated to seeing her more regularly. I also appreciated her from the new perspective I had in contrast to the psychotic mess my BPD had been. She expected me to be conventionally masculine and I was already filling that role by default because I had a new outlook on women as a result of all that.

We never had a Talk when it came to exclusivity; she simply said that she didn’t like the thought of me banging other women and asked me if she could be my girlfriend. She literally asked to be part of my world during that brief conversation. I’ve had the Frame from the moment we started non-exclusively to where we are now 20 years later.

I’ll say it again, don’t use my example as some model for your own life, but there needs to be an organic flow to how you enter into any LTR.

It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized. As I stated in the beginning, frame will be fluid and conditions will influence the balance, but the overall theme of your relationship needs to be led and molded by you. Even very influential, professional, intellectualizing women still crave the right man to establish his frame in her life. They may fight it bitterly, but ultimately it’s what will make for the best healthy balance she can achieve. There’s a growing undercurrent of mid-life women questioning and regretting their past decisions to remain single into spinsterhood. And for all their late game rationalizations, the one thing they still simply refuse to accept is acknowledging that a man’s frame, the frame their “fierce independence” wouldn’t allow for, was exactly the salve their egos so desperately wants now later in life.

Gentlemen, you will establish frame in any monogamous relationship you have. You will enter her reality or she will enter yours.


Mansplaining

About three years ago I published a post called Remove the Man. That essay was prompted by Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signing on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral.

“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”

That was 2013. I’d encourage readers to go over this article again as a frame of reference, but the gist of the idea then was revealing the efforts being made by the Feminine Imperative to remove men (literally and figuratively) not only from the common language but to remove men from defining masculinity altogether. I touched on this as well in VulnerabilityIn seizing a monopoly on our very language women are free to redefine not just words but the ideas that those words connote.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” – George Orwell, 1984

It’s an easy jump to associate this word-thought monopolization with political and social justice agendas, and I’m sure there are many examples of it in practice. And while I’ll leave that discussion to other blogs, I do think it’s important in the scope of this blog’s mandate to address how maleness is (and has been) decoupled from masculinity – certainly conventional masculinity – and the redefinition of the concept of masculinity has been surrendered to the feminine in a similar fashion that Hypergamy has been given free reign in society.

In other words, in a feminine-centric social order, men, by and large, have willingly acquiesced the defining power of how they will communicate to the sensibilities of women.

From Remove the Man:

Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.

[…]the same social tool has been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative.

[…]For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity, solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.

Control the language and you control the concept. Control the concept, and what is acceptable and what is not about it, and you control the thought before it forms. As I’ve argued in the past, the end state of the Feminine Imperative’s consolidation of social control isn’t the complete elimination of masculinity, but rather that it conveniently conforms to the needs of the imperative as best suits it.

‘Masculinity’ when shame for a lack of performance in desired acts, protection and provisioning are necessary, ‘Misogyny’ when the threat of feminine-primary control is implied in men’s self-esteem, affirmation or reward are attributed to maleness.

From Vulnerability:

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

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

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

I’m beginning with this today because it’s necessary to underline the latent purposes behind the cutesy jingoisms the Feminine Imperative likes to use when it finds it necessary to reign in the ‘word-thought’ of men. One of these is the term “Mansplaining.”

I led off with the video of Senator Gallagher being called to the carpet for using ‘Mansplaining’ as her go-to rationale because it illustrates how the jingoism of the imperative is expected to work with men already cowed by a Blue Pill conditioning. She literally expects everyone present to understand what Mansplaining is.

Side note: I also find it ironic that the word “Mansplaining” is not flagged with a red underline by autocorrect as I type this. Womansplaining however, is. It’s kind of spooky how readily the language monopoly of the Feminine Imperative is integrated into our popular consciousness via communications technologies and social media. How quick? Have a look at how ‘Mansplaining’ trends on Google.

Even more ironic is the fact that the common definition of what constitutes ‘mansplaining’ is still up for grabs. According to Wikipedia:

Mansplaining covers a heterogeneous mix of mannerisms in which a speaker’s reduced respect for the stance of a listener, or a person being discussed, appears to have little reason behind it other than the speaker’s assumption that the listener or subject, being female, does not have the same capacity to understand as a man. It also covers situations in which it appears a person is using a conversation primarily for the purpose of self-aggrandizement — holding forth to a female listener, presumed to be less capable, in order to appear knowledgeable by comparison.

Solnit’s original essay went further, discussing the consequences of this gendered behavior and drawing attention to its effect in creating a conspiracy of silence and disempowerment. Solnit later published Men Explain Things To Me, a collection of seven essays on similar themes. Women, including professionals and experts, are routinely seen or treated as less credible than men, she wrote in the title essay, and their insights or even legal testimony are dismissed unless validated by a man. She argued that this was one symptom of a widespread phenomenon that “keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”

Mansplaining differs somewhat from other forms of condescension in that it is specifically gender-related, rooted in a sexist assumption that a man will normally be more knowledgeable, or more capable of understanding, than a woman.

Google cuts to the meat of it for simplicity:

mansplain

Others argue that any information a man relates in a male way of explaining it (i.e. a longwinded description of informational content). Julia Baird’s offering is particularly egregious, citing the amount of lines women get in proportion to those of men in the movies:

The problem is global and endemic across all media. Female characters speak lessin Disney films today than they used to — even princesses get a minority of the speaking lines in films in which they’re the principal: In the 2013 animated movie “Frozen,” for example, male characters get 59 percent of the lines. A quick search for best monologues in film or movies reveals that they are almost all male. If you took Princess Leia out of “Star Wars,” the total speaking time for female characters is 63 seconds out of the original trilogy’s 386 minutes.

This, of course, is in stark contrast to the studies that show women spend more time on their cell phones and text more often than men. Women also use emoticons more often than men, yet men have more variety in emoticon usage. That may seem trivial, but it’s an important aspect to consider in comparing men and women’s preferred intents of communication. Then there are the studies that show women actually do talk more than men – 13,000 words a day.

It’s also important to consider that women dominate the vast majority of social media, unless that social media happens to be something work related like LinkedIn. This is an important distinction to make when we consider how men and women prefer to communicate.

From The Medium is the Message:

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

It should come as no surprise to most men in the manosphere that men and women have different means and different priorities in communications. I published that post almost five years ago, but even then I knew that a social order founded on feminine primacy was going to standardize its own way of communicating as the correct way. The ostensible reasoning is that, from a desire for gender parity in society, men must abandon their blunt, artless and simplistic, yet overbearing and egotistic way of communication and adopt women’s more meaningful, emotive and insightful covert way.

Of course, it’s men who see this ruse for what it is and either refuse to capitulate or simply don’t realize they’re supposed to talk like women who set themselves apart from the throngs of Blue Pill men conditioned to identify with the female experience (as a means to become intimate with them). I forget where I read it, but some one said a PUA is a man who pretends he has what a woman pretends she does not want. I may not agree with that in whole, but it certainly describes the social condition that’s been established by the Feminine Imperative over the course of four generations.

When we’re presented with easily digestible terms like Mansplaining, no matter how loosely defined, and it filters into the popular consciousness and lexicon so rapidly, what we’re witnessing is the ease with which the Feminine Imperative expects men to cede to it.

When a woman attempts to cow a man by saying he’s Mansplaining something to her she’s reached a point at which she prefers that man, any man, speak to her as a woman would. In base terms, she shames him for not opting to communicate as a woman would from the outset. He should know better.

The fem-splaining cover story is that men feel some ego-centric need to over-explain something to a woman. For a Blue Pill conditioned man this may even be accurate in that they hope so doing will endear himself to a “rational reasonable” woman by helping her understand a concept he’s educated on. What we’re really looking at is a struggle to control which gender-communication will take precedence. In a feminine primary social order, men’s means of communicating is offensive to women by default. The presumption is that men are being condescending to women by expecting them to communicate as men do, and especially within the political and working spheres.

As women push their way into male spaces, part of assimilating those spaces is to re-standardize how men will appropriately communicate within them. The conflict comes from the expectation on the part of men that women will respect the nature of station she’s been empowered to and be able to weather criticism and reproach as men have always done in those stations. The fallacy is the equalist belief that women will be equal agents while holding the same roles as men; the reality is what we see in the video above today.

So the solution, as always, is to remove the man, remove the masculine influence, change the language and the definitions, to remake the nature of the engagement if not the actual real-world factors that make the game or the politic or the business what it is – to silence the man by telling him to “just shut the hell up” or be tarred with the epithet of being a ‘typical man’.

The content of the communication is of less importance to women than how that communication makes them feel. We see this in no uncertain terms the more women become part of the socio-political/business spheres. When a man needs to explain the importance of content to a woman who is only qualified for her station by virtue of her being female that exchange necessarily is uncomfortable for women. Solution: complain about the delivery of the content and silence the men who would deliver it.


Two Guitars

2guitars

Recently, I’ve been very busy with more than a few business projects. ‘Success Coaches’ always tell you to develop passive forms of income in addition to whatever it is you consider your vocation, but I have an odd habit of turning my past “vocations” into passive forms of income as I move on to my next project.

Then I’ve had the audiobook of The Rational Male as a front-burner project for my leisure time along with doing re-edits of the first printed book (new, better-edited, bigger font edition coming soon) and then there’s the first draft of the third book I’m picking away at.

In between all of that I’ve been doing my best to stay on top of the comment threads for the essays I’m writing. Among these, for the past 6 or 7 months has been the saga of a commenter who goes by Softek. While I haven’t been able to keep abreast of all his comments and the exceptional advice of fellow Rational readers, I’m going to take a moment now to address his situation because it serves as an example, and perhaps a warning, to Red Pill aware men who come into a new awakened understanding of intergender dynamics and fall prey to some of the pitfalls inherent in unplugging themselves from their prior illusions.

I’ve followed Softek’s unplugging and his increased confidence from a thoroughly Blue Pill conditioned guy to something approaching Alpha confidence. Whether this is beginning to stick and becoming an internalized part of who Softek is as a man, I’ll let him say, but recently he’s been dealing with some of the fallout that comes from being caught up in what I went through in Dream Girls and Children with Dynamite.

Another very common occurrence is the “reformed” AFC who makes progress toward becoming more Game savvy, and as a result gets his “dream girl”, only to lose her after reverting back into an AFC frame once he’s in an LTR with her. I’m not a big Ross Jefferies fan, but he did say something very profound once, he said “teaching PUA skills to these chumps is like giving dynamite to children.” This is probably truer than he realized, because the potential for disaster is much higher. Most guys want that silver bullet, the magic formula that will get them the girl, but it does nothing to prepare them for the idyllic LTR their beta nature has fantasized about for so very long. They don’t become Men, they become children with dynamite. So are we really surprised when the guy who finally gets his Dream Girl as a result of learning Game becomes despondent and suicidal when he loses the “best thing he’ll ever have” when she leaves him? Are we shocked when his ONEitis turns out to be a BPD girl and his life’s ambitions fall into a death-spiral because he was unprepared to deal with a post-Game LTR?

Now, I’m not suggesting that Softek is despondent or suicidal in his present position. In fact, likely not because he’s got a base of support on this blog and in the manosphere at large to coach him through it. I’ll let him outline his situation in the comment thread for this post, however, Softek’s situation of getting wrapped up in a yo-yo clingy BPD relationship reminded me of a story I’m not very proud to relate, but in the interests of other guys in a similar situation I’ll explain it.

The Price of a BPD

Towards the end of my relationship with my own BPD there came a point when I attempted to make it work with her as a long distance relationship (LDR). This was really the last nail in the coffin for us. I knew damn well she was ‘cheating’ on me while I blithely convinced myself I would eventually get her to move another state away to join me so I could continue wallowing in her neurotic psychological abuse of me.

I’m happy to say that never happened, but it came at a cost. At one point during the LDR I had to make a decision in order to find a way to drive over a state to see her college graduation. I’d already had my (correct) suspicions she was fucking a guy from one of her classes, but I wasn’t entirely sure. You’ve got to understand that as a BPD she’d already had me ‘converted’ to accept her frame as the dominant one. And as pathetic as it’ll sound, I was still her thrall and blamed myself for her neurosis even as I lived 800 miles away.

People love to cast me as some life-long Alpha, but I’ve been Beta, a natural Alpha, and during this period of my life I was approaching Omega (by Vox’s definitions). If there’s a bright side, it was that the bit I’m about to relate to you was the catalyst in my turning my life around to be a ‘lesser Alpha’ in a permanent way.

I had already been brought low. In her neurotic jealousy, she insisted that I toss out a photo album of all the times I’d been on stage in my Hollywood days and essentially destroy the memories of friends and events I had archived of that time. It was like losing part of my soul, but I did so because I thought she was right; I was convinced anything that came before her that I’d done was the source of her distempers.

You might think that was bad, but in order for me to go to her graduation – the time she intentionally had me discover her fucking this guy – I had to pay for that horrible experience by selling off two very expensive guitars. I won’t tell you the brand, but they were a 12 and a 6 string acoustic that was priceless to me. Even the guy I sold them to asked me if I was sure I wanted to part with them, he could tell I didn’t.

But I did sell them, for $800. Now they’d be worth around $4,000, but it’s not the dollar value I regret the most, it was voluntarily cutting off a limb from myself for the privilege of learning exactly how fucked up this person was. The only time I’ve ever snapped with Mrs. Tomassi was her casually suggesting I might sell off a guitar from my present collection. She knew there was something more to it and I’ve never silenced her with more seriousness.

I have one post outlining Borderline Personality Disorder and I feel like it’s all I really needed to post about it. There was a time in my life when I was completely in the dark about anything like it, so when I first discovered it in the DSM while studying psych it literally sent chills down my spine.

After this traumatic experience, I came to realize that while all the women I’d been convinced and conditioned to believe were my duty to be supportive of were banging other men and earning degrees, my life was paralyzed. Now, in hindsight, I can see that my beating myself up over being stalled in life because of my Blue Pill conditioning was misplaced. ONEitis will do that to you, but when you combine it with a BPD it takes a trauma to wake you up – either that or you swallow a bullet or put a rope around your neck.

On the BPD comment thread, there’s a sobering account of another man’s experience with a BPD woman. I’ll quote it here, but virtually every experience I’ve had men relate to me about a BPD is a frighteningly similar story.

From Hugh:

So, to start, I discovered that my ex was having an affair, revolving around a “church based canoe group”. Initially, I began questioning and blaming myself, telling her that we needed to work it out. I spoke to a professional seeking support and answers, who somehow got her in to see him.

He reported to me that he diagnosed her with Borderline Personality Disorder, and that I had some major choices to make, as she rejected his diagnosis and any thought of treatment. He advised that she would never change without help, and that what she did had little to do with me or the children – it was all about her.

I initially failed to understand, and tried to reconcile. Over the next few months she promised to try, and even started going to church.

But, little-by-little she revealed how this had begun, first with lesbian affairs with coworkers, then eventually, when I bought her a new car, but declined to take a car maintenance class with her – she slept with the mechanic giving the class. I learned of more in rapid succession, of affairs, one night stands, and worse over a 7 year period. She was in the medical field and used the cover of being on call,being in surgery, working extra for a dentist, going to medical conferences, etc, etc.(I could comment on my opinion of medical morals, but ’nuff said) I recalled an occasion when I got overwhelmingly sleepy after consuming a soft drink at a movie with the ex. I realize now that she drugged me. She also infected me twice with STDs, telling me she had a yeast infection. She put antibiotic in my food unknown to me. My children later reported to me, when asked, that whoever I was out of town, the ex was “always” gone to the hospital at night “on call”.

The gross details aren’t necessary, but the revelations shook me back to reality. (disgusting, degrading, and sick are better terms even than gross)

She began trying to convince me to sell our house and move. Now awake, I realized that she wanted her share and would dump the children on the street and force a move to a new neighborhood. I had recently pulled her off the chest of our 11 year old son when she tried to strangle him for begging her not to leave him – so I wasn’t exactly fooled by her house sale drive. I resolved that my children needed to have the support of friends and family, and not be moved out of their home and away from friends. How I would do this came to me eventually – wait long enough and she would find another prince, but couldn’t hide it easily, and would have to leave.

I had been contacted by the wife of her latest affair, a physician whom she had recommended me to for minor surgery.(Roll that around for a second). She and I had quite a conversation, during which I learned that he had “done this before with his office nurse, and she had attempted suicide when he dumped her – possibly for my wife”. I advised her to seek professional medical and legal council, but also delivered an explicit warning concerning what I would do if I ever saw her husband in public.

The next day the ex came home late from work, crying and just glaring at me (a Thursday BTW – a favorite day for medical professionals at some hospitals to play, as it offers the cover for some surgeons who “have surgery that day”.) The next day, after meeting with her surgeon friend again, she proceeded to drive her car right in front of an oncoming truck, suffering broken ribs. I rushed to the hospital, told she was being X-rayed and that I should go to the room she was assigned. I did so and in rearranging the pillows on the bed, found a hand written note from a “friend” indicating they would be by later. I didn’t stay long after she got to the room.

Well, we bought her a new truck, and about 3 weeks later, she called to inform me that she was taking our motor home on a canoe trip that afternoon, and when she returned, she was “leaving the family”. She asked our teenaged daughter to drop her off, and my daughter called me, appalled, that the canoe trip was my ex and 4 men. My daughter said she threw gravel “all over them” with her rapid departure.

She never said anything to the children, but shortly after informed me that she was leaving that afternoon. She got friends to help her move and was gone when my dad and I returned from picking up the kids at school golf team practice.

The judge at the divorce hearing classified her as having abandoned the family and offered to impose child support payments on her – which I declined, in an attempt to cut all ties.

That was 31 years ago, and we had absolutely no contact with her until Dec 24, when a scribbled note, from some tiny town in East Texas arrived, stating that she had breast cancer, and I should take “appropriate measures concerning the children”.

I can’t imagine that she thinks any of us care!

So, that’s my early life’s scary story – though I left the horror story parts out!

Be safe, there are really monsters in the world!

Hugh

P S – My 2 older children are college educated,very successful professional people with families and children. I remarried a spectacular woman a few years after, the true savior of our lives, and have a third child, who is a Nurse Practitioner, and who also has 2 children.(I have advised her about morals in the medical field particularly).

Softek, the reason I’m dedicating an entire post (and hopefully an on-topic comment thread) about this is because, in my estimate, you’re in both a more precarious, yet potentially more hopeful, position than guys who’ve dealt with what you are now. My concern is that your Red Pill awareness and basic Game skills have brought you a dangerous woman. It’s the kids with dynamite dynamic I’m seeing unfold.

The good news is you have a solid community of men ready to help you with this, most of whom have some experience with toxic women. I’ve seen too many men learn Game or adopt an abundance frame, but still cling to the hope that they can fulfill a Blue Pill ideal with their Red Pill awareness. Women like the one you’re involved with will believe your Alpha frame, but when you shift or backslide into Blue Pill idealism they’re either disgusted with a man, or they see him as potential prey – and often are oblivious to their own interpretations of why they do.

I’d like to open up the commentary here for men to relate their experiences of dealing with BPD women and/or offer something for Softek. I realize there are a lot of well-meaning guys who think that BPD is overestimated in the ‘sphere, and while I can appreciate that, I think it speaks volumes that women can so regularly be confused with the signs of BPD today as to make that estimate. For my outline have a read of Borderline Personality Disorder first.

 


Tribes

tribes

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

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

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

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

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

Look forward to every post!

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

Women talk, men Do.

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

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

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

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

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

Divide & Conquer

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

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

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

Tribes vs. The Sisterhood

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

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

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

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

Threat Assessments

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

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

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

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

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

tribalism_1a

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

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

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

Making Men

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

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

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

Building Better Betas

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

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

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

Pushing Back

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Good Girls, Bad Girls

goodbad

Culum Struan requoted a really great thought from an old commenter, AnonymousBosch, on Heartiste’s blog from about a year ago and I thought it might make for some good weekend discussions:


All I’m getting at is that every woman has an almost psychopathic longing to destroy any perception of being ‘the good girl’. It’s the most common complaint you’ll hear from women:

“It’s so hard being good.”

Women long to indulge their emotions enough to risk being swept away by them, and it’s this self-indulgence that makes them at risk of being self-destructive: they reach a point where they just want to tear everything down, including the Good Girl, and, most commonly, their beauty. An example is hacking off their hair when they have a breakup.

It’s in their songs, it’s in their literature, it’s in their movies. The social pressure to ‘behave’ drives them to distraction, even as they conform to it, meaning they’re internalizing this constant battle to be both good and bad: wanting the social approval, rewards and status for being good but desperately-craving social stigmatization to the degree of martyrdom for being bad.

Feminism, at it’s core, is basically: “Fuck you society, I won’t be the good girl you want me to be!”

This is why it’s beloved of ugly chicks who can’t sexually compete, and those with obvious Daddy Issues.

I see my role, as a man, is to recognize their capacity for depravity, both sexual and emotional, and to offer the dominance and guidance to reign them in. Women, even as they get outraged at the very notion, simply want a man they respect to tell them ‘No’, and offer them structure and guidance. One good way I’ve heard this described on here was “She is the ocean, and you are the rock, and the furies of her storms have no impact on you. You are unyielding.”

If you’re stoic, she gets to indulge her emotions with a safety net that stops her from self-destructing, and she will adore you for it. This is the masculine – feminine relationship. She gets to be weak, knowing you’re her rock. She doesn’t want to lash out at stone that crumbles, whilst simultaneously wanting strong shelter to hide against.

Sexual degradation is part of the risk, and you temper this by always being in control of the situation. Never let her think she’s leading: or her desperation to prove her devotion to you will take her into weird, disgusting places that destroy her.

If you’ve got your player on, I guarantee you will hear some variation of this: “I’d never do this with any other guy, but you make me want to do this and I’m not sure why.”

This is their sexuality out of control by their furious emotional desire to be owned by you – they are swept away – and this is where you need to reign them in with a strong hand and be ‘Daddy’. Otherwise she’ll get stupid notions in her head that by being sexually-outlandish, she’ll be the whore women believe all guys want their wives to be, not realizing that we don’t want to think of the mother of our children blowing dogs and wearing our shit, (unless that’s really your thing).

This is what destroys women and makes the light go out in their eyes: when they degrade themselves for a man they value highly-enough in the hopes of locking him down enough only to eventually disgust him.

Sometimes, the degradation is a sex thing, where she blurts out that she’d blow a horse for you.

Sometimes, it’s physical: she wants you to see her with running mascara and her hair hacked off so you can see how ‘wounded’ and ‘vulnerable’ you’ve made her.

Sometimes it’s emotional: stories of ‘being raped’ or being abused by Exes, designed to fire you up with masculine protective instinct, but instead make you see her as damaged goods. She thinks she is showing you how much she longs for you with these socially-transgressive displays – because Social Status is female currency and power – so deliberately lowering herself in a man’s eyes is the ultimate submission for her – but all she is doing is pushing you away.

During sex: always lead, always control, always structure what is happening. She wants to serve a strong man: show her how to so she doesn’t go off on self-destructive tangents. As McQueen used to say, don’t call her ‘a’ whore, call her ‘your’ whore. Your eyes are your strength here: if she’s sucking your dick, tell her to look at you, so she has nowhere to hide. Call her your ‘good girl’ as she does it.

Basically, structure a performance of faux-degradation and sexual submissiveness she can enact it that makes her feel she’s served a strong man, that stops her crossing into actual degradation, where it starts emotionally-messing her up and leaving scars.

That being said, Millennial Girls seem to possess a capacity for self-loathing and self-destruction I’ve never seen in previous generations.

So, take what is happening in this thread: the transfer of money for sexual degradation. It’s the same core process: she’s telling herself it’s about the money, but it’s about submission before the masculine: the trappings of supreme social and financial power. It’s about thinking she’s high value enough to be submitting to Princes and Kings, so the leap to being crapped on or blowing a dog to prove she is ‘a worthy consort’ is a small one for them.

Obviously, it makes no sense to us, but women seem to be clueless as to what behaviour actually makes them attractive, and not repulsive, to men.”


I think one of the reasons AnonymousBosch finds Millennial girls to be more debased is that these girls are the first generation to be counted among the sum result of a preceding 4 generations of feminist ideologies. Likewise, Millennial men are the products of that same 4-5 generations of emasculation, feminization and the deliberate obfuscation of what masculinity “really is” for them. This deserves some explanation.

I’ve gone into the timelines and the evolution of how Hypergamy has been released from social restraints, wholesale, on western society in my Adaptations series of posts, but it’s a good review to understand what AnonymousBosch is relating here; We keep returning to Hypergamy and its regulation as a basis for an expanded vision of social structure, but it’s important to remember the behavioral prompts that women’s biology predisposes them to in that respect. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution we’ve had a systematic conditioning for, and institutionalization of, a social order that prioritizes women’s Hypergamy as the predominant one.

Unilaterally female-controlled hormonal birth control was certainly a catalyst for this social shift, but it’s important to remember that for the past 4 generations women have been raised and acculturated in a social environment not only rooted in the fempowerment narrative, but also one that encourages the excesses of the ‘bad girl’ side of Hypergamy that AnonymousBosch describes here. And as I mention in that post, the social engineering that’s led to feminine-primacy (as well as erasing the inconvenient aspects of conventional masculinity) all centers on optimizing women’s Hypergamy.

So we experience 2-3 generations of women who are conflicted between what that Fempowerment narrative has taught them they should value and the conventional, evolved biological impulses that predispose them to appreciating, enjoying and submitting to sexy male dominance. Instead of being confused and agonizing over the traditional (old order) ‘Good Girl’ social restrictions that buffered the more damaging consequences of Hypergamy, now women agonize over the conflict between what Fempowerment has conditioned them to believe they should be attracted to in an “equal partner” (Beta Bucks) and their visceral sexual drive for ‘bad’ Alpha dominance in a man they want to lose themselves with.

They’ll still lay claim to the ‘Good Girl’ social convention when it suits their purpose (i.e. during the Epiphany Phase) to affirm their decisions to prioritize a need for long term security – or to excuse past Alpha Fucks sexual needs – but the primary conflict is still the same, an internal war between the contradicting aspects of her sexual strategies and how they influence her life’s decisions and different phases of her maturity.

In her SMV Peak years, “Fuck you society, I won’t be the good girl you want me to be!” is the message she adopts insofar as it serves her sexual strategy’s immediate interests. The conflict comes when she needs to temper this sentiment with a need to settle into a motherhood role and compromise it just enough to present the appearance of being a prudent choice for long term commitment.

I see my role, as a man, is to recognize their capacity for depravity, both sexual and emotional, and to offer the dominance and guidance to reign them in. Women, even as they get outraged at the very notion, simply want a man they respect to tell them ‘No’, and offer them structure and guidance. One good way I’ve heard this described on here was “She is the ocean, and you are the rock, and the furies of her storms have no impact on you. You are unyielding.”

When men first come to Red Pill awareness about the motivations of women’s sexual strategy it’s very easy to see their behaviors as being intentional or their after-the-fact rationalizations for them as being convenient and expedient in excusing them. There is a definite design to the psychological and social schema women will use to explain their actions, particularly when they’re anti-social, sexist and/or damaging to the men who bear the worst of them.

Not to say men should tolerate this, but it’s important for men to understand the underlying psychology and motivators for women’s behaviors. It would seem AnonymousBosch has embraced this understanding. Again, it’s easy to think you’ll just put your foot down and not tolerate women’s bad behaviors, but this ignores those same female-motivators, sacrifices a real understanding of them and attempts to replace learning to maneuver them with the misguided hope that women will be rational agents and change their behaviors because we say so.

Men of this mindset believe the same ‘equalist’ hope that women will cease to be the “most mature teenager in the house” because they rationally explained to them that they should ignore their base motivators (Hypergamy) and act reasonably. This doesn’t work for women, nor does it work for men when women attempt to convince men to adopt a feminist mindset based on exactly the same appeal to reason. The boner doesn’t lie, and neither does women’s sexually strategic behavior.

In an age of unfettered, socially and legally affirmed Hypergamy it’s counterproductive to expect any woman to self-police her own sexual strategies by appealing to her reason.

The good news, as outlined by AnonymousBosch, is that Red Pill awareness and internalized Game are the same buffering contingencies for Hypergamy as they’ve always been. The trick for men now is to reestablish and embrace a connection to the conventional masculinity that’s been systematically conditioned out of men for 2-3 generations. In fact, there’s no better evidence of this Blue Pill conditioning than the common sense of counterintuitive-ness of embracing a masculinity that puts a man into a position of exercising the dominance women need.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,987 other followers