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.


Ghosts in the Machine

ghosts_inthe_machine

Hollenhund had an interesting response to a question posed in last week’s post that I thought I might come back to here:

1) Why is there “yourbrainonporn” for men, and not “yourbrainonyourdildocollection” for women? “yourbrainoneroticnovels” “yourbrainon50shadesofgray” “yourbrainonTwilight” “yourbrainonhavingtoomanyorbiters” “yourbrainongettingtoomanymessagesinyourinboxonokcupid”? MEN are the ones that it’s a “problem” if they want variety. MEN are the ones that have to change. MEN are the ones that have to fight their biology. hmmm…I wonder why THAT is. Maybe to help create more Softeks, where the girl can cheat on her boyfriend with him and then shame him for looking at another girl

I doubt their goal is that specific. This new narrative about porn addiction being a public health problem is obviously seen by its supporters as yet further ground for political consensus between feminists and social conservatives. It’s not that feminists want to turn the porn industry, or what remains of it, into a political target again, it’s that they need a narrative that is aligned with the Feminine Imperative and moves public discourse about the mating market away from subjects they, and women in general, are very uncomfortable with.

As long as the mainstream media pushes this narrative about young men getting addicted to online porn and thus opting out of the mating market, it will largely stifle any public discourse about the popularity of female emotional porn (romantic literature), and also the real potential causes of widespread porn use, like the drop in average female quality on the mating market and unrestrained hypergamy. Social conservatives, feminists, and the majority of common folk will, of course, be happy to put all blame on men for any social problem, real or not. And it’s very obvious that porn addiction isn’t a problem they want to actually do anything about, it’s more like an excuse for women to whine and moan. Frankly I’m very skeptical about the whole issue of porn addiction, because if something just happens to perfectly fit into the Feminine Imperative, it’s probably no accident. And one wonders how much scientific evidence there actually is for it.

I’ve addressed the physiological and social associations of male masturbation in the past in The Pheromonal Beta, as well as Pathologizing the Male Sexual Response. The “lively” discussion about male masturbation in this week’s comments notwithstanding, the topic du jour in the Twittershpere also seemed to coincide with this topic.

Personally, I think the ‘moral’ dictates about jerking off follows evolutionarily pragmatic reasons for male shame in masturbation while female masturbation is an arousal cue and seen as a positive. Female masturbation is a cue for sexual availability while male masturbation is essentially a Beta Tell.

That’s the nuts and bolts of it from the bio-evolutionary perspective, but as with all other inherently male thumbscrews, the Feminine Imperative has long exploited the sociological implications of men’s need for sex. One thing that slips by relatively unnoticed with social conventions that serve the Feminine Imperative is that the same presumptions that would serve a masculine (in this case sexual) imperative are always shamed or stereotyped – that is until they come into a context that is  useful to the feminine.

Sex Sells What?

“Sex sells” is a cliché that can be used in the positive for women, but it is always a negative for men. For women, sold sex in advertising, romantic literature, the meteoric popularity of ‘divorce porn’ for married  women, or really any media that stimulates women’s sexual interests is always seen as positive, empowering and exceptional. Even if what their being sold is seedy or can have a potentially negative consequence, in a feminine-primary social order women ‘own’ sex from today’s social perspective. In other words, society at large is expected to defer to women on issues of sex and, by association, romance, love, etc.

Women can still be sold  something or induced to buy a product or to adopt a mindset, but that article or the message that’s meant to be internalized is associated with the ‘positive’ of a sexual inference with women.

For men, male sexuality is always a negative association unless that sexuality is expressed in a way that complements women’s sexual strategy. Something being sold via sex to men is either seen as preying upon an inherent weakness (or dependency) for sex or it’s paired with ridicule for men being typical ‘pigs’ and they’re unable to dissociate sex from the objectification of women. So ingrained is this shame-association that men have adapted sexual competition strategies around it in order to identify better with women in the hopes they will be perceived as “not like other, typical, sex hungry men” and that their intimate interests are motivated by something more ephemeral that sex.

The social utility of this shame-association, of course, parallels the utility of Male Catch 22 for the Feminine Imperative, but there’s a useful  duplicity for women in this inescapable shame of male sexuality. For instance, when women seek to convince both themselves and men that fat-acceptance and “changing the standards of beauty” should be men’s metric for wanting to fuck and pair with less desirable women, we see the usefulness of that duplicity. Men are useful in the perception that they’re sexually uncontrollable pigs for being so gullible as to allow “society” and advertising agency to define what they think is arousing.  However, the Feminine Imperative will readily use (or attempt to use) that same weakness  to exploit men into acting against their own, evolved, sexual best interests by selling them the ideal of accepting fat women as a new standard of beauty.

There are no feminine parallels for the pathologizing of the female sex response because those would simply be hindrances to women optimizing their Hypergamous imperatives. Why are there no “yourbrainonporn” sites for women? Why are there no XXXChurch equivalents for the ladies? Why are there no support groups for women ‘addicted’ to romance novels or divorce porn movies? Because that exclusively male pathologizing is only beneficial to the female sexual strategy.

This is the depth of control that the female-primary imperative seeks over men – that our most base biological, existential need should be distorted and psychologically molded by shame to the point of instilling lifelong neurosis and conditioning fear-based gender self-loathing to effect women’s sexual strategy above all other considerations.

I’ll quote the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies once more here: for one sex’s strategy to succeed the other’s must either be compromised or abandoned. Whether subtly instilled or publicly shame-conditioned, associating men’s sexuality with sickness or perversion, weakness, and disability, the underlying purpose is an effort in convincing men to abandon any claim to their own sexual imperative in favor of that of women’s.

Slut Shaming

If this seems like a sea change from the old order days when women were shamed for even the hint of promiscuity while men were lauded for their own sexual exploits, what you’re seeing is the societal shift to feminine social primacy. There was a time when sexual indiscretion was something that shamed women. Today, it’s almost laughable that there should be a need for a social convention like “slut shaming”. There is no such social referencing, but if men on whole can be put to shame for the belief that other men might still cling to older order reservations about women’s sexual exploits it serves to place women’s sexual strategy above that of men’s.

There is always the old standby – the horrible “double standard” about men banging a lot of women being heroes while women who bang a lot of men are sluts (“it sooooo unfair!”). This is a laughable, antique social convention in an era of slut walks and female-centric birth control, but it’s still the reflexive go-to trope when the mechanics of pathologizing men’s sexuality comes to light.

Sex-positive feminism has always been a two-edged sword for women. That positivity ‘fempowers’ women so long as they cling to the old order missives about the Patriarchy repressing that sexuality while it simultaneously disqualifies their complaints of it as Hypergamy becomes more and more openly embraced.

Ghosts in the Machine

Hollenhund continues for us:

YaReally and hoellenhund, you’re talking about all this VR porn stuff but isn’t this basically the same dynamic as prostitution? Same kind of alternative sexual relief (that is not your wife) and same reason why the FI shames prostitutes and men who use prostitutes etc..because they lower the “price” of sexual release..?

YeReally has already answered your question well, I’d say. He brought VR porn up, I didn’t, because I was observing the current situation, not something that only exists today as a potential future development.

I’d add that the dynamic is somewhat different. Apparently the state is willing to penalize prostitution, at least to a degree that makes it sufficiently risky and expensive for many men to avoid it, and the majority of women and their male bootlickers are willing to support political efforts to suppress it. Neither of that applies to pornography of any sort. Women will complain about it, they will support a narrative that portrays it specifically as a problem caused by men, but it’s not like anyone actually wants to make an effort to do something about it. Do you think any woman wants to date, or have sex with, a reformed porn addict? Do you think women want porn addicts to get out of the basement, get their shit together, and hit on women in order to get real-life sex?

For the record, I’m not going to deny that excessive masturbation is unhealthy, or that excessive porn use can elicit unrealistic expectations of sex in a mind of an inexperienced man. Anything should be done in moderation, that goes without saying. But the current public discourse on porn and its effects is complete BS.

I’ve forgotten where I saw the quote posted, so I’ll paraphrase it a bit (I think it may have been Illimitable Man), but there’s a new concept I read about how human beings’ experience of consciousness is now assuming a new, third, aspect – the immediate, the internal and now, the virtual.

The immediate experience is one in which you directly relate with people in real time. It’s you physically and vocally interacting with others. The internal is the conversations you have with yourself and both your conscious and subconscious interpretation of what you’re experiencing, learning, behaving, etc. (i.e. what you’re thinking).

However, the virtual (or digital) aspect of consciousness is something humans have only recently developed and are now on the cutting edge of really understanding. The virtual experience is what I’m doing now as I type this post. I’m relating to you what’s going on in my thought process (to the degree of which I’m aware of it) in a virtual medium. Virtual porn, virtual games, virtual shopping, etc., really anything you do in a digital realm is part of this new form of ‘being’.

Humans in 2016 experience things in ways that our forebearers could scarcely dream of. Our immediate and internal experiences are now being informed by out virtual experiences – in accelerated ways that I don’t think most people really appreciate. The Feminine Imperative is now fighting to establish a foothold in this virtual experience. Thus, we see efforts like GamerGate meant to lock down a control over how men will be allowed to experience this virtual reality. We also see the preliminary efforts to both socially and legislatively institute feminine-primary controls over yet to be developed possibilities of virtual experiences.

Jerking off to ubiquitous, free, online porn is one such experience that the Feminine Imperative has had to play catch-up to with regard to restricting men’s access to it. And thus, we get contingent social controls from the imperative to counter this lack. It’s not enough that men be shamed for their sexual response to online porn. The accessibility makes this impractical, but there’s really no ‘sales’ transaction for which men would feel their sexual “weakness” being exploited.

However, the counter to this then becomes making men’s sexuality itself a disease. “Porn Addiction”, sex addiction, in a religious context even ‘impure thoughts’ become a disease not to be cured, but to be managed by women – women’s definitions, women’s approvals and disapprovals, women’s sexual strategy interests.

And porn is just the tip of the iceberg with regard to the Feminine Imperative’s controls of men’s virtual experiences with women.


Fempowerment

fempowerment

I’m often asked by ‘fempowered’ women critics whether I ‘believe‘ in some of the more socially acceptable tenets of feminism in some sort defense to the affront of my Red Pill lens being cast their way. It’s usually something to do with, “Do you or do you not think women ought to have the right to vote?” or the ever-reliable “Shouldn’t women have the right to do with their bodies what they choose?” These questions are always binary (“yes or no will do”) and usually couched in a context that implies that if you even slightly disagree or have a marginal caveat to answering ‘appropriately’ you’ll be dismissed with a name tag that has “misogynist” printed on it. Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man.

Say no and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say yes and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats – mansplaining – that are disqualified because you’re a man. Up until recently, it’s been a very effective means of silencing uncomfortable truths about the Feminine Imperative.

I’ve always found it ironic that a movement (feminism) that predicates itself on the ostensibly egalitarian notion that rational, reasonable considerations of issues should lead us to ideals of equality is the first to reduce itself to unquestioned, blind faith binaries at the first sign of rational reasonable truth being unflattering to women. If you want to know who holds power over you, look at whom you aren’t allowed to criticise – or even hint at criticism.

My position on these and many other questions of the sort is usually met with simple observational analysis (as you’d probably expect). I don’t necessarily have a problem with women voting or even having access to legal (relatively safe) abortions. What I have a problem with is the latent purpose behind the reasons that led to women’s decisions to vote a particular way or the latent purposes that brought them to having that abortion. For the greater part, any dubious ‘right’ women feel they were somehow denied in the past usually comes at the expense of men being liable for decisions they had nothing to do with.

What I have a problem with is an expectation of lowering the standards of the game, thus fundamentally altering the game, to better accommodate the variable strengths and weaknesses of women – up to, and including, changing the very nature of women’s environmental realities that would endanger the wellbeing of both sexes. What I take issue with is the expectation of making men liable for the decisions and consequences of the rights and freedom of choices we’ve reserved for only women to make (almost unilaterally Hypergamic choices) that are not in men’s best interests.

I mentioned in Our Sister’s Keeper that men today find themselves in a very precarious position with regard to entertaining women’s perceived wrongs of the past. Men are expected,by default, to be held accountable, for no other reason than they were born men, for past injuries to the ever-changing Feminine Imperative. Your existence as a man today, your failed understanding to accommodate women’s social primacy, your lack of catering to the ambiguous nature of what conveniently passes for masculinity, is a constant stinking affront and obstacle to the “advancement” of women. The Feminine Imperative has known how to manipulate men’s Burden of Performance for millennia, and at not other time in history has it had the unfettered leisure to do so than now.

So, we get socially acceptable default presumptions of ‘male privilege’ without qualifying what it even means, or we get catchy jingoisms like ‘mansplaining’ to give a name to women’s need for silencing men’s inconvenient observations of women’s ‘correct’ perceptions, decisions and the reasons they came to them. We get default presumptions of male guilt for sexual assault and sexual consent as fluidly defined in as convenient a way that serves women’s imperatives. As I’ve mentioned before, the true intent of feminism has never been about establishing a mutually agreed ‘equality’, rather it’s always been about retribution and restitution for perceived past wrongs to the sisterhood.

There has always been a subtext, a cover story, of equality mentioned in the same breath as feminism. Only the most antagonistic asshole, only the most anti-social prick, would be against “equality between the sexes”. Thus, to be against feminism is to be against a simplistic concept of baseline equality. However, taken out of the propagandizing efforts to shame and ‘correct’ men’s imperatives, it’s easy to demonstrate that the true intent of feminism is female ‘fempowerment’ in the dressing of an equality that no man (or woman) wants to appear to be against.

Yellowed Pearls

I found an interesting example of this  Catch 22 in the Economist recently. Pick and choose: Why women’s rights in China are regressing.

In 2007 China’s official Xinhua news agency published a commentary about women who were still unmarried at the age of 27 under the title, “Eight Simple Moves to Escape the Leftover Woman Trap”. The Communist Party had concluded that young Chinese women were becoming too picky and were over-focused on attaining the “three highs”: high education, professional status and income. Newspapers have since reprinted similar editorials. In 2011 one said: “The tragedy is they don’t realise that as women age they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their MA or PhD, they are already old, like yellowed pearls.”

In the last Red Pill Monthly discussion, I mentioned the expansion that the Feminine Imperative has taken on a global scale. One of the old missives of the manosphere has always been about how American women are too far gone to be worth ever entertaining beyond a pump-and-dump consideration. They are too damaged and self-absorbed beyond all redemption, and men ought to expatriate to another country where women are more feminine or at least necessitous enough to appreciate a conventionally masculine man.

I get that. I understand the want for a Poosy Paradise or some promised land where women are still raised to respect and love men by being conventionally feminine. I also get that there exist certain cultures where this is still true, but for all of that, I think it’s important to recognize the social undercurrent that the Feminine Imperative exercises in these cultures. A popular meme on Twitter is ‘Feminism is Cancer’, but there’s a kernel of truth to the humor of this. The spread of the westernizing social primacy of the Feminine Imperative is spreading, not unlike cancer, into what we would otherwise believe were societies and cultures still oppressed by the mythical Patriarchy – a belief necessary to perpetuate the narrative of default female victimhood.

It may not be now, but at some stage, the Feminine Imperative will exercise its presumptive control over even the societies we think ought to be immune from that cancer. As I mention on The Red Pill Monthly, even in underdeveloped countries where we would expect to find the horrible oppression of girls and women, we make a triumphant example of the incidents of where girls (not boys) are taught to read and “think for themselves”. Westernized culture, founded on the Feminine Imperative, celebrates every time a woman in Saudi Arabia is allowed to drive a car, much less run a business on her own as if it were some blow against the tyranny of men.

Little by little, or in leaps and bounds, your second or third world Poosy Paradise will eventually be assimilated by the Feminine Imperative.

I bring this up because, as you’ll read in the linked article, China is also experiencing the long-term results of having adopted feminine social primacy in its own culture. From women’s popular consciousness, we’re still, to this day, told of how horrible “communist” China has been in mandating its one-child policy and how its draconian ‘sons live, daughters die’ social structure has been the result. However, once we reasonably investigate it, we find that China now has a problem with “Yellowed Pearls” as a result of a cultural shift that placed women’s interests as preeminent in that culture. And it should be noted that this shift came about as the direct result of the men who adopted and accommodated the Feminine Imperative as their own.

Now the problem for women in China is not unlike the plight of American women bemoaning the lack of men with “equal” marriageability as themselves. And likewise, the self-same social authorities responsible for institutionalizing the fempowerment of women are now the horrible misogynist villains for suggesting that women ought to lower their unrealistic standards.

The tone of these articles is surprising, given the Communist Party’s past support for women’s advancement. Mao Zedong destroyed China, but he succeeded in raising the status of women. Almost the first legislation enacted by the Communist Party in 1950 was the Marriage Law under which women were given many new rights, including the right to divorce and the right to own property.

Sounds a far cry different from the pictures women, even women in this century, have painted of China’s institutionalized, one-child sexism doesn’t it? Remember, this advancement in women’s rights took place before the Cultural Revolution in China.

Though collectivisation made the latter largely irrelevant, women played an active role in Mao’s China, and still do today. By 2010 26% of urban women had university degrees, double the proportion ten years earlier. Women now regularly outperform men at Chinese universities, which has led to gender-based quotas favouring men in some entrance exams. However, many of the earlier advances have been eroded in recent years by the gradual re-emergence of traditional patriarchal attitudes.

Consider this part in contrast to other industrialized nations and how women have increased their socio-political standing as the result of having the Feminine Imperative adopted as the primary social order of those cultures. Even in cultures that are still popularly deemed “repressive” to women we see educational and socioeconomic parallels to western(ized) cultures. We also see the same resulting consequences and the shifting of blame for them to men. The downside of Yellowed Pearls is placed at the feet of men for not living up to the convenient, feminine-primary definition of what their Burden of Performance ought to mean in promoting and forgiving women’s decisions.

The party has joined an alliance of property companies and dating websites to confront the issue. Government surveys on marriage and property are often sponsored by matchmaking agencies, and perpetuate the perception that being “leftover” is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. They also promote other myths, such as the idea that a man must have a house before he can marry.

As you may expect, the tone of the article is written to emphasize an egalitarian perspective that conflicts with a reality that the Feminine Imperative would have men change or be responsible for not having changed. It’s men’s fault that women might feel bad for not having married by a post-wall age. It’s men’s fault for promoting myths that women would expect that a man must be successfully established in his life and career before any considerations of marriage occur to him. It’s also a man’s fault for clinging to the “myth” that women don’t want him to be established.

The law is reflecting the shift away from women’s empowerment too. An interpretation by the Supreme Court in 2011 of the 1950 Marriage Law stated that, when a couple divorces, property should not be shared equally, but each side should keep what is in his or her own name. This ruling, says Ms Fincher, has serious implications. In the big cities a third of marriages now end in divorce but, based on hundreds of interviews, she finds that only about 30% of married women have their name on the deeds of the marital flat. Women believe the party hype about becoming a “leftover” woman so strongly, she says, that many rush into unhappy marriages with unsuitable men, made on condition that the brides agree not to put their name on the property deeds.

Feminism Would be a Success if Men Would Only Cooperate More

Several years ago Dalrock had a post detailing the sentiment of feminists that feminism would be a success if only men would cooperate with the ideology by abandoning their own interests and sublimating their own biological impulses. The fact remains that feminism and egalitarianism are failed ideologies because at the root level those ideologies ask men to participate in their own extinction. Not only this, but they ask men to raise successive generations to accommodate and participate in their own degradation.

The narrative expects Yellowed Pearls to be prized by men, or respected as Spinsters, or pandered to as ‘Cougars’ while still maintaining men sublimate their own imperatives by willfully ignoring the fact that their own sexual strategy is what is being asked of them to abandon. As I stated in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, for one sex’s strategy to succeed the other must either be compromised or abandoned – what better way is there to assure this for women than to socially mandate through shame, persecution or financial liabilities that men abandon their own strategy in favor of women?

For some time now, I’ve detailed how for the past 4 or 5 generations, there has been a popular social re-engineering effort to raise and condition boys to become the ‘better betas‘ – boys designed to become the supportive male-reinforcers of empowering women’s interests and imperatives.

For a greater part this effort has been primarily focused on boys and men in western society, and while it’s still open for debate, I’d say that westernizing cultures are really the only cultural environments that can afford to entertain this ‘fempowerment’. This is changing radically now if it was ever really the case to begin with.

In the manosphere we like to highlight the ‘pussification’ of modern men through various efforts on the part of a nebulous ‘socitey’ aligned against masculinity. However, the flip side to this is the fempowerment agenda; an feminine-primary social structure that disallows any criticism of inherently female nature while promoting the empowerment of women on every level of social strata.

We coddle and cater to the feminine in every aspect of social interaction, every aspect of academic achievement, every socioeconomic advantage inventable, every story we tell in every form of media and we do so under the threat of not being supportive or misogynistic for suggesting anything marginally pro-masculine. This is the other side of the demasculinization imperative of boys & men – the total consolidation of handicaping men and empowering women into unrealistic effigies of feminine triumphalism.

How do you counter this?

I’m always lauded for describing these social dynamics, but I’m run up the flagpole for not offering concrete ways of dealing with and pushing back on these imperatives. Many a MGTOW will simply suggest men no longer play the Game, that isolationism is the way to go, but this only serves to eventually concede power to the Feminine Imperative. You don’t get to check out of the Game even if you refuse to play it. For all the guys who left for parts unknown to find their demi-utopia of feminine women in a foreign country, even they will explain that the tide of feminism is changing those seemingly idlyic places. And for every guy to voluntarilly go celebate and “refuse to deal with women” I’ll show you a man whose tax dollars go to fund the consequences of women’s legislated rights to Hypergamous choice.

Sooner or later Men will have to confront and push back against both men and women who are convinced of their purpose in idealizing the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. A lot of men in the ‘sphere believe their being clever when they refer to people with this worldview as ‘SJWs’, but for every hair dyed, gender-confused man-woman you see on Twitter there are hundreds of ‘normal’ people who all share similar perspectives – some simply subconscious generalization they’re oblivious to – sitting next to you at church, or working in the cubicle next to you.

As I’ve mentioned countless times, the change needs to take place by appealing to the hearts and minds of Men by making them Red Pill aware from the bottom up, but moreover, we need to live out that awareness in our own lives and lead by Red Pill example. Our decisions in life, our aspiration in parenting, family and career, in our business dealings, in the women we Game and the people we hire, all of these aspects need to take on the perspective of how they fit into pushing back against a feminine-primary world that demands we surrender any thought of individuated male power.

As Men, we need to unapologetically exercise what little power we’re left with to inform this and successive generation of Red Pill truths tactfully, but with strength of conviction in the face of a feminine-primary society bent on our surrender. Life finds a way. Feminism and the consolidation of the Feminine Imperative have failed because Men were not evolved to acquiesce their dominant spirit. On the same evolutionary level women also evolved into requiring that convnetionally masculine dominance. This is why feminism and egalitarianism will ultimately fail – nature simply will not cooperate with it’s own stagnation. As men, we can use this truth to our Red Pill aware advantage.


The Red Pill Monthly

 

Just a quick heads up, I’ll be doing another Livecast installment of The Red Pill Monthly with Niko Choski tomorrow morning about 10:20 am PST. We’ll be talking about ‘Runaway Hypergamy’ as the main topic, but I imagine that will veer off into discussions of the social and personal impacts of Open Hypergamy, maybe the growing acceptance of open cuckoldry.

I’ll also be giving away some freebies on the show – I’ve got four free codes for the new Audible version of The Rational Male as well as five login passes for Nick Krauser’s new Game intensives, Womanizers Bible.

As always, we’ll be taking questions or looking at comments in the Livecast stream, but if there’s something on your mind you’d like us to discuss please leave a comment here.