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.


Cheaters

Cheating Husband 9

I was picking through The Private Man’s blog a few months back and I came across this gem from about 3 years ago. It’s a pretty quick read if you want to click over and come back. PM recounts an all too common scenario from a Red Pill perspective – casually explaining what the Red Pill is to a guy who’s been immersed in a Blue Pill conditioning and experience for most of his life.

“What’s your blog about?”

“I help men be more attractive to women so they can reach their relationship goals.” It’s my standard go-to response when questioned about my blog.

“I don’t understand.”

“Men can learn how to be more attractive to women and I help them with that.”

James looked shocked and then quickly got angry.

“That’s cheating!” He was emphatic. He was pissed off. He was not attacking me, just my message. Again, the guy code applied.

This reaction did not surprise me. James is of the “be yourself and the right woman will magically appear” school of thought. I know where this comes from. For years I held the same point of view. I didn’t back down.

“A man can learn new things to make himself more attractive to women so he can meet his relationship goals.”

James was stubborn.

“I want a woman to love me for exactly who I am.”

That’s a noble sentiment based on an idealized view of attraction, dating, and relationships. It’s the standard response borne of shitty social expectations. But as I deal in the sometimes difficult realities of the situation, I had to be honest with James.

In this instance, James’ anger was the reflexive response I expect from ‘plugged in’ men when they first come into contact with a Red Pill aware man. It’s interesting when you consider this interaction with a Red Pill Lens. You begin to see just how saturated Blue Pill conditioning is for the average guy in real time. It’s one thing to see its influence in popular media, read a blog or book, see a movie or hear a song on the radio, but it’s quite another to experience it first hand with a guy maybe you know, or maybe you don’t.

Private Man doesn’t elaborate on it in his post, but this exchange is illustrative of how a Blue Pill mindset conditions an almost hostile defensiveness in men. Before I started the blog, and before I had a book out, I encountered this fairly often when I thought a certain man might benefit from my own awareness. It took some time for me to see the wisdom in the fourth law of power – always say less than is necessary.

Blue Pill men’s investment in the “truth” that their conditioning leads them to necessitates a constant confirmation of it from others, from his surroundings and from popular culture blanketing his awareness of it. When a Red Pill aware man verbalizes his truths, his observations, and his perspectives it’s often an affront to that Blue Pill guy’s ego-investments. And these are investments that he’s likely unaware he even holds, and he presumes everyone else holds too.

Think as you like…

There’s a comfort in presuming others believe as we do. It’s an interesting contrast when you think about it in terms of your political or religious views and then apply it to how we differ in respect to our respective Game with women. Most guys understand that other people have differing political leanings and religious dispositions, and it makes sense that they won’t see eye to eye with them. And from a cultural perspective – at least from a progressively western one – we are more or less socially expected to respect those differences in the name of mutual cooperation and mutually beneficial tolerance.

How that actually flies in the real world is a topic I’ll let other blogs explore, but when we consider how the Blue Pill and the Feminine Imperative conditions men across various cultural, political and religious spectrums we see a decided intolerance for even a casual, passing disagreement about how men ought to regard, respect and interact with women.

I won’t rehash the influence feminist ideology and the Feminine Imperative play in that conditions ( I have plenty of essays addressing that), but what I want to draw attention to here is the reflexive response James had with Private Man, and how it finds its root in a subconscious conditioning that was only mildly challenged by PM.

James first presumption was that what PM was teaching men was in some way ‘cheating’. What PM was advising was against a predefined rule set that every man ought to be abiding by. This was a Blue Pill reaction to even the premise of a Red Pill truth – that men can and should learn to interact with women in order to come to a more satisfying relationship with them; one defined by that man’s desires.

This actually offends two rules presuppositions: the first, that men would ever presume to ‘know’ women well enough to outdo other men (women as universal choosers) and second to put his imperatives above a woman’s.

When I interviewed with Alan Roger Currie recently I was asked to give my take on what exactly constituted Red Pill / Blue Pill status, and what my definitions were for the abstract terms of Alpha and Beta. It’s exceedingly difficult to apply concrete definitions in a quick hit info-bite, but with respect to the Blue Pill, Blue Pill conditioning is foundationally about a presumption that all men ought to mutually follow and be accountable to an expected rule set; a rule set that now openly serves feminine-primacy.

I developed this idea in The Second Set of Books post, but with regard to men’s dealing with other men and the implied social contract, there is a definite conflict between men invested in the old set of rules and Red Pill aware men who acknowledge, use and endorse a new set of rules. Thus, using Game or making personal choices based on Red Pill aware wisdom seems like the man applying them is in fact “cheating”.

He’s cheating on the first set of rules that the ‘plugged in’ man expects him to adhere to, and adhere to even when those rules make little realistic sense or have scant appreciable reward for. In other words, a martyr for the concept of honor.

Blue Pill ideology is something learned and internalized over the course of a man’s boyhood into his adult life. When you consider a guy’s upbringing and the extent that the Feminine Imperative conditions and reinforces his investments socially, culturally, religiously, etc., it’s easy to see how ‘natural’ and unlearned it seems to the guy who’s centered his identity on it.

To the greater whole of Blue Pill conditioned men the Red Pill is foreign and an affront to that conditioning. In fact, part of his feminine-primary conditioning focuses on the hope that some man will express some ‘sexist’ remark, or express some unapproved thought about women in the hopes that he can rebuke and correct that man. It’s part of Beta Game to look for opportunities to do just this in the hopes that some woman will witness it and find his gender-heroism attractive:

Every random chump within earshot of your conversation about Game, about your ‘changed’ way of seeing inter-gender relations, about your most objective critical observations of how women ‘are’, etc. – understand, that chump waits everyday for an opportunity to “correct” you in as public a way as he’s able to muster. That AFC who’s been fed on a steady diet of noble intent, with ambitions of endearing a woman’s intimacy through his unique form of chivalry; that guy, he’s aching for an opportunity to prove his quality by publicly redressing a “villain” like you for your chauvinism. Even under the conditions of relative anonymity (like the internet), he’ll still cling to that want of proving his uniqueness just on the off chance that a woman might read his rebuff and be fatefully attracted to him.

This is the bread and butter of the White Knight beta. It’s best to assume that most guys who pick up on just your Game vibe, to say nothing of overtly talking about it, are going to side with the feminine imperative by default. For practitioners of Beta Game (which is to say the better part of 90% of guys) this is an organic opportunity to identify with women and engage in the same shaming conventions women use without the fear of having it seem contrived.

…but do as others do

That said, this dynamic is not always so dramatic. There was a time when I lived in Florida before I had started the blog, but well after my time at SoSuave, where I had a get together with some friends at my place for some beer and bullshit time. We’d gotten to talking about ‘how our wives were’ and as you might expect there was all of the “she’s the boss” preprogrammed rhetoric being laughed about until I mentioned that my wife was definitely not the boss.

At that point, beer or no beer, it became apparent that the proverbial crab was about to crawl out of the barrel, so then comes the predictable ridicule about how I’m fulla’ shit, I must domineer her, or how I’m being cocky but my wife really owns me like them – because wives have the pussy so wives make the rules. Real, masterful, masculinity was a joke to these men because they were invested in the idea that they were fortunate to have any woman fuck them, and the one who did was not to be disrespected even in her absence. They wanted confirmation of their investment in the ideology that brought them to their indentured existences.

To the Blue Pill conditioned, wives run the show; to think otherwise is a delusion of masculine power for the Blue Pill man, and all men should acknowledge this.

As I mentioned a few posts ago, Hypergamy needs security. Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks seeks to set up social conditions and to socially engineer men who will at least attempt to provide women with some semblance of Hypergamous assurance. It may not seem it, but the social convention that men ought to Just Be Themselves is an effort to confirm this Hypergamous certainty about a man. Men are honor bound (through notions of whatever chivalry might mean) to be who they are, do what they say and say what they mean – and any man who changes that for whatever reason must necessarily be “cheating”.

This trope has the latent purpose of aiding in women’s Hypergamous filtering process. The old set of books, the rules a Blue Pill man expects all other men to play by, find its roots in a man’s worth being the truthful representation of what he really is. This is not so for women. Women’s self-representation is founded in socially acceptable misdirections that serve her Hypergamous interests (makeup to appear young, hair, nails, cosmetic surgery, etc.)

Popular culture ridicules men who falsely “wear masks of masculinity” in a social order that deliberately obfuscates his understanding of what it means, and all while reinforcing female deception of who men really are.

When men aren’t “just being themselves” it’s ‘cheating’. What it’s cheating is Hypergamy. It is cheating the ignorant Blue Pill ego-invested men whose identities are dependent upon men abiding by a rule set that no longer serves their best interests.


The Rational Male Audio Book

TRM_Audible_Cover

Well, it’s been a long time coming, but I’m proud to announce that the audio version of my first book The Rational Male is now available on Audible, Amazon, and iTunes.

As I mentioned in November, the book was narrated by professional voice talent Sam Botta. Sam has been my shadow for about as long as I’ve had the blog up and has made a great many personal investments on his own to see this book through. In November, I also mentioned Sam’s medical issues and I’m happy to say that I’ve worked out a beneficial royalties arrangement to help him with his exorbitant medical bills. So when you buy the over 14-hour long audio version of The Rational Male you’re also helping Sam.

A lot of readers have asked me why I didn’t have an audio version available from the get go, or why it’s been about two and a half years since I published the first book that I’m now releasing the audio. I had actually considered an audio version when I published in 2013, but I had little idea of how influential and well received the book would be then so I figured I’d give the book a year to allow it to mature.

I’m glad I did now because there’s a lot to digest in The Rational Male, to say the least. I’ve mentioned it before, but I didn’t think I’d be publishing any other book after TRM so I wanted to make it as comprehensive as possible. I’m not an author by trade, but I do enjoy writing both on this blog, essays and now two books.

Exploring Red Pill awareness and spreading the collective experiences of men from all over the world has always been the point of both books – and soon, the third book. So I view this audio version as another means to accessing Red Pill awareness. I was a bit hesitant to do an audio version because I’ve always intended my work to be referenceable and relative to my other essays or stories I use to bolster my points. It’s kind of difficult to deliver the same message, one that’s meant to be well considered, while it’s being read to you and then

I was a bit hesitant to do an audio version because I’ve always intended my work to be referenceable and relative to my other essays or stories I use to bolster my points. And that’s to say nothing about the involved discussion of my commenters on each post. It’s kind of difficult to deliver the same message, one that’s meant to be well considered, while it’s being read to you and then moving on to the next topic of thought.

So it was for that reason I initially delayed the first book’s audio, however, I do feel the book has made a significant impact in Red Pill awareness and the manosphere to the point where I think its accessibility makes it useful.

The other reason was that I was determined to have Sam Botta do the reading after his having done so much for the reach of my work. I won’t belabor his hit-and-run accident – I hope Sam will explain how he’s doing in the comments here – but, suffice to say he was involved in an accident that meant he basically had to relearn how to speak, walk, sleep and do many other things we regularly take for granted.

I wanted him to do the read and his work on the audiobook, he says, was instrumental in his year-long recovery.

So there you have it. I’m glad it’s finally been released into the wild and I’m already getting positive feedback on it. I would hope you’d buy this version of the book with the same intent you bought the physical copy; to share it and discuss the essays with other men (and women) who aren’t (or as) Red Pill aware. Obviously, I’d like others to buy the book as well, but more importantly, I’d like it to be shared and explored, so with that in mind, please, loan it or listen to it with other men you think will benefit from it.

And, just at the end here, yes I do plan to release an audio version of Preventive Medicine soon, but it also suffers from a need for visual aids from the book so I’m brainstorming ways to do this. Also, yes, I am in the beginning stages of compiling and writing the third Rational Male series book, and if you have any thoughts on it, please let me know in the comments.

Thanks all.


Children of Men

david

In last week’s comment thread, we were linked to a study that purported cuckoldry is far rarer than previously suspected. While I and many others are skeptical of the methodology of the findings I think it’s far more telling about the state of the Feminine Imperative that such a “study” (really meta-study) would be so triumphantly emphasized in the femosphere, thus highlighting the latent purpose for such a study to begin with.

Culum Straun links it for us:

New research suggests that the percentage of men (unknowingly) raising children who aren’t their own is only around 1-2%, as opposed to the 10-30% figure previously accepted over decades.

Reasons are unclear – the first hypothesis was that birth control may have reduced the *pregnancy* rates of women but not the infidelity rate – but apparently the 1-2% figure holds steady going back centuries, so that can’t be it.

The study authors conclude that in all probability the benefits of “superior genes” are outweighed by the risks of being caught and the social stigma etc.

I’d be really interested in seeing what you guys think – is this information that needs to be used to revise our view of the world around us, or is there some flaw in the reasoning/logic leading to 1-2%? The most obvious thing I can see is that we don’t know the methodologies of the underlying studies which were combined to find the meta survey..

I found it interesting that the first reflexive from the femosphere was to wave this in the air as if it were some kind of vindication or a refutation of Hypergamy. “See guys? We don’t actually lie about paternity; if we marry and fuck you we statistically have your kids.”

It’s important to remember that the definition they are exploring here is one where men are “unknowingly” raising the progeny of another man. From the article:

This challenges evolutionary psychologists who have suggested that human women “routinely ‘shop around’ for good genes by engaging in extra-pair copulation to obtain genetic benefits.”

They conveniently ignore the genomic evidence that shows roughly 80% of women bred with 20% of men in our evolutionary past (including Neanderthals), but the basis of the study is flawed because they ask the wrong question. Whether or not the women in our evolutionary past were pair-bonded in whatever social arrangement that passed for institutional monogamy at the time is functionally irrelevant to the latent purpose of cuckoldry.

It does, however, expose the mental point of origin of author . If she had cited the source for her quote I’d be less skeptical because no evo-psych researcher worth their salt would presume that women exclusively seek better genetic stock while within a pair-bonded relationship. It’s an indictment of the openness with which women embrace Hypergamy that they’d still need a janitor to sweep its ugliness back under the rug occasionally.

For the greater part of evo-psych research, the emphasis of study has centered on biological and evolutionary motivators (Estrus) that prompt women to Hypergamous predispositions and the end-purpose implied in women fulfilling their sexual strategy.

The Ends of Cuckoldry

The term “cuckoldry” isn’t strictly confined to duplicitous women duping husbands/boyfriends into believing the kid is theirs when it’s some other guy’s. Consider the marked increase in single motherhood since the Sexual Revolution; the statistic for abortion, the declining marriage rate and the fact that now, in westernized society, and the majority of births (close to 60%) are born to unwed mothers.

Now consider the social imperatives and zeitgeist of the past 70 years that promote women’s Hypergamous choices to the point that every woman’s sexual strategy and breeding choices are legislatively mandated to be supported. Men are mandated to support women’s breeding imperatives both directly and indirectly. Is that not the end purpose of cuckoldry?

Cuckoldry is implicative of far more than this woman’s narrow definition. And it’s narrow because women like Newitz are selling a salve to misdirect men in a larger society from considering that their cuckolding is really by and of their own volition. This is because men have been conditioned over the course of successive generations to think they are some kind of hero for ‘saving’ a woman from her own breeding decisions by directly or indirectly forgiving indiscretions and supporting and raising a child he didn’t father.

Just because a man knows the child isn’t his own doesn’t make it any less cuckoldry.

The question that needs to be asked, and is conveniently avoided in the article, is “what is the latent, evolutionarily motivated purpose of cuckoldry that would best serve women’s dualistic sexual strategy?” This is the uncomfortable question those nefarious evo-psych researchers really ask.

In the past, duplicitous, concealed, cuckoldry was a very risky prospect from a social perspective. It could mean family/tribal ostracism or even being stoned to death. So the larger, most deductively efficient way to achieve the same Hypergamous ends of cuckoldry is to reengineer a society where men are either ignorant of their own role in that cuckoldry or provided social rewards for their knowing participation in a socially acceptable form of cuckoldry. The latter is where we’ve progressed since the Sexual Revolution.

The ends remain the same, but it is cuckoldry by a different name. When we can restructure a social order that accepts and excuses both proactive and retroactive cuckoldry before the fact, we normalize it and defuse the consequences for women, while holding men accountable for its consequences or their unwillingness to participate in it. And even when a woman aborts a child – the ultimate confirmation of Hypergamous disapproval – that social order pre-approves her choice, pre-approves holding her unaccountable for it and concurrently makes the men who would find fault in it villains for judging her pre-approved act.

Sons of Cuckolds

Reader Petherton linked me to a fascinating article which not only illustrates that Hypergamy was an issue for the Greatest Generation, but also details the wages of ‘secret’ cuckoldry. Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury has discovered he is the illegitimate son of Sir Winston Churchill’s last private secretary after taking a DNA test to prove his paternity.

Petherton:

This is a perfect example of women’s hypergamous nature. She rides the cock carousel and gets impregnated by an Alpha who’s already taken. She quickly marries a Beta who is hovering in the background and cuckolds him. He never unplugs, she loses respect for him (if there ever was any in the 1st place) and he drinks himself to an early death.

Eventually the truth comes out. Instead of taking responsibility for her actions, she paints herself as a victim. The pregnancy is blamed on alcohol, and she successfully generates pity from everyone. In fact she generates admiration from everyone for her brave and successful fight against alcoholism, and for putting up with an alcoholic husband.

No one anywhere suggests the truth: that she had a strategy (whether conscious or subconscious) to find the best genes for her offspring, while fooling another man into providing for that offspring. When she gets busted, she successfully paints herself as the victim. You couldn’t make it up!

Needless to say, I found this article and the blatantly revealed cuckoldry oddly karmic in its timing coinciding with the “cuckoldry” study’s release. However, we should now consider the Arch Bishop’s response to his mother’s proveable cuckoldry of his “father”.

“His deepest identity isn’t about which man was his father, but who his heavenly Father is.”

This is exactly the diplomatic response I’d expect from men (albeit a religious one in this instance) steeped in a feminine-primary social order and conditioned from birth to affirm his Blue Pill existence. While egalitarianism is ostensibly about baseline equalism and “it’s what’s on the inside that counts”, on the outside, there is no better social mandate that serves the evolutionary ends of Hypergamy. The Arch Bishop’s response to his mother’s cuckoldry is a textbook example of how the Feminine Imperative conditions men to excuse, affirm and perpetuate its ends.

He said the right thing.

From Schedules of Mating:

Cheating
For this dynamic, and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to ‘cheat’. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively.

In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in a extramarital or extra-pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That’s not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action of infidelity itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is (or was) capable of supplying.

Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dilema. This form of ‘cheating’ relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.

I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously constructed and recognized master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather, the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying social rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. For the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to its influence. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she’s able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring’s survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.

The Cuckold
On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women’s justifications for it. Or, they become frustrated by the social pressures to ‘do the right thing’, are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed to a feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to steer clear of single mothers, either by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for – no matter how involved or uninvolved – another man’s successful reproduction efforts with this woman.

Men often fall into the role of the proactive or reactive Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mates short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father’s progeny. It could be argued that he may contribute minimally to their welfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man’s genetic stock in exchange for a limited form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contributes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology.

However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to ‘see past’ the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother’s bad decisions (bad from his own interest’s POV) with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. Furthermore, by reinforcing her behavior thusly, he reinforces the social convention for both men and women. It’s important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, soley responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) AND giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgement that decides her and her children’s fate

Who’s the Daddy?

Finally, we complete the cuckoldry trifecta with the Spectator article, Who’s the Daddy. Again, serendipitously, the rationale of this article exposes (perhaps obliviously) the social underpinnings of the Feminine Imperative’s motives in getting men to accept women’s Hypergamous choices as the preeminent social norm.

Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter? You can feel quite as much tenderness for a child you mistakenly think to be yours as for one who is.

[…]Uncertainty allows mothers to select for their children the father who would be best for them.

If the definition of cuckoldry ought to be confined to deceptive duplicity, as AnnaleeNewitz suggests in her article, why then should we need a push to legally mandate men to being accountable fathers by default when they proveably are not?

paternity

Ironically, the very same DNA swab test that betrayed the Arch Bishop’s mother’s cuckoldry is the test  proposes we make illegal or irrelevant in a court of law. And unironically, the Arch Bishop parrots back the mantra of the Feminine Imperative to excuse his own mother’s birth-fraud.

But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice. I’m not sure that many people are much happier for it.

Novaseeker had an excellent comment on this:

From the time paternity tests became more available and reliable, and men started using them to avoid paternity claims, the same argument has been made: it’s bad for the kids. Who cares if he isn’t the bio-dad, fatherhood isn’t about biology, it’s about a parental relationship. We should trust women who determine who the father is, so that she can choose the best man she thinks to be the father, etc., etc. The same arguments have been made for some time. In fact, medical ethicists also make the same arguments, to a large degree, in support of not disclosing non-paternity when it comes up in tests that were not specifically undergone to determine paternity — in other words, if your kid is getting tested for inherited disease, and the hospital finds out that it isn’t your bio kid, they don’t tell you that, for all the reasons stated in the article.

This really is a visceral issue for women. Paternity tests strike at something fundamental in women, even if the actual cuckolding rate remains low: the possibility to cuck, if needed. It’s a visceral issue for women, at a very deep and basic hindbrain level, for fairly clear reasons. If paternity tests were ever to become standard/mandatory at birth, the cucking strategy, even if it is a rather uncommon one, would become completely unavailable, and almost every single woman finds that to be a problem based on her hindbrain (and regardless of how her forebrain will formulate that deep, basic discomfort).

I’ve stated it in the past, but as the Feminine Imperative becomes more comfortable with Open Hypergamy and Open Cuckoldry more men will find its machinations unignorable. Thus, as increasingly more men refuse to participate in the game of their gender’s debasement the imperative must pursue legal mandates and fluid social restructuring to force men to comply with it.

Novaseeker again:

An amazing thing is how easy it is for women to dismiss the significance of biological fatherhood. It’s almost as if it simply doesn’t matter to them.

If that’s not an obvious flag of the FI, and the attendant idea that one sex’s sexual strategy must always impinge on the other sex’s sexual strategy, I don’t know what is. It places zero, zilch, nada importance on the male interest in having genetic progeny — again, it’s as if that interest simply doesn’t exist, and is illegitimate to even take into consideration.

There was a time when I had difficulty explaining the difference between men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept of love. I’ve recently come to see that the best explanations and contrasts come from the openly embraced examples set by women that can’t be ignored.

There is no better example of women’s opportunistic love, indeed, women’s innate solipsistic nature, than the phrase “it shouldn’t matter to the man who the biological father of the child really is – he just needs to accept it and support it.”

And there is no greater evidence of the Feminine Imperative’s purpose than a society structured to ensure that men and women believe this, as well as perpetuate it.


Damaged Goods

damaged_goods

As a part of my line of work doing liquor branding promos, I’ve frequently had to do spots with (terrestrial) radio talk shows for events and such. I’ve had to familiarize myself often with these personalities; some I became long time friends with, others kind of burned out or became victims of what they thought was a greater social proof than they actually had.

One thing I’ve noted in working with the men who host these shows is that more often than not they suffer from deeply invested Blue Pill mindsets with regard to women. Many of them eventually invited women into their male space as co-hosts to help with appealing to the female demographic, and like all other “female friendly” ventures, the character of the show shifts to promoting the same feminized boilerplate we see in Purple Pill forums and blogs that began with a more Red Pill tone.

Almost invariably there develops a segment or some call in bit where the host and hostess(es) attempt to suss out the romantic problems of a caller or emailer. If you listen to any semi-popular local morning commute show you’ll get this segment at least once or twice a week. All of them follow the same format. All of them rattle off the same Blue Pill tropes even those without the aid of a Red Pill Lens are familiar with – open communication, keep it fresh, meeting (her) needs, be supportive, etc. and all the standards you can expect from a society that doesn’t question the rote memorization of Oprah or Dr. Phil’s idioms.

If you do have a reasonably attuned Red Pill Lens you’ll just grind your teeth at all of it, but it confirms and highlights the Beta inside the host despite all his other blusterings on the show. It also serves to highlight the saturation of the Blue Pill’s conditioning reach into society.

So it was on one of these shows I was listening to this week that the ‘morning zoo’ decided to take a stab at one emailer’s very common problem. It was the typical Dead Bedrooms problem you’ll find in the subredd of the same name; “My wife is frigid, how do I get her to want to fuck me?” However, the story had a slight twist that nicely dovetails into a topic I’ve wanted to explore.

In this man’s story, he’d married a woman for all the right Blue Pill reasons. He loved her, “connected” with her on what he imagines are deep emotional levels, was supportive, dedicated, but was only able to have sex with her in as limited and as lackluster a way as she felt ‘comfortable‘ in having with him. After a year and a half of marriage, she’d completely “shut down” on him sexually. Anytime he initiated she would recoil from him and begin to cry.

There was no elaboration on her part as to why she was crying and up to the point of his seeking advice she’d offered no reason for her reluctance to fuck him. Fast forward to now and it’s been almost a year for him without sex with his wife, no explanation, and his ‘needs‘ are being unmet. He’s emotionally invested in her in the way you’d expect a Blue Pill, dutiful Beta would be, so his inner turmoil is one of the Paradox of Commitment conflict with his ‘need‘ and expectation of having sex with his wife.

As I said, this is standard Dead Bedrooms fare for the majority of men who married while fully immersed in a Blue Pill world. Unfortunately, we don’t have much more to go on – there were no descriptions of background, histories, family particulars, etc. given, however, my guess would be his wife is experiencing  the very common post-marriage Beta ‘buyers remorse’. However, this is why I thought the analysis and advice on the part of the hosts (1 male host, 1 male, and 2 female co-hosts) were very telling about the state of the Blue Pill world.

Presuming Abuse

The first reflexive interpretation on the part of the women was that this wife had some form of sexual abuse in her personal history and the husband’s initiating sex was triggering some unresolved sex issues she’d never dealt with and apparently never revealed to her husband when they were having sex in the years leading up to it. Again, there was no information about this from the emailer, but this was the first presumption the female co-hosts jumped to whenever a woman is described as crying about having sex.

We don’t really know if this is the case, but I found it interesting how useful that presumption is for women. In almost every social infraction we are expected to presume a blameless state with women. Whether that stems from rape allegations, ‘slut shaming’, past sexual history, red-handed infidelity, or, in this case, the presumed possibility of sexual abuse in a woman’s past, we are expected, on whole, as a society to presume that even the possibility is the actual fact.

Even when the actual fact is disproven, and the fault or choice blatantly falls upon the woman in question, the rationale and after-the-fact absolving of that woman of her own culpability is still expected to take precedence over the actual fault. For example, when I first detailed the situation of the woman and her husband in

For example, when I first detailed the situation of the woman and her husband in Saving the Best the reflex on the part of virtually all women responding to this story (as well as the relinks to it) and most Blue Pill men was to presume she had some damaged past where she was trying to find some emotional connection with the men she was having amateur porn orgies with in her college years. The acceptable, socially reflexive presumption was to give this woman a plausible reason – and one designed to evoke feminine victim sympathy – for her actions rather than consider that she was simply living in the moment and following her Hypergamous imperatives at the time.

Of course, the simple answer was that the husband was put into the same Dead Bedrooms scenario most men in his situation are placed in. He was the dutiful Beta in Waiting and “married a slut who fucks (him) like a prude”. There are over 30,000 subscribers on the dead bedrooms subreddit, this is not an uncommon occurrence, but just as common is the social convention of redirecting the fault on the part of the husband for his ‘selfish concerns’ for ever having been upset by this revelation about his wife. He was the bad guy for feeling ‘underserved’ with regards to his wife’s genuine, unobligated, sexual desire.

He’s the bad guy for not being understanding and supportive of the reflexive rationale that his wife must’ve been damaged goods (and damaged by other, equally horrible, men) before he decided to marry her. He’s responsible for coming to terms with it on his own. So it’s either face that or risk being perceived as the same kind of ‘typical’ asshole man who brought her to this by abandoning her in divorce.

‘Abuse’ as a Tool

‘Abuse’ is easily one of the most generic and utilitarian of catch terms and social conventions available to women living in a feminine-primary social order. It’s ambiguous, but also carries enough associative horror to get others to accept it at face value while killing any need for the uncomfortable explanations that would qualify it. A woman says “I was abused” and it ends the discussion regardless of any mitigating factors or particulars about it – and despite the particulars of what she claims ‘abuse’ to avoid. There simply is no qualifying it. If she feels abused it is abuse, and don’t worsen the situation by asking her to qualify it.

Claims of prior abuse are the perfect tool for women to explain past sexual indiscretions as well as to explain frigidity with a husband or a boyfriend, even those with whom she’d been sexual with before. Needless to say, this is a very useful tool for explaining and excusing women’s Hypergamous impulses and concurrent behaviors, however, I should note that the ‘abuse’ social convention will become less and less tenable as Open Hypergamy becomes more widespread and embraced.

For Beta men – Blue Pill men plugged into the narrative of unqualified female victimhood – there is a very real risk of becoming trapped in a cycle of White Knighting against the evils of ‘typically masculine’ men who would ‘abuse’ his princess while simultaneously reinforcing his Beta status in avoiding the perception of being an ‘abuser’ himself.

Knights Against Abuse

The men and boys I detail in Promise Keepers are prime examples of this looping presumption of abuse. For the most, these men had, or understood that they had, “abusive” fathers whom they swore never to emulate in their adult lives. While that abusiveness may or may not be factual the impression of it is what molds that man’s life, but at the same time predisposes him to the Savior Schema that only cements him into a personal life founded in Blue Pill White Knight heroics.

There develops an internal conflict for these heroes of abuse because their dedication to themselves as their own Mental Point of Origin will always be compromised by a Blue Pill conditioned responsibility of supportiveness for women. For the patient, waiting Beta, the man who’s played by what he believes are the rules for the better part of his teens and 20s, there is a unique anger he experiences when his ‘dream girl’ (or one that closely aligns with that ideal) isn’t sexual with him in the way he’s imagined women are with men during their 20s.

She’s come to him in her Epiphany Phase and after all the sexual indiscretions and self-discovery of her 20s, she finally wants to “do things right” by making him wait to have sex (so he won’t think she’s easy) and when they do it’s inhibited or becomes so once he’s locked into emotional or marital commitment with her. Now add to this the presumption of, or stated account of, ‘abuse’ she’s experienced in the past with the ‘typical’ men she was discovering herself sexually with.

You might even add the child of one of her former ‘abusers’ into the mix with whom he’s expected to form a paternal bond with. That Beta now hates those ‘abusers’ with more passion than when he was brooding about them banging the girls he wanted to fuck in his 20s because they ruin women in both the short and long term to him. They’ve ruined his girl for him now that she’s come to her senses and chosen him to pair with “forever”.

Now she’s a mess, a mess he’s expected to untangle and heal and reconstruct into something resembling the sexual dream girl he’s convinced she used to be, and all because of that “Bro”, the abuser, they guy(s) she had to discover for herself she ‘really didn’t need in her life’.

She’s damaged goods, but to that Beta, she’s blameless in her having been “abused” because she didn’t know any better that ‘typical’ men, the ones she chose, would abuse her. Now their abuses are his problems and he’s reminded of that every time she cries when he initiates sex with her.

The Utility of Damaged Goods

In this context, the social convention that is “abuse” becomes another form of insurance of Hypergamy for women. That presumption of blameless abuse locks Beta providers into a Dream Killers schema to the point that they will prioritize the healing of their ‘abused’ princess, the one who would otherwise be his dream girl, above his own imperatives, aspiration and goals in order to prove his quality as a supporter of women.

For women, the assurances that the social convention of ‘abuse’ represents also comes with a measure of internal conflict. From the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy, her subconscious hates the idea of being obligated to fuck her Beta Bucks provider, but again, subconsciously, she needs (or feels she needs) his support, provisioning, and emotional availability. However, for all of his self-evincing support, comfort and emotional investment in being a “better man” than the nebulous ‘abusers’ of her past, those anti-seductive aspects only serve to remind and confirm to her that he ‘doesn’t get it‘ and she’s obligated to be intimate and affectionate in a seemingly genuine way if she’s to maintain the provisional relationship.

The default presumption of ‘abuse’ fills the need for a buffer between reconciling the Hypergamous want of an Alpha lover and the provisional, emotional need for a Beta’s resources and comforts. The DeadBedrooms and MarriedRedPill subredds (not to mention the MMSL forums) are littered with the stories of men who discovered (sometimes secretly) how sexual their ‘abused’ wives were in their Party Years or what their wives’ real sexual appetites were for other men after their divorce.

Now, as I close here, let me state that I’m not discounting the real possibilities of actual cases of abuse among women. I have no doubt I’ll generate a slew of disgruntled comments from women relating their personal tragedies in today’s comment thread, but my point in this essay isn’t to question women’s legitimate claims of abuse. Rather it is to lay bare the utility invested in presuming the legitimacy of abuse whenever a woman even hints at the possibility of it by crying before sex or any number of other behaviors or mental states that would be affirmed or excused by just the claim.


Evolving Hypergamy

propose-woman

Novaseeker had an excellent breakdown of how Hypergamy has developed and is radically altering a long established social order in favor of one centered on the female sexual strategy. This was timely for a post I was working on, so rather than allow it to be buried in the last thread I thought I’d riff on it a bit here:

So in my head, I tried to think of what the best response to hidden estrus would be from a male perspective, and the only thing I could think of was essentially hiding male horniness, I used the word stoicism. The only way to balance the effects of hidden estrus is for all men to simply appear to not want what a women are offering, to appear uninvested, uninterested, etc.., because this again gives the perception of a lack of abundance to the women and re-balances things. Eventually such behavior would become selected for to some degree, and male emotions would become less prominent.

I agree with what you are saying, although I think it’s important to bear in mind that the expression of female sexuality historically was quite restricted, once we were at a level of more complex social organization beyond the rather small. Things did vary by community and culture somewhat, but once things reached that level of social advance, in most places a woman’s family/kin had a huge control over the expression of her sexuality, with the parents (largely the father) and to a lesser extent her male brothers exerting substantial restrictive pressure on the expression of her sexuality.

I should note here that while there is a definite social structure built around various strategies of mate guarding, these social mores and familial repression of women’s Hypergamous impulses does, in fact, stem from evolved, behavioral adaptations.

Kin Affiliation Across the Ovulatory Cycle : Females Avoid Fathers When Fertile Consider that girls will make subconscious efforts to avoid their fathers during the proliferative phase of their ovulatory cycle. Also, consider girls enter puberty at an earlier age when their fathers are not present in the family. Both of these are examples of phenomena that have a physical manifestation and a latent evolutionary purpose, but socially we build moral/social frameworks around buffering for (or sometimes accommodating) them.

Likewise, there are social controls that span all cultures that have the same purpose of buffering against the predations and mechanics of women’s Hypergamous natures. The most stringent of these might be repressing of women’s sexuality, but the latent purpose is still the same; controlling for paternity assurances.

There was, of course, cheating of the system that took place in terms of women bucking the system covertly, but most women were not sexual free agents in most places most of the time historically, and so were not acting on their estrus, concealed or otherwise at these later points in history. It does seem like something which likely occurred prior to the time we developed significant social organization (which is unclear when it precisely happened, but likely happened gradually quite some time before the development of large-scale agriculture), and is inherited from that earlier time, while the later social structures mostly, or at least in many cases, served to rather severely hem in the expression of female sexuality and free sexual choice to a large degree.

The Feminine Imperative that exists today still uses these historically extreme controls as a baseline for provoking an emotional response among women (and feminized men) today. In spite of the realities of Open Hypergamy and Open Cuckoldry, and paired with the fact that we live in the most sexually permissive society the world has largely known to this point, there is still a necessity to sell a narrative of sexual repression in order to perpetuate a social condition of ‘victimization’ among women and thus perpetuate a status of concern and primary importance.

So I guess my perspective is not that what you are suggesting is incorrect, in terms of the deeper evolutionary inheritance, but that the response of men to this eventually evolved, socially, into the use of social/legal/moral structures that acted as a counterweight to the inter-sexual issues raised by concealed estrus, and that, being social animals, this was itself also a powerfully selected thing (tribes that did not adopt similar restrictive measures did not generally survive except in relatively isolated areas where they were not exposed to the same degree of competition with patriarchal tribes and their sexually restrictive cultures). I suspect it dawned on the males in some tribal groups that the gains to be had from a kind of system of “one girl for (almost) every guy (who isn’t killed in war, or banished or enslaved)” when it came to women, in terms of reducing sex-related conflict among men, became more important when the scale/size of social organization grew beyond the small and moved to a larger, more complex scale, where different structures were needed to ensure cooperation and alleviate conflict which could undermine that cooperation and the scale made possible by it. So in other words, the strategy that men adopted had to do with the needs of the social order and the need for greater cooperation and less conflict once the scale grew to the point where close kinship among the males could no longer feasibly serve as a conflict-reducer effectively.

This was done, of course, at the direct expense of the female sexual strategy, and females have been scratching and clawing against that result in various ways ever since that time, but really have only recently had the success of overturning pretty much all aspects of that restrictive system (while retaining selective elements of it in form, mostly, as it serves their own interests) with the collaboration of most men, by the way, in the process (for various reasons, many of which Rollo has detailed in various posts on this blog). The resulting system is therefore new, and requires men to adapt, which is what we are about doing here, of course. The idea is to have a system which is of a large scale and complexity, socially, and which requires high levels of cooperation in order to function, while at the same time removing the last vestiges of of the “one girl for (almost) every guy” sexual system and replacing it with the freest, most open and adversarial system of sexual competition among males that our species has likely seen since long before the time we evolved into socially-based human groups.

I’ve covered most of the male adaptiveness that Nova mentions here in the Adaptation series of posts. For the short version, however, it’s important to note that even the sexual restrictiveness of women in prior eras were themselves adaptations meant to buffer against women’s conflicting sexual strategy. 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. Prior sexual restrictiveness was a repression meant to force women to abandon and later (in monogamy) compromise their own Hypergamy (Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks).

It remains to be seen how feasible this is, longer term, because it is still so new. And the adaptation required by men is substantial, because the change is gargantuan from anything we have experienced in thousands upon thousands of years, in terms of sexual system and related mores. I think relatively few will adapt, and the majority of men will fail at the system, in terms of actually getting what they want. I don’t mean most guys will be incel all their lives, but that their relationships with women will be extremely skewed to the women’s terms, through a combination of outright duping, indoctrination into wishful thinking, and a steady move towards ever more libertine sexual morality for women as a part of the further expression of the Feminine Imperative.

And that comes back to the concealed estrus issue, because the social solution that men in certain groups came up with a long, long time ago (substantial restrictions on female sexual expression) is now pretty much completely removed in this culture, meaning that it is playing a bigger role in human inter-sexual relations than it has been permitted to play in a long time. In fact, the development of reproductive technologies and the related legal regime supporting their free use has augmented the ability of women to utilize this aspect of themselves to tilt the field in their favor, well beyond what nature provided them, in terms of controlling who among the men gets to breed. Again, most men will not be able to adapt quickly enough and will be in lopsided relationships as a result. Other men, like us, are able to adapt and thrive under the new system as individuals, knowing full well we can’t really overthrow something like the sea change in sexual system that we have seen occur, even if we thought that was wise, which it may very well not be. Every man, once he comes to this realization, therefore has a choice to make, really, and a fairly stark one. Most guys have no chance, however, because they are totally subsumed by the feminine primary and never come to a realization of things as they are, and just what the heck happened in the culture, sexually, over the last 100 years or so.

Although my last post may have been on the melodramatic side, the exaggeration is still founded on the same dynamic Nova is getting at here. Since the time of the sexual revolution there has been a complete social abdication on the part of men to have any say in exercising, much less advocating for, prioritizing their own interests in the sexual strategies equation.

It’s gotten to the point that even men’s initiating an approach at the most marginal form of intimacy runs the risk of not just rejection, but legal and social punishments for even taking it upon himself. The onus of sexual selection, as per every legal mandate, is unilaterally placed upon the part of women. The latent purpose of this is to prioritize women’s sexuality and women’s sexual strategy (Hypergamy) above men’s – all while clinging to the pretense of the sexual repressions that they believe still characterize the condition of women.

If you ever wonder at the declining marriage rates, the delaying of marriage until well past women’s prime fertility years, male suicide rates being four times that of women or the rise of men who’ve contented themselves in being single for their lives look no further than this reprioritization of women’s Hypergamy as the socially predominant sexual strategy.

[…]

I would say that attempts at overt male control of covert female sexuality oftentimes amount to window dressing that only serve to help convince the men of their paternity, even when they’ve no reason to be assured of it. Only in cultures like those established by strict Islamic doctrine/Sharia Law can paternity be (mostly) assured by social forces. Outside of that, women can oftentimes have free reign at getting away with good old-fashioned cuckoldry.

 

In a social order founded on Hypergamy, that dynamic demands that men’s utterly abdicate their sexual and biological imperatives to women. This means any paternity assurances, or even the idea that they should matter to a man, must be surrendered to the point that they are literally conditioned and bred out of the consciousnesses of men.


 

I’m hitting upon this in the hopes of prompting some discussion about the aspects of Hypergamy Novaseeker mentions here, but also because I will be discussing much of this with Alan Roger Currie this coming Thursday night on his podcast.

We’ll be talking at 10pm EST/7pm PST and this will be a live call-in format, so if you’d like to participate I’d encourage you to do so. While my appearance is not necessarily an endorsement of Mode One or anything else Currie is selling, I respect him as a thoughtful interviewer and he’s been asking me to appear for some time now.


Children and Cornfields

Does anyone remember the episode of the Twilight Zone called “It’s a Good Life“? I rewatched this for this article and I’ve got to stay it still holds up and it’s just as creepy as when I watched it as a kid.

Six-year-old Anthony Fremont looks like any other little boy, but looks can be deceiving: he is a monster, a mutant with godlike mental powers, including mind-reading. Years before, he isolated his town of Peaksville, Ohio. Everybody is under his rule, even his parents. Since he’s begun isolating the town, supplies of common household items, such as bar soap, have been dwindling. He has blocked television signals, caused cars to not work, and, due to his controlling everything, he does not attend school.

The children and adults, including his own parents, tiptoe nervously around him, constantly telling him how everything he does is “good,” since displeasing him can get them wished away into a mystical “cornfield”, an unknown place, from which there is no return. At one point, a dog is heard barking angrily. Anthony thinks the dog is “bad” and doesn’t “like [him] at all,” and wishes it into the cornfield. His father and mother are horrified, but they dare not show it.

One night, due to the townsfolk having always done what he wants, he treats them to one hour of TV. Although they do not like what he shows, they tell Anthony that it was far better than what used to be on TV.

Finally, at Dan Hollins’ birthday party, he gets two presents from his wife: a bottle of brandy and a Perry Como record. As Dan is eager to listen to the record, he is reminded by everyone that Anthony does not like singing. Getting slightly drunk from the brandy, complaining about not listening to the record, and no one singing “Happy Birthday” to him, Dan cannot take the strain anymore and confronts Anthony, calling him a monster and a murderer. While Anthony’s anger grows, Dan yells for someone to attack Anthony from behind and end his reign of terror. Aunt Amy (who isn’t able to sing anymore because of Anthony) tentatively reaches for a fireplace poker, but no one has the courage to act. Anthony cries out to Dan, “You’re a bad man! You’re a very bad man! And you keep thinking bad thoughts about me!” Dan is transformed into a jack-in-the-box (ending his life), causing his wife to break down. The adults are horrified at what Anthony had done, and his father begs him to wish it into the cornfield, which he does.

Because of Amy’s earlier complaints about the heat, Anthony causes snow to begin falling outside. His father observes that the snow will kill off at least half the crops, and he is about to confront Anthony about this, but his wife and the other adults look on with worried smiles on their faces. The father then smiles and tells Anthony in a horror-tinged voice, “…But it’s good you’re making it snow. A real good thing. And tomorrow… tomorrow’s gonna be a… real ‘good’ day!”

I didn’t really understand the significance of this episode until recently. In a sense I guess I can attribute it to a more defined Red Pill Lens but the femosphere events and a few articles brought to my attention this last week reminded me of this Twilight Zone story. I’ll get to why in a bit.

The first event was the highly publicized not guilty verdict in the Jian Gomeshi rape (hoax) trial. Mike Cernovich had a quick hit post about the details here. I’ve written about the particulars of why women’s insecurity about optimizing Hypergamy drives them to insane lengths to control for it before, but my focus this time with Gomeshi wasn’t so much about the women’s lying, or the ambiguity of what constitutes rape or sexual harassment. When the Rolling Stone/UVA fraternity rape hoax was finally revealed for what it was I wrote Hysteria :

Transferring information about a man’s preselected approval amongst a collective of women is one such override. However, it’s very important for men living in a feminine-primary social order to understand that social proof is not just limited to preselection of men as potential partners.

This social proof dynamic extends to the perceptions of women in a collective peer group, as well as men for whom they have no sexual interest in, but serve their material interests nonetheless.

The current cultural atmosphere of male suspicion and autonomous rape-threat assessment of men is another variation of this perceptual, hysterical, collective belief dynamic. Women want to believe in the presumption that every man outside of their preselected, collective approved, hypergamous ideal  is a potential rape threat. In other words, a man who might, by force or coercion, assume control of her hypergamous sexual selection.

The narrative, the perception, is all that matters.

[…]women become so ego-invested in the certainty of their collective perceptions that, even in light of contrary evidence, the only acknowledged verification of that perception is how it makes them feel.

This contradiction of a collective feminine hysteria is what many luminaries of the Feminine Imperative are now being forced to confront. It’s important to remember during this UVa / Rolling Stone rape debacle that women, and more than a few enabling male sympathizers, wanted to believe this travesty was true in spite of the vaudevillian outlandishments and still refuse to accept that it isn’t.

gomeshi

The overwhelming zeitgeist consensus in this case was that the women concerned in Gomeshi’s rape trial were to be believed irrespective of facts that exonerated him. And so strong was this sentiment that suggesting the suspension of the most fundamental aspects of law was the first recourse to be considered – that consideration is to change the presumption of guilt where it affects the accusations of men by women.

Once again, just as in the UVA rape hoax, we see a feminine-primary collective social consciousness moved by a need to believe in order to maintain a collective ego-investment in that social order’s correctness. And all of that in spite of all controverting, unignorable evidence. However, the feminine conditioned reflex for feminine defined ‘justice’ in this regard has been taken a step further – an accusation of rape or sexual assault is as good as a conviction.

I can’t be too sympathetic for Gomeshi. He built his reputation on being a social justice warrior and a self-evincing ‘male feminist, but just like another notable male feminist, Hugo Schwyzer, he’s had to learn the hard way that feminist Game comes with a substantial risk.

However the salient point I took away from his trial wasn’t that women are duplicitous or a feminized society being too ready to unquestioningly presume the veracity of another woman’s rape claims. Neither was it unexpected that a need to believe that presumed guilt would come up. What struck me was the push for control, for absolute unilateral arbitrative power to condemn a man for the accusation of sexual misconduct.

What struck me was that the Feminine Imperative should seek to nakedly place itself above a rule of law that is otherwise founded on a logical, rational process of checks and balances (or at least intends to do so).

As the protests and debate swirled around Gomeshi I was also made aware of a review of a new book Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape

An economics major taking a gender studies class is getting dressed in her college dorm room for a night out, cheerfully discussing sexual stereotyping in advertising with Orenstein — while at the same time grabbing a miniskirt and a bottle of vodka, the better to achieve her evening goal: to “get really drunk and make out with someone.” “You look hot,” her friend tells her — and the student, apparently registering the oddness of the scene, turns to Orenstein. “In my gender class I’m all, ‘That damned patriarchy,’ ” she says. “But . . . what’s the point of a night if you aren’t getting attention from guys?” Her ambition, she explains, “is to be just slutty enough, where you’re not a prude but you’re not a whore. . . . Finding that balance is every college girl’s dream, you know what I mean?”

Author Peggy Orenstien serves up the same reheated feminist alarmism for her young daughter that Hannah Rosin did 8 years ago. However, Orenstien escalates the narrative much in the same vein that the feminist reaction to Gomeshi has. She defines it for us:

For guys, she says, there is fun and pleasure; for girls (at least the straight ones), too little physical joy, too much regret and a general sense that the boys are in charge. Fully half the girls in Orenstein’s book say they’ve been coerced into sex, and many had been raped — among them, by the way, that econ major, who was so confused that when her assailant dropped her off the next morning, she told him, “Thanks, I had fun.” The sexual playing field Orenstein describes is so tilted no girl could win.

Orenstein presumes the control of a girl with a handle of vodka and dressed ‘just slutty enough’ rest entirely with the boys she’s making out with and more. They are ‘assailants’ by definition – a definition that depends on the Hypergamous whims of the woman involved.

I drew parallels between these stories because they are indicative of a trend I predicted a couple years ago – in a social order that prioritizes Hypergamy as the intersexual priority, men who wont cooperate with it must be legislated into complying with it. But as it develops now this doesn’t go far enough; men must be preemptively convicted of the crime of sexual misconduct before the they are ever judged worthy of a woman’s sexual interests. In other words, men are ‘assailants’ for the very attempt of presenting themselves for the intimate approval of women.

Monday’s Price of Nice post and the femosphere response to men’s want to be Nice in order to ingratiate themselves in the hopes that they might endear a woman to him highlights this even further. Men being ‘nice’ are by definition ‘assailants’.

But it’s not enough to discourage men’s niceties, they must be taught to fear the attempt of initiating anything looking like intimacy. They must fear being whisked away to the cornfield for not thinking the right way about the women they would hope to find favor with.

Commenter SJF had a poignant comment this week:

Infantile as they are, women are ill-equipped to handle power, and that which is born out of the insecurity that a man may do her wrong, turns into an exploitative, predatory misuse of power that fuels grandiose narcissism, and thus masculinizes her. The aforementioned relationships between the different aspects of the female psyche do not explain in it in its entirety, but nonetheless, should accurately depict its root and core.

Which brings us back to our six year old Anthony Fremont in the Twilight Zone episode. On a social scale we are rapidly approaching a time where coddling the childish impulsivity of women will dictate not just the rule of law for men, but will define the nature of men’s dealing with women on a fear based level. In fact we’re already beginning to see this in the workplace.

Taken to its intended and illogical extreme, given unilateral God-like arbitration of men in every aspect of society, politics, religion, academia, etc., women and their imperatives would define intersexual relations much in the same way as Anthony does with the ‘adults’ he controls.

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,784 other followers