Queens, Workers & Drones


As I’ve stated in many prior posts, it is Men, not women who are the True Romantics. It is actually Men who will more readily alter their lives in the most radical of ways to achieve what they think is an idyllic state of monogamy with their ‘Woman of Quality’. I understand how this statement may conflict with women’s (and mangina symp’s) characterizations of ‘typical guys’ just wanting to fuck anything that smiles at them, but this sentiment is only designed to maintain the feminine as the victimized gender.

It is in fact Men who are more prone to wanting commitment from a woman. The operative word here is “wanting” commitment.

Men are now also just as likely to want to get married as women and more likely to fall in love at first sight.

Experts said that the results were evidence of ‘gender blurring’ in which women have become more like men and men have taken on the characteristics usually associated with women.

I doubt that last quote from this article will shock my regular readers. Considering that the overwhelming majority of men are corn-fed betas, raised from birth to be devoted, “supportive”, wives to their masculinized fem-husbands, it’s really no surprise that men would be the ones seeking solace in a monogamy they’ve been conditioned to believe should be their goal-state for so long.

While betas are concerned with qualifying for an idyllic monogamy, Alphas tend to focus more on fidelity – their women’s fidelity, not necessarily their own.

Feminized Commitment

One very effective meme the feminine imperative has cunningly inserted into our social awareness is the feminine ownership of the term ‘commitment’. Calling a guy a ‘commitment-phobe’ is really a 90’s shaming cliché that’s been a retread for the Man Up! generation. There are different variation of this shaming – a guy can be ‘phobic’ because he lacks maturity, or because he’s become bitter and burned by a spurned woman, but underneath all that is the association that the concept of commitment uniquely applies to a man committing to monogamy with a woman.

From the Paradox of Commitment:

The idea is that commitment should only have meaning in a feminine defined reality. Ironically, it’s Men who commit far more readily to ideals, family, military, business ventures or partnerships, and servitude than women have the capacity to appreciate, because recognizing this doesn’t serve their imperative. In other words, a commitment to anything that doesn’t directly benefit the feminine isn’t commitment; answer? Redefine commitment to reflect feminine interests.

One thing that needs to be understood about women’s innate feminine solipsism is how it’s expressed on a meta-scale. It’s very easy to observe and consider individual examples of women’s subconscious sense of self-importance (read any comment from women on a manosphere blog) , but what most men aware of this phenomenon don’t consider is how this solipsism scales up to the larger social narrative.

I’ve written extensively about the Feminine Reality and Feminine Social Primacy, but these have been ‘top down’ assessments with regard to how society follows a feminine primary narrative as the correct premise of origin. Put simply, if it benefits women, it benefits society – society is better when benefiting women’s imperatives are its focus.

However, from a ‘bottom up’ perspective it is this proclivity for solipsism in women that collectively becomes the social narrative (or paradigm if you prefer). Millions of women solipsistically expressing the demands that would ensure a secure hypergamy for themselves makes for a fem-centric social narrative. And from this develops an expectation of, and entitlement to a default, secured commitment to satisfying women’s hypergamic impulses.

Selective Breeding

So powerful is this sense of entitlement, so consuming and convinced of the correctness of their purpose is the feminine that women will literally breed and raise generations of men to better satisfy it. Hypergamy is cruel, but nowhere more so than in the relationship between a mother overtly raising and conditioning a son to be a better servant of the feminine imperative.

But to breed a better worker, the feminine imperative’s queens can’t afford to have any corrupting, masculine, outside influence. On a societal scale this might mean removal (either by disincentives or forcibly) of a father from the family unit, but this is the easy, extreme illustration. There are far more subtle social and psychological means that the imperative uses to effect this filtering – via mass media, social doctrines, appeals to (feminized) morality, the feminine is placed as the correct imperative while the masculine is filtered out or apologetically tolerated as vestiges of an immature and crude reminder of masculinity’s incorrectness.

Yet for all of this social engineering Hypergamy still demands satisfaction of women’s most base imperative, Alpha seed. The queens need physically / psychologically dominant drones – if just for a season and at their ovulatory pleasure. While beta workers are endlessly vetted in sisyphean tasks of qualifying for the acceptance of the feminine imperative, the Alpha drones live outside this shell; their qualifications only based on how well they satisfy the feminine’s visceral side of  hypergamy.

The great irony of this social solution to hypergamy and long term parental investment is that the vast majority of the offspring of this arrangement would be raised to be better workers. Those betas-to-be boys must be insulated from the corrupting influence of the drones lest they devolve into the Alphas they crave yet cannot control. It may seem counterintuitive, to raise what should ostensibly be optimized genetic stock as a cowed, sometimes medically restrained, feminized beta males. However it is through this harsh conditioning that truly dominant Alphas must rise above. Essentially the genetic lottery isn’t won by women in such a social environment – it’s men, or the ones who rise above in spite of the conditioning efforts of the feminine imperative.

Generation AFC

We’re just now seeing the results of almost three generations of this selective breeding effort. While women bleat and bemoan, “Man Up!” over the lack of suitable men to meet both their hypergamy and their provisioning, they only grind their teeth at the results of a social momentum set in motion by women two or three generations before them. While more boys are raised to pee sitting down by women concerned that their sons’ testosterone poisoning will make him a potential rapist, the fewer and fewer “suitable” males present themselves 20 years later.

A lot has been made about men just checking out or giving up on themselves as they reach a projected notion of maturity. The feminine complains about them not living up to the standard set before them by the feminine imperative – women are owed reverence and tribute of an enduring security, why are men not sacrificing themselves on the altar of the goddess? In the face of all the so called social advancements in women’s independence over the past 50 years we still hear a deafening cry for ‘real men’ to measure up, to qualify themselves for acceptance, to be worthy of providing for her and (her) offspring. Despite the refutations of masculinity and claims of independence, women still want Men.

In the manosphere it’s been argued that the reason for this sexual disparity and men’s ambivalence is due to some new awareness among men of the way the Game has been rigged against them. It’s been argued that men are consciously opting out – going their own way – in some new social movement causing a de facto ‘marriage strike’. I think this estimation is greatly exaggerated.

The male crisis of this generation isn’t the result of men’s conscious decision to opt out, but rather due to being forced out by this selective breeding. As exampled in my first link, men want to get married. It’s part of their feminized conditioning to view long term monogamy as a goal state. No, the men that women want to “man up” are the ones they’re already married to, or the ones they’d consider worthy if only they acted (not actually became) more like drones and less like dutiful workers.

It’s not that the vast majority of men wouldn’t eagerly bind themselves to women in monogamy, it’s that they’ve been bred in grand proportions to be ‘less-than-men’ by the feminine imperative.