Unmarriageable

This week there’ve been a rash of articles all outlining the latest statistics about marriage in this decade. US marriage rates are at a 150 year low and, if you believe the all-female article writers, it’s of course men’s fault for failing to be marriageable. These articles are referencing a study published last week titled Mismatches in the Marriage Market and this study reveals large deficits in the supply of potential male spouses. One implication is that the unmarried may remain unmarried or marry less well‐suited partners.

That’s right gentlemen, you’re unmarriageable and the ladies want you to shape up. If you want to experience marital bliss – despite all the inherent personal dangers for men in today’s “marriage economy” – you must make yourself “economically attractive“:

“Most American women hope to marry, but current shortages of marriageable men — men with a stable job and a good income — make this increasingly difficult,” says lead author Daniel Lichter in a press release.

The stats don’t lie and they are pretty bleak. More women are enrolled in college than ever before and more are expected to enter through the middle of the coming decade. Now, a degree doesn’t guarantee a woman a job, and it says nothing about the majors and job sectors women prefer, but a college education does reinforce the idea that women are entitled to marry an economically attractive man who himself has an education and enough aspiration to make something of himself to become marriageable.

That’s some real shit right there and we’re not even half way through this post. We’ve gotten to the point where the truth of the past five decades is apparent; gendered politics has actively, openly, disadvantaged men in terms of education. Whether this hobbling of men is via educational dispensations (Title IX) or social conventions (divorce, child support, Duluth model feminism) the outcome is now unignorable.

In most western societies today there is a separate standard of justice that applies to women. Women are receive far fewer consequences and are sentenced much more leniently than men for committing the exact same crimes. These are easily proven statistics, but even when they are brought to light the gynocentric social order doubles down and justifies them because, women.

My intent here today isn’t to depress anyone. Neither am I drawing attention to this because I’ve made a new turn to the Men Rights Movement. No doubt there’ve been many article already written about the female hubris inherent in these revelations – revelations the Red Pill community has been pointing out for almost two decades now.

The manifestations of about 50 years of social changes produced by a feminine-primary social order are unignorable. Even mainstream media sources are finally seeing these stories as the red meat du jour for the masses now. A lot of the Red Pill principles and I and many other men in the Manosphere have been drawing attention to about intersexual dynamics are now coming to light in popular consciousness.

Aww Quit Complaining

Last year I delivered the State of the Manosphere Address, and in that talk I outlined the rise of what I saw as a new Gender War (or gender cold war). Naturally I was called a reactionary, and have been since described as “overly negative” even by the organization that asked me to deliver that speech. But yet, everything in that outline has come to pass in less than a year. Of course, the easy dismissal is to blame this on election year propaganda. More than one mainstream talkshow conservative has jumped on the Toxic Masculinity bandwagon, pointing out how the Left and mainstream feminism are one and the same.

However, there have been many swings of the political pendulum in the past 50 years. Conservative zeitgeists have contributed to the same feminine-primary social order that’s resulted in men being unmarriageable today. It’s just been good politics to appeal to the Feminine Imperative no matter what side of the political aisle you happen to sit on.

But I’m a man. I’m not supposed to be overly concerned with issues like this. As long as I’m measuring up to my Burden of Performance any marginal raising-of-awareness to truths like the ones above make me seem like I’m complaining. And that’s something men are never allowed to do. It’s a very effective way of silencing men. Get them to feel like they ought to silence themselves. Real men don’t complain.

Meanwhile, it’s Broke Men who are hurting American Women’s Marriage Prospects. My good friend Dalrock once wrote a series of post around the idea that feminism would be so much more successful if men would only cooperate with it. When women are unable to optimally complete their mating (and life’s) strategies it’s men’s fault for being uncooperative. It’s men’s fault when women’s life plans don’t come together as Sheryl Sandberg told them it would. It’s men’s fault when they won’t play the approved role they should when women hit their Epiphany Phase and their sexual priorities shift.

Confirming the Red Pill

If you needed a better illustration of the Solipsism inherent in women’s nature you’ll be hard pressed to find it on a bigger scale than the dozens of stories bemoaning the lack of marriageable men today. Furthermore, it goes to prove another Red Pill truth: as a man, women don’t care who you are as much as what you are. I’ve taken a lot of heat over the years over my assessment of how men and women have different concepts of love. Men love idealistically. I rarely get any pushback on that assertion, but when I layout how women’s Hypergamous natures predispose them to a concept of love based on opportunism men and women lose their minds.

Yet, here we are. Women enthusiastically proving my point for me without me having to do any heavy lifting. As women become more comfortable in Open Hypergamy we see this embracing of their nature proudly flaunted. Naturally women will double down on this.

Of course women don’t wanna marry no bum!

And then the Trad-Cons join the chorus,

It’s men’s fault they aren’t measuring up to being the men all women are entitled to.

There are dozens of studies that correlate divorce with women earning more than their husbands. In fact, women are reluctant to admit that they out-earn their husbands. Throughout the history of this blog I’ve shown the evolved reasons for this dynamic, but what the articles all dance around is women’s natural evolutionary desire for men who exceed them in all aspects. But because we’ve opted to believe in, and standardized on, social constructionism we lay all of that on “societal expectations” of men and women. In a future essay I’ll be defining how the cope of humans being ‘above it all’ in their evolved instincts is the root source of many deliberate misgivings about intersexual conflict. For now, understand that blaming any inconvenient intersexual truth on a nebulous “society” is the go-to rationale for a feminine-primary social order.

If only men would evolve and rise above what society foists on them we women would be happy” versus “Men need to accommodate women’s success by making themselves more ‘economically desirable’

And “Oh, but love is important too, *wink wink*.”

“Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors’,” Lichter says.

It’s interesting that some articles advocate for marriage as a “stabilizing force” in society, all while never (maybe deliberately) seeing the economic risks of disaster that the divorce industry incentivizes in women. There’s nothing stabilizing about promoting marriage between men you’ve deemed “economically unattractive” and women who feel entitled to a man who exceeds their Hypergamous expectations. There’s nothing ‘stabilizing’ about the incidence of divorce between couples where the man is unable to out-earn his wife.

Naturally we want to make this a ‘his‘ problem. He can’t get over the fact that she makes more, has more education, etc. He’s insecure in his masculinity and must feel threatened by Her success. Or it could be the fact that on an instinctual level he understands that it’s an evolved imperative for a man to provide for and protect his family. This is the fallacy of Rise Above It. No matter how enlightened and progressive we’d like to think we are nature drags us back to reality. It’s not a socially constructed problem – if it were it would be easily solved – it’s a human nature problem. Women reveal the true Hypergamous nature in articles like these. They want a man who they can naturally look up to, respect and admire. That’s the natural truth coming out, but they source the problem in a socially constructed fantasy that it’s men’s insecurities that are holding them back from completing women’s mating/life strategies.

Women don’t need to get married anymore. The average age of first marriage is hovering around 27 years old for most couples. Studies also show that more than half of young people in America don’t have a romantic partner. We’ve all but eliminated the Beta Bucks side of the Hypergamous equation for women. Open Hypergamy (and Open Cuckoldry) are the logical outcomes of this provisioning insurance we’ve made ubiquitous for women over the last 40 years. Yet, women still want to be married to a man who outclasses them in all areas of life. They feel they deserve that guy. Their hindbrain knows they do, but the nebulous society still encourages women to believe there’s never been a better time for them to be single. This is the message women are being fed as they complain about men’s not living up to being their “equals”.

Nearly half of working-age women will be single in 2030, a new Morgan Stanley study predicts, a demographic that will drive increased sales for companies in the athletic wear, cosmetics and clothing sectors.

The investment bank’s “Rise of the SHEconomy” report says 45 percent of working-age women between 25 and 44 in the U.S. will be single women in 10 years, Forbes reported.

Single women will drive the economy in the next decade and savvy businesses are already planning on exploiting this demographic. But yet it’s men’s fault for not being marriageable and/or avoiding marriage altogether?

Too many people think I’m down on marriage. Apparently 23 years of what most guys would consider an ideal marriage isn’t enough to convince them. Honestly, as an institution – socially enforced monogamy – I think marriage, based on evolved gender difference complementarity has been the foundation of the success of western culture. But maybe we’re at a turning point in human history where traditional marriage is left behind, replaced by feminine-primary polygamy with all its inherently violent risks. It seems we’re heading in a direction where we convince Beta men it’s in their reproductive interests to abandon their evolved need to be invested in their own paternity – and that attending to and raising the children of men that women selected before them makes them ‘better men’.

There’s a lot more to the anti-marriage reasoning than just the “losing half my stuff” arguments.

It really sucks for a guy like me who’s managed to make a Red Pill aware marriage work in spite of all this. Guys get confused. How can I be anti-marriage and still married? But it’s just that dichotomy that tells the you about the nature of what marriage has become for men today. The way we do marriage today has the potential to be the most damaging decision a man can make in his life. It may even end his life. But despite all that I still believe men and women are better together than we are apart. We still evolved to be complements to the other.

It’s the coming together and living together, and all the downside risks to men today that I have no solution for at the moment. Maybe it’s going to take a war or a meteor striking the earth to set gender parity back in balance, but at the moment there’s only a future of sexual segregation to look forward to.

Bargain Abasement

“Men conquer worlds, women conquer men.” – Pook

From the time boys are about five years old, we’re taught self-control. Anyone with a young son  understands the challenge in this, but for the most part the control we teach our boys differs from what we teach (or don’t teach) our girls. For the most part, this control is necessary to curb boys’ natural proclivities to take risks, but in a feminine-primary social order this inhibiting risk comes from a need for female security . Our young minds, boys and girls, lack the capacity for abstract thought. In fact, our brains continue to develop to their fullest potential right up to 20-21 years of age. 

For millennia, adult men, fathers, mothers, the Village that is our larger social order, understood the need to place limitations on boys innate impulsiveness – usually for their own good. While these restrictions and discipline have always been a needed part of boys’ upbringing, today that self-control is taught in the context of how a young man can be more ‘correct’ by his female teachers. In the time of our old social contract teaching young men self-control and self-discipline was a means to self-mastery as an adult man. In the new social contract our gynocentric education system (and socialization) teaches boys discipline in the hopes that they will provide the security that women need.

And the way this is taught is by embedding a deep sense of shame and self-loathing of the male gender into ever-younger generations of future men. Mental Point of Origin is a constant theme in all of my literary work. I want to stress here that crushing any sense of self-priority or self-importance from boys and young men is the prime directive of a gynocentric education system. Last Saturday we discussed the “worshiping of women” on our new show Rule Zero. In this episode I pointed out that men are taught to place womankind on a pedestal from an early age. This meta-pedestalization of the feminine begins when boys are taught self-abasement as part of self-control. Essentially, all control becomes for boys is reducing themselves while aggrandizing (supporting) girls and later women. This is the main reason why wrapping your head around Mental Point of Origin is so difficult for men later in life. Their Blue Pill conditioning taught them to be servants as a means of proving their self-control.

Most women, certainly all feminists, will do their best to convince us that it’s still little girls who are taught to repress their naturally boyish natures. But it’s a cliché now to believe that little girls would be every bit as ‘curious about how the world works’ if not for a nebulous society that represses their passion for discovery. Since the Sexual Revolution our social order has done its damnedest to reverse gender roles – boys are taught to emulate the feminine, girls emulate the masculine. The Disney corporation has been the most active social agent in western culture in fomenting this reversal. Every story across all genres follows the same plot; a repressed little girl would make an even better boy if not for these Patriarchal rules she must break from. The story of Mulan is a good example. The girl Mulan must impersonate a boy in order to prove herself as a masculine equal – and to get closer to the Alpha male she naturally wants to pair with. Our popular fiction today all follows a similar teaching; girls need to break away from self-control to be more empowered.

The notion that little girls are ever taught to repress their natures is laughable in real life. If little boys are taught like they’re defective girls, then girls today are taught that they can literally do anything – and be free of any lasting consequences. In fact any restrictions, any pretense of a girl/woman requiring a degree of self-control is immediately associated with repression. This old order idea of female repression is a favorite trope for the Fempowerment narrative. The most marginal, well-meaning, criticism of women or the feminine is always steeped in ‘judgmentalism’. Being ‘judged’ is always a concern for women. For the past 3-4 generations of women, being freed from ‘repression’ is also to be free from judgement. They have an entitlement to avoid consequence.

Abasement

On last week’s Rule Zero episode we asked a question: why is it so many men will abase themselves with women? If you’ve been Red Pill aware for a while it’s easy to just dismiss these guys and think they’re all just low self-esteem losers, but the belief is endemic to the 80% of Beta men. The combination of having been raised to prioritize the concerns of women above his own interest, and the notion that doing so will make him a better romantic catch in the eyes of women (who already feel entitled to him being a useful servant) turns self-abasement into a form of Beta Game.

Why does a man get down on one knee to propose marriage to a woman? Surely this old social contract form of abasement was an expectation of men. It’s in practically every romantic story ever told.

Under the old social contract a man was presumed to be above a woman in status. The old intersexual hierarchy of love followed from the man to the woman and then later to the child(ren). It was a natural, understood, dominance hierarchy prior to the Sexual Revolution. In all the old stories Disney has ever retold the presumption of this hierarchy defines the plot of the story. Of course now we’ve grown accustomed to gender swaps and expectation swaps in these retellings, but when a woman gets down on bended-knee to propose to a man – as her empowering teachers have taught her is acceptable – there’s something awkward when a woman abases herself to a man. 

One of the prime directives of feminism is this:

Never do anything for the express pleasure of a man.

Anything a woman might do just to please a man is abasement. It smacks of the repressiveness little girls are told still holds them back in spite all the world’s attempts to advantage them. Doing something, wearing something, being something or behaving in a way that might intentionally please a man is the antithesis of the Strong Independent Woman® ideal. But yet, women are taught that they should expect to live in Sadie Hawkins’ World where they should feel empowered to ask the man on a date and ask him to marry her if he merits it. Again, it’s all part of the gender reversal we’re expected to embrace.

But when you see it, when a woman is doing the proposing, it doesn’t feel empowering. It feels awkward, backwards. Social constructionism says that awkwardness is the result of society teaching you stereotypical gender norms; but those norms haven’t been the standard for at least 4 generations. Disney’s taught us different for some time now. But it still looks weird. The man is supposed to initiate. The man is supposed display and she is supposed to choose. The man is supposed to abase himself, right?

Male abasement is a sign of submission in an age that expected him to be an Alpha already. There used to be a time when men were expected to be the masters of their lives. Men understood their  Burden of Performance and built a life around creating (conquering) their own worlds. Certainly this achievement was motivated by finding a wife, but more so because of his innate sense of idealism.

The Ideal Man

The old social order expectations of men are still what women feel entitled to in the new order:

  • Superior Physicality: He must be more than her equal in height and strength. Muscularity is an ideal in men. Women hold far more strict and static ideals of male beauty than men have ever held for women.
  • Superior Dominance: He is respected, deferred to and sometimes feared by his peers. He holds status, power (in the traditional sense) and honor that is confirmed and reinforced by others – but only insofar as it can be useful to a woman. Women tend to have an immature understanding of the nature of power.
  • Superior Confidence/Competence: He must be more innovative and competent than herself. Competence is directly tied to the Hypergamous doubt – “Is he the best I can do?” If she is more competent (or she believes she is) than he is it upsets the natural intersexual dominance hierarchy and ultimately his Frame control. Confident competence is the foundation of a woman’s need for long term security.
  • Superior Mastery: He must be a master of himself and the world he directs. Again, this is tied to a woman’s need for security which he must ensure in the long term; even into his old age. He must “Just Get It” with her and understand women in general – this is derived from experience and being supremely desired by other women.

For all of this mastery the ideal man is expected to possess, the fantasy is that he must abase himself to her due to her uniqueness. The power of love is what he must defer to. Even today, in a post Sexual Revolution era, this chivalric ideal is still an unspoken expectation. That ideal is a superior man who abases himself to her, and only to her. This is the Beauty and the Beast archetypal story. The fantasy ideal man is only beholden to her particular charms. Men conquer worlds, women conquer men.

A few years ago (2012-13) I did a series of posts about the chivalric ideal. In those essays I proposed that the western concepts of chivalry, bastardized by the influence of ‘courtly love’, were an extension of power by the feminine. Essentially chivalry was feminism 1.0 in that it leveraged men’s obligations of honor to benefit the Feminine Imperative. Chivalry was a Male Space into which women inserted themselves (via courtly love), assimilated the principles and rewrote the rules to better fit themselves. We still see vestiges of this today when women post something on Facebook or Twitter stating that “only a ‘real’ man does the things that benefit me, my sexual strategy and my ensured survival and happiness.” 

Male sacrifice now extends to a man abasing himself for an entitled benefit of womankind. It’s no longer just an expectation of undying love and commitment, it’s a surrendering of his evolved imperatives.

Choose Wisely

Potential vs. Struggle

“Women don’t care about the struggle. They wait at the finish line and fuck the winners.”

Rich Cooper

This is a popular belief in the Manosphere today. Hypergamous stress is so intense that women have turned into mercenaries with respect to vetting the men they’ll accept to plan a future with. I’ll admit, a lot of well-meaning Red Pill men believe women’s Hypergamous Filter is necessarily amoral if not overtly cruel. The ill-informed critics of Hypergamy believe in a binary extreme. They presume that all those Red Pill guys are self-defeated by the idea that all women are prostitutes and only “out to get theirs“. This is simplistic ignorance of the concept of Hypergamy meant to dissuade the curious from Red Pill truths that they refuse to process. But do they kind of have a point though?

Virtually every extreme of MGTOW and the Mens Rights Movement have some open variation of how Hypergamy is a straight jacket and

Why bother with a woman for anything other than a short term fuck if her Hypergamous nature will just predispose her to jumping ship to the first guy who comes along with a bigger dick or a bigger wallet?”

I covered all of these is detail in Hypergamy – The Misconceptions a while ago in case you’re curious as to why these are unfounded, and more often deliberate, misunderstandings of women’s nature. And no, that doesn’t mean I’m backpedaling on anything I’ve ever written about Hypergamy.

A couple weeks ago I got wrapped up in a Twitter exchange about the conflict between whether women indeed wait for the winners at the finish line or they make calculated bets about a man’s future potential.

From a pragmatic point of view I’m very much inclined to agree with this assessment. Yes, it makes women seem overly mercenary with respect to Hypergamy, but I’ve said it as much myself in any number of prior essays:

Women can only willingly want to please a man whose Frame is the dominant one. You’ve got to have that world established that she wants to enter and become a complementary, supportive (of you) and willing participant in. This world-building takes time. Women evolved to seek competency in men. Hypergamy cannot afford to bet all of a woman’s genetic legacy on a guy who has “potential” – they want the proven commodity. This is one reason women look for men older and taller than they are. More importantly, you need a woman who is playing on your team, not against you. And sadly this is the state of marriage promoted by the Feminine Imperative today. Egalitarianism doesn’t promote complementary cooperation, it promotes an adversarial state of competition between husband and wife.

The Marriage Game

In a purely evolutionary context it’s true; because a woman’s sexual market value – and ultimately her only agency with men – is perishable Hypergamy cannot afford for a woman to waste her time on a ‘good bet‘. This truth is a basic, Darwinistic, rule for women’s sexual strategy.

Despite all the social conventions to make them believe otherwise, women’s hindbrains know that their sexual agency and prime fertility window in life is limited. This creates a degree of urgency in a woman as she gets closer to, or ages past, the Wall. This understanding necessitates tradeoffs, but optimally a woman would prefer not to take chances with her reproductive future – and ultimately her life’s future.

For the more nihilistically inclined men of the ‘sphere, this Darwinistic determinism seems like a reproductive death sentence. If women only fuck the winners at the finish line, and you’re a loser, you may as well give up and go jerk off, right? This defeatism is a core tenet of the Black Pill.

All that said, a lot of people disagree with this assessment:

Jack knows I love him, but he is living with a girl much younger than himself. While I think that’s cool, and proof of Red Pill concept, he is actually living out the point being made here. Statistically, women tend to prefer men who are 5 to 7 years their senior. Another aspect of women’s evolved mental firmware is the natural attraction to older men as prospective long term mates. Women know that it takes men longer to mature into the genuine value that her Hypergamous Filters test for. An older rich man is always more believable than a younger rich man. Women tend to pair with a man their senior because Hypergamy doesn’t need to wait on his potential when he’s already a proven commodity.

Most of the criticism in this thread centers on exaggerating the age of “marriageable men” to the point of absurdity, but women do look for long term security as a prime requisite of the men they hope to pair for life with. There is a root-level presumption in women, correct or not, that an older man will have established the status and resources a woman needs in a long term partner. In fact, our feminine-primary social order shames men for not preparing to assume this role of security provider for women by a certain age (usually 30ish).

Alexander is also a good friend, but I’m going to disagree with half of his assessment. Women don’t readily recognize potential in men. In fact most of them are piss poor at it. This is because they’ve been socially conditioned to focus more on themselves (and exacerbated by their innate solipsism) than be concerned with making a good assessment of men’s potential for future success.

Now, before you think I’m siding with the Hypergamous nihilists, this did give me pause to step back and assess my stance on women reading men’s potentials to provide for their future security. And that last part is the most important because women’s sexual strategy has two parts: Alpha Fucks – short term sexual needs – and Beta Bucks – long term provisioning and security needs. It’s the latter that we’re discussing in this debate.

Women want to fuck the winners in the short term, but they will also assess a man’s potential for the long term.

Hypergamy cannot afford to wait for 100% perfect confirmation of a man’s Alpha status before she has sex with him. This Hypergamic bypass is actually one vulnerability women have with respect to well calibrated Game.

The Epiphany Phase Revisited

In the essay Women’s Existential Fear I also made the following proposition:

The Existential Fear in women is that their innate, Hypergamous Filter, their Feminine Intuition, might be fooled, and by being fooled she may either die or have her reproductive potential compromised for her lifetime by bearing and raising the child of man who is a suboptimal Hypergamous choice for her – a man who exerted his will over her Hypergamous choosing filters.

Making Choices

All of this presumes that a woman is in some way testing for a man’s potential. Even women’s autonomous shit testing is a confirmation of this. So yes, women do look for potential in men. Some better than others. The Hypergamous Filter is an imperfect tool which is exactly why women needed to mystify their feminine intuition in popular understanding. Men had to be kept in the dark as to a woman’s motives because their filters have always been intuitive guesswork. This is a vulnerability that men might exploit – with good Game for instance – if women were ever honest about it.

Not all women can fuck the winners so they have to make calculated bets on men. This is also a reason women rely on social proof and the preselection cues of other women. If other women find a guy to be a ‘good bet’ it provides her a short cut to getting to intimacy. Again, Hypergamy cannot afford to miss out on a socially confirmed ‘good bet’. And yes, this is also a vulnerability in women’s vetting process that men with good Game regularly exploit.

So, the tradeoff is this: when a woman is at her peak sexual market value (SMV) she has the leisure to fuck the winners at the finish line. The more her SMV decays the fewer her options become, and the more likely it is that her necessity requires her to make a ‘bet’ on a man’s future potential. This is the primary reason women opt for the Beta in Waiting around her Epiphany Phase. Necessity forces her to go with good potential.

One of the ways feminism and female-primacy sabotages women’s ability to vet for good potential is in the mythology surrounding their sexual viability as they get older. Social conventions constantly reinforce the false idea that a woman’s SMV is indefinite – and by extension her agency over men should also be indefinite. This is why Blank Slate idealism and Social Constructionism are a preferred mythology for women. Without the Blank Slate a woman would be forced to accept the evolved realities of her sex. The Blank Slate is a prime source of women’s solipsistic denial of her own nature.

Turnkey Men

Do women care about the struggle? Do women ever appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate their own realities? I explored this topic a long time ago in Appreciation and I’m still going with my old assessment, no.

It may be that a man of Rich Cooper’s age, affluence and status only attracts the ‘finish line girls’ because he’s already a made man. He’s an attractive catch because he’s already a proven commodity. Thus, he tends to attract women who are looking for a ‘Turnkey’ man with an established world into which they want to move.

I should also add that most middle aged women, past their sexual prime and well past any long term potential they may’ve had themselves universally look for the ‘Turnkey’ man – once they’re done playing cougar immediately after their divorce. This is another illustration of women’s sexual strategy from the post-Wall side. Alpha Fucks – Beta Bucks never changes, only the context does. Post divorce women go through a second Epiphany Phase right after the divorce. Play cougar and fuck the fun college guys if they can because it’s easy, but be on the lookout for a ‘Turnkey’ winner who’s still ignorant of his Blue Pill conditioning at 45.

Whether it’s a woman in her late 20s or a post-Wall ‘mature woman‘ a man’s struggles to become her ideal is largely irrelevant to her. WHile women are speculators with respect to men it’s the end result of those struggles that’s the operative for her. Almost every woman who disagreed in the Twitter thread above all had some success story of how their brilliant feminine intuition led to them investing in the man they’re so proud to call a husband now. None of them were about how they made a horrible mistake in betting their future on a losing horse. So it’s important to see how the results skew for women.

Women will readily make claims on Relational Equity as an insurance against his leaving her later, once he’s achieved that potential. His struggle and her bearing through it with him is only important in that it produced the positive results she’d hoped for. That ‘dedication’ of seeing it through is her relationship insurance. It’s why women despise and reinforce the “trophy wife” meme. It’s prime indignation to have a man betray her speculation on him by rewarding a younger, hotter, tighter woman at the finish line.

Your struggle is her burden despite you having to bear it under duress of her abandoning you if you failed. Women will never appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate a reality, her sexual/life strategy, she believes was always her due. You just did what you were supposed to do as a man. Women believe it is their due to pair with a man who is worthy of her social media inflated ego. If that sounds harsh remember that women regularly bemoan the lack of men who are their “equal partners” in both money and education well after their prime SMV years are past.

Finally, the reason the finish line metaphor is apt is because more women than ever are postponing marriage in the expectation that ‘Turnkey’ made men will be waiting and available when they hit 31-33 years old, rather than investing in men with good potential in their early to mid 20s. Doing so would mean sacrificing their peak SMV Party Years when someone like Sheryl Sandberg convinces them to wait for the ‘Right Guy‘. It’s simple pragmatism for a woman not to bet her reproductive future on an unproven commodity so early in life. If she does, and it works out for the best, she’s practically sainted by the Sisterhood for her prudence and sacrifice for him. Behind every great man is a woman, right?

But if she chooses unwisely and her life goes to hell she’s wasted her own potential on a bad bet. Social conventions can mitigate this of course. Men can always be blamed for her downfall, but she’s still saddled with the consequences of that bad bet. And it is exactly these consequences of a bad Hypergamous choice that the Feminine Imperative will bend all its power to legally and socially insure against for women (i.e. legal abortion, child support laws, #MeToo, the Duluth Model of feminism).

All of this is why women are pushing their decision to marry, if at all, back to older and older ages. The average age of first marriage today is 27-28 for women, and the overall marriage rate has been in free-fall for decades now. This is why. This evolved dynamic is conflicting with our present age’s social imperatives for women and the falsehoods they are conditioned to believe about their sex from the earliest ages.

If you liked this topic you can also listen to my discussion about it with Donovan Sharpe here:

Women’s Existential Fear

One of the primary perspectives of the Red Pill as a praxeology in understanding intersexual dynamics is evolutionary psychology. Even the ‘Classic Era‘ pickup artists referenced evo-psych, often without realizing it, in explaining various aspects of Game. Mystery Method itself was fundamentally rooted in the understanding of women’s (and men’s) evolutionary ‘circuitry’ as a basis for developing modern Game techniques. These were the first forays into women’s evolved mental firmware as a means to understanding the mating game we experience today – and how to use it to our best advantage as men.

However, that was really just the starting point. The Red Pill is much more dynamic than Game applications. As I’ve developed in other essays (and talks), the fundamentals of how the sexes relate with one another follow our biological realities, but also the environmental and social realities of our ancestral past. We’re still using the same circuitry in this era that our ancestors did in the past, only the context has changed. Today I want to explore the influences the legacy of this ancestry places on men and women, and also attempt to answer some questions as to why men and women fear certain aspects of the other’s evolved nature.

In my last article I made a distinction between our ancestral, localized, sexual marketplace versus the globalized SMP we find ourselves in today. This is a good starting point. In our hunter-gatherer beginnings our potential mates either came from within our tribal groups, or, when our tribe managed to overwhelm another tribe, we took war brides to breed with. This is what defined our localized SMP in the past. In fact I’d argue that a deficit in ‘marriageable’ females from within a local tribe was actually a prime motivator for going to war with an outside tribe. This is an important distinction because a lot of those same motivational dynamics are reflected today’s global SMP, and how modern intersexual dynamics have evolved.

A Need for Control

A lot of the need for social control we see coming from women and feminism today is part of an ancestral, evolved desire on the part of women to seek security in a chaotic world. Ever since the advent of unilaterally female-controlled contraception, the Sexual Revolution, and the rise of the Gynocracy, an unprecedented power over the birthing process of the human race has been transferred to only one of the two sexes necessary to perpetuate our species.

“Abortion is Eugenics” (or dysgenics) is a saying I’ve been seeing on Twitter recently. Since the Sexual Revolution we’ve not just ’empowered’ women, but men have systematically ceded any claim to our own paternity while at the same time presumed that women should, by default, be trusted with knowing what’s best for the human birthing process and raising new generations. But it’s not just abortion that is eugenics, it’s also Hypergamy and the dozens of other aspects of intersexual dynamics that western societies just presumes women should know best how to proceed with. We took the women of the Baby Boom generation at their collective word that they’d be more merciful rulers than men if we just gave them the option to be sexual with us. We foolishly believed women would police the worst aspects of their own sexual strategy after we willingly ceded power in exchange for sexual access.

Last month a reader sent me a link to a story about how Ireland had just ceded more of its own authority over their country’s reproductive fate to women by legalizing abortion. The very Catholic island of Celts has made Hypergamy its ruling motive after many years of feminist pressure. Irish women celebrated the decision to allow them to kill their unwanted children. In fact many Catholic countries all over South America are in various stages of legalizing abortion. But the sentiment about abortion in this decade is no longer one of it being a necessary evil as it was in the time of Roe vs. Wade. Today it’s cause for overt celebration among women and men alike.

Before I get run up the flagpole by critics here, my opposition to abortion does not (primarily) stem from moral reasons, it stems from objectively following the power dynamics involved and the latent purpose for abortion. Abortion is eugenics; it is the ceding of any claim to influencing paternity that men may have had for the past 100,000 years of human evolution.

So, why will women fight tooth and nail for the ‘right’ to free and safe abortion over the course of multiple generations? Why is the right to end her (and the father’s) child’s life in utero such an imperative for women?

Ask women and the feminist boilerplate answer is always “My body, my choice!“, but why is it so important to cut men entirely out of the reproductive process? What is the motivation for legally disenfranchising men from even 1% of a say in a child that is at least half his genetic legacy? This is also one of the greatest of offenses to women; that a man might have some control over women’s bodies. “Hands off my uterus!” that too is another rallying cry, but why is it such an abhorrent thought that men might have some influence in who gets born and who doesn’t?

Existential Fears & The Hypergamous Filter

There are certain fears that human beings are born with. Our evolved mental firmware is highly attuned to our own survival. That may seem simple, but we’re born with certain instinctual reservations about our environments. Snakes, spider, animals with sharp pointy natural weapons are critters we don’t have to be taught to stay away from. That fear, that caution, is part of our onboard system when we leave the womb. The same is generally true of heights and tight confined places. We also have a very defined natural instinct for revulsion. There’s actually an entire area of evo-psych study devoted to the human revulsion response. Part of our innate firmware makes us disgusted by feces, dead carcasses and putrefaction. If it’s unsanitary and might make us sick or diseased ourselves we’re repelled by it – unless we’re conditioned not to be.

The above are some pretty basic existential fears most people have. We have evolved inbuilt firmware that does its best to keep us alive, but there are other, more complex fears and accompanying revulsions that look out for our wellbeing too. The one I want to focus on here is what the Red Pill refers to as the Hypergamous Filter. That’s kind of a loose way of saying women have innate revulsions and distrusts of men who would otherwise like nothing better than the experience of having sex with them.

From our ancestral past right up until the Sexual Revolution in the mid-1960s a woman having sex was fraught with dangerous consequences. For about 100,000 years evolution wrote a breeding subroutine into the hindbrains of every human female – always doubt a man’s quality.

The Hypergamous Filter has many ways of determining quality. Last week I mentioned that women universally use a man’s height as a physical qualification for arousal/attraction. That’s one obvious criteria; check the height box, move on. I have mentioned in other essays that Hypergamy is always based on doubt – doubt that a man is the best she can do – but also the doubt as to whether that guy will stick around and stay committed to parental investment.

This Hypergamous doubt is an existential fear for women.

“What if he’s faking it?”
“What if he really isn’t who he claims to be?”
“Will he stick around after sex?”
“What if I get pregnant with his child?”

These questions, these doubts, do not stem from a woman’s Rational Interpretive Process, they are deeply rooted in her Instinctual Process.

These questions are asked beneath a woman’s cognition, and as such they comprise part of an unconscious Hypergamous filtering process that is linked to both the revulsion instinct and genuine sexual desire. This is a risk aversion instinct that has very real, life-threatening, implications to it. This is a self-preservation skepticism on the limbic level and it is the primary existential fear a woman has. And women will do anything to alleviate it. Women will do anything to ensure they have failsafes against the life-threatening consequences of having that Hypergamous filter deceived.

Why is there a ceaseless effort to criminalize PUAs approaching women on the street? Because it implies a deception of a Beta male impersonating an Alpha male for the purposes of sex. This is a crime against the Existential Fear.

The Existential Fear in women is that their innate Hypergamous Filter, their Feminine Intuition, might be fooled, and by being fooled she may either die or have her reproductive potential compromised for her lifetime by bearing and raising the child of man who is a suboptimal Hypergamous choice for her – a man who exerted his will over her Hypergamous choosing filters.

In our ancestral past, pregnancy, and/or parental investment, could be a death sentence if a woman’s Hypergamous Filter wasn’t supremely sensitive and obsessively refined. The Hypergamous Filter also evolved as a contingency against men’s biological imperative – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.

That’s not to say pair bonding wasn’t a feature of our ancestral past, it was also a foundational aspect of mating, but it is to say that a man’s investment cost was much lower than a woman’s when it came to reproduction. That’s simple biology defining a sexual strategy for men. Pair bonding would usually last as long as it took for that child to reach survival autonomy (4-7 years). And that’s not accounting for men’s proclivity to seek extra-pair mating opportunities while pair bonded. I’ll explore this in the next essay.

Fast Times in the 21st Century

Now lets fast forward the Existential Fear and the Hypergamous Filter up to the last 60 years or so. One of the most socially destabilizing inventions of the 20th century was affording women the option to invest herself, or not, in the choices she made about her own sexuality. Unilaterally female-controlled birth control was effectively the greatest Hypergamous failsafe ever invented. It released women from the responsibility of a bad Hypergamous decision. But what it didn’t do is erase that filtering process from women’s psyches. We take it for granted, but HBC (hormonal birth control) unfettered Hypergamy for the first time in human history. And as a result men ceded more and more of their paternal interests in the human reproductive process over to women in exchange for the promise of pregnancy-free sexual access. Ostensibly, unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Needless to say this also exacerbated women’s sexual strategy to tactically filter out unwanted males and emphasize sex with chosen males.

But the greatest sexual bargain of the 20th-21st century catastrophically backfired on men because, for all the boons of HBC, it couldn’t rewrite 100,000 years of evolved Hypergamy. And, if anything, it exacerbated women’s desire for failsafe’s against the Existential Fear of having her Hypergamous Filter fooled by deceptive men.

The social and political power men ceded to women in the wake of the Sexual Revolution has been used for one unitary purpose by women – to ensure against the Existential Fear. Why is abortion now something to be celebrated rather than mournfully accepted as necessary evil of this century? Because it alleviates the Existential Fear of bearing and raising the product of a bad Hypergamous choice.

Why did no fault divorce morph into the misandrous divorce industry we have today? It alleviates the Existential Fear. A one-sided divorce industry ensures security, support and resources that would’ve otherwise been her undoing in times before the pill. Why are the stigmas of single motherhood that existed just 60 years ago now replaced with rewarding women for their choice to become single mothers? It alleviates the Existential Fear.

When women were afforded unprecedented power and influence their first order of business was directed at changing laws to alleviate the Existential Fear. Virtually every social change, every political change, every egoistic “you go gurl” self-entitlement since the Sexual Revolution that women have initiated has had one latent purpose – alleviating the Existential Fear.

And finally, why is it that Red Pill awareness, practicing Game, a united Manosphere, and yes, even MGTOW, are perceived as an existential threat to the Feminine Imperative?

Because it all threatens to upset the security that women believe they’re entitled to in creating failsafes for women’s Existential Fear. Exposing the machinations of the Blue Pill and teaching men to unplug from a system that makes them a utility in a female-correct social order is an intolerable threat to women’s security from the Existential Fear, but it is also a new challenge the power base that security is built upon.

This is part one of a blog series.

The 21 Convention – Patriarch’s Edition

If you’re a father can you still be ‘Red Pilled’? Does being married automatically define you as a Beta, because what Red Pill aware male would willingly signup for the raw deal that marriage represents to men? Especially when he should know better by glean of that Red Pill awareness, right?

A lot of critics think this is some new question, but we’ve been discussing this and other classic debate topics among my blog’s commentariat for a long time now. And even before my blog existed these same debates were hashed out on the SoSuave forums as far back as 2002. Every so often I’ll have a noob criticize me for something he believes I haven’t thought of, but I’ve been writing what I do since 2001-02.

There are many issues that resurface in cycles in what’s now the Red Pill / Manosphere. I constantly see the same snarky questions pop up in Tweets or forums from guys new to the ‘sphere. I can’t really pick on any one faction of the ‘sphere for this cycle of criticism. The hardcore MGTOWs have a global hatred of all things PUA to the point that anything that smells like deference to women makes you a “pussy beggar“. And, of course, it must be because someone is making a buck off of the naiveté of hapless Blue Pill chumps whenever someone dares to suggest a guy might actually want to involve himself with women.

On the other side is the all-or-nothing PUA camp (a scene that’s been contracting more than most critics want to admit) for which Game-Is-All, but likewise getting married makes little sense. Marriage and family only ever become an issue once the ‘player‘ progresses to the point that his ability to ‘swoop hot girls’ is superseded by his want to make his unresolved Blue Pill ideals come true. Still, marriage is an end to the novelty of new women. Besides, marriage is a fool’s decision today. This is an odd point of agreement among the two camps.

Furthermore, this is only the criticism of marriage and family in the modern era. There’re always the predictable, cyclic, waves of ignorance about many Red Pill tenets. Some are so predictable Roissy wrote a post about them in 2010 – The Unbearable Triteness of Hating. Have a look at how many of these resurface periodically in the Manosphere.

A lot of this ignorance is founded in the process of unplugging. A guy new to Red Pill awareness often struggles with the conflict of his Red Pill understanding and reconciling it with his old Blue Pill ego-investments. They’re not stupid. On the contrary, it’s their intelligence that makes them doubt things, but they are simply ignorant of the work that’s come before them in the Manosphere. They understand just enough about what aligns with their own belief set and reject anything that challenges them to drop an internalized ego-investment about women, intersexual dynamics, and what they believe men’s role should be in it.

The 21 Convention – Patriarch’s Edition

On May 3-5, 2019 I will be speaking at the 21 Convention – Patriarch’s Edition conference in Orlando, Florida.

This will be a unique event in the Manosphere; one that focuses on applying Red Pill awareness to issues of marriage and family. I wrote Positive Masculinity to address the questions I was getting from Red Pill fathers asking me for advice on how to go about being a Red Pill parent. This continues to be one of my most asked for advice topics. This convention’s purpose is intended to serve men in marriages, divorced men, fathers who want to ensure their sons (and daughters) are prepared to resist a Blue Pill world intent on his servitude.

This event is designed for the Red Pill father, the husband, the man coping with being Zeroed Out and young men who plan to be future fathers. This conference is for the man “awakened while married“, the man trying to turn the ship around in his marriage.

It’s not only for the married man though. It’s also for the divorced man whose unplugging occurred as a result of his divorce. It’s for the guy who wants to pass on his Red Pill wisdom to his kids in spite of the World Village aligned against him. It’s for the middle age man trying to figure it all out when he’s thrust into the modern sexual marketplace.

It’s for men with questions. What ended his marriage? How did he come to it? Was any of it worth it? How does he go on with his life after his wife detonated the marriage and he’s become Red Pill aware?

And it is for the man who sees a need to return conventional masculinity to its evolved, natural place in society and his own life. There are far too many Purple Pill ‘men’s organizations’ ostensibly promoting a  positive masculinity that only amounts to apologetics for toxic masculinity and a “we promise to do better” message that carries water for a gynocentric social order. We don’t apologize for being men. We wont beg permission to express the aspects of a conventional masculinity; even the aspects that conflict with the Feminine Imperative.

A Convention for Men

This is the Patriarch’s Edition of the 21 Convention. There’s a reason it was named this – it’s intentionally triggering to the mindset that despises anything masculine. It’s meant as an affront to organizations and individuals who think masculinity is ridiculous or evil, or something to be apologized for. It’s intended to be offensive to the Village.

Patriarch is a title that doesn’t just imply responsibility, but also a deserved respect and authority in being a man. And that masculine authority is sometimes rightly disrespectful to a feminine-primary sensibility. We reject the idea that masculinity is some nebulous, subjective definition of what makes a man a Man. We reject the idea that conventional masculinity is something obscure, ridiculous, “toxic” or inherently evil. And we reject the effeminate redefining of masculinity, often by oblivious men themselves, to better serve a Feminine Imperative.

That said, the reason I prefaced this announcement with the above discussion is because I’m getting some mixed response about whether or not “Red Pill” ought to extend beyond the context of Game (from the PUA side) or simply abstaining from marriage and potentially family altogether (the MGTOW side). Both of these perspectives need to understand that this convention is not intended to promote marriage as some idealistic goal for men. On the contrary, it’s about informing men of the very real dangers marriage poses to men. It’s also designed to promote conventional masculinity as a much needed solution to the endemic social ills created by an unquestioned female-supremacism that resulted from 50+ years of Fempowerment.

If you’re one of the men I’ve described above this is your conference. When this convention was first announced I had a lot of confused men asking me what it’s all about. Is this a good convention for me and my son? Is this for fathers, divorced men, men awakened while married? This convention is for all of these men and more.

I will be one of many invited speakers, including Elliott Hulse, at this event. Rather than give you an extensive list of the speakers (which often gets added to after I post announcements like this) I’ll just encourage you to check out the official 21 Convention site. Please use my links in this announcement if you plan to attend this in May. These are my affiliate links and the only way I get credit for the registration you purchase.

The topic of my speech will center on the importance of Red Pill mentorship among men, among families and among parents/mentors in a coming decade that will be defined by the Gender War we’re finding ourselves in. Furthermore, I’ll be doing some workshop groups with men who have specific questions about their own situations and give you some one on one Red Pill counseling. I’m not the only speaker who’ll be doing this, so please have a look at the official schedule on the 21 Convention site.

Finally, I want to also announce that I’ll be speaking at the upcoming 21 Convention in Poland this July as well as the main convention in Orlando, Florida in October again. No dates are set for these as yet, but the wheels are in motion and the announcements will be forthcoming as they get confirmed.

So, is this something you’d be interested in? The Red Man Group has also launched a Patriarch’s Edition of the panel discussion show this January. It’s a bi-weekly show that centers on many of the topics we’ll be covering at this event. This show is headed up by 21 Convention speaker Hunter Drew and it goes live every other Thursday evening at 8:30pm EST.

It’s always been my belief that Red Pill awareness, a rational, critical, sometimes harsh understanding of intersexual dynamics is not just something limited to picking up chicks or avoiding marriage. It’s an understanding of much broader ideas and how they related to varied aspects of our lives as single men, married men, fathers, mentors, influencers and leaders in our own way.

This event is something of an experiment to see how deep the rabbit hole goes with respect to what the Red Pill entails. What is most important to me is that events like this – and especially the shows I involve myself in – stay on Red Pill message. If you watched my State of the Manosphere Address video this was my primary concern going forward. It’s far too easy to dilute the message when so many voices want to be added to it. The Red Pill as a loose brand has already been appropriated by organizations that have no real understanding of it, but they recognize the reach it has for their own ‘brand of me’.

I want to avoid this dilution with everything I do.

So, if this convention is what you’ve finally been waiting for, understand that as far as I’m concerned you will only get the unvarnished, Red Pill ass kicking most men are in need of. I’m my own worst critic. There will never be an event I attend where I’ll sugarcoat the truth for men. There will never be a pep rally or a woo woo metaphysical appeal to what I offer. There will only ever be a nuts & bolts practical assessment of intersexual dynamics. That is the substance I promise you’ll get.

Click the banner for info and registration.

Divorce Incorporated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Books and New Books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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