egalitarian

Blue Pill Conditioning and Equalism

Rational reader Playdontpay had a very poignant comment in last week’s thread:

I’ll stick with the “boner test”. Women are only playthings anyway!
Do I enjoy fucking her? After sex is she good feminine company? This is all I need to know, if shit goes sideways I’ll just get another one.

She’s only going to lie and present a fictional version of herself based on what she thinks you’re looking for anyways. Women don’t do real self improvement they just convince themselves that they already are “better” because if she can’t convince herself it will be more difficult for her to sell it to you.

She will rewrite her sexual history and “because she’s a different person now”, well, that’s the way she has always been. Stop taking them so seriously, how are you going to vet a Machiavellian liar that’s been learning game from the age of 12?

His perspective on women is exactly why I tell men to avoid marriage altogether even though I’ve had a fantastic marriage myself for over 20 years. A lot of my haters, and more than a few supporters often get hung up on this.

Most of the criticism I get for writing what I do and still maintaining a good relationship with Mrs. T comes from men who cannot wrap their heads around the very simple, accepted truths described in this approach towards women. They think there must be something more to it. They think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are. So, naturally, the easy presumption is that any self respecting woman would never put up with a Red Pill man’s outlook and approach, because they believe the blank slate lie.

If an egalitarian ideal between men and women were tenable I’d completely agree, but it isn’t. So, in order to protect their ego investments, the rationale follows that any woman who falls for a Red Pill man must, by definition, be lacking in self esteem, self respect, low quality, etc. They believe that because anything else destroys their equalist fantasy world. This stems from a much deeper, root level, ego-investment in egalitarianism and I think this is a perspective a lot of Red Pill aware men have a tough time with to say nothing of men still plugged into the Blue Pill world view.

If you’ve read me for any length of time you’ll know I’m rarely prescriptive in my writing. I’ve always been of the belief that men need to find ways to utilize Red Pill awareness of intersexual dynamics for themselves on an individual basis. However, I will say that there are certain general aspects of that awareness and how to put it into something applicable in a man’s life that seem self-evident to me. First and foremost among these generalities is that in killing your inner Beta and disabusing oneself of his Blue Pill conditioning, a man needs to understand that the foundational belief that informed and defined his Blue Pill existence is equalism. The presumption that an idealized, blank-slate egalitarian state between the sexes is both possible and desirable informs all Blue Pill beliefs that follow it.

This equalist presumption often forms the mental point of origin for most Blue Pill men. Ostensibly, this mental prioritization of some equal state between the sexes is what most Blue Pill guys will tell you attracts women. This notion is also fundamental to Blue Pill guys’ drive for identifying their own psyches with the feminine and forms the basis of Beta Game.

Transitioning this early equalist ideology to a sexual strategy is a simple, deductive process for men. Little boys are raised on feminine primacy memes and the narrative of Fempowerment, all the while being conditioned to believe that, beyond some insignificant biology, boys and girls are identical beings with the same potential and proficiencies. It’s gotten to the point where this process is normalized and pushed to the backgrounds of most people’s consciousness. We’ll raise boys in feminine-primary educational standards, we’ll teach them they’re the same as girls, but we’ll also teach them they’re defective for not aligning themselves with girls, for not getting in touch with their feminine sides.

I’m fleshing this process out a bit here because unlearning this equalist’s mental point of origin is a key transition in a man’s unplugging. Often the hardest part of killing the Beta and accepting Red Pill awareness is replacing equalism with oneself as a mental point of origin. This is a hard step for most guys because it requires he shift his opinion of himself and risk being called a selfish asshole. Remember, anything that would disagree with or challenge the idea of intersexual egalitarianism will always be equated with misogyny, intolerance, tyranny, etc. Questioning the validity of equalism (however it’s applied) will always be countered with a  binary extreme.

This is exactly why Playdontpay’s comment appears so outrageous and self-indulgent to anyone not Red Pill aware. HIs pragmatism will be conflated with anger.

Interghangeability

Anonymous Reader posits:

Rollo
…men who cannot wrap their heads around the very simple, accepted truths you describe about your approach towards women. They think there must be something more to it.

Often because they’ve been told since they were toddlers that there is “more to it”, also known as the Blue Pill.

They think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are.

Exactly so and very important. The feminist fallacy of “interchangeable” leads to this. The mental habit some men have of projecting themselves onto others, believing “Well, I’m like this, so everyone else must be also” leads to this. It is extremely frustrating to encounter female behavior that is so obviously stupid it is like catching someone peeing in the kitchen sink.

Many betaized men will put up with bad behavior for far too long, then have a major blowout of anger and expect behavioral change. That doesn’t work with toddlers or dogs or women. Constant, low key, correction does work. Neuroplasticity points to a “why”; daily reiteration of a desired habit works better than once per week, etc.

It’s important to recognize the difference between real introspection and brooding or ruminating, too. Some women will brood over wrongs done but not connect that up with their own behavior. That’s not introspection. That’s not “failure analysis”. That’s rewiring neural pathways to perpetual resentment.

It is extremely difficult for an equalist, betaized man to accept the fact that women want and need to be dominated, because they for sure would hate and resent that. It is even worse for the churchgoing men, because the equalist chant from the conservative feminists in churches is almost always slathered with a layer of “sisterly love”.

What Anon is driving at here is my second point in Blue Pill and Red Pill men understanding the depth of their conditioning. Equalism and feminism depend on interchangeability. In order for little girls to grow up to be anything they want to be there must be an agreed upon “level playing field” from a socio-sexual point of view. This means that if little girls want to grow up to become football players and little boys want to grow up to be prima ballerinas there (at least ostensibly) must be an agreed upon equalist environment in which this can happen.

The egalitarian ideal the Blue Pill conditions us to believe is possible presumes there is a mutually agreeable state of intersexual equality. In reality this state is entirely contradictory to our evolved sexual strategies and our biological realities, but in theory, an egalitarian ideal can only exist in an environment that is deemed equal by both men and women. If such a state were possible, if evolved influences of our biological realities for both sexes were non-factors, then this state would also presume a mutual interchangeability between the sexes.

The combination of our equalist conditioning and this interchangeability is the root of much of the dysfunction we see between men and women today. Because we are taught all-is-one, because we presume we’re all the same except for the plumbing, there is also a presumption of uniformity of purpose between the sexes. Equalism is really just the religion of the Feminine Imperative, but it hides behind this feminine-primary advertising that men and women are playing by a mutually agreed upon set of rules, striving for mutually agreed (Blue Pill) goals and all in spite of our natural predilection or any competitiveness. No other social condition in the history of mankind could place women in a more socially controlling position than Hypergamy excused by equalism.

In such a state women can mandate their unilateral control over Hypergamy, but there is one downside – men expect a mutual interchangeability. Blue Pill men actually expect women to play by that mutuality of purpose. That’s the interchange. Women will still ensure that optimizing Hypergamy is the prime directive, and they’ll hide behind equalism to keep men in check and absolve themselves of the worst of their predations in doing so, but men still expect women to feel as men do. Blue Pill men believe that women can and will love them in an idealized way that runs contrary to their Hypergamous opportunism. Why? Because they were conditioned to believe, from a very early age, that interchangeability exists between men and women.

The difference between men and women’s concepts of love is a prime example of this equalist interchangeability fallacy. Men’s concept of love is rooted in idealism; love for the sake of love. This is a result of men’s outward looking idealism and existential experience being male. Women’s concept of love is rooted in opportunism. This is a result of natural solipsism and the need to optimize Hypergamy. It is intrinsic and inward looking and based on security and ensuring survival. When we introduce a condition of egalitarian equalism to men and women only one of these concepts can be the mutually correct concept. Both can exist in a natural state of complementarity between the sexes, but if all-is-one, there can only be one concept of love that decides for both sexes.

The confusion Blue Pill men have is presuming that men’s idealistic concept is the mutually accepted one. This then wars with women’s natural opportunistic concept; and by extension her intrinsic need to optimize Hypergamy. Of course, I’m under no illusion that equalism is anything more than a social utility to ensure a feminine-primary social order, but this is one illustration of how deeply conditioned equalism is what a majority of men base their intersexual understandings on.

I see this conditioning persist even amongst men I would otherwise think had a firm grasp of Red Pill awareness. As I said, they think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are. They still want to hope in that Blue Pill goal of interchangeability. For all of the Red Pill and self awareness I could credit men of the MRM with, they still cling to this equalist mindset. This Blue Pill ideal of true equality between the sexes ultimately works against their best intentions since it is women who are more perfectly placed to take advantage of this ‘equality’. Once again, you will never achieve Blue Pill idealistic goals with Red Pill awareness. Most men are taught that those Blue Pill goals are worthwhile, but they are carrots proffered by the same builders of the cart who hope to get the mule to pull it.

I have read and heard the words of many otherwise brilliant, otherwise Red Pill aware men who simply cannot unlearn the falsehoods of egalitarian equalism. Nothing’s more frustrating to me than to hear a guy I have a deep respect for parrot back some meme or catchphrase of a feminine-operative social convention, or what he thinks is a funny, gender-deprecating quip that belies his ego-investment in the same equalism he just spent a book’s worth of research to debunk. I see brilliant men like Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Warren Farrell or Steven Pinker, who I would hold up as guys who have a lot figured out, still rattle off the same memes I would expect to see from equalists on Facebook. I find it the height of irony that the same men who would systematically destroy the idea of the blank slate still pander to the hopes and goals of the equalists who built those goals based on a blank slate ideology.

Understanding how your prison is constructed, how it works, who your jailers are, is not the same as understanding how to escape it. It’s interesting how refined our Red Pill Lenses can become yet we still never drill down to the root beliefs that still keep us ignorantly hopeful. It’s time we embrace an ideology of true complementarity between men and women. It’s time we accept that we are not equal and in some circumstances that puts men and women at respective advantages and disadvantages based on what any challenge poses to us. It’s time we threw away the Blue Pill goals that equalism has taught us are ‘correct’ and replace them with realistic ones founded on Red Pill awareness.

The Warrior Princess

warrior-princess

During last week’s Red Pill Monthly discussion I was presented with the question as to whether I agreed with women’s mandatory military conscription and my take on women serving in combat roles in the military. You can listen to my take on the livecast, but since I’d already had this post in the works I’ll detail it a bit more here.

Commenter Red light dropped this comment recently

The “Warrior Princess” myth

In making the 300: Rise of an Empire they realized they had a problem, the 300 were all men.

So now in the next movie we have Eva Green as a killing machine admiral of the Persian fleet. Wait, that’s not enough! Let’s end the movie with Lena Headey being a killing machine too. Just to make the warrior princess quota.

I happened to be listening to a feature interview on NPR on a long drive home about a week ago. The interview was of a semi-famous actress-turned-writer-turned-director who’s known for her feminist slant on storytelling and forwarding the narrative of the Feminine Imperative equalism.

So as not to focus too much on the individual and more on the messaging, I’ll just fast forward to a part of the conversation I thought was most salient:

“There was a part of the film (she’s producing/directing) where (SIW®, Warrior Princess cliché) gets into a fight with the ‘bad guy’ and the guys on the set thought that her reactions were unrealistic and no woman would do what she was for the reasons she was doing it. But the women on the set were like ‘Oh totally, I’d do that, hell I’d do worse if I was in that situation’.”

“I told the guys on set that if they really want to see gender equality they needed to embrace all sides of women. They needed to let go of all these preconceptions that women are nurturing or empathetic, and accept that we can be just as violent or hostile as men when we’re pushed this hard.”

I got to thinking about this part of the interview and I got an insight into the belief system of a woman ego-invested in the egalitarian / equalist narrative that had been taught to her since her formative years.

For women so saturated in equalism there’s a kind of convenient duplicity that expects a safe environment in which they can comfortably, and without risk of injury, play out the fantasy of not just being ‘as tough’, but tougher than men.

Nowhere is this safe fantasy more repeated than in the stories that the men and women of the equalist mindset construct for themselves with the expectation of loving mass consumption. I covered this from one angle in Storytelling and I focused primarily on the unbelievability of that narrative, but I didn’t really get into why that narrative is so appealing to that set.

As I mention there, in the world of ideas and possibilities, where all conditions and events are in the control of the storyteller, and all outcomes are scripted by the individual, what comes out in playing God is a revealing of the mindset (and the zeitgeist that created it) of the one in control of telling that story.

Fempowerment

When I wrote The Medium is the Message I primarily focused on observing women’s behaviors as the primary motivator of what their true ‘headspace’ is. However, it’s also important to consider this principle on a macro scale of societal influence. The influence women wish to exert on our collective social order is evidenced in the behavior of their storytelling and the storytelling of their proxies (i.e. men who willingly foment their message and fantasies).

White Knights and sympathetic Betas attuned by a lifetime of Blue Pill conditioning are easy foils in selling out their masculine interests if it means their identifying with the superiority fantasies of women is in someway intrinsically rewarding to them (i.e. potential sexual access with women).

But what are the fantasies women imagine themselves living out in their own storytelling? Since the rise of women’s Hypergamy as the societal priority this has been the convenience of female empowerment and the fantasy that it can be balanced with women intrinsic needs and drives as a human female.

The problem with equalism (as opposed to evolved intergender complementarity) is that it reliably creates piss poor men and women. Taken to its extreme, the ideal state of equalism is androgyny – and that’s a best case scenario. At worst, the concept that gender is a relative mental/social construct creates individuals who arbitrarily define their gender identity based on the opinions of others, or languish in a gender identity purgatory of confusion.

The greatest danger the ideology of an all-are-the-same egalitarianism poses to an individual is the belief that men and women can be fully self-contained and self-fulfilled entities mutually exclusive of each other. From the Warrior Princess perspective this equalist ideal of a ‘perfected’ woman is one in which the best aspects of the masculine and the feminine are represented in one female person.

Ignoring all realities to the contrary, this super woman, this Strong Independent Woman® archetype, is not a ‘woman’ at all. She’s an amorphous being that combines the strength and independence of conventional masculinity with the ‘womanness’ that makes those traits acceptable in a society that would otherwise ridicule a man for displaying them as emblematic of maleness.

In a male embodiment, this autonomous self-sufficient being is a laughable parody; an exaggerated cliché of all the ego insecurities we popularly believe men are predisposed to. But make this strong, independent being female and all the ridiculousness transforms into pride and inspiration. In such a pretext even women’s weaknesses and insecurities (the very traits that would make a man less of a man) become a source of that idealized strength – as a woman.

The truth of course is that this egalitarian ideal is unrealistic and at odds with the reality that women and men have both strengths and weaknesses for which the other is (should be) the complement to. No man is an island, but the Strong Independent Woman® is an entity apart.

False Pride, Real Danger

Now I say that this equalist ideal is a danger to women on whole, but collectively that ideal is a greater danger on a societal level. The reason being is that women have expectations from men while simultaneously believing they are functional equals in all ways to men. In the fantasy of storytelling, and the ubiquitous control it allows the creator, danger, outcome and conditions become mitigated for the sake of the story. The real danger comes when those stories become the template on which women (and men) will expect reality to follow.

Dalrock summed this up perfectly for me in a comment I’ve returned to for years:

These women don’t just want to build a better beta, they want to tame the alpha. In fact, I think the former is just another way they are trying to approach the latter. They want to take an inherently unsafe activity and make it safe. They want to submit to a man without having to submit; they want a man who can tame their feral self. They want him to trip their danger signals. Even better if he is a stranger from a strange land.

They wan’t this all to happen without giving up their freedom; they want to play this out in the context of serial monogamy, so they can feel loved while also claiming their promiscuity is moral. They want to lose control to a string of strangers who have all of the hallmarks of very dangerous men, and they want a promise that this will always end well.

They want to know that this will be safe, without it losing the excitement of it feeling unsafe. They are telling men to build a sort of serial monogamy amusement park where they can ride the roller coaster and experience the fear of falling or crashing, while knowing that just behind the scenes grown ups are actually in charge and are responsible for them safely feeling unsafe.

One more thing. As I mentioned above they don’t want to be hemmed in. So instead of building an actual amusement park, they want roller coasters to spring up randomly in the same exact circumstances where the real danger they mimic would appear. They want to be driving their car on the freeway one instant, and the next experience the fear of careening out of control the next. They want to impulsively jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon and have a parachute appear and deploy at the last minute. And all they ask is your guarantee that all of this will be safe.

Even within the social parameters of what passes for egalitarianism today, there is still a want and expectation on the part of men to make the stories and fantasies of women’s male-equal strengths safe for them in a real context. A prime illustration of this can be found in the language of the women in the video I linked in The War Brides of Europe post.

Whether the show was contrived or not, there’s a fraying of ends going on in these women psyches. The inherently unsafe fantasies of women’s self-perceptions of male-equal strength are being contested by the reality of their situation. The men who were supposed to make the world safe for women’s indulgences of male strength fantasies are proving to be unreliable in affording them that security.

The roller coaster is suddenly real and the prospect of injury and death are real as well. On some level of consciousness they understand that their equalist’s notions of male-equal strength are in no way sufficient for survival in a real test. They are understandably nervous, but nervous in a way that belies the disillusionment of ego-investments they’ve based their lives around.

Women have relied so much on the behind-the-scenes security of men making the world safe for them that they begin to believe they are men’s functional equals. And not only functional equals, but more perfected, autonomously independent, beings that should be a match for the harsh realities their storytellers told them they ought to be.

In fact so dependent on this imagining are women that they expect the simulations of battle to accommodate their lack of capacity to handle the reality that they’ll lobby to alter the qualification necessary to engage with that reality. Thus, the physical requirements for combat suitability are reduced to a degree where women can feel like a success and maintain the storyteller’s archetype of themselves, thus sustaining their ego’s investment in it.

The problem then becomes one where men not only become responsible for women’s security as well as their own security, but also the maintenance of their feminine-primary self-image as a strong, independent, individual capable of achieving an equal measure among men while the real-world requirements mean life or death for them both.

The fantasy of female empowerment is not just the social expectation of men, but it is also the life-threatening liability of men who don’t (or can’t) perform it for them. Men literally risk their lives to maintain women’s equalist fantasy of independent strength apart from, and above that of men.

Back to Basics

basics

 

In last week’s post my intent was to shed some light on how an idealized state of egalitarian equalism and gender parity is always at odds with our ‘feral’ natures which evolved not due to co-equal partnership between the sexes, but from a complementarity between the sexes that fostered the then mutually beneficial imperatives of both.

Any time I suggest the ‘nature’ of how human beings’ evolved psyches influence our personal and social interaction in the now, I’m always going to get resistance from the “rise above our natures” faction of humanistic (and moralistic) hopefuls that insist the instinctual natures which made us such a successful species can (or should) be sublimated by our higher rational (or spiritual) selves.

I can fully relate with those who see the red pill as cynical or pessimistic.

When egalitarian equalism has been the model you’ve been conditioned to believe from birth is the only viable model to base a society and personal relation on, anything different, especially brutal observable realities, is going to smack of cynicism and defeatism.

One reason I believe most guys, either reject the concept of Alpha or want Alpha to fit into a super-heroic ‘leader-of-men’ archetypal definition is because it agrees better with an egalitarian mindset. Most women like to cast Alpha in this way because it serves the public relations aspect of their hypergamy better – Beta men make better, more dedicated resource providers when the only message they hear is what they’re doing is ‘the real Alpha’.

It’s not until men are confronted with the cruel realities in real time that they have an opportunity to learn from experience that, for as much as they want to cling to the ‘open communication / rise above our programming’ memes of egalitarianism, the observable (often painful) reality is one where women’s instinctual natures dictate their behaviors. And, as might be expected of an equalist mindset, those behaviors are then excused and rationalized as forgivable “human vulnerabilities” – and if you don’t forgive them, you risk being judgmental and further fail to live up to the egalitarian equalist/humanist ideal.

The Feral Woman

As loathe as I am to give the HuffPo any link love, I read with interest Why Great Husbands Are Being Abandoned. I’m going to quote some of it here, but I do so because it seems to me that even the bastions of equalist thought are finally, begrudgingly, coming to terms with the inherent failings of reconciling equalism with evolved, conventional, complementarity among the sexes.

In the last few decades women have slowly driven their point home. The millennial men, who are their current counterparts, are freer thinkers and they have responded in kind in their relationships as well. These men like their women strong and feisty, and have willingly accepted the responsibility to connect in a more vulnerable way. They get it that it’s sexy to help make a meal or take the kids away on a Sunday morning so their wives can sleep in. They are the androgynous guys that their women have asked them to become.

You would think that the women in these new relationships would be ecstatic. They’ve got a guy who wants to work out together, share parenting, support their parallel dreams, and make their family collective central to both of their lives. They’ve established an equal relationship of coordinated teamwork, and the guys don’t seem to miss their old need to posture for power over intimate connections.

Well, guess again. Fifty percent of marriages are still ending in divorce, and women continue to be the gender that initiates those endings. In the past, their reasons for leaving most often had to do with infidelity, neglect, or abuse. Now they’re dumping men who are faithful, attentive, and respectful, the very men they said they have always wanted. Why would women who have accomplished the female dream suddenly not be satisfied with it? Why are they leaving these ideal guys, and for what reasons?

I am currently dealing with several of these great husbands. They are, across the board, respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive guys whose wives have left them for a different kind of man. These once-beloved men make a living, love their kids, help with chores, support aging parents, and support their mate’s desires and interests. They believe they’ve done everything right. They are devastated, confused, disoriented, and heartsick. In a tragic way, they startlingly resemble the disheartened women of the past who were left behind by men who “just wanted something new.”

You may think that these women are ruthless and inconsiderate. Those I know are far from that. More often, they still love their husbands as much as they ever did, but in a different way. They tell me how wonderful their men are and how much they respect them. They just don’t want to be married to them anymore.

I read this article after I’d read the plea for Traditional Masculinity in the Jezebel groupthink article I linked in last week’s post and it struck me that along with the societal emphasis on a more overt and open hypergamy comes a need to reconcile it with equalism. This is proving to be a tall order as articles of this nature illustrate.

It’s important to understand that this internal conflict isn’t coming from men trying to square their sexual impulses with their higher-self aspiration of honor, duty and integrity. This conflict is coming from women who’ve been raised with expectations of gender parity, equalism and ‘open communication’ to resolve differences.

These women are now observing their own behavior and trying to reconcile the base feral motivators (hypergamy) with “how things ought to be” in an idealized state of egalitarian equalism.

These women cannot help but see the very observable consequences of open hypergamy now. I don’t necessarily disagree with the conclusions Randi Gunther comes to at the end of this article, I just disagree with how he comes to them.

Then things started to go awry. Perhaps these androgynous couples over-valued adopting the same behaviors in their relationship. Maybe the men got too nice and the women a little too challenging. Oddly, the androgynous men seemed to like their new-found emotional availability, while the women began to feel more unfulfilled. Her “perfect” partner, in the process of reclaiming his full emotional expressiveness, somehow ended up paying an unfair price; he was no longer able to command the hierarchical respect from her that was once his inalienable right.

What Randi doesn’t consider is the natural complementary states men and women’s psychological firmware descended from since our hunter-gatherer tribal beginnings. He can’t consider it because it disagrees with the ‘higher-selves overcoming our natural state’ aspect of egalitarian humanism.

But the observable truth is right there in front of him, with his head in his hands, so he can’t ignore it. Naturally the first recourse is to force fit this truth into a more palatable egalitarian framework, but even this falls flat (as evidenced by the predictably dismissive comments). What he and the commenters can’t reconcile is the truth of the androgynous men directly created by egalitarian equalism and the natural and instinctual predisposition of feminine hypergamy.

Red pill aware men see this for what it is because we’re accepting of the truth of women’s feral natures and what it prompts them to, but this is an excellent illustration of the primary differences between a red and blue pill mindset.

There is a primal need women have for natural masculine dominance. Whether this dominance is physical (looks and sexual prowess), psychological (Game) or provisional, women are seeking a dominance that an androgynous man is incapable of providing. As I’ve stated in prior posts, androgyny is homogeny, and nature stagnates (and often dies out) in conditions of homogeny. Androgynous men, by definition aren’t men – they are neither masculine or feminine – so is it any surprise that women’s innate, heteronormative, subliminal and tingle inducing need for a traditionally masculine man is frustrated by the same egalitarian mindset they’ve fostered in compliant men for so long?

Primal femininity is confused and frustrated by blank-slate equalism.

The Blue Pill Painted Red

As open hypergamy and the conflict between equalism and complementarity becomes more evident the advocates for that ‘touchy-feely’ “men need to be more balanced with Beta” sentimentalism will find it increasingly more difficult to sell that brand of equalism.

I’m aware of many a former (nominally) red pill blogger who’s dropped their previous advocacy for masculine (Alpha) attributes being arousing/attractive in favor of a diluted blue pill ‘new age sensitive guy’ message that better resonates with his increasingly female readership. While spinning just enough red pill into what accounts for a blue pill ideology might make for better, temporary, revenue, it only aggravates the same conflict between equalism and complementarity that Gunther here is exposing.

The DeadBedrooms subreddit is an excellent example of this conflict. I’ll warn you now, this forum will depress you, but virtually every personal admission here is a testament to what men were conditioned to believe women would want in a man, in a relationship, and the empirical results of the imbalance between a blue pill mindset and a red pill reality.

The popular message, the socially acceptable one, is that what makes a man an ideal long term partner will necessarily make him a tingle inducing sexual prospect. It sounds right, and it lifts women on whole up to a more idealized, humanist, higher-self.

Prior to the push for a more open hypergamy, what woman wanted to cop to love fucking the bad boys and “best sex ever” short term partners? No dutiful Beta wants to hear that truth, so the praises of the “respectful, quality, caring, devoted, cherishing, authentic, and supportive” guys are sung.

It may sell books and increase click-thru traffic, but ultimately hypergamy doesn’t care about higher-self aspirations or the conditioned delusions of men who believe that what makes men an attractive prospect for Beta Bucks will necessarily turn women on for Alpha Fucks. Your proof is in the DeadBedrooms subred.

Before I end here, I feel I have to address that I do in fact believe that men and women can, and regularly do, rise above our innate instinctual natures. Obviously civilization didn’t reach the point we have by not controlling our base natures. The problem I see now is the social order established to effect that control is failing to account for the conflict between equalism and complementarity.

If there’s a take away lesson to be learned from Gunther’s article it’s not that men are lacking in Beta attributes or sensitivity training to balance their asshole Alpha egos. If anything the vast majority of men have too much invested in that Beta equalism and sentimentality.

Whether it’s openly or covert, the message we get from those men’s consequences is that women are overwhelmingly conveying the want for traditional masculine dominance, prowess, control and even a bit of the cocky ego that legitimately comes along with it.

It’s been mentioned in many a manosphere comment thread that, the medium is the message, and women’s medium has been proving that their interests lean much more openly towards Alpha Fucks, even after marriage, even after consolidation on Beta Bucks provisioning.

Equalism and Masculinity

masculinity

What a lot of feminists hate about red pill theory is that it simply does a better job of predicting social behavior than feminism ever has. I’d like to think that red pill awareness has fundamentally altered (or enlightened if you’d like) intergender interpretations and understanding in a relatively short time, but that would be a mistake.

There’s a distinct group of self-evincing red pill guys who like to remind us in various comment threads that it hasn’t always been thus. Their story is our forbearers “knew better” with regard to how men and women ought to interact with one another, and essentially spelled this out for future generations in the religious and philosophical texts of antiquity.

While I can’t deny the merit of this, I also know that the men of those bygone eras didn’t have anything approaching the mass of information and the connectivity men possess today. It’s easy to get caught up in the romanticism of the idea that back in some Golden Age of manhood, men knew about the dangers of allowing women’s hypergamous natures to run amok. I’m sure those men knew of the consequences of allowing women to control their fates. I’m sure there were Beta men and cuckolded men as well, but even the most wise Alpha among them could never, for instance, understand the impact that a unilaterally feminine-controlled form of birth control would effect upon a globalized society.

The sages of manhood-past may still have many relevant lessons for the men of today, but they simply lack the compounded experiences and understanding men possess now. Though they undoubtedly were keen observers of human behavior, the greatest thinkers of antiquity simply didn’t have an inkling as to the evolved, biological motivators of the sexual strategies our psyches developed in our hunter-gatherer human past.

What frustrates the advocates of this bygone manhood wisdom is that for all of our collective experience and knowledge, for the past sixty or so years, men struggle to come to terms with what that masculinity should mean to them. For all of the accumulated male experience and relation of it that’s led to red pill awareness, men still grapple with ‘what being a man means to them’.

Undoing of a Man

When I do consults with men of all ages I have to begin from a presumption that what these men’s concept of masculinity is usually is the result of a deliberate attempt by the Feminine Imperative to confuse men about what being a man should be for him.

Even the men who tell me they were raised by the most dominant, positively masculine fathers still suffer the internalized effects from this feminized effort to cast doubt on men’s masculinity.

Recently NPR began a series of articles attempting to suss out what it means to be a man in the 21st century. I do listen to NPR, and while I know bias will always be an inevitable part of news stories, I couldn’t help but assess what a morass attempting to define masculinity has become for contemporary men. Each story, each attempt to redefine masculinity, relied on the same tired tropes the Feminine Imperative has been using for men since the start of the sexual revolution.

Weakness, vulnerability, is sold as strength. Submissiveness and compromise to the feminine is sold as “support” and deserving of praise and a reciprocal appreciation (which never manifests in women). Beta is Alpha and Alpha is insecurity, bluster and compensation.

Those are the main premises, and, to a large degree, most red pill aware men realize that behavior is the only true determinant of motivation, and reject the feminized, egalitarian equalist messaging. However, what still surprises me is that this same, deliberate effort to cast doubt on what masculinity should be for a man hasn’t changed its message or methods of conditioning men to accept this masculine confusion for almost 40 years now.

Through the late 80’s and up to now, the idea of anything positively masculine is either ridiculed, cast as misogynistic, or implies a man might be gay if he’s too celebratory of his maleness. Since the start of the sexual revolution, any definition of what masculinity truly should mean has been subject to the approval of the Feminine Imperative.

In the absence of a clear definition of what masculinity is for men, the Feminine Imperative is free to create as grotesque a straw man of ugly masculinity, or as beatific a feminized model of masculinity as it needs to serve its purpose. With the aid of the Male Catch 22, blurring and distorting masculinity, raising and conditioning men to accept ambiguity and doubt about the security of a ‘manhood’ they’re encouraged not to define for themselves, are all the methodologies employed to ensure a feminine-primary social order.

Equalism vs. Complementarity

Agreeableness and humility in men has been associated with a negative predictor of sex partners.

The problem inherent in applying reciprocal solutions to gender relations is the belief that those relations are in any way improved by an equilibrium between both sexes interests.

The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The mistake is applying a humanistic, egalitarian equalist ideal to human sexual strategies that evolved over millennia to be complementary to each other, not an equitable exchange of resources to be negotiated over. This is one reason genuine desire cannot be negotiated – this fundamental is rooted in our most primal, complemetary understanding of sex.

The point at which egalitarian equalism (the religion of feminism) fundamentally fails is presuming that intergender relations should ideally exist in a goal-state of egalitarian equalism and / or a reciprocally equal state of mutually supportive interests.

Hypergamy doesn’t care about equalism and reciprocity.

The sexes evolved to be complementary to each other for the betterment of the species. Why do you think women form the most secure emotional attachments to men 1-2 SMV steps above themselves? Why is masculine dominance such an attractive male aspect for even the most feminist of women who’d otherwise plead for equality among the sexes?

I have a bit of a weird relationship with “traditional masculinity”. I’ve looked critically at it enough to know how much damage it does as a paradigm. I’ve seen the harm it can do to both men and women on an individual level. I’ve been subject to the violence it encourages. But despite all that, holy shit does it ever turn me on.

[…]

There’s just something about assertiveness (let’s be real, sometimes flat out arrogance) that does it for me. No matter how much I can be attracted to someone emotionally and intellectually, my swoons only happen when confronted by a powerful, competent man.

This has lead to some issues in my personal life. Who knew being attracted almost exclusively to men that inherently make bad partners wouldn’t work out well for me?

What we’re observing here is a rudimentary conflict between an internalized humanist idealism (the way equalism teaches thing’s should be) versus evolved, impulsive realism (the way things are).

The doctrine of equalism presumes a socialized expectation of being turned-on or attracted to men exemplifying a ‘gender equitable’, equalist-correct, mindset and the evolved, visceral arousal / attraction to a man exhibiting the dominant characteristic traits of masculine complementarity.

Another example of this conflict can be found in my essay on Choreplay.

In 2008 the transactional nature of sex-for-equitable-services was an over blown meme. The message then was that men needed to do more feminine-typical chores around the house, and the equitable exchange would be his wife reciprocating with more frequent and more intense sex as a result of his “equitable” participation in that negotiation.

Fast forward to 2013 and now (by the same author mind you):

Hey, fellas, put down those vacuum cleaners and pull out the lawn mowers.

Married men may think helping around the house may up their hotness quotient in the bedroom, but what really matters is the type of chore. Heterosexual married men who spend their time doing yard work, paying bills and changing the oil have more sex than husbands who spend their time cooking, cleaning and shopping, according to a new study on the subject of housework and sex.

“Households with a more traditional gender division of labor report higher sexual frequency than households with less traditional gender divisions of labor,”…

So what you see illustrated here, in just the space of 5 years, is the frustration and conflict between an equalist idealized model vs. the evolved complementary model of gender relations. It’s not about the equitability of like for like exchanges or like for like reward/benefit, but rather the way that equitability is expressed and how it grates against instinctually human expectations of behavior.

Sex differences, biologically and psychologically, didn’t evolve for hundreds of thousands of years to be co-equal partnerships based on humanistic (or moralistic) idealism. They evolved into a complementary form of support where the aspects of one sex’s strengths compensated for the other’s weaknesses and vice versa.

For every behavioral manifestation of one sex’s sexual strategy (hypergamy in females), the other sex evolves psychological, sociological and behavioral contingencies to counter it (mate guarding in males). The ideal state of gender parity isn’t a negotiation of acceptable terms for some Pollyanna ideal of gender equilibrium, it’s a state of complementarity between the sexes that accepts our evolved differences – and by each individual gender’s conditions, sometimes that’s going to mean accepting unequal circumstances.

Feminists (and anti-feminist women), humanists, moral absolutists, and even red pill men still obliviously clinging to the vestiges of their egalitarian blue pill conditioning, will all end up having their ideologies challenged, frustrated and confounded by the root presumption that egalitarian equalism can ever, or should ever, trump an innate and evolved operative state of gender complementarity.

And thus we come full circle, back to a new model of masculinity that is found upon the evolved complementary order and aided by red pill awareness. I have no doubt that it will be an arduous process of acceptance for blue pill, masculine-confused men vainly attempting to define their own masculinity under the deliberately ambiguous contexts laid out for them by the Feminine Imperative, but I do (hopefully) believe that red pill awareness is already making a positive impact on countering a presumption of equalism that only truly serves feminine primacy.

It’ll take time, but with every aware man utilizing red pill awareness to realign his masculine identity and benefit from it, other men will begin to come to the same awareness or else fall off into their own ambiguity.