She’s Unhaapppy,…

controlling-parent

Do women seem more or less happy to you? It’s kind of hard to quantify/qualify what happiness means to men, but when it comes to women’s state of happiness or contentment I think most guys have a tendency to expect women’s experience of happiness to be measured on a similar scale to their own. From a strictly evo-psych / evo-bio perspective it’s important that any metric of happiness between the sexes be measured by first considering each’s innate psychological firmware and what contributes to men and women feeling a degree of happiness.

Because men and women rate their experiences differently per their own interpretations of what contribute to it  happiness becomes a really subjective evaluation. As you might guess, what makes for a happy woman is not always what makes for a happy man. It’s a similar contrast to men and women’s differing concepts of love. Men tend to approach love from an idealistic perspective, and women base their emotional investments on opportunistic contexts. We’re conditioned from an early age to believe men and women share a mutual concept of love thanks to an ever-present presumption of egalitarian equalism between males and females, and this is where a lot of intersexual problems find their root.

Likewise, our egalitarian presumptions also condition men and women to believe that we share mutual concepts of what should and shouldn’t make either sex happy in a long term sense. In this case it is women who are largely misled by the equalist narrative. For more than sixty years women have been conditioned to believe they can meet their own idealistic goal of ‘having it all’ if they can only “empower” themselves into being Strong Independent Women®. Increasingly women are coming to the conclusion that this pro-woman life plan has been nothing but feel-good advertising, and now, after having invested their most productive years in this narrative they find that they are largely unhappy with the results its brought into their lives.

You see, equalism (the religion of feminism) would have women believe that what makes men happy must necessarily be what makes women happy – or would make them happy in the long term if only the “patriarchy” would allow women the same opportunities to experience it. If we are all blank-slate equals, what makes women and men happy must be mutually shared, thus men are encouraged to be women and craft their identities around feminine-primacy, but also, women must become men and craft their personas around the masculine ideals that bring men so much power, and by way of it happiness.

Yet in our modern western(izing) world we find that the equalist effort to socially engineer androgyny into society has had the opposite effect in engendering happiness in women. Article after article and study after study show that women’s perceived happiness is at an all-time low since researchers have been collecting data on it. Women are living longer lives and at no point in history have they enjoyed more access to the means of more success than in the now. Mainstream feminine-primacy sees that more women are college educated than men, while men fill our prisons at 12 times the rate of women, yet for all of this women express feeling less satisfied with the quality of, and happiness in, their lives.

American women are wealthier, healthier and better educated than they were 30 years ago. They’re more likely to work outside the home, and more likely to earn salaries comparable to men’s when they do. They can leave abusive marriages and sue sexist employers. They enjoy unprecedented control over their own fertility. On some fronts — graduation rates, life expectancy and even job security — men look increasingly like the second sex.

But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. In the 1960s, when Betty Friedan diagnosed her fellow wives and daughters as the victims of “the problem with no name,” American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women.

And, as would be expected, women’s dissatisfaction with their lives is always traced back to uncooperative men and their reluctancy to make feminism the roaring success they just know it could be if men would simply accept their diminishing importance and superfluousness. What Today’s Woman has been sold is that the careerism, status seeking and ambitiousness that’s driven men to their sense of happiness-through-accomplishment (with all the prerequisite sacrifices needed to get there) is necessarily the same path to women’s sense of happiness and fulfillment.

But men and women are in fact different, and while the social experiment that is equalism continues to destroy lives by insisting they aren’t, women are coming to find (often too late in life to correct) that happiness for themselves comes as a result of satisfying needs that are innate to their nature as a female. As such, equalism and feminism fluidly redefine what “should be” happiness for men and women – men should always find fulfillment in making women happy in an ‘equalist’ utopia – yet that contentment for women will always be elusive and thus, a need to make men the culprits in that unending oppression of happiness comes into play.

Worst Case Scenario

Virtually every woman I’ve ever come into contact with in my lifetime shared a common mindset – each one subscribes to what I call the ‘worst case scenario’ mindset. I expect this from a mother or matronly relative, maybe even an overprotective sister, but to some degree all (and yes I mean all) women share a sense of risk aversion. That may not be in all aspects of a woman’s life, and certainly there are instances where this can be overridden – usually ones that imply an optimized Hypergamous opportunity – but I find that it’s part of women’s psychological firmware to obsessively want to mitigate risk of loss. Whether that’s risk of injury or resources or something that has a potential for providing her with security, the innate female subroutine is to play things safe.

In an age of mass media and instantaneous communication (women’s domain) this risk aversion gets combined with women’s primary, evolutionarily derived, need for a sustainable long term security and an existence-level sense of doubt. I’ve covered in prior posts about how Hypergamy is rooted in doubt and demands a constant reverifying of its being optimized in a man or a man with whom a woman has the potential of becoming intimate with. What results from this root level doubt and a hindbrain need for security is a continual preoccupation with the Worst Case Scenario.

Every possibility for the worst is thought through, contemplated and anticipated by women. There are very few women known for their genuine optimism or faith in a better outcome than what could possibly be the worst case. Yes, there are women who are saccharine motivational speakers, women’s ministry leaders and “make it a great day” believers in the magic powers of positivity, but even when it is genuine it comes as the result of wanting to mitigate the risks of the worst case scenario for their own (or women’s) lives.

As I wrote in Imagination, a man’s best tool in his Game toolbox is a woman’s imagination. That may be well for Game, but it also comes with the drawback of women’s imaginings of the worst possible thing that could ever happen. Throw women’s evolved sense of solipsism into this mix and it’s the worst possible thing that could happen, to her. On one hand, Dread is useful because of this innately female dynamic, but when you must contend with what amounts to a never ending battery of ‘what if’ doubts and reassurances then you begin to see the downside of that imagination. You begin to understand why women default to blaming men for not providing them with a sustainable happiness.

Women, being the life-bearing, nurture-giving sex with the most to lose in their investment in selecting a mate and gestating a child, have evolved to seek a sustainable security above all else – a security that guarantees her individuated happiness. That conventional, evolved sense of wellbeing used to be dependent upon the provisioning and the excitement that could only be provided by men. This is a subconscious expectation of women. Even women who subscribe to sexual fluidity often seek a similar security from their masculinized dominant partner.

Social Security

As a result of our equalist social narrative, women have been conditioned to believe that they can find this security and happiness in some untapped well they have hidden in their psyche if only they can be Strong and Independent enough to access it. In prior essays I’ve made the case that the ultimate goal of our feminine-primary social order has been to facilitate women’s optimizing Hypergamy by essentially outlawing men’s influence on that process. Every gender-based law that’s come into being since the time of the Sexual Revolution; from sexual consent, to what constitutes sexual harassment, to father’s (lack of) rights, to divorce settlement has been motivated by this deep seated female need for an enduring security. This was a security unique to men, but in an ‘equalist’ paradigm it is no longer required of, nor is it expected to be found in, men.

Yet for all of this handwringing, for all of the great efforts needed to legislate men’s direct or indirect financing of this security, and despite every social dispensation intended to empower women to provide this soul-gnawing need for security, women are still not happy.

The masterful Pook once said that the surest way to make a woman unhappy is to give them everything they want. I recently got into, yet again, another debate about the merits or non-merits of Choreplay and whether the idea of women getting hot for guys who do dishes was really a thing,…or not. This time the spin is that women will cheat on their husbands if they don’t do more chores.

As I was requoting myself for this debate I realized how long the Choreplay dilemma has been playing out – the first time I took it on was 2008. Men are deductive problem solvers. We want to make women happy as a means to getting sex, keeping the peace, sustaining intimacy, security, and just making a woman happy. The problem with that is that nothing a man can do will make a woman happy in the long term. In fact, just the whack-a-mole attempt to intentionally try to make a woman happy is itself a display women read as coming from a man who Just Doesn’t Get It.

The majority of men (Betas) would like nothing more than to sustain a woman’s happiness. They’re taught that relationship are always ‘hard work’ and his work will ultimately never be good enough. Even the most dutiful Beta can’t make a woman happy, but their efforts become a process of him negotiating for a woman’s desire. Whether that’s earning the ‘happiness’ of his mother, his sister, his female co-worker or his wife, the effect is the same.

We’ve made women’s happiness a litmus test for how successful a man or his relationships are. The common refrain of a woman leaving a man due to her being “unhaaaaaapy” is almost a cliché in the manosphere now. But if it’s a cliché it’s because this is the go-to reasoning we’ve heard from pop-psychologists, marriage counselors and mommy bloggers for the 70%+ of divorces initiated by women. We are expected to put a premium on women’s sustained happiness in a feminine-primary social order. Women’s happiness has become the prime directive and the metric for a relationship’s success. Any concern for men’s happiness is either a sign of his weakness or his problematic misogyny.

From Perfecting the Fantasy:

Here’s a secret – there’s no such thing as contentment.

Being content implies that life is static; it’s not, and to be honest, how boring would that be anyway? Life consists of varying states of discontent: why else would you bother doing anything? But the good news is that it’s more fun and more beneficial to manage discontent than to endure contentment (which you can’t anyway since it’s transitory at best). The trick is to understand that there are 2 kinds of discontent – creative and destructive discontent. What you choose to do with that discontent makes all the difference in the world. You will only get what you’ve gotten if you keep doing what you’ve done. Don’t allow yourself to fall back into old destructive habits of dealing with discontent. Don’t bother with anti-depressants and self-help books when a good hard workout at the gym would serve you better.

The truth is I’m always discontent, but constructively so. The minute you can look yourself in the mirror and be happy with what you see you’re sunk. You can always improve, even after achieving things that were once very important and difficult to attain. Happiness is a state of being, it’s in the ‘doing’ not the ‘having done.’ It’s not about endlessly chasing your tail, it’s about being better than you were the day before.

I agree with Gorilla Patriot, women’s default is for unhappiness, but I’d qualify this by saying it’s more of a predisposition of discontent. That is to say there is no real neutral disposition for a woman. Even in a state of indifference, a woman’s conditioned expectation from men will always originate from a preconception of disappointment. The worst case scenario is what is subconsciously planned for to the point that, even a man whom a woman loves and trusts, a woman’s first expectation from him is failure.

A lot of this comes from a lifetime of having male role models portrayed as default failures, social ignoramuses or just ridiculous because of their maleness. Women have had an endless education that only their unique femaleness can solve men’s problems of maleness, and they solve it in spite of themselves. Women are quite literally taught to expect failure, discontentment and unhappiness from men from a very early age.

The great tragedy of this ‘education’ is that it teaches women to empower themselves to find some life satisfaction as a result of their independence from men, but yet they can’t get around the want to find happiness with men. This teaching seeks to create some equalist semblance of happiness based on what men define for themselves as happiness.

They’re taught that a real enduring security is somehow possible in an intrinsically unsafe and chaotic world. So they limit men, they mandate laws and social mores to mitigate the risks that men, in their idealism, would naturally be drawn to take. They keep the kids safe, tell them to walk on one side of the sidewalk, tell them not to jump on the bed, tell them not to ride a bike without a helmet and knee and arm pads, and to prepare for the most damaging possibility imaginable. And men, who’ve always been bigger, more dangerous children to them, must comply with this risk aversion by law or by shame.

Women are unhappy because they expect unhappiness. They’ve been taught that the security they sought in men was a weakness; one they need to compensate for. They were conditioned to feel shame for that need, that masculine comfort, even when they know security is never going to be guaranteed in the best of possible cases. They’re unhappy because they were taught that men’s happiness is better than women’s happiness and that’s the path they ought to follow no matter the sacrifice, no matter the damage to the family. They were taught that feminist pride and equalist hubris were a better substitute for a family – they believed the lie that they would just be ‘happy captives’.

Losing My Religion

Losing

In the interests of full disclosure, I’ll admit I’ve had this post in my drafts folder for some time now. As always, standard caveats apply with regard to my policy on posts about religion, politics, and socioeconomics. I don’t delve into the particulars of these subjects, but I will dissect how they coincide with intersexual dynamics.

It’s no secret that I’ve been a regular follower of Dalrock’s blog for over five years now. Along with Dal I also consider Donalgraeme and a few other bloggers in the ‘Christo-Manosphere’ Red Pill colleagues if not friends. I’ve always held Dalrock as a sort of Red Pill brother since both our blogs came up around the same time. I’ve quoted and credited him in both my books.

I do so because there was a time I considered pursuing a path in my writing that would follow the same Red Pill critique of religion, (Christianity for Dal) at least in some occasional sense. After reading Dalrock’s very insightful early posts I decided against it. Dal has earned the respect of the manosphere for his Red Pill lens of contemporary Christianity for good reason – he’s a consummate statistician and researcher, and he’s what I’d call “embedded” well within modern (I presume mostly evangelical) church culture. He does it better than I could hope to do that part of the manosphere justice.

I never go into any detail about my own faith for a couple of reasons, the first being it’s only peripherally relevant in my writing. Secondly, it’s always been my position that the Red Pill needs to remain fundamentally areligious and apolitical. That said, I am familiar enough with ‘Churchian’ culture and the psycho-social side of mainstream religion to understand it through my own Red Pill lens.

When I analyze Red Pill principles within social contexts I always have a hard time with religion. It grates on me because I’m of the opinion that one’s religious leanings, one’s interaction with existence and life, one’s consideration of the spiritual, ought to be something personal and private if it’s in anyway genuine. As such, and for some, it can be a source of real vulnerability and exploitation which is really nothing new to anyone. It’s one thing to be even agnostic and trapped in a Blue Pill world, but it’s quite another to have been raised to adulthood in a religious context and coming to terms with having some very deep ego-investments shattered by a new Red Pill awareness.

If you ask anyone steeped in the Blue Pill conditioning of the Feminine Imperative about how this exploitation operates in an intersexual context you’ll likely get the standard answer that religion is largely a “social construct designed to maintain the Patriarchy.” And I have no doubt that in a Judeo-Christian sense this was likely the case for millennia. I won’t dig into how much of this had the latent purpose of controlling for Hypergamy in this post, but in the generations since the sexual revolution and the rise of feminine social primacy this maintaining the Patriarchy is a failing distraction on the part of the Feminine Imperative.

Creating Religion in the Image of the Feminine Imperative

For the past five generations, there has been a concerted re-engineering of religion (and not just limited to Christianity) to better suit the ends of the Feminine Imperative. Just as men are sold the idealism of the old set of books while living within the social context that confounds them, religion has been coopted by the feminine. The old books religion has either been replaced wholesale by a feminine-interpreted, feminine-directed religion that places women as its highest authority, or it’s been restructured and rewritten to serve the same feminine-primary objectives.

For going on six years now, Dalrock has masterfully documented and rightly criticized these shifts in Christianity. Although I’m focusing on western Christiainty here, this re-engineering of modern religion is not limited to just Christianity. A Red Pill perspective reveals a lot of uncomfortable truths, one of these is how well the Feminine Imperative has succeeded in supplanting any and all masculine influence in religion.

I expect there will be female critics who’ll cite that, in most of church culture, it’s still predominantly men who control churches and religious organizations, but in the era of feminine social primacy, it’s not who executes the control, but whose beliefs control the executors. Pair this with the commodification of religion and we can see the spheres of true feminine control and feminine-primary purpose.

https://twitter.com/voxday/status/737234578432233472

After almost six years of following the religious aspects of the Red Pill, I think it’s high time men acknowledge that modern Christian culture simply does not have men’s best interests as part of its doctrine anymore. Christianity, in particular, is by women, for women – if not directly executed by women, though even that is changing.

Church culture is now openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable, gender-loathing Betas. The feminist narrative of “toxic masculinity” has entirely replaced any semblance of what traditional masculinity or manhood once was to the church. Any hint of a masculinity not entirely beholden to a now feminine-primary purpose is not only feared, but shamed with feminine-interpreted aspersions of faith.

I recently read a study that our current generation is the least religious in history and I think as far as men are concerned much of that disdain for religion is attributable to a church culture that constantly and openly ridicules and debases any male-specific endeavors or anything characteristic of conventional masculinity. It’s no secret in today’s church franchisement that reaching out to, and retaining the interests of, men is at its most difficult.

Again, this is attributable to a generation of feminized men being raised into a church culture, and eventual church leadership, that has been taught to prioritize and identify with the feminine and reinforced with articles of faith now defined by the Feminine Imperative. The modern church has trouble reaching men because the church no longer has a grasp of what it means to be ‘men’.

To be clear, that’s not an indictment of the genuine faith itself, but rather a fairly measured observation of the way a feminine-primary church culture has shaped that faith. In the future, any man with a marginal capacity for critical thought will avoid the contemporary Christian church and religion for the obvious misandry it espouses; the only religious men you will find will be those raised into a life of religiously motivated Beta servitude – or those dragged to the feminine-directed church by wives who hold authoritative ‘headship’ in their relationships.

And even in what some consider to be pro-masculine or “macho” churches, we still find the Paper Alpha leaders preach from a mindset that defers wholesale to the feminine’s “Godly perfection” as they attempt to AMOG other male member to greater devotion to qualifying for, and identifying with, the feminine influence that pervades their church.

Religious men will be synonymous with a Beta mindset.

It’s gotten to a point where it’s better to look after your self-interests and repent of the sin later than commit to an institution that openly seeks to indenture you. I realize that might be anathema to the more determined religious man, but just understand that this is the pragmatic, deductive future that the contemporary, western-feminized church is presenting to men. The social contract of marriage from a religious perspective has shifted into the ultimate leap of faith for men. They literally risk everything in marriage – child custody, sexual access, any expectation of true, male authority or respect, long-term financial prospects, etc. – but this leap of faith comes with a metaphysical price tag.

Men declining to participate in faith-based marriage decline an aspect of a faith reset to serve women; women who are held as a higher order of sinless being than men by this new church. For the agnostic or areligious man, discarding a Blue Pill social conditioning for a Red Pill awareness is a difficult task, but for men raised to believe that their only doctrinally approved path to sex with a woman is abstinence until marriage, that man’s only hope is to accept his fate and stay the Beta a feminized church has conditioned him to be.

And once he gets to marriage and his approved expression of his sexuality, the “Christian” man finds that the feminized church, even the male elders, expect endless qualifications to women and his wife’s unceasing appeasement in exchange for that approved sex. It’s a tail-chasing that holds men to the old books social order expectations while absolving women of all accountability and expecting him to also make concessions for a new (feminized) social order that’s ensaturated the church.

SeventiesJason from Dalrock’s blog:

And then we have “Christian marriage” divorce rates which are only a few paltry percentage points lower than the secular world……..men like Chandler will blame “men” for not leading, not being ‘holy’ enough, not bold n’ biblical enough, not going to bed exhausted every night….and a pile of other excuses for why she “had no choice” but to end the marriage.

We have a whole cottage industry of ‘christian counseling’ and self-help books, usually written for and by women. We have conferences, TV channels, broadcast networks, podcasts, radio stations, outreach, plenty of churches in this country……..the Internet. A ton of resources. Books……every pastor great and small today is “working on” or has written a book.

How on earth did the early church survive under the penalty of death? Persecution. Seclusion, and outright shunning? How did it grow? How did it survive?

We are told over and over by pastors that “God has an amazing plan for your life!” and then to sell men in the world this ‘churchian’ ploy that you are somehow not as holy, balanced, ready, equipped, or mature to handle this amazing plan….ah, but your wife to be is! The unspoken consolation prize is “but…..hey, you get to have sex….and that’s the only thing men need or think about and want!”

That seems to be given begrudgingly today (in my men’s group…..goodness, so many of the married guys complain that their wives never want sex)

How did the early church turn the world upside down? All God did was send a few men, and they made it happen. We have so many tools today…..and we’re “helpless” and we tend to think a “building program” will help everything and if we let the men fix things on the property they will feel “useful”

For over five generations now, the modern church has become a Beta farm existing only to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today. In our idealism I think too many (even well-meaning Red Pill) men believe that the church is some insulation against the worst of the Feminine Imperative when it is in fact an institution that produces the same men we hope to free from the Matrix.

Dean Abbot had an excellent post about this dynamic in his critique of another post by Mark Braivo:

In spite of what you might hear in the media about how terrible and retrograde evangelicals are, the entire movement, even the “conservative” end is thoroughly feminized.

The central Christian teaching that ALL people are sinners gets glossed over. Instead, the notion that men are somehow worse by nature than women is everywhere, sometimes stated overtly, often in the subtext.

At the same time, women are elevated to a position of moral and spiritual superiority. Women’s sin is often excused in light of a man’s failings. I remember hearing a very well known evangelical leader tell a story about how his wife freaked out and started smashing all their dishes. What was his point? That she did this because he had been neglecting her. See, she is not an adult beholden to practice self-control, but rather an innocent, sweet victim driven to outlandish behavior by his shortcomings.

“Toxic masculinity”, any masculinity inconvenient to a feminine-correct purpose, is a sin both actively and retroactively in today’s church.

With every successive generation of Beta pastors that are produced by this farm you get more and more men whose only experience of that religion is one of servile deference to a faith that’s been fundamentally altered to the utility of women and feminine-primacy. Women love to complain that it’s largely men who do the preaching and decision making in church, but what they ignore is that these men are the developed implements of the Feminine Imperative.

I will wager that in the next 10 years Christianity will be unrecognizable from its prior tenets of well defined conventional masculinity and the faith itself will expressly be centered on deference to the feminine.

Culture Informs Faith

I’ve had several critics tell me that the problem with the modern church is really one of its culture and should be considered apart from the ‘genuine’ faith, however it is church culture that ultimately informs and restructures doctrine and articles of faith. When that culture is informed by the Feminine Imperative, open Christian feminists, and a feminine influence posing as doctrinally sound egalitarianism, this fundamentally recreates an old order religion in the image of a new order, female-primary, imperative.

This and endless variations of the feminization of religion across every denomination and sect is why contemporary religion is openly hostile to any semblance of conventional masculinity. Church is no place for a single man and is just a formality for the man married to a religious woman at this point in time. All considerations of faith aside, I cannot fathom an adult man with any self-respect finding anything attractive about the modern church. Either there is nothing for him there or he is despised and denigrated, openly in a faith altering way or discreetly in resentment, or in pandering ridicule of his juvenilized maleness.

I don’t type this without a sincere sense of what’s been lost, particularly for men genuinely seeking existential answers for himself. My observations here will undoubtedly be thought of as some attack on a genuine faith, but my issue here isn’t with religion per se, but rather the thoroughness with which the Feminine Imperative has either subverted wholesale or covertly influenced really all modern religion.

Yes, I realize that faith is something personal that should be set apart from churchy social influence, but the culture is a manifestation of the doctrine and collective belief system. That culture ultimately modifies and informs the faith itself, thus with every successive generation that social influence becomes an article of the faith for the next.

Better to laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, especially when the ‘saints’ are the priestesses of the Feminine Imperative.

The Red Pill lens in today’s church is a scary prospect.

Another commenter, The Question, had a good comment about this:

You’re absolutely right about the state of the Church in the West.

What makes it so dangerous for a Blue Pill man is that it is ground-zero for girls entering the epiphany phase. The single men who remain in the church are the ones will be pressured to fulfill their role in that strategy and will be treated with hostility if they don’t. I personally anticipate a renewed church “man up” campaign somewhere in the near future as the next wave of twenty-somethings near 30 and beyond.

I’d say the only reason to go is to meet cute single young women and that’s if the church actually has them and its theology isn’t wholly intolerable. College town churches like mine have quite a few young single ladies which is why I go.

I will admit, putting aside conscience and morality, the modern (‘Relevant’) church would be a veritable untapped gold mine for a PUA savvy of christian culture. Churchianity’s already got the perfect social architecture installed for pick up. Christian women aching for sexy Alpha dominance in a sea of preconditioned christian Beta “good guys”, high intrasexual competition anxiety for both sexes, instant reconciliation and sin forgiveness for women, hell, you can even talk a woman into an abortion without her having any accountability for killing her child at this point. What’s not for a PUA to like? Feminine-primary churchianity has been waiting for christian-savvy players for years now.

Men with a well defined Red Pill lens, having the sensitivity to understand the subcommunications of what’s going on around them in church, should be rightly horrified.

This is one reason Men like Dalrock are vilified by Christian women who understand he’s wise to what’s transpiring in the church – the Feminine Imperative has taken the Lord’s name in vain by presuming to promote its agenda and socially engineer generations of men to support it by claiming it’s God’s will.

Read the Fempowerment narratives of any ‘Christian women’s ministry speaker’, they will defend the sisterhood above any tenets of faith. They’ll tolerate blasphemy of the faith, but never the Feminine Imperative. They’ll rationalize abortion as a man’s sin, but never accept accountability for it and any man to attempt to rebuke them (for anything really) is counter-shamed for male chauvinist judgementalism. And being judgemental of any woman is the most mortal of sins a man can make in the new church

In the feminine-primary church, the Holy Spirit is the Feminine Imperative, what she says is an article of faith. Men who become aware of this via the Red Pill are a danger to it.

The Red Pill Monthly – Frame

If youtube isn’t your thing you can get the audio archive here.

 

I managed to get some time with Niko once again yesterday. He was kind enough to stay up late and get a talk in for another installment of our semi-regular podcast The Red Pill Monthly (more like bi-monthly recently).

I really liked this one because we delved into some new stuff about Frame and the importance of establishing and maintaining a solid sense of self and purpose in all aspects of a man’s life, but focusing on the interpersonal and intersexual importance of Frame.

The concept of Frame is not my original idea, it’s actually derived from interpersonal psychology. However, way back in my early days at SoSuave I made the connection to the psychological principle and what PUAs of the time were advocating as a means to control in seduction. I begin my Iron Rules of Tomassi with Frame because I’ve always felt that everything else in seduction, and life in general, hinges upon the realities we create for ourselves.

The pop-cultural term for it today is ‘mindset’, but I feel the concept of Frame extends beyond what’s generally a retreading of The Power of Positive Thinking that’s being promoted as mindset now. It certainly plays a part in the entirety of holding Frame, but the overall establishment of Frame with a woman, with other men, with your family or with your employer requires an art that extends past just how one thinks of himself.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #1

Frame is everything. Always be aware of the subconscious balance of who’s frame in which you are operating. Always control the Frame, but resist giving the impression that you are. 

The concept of “frame” is yet another ephemeral idea that had need of a term in the very beginnings of the great masculine awakening that’s become the ‘community’. If memory serves I think it may have been Mystery who first picked up on what’s really a very rudimentary and well established psychological principle. In psych terms, frame is an often subconscious, mutually acknowledged personal narrative under which auspices people will be influenced. One’s capacity for personal decisions, choices for well-being, emotional investments, religious beliefs and political persuasions (amongst many others) are all influenced and biased by the psychological narrative ‘framework’ under which we are most apt to accept as normalcy.

Rather than go into too much depth here I’ll just encourage you to listen to the podcast and we’ll have an open comments thread about Frame. I think it’s good to review some older principles, not just for the benefit of newly Red Pill aware men, but also because I think it’s good to reconsider these ‘standards’ from a perspective of time and where we are as a Red Pill community today.

Frame, and understanding its importance, is the foundation of dozens of other Red Pill principles and applications. As most of my readers know, I try to avoid specific prescriptive advice. I’m not in the business of telling men how to live their lives with formulaic step-by-step Red Pill templates. The Red Pill isn’t one-size-fits-all and men need to interpret their Red Pill awareness according to their personalities, cultural context, social situations and personal beliefs.

That said, in the coming months I will be offering some more generalized, prescriptive ideas or suggestions as to how I feel men might apply certain Red Pill principles in their lives. The 9 Iron Rules are about as close as I come to prescriptive advice, and while I’m not in the business of making ‘Rational Male Men’, after reviewing them with Niko I think that some generalized advice according to Red Pill awareness might be something in the offing.

So, let me know what you think about this ideas as well as any questions or input you have about Frame once you’ve listened to our talk. It runs about an hour and a half. I’m also toying with the idea of discussing each of the Iron Rules in the coming RPM podcasts. Let me know if that’s something you’d be interested in listening to.

Enjoy!

rollo_t

Are You Experienced?

ontheroad

About three weeks ago I was made aware of an article on the New Republic blog called Bros Before Homes and a few of my followers on Twitter asked me for my take on it then. I did feel it merited more than 140 characters so I figured I’d build a post on it. Honestly, I had more than a couple irons in the fire for blog posts ahead of this, but in hindsight now I’m glad I waited a bit before digging too far in.

I am going to riff on it here, but before I do I’d like to point out that my posting Sugar Babies, before this post was a strategic decision on my part. You’ll understand why a bit later, but keep in mind the general premise of that post – women’s commodification of intimacy dynamic – and the priority of self-importance women place on themselves with regards to what men must pay for and why women believe they’re worth men’s having to pay for it.

I’m asking readers to keep this in mind because Bros Before Homes will contrast starkly next to Sugar Babies.

From the tone of the article you probably won’t need to look up Phoebe Maltz Bovy‘s portfolio to understand her clichéd feminist bias. It’s all of the self-importance and the prerequisite solipsism you’d expect from ‘journalists’ of her stripe, but try to read past the snark she thinks is interesting. Her sarcasm only highlights women’s duplicity with regards to men freeing themselves from the Feminine Imperative and women commodifying their intimate interests in ‘acceptable’ men.

The gist of Bovy’s fabricated angst is how offensively sexist it is for men to prioritize life experience, exploration, self-betterment, hobbies and the virtue signaling she sees inherent in men when they actually go their own way. Men cutting themselves free from the expectations of the Feminine Imperative and a feminine-primary social order always imply the threat of them coming to realize their own value.

It’s also that the very idea of experiences mattering more than things is a way of valorizing the stereotypically masculine. “While men are conditioned to dream big—to see their happiness in terms of adventure and travel, sex and ideas and long nights of hilarity—women are now encouraged to find deep fulfilment in staying home to origami our pants,” she wrote.

Whether women are being encouraged to rid our homes of useless belongings, or urged to shop for new ones, the result is the same: Society continues to associate women with the home and the material, men with the outside and experiences. While the enjoyment of domestic life, of stuff, isn’t inherently negative, it is dismissed precisely because of its associations with the feminine. An orientation towards stuff over experiences, moreover, gets cast either as recklessly materialist or, as Tony perceives it, an impediment to enjoying life. The only constant is that what women prefer, or are imagined to prefer, is thought inferior.

[…]We’re meant to admire the experience-lovers for their indifference to stuff, which implies they’ve got their priorities straight: to live life to the fullest. It’s no coincidence, though, that these experience-lovers are so often male, as it’s a stereotypically male aspiration not to be “tied down”—that is, not to have domestic responsibilities. But these men do have roofs over their heads. The bourgeois life they’re rejecting is simply one they’ve outsourced. After all, Tony hasn’t rejected the material life. He’s just got a woman—his mother—tidying up after him.

Bovy’s presumptions here smack of her reaching for some way to denigrate men’s pragmatically eschewing materialism or being tethered to what would otherwise be considered “grown up” responsibilities and looking for something more personally meaningful for themselves. As with all femosphere journalists you get a bonus 10% on your women’s studies essays if you can find a way to sneak the word’s “sexism” or “misogyny” in a piece.

Bros Before Homes is really nothing novel in the manosphere. MGTOWs have been advocating this reward-for-independence from women for as long as there’s been a movement. What is novel is that this return to a man being his own mental point of origin and prioritizing life experiences as his first priority is a result of an awareness that’s now filtering into the mainstream. It’s very easy to criticize men for being juvenile about foregoing what popular culture would have us believe is preparing ourselves for adulthood, but when this new idealism affects the men women hope will be well-positioned Betas when they’ve reached the end of their Party Years, then there’s cause for concern.

As a side note here, I should also say that it’s interesting to see how fluidly the progress of feminism comes full circle in Bovy’s thought process. She uses the same ambiguous tropes of a regressive society expecting women to resign themselves to domesticity and tidying up after men as if 60+ years of Fempowerment “leveling the playing field” never occurred. This is the same, very tired, cover story that second wave feminism used in the sixties.

The underlying irritation here is that men’s new prioritizing of experiences above materialism is a thorn in the side of women who’ve been given carte blanche to their Hypergamous whims. Bovy cries sexism because she presumes men are unable to engage in all this experience seeking without a support team of mothers and house-bound women, but what really makes her sore is that men doing the seeking reminds women of their natural predilection for materialism and the base of opportunism their concept of love is founded upon.

Bovy’s first mistake is that she’s statistically inaccurate.

The Blue Pill conditioning of the past 60 years has done everything but teach men to “dream big—to see their happiness in terms of adventure and travel, sex and ideas”. That particular conditioning is reserved for women playing along with the Eat, Pray, Love narrative. If anything it’s just the opposite. From education to family to church, men are conditioned for servile Beta-hood and lambasted for not ‘Manning Up’ and being supportive of women’s empowerment at the cost of their own. Conversely, women and womankind have been lifted to unrealistic idealism in pursuing their own interests at the cost of childbearing and monogamous domesticity. Apparently, Bovy’s never read Lean In or even watched a Disney princess movie in the last 50 years.

Off the Reservation

What worries women is that all the Blue Pill conditioning men have endured for the past several decades might be undone if men were to actually make themselves their mental point of origin. What worries the representatives of the Feminine Imperative is that Betas might see the pragmatism in following the example of men who put themselves first. Men who eschew the trappings of building their lives around the materialism women seek when their looks fade and their need for men’s resource security is a better prospect than having to compete for men with their sisters. When marriage is an easily recognizable sucker’s bet to the point that even Betas can see the sense in avoiding it, that’s when the Feminine Imperative must shift to a new tactic.

Open Hypergamy makes for aware Betas. Men aware of the game they are expected to play must either tamp that understanding down into denial or they simply refuse to play. That refusal can come in many examples, but the reasoning is the same. The deductive, pragmatic response is for men to go their own way and put themselves at the beginning of their thought processes and goals.

The success of women’s sexual strategy depends on ignorant Betas being prepared to meet (or wait for them) at the time at which their need for security is the greatest. This expectation of Betas in Waiting is part of a Hypergamous plan; it is the consolidation of an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks prioritization (also known as the Sandberg Plan). Bros Before Homes is an offense to this plan.

This then becomes a paradox for the Feminine Imperative. A man’s life experiences are generally a wellspring of attraction if not arousal for a woman. Experience is the source of a genuine Amused Mastery and a man’s self-serving experience is usually a prime indicator of an Alpha mindset. My Red Pill brother Goldmund is a perfect example of how personal, self-asserted, self-initiated experiences can be parlayed into a very effective Game.

Be that as it is, the proposition of any and every Beta going MGTOW in various ways, hitting the open road and regaling women with the stories of their exploits presents a problem to Hypergamy; Hypergamy wants certainty and a well-traveled Beta is still a Beta. Furthermore, living for the experiential implies less investment in Beta men developing skills, status, affluence and the personal equity that make them good prospects for Beta providership when they reach the critical age at which women need their cooperation in fulfilling their Hypergamy. At least, that’s the implied concern for women. Men with a sense to educate themselves from experience are usually all the better for it – even when that experience is a nightmare.

I should add here that prioritizing experience above other consideration needn’t be limited to Bovy’s silly impressions of Jack Kerouac’s On the Road.  What concerns the feminine is that men would devote the lion’s share of their personal efforts on anything unrelated to meeting women’s future or present security needs. It’s not just men wanting to scale Mount Vesuvius, it’s men having any self-import at the expense of women. When men’s ambitions are centered on satisfying themselves  and not about developing equity that’s useful to women, that’s when those men (and those who would encourage it) are shamed for not being an adult. They are shamed for not manning up or growing up to meet the needs of women and thus not living up to “adult responsibilities”.

Responsible Adults

It’s not an accident that society conflates men’s servitude with qualities of adulthood – it’s the design.

As such, women begin to get nervous that their future provisioning and security are their own responsibility. How those needs are met are a discussion for various other threads I’ve written, but the social expectations of men qualifying for ‘manhood’ by assisting women to fulfill their own Hypergamous imperatives are at the root of the “sexist” accusations on Bovy’s part. To her, it’s sexist not to plan one’s life according to women’s ‘correct’ sexual strategy.

Bovy actually shares a lot with contemporary Christianity. Ensaturated by feminine primacy, the modern church has made efforts to convince men that their servitude to women is both an article of faith and a prerequisite for responsible adulthood. In a reversal of traditional faith, men aren’t men until they’ve established themselves as being capable of providing for both themselves, but for women as well. Any man shirking this is shamed for “prolonging is adolescence”. All life priority and preparation is presumed to revolve around supporting a future wife irrespective of her own decisions and the results that come from them. The contemporary church is a Beta production institution as it is, but it’s interesting to see how both Bovy and modern Christianity align on the position of men’s proper roles.

This is an interesting parallel when you consider the lengths to which women have gone to emancipate themselves from (ostensibly) being dependent upon men’s influence and provisioning. Western culture has evolved around the strong independent woman stereotype, yet it’s sexist for men to emancipate themselves from the worst of women’s sexual strategy. Bovy’s perspective relies heavily on the Old Books rules set in the misguided belief that women are still beholden to roles of domesticity and repression in an era of triumphantly embraced Open Hypergamy.

Materialism

As I mentioned in the opening, it’s important that we contrast this concern for Betas leaving the plantation with the blatant soft prostitution of the Sugar Babies dynamic. In the light of women’s naked opportunism, and with that opportunism’s materialistic purpose, it’s easy to see how patently false Bovy’s premise is here.

In an era where we develop successful apps to aid women in setting their price on a basic date, it’s easy to recognize Bovy’s disingenuousness. MGTOW and its Red Pill aware derivatives are really just practical, logical responses of men protecting themselves from an Open Hypergamy women are all too ready to educate them about. The End of Men is also the eventual end of women’s expectations of long term provisioning. If Bros aren’t interested in homes the old social contract is put in jeopardy and Open Hypergamy only serves to expedite this shift. Women at the Epiphany Phase looking for the “equal partner” that Sheryl Sandberg assures her sisters will be waiting for them find that men have declined to play along.

The old joke is that if women would have sex in a cardboard box men would never buy a house. The joke’s played out now because women are happy to fuck an Alpha in much less, and now they’re proud enough to tell Betas all about it.

Blue Pill Frame

BluePillFrame

Establishing and internalizing a strong sense of Frame is one of the most fundamental aspects necessary for a man’s personal success. I’m hesitant to use the word “success” here because it subjectively means so much to men on an individual basis. “Success” is a relative term, but I intentionally began the Iron Rules of Tomassi with Frame because an understanding of this principle applies to so many different arenas in a man’s life.

It’s far too easy to conflate Frame (and the hoped-for success that can come about from it) with a power-of-positive-thinking motivational vibe. Developing, maintaining and internalizing a personal Frame isn’t derived from motivational thinking. That’s not to say it doesn’t help, but Frame can align either on realizable realities informed by Red Pill awareness or it can be founded on deeply ingrained investments in Blue Pill conditioning.

For some men, a Blue Pill mindset, and the conditioning principles that formed it, is the foundation of what they convince themselves is a very strong, very ‘correct’, establishment of Frame. It quite literally is the reality into which they expect a woman will want to be a part of and will want to readily cooperate within. The problem, of course, is that the Frame they’ve developed is informed by Old Rules/Blue Pill goals that mischaracterize the truer natures of women and what their motivations are.

This insistence of women adapting to a Blue Pill Frame is the root of many a Beta man’s downfall when a woman has finally run out of Alpha Fucks options during her Party Years and she’s “turned over a new leaf” in the necessitousness of her Epiphany Phase. Women aging out of the sexual marketplace are only too happy to appear to be a Beta man’s Blue Pill ship that’s finally come in.

Behold, Camelot

I have heard many times, from well-intended Blue Pill men, some variation of the Just Be Yourself self-righteous expectation that women should want to enter into his Frame. “If a woman can’t accept me for who I am, she’s not the right (quality) woman for me” is the standard refrain. The Frame is strong, the expectation is (seemingly) strong, but the Blue Pill foundation it’s built upon is flawed because it is influenced and conditioned by the Feminine Imperative that always expects him to focus outwardly instead of making himself his own mental point of origin.

If they were honest, these are the guys who will Beta Hamster their Blue Pill ideal of the ‘right’ girl being any one who acknowledges his Blue Pill Frame.

There’s usually some self-evincing rationale that sounds similar when a Blue Pill guy has his Frame challenged by a woman unwilling to play along with his “world”. Whether he comes to this by rejection or simply observing women’s solipsism and duplicity, the reasoning is never about the validity of what his Frame is based on, but rather the disqualification of a woman who contradicts his ego-investments in it (i.e. they become “low quality women” to him).

However, many a White Knight will have what, for all purposes, is a very strong personal Frame. This dedication to a Blue Pill conditioned mindset is central to their ego-investments and it’s a big reason why it’s so difficult to unplug a man from it apart from some trauma that shakes his investing his personality in it. And even then, it’s far easier to disqualify the women who want nothing to do with his Frame than it is to get him to reconsider his fundamental, Blue Pill, old books belief-set.

As I was picking apart the conditions that lead to a man like Steve from last week’s post to becoming what he is, I found it’s important to highlight the determination with which most men will defend their Blue Pill investments and defend the investments of other Blue Pill men with whom it aligns with.

From Enter White Knight:

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

The more invested a Blue Pill man is in his Frame, the more ardent a White Knight he’s likely to be. The problem in all of this is that his dedication to that Frame, and the expectation that ‘quality women’ will rationally and deductively appreciate it, is in error. Women fundamentally lack the ability to fully realize, much less appreciate the sacrifices a man makes to facilitate their reality. Even the most enlightened, appreciative woman you know still operates in a feminne-centric reality.

It’s easy to spot (and get annoyed with) a White Knight when he comes to the aid of M’Lady on an internet forum, but the defender-of-the-faith behavior also extends to other men, like himself, given to the same Blue Pill Frame and ideals. From a Red Pill perspective we know this is virtue signaling, but it’s also indicative of reaffirming a White Knight’s dedication to a Frame and belief-set that requires a constant reassurance in the face of so much observable contradiction.

Blue Pill Frame / Red Pill Awareness

In the manosphere, there’s a tendency to characterize the Blue Pill mindset with non-assertive “people pleaser” men conditioned from an early age to defer to women and sublimate themselves to the Feminine Imperative. For the most part, that generalization fits, but I think it’s important to understand that it’s entirely possible for otherwise very Alpha men to invest themselves in Blue Pill paradigms and then build Frames up around them.

While I was writing this, reader Softek had a very good take on how Frame can be applicable from both an Alpha and a Beta perspective:

Steve’s relationship is PERFECT.

It is in EXACT ALIGNMENT with his Frame.

His Frame, which he voluntarily maintains, is that of a Beta male. Weak, submissive, and priming him perfectly to be cuckolded.

Similarly, my relationship with my GF is perfect.

It’s in exact alignment with my Frame.

This is how it always works. It’s the only way it CAN work. Your Frame is your reality, period, end of story. I’m sticking to this idea of women having no Frame, because I think it can help men to realize that the man’s Frame – as far as the man is concerned – is the only thing that matters.

I’m going to stop here because this is one of his few assertions I don’t entirely agree with. Women’s innate sense of Frame is informed by their fundamentally solipsistic nature. How that solipsism is expressed can take different forms, but in all instances it places the experience of the woman as being central to her own importance.

The easy example is the Frame grab I outlined in The Talk where a woman (consciously or otherwise) seeks to assert her experience as being the primary Frame or when a man abdicates his Frame to satisfy a woman’s need for long-term security. The other side of this is that even when women are considered ‘powerless’, and they are acted upon (hypoagency), their solipsistic experience is still central to the nature of any Frame because that presumption of powerlessness informs her solipsism and she builds her Frame around it.

Women most definitely have a Frame; it is informed by solipsism and its state is determined by what her need for optimizing Hypergamy demands at any phase of her maturity and how well she is likely to consolidate on it. I understand what Softek is getting at here, but just observe Beta men who are trapped in submissive roles to their dominant wives and you’ll see how he’s acted upon within her Frame.

If your Frame is what you really want it to be, you’re all set. You will simply not put up with BS, so it won’t be necessary to calculate what kind of BS or shit tests are being thrown at you, because you’ll automatically pass them without even being conscious of them.

At a deeper level, there is no your reality vs. her reality, or who has more power in the relationship.

It all goes back to your relationship with yourself. Your Frame. You decide what you accept in your life, and what you don’t accept.

Everyone has been telling me to get out of my relationship. Why? Their Frame is different. Maybe they have more self-respect. Maybe they have more confidence. But ultimately, their Frame is different.

They would not put up with half the BS I’ve put up with. They would’ve been gone a long, long time ago and onto greener pastures.

I’m getting what I deserve. I’m getting the relationship that is PERFECT for me, which means it’s perfectly aligned with my [current, malleable, changeable] Frame.

Frame isn’t set in stone. It’s ours to control, and ours alone, because it belongs to us each individually.

If I want a different relationship, I need to change my Frame. What do I want? What am I willing to accept? What am I not willing to accept?

This is a very important point, to understand that Steve’s relationship is PERFECT….for him. A complete match with his Frame.

If you dig into WHY he’s in this relationship, it’s for that reason and that reason alone: it resonates with his Frame. It resonates with the perception he has of himself, and the rules he’s laid out for himself in his life.

He is doing exactly what an Alpha does: living 100% by his Frame.

It’s just that his Frame is weak and submissive instead of strong and self-serving.

It’s funny when you look at things like this. When you realize you’re already “Alpha” in the sense that you know how to live 100% in your Frame….what’s stopping you from changing your Frame?

You already know what it’s like to hold Frame. Not everyone can stay in an abusive, sexless relationship. It takes a pretty extreme Beta to put up with all that. I am a fucking Beta God. I will put up with more abuse than any man on this planet. I’m the most abject Beta in the world.

(I’m being deliberately hyperbolic here, bear with me)

The most abject Beta is simply the other side of the Apex Alpha coin.

Both stubbornly hold to their Frame. The Beta holds to his Frame to his inevitable cuckolding and destruction; the Alpha holds to his Frame to his self-gratification regardless of who tries to shame him or bring him down.

We need to stop thinking “Beta Bad” and “Alpha Good” and realize that Frame is subjective.

I may not agree with some of this, and considering Softek’s dependence on maintaining his relationship it’s easy to see why he feels this way, however, he does touch upon some foundational aspects of Frame. Yes, women get the men they deserve, or in this case, women enter into relations with the men who align with what they’ve created.

As I mention in Frame, yours should be a world women will want to enter or you will be entering her Frame. That said beware the motives of the woman who would eagerly embrace a Beta’s Frame. Those motives are rooted in necessity and not genuine desire. Just ask Saira Khan.

Understanding that a solid sense of Frame – literally creating a reality in which you live and expect others to interact within – is central to success is not a difficult concept to grasp for most men. Whether or not they feel an ownership of that Frame, or a motive to employ it, is what defines men’s understanding of it. And this discomfort men have in insisting upon a solid, active, Alpha Frame is precisely what the Feminine Imperative has sought to condition into men for going on five generations now.

Recently I’ve been commenting on yet another article of feminist triumphalism, glorying in the statistics that women are far happier after a divorce. This is standard feminist boilerplate, but the bloody handed cruelty of articles like this always ignore that the “men” they denigrate are the direct results of a generational conditioning that leads men to swallow Blue Pill idealism and abdicate Frame in the name of a nebulous egalitarian equalism.

As 39% more men put a gun in their mouths after a divorce, women will bemoan a generation of men the Feminine Imperative created to abdicate their Frame. So yes, when it comes to men becoming despondent and suicidal after having their Blue Pill idealistic ego-investments destroyed by the same imperative that invested it in them, yes, “Beta Bad” and “Alpha Good”.

Late Life Hypergamy

Commenter YaReally dropped an interesting set of videos in last week’s comment thread and I thought I’d riff on them for a bit today. I’m not familiar with Loose Women (the TV show anyway), but from what I gather, it’s on par with The View or any similar mid-day women’s talk show. I don’t make a habit of watching shows dedicated to entertaining women’s need for indignation, but I regularly have readers email or tweet me segments asking for my take on certain aspects of them or how they relate to Red Pill awareness.

It should come as no shock to my readers that shows of this formula are a social manifestation of women’s base natures. Every conversation takes on a sense of seriousness and gravity, but the tone and the presumptuousness that drives these conversations are rooted in women’s solipsism. All iterations of this show are presented from a perspective that assumes a pre-understood feminine primacy. It’s also no coincidence that the rise in popularity of women’s talk shows has paralleled the comfort women have in embracing Hypergamy openly.

Whenever I get a link to something the women on The View discuss it’s almost always a confirmation of some Red Pill principle I’ve covered previously, and in this instance Loose Women doesn’t disappoint. Saira Khan (I apologize for my lack of knowing who she is or why I should care to) related to the panel of women – and the expectedly disproportionate female audience – that at 46 years of age and two children (only one by her husband) she has entered some commonly acknowledged phase where she finds herself lacking all libido for her husband.

I decided to write a full post on these clips because Saira amply demonstrates every facet of the latter phases of maturity I outlined in Preventive Medicine. She begins her self-serving apologetics by prequalifying her previously “fantastic sex life in her younger years” and moves on to her bewilderment over her lack of arousal for her glaringly Beta husband. We’ll get to him later, but she’s a textbook example of a woman in what I termed the Alpha Reinterest phase from Preventive Medicine. Granted, at 46 Saira is experiencing this “stage” a bit later than most women, but we have to consider the difficulty she had in having and adjusting to children later in life – all undoubtedly postponed by her obvious fempowerment mentality and careerism.

I love you, but I’m not in love with you

It’s likely most men in the Red Pill sphere have experienced and discussed this very common trope. Saira is quick to apply a version of this standard self-excusing social convention. She “loves her husband” and “he’s a great man”, but lately(?) she simply has no desire to fuck him. I’m highlighting this because it’s an important part of the psychology and the self-excusing rationales that revolve around the less-than-optimal outcome of women’s dualistic (AF/BB) sexual strategy.

It may serve readers better to review the Preventive Medicine series of posts, but the short version is this: Once a woman has settled on a man for her post-SMV peak life plans, and the routine and regimen of a life less exciting than her Party Years begins to reveal the nature of a (usually Beta) man she settled on, that’s when the subconscious sexual revulsion of him begins. The feral nature of

Hypergamy begins to inform her subconscious understanding of her situation – the man she settled for will never compare to the idealized sexuality of the men she’s been with prior to him. Alpha-qualifying shit tests (fitness tests) naturally follow, but Saira herself describes her sexual revulsion for Steve as a sense of “panic” at the thought of him expecting her to be genuinely sexual with him.

As such, there becomes a psycho-social imperative need to blunt and/or forgive these feelings for the “lack of libido” women experience for their Beta husbands. Thus, we get the now clichéd tropes about how “it’s not you, it’s me” or “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.” Both of which amount to the same message – I love you, but I have no desire to fuck you. You’re a great guy and a swell husband, but my pussy only gets wet for Alpha.

Saira exemplifies this in her assessment of her husband (Steve), but more so, she illustrates the disconnection she knows is necessary to insulate her ego from knowing exactly what’s “wrong” with her. The problem with her lack of libido becomes separated from the source, Steve. So she says it’s not him, she just doesn’t want to do it.

She qualifies herself as someone loveable (she still cuddles and gets comfort from Steve), but this lovable ‘good person’ doesn’t want her lack of arousal to be something to disqualify her from feeling good about herself.

Solution: make sex separate and ancillary to her relationship with her husband.

For women in this phase, sex is equated with a chore. It’s a chore because it’s not something she has a desire to do, but still feels obligated to do. Steve walks through the door at 6 and her subconscious understands that the expectation of her is that she should be aroused by this Beta man she’s trapped into living with for the rest of her life. Hypergamy informs her subconscious and the manifestation is to find ways to avoid sex with a man her Hypergamous sense acknowledges is a suboptimal sexual pairing. Her conscious, emotive, female mind understands that she should want to fuck him, but it wars with her hindbrain that is repulsed by just the imagining of it.

In order to contend with the internal conflict created by Hypergamy, and a woman’s settling on a poor consolidation of it, social conventions had to be created to make separating sexual arousal (Alpha Fucks) from women’s personal worth (Beta Bucks investment) and the attending bad feelings it causes for them.

Ironically, this show’s original premise was based on the question of whether sex was even a “must” on a couple’s wedding night. This is a prime example of separating desireless sex from women’s sense of personal worth. I wrote about this in Separating Values. If sex is ancillary or only an occasional bonus, it ceases to be a deal-breaking factor in marriage for women when they don’t have a desire to fuck their Beta husbands.

Conflating Values

One of the major problems women have, and more than even some red pill men have, is the conflation of sexual market value with their intrinsic personal value as a human being.

It needs to be emphasized that while personal value is influential in sexual market value, SMV is distinct from your value as a human being. I’m stressing this because, in the age Disney Princess empowerment, this conflation of the two has become a go-to social convention; and not just for women.

What Korth suffers from is presuming her personal value is her sexual market value.

It’s disruptive to her self-perceptions and ego-investments when that presumption is challenged by a man who doesn’t want to fuck her for reasons based on the intrinsic value she believes she’s entitled to by virtue of maturity and imaginings of self-sufficiency. Just as women aren’t aroused by men’s own self-concepts of virtuousness and aspirations of higher purpose, men aren’t aroused by whatever ephemeral self-perceptions a woman may have.

In Khan’s case, she (and the many women in the audience who nod in agreement with her) must devalue sex as an article or an object rather than accept that it’s something she wants to engage in, just not with Steve.

There are many other social conventions that aid women in avoiding sex with Beta husbands. An even more common convention is the popularly accepted idioms that “sex just naturally declines after marriage” or “men and women often have mismatched libidos.” Both of these have filtered into our popular consciousness, but they serve the same latent purpose – excusing a lack of desire caused by women interpreting their husband’s lack of Alpha sub-communications. Wives don’t get tingles from Beta husbands, thus, they need to find ways to offset the bad feelings for themselves first, and their husbands secondarily.

The trick in this is women not personalizing their lack of arousal with a husband’s self-worth – “it’s not you, it’s me” – and deferring to some naturally occurring biological or psychological event that can be conveniently attached to the mystique of women.

It’s not you, but it is you

Thus, the rationale morphs from “it’s not you, it’s me” into “it’s not you, it’s the time/circumstance/effort/need for help with the chores/phase of my mysterious woman-ness” that’s causing her lack of sexual desire.” She’s got a busy life, she’s got kids, and in her pursuit of perfection in these arenas, sex somehow falls by the wayside – or at least the kind of non-obligatory, hot, urgent sex she used to enjoy in her fantastic youth. It’s not you, it’s just life.

It’s not you, it’s wives ‘naturally’ lose interest in sex. It’s not you, it’s that she panics at the thought of you expecting her to be aroused by you.

If sex can be delimited to being all about the person then a lack of women’s arousal can’t be blamed on the mechanics of sex. So when men complain about a lack of sex from their wives or a lack of enthusiastic genuine desire, we get the response we hear from the panel of women on the show; a sarcastic shaming of men who raise the issue that their wives are frigid with them.

“Oh, how can men survive without sex?” or a sarcastic “No bloke can be in a relationship without sex” is a deemphasizing of the importance that the role of sex plays in a marriage and any intersexual relationship. Once again this is due to the separating of personal worth of a woman from the sexual mechanics of Hypergamy that prompt her to genuine arousal. The easiest solution is to cast men into the same sexual expectations as women; if women can forego sex then men ought to be able to “survive” without it too.

This normalized idea stems from the equalist perspective that men and women being equal should also share equal attitudes, prompts, and appetites for sex. This is a biological impossibility of course, but the conversation serves as a stark illustration of women expecting feminized men to identify with the feminine and prioritize that identification above any and all considerations about their experiences of being male.

Ultimately this is self-defeating for women because the nature of the Alpha guy that women crave pushes him to have sex, not to deny himself of it.

In fact, that sexual insistence is a prime indicator that a woman is dealing with an Alpha. The man agreeing to the patience and effort needed to “wait out” his wife’s frigidity is indicating that he’s not accustomed to insisting on, and getting what he wants. If he can sublimate his most powerful biological imperative – to get sex – what else is he willing to sublimate?

Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

The ladies on the panel mock this idea for exactly the same reason Saira is tying herself in knots about not being hot for Steve. He needs sex, but he shouldn’t really need sex because it’s all about the person and not the mechanics. But it is exactly the mechanics of Hypergamy that are at the root of Saira’s need to solipsistically feel better about herself to the extent that she’ll publicly emasculate her husband on national TV.

As the show grinds on, all of the predictable rationales for wive’s self-consolations for a lack of sex get run down like a check list. Kids? Check. Career? Check. Never do they address that she’s a

Never do they address that she’s a 46-year-old woman raising small children or that her so overstressed condition is only one consequence of delaying what passes for motherhood to her for so long. I understand Saira and Steve struggled with infertility, but my guess is that this too was a physical result of the life choices she made and the difficulty of conceiving and carrying a child to term well after her fantastic sexual prime. I’m 48 and my daughter graduated high school this year so I can’t imagine facing parenthood in my mid/late 40s. This isn’t even an afterthought for the panel because it exposes the costs of the feminist-inspired careerism the show is triumphantly based upon.

Shit Tests and Marriage

As I mentioned earlier in this post, wives in this state will still shit test their husbands just as readily as any single woman. We are meant to believe, no we are expressly told, that Saira’s sexual revulsion is “normal” and it’s not Steve or his dedication that’s at issue. Yet during all of Saira’s journey of self-discovery about her lack of libido, she suggests that Steve go out and find a woman who will fuck him. At some stage in their great open communication, Saira gives Steve express permission to go out and bang another woman because she just can’t.

Naturally she couches this in the idea that she’s so devoted to him “as a person” that she just wants him to be happy, however, she is so repulsed by him, sex is a happiness she can’t find within herself to even feign for him. For all the shocked gasps from the women in the audience, what this amounts to is a very visceral shit test for Steve.

The purpose of the ‘dare’ for Saira is meant to determine whether Steve can still (if he ever) generate genuine sexual desire in other women. I’ve covered this dynamic in at least a dozen different posts – women want a man who other men want to be, and other women want to fuck. Steve’s steadfast devotion to his wife is anti-seductive and Saira, on some level of consciousness, knows this. If another woman found Steve attractive enough to bang it would generate Dread, social proof and confirm his preselection among other women. And as I’ve mentioned countless times, breakup sex (or near breakup sex) always trumps contrived, preplanned special occasion “date night” sex, which predictably is the suggestion that ends the second video.

And as I’ve mentioned countless times, breakup sex (or near breakup sex) always trumps contrived, preplanned special occasion “date night” sex, which predictably is the suggestion that ends the second video.

Steve, the dutiful Beta, is also predictably dumbfounded by her “suggestion”. He’s heartbroken from a feminized emotional perspective, but also because, like most Beta men, he’s heavily invested in the fallacy of Relational Equity. He’s observably sexually optionless so it’s a moot point, but if he were to muster up the balls and the Game to take her up on her oh so caring suggestion to fuck another woman, he risks losing the relationship equity he believes his rational, empowered wife should appreciate and factor into her attraction for him.

Thus, Steve comes up with rationalizations for why he didn’t take her up on her offer of permissive infidelity. He makes his necessity (really his optionlessness) a virtue and sticks to the standard Beta wait-it-out supportiveness he’s been conditioned for but is actually the source of his sexless marriage. He defaults to the “open communication” solves everything meme while ignoring the message that the medium of his wife’s sub-communication is telling him. Steve attributes everything (accurately) to his conditioning that most men, “typical blokes”, are Betas whose responsibility ought to be unconditional supportiveness when in fact they really have no other choice but to be so.

She doesn’t want to be ‘fixed’

One last thing occurred to me while I picked these clips apart. At the end, the panel of women defaults to the “it’s not you Steve, you’re a great guy, Saira’s just experiencing a normal frigidity that comes along for women in marriage.” I thought this was interesting because there’s a push to accept this frigidity as a normal phase women experience, but it still relies on the idea that sex and personal worth are two separate aspects of this problem.

If the root of this ‘normal’ problem is one about mechanics (it’s not Steve, it’s Saira’s physical/psychological malfunction) then I would expect there could be a mechanical solution to the problem. Even the fat brunette panelist suggest that all it takes is a better ‘effort’ on Saira’s part to get herself into the mood, but she even rejects this. Her problem isn’t a pharmaceutical one or a behavioral one, it’s a holistic one rooted in hardwired Hypergamy. So repulsive is the thought of fucking a Beta that Saira cannot psych herself up to do so.

I wondered if she would even consider taking the new “pink pill”, the female form of viagra, but I’ve read enough counter argument articles from women about it to know that women’s hardwired psychology prevents them from even chemically altering themselves to want to have sex with a man her Hypergamy cannot  accept. My guess is that even a cheeky holiday in the Maldives won’t be enough to convince Saira to want to fuck Steve.

However, this simple fact, that women will refuse to take the Spanish Fly to work themselves up and bypass their Hypergamy for their Beta husband’s happiness, destroys the convention that her frigidity is the result of her biomechanics. She doesn’t want a pill to fix her because she knows it’s a holistic problem.

Saira knows how to please Steve sexually, she simply doesn’t want to, and it’s because Steve is Steve.

 

Mansplaining

About three years ago I published a post called Remove the Man. That essay was prompted by Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signing on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral.

“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”

That was 2013. I’d encourage readers to go over this article again as a frame of reference, but the gist of the idea then was revealing the efforts being made by the Feminine Imperative to remove men (literally and figuratively) not only from the common language but to remove men from defining masculinity altogether. I touched on this as well in VulnerabilityIn seizing a monopoly on our very language women are free to redefine not just words but the ideas that those words connote.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” – George Orwell, 1984

It’s an easy jump to associate this word-thought monopolization with political and social justice agendas, and I’m sure there are many examples of it in practice. And while I’ll leave that discussion to other blogs, I do think it’s important in the scope of this blog’s mandate to address how maleness is (and has been) decoupled from masculinity – certainly conventional masculinity – and the redefinition of the concept of masculinity has been surrendered to the feminine in a similar fashion that Hypergamy has been given free reign in society.

In other words, in a feminine-centric social order, men, by and large, have willingly acquiesced the defining power of how they will communicate to the sensibilities of women.

From Remove the Man:

Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.

[…]the same social tool has been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative.

[…]For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity, solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.

Control the language and you control the concept. Control the concept, and what is acceptable and what is not about it, and you control the thought before it forms. As I’ve argued in the past, the end state of the Feminine Imperative’s consolidation of social control isn’t the complete elimination of masculinity, but rather that it conveniently conforms to the needs of the imperative as best suits it.

‘Masculinity’ when shame for a lack of performance in desired acts, protection and provisioning are necessary, ‘Misogyny’ when the threat of feminine-primary control is implied in men’s self-esteem, affirmation or reward are attributed to maleness.

From Vulnerability:

For the greater part of men’s upbringing and socialization they are taught that a conventional masculine identity is in fact a fundamentally male weakness that only women have a unique ‘cure’ for. It’s a widely accepted manosphere fact that over the past 60 or so years, conventional masculinity has become a point of ridicule, an anachronism, and every media form from then to now has made a concerted effort to parody and disqualify that masculinity. Men are portrayed as buffoons for attempting to accomplish female-specific roles, but also as “ridiculous men” for playing the conventional ‘macho’ role of masculinity. In both instances, the problems their inadequate maleness creates are only solved by the application of uniquely female talents and intuition.

Perhaps more damaging though is the effort the Feminine Imperative has made in convincing generations of men that masculinity and its expressions (of any kind) is an act, a front, not the real man behind the mask of masculinity that’s already been predetermined by his feminine-primary upbringing.

Women who lack any living experience of the male condition have the calculated temerity to define for men what they should consider manhood – from a feminine-primary context. This is why men’s preconception of vulnerability being a sign of strength is fundamentally flawed. Their concept of vulnerability stems from a feminine pretext.

I’m beginning with this today because it’s necessary to underline the latent purposes behind the cutesy jingoisms the Feminine Imperative likes to use when it finds it necessary to reign in the ‘word-thought’ of men. One of these is the term “Mansplaining.”

I led off with the video of Senator Gallagher being called to the carpet for using ‘Mansplaining’ as her go-to rationale because it illustrates how the jingoism of the imperative is expected to work with men already cowed by a Blue Pill conditioning. She literally expects everyone present to understand what Mansplaining is.

Side note: I also find it ironic that the word “Mansplaining” is not flagged with a red underline by autocorrect as I type this. Womansplaining however, is. It’s kind of spooky how readily the language monopoly of the Feminine Imperative is integrated into our popular consciousness via communications technologies and social media. How quick? Have a look at how ‘Mansplaining’ trends on Google.

Even more ironic is the fact that the common definition of what constitutes ‘mansplaining’ is still up for grabs. According to Wikipedia:

Mansplaining covers a heterogeneous mix of mannerisms in which a speaker’s reduced respect for the stance of a listener, or a person being discussed, appears to have little reason behind it other than the speaker’s assumption that the listener or subject, being female, does not have the same capacity to understand as a man. It also covers situations in which it appears a person is using a conversation primarily for the purpose of self-aggrandizement — holding forth to a female listener, presumed to be less capable, in order to appear knowledgeable by comparison.

Solnit’s original essay went further, discussing the consequences of this gendered behavior and drawing attention to its effect in creating a conspiracy of silence and disempowerment. Solnit later published Men Explain Things To Me, a collection of seven essays on similar themes. Women, including professionals and experts, are routinely seen or treated as less credible than men, she wrote in the title essay, and their insights or even legal testimony are dismissed unless validated by a man. She argued that this was one symptom of a widespread phenomenon that “keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.”

Mansplaining differs somewhat from other forms of condescension in that it is specifically gender-related, rooted in a sexist assumption that a man will normally be more knowledgeable, or more capable of understanding, than a woman.

Google cuts to the meat of it for simplicity:

mansplain

Others argue that any information a man relates in a male way of explaining it (i.e. a longwinded description of informational content). Julia Baird’s offering is particularly egregious, citing the amount of lines women get in proportion to those of men in the movies:

The problem is global and endemic across all media. Female characters speak lessin Disney films today than they used to — even princesses get a minority of the speaking lines in films in which they’re the principal: In the 2013 animated movie “Frozen,” for example, male characters get 59 percent of the lines. A quick search for best monologues in film or movies reveals that they are almost all male. If you took Princess Leia out of “Star Wars,” the total speaking time for female characters is 63 seconds out of the original trilogy’s 386 minutes.

This, of course, is in stark contrast to the studies that show women spend more time on their cell phones and text more often than men. Women also use emoticons more often than men, yet men have more variety in emoticon usage. That may seem trivial, but it’s an important aspect to consider in comparing men and women’s preferred intents of communication. Then there are the studies that show women actually do talk more than men – 13,000 words a day.

It’s also important to consider that women dominate the vast majority of social media, unless that social media happens to be something work related like LinkedIn. This is an important distinction to make when we consider how men and women prefer to communicate.

From The Medium is the Message:

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do. Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling. Men prioritize content, women prioritize context. One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men. It’s result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men. That’s not to discount women as problem solvers in their own right, but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication. Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits, yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.” While more than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men. One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

It should come as no surprise to most men in the manosphere that men and women have different means and different priorities in communications. I published that post almost five years ago, but even then I knew that a social order founded on feminine primacy was going to standardize its own way of communicating as the correct way. The ostensible reasoning is that, from a desire for gender parity in society, men must abandon their blunt, artless and simplistic, yet overbearing and egotistic way of communication and adopt women’s more meaningful, emotive and insightful covert way.

Of course, it’s men who see this ruse for what it is and either refuse to capitulate or simply don’t realize they’re supposed to talk like women who set themselves apart from the throngs of Blue Pill men conditioned to identify with the female experience (as a means to become intimate with them). I forget where I read it, but some one said a PUA is a man who pretends he has what a woman pretends she does not want. I may not agree with that in whole, but it certainly describes the social condition that’s been established by the Feminine Imperative over the course of four generations.

When we’re presented with easily digestible terms like Mansplaining, no matter how loosely defined, and it filters into the popular consciousness and lexicon so rapidly, what we’re witnessing is the ease with which the Feminine Imperative expects men to cede to it.

When a woman attempts to cow a man by saying he’s Mansplaining something to her she’s reached a point at which she prefers that man, any man, speak to her as a woman would. In base terms, she shames him for not opting to communicate as a woman would from the outset. He should know better.

The fem-splaining cover story is that men feel some ego-centric need to over-explain something to a woman. For a Blue Pill conditioned man this may even be accurate in that they hope so doing will endear himself to a “rational reasonable” woman by helping her understand a concept he’s educated on. What we’re really looking at is a struggle to control which gender-communication will take precedence. In a feminine primary social order, men’s means of communicating is offensive to women by default. The presumption is that men are being condescending to women by expecting them to communicate as men do, and especially within the political and working spheres.

As women push their way into male spaces, part of assimilating those spaces is to re-standardize how men will appropriately communicate within them. The conflict comes from the expectation on the part of men that women will respect the nature of station she’s been empowered to and be able to weather criticism and reproach as men have always done in those stations. The fallacy is the equalist belief that women will be equal agents while holding the same roles as men; the reality is what we see in the video above today.

So the solution, as always, is to remove the man, remove the masculine influence, change the language and the definitions, to remake the nature of the engagement if not the actual real-world factors that make the game or the politic or the business what it is – to silence the man by telling him to “just shut the hell up” or be tarred with the epithet of being a ‘typical man’.

The content of the communication is of less importance to women than how that communication makes them feel. We see this in no uncertain terms the more women become part of the socio-political/business spheres. When a man needs to explain the importance of content to a woman who is only qualified for her station by virtue of her being female that exchange necessarily is uncomfortable for women. Solution: complain about the delivery of the content and silence the men who would deliver it.

Tribes

tribes

I received this email some time ago, but I felt it needed some serious consideration to give the concept the justice it deserved.

Rollo — You’ve been a major help to my understanding the underlying dynamics between men and women. I’ve observed them in bits and pieces over the years but never really understood the whys behind them or how to turn them in our favor.

It seems like one mid-term focus you have is on male-male dynamics, specifically fathers and sons. But I also wonder whether you’d consider writing more about bonding and support between men and how those relationships can anchor men’s lives at a time when male relationships are regarded with skepticism by larger society. Lately it’s struck me that men tend to innately trust the men they know and distrust those they don’t (and that it’s often the reverse for women). This inclines us to believe women when they decry the “assholes” who have mistreated them in the past while women are empathetic and credulous toward women whose character they don’t know and whom they’ve never met.

Many of us out here are lacking strong male relationships, and our small social circles translate to fewer men we innately trust and more men we innately don’t. Women seem to regard male friendships as a luxury at best–we should be focusing on career, family, and her needs–while women’s friendships are seen as a lifeline in their crazy, have-it-all world. Indeed, a man discouraging his SO’s friendships is widely seen as a sign of emotional abuse, whereas the reverse is “working on the relationship.”

This strikes me as a deep but largely untapped Red Pill well and could provide essential guidance for men looking to live a proud, constructive Red Pill life however women and children might fit into it. I’d definitely welcome your insights in future entries.

Look forward to every post!

Back in February Roosh proposed (and attempted to initiate) a worldwide event that would be a sort of ‘gathering of the tribes’ with the intent of having men get together in small local gatherings to “just have a beer and talk amongst like-minded men.” My impression of the real intent of in putting this together notwithstanding, I didn’t think it was a bad idea. However, the problem this kind of ‘tribes meeting’ suffers from is that it’s entirely contrived to put unfamiliar men together for no other purpose than to “have a beer and talk.” The problem with unfamiliar men coming together simply to meet and relate is a noble goal, however, the fundamental ways men communicate naturally makes the function of this gathering seem strange to men.

Women talk, men Do.

The best male friends I have share one or more common interests with me – a sport, a hobby, music, art, fishing, lifting, golf, etc. – and the best conversations I can remember with these friends occurred while we were engaged in some particular activity or event. Even just moving a friend into his new house; it’s about accomplishing something together and in that time relating about shit. When I lived in Florida some of the best conversations I had with my studio guys were during some project we had to collaborate on for a week or two.

Women, make time with the express purpose of talking between friends. Over coffee perhaps, but the act of communication is more important than the event or activity. Even a ‘stitch-and-bitch’ is simply an organized excuse to get together and relate. For women, communication is about context. They are rewarded by how that communication makes them feel. For Men communication is about content and they are rewarded by the interchange of information and ideas.

[…]From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that our hunter-gatherer tribal roles had a hand in men and women’s communication differences. Men went to hunt together and practiced the coordinated actions for a cooperative goal. Bringing down a prey animal would have been a very information-crucial effort; in fact the earliest cave paintings were essentially records of a successful hunt and instructions on how to do it. Early men’s communication would necessarily have been a content driven discourse or the tribe didn’t eat.

Similarly women’s communications would’ve been during gathering efforts and childcare. It would stand to reason that due to women’s more collectivist roles they would evolve to be more intuitive, and context oriented, rather than objective oriented. A common recognition in the manosphere is women’s predisposition toward collectivism and/or a more socialist bent to thinking about resource distribution. Whereas men tend to distribute rewards and resources primarily on merit, women have a tendency to spread resources collectively irrespective of merit. Again this predisposition is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.

From this perspective it’s a fairly easy follow to see how the tendency of men to distrust unfamiliar (out-group) men might be a response to a survival threat whereas women’s implicit trust of any member of the ‘sisterhood’ would be a species-survival benefit to the sex that requires the most parental investment and mutual support.

Divide & Conquer

In our post-masculine, feminine-primary social order it doesn’t take a Red Pill Lens to observe the many examples of how the Feminine Imperative goes to great lengths to destroy the intrasexual ‘tribalism’ of men. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution the social press of equalism has attempted to force a commonly accepted unisex expectation upon men to socialize and interact among themselves as women do.

The duplicity in this striving towards “equality” is, of course, the same we find in all of the socialization efforts of egalitarian equalism; demasculinizing men in the name of equality. A recent, rather glaring, example of this social push can be found (where else?) at Harvard University where more than 200 female students demonstrated against a new policy to discourage participation in single-gender clubs at the school. You see, women were very supportive of the breaking of gender barriers when it meant that men could no longer discriminate in male-exclusive (typically male-space) organizations, but when that same equalist metric was applied to women’s exclusive organizations, then the cries were accusations of insensitivity and the banners read “Women’s Groups Keep Women Safe.”

That’s a pretty fresh incident that outlines the dynamic, but it’s important to understand the underlying intent of the “fine for me, but not for thee” duplicity here. That intent is to divide and control men’s communication by expecting them to communicate as women do, and ideally to do so on their own accord by conditioning them to accept women’s communication means as the normatively correct way to communicate. As I’ve mentioned before, the most effective social conventions are the ones in which the participants willingly take part in and willingly encourage others to believe is correct.

Tribes vs. The Sisterhood

Because men have such varied interests, passions and endeavors based on them it’s easy to see how men compartmentalize themselves into various sub-tribes. Whether it’s team sports (almost always a male-oriented endeavor), cooperative enterprises, cooperative forms of art (rock bands have almost always been male space) or just hobbies men share, it is a natural progression for men to form sub-tribes within the larger whole of conventional masculinity.

Because of men’s’ outward reaching approach to interacting with the world around him, there’s really no unitary male tribe in the same fashion that the collective ‘Sisterhood’ of women represents. One of the primary strengths of the Feminine Imperative has been its unitary tribalism among women. We can see this evidenced in how saturated the Feminine Imperative has become into mainstream society and how it’s embedded itself into what would otherwise be diametrically opposed factions among women. Political, socioeconomic and religious affiliations of women (various sub-tribes) all become secondary to the interests of ‘womankind’ when embracing the collective benefits of being women and leveraging both their victim and protected statuses.

Thus, we see no cognitive dissonance when women simultaneously embrace a hostile opposition to one faction while still retaining the benefits that faction might offer to the larger whole of the Sisterhood. The Sisterhood is unitary first and then it is broken down into sub-tribes. Family, work, interests, political / religious compartmentalizations become sublimated to fostering the collective benefits of womankind.

While I can speculatively understand the socio-evolutionary underpinnings of how this psychological dynamic came to be, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out just how effective this unitary collectiveness has been in shaping society towards a social ideal that supports an unfettered drive towards women’s gender-coded need to optimize Hypergamy. This unitary, gender-primary tribalism has been (and is) the key to women’s unilateral social power – and even in social environments where women still suffer oppression, the Sisterhood will exercise this gender-tribalism.

Threat Assessments

Asserting any semblance of a unitary male tribalism is a direct threat to the Feminine Imperative. In The Threat I began the essay with this summation:

Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women.

When I wrote this essay I did so from the perspective of women feeling vulnerable about interacting intimately with men who understood their own value to women and also understood how to leverage it. One of the reasons Game is so vilified, ridiculed and disqualified by the Sisterhood is because it puts this understanding into practice with women and, in theory, removes women from the optimization of Hypergamy. Red Pill awareness and Game lessens women’s control in that equation, which is sexy from the standpoint of dealing with a self-aware high SMV man, but also threatening from the perspective that her security depends on him acquiescing to her Frame and control.

Up to this point, Game has represented an individualized threat to women’s Hypergamous control, but there has always been a larger majority of men (Betas) who’ve been easily kept ignorant of their true potential for control. However, on a larger social landscape, the Feminine Imperative understands the risks involved in men forming a unitary tribe – a Brotherhood – based solely on benefitting and empowering men. The manosphere, while still effectively a collection of sub-tribes, represents a threat to the imperative because its base purpose is making men aware of their true state in a feminine-centric social order.

As such, any attempt to create male-specific, male-empowering organizations is made socially synonymous with either misogyny (hate) or homosexuality (shame). Ironically, the shame associated with homosexuality that a fem-centric society would otherwise rail against becomes an effective form of intra-gender shame when it’s applied to heterosexual collectives of men. Even suggestions of male-centered tribalism are attached with homosexual suspicions, and these come from within the collectives of men themselves.

tribalism_1a

The above picture is from an “academic” conference (class?) Mediated Feminisms: Activism and Resistance to Gender and Sexual Violence in the Digital Age held at UCL in London. There’s quite a bit more to this than just collecting and codifying the sub-tribes of the manosphere, more can be found here.

Now, granted, this conference is replete with all of the uninformed (not to mention willful ignorance) concern to be expected of contemporary feminists, but this does serve as a current example of how men organizing for the exclusive benefit of men is not just equated with misogyny, but potential violence. As a unitary collective of men, the manosphere terrifies the Feminine Imperative. That fear, however, doesn’t stem from any real prospective violence, but the potential for a larger ‘awareness’ in men of their own conditions and the roles they are expected to play to perpetuate a feminine-centric social order. They fear to lose the control that the ‘socially responsible’ ignorance of men provides them with.

Men’s predisposition to form sub-tribes and intrasexual competition (“lets you and him fight”) has always been a means of covert control by women, but even still the Feminine Imperative must insert its influence and oversight into those male spaces to make use of  them. Thus, by assuring that feminine primacy is equated with the idea of inclusive equalism, all Male Space is effectively required to be “unisex space” while all-female sub-tribes must remain exclusively female. For an easy example of this, compare and contrast the reactions to Harvard’s unisex institution of campus club equalism to the worldwide reactions to, and preemption of, the “Tribe” meetings only attempted to be organized by Return of Kings in February.

Making Men

By controlling men’s intrasex communications with each other the Feminine Imperative can limit men’s unified, collective, understanding of masculinity and male experiences. Feminine-primary society hates and is terrified of men defining and asserting masculinity for themselves (to the point of typifying it as potentially violent), but as connectivity progresses we will see a more concentrated effort to lock down the narrative and the means of men communicating male experiences.

I’ve detailed in many prior posts how the imperative has deliberately misdirected and confused men about a unified definition of masculinity. That confusion is designed to keep men guessing and doubting about their “security in their manhood” while asserting that the feminine-correct definition is the only legitimate definition of healthy, ‘non-toxic’, masculinity. This deliberate obfuscation and ambiguity about what amounts to ‘authentic masculinity’ is another means of controlling men’s awareness of their true masculine potential and value – a potential that they rightly fear will mean acquiescing to men’s power over their Hypergamous social and personal control. Anything less than a definition of masculinity that fosters female primacy and fempowerment is labeled “toxic masculinity” – literally and figuratively poisonous.

This is the real, operative reason behind the obsessive, often self-contradicting, need for control of male space by the Feminine Imperative. Oversight and infiltration of male sub-tribes and instituting a culture of self-policing of the narrative within those sub-tribes maintains a feminine-primary social order.

Building Better Betas

Since the time in which western(izing) societies shifted to unfettering Hypergamy on a social scale there has been various efforts to demasculinize – if not outright feminize – the larger majority of men. Today we’re seeing the results of, and still persistent efforts of this in much starker contrast as transgenderism and the social embrace of foisting gender-loathing on boys becomes institutionalized. A deliberate promotion of a social constructivist narrative about gender identity and the very early age at which children can “choose” a gender for themselves is beginning to be more and more reinforced in our present feminine-primary social order.

As a result of this, and likely into our near future, today’s men are conditioned to feel uncomfortable being “men”. That discomfort is a direct result of the ambiguity and misguidance about conventional masculinity the imperative has fostered in men when they were boys. This feminization creates a gender loathing, but that loathing comes as the result of an internal conflict between the feminine-correct “non-toxic” understanding of what masculinity ought to be and the conventional aspects of masculinity that men need to express as a result of their biology and birthright.

Effectively, this confusion has the purpose of creating discomfort in men among all-male sub-tribes. These masculine-confused men have difficulty with intersocial communication within the sub-tribes they’re supposed to have some sort of kin or in-group affiliation with.  Even the concept of “male bonding” has become a point of ridicule (something typical of male buffoons) or suspiciously homosexual , so, combined with the feminine identification most of these men default to, today’s “mangina” typically has more female friends and feels more comfortable communicating as women communicate. These men have been effectively conditioned to believe or feel that male interaction or organization is inherently wrong, uncomfortable or contrived, possibly even threatening if the organizing requires physical effort. Consequently, interacting as a male becomes ridiculous or superficial.

Pushing Back

What then is to be done about this conditioning? For all the efforts to destroy or regulate male tribalism, the Feminine Imperative still runs up against men’s evolved predispositions to interact with the outside world instead of fixating on the inside world of women. Below I’ve pieced together some actionable ideas that might help men come to a better, unitary way of fostering the male tribalism the Feminine Imperative would see destroyed or used as a tool of soci0-sexual control:

  • While it is vitally important to maintain a male-specific mental point of origin, together men need a center point of action. Women talk, men do. Men need a common purpose in which the tribe can focus its efforts on. Men need to build, coordinate, win, compete and problem solve amongst themselves. The ‘purpose’ of a tribe can’t simply be one of getting together as like-minded men; in fact, groups with such a declared purpose are often designed to be the most conciliatory and accommodating of the Feminine Imperative. Men require a common, passionate purpose to unite for.

 

  • Understand and accept that men will naturally form male hierarchies in virtually every context if that tribe is truly male-exclusive. There will be a reflexive resistance to this, but understand that the discomfort in acknowledging male hierarchies stems from the Feminine Imperative’s want to make any male authority a toxic form of masculinity. Contrary to feminine conditioning male hierarchies are not necessarily based on Dark Triad manipulations. That is the ‘fem-think’ – any male created hierarchy of authority is by definition evil Patriarchy.

 

  • Recognize existing male sub-tribes for what they are, but do so without labeling them as such. Don’t talk about Fight Club, do Fight Club. As with most other aspects of Red Pill aware Game, it is always better to demonstrate rather than explicate. There will always be an observer effect in place when you call a male group a “male group”. That tribe must exist for a passionate reason other than the express idea that it exists to be about men meeting up. Every sub-tribe I belong to, every collective interest I share with other men, even the instantly forming ones that arise from an immediate common need or function, all exist apart from “being” about men coming together.Worldwide “tribe” day failed much for the same reasons an organization like the Good Men Project fails – they are publicized as a gathering of men just “being” men.

 

  • Push back on the invasion of male space by being uncompromising in what you do and organize with passion. Make no concessions for women in any all-male space you create or join. There will always be a want to accommodate women and/or the fears of not being accommodating of feminine-primary mindsets within that all-male purview. Often this will come in subtle forms of anonymous White Knighting or reservations about a particular passion due to other men’s Blue Pill conditioning to always consider the feminine before considerations of themselves or the tribe. It is vitally important to the tribe to quash those sympathies and compromising attitudes as these are exactly the designs of the Feminine Imperative to destroy a tribe from within.Make no concessions for competency of women within the tribe if you find yourself in a unisex tribal situation. Even the U.S. military is guilty of reducing combat service requirements for women as recently as this month. If you are a father or you find yourself in a role of mentoring boys or young men it is imperative that you instill this no-compromise attitude in them and the organizations that they create themselves.

 

  • The primary Red Pill / Game tenets that you’ve learned with respect to women are entirely applicable in a larger scope when it comes to resisting the influences of the Feminine Imperative. Frame and a return to a collectively male-exclusive Mental Point of Origin are two of the primary tenets to apply to non-intimate applications of resistance in terms of aspects of society. Observations and the Red Pill Lens should inform your interactions with women and men on a social scale.

 

Finally, I want to close by restating that my approach to resisting the influences of the Feminine Imperative on a meta-social scale is the same bottom-up approach I used with unplugging men from their Blue Pill doldrums. Once men have taken the first steps in Red Pill awareness this new perspective has a tendency to expound into greater social understandings and a want for applications beyond hooking up with desirable women. That Red Pill awareness becomes a way of life, but moreover, it should inform us as men, as tribes, about how best to maintain ourselves as masculine-primary individuals and organizations.