equalism

The Pareto Principle

Pareto

An interesting side discussion was started in what proved to be a very popular post thread for The War Brides of Europe, and rather than let it disappear beneath a thousand-plus comments I thought I’d pick up on an old post I’ve had in my drafts for a while now.

One of the foundational ideas of Red Pill awareness from the earliest PUA years has been the 80/20 concept – 80% of women want to have sex and / or pair off with the top 20% of men. This has been a fast and loosely defined in terms of subjective sexual market value (SMV) between men and women and the ratio of disparity between those valuations.

In intersexual terms, this 80/20 rule finds its roots in the economic theory known as the Pareto Principle: “80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients.” While I’m not sure the principle is directly translatable, it mirror the general rule of Hypergamy and women’s innate drive to optimize their sexual strategy with who they perceive as the top tier 20% (Alphas) men are fucking the 80% lion’s share of women. Many a despondent Beta picks up on the principle and uses this to justify his failures to connect with women.

I’m of the opinion that the 80/20 rule is often abused to justify men’s failures or successes with women (more often failure), however the fundamental notion is both observable and easily verifiable in-field as well as statistically. It is however important to keep in mind that the 80/20 rule as it applies to Hypergamy is often bastardized in its inverse. The presumption goes that if 80% of women want to have sex with the top 20% of men it should necessarily mean that the top 20% of men are fucking 80% of women. Many a despondent Beta picking up on this dynamic will use this assumption to disqualify himself from Game or give up in futility. More on this later.

As a point of reference, it’s important to remember that Hypergamy doesn’t seek its own level with regard to SMV comparisons. Rather, Hypergamy is always seeking a socio-sexual pairing that is a ‘better than’ exchange for a woman’s own, realistically comparative, SMV. And as I’ve mentioned previously, Hypergamy is always pragmatic about establishing that ‘better than’ SMV exchange with men’s.

While the Red Pill’s expanded definition of Hypergamy encompasses far more than just ‘marrying up‘, the 80/20 sexual selection process is simple enough that even Aunt Giggles in her heyday could illustrate it:

hypergamy-in-a-pic

As you might guess the fundaments of basic Hypergamy are easy to understand, so the tendency is to oversimplify the complexities that really define Hypergamy and how the 80/20 basics play out. And lastly, it’s important to bear in mind the dual nature of women’s Hypergamous filtering, impulses and attendant emotional investments – the 80/20 dynamic applies to both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of Hypergamy, however the characteristics that would optimize the former tend to come at the expense of the latter (and vice versa).

All that said, the 80/20 principle is fairly simple; a majority of women across the broadest SMV spectrum (80%) will always want for a ‘better than’ pairing (both sexual and provisional) than their own comparative SMV.

If the underlying mechanics of Hypergamy-inspired desire were only about a 1 or 2 step difference in SMV the distribution ratio wouldn’t be 80/20. As sophomoric as it is the above graph is relatively accurate: an SMV 3 woman is desirous of an SMV 8 or above man as representative of a Hypergamously optimal pairing (sex and/or provisioning).

For the 80/20 rule to hold true we’re looking at a comparative difference of 5 steps in SMV. Now, granted, this is on the extreme end of the spectrum, and it should also be noted that SMV is also a question of context and based on a woman’s ‘filtering’ perception of a man’s SMV being legitimate. However, this doesn’t alter the ‘better than’ merited pragmatism of Hypergamy.

Whether or not a woman is actually capable of this optimization isn’t relative to understanding the principle. Indeed, with the expansion of instant communication, social emphasis of women’s empowerment and esteem, and the influence social media exercises over the female ego, an SMV 3 woman of today might likely believe she is in fact deserving of a man 5 steps above her own (a good example). But for purposes of understanding how the Pareto principle applies to intersexual dynamics we must focus on the latent purposes for it to exist.

Common Errors

The easiest (or most convenient) mistake to make about this dynamic is to presume that the consolidation of Hypergamy (locking down a man 5 to 1 steps higher in SMV in monogamy) defines the 80/20 rule. Remember, this principle is about desire and women’s expected (entitled?) satisfaction of it, not the actual consolidation (LTR) of that Hypergamous ideal.

In the prior thread the conversation centered on the mistaken idea that the Pareto Principle is not universal or is only observed in some systems, but not in human sexuality. To which I’d argue that in no other system is this principle more evident than intersexual dynamics – and not just among humans but countless other species. It’s unflattering to the disguise in which the Feminine Imperative would put it in, but, whether realizable or not, the 80/20 rule practically defines female desire.

The second mistake it to presume the inverse: that 20% of men actually get 80% of women. Usually this gets trotted out as an equal-for-equal argument that presumes, again, that desire should necessarily translate into consolidation. Betas and lower SMV men do get laid and pair off with women for any number of reasons, but the principle isn’t about who’s actually fucking who. Rather, it’s about who has more access to sexually available women based on their SMV valuation. Nice Guys may finish last, but they do finish eventually – whether they finish ‘well’ is a thought for another post.

A third common mistake, made mostly by women, presumes the goal-state outcome of intersexual dynamics should be to arrive at a monogamous state. This is the consolidation of a female sexual strategy, and because we live in a feminine-primary social order, that committed, monogamous end to women’s sexual strategy is perceived as the socially “correct” goal. At no point is men’s imperative interests (sexual or life-rewarding) a priority, if it’s considered at all, in the Hypergamous equation. In the absence (or disregard) of men’s conflicting interests the Feminine Imperative substitutes what best fits its own interests as the socially ‘appropriate’ goals for men. Then it qualifies ‘manhood’ according to its proxy interests for men, so that any man not measuring up to them are not considered truly ‘men’ by its definition.

Women’s innate Hypergamous nature ensures a distributive model for desire that aligns with the Pareto Principle – even if the overall result of women settling for less than optimal Hypergamy appears to contradict it. Again, it’s important to remember that women’s Hypergamous desires are often not reflected by the outcome of those desires.

Want is not have

The concept that a woman’s Hypergamous imperative wouldn’t be a mutual goal between the sexes is an alien thought to most women.  Much in the same way that men idealistically want to believe women mutually share their concept of love for love’s sake (and free from the conditions of their Burden of Performance), women are mistaken in believing men’s sexual strategy is synonymous with the female strategy and shares a mutual end. By way of feminine solipsism and a social order that only considers women’s imperatives as legitimate, collective feminine social consciousness rarely gives men’s imperatives an afterthought – and then only when they become problematic to the Feminine Imperative.

Women subconsciously reinforce the feminine-correct goal state of LTR monogamy by a continuous, autonomous, expectation of its fulfillment – even when that fulfillment creates cognitive dissonance with their short term vs. long term sexual strategy. It’s part of women’s Hypergamous firmware to do so because it ensures (or tries to) their subconscious need for parental investment and long term security / provisioning.

What women necessarily must disregard is that their own sexual strategy choices are determined by the want to pair with a mate who exceeds her own SMV. Thus, the Pareto principle applies.

In Open Hypergamy I made mention that there is a social transitioning taking place among women where revealing the uglier side of Hypergamy is becoming more acceptable. The degree of comfort with which women have in revealing the machinations of Hypergamy is proportional to their capacity to play the 80/20 game well enough to consolidate on a 20th percentile man (or his closest approximation). For women still uncomfortable with openly embracing the uglier side of Hypergamy concealing the truth about the 80/20 becomes a practical priority. You will find in the future that many of the conflicts you read between Strong Independent Women® of differing social or moral perspectives will be based in their degree of comfort in openly relating the machinations of Hypergamy.

Women for whom keeping the 80/20 rule concealed from men’s popular consciousness (women with less capacity to compete intrasexually) can ill afford to have men aware of their own SMV and how it affects their long term sexual strategy. High value Red Pill aware men have the leisure to exploit Hypergamy and low value Red Pill men aware of their Hypergamous role risk denying women of the resources to provision them in the long term.

The Male Side of the Principle

Way back in the Peak Hypergamy post Hollenhund got me thinking about how the Hypergamous  aspect of the Pareto Principle can become men’s primary source of frustration and apathy:

I have to COMPLETELY OVERCOME all my handicaps to the point where I am BETTER than 80% of men at least.

I have to have my shit together better than the vast majority of men. I’m having a hard enough time just getting to be AVERAGE, but what I need to do in order to have any kind of sex life and get ANY of my sexual needs met AT ALL is be better than the vast majority of guys out there.

So, in other words, you’ll end up killing yourself anyway, but you’ll do it the slow way, by making sure you’ll end up an exhausted wretch with an ulcer, high blood pressure and similar health problems? Because that’s what you’re basically saying there.

I tend to think of how men confront the challenge of their performance burden is a parallel to their understanding of the 80/20 rule. On some level of consciousness men either possess some evolved instinct for it, or they develop some learned understanding of their own role in relation to how the 80/20 dynamic applies to them.

I think much of what frustrates men about assessing their own SMV in a Blue Pill mindset comes from an instinctual understanding of the 80/20 rule and reconciling it with what they’re being socialized to believe women ought to evaluate them for. Before any Game, before any Red Pill awareness, men’s first deductive impression is to classify themselves into SMV respective “leagues“, and women who would or wouldn’t be sexually accessible according to those leagues.

Ironically, even men’s Blue Pill league evaluations fail to account for women’s 1-5 SMV step over evaluation of their own SMV. The equalist agenda teaches men that their leagues should be based on a like-for-like parallel, when Hypergamy really demands men’s SMV be well above that of women.

This of course gets distorted once men begin to become Red Pill aware and over-exaggerate the abstract concept of Alpha and how it applies to themselves. In a way they fall victim to believing they must become an Alpha parody in order to measure up to women’s apex fallacy impression of a top 20% man.

Needless to say Red Pill awareness and applied Game will reveal the truth about the 80/20 rule. Initially it seems like a horribly unjust set of conditions for an ‘average’ man, but the rule is still based on the fundamental biological and psychological underpinnings of Hypergamy, and therefore open to exploits for a Red Pill aware man.

Quality Assurances

Web

In the above example (h/t Young Patriarch) we can see the comparison between a naturalistic, Hypergamous socio-sexual order contrasted with an idealized socio-sexual structure. The Sexual Freedom model mirrors the 80/20 rule, while the Regulated model is representative of an idealized structure designed with the intent to evenly justify pairings according to a distributive monogamy.

As I mentioned earlier, men have an instinctual understanding about how the 80/20 Pareto Principle applies to women’s Hypergamy. And while Game is a modern contingency for it I would argue that the cross-culture concept of a monogamous marriage between men and women was a broader contingency designed not just to counter women’s Pareto-centered sexual strategy, but to ensure a greater majority of (lesser SMV) men had the opportunity to pass on their genetic heritage.

I could point out that the Regulated model above is very representative of an egalitarian model for monogamy based again on the like-for-like presumption, but Hypergamy being what it naturally is will always confound that ideal. However, I have to also point out that the Regulated ideal has always been a convenient selling tool to keep both men and women ignorant of the uglier, visceral nature of the Hypergamous sexual marketplace.

Marriage as a social adaptation serves (or served) as a negotiated buffer against Hypergamy, but it also serves as a perceived buffer against men’s Burden of Performance that would otherwise necessitate the constant super-achievement that Hollenhund describes above. As a social dynamic marriage was a Beta breeding insurance policy that conveniently enough took root about the time human beings began to adopt a largely agrarian lifestyle.

Today equalism and the fantasy of an idealized, mutually beneficial monogamy based on the Old Set of Books is little more than a contingent workaround for the 80/20 rule reality. As this idealism decays and is replaced by either Red Pill awareness or men learning the harsh realities of modern marriage liability the more we will see a shift away from the Regulated model in favor of a now openly Hypergamous model.

Recently NY Mag had yet another feminist triumphalism article in the same vein as the Atlantic’s End of Men article (apparently 6 years is the period in which the femosphere believes popular awareness of its bullshit memes end). However there was this one salient point that illustrates this shift in monogamy:

In 2009, the proportion of American women who were married dropped below 50 percent. In other words, for the first time in American history, single women (including those who were never married, widowed, divorced, or separated) outnumbered married women. Perhaps even more strikingly, the number of adults younger than 34 who had never married was up to 46 percent, rising 12 percentage points in less than a decade. For women under 30, the likelihood of being married has become astonishingly small: Today, only around 20 percent of Americans are wed by age 29, compared to the nearly 60 percent in 1960.

In the old order of monogamy the mutually beneficial exchange centered on quality assurances, either via polygamy (sexual assurances) or monogamy (provisonal assurances) in a Beta context. These assurances, having been more or less compensated for by men’s willing or unwilling assistance via social and legislative means, are no longer an incentive for women to marry or commit to a long term monogamy, and this is evidenced in almost a decade of statistics that show this decline.

A Wife for Every Beta

In Christian Dread I made mention of Nick Krausers’ appearance on London Real. For a bit more elaboration on this principle cue the video to 5:00 and watch until about 8:33.

A wife for every Beta is the old order negotiated social contract function of committed monogamy. In a state of nature where 80% of men can never be assured of a genetic legacy, most men have no incentive to participate in an organized society. What the Regulated model of sexuality does (albeit inefficiently) is gives Beta males the incentive to cooperate in larger society by establishing monogamy as the predominant social order. And then, as Krauser mentions these societies tend to outperform those based on a Hypergamous, naturalistic socio-sexual structure.

As mentioned this arrangement was based on an exchange of long term security for women for assurances of sexual access and ultimately a genetic legacy. Essentially it was a negotiated compromise of the desire for the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy for the assurances of a long term Beta Bucks aspect of Hypergamy. By today’s socio-sexual standard this old order arrangement is supplanted with the relatively assured guarantee of satisfying both aspects of Hypergamy at different phases of a woman’s maturity in life. Thus we see the Epiphany Phase, Alpha Widowhood and every variety of schema I outline in Preventive Medicine.

The new, post-sexual revolution order is a model ostensibly based on ‘sexual freedom’, but what this really represents is a return to that naturalistic sexual order based on pre-agrarian, evolutionarily incentivized Hypergamy. We revert back to an open acceptance of the 80/20 realities that, if we’re honest, always informed even a Regulated socio-sexual model of monogamy.

In the new era of Open Hypergamy, women’s only necessitated compromise of her sexual strategy depends on her exaggerated self-impression of her SMV measured against her capacity to lock down an optimal male. This also explains the endless push to create self-confident, self-important ‘independent’ women. Women’s naturalistic predilection for the 80/20 Pareto Principle of sexual selection virtually assures their long term isolation – thus the need for a self-created impression of women’s self-sufficiency.

The Warrior Princess

warrior-princess

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

Commenter Red light dropped this comment recently

The “Warrior Princess” myth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fempowerment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False Pride, Real Danger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complementarity

complementarity

At the Man In Demand conference I briefly got into the topic of egalitarian equalism and its relation to complementarity during my talk. On my flight home I was jotting down my thoughts about the seminar and one thing I now have plans to do for the next one* is base an entire talk and group discussion about the distinctions between equalism and complementarity as I understand them.

However, for now, consider this post a primer for that talk. I’ve done my best to explain the differences between equalism and complementarity in Equalism and Masculinity and Positive Masculinity vs. Equalism. My detailing the social dynamics and psychological influences men face in an equalist headspace has been a recurrent theme in many of my posts. On occasion I’ve made contrasting comparisons to Complementarity, but until the Red Pill Parenting series I hadn’t gone into the detail I’d like to.

Guy starts us off:

As many of you have already mentioned in the stories you’ve shared, it is usually the father who pushes their children towards a higher standard of success. This is critical for the child to develop into a successful adult that excels in society.

It is usually the mother who coos and coddles their children. This is also necessary, as it’s vitally important for children to feel loved and accepted by their parents. This shows the necessity of the roles of both mothers and fathers in the development of children. If a child faces only criticism, it may have lasting effects on their self esteem. If a child is never criticized, they may never grow up into an adult.

The negative effects of too much coddling are so widespread, that we actually have sayings that illustrate it.
“A ____ only a mother could love”

To understand the dynamic of complementarity first it’s important to consider the theology behind egalitarianism. I tend to use the term egalitarianism and equalism interchangeably, but I do so because I see them both as stems from the same tree of blank-slate humanism. In the first Red Pill Parent essay I made the following case against of a single parent, single gender upbringing of children:

Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the complementary relationship between a mother and father.

It’s the height of gender-supremacism to be so arrogantly self-convinced as to deliberately choose to birth a child and attempt to raise it into the contrived ideal of what that “parent” believes the other gender’s role oughtto be.

This should put the institutionalized social engineering agenda of the Feminine Imperative into stark contrast for anyone considering intentional single parenthood. Now consider that sperm banks and feminine-specific fertility institutions have been part of normalized society for over 60 years and you can see that Hypergamy has dictated the course of parenting for some time now. This is the definition of social engineering.

The idea that a single mother is as co-effective as a father stems from the blank-slate belief that gender is a social construct rather than the physical and psychological manifestation of humans’ evolved mental firmware. While the foundations of this blank-slate theory originated with John Locke in in the 17th century it would be the anima/animus theories of Carl Jung to cement egalitarian equalism into the popular conscious with regard to gender relations.

Tabula Rasa (blank-slate) refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. With the scientific and technical advancements of the 20th and 21st centuries we now have a better understanding of how the human brains of men and women operate from a far more advanced perspective than either Jung or Locke had knowledge of. To be fair, Jung’s presupposition was one that human’s possess innate potentials for both the masculine and feminine (thus the “get in touch with your feminine side” trope for men), but those potentials derive from a presumed-accepted egalitarian base.

Yet still, from a meta-social perspective, western(izing) culture still clings to the blank-slate theoretical models from Jung inspired by Locke and other tabula rasa thinkers of old.

Why is that? Why should it be that for all of our greater understanding of the biomechanics of the human body and it’s influences on behavior that the greater whole of society persists in the belief that men and women possess co-equal gender proficiencies based on an outdated, largely disproven Tabula Rasa model? I would argue that resisting the more obvious and practical model of evolved gender differences presents an uncomfortable proposition of biological determinism to people conditioned to believe gender is a nurture, not nature, proposition.

I’ve opined about Carl Jung’s contributions to our present state of feminine social primacy in the past.

One of the key elements Jung introduced into western culture’s popular consciousness is the theory of anima and animus; that each individual, irrespective of sex, possesses greater or lesser degrees of association and manifested behavior of masculine and feminine psychological affiliations. In 2012, when you hear a 6 year old girl tell a 6 year old boy “you need to get in touch with your feminine side” in order to get him to comply with her, you can begin to understand the scope to which this idea has been internalized into society’s collective consciousness. So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back its origins – it’s simply taken as fact that men and women possess varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s.

It’s important to consider Jung’s bi-gender individualities within the individual person in context with Locke’s Tabula Rasa theory because in tandem they constitute the basis of the egalitarian equalism which feminism and our present feminine-primary conditioning rely upon. To the modern egalitarian mind, inequalities in social dynamics, gender conflicts and economic disparities are the result of a deliberate (if not malicious) intent on the part of individuals to limit the presumedly equal potentials of others. Social ills are the conflict between the selfish need of the one versus the equalized need of the many.

There is very little headspace given to the material, innate, mechanics that make up the condition of the individual. Natural talent, innate ability, in-born predispositions, and physical and adaptational advantages stemming from evolved differences – whether a boon or a burden – are either disqualified or marginalized in an egalitarian mindset. The egalitarian, while very humanistic, leans almost entirely on the learned behavior model of human development. It’s Tabula Rasa, and the zeroed-out-at-birth content of the individual is filled by the influence of a society that is corrupted by those who don’t agree with an idealized egalitarian imperative.

Complementarity

Complementarity acknowledges the importance of the inborn differences between the sexes that egalitarianism marginalizes or outright denies exist while recognizing and embracing the strengths and weaknesses those differences represent.

There are many well documented, peer reviewed, scientific studies on the neurological differences between men and women’s brain structure. The easiest evidence of these differences is the cyclic nature of women’s sexuality (versus men’s always-on sexuality) and the neurological/hormonal influences on beliefs, behaviors and the rationalizations for those behaviors prompted by the innate drive to optimize Hypergamy.

Women experience negative emotions differently from men. The male brain evolved to seek out sex before food. And while our feminine-centric social order insists that, in the name of equalism, boys should be forced to learn in the same modality as that of girls, the science shows that boys brains are rudimentarily wired to learn differently.

Stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains.

Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women’s brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men’s brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions.

Ragini Verma, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes, with men’s brains apparently wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women’s for social skills and memory, making them better equipped for multitasking.

“If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking. So if there’s a task that involves doing both of those things, it would seem that women are hardwired to do those better,” Verma said. “Women are better at intuitive thinking. Women are better at remembering things. When you talk, women are more emotionally involved – they will listen more.”

Ironically, in an egalitarian gender-neutral social order, a college professor publicly suggesting that men are more adept at mathematical thinking gets him fired from a lengthy tenure, but when a female researcher suggests the same she’s rewarded with professional accolades and grant money.

As you might expect, this article focuses primarily on the triumphant advantages of the female brain structure, but the studies themselves are revealing of the empirical evidence that men and women are not the functional equals that egalitarianism would insist we are.

The scans showed greater connectivity between the left and right sides of the brain in women, while the connections in men were mostly confined to individual hemispheres. The only region where men had more connections between the left and right sides of the brain was in the cerebellum, which plays a vital role in motor control. “If you want to learn how to ski, it’s the cerebellum that has to be strong,” Verma said. Details of the study are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It’s quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are,” Ruben Gur, a co-author on the study, said in a statement. “Detailed connectome maps of the brain will not only help us better understand the differences between how men and women think, but it will also give us more insight into the roots of neurological disorders, which are often sex-related.”

These distinct neurological differences between men and women are evidence of a an evolved intersexual complementarity that has manifested in both the personal and social dynamic of intergender relations for millennia. Conventional gender roles where there is a defined interdependence between the sexes is reflective of precisely the hardwired “stereotypes” researchers were so shocked to discover in men and women’s neural wiring.

Talents and Deficits

I’m often asked what the complementarian model looks like and it’s all too easy to not want to fall into the perceived trap in defining gender roles for men and women as they’ve been for centuries before our own era. Conventionally feminine women and masculine men are ‘shocking’ stereotypes to a society steeped and conditioned to accept the egalitarian model as the norm. The simple fact is that equality is only defined by the conditions and environmental circumstance that make something equal or unequal.

Men and women are biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally and sexually different. This presents a very difficult proposition to an egalitarian mindset – men and women are simply better suited for, better wired, better enabled and better physically capable of succeeding in different tasks, different environments, different socialization, different mental or emotional demands as those circumstances dictate.

We simply evolved for symbiosis between the sexes; the strengths of one compensate for the weakness of the other. Depending on the challenge presented, yes, this means that in our complementarity the difference between a man and a woman are going to be unequal. Much of the gender discord our present society suffers is due primarily to the intentional rejection of this evolved, symbiotic complementarity and its replacement with the fantasy of uninfluenced, independently sustaining equalism. From the egalitarian mindset, the genders are self-sustaining and independent, thus men and women simply have no need for the other.

Though egalitarians will argue it does, complementarity doesn’t imply a universal superiority of one gender or the other. Rather, depending on the task at hand, one sex will be better predisposed to accomplishing it. Furthermore this isn’t to say that the gender-specific deficiencies of one gender cannot be overcome by learning, practice and brain plasticity to achieve the same ends – it is to say that men and women’s brains, and the task specific adaptations of them, predispose them to being better capable of achieving them.

Fighting Nature

For the better part of this blog’s history I’ve outlined the process of how the Feminine Imperative conditions men to embrace their “feminine sides” and create generations of ready Betas. Most Blue Pill men will fail to identify with the more masculine specificity I’ve outlined above. It’s important to remember that learning to be better at non-gender specificity in an attempt to override this natural gender-wiring is not always a voluntary effort on the part of a person – especially when egalitarian Mom and Dad are in on the conditioning.

When we see the recent popular social effort to embrace transexual acceptance what we’re being asked to do is accept a learning process that countermands a male or female’s evolved neural architecture. Brain plasticity is a marvel of evolution, but it is subject to external manipulation and the ideologies of those doing the manipulating.

There’s been a criticism of western public education’s push to force boys to learn like girls – we treat boys like they are defective girls. This is a prime example of not just a social engineering effort, but an effort in reprogramming boys to override their natural, neurological maleness. Thus they become less effective girls because they are required to think, emote and react in way their brains never predisposed them to.

Likewise there is a popular push to encourage girls to adopt male modalities of thinking. In the hopes to make mathematics and technology fields more gender equal egalitarian society will make special compensation and establish exclusive academic rewards for girls who teach themselves to override their intrinsic mental proficiencies and find intrinsic reward in adopting those of boys.

The egalitarian mindset simply denies the foundational truths that decades of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology and anthropological research indicate about our present state of intersexual relations. Inso doing they reject a complementary model and embrace an egalitarian one. Their mistake is presuming that evo-psych necessitates a biological determinism and thereby absolves an individual of personal responsibility for their behavior. It does not, but it does provide a framework that more accurately describes the mental state, sexual strategies and social environment in which men find themselves with women.

When you hear or read the trope that “women are just as sexual as men” what’s being related to you is founded in the same egalitarian root that teaches us to believe that “women are just as good at fathering as any man”. All are equal, but men’s sexuality seems a boon that egalitarian women would like to adopt.

One reason egalitarianism is an appealing cover story for feminism is because its primary goal is leveling the sexual competition playing field for all women to optimize Hypergamy at the expense of men’s own sexual strategy interests. If all is equal, if men’s basic biological impulses are reduced to shamed criminality, if women can expect men to be aroused by their perceived value of their self-defined self-worth, then all material and physiological deficits can be effectively dismissed.

Under the guise of egalitarianism, feminism has effected feminine social dominance for over half a century now.

Egalitarianism is likewise appealing to evo-psych detractors because a belief in egalitarianism should mean that men can escape their burden of performance. I touched on this in the first post of the Adaptations series. The presumption is that if the more intrinsic, ephemeral aspects of men’s higher-order thinking and personal worth is appreciated as a sexual attraction, then all deficiencies in meeting his naturalistic burden of performance can be rescinded. Game, physique, personality, status, success, achievement, etc. are superseded by his equalist belief system and this is sold to him as the new order upon which women should find him attractive.

Complementarity is the evolved interdependence between the sexes and it’s been a responsible element of how the human race has risen to be the apex species on this planet, but it doesn’t ensure an optimal breeding schedule for either sex. So long as men and women are mired in a denial of the evolved psychological differences between the sexes, their only alternative is to embrace egalitarianism.

The reason feminism hates the Red Pill – in its concrete sense – is because it more accurately predicts human behavior than feminism and equalism have ever been capable of.

Bachelor Nation

About two weeks ago I came across the above video (h/t Tom Leykis), but only recently have I watch it in its entirety. At first I’d thought it was yet another endorsement of the “expatriate and find a feminine wife” set of the manosphere, but it’s a much deeper documentary than this.

Although this video is directed towards the African-American demographic, what these men and women describe is reflective of the greater endemic that feminine social primacy has wrought in society on whole. Overall I think the video illustrates some strong points in regard to the reality of the imbalanced dynamic between men and women today, but it doesn’t really account very well for the causes of these imbalances.

The overarching narrative comes from the mistaken idea that egalitarian equalism is an achievable ideal between the sexes. So within this context when a man describes his need to be the leader in his family, to be the provider as well as the teacher of his children and the person with the answers in his marriage, his characterization becomes (conveniently) one of an outdated masculine insecurity.

In an equalist ideal state it shouldn’t matter to him that his wife is more educated or earns more money than he does. As Sheryl Sandberg has once again illustrated, men should be reprogrammed to feel more comfortable in traditionally women’s supportive and submissive roles – and any discomfort with that is evidence of an antiquated masculine insecurity or “feeling intimidated” by a Strong Woman®.

I covered this reprogramming effort in Vulnerability:

The Masks the Feminine Imperative Makes Men Wear

To explain this second problem it’s important to grasp how men are expected to define their own masculine identities within a social order where the only correct definition of masculinity is prepared for men in a feminine-primary context.

What I mean by this is that the humanness that men wish to express in showing themselves as vulnerable is defined by feminine-primacy.

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.

So within this context a man is already hamstrung for ever expressing the idea that he feels he needs to be the Man in his marriage. That ridiculous need shouldn’t matter to men because in an equalist framework it shouldn’t matter to women that he’s not out-earning her or is more educated.

Of course the problem with this fantasy is that it does actually matter to women that a man leads and a man performs. Women resent supporting men. No matter how an equalist mindset sells it, humans evolved for a complementarity that will always confound equalism.

Pay close attention to the sentiments of the women in this video. Every one of them embraces the empowerment meme that equalism has them internalize, yet all still feel that pairing with a man they deem less than themselves is a compromise or “settling” for him. They’re doing him the favor by compromising their Hypergamy with a suboptimal man.

What this illustrates is the inherent conflict between equalism and complementarity. In spite of men’s reprogramming for accepting a “supportive” role, and despite women’s empowered aspirations of self-sufficiency, both still have an innate need for a gender-complementary relationship that they cannot reconcile in an equalist social framework. Women still want to pair with a man they can be aroused by and respect. They still want that +1 to +2 SMV differential that promotes a strong attachment to him. Men, in contradiction to all known risks and in contradiction to any expectation of appreciation, still want to pair with a feminine woman who idealistically supports him, follows his lead and willingly nurtures him with her body and spirit.

What this equalist vs. complementarity dichotomy presents to men and women is that it fundamentally places both sexes into the Subdominant model of intersexual hierarchies. In that model the man is perceived as another dependent ‘child’ for her to support while he wonders why the supportiveness his equalist conditioning has taught him women need isn’t appreciated for what it is. Not only this, but again within that framework, a woman feels indignant for having to apologize for the ambition and education that equalism has convinced her she should be empowered by and men should appreciate by default.

Love Interests

Within this egalitarian framework the difference between men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic (Hypergamy based) concept of love are placed into distinct contrasts. For all of the obfuscation about imbalances in education, a man’s idealistic concept of love predisposes him to believe the equalist lie that his performance shouldn’t be the basis of her opportunistic concept of love.

When you listen to the sentiments of both the men and particularly the women in this video you’ll see this played out. When a woman assumes the dominant role in a relationship her provisioning becomes the benchmark for that dominance. Of course, this is a reversal of the conventional, complimentarian model, but when women are put into that reversal the reality of their opportunistic concept of love becomes uncomfortably obvious to love-idealist men. While Open Hypergamy is becoming increasingly more obvious on a social scale, it’s far more poignant on a personal, in-your-face scale within a modern marriage or relationship.

Predictably the documentary veers away from this intergender conflict and places the blame for that conflict squarely on the shoulders of characteristically irresponsible men not being the fathers they should be – blaming an individualist mindset for men’s absence from the family without addressing the glaring individualism the women display in the first half of the video. The equalist narrative has to be reset and in order to do that it’s got to conveniently dip back into the conventional complementarity well and appeal to the traditional sense of duty to family and compliance with exactly the responsibility equalism would otherwise chafe against.

However, what equalism and the Feminine Imperative can’t sweep away is men’s overt contingencies for Open Hypergamy. One of those very deductive contingencies is moving to another country where the environment favors men’s sexual strategy, not to mention a refreshing sense of being appreciated by conventionally feminine women. If Game isn’t appealing and going your own way makes you lonely, it only makes sense to go fish where the fish are.

I recently read Bachelor Nation on CNS News, and once again it predictably foists the responsibility for men’s reluctancy to marry on irresponsible ‘kidult’ men.

“Far too many young men have failed to make a normal progression into adult roles of responsibility and self-sufficiency, roles generally associated with marriage and fatherhood,”

Nowhere will you see a woman lay claim to the social fallout feminine primacy has effected on themselves. Female importance is the socially correct narrative, thus the failings of that narrative, the failings of feminism, and the failings of the agenda of equalism are due to men unwilling to cooperate in seeing it succeed. 70% of men aged 20 to 34 are not married and the default presumption is that it’s men who are unwilling to accept their adult responsibility and marry a woman who will statistically earn more than him and resent his inability to measure up to her performance standards – the standards made glaringly evident in this documentary.

In a feminine-primary social order to be a ‘responsible’ man is to comply with dictates of women’s sexual strategy while accepting her dominant and counter-feminine role and demeanor. To be a ‘real man’ he must accept being relegated to being her dependent while still being expected to be a good father. To be an ‘adult’ he must accept the doctrines of equalism while still being beholden to the responsibilities of conventional complementarianism.

Back to Basics

basics

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Feral Woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Blue Pill Painted Red

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equalism and Masculinity

masculinity

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

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

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

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

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

Undoing of a Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equalism vs. Complementarity

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

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

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

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

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

Hypergamy doesn’t care about equalism and reciprocity.

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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