feminine imperative

Trophies

trophy

Hypergamy is seen 90+% in men while “upgrading” their wives; and only <10% in women for “upgrading” their men. Yet it gets called out disproportionately as a thing women do… Geese and ganders. Geese and ganders.

I got this comment on Hypergamy Doesn’t Care a little while ago. It’s about what I’ve come to expect from women who find revealing the secret of hypergamy offensive. These of course are the women who’s sexual strategy relies on men’s unawareness about hypergamy in order to consolidate on long-term security, but I find it entertaining that when a Man exposes that truth there is a ready social convention to shame him with, rather than the prideful embrace of an ’empowered’ woman revealing exactly the same truth.

What commenter CV’s proffering here is the Trophy Wives convention. A lot has been made of this recently and it’s brought to my attention that this is a feminine operative social convention that I haven’t covered as of yet.

There was a time when this social convention was a very functional shaming device for women. Right around the mid 1980’s to the late 1990’s the notion of men becoming bored with their wives and “upgrading” them for a newer (younger, hotter) model was a very popular trope. There were romantic comedies based on the convention as well as an underlying presumption that men would just be biologically predisposed to this upgrading.

In the popular media, movies and sit-coms of the period, we could tell the measure of a man’s character by the way he would or would not fall to the temptation to ditch his ubiquitously loving and devoted, but SMV declined, wife in favor of a hot young (usually mid 20s) woman who was stereotypically vapid, immature and shallow. It was fun to ridicule (and pathologize) men’s sexual response while fostering an endearing sympathy for the poor, unjustly served wives who, through no fault of their own, fell victim to so many men’s base urges to wantonly discard her for a hotter, tighter blonde with fake tits.

Naturally the caricature wouldn’t be complete without accounting for a Trophy Wife’s character – always vapid, usually gold digging, and uniquely incapable of relating to him on the same level of intellectual and emotional maturity his discarded wife had so selflessly devoted herself to.

To further the mythology this want for a young ‘Chippy’ was almost always paired with the ‘infantile and ego-bruised’ man’s mid-life crisis, selfishly attempting to recapture his youth in a sports car and a new ‘bimbo’ wife.

This was an effective convention then because it played on women’s fear of the Wall and built upon their, feminine-as-correct, moral / intellectual superiority of men, who could only be counted on to reason with their penises rather than consider the relational equity women would necessarily invest into a marriage with only the best of intentions. In a sense it was the female flip side of the Relational Equity fallacy found predominantly in men today.

As with most of its social conventions, the Feminine Imperative got a lot of milage out of the Trophy Wife fear – not the least of which was due to the perception of men’s more prominent role as financial providers. But with time and a new global degree of connectivity this trope is no longer as tenable as it was.

Dead Conventions

From about the turn of the millennia, the concept of “Trophy Wives” has been a dead feminine social convention.

Whereas most long held feminine social conventions can be socially rejiggered to accommodate new circumstances or even directly proven contradiction as time and society progresses, the Trophy Wife canard simply doesn’t hold water the way it used to. In fact, for men aware enough of it, it’s really a cruel reminder of its original intent now.

You see, when it’s statistically 70+% women initiating divorce, detonating marriages because of an Eat Pray Love script and a “I coulda done better than this Beta” commercialization effort of women’s innate hypergamy, it’s kind of hard to float the male-shame of “men divorce their wives because they want a newer model” trope. At present, there’s enough connectivity and enough shared male experience, even from the female side, to make the Trophy Wives convention an embarrassing holdover from when it was useful.

Oh I still get it occasionally in my comment sections, but now it’s just the “ooh ooh men do it too” script that falls flat, and I think even the hard-sell women are realizing this with such readily available divorce stats online now.

The Trophy Wife convention worked in stupid 80′s movies plots as a vehicle to infantilize men’s commitment to women’s long-term security, but when Stella heads off to Jamaica to ‘get her groove on’ it’s called female empowerment.

Trophy Wife may not be a functional convention anymore, but it’s certainly a good illustration of the Feminine Imperative at work.

Smoking Guns

About a month ago Dalrock did some yeoman’s work in comparing divorce statistics with women’s rate of remarriage. From the Smoking Gun:

I’ve focused on the stats for women because it is women who are driving the divorce rates.  As you can see, divorce rates track very closely with women’s opportunity to remarry.  Note also that the old canard that as women age their desire to be married goes away;  if this were true the divorce curve would slope upward, not downward.

Rather than lift Dal’s charts I’ll refer readers to have a look at his original post. For the purposes of comparing these stats to the old model of the Trophy Wives convention, it’s fairly obvious that the actual trend was never a mythology of discontented men jettisoning their wives for younger ones, but rather common, average women discontent in their hypergamous “Assortive Mating” detonating their marriages for the promises of a guaranteed security and a second chance at optimizing hypergamy “before their looks run out.”

From a legal and social perspective, a feminine-primary society has undeniably made the cash & prizes incentive for women to Cash Out of their marriage a realizable and socially acceptable option.

I may ruffle some feathers with this proposition, but I can’t ignore the prospect that, for some women, this ‘detonation’ may have been part of, or became, their long-term security strategy once she’d ‘settled’ on her post-Wall Beta male provider. Even for women with whom this wasn’t a conscious plan the failsafe of post-divorce social and financial support represents is always present.

Whereas the Trophy Wife convention primarily revolved around elite men with the capacity, status and affluence (if not the intent) to discard their wives depended on suppressing the Apex Fallacy (only men of extraordinary means could entertain it), for women the Eat Pray Love schema can be realized by virtually any western woman – and statistically we see this played out in reality.

High profile men, who took up with a stereotypical Trophy Wife are statistically insignificant compared to women’s divorcing their Beta providers, assured of his support in the long term, and either return to their ‘party years’ model of short term fulfillment, or take up with another provider. The old male-shame Trophy Wife social convention has been replaced by a feminine-primary, feminine acceptable, form of hypergamous optimization.

Assortive Mates

This reality is a fairly ugly one to confront for women and a feminine based society at large. For the most part Beta men are more prone to get along than make waves in a marriage or LTR. So conditioned and prepared for this self-sacrificial monogamy and support, few will consider women’s sexual strategies, much less question their sincerity of their reasoning for wanting out of their marriages later.

Still, that ugly truth is becoming increasingly more unavoidable as men share their experiences with each other. What to do?

As I mentioned there’s a lot of talk about debunking the old Trophy Wives convention. I imagine my readership is already aware of a recent “study” ‘proving’ that men and women tend to pair off according to like interests and attraction – rather than the notion that women would in any way be opportunists and motivated by hypergamy:

Here’s some bad news for men with highly successful careers and fat wallets: You probably will not end up with a “trophy wife,” a new study suggests.

When researchers compared qualities such as level of attractiveness and socioeconomic status within couples, they found almost no evidence of the trophy wife stereotype, which suggests attractive, young women tend to marry rich and successful men.

Instead, couples are far more likely to end up together because they share similar traits. For example, attractive, wealthy or highly educated people are more likely to choose a partner with the same qualities. The same is true for less attractive, low-earning or less educated people. Trophy wife marriages still happen, but not nearly as often as expected, the study revealed.

Obsidian over at JustFourGuys has done an admirable job of picking this study apart. Needless to say the study begins from a point of error, relying on a sample group of early 20s couples to determine the overall social “trend” of assortive mating. Commenter John Albertsen makes the old model Trophy Wife observation:

Trophy wives are, according to the generally accepted definition, not only attractive, but considerably younger than their husbands. Limiting the study to “couples in their twenties”,eliminated the older guys with younger wives, as the difference in the ages of the pair would be a maximum of 9 years. Further, very few highly successful men reach those heights by 29 and of those that do, how many would be married at all?

The sample used in this study seems to eliminate the very people who would need to be included to accomplish it’s stated goal. Studying married couples in their 50s would be just as invalid as it would still not include a fitting age difference.

It would be better to study couples where the MEN were in their 50s to see how their attractiveness and financial success compared to the age and attractiveness of their wives. I suspect that you will find very few such ‘elderly’ gents paired up with young cuties unless they were loaded. In other words, what the young women find attractive about the guy is what’s in his wallet.

After considering this, an astute Red Pill Man needs to question the true underlying motive, not just for the study itself, but the reason for it being popularly reposted and relinked in a feminine-primary cultural bubble.

In western society it’s a statistical rarity for early 20s men and women to be married (or seriously monogamous enough to consider it) at all. Feminine-primary culture can’t seem to make up its mind; why would men need to Man-Up, stop being ‘kidults’ and accept mature marriage responsibilities at 29 if so many early 20s men (like those in the study) are pairing with their equalist approved fiancés?

Any number of studies and polls empirically show that women not only want their husbands to be older (5-7 years), but also wish to marry at or around 28-30 years of age. Furthermore, there’s no shortage of articles and blog posts relating how women are postponing marriage to pursue professional goals or are frustrated in being forced to ‘settle’ for monogamy with men they consider beneath their status, financial and educational levels later and later in life.

What the McClintock study was trying to prove had nothing to do with Trophy Wives, but rather the intent was to disprove and distract from the realities of feminine hypergamy – while conveniently shaming older men that feminine-primary culture largely still believe harbor plans to marry younger women once they consolidate their fortunes.

The intent isn’t to disprove the Trophy Wives social convention (created by the same influence attempting to disprove it), but rather to prove that women aren’t actually the opportunists an innate hypergamy would have them, by necessity, be. The intent is to distract men’s increasing awareness of women’s opportunistic, strategic sexual pluralism.

As I illustrated last week:

…hypergamy does not seek it’s own level. An ever pragmatic evolution drives hypergamy to seek a better-than-equal pairing. This is the evolutionary jackpot: to combine and send one’s genes into future generations with a (at least perceptually) better than equitable genetic match – and ensure one’s progeny with a better than SMV equitable provisioning.

Assortive mating (Alpha Fucks) is not the same as Assortive pairing (Beta Bucks). The conflicting sides of feminine hypergamy ensures that the prerequisites of satisfying both are met with different qualifiers. McClintock’s efforts here (besides her own professional aggrandizement) are yet one more attempt to sweep the unpalatable truth of hypergamy under a rug she’d rather men not have the curiosity to look under. This is simply an obvious effort in keeping hypergamy a secret, and to inspire men to shame for even being curious about it.

Balancing Act

balancing-life

Donal Graeme had some very relevant ‘musings’ about last week’s post that summed things up and provides me with a great prelude into this week’s post. I hadn’t intended these last couple of posts (and now this one) to become another series (again). I suppose they are now, but I don’t think I’ve quite hit this from all angles just yet. In the interests of full disclosure I should point out that these last three posts were inspired by the first section of the Preventive Medicine book I’m presently working on so it helps organize my thoughts.

From Donal Graeme’s Removing the Mask:

Many, if not most, men would not be content to marry a woman whom they realize is choosing to marry them solely as a meal ticket, and effectively a sperm donor as well. It should surprise no one that men don’t like to be used in that way, and will balk at it if they realize that is what is happening. Hence the importance of hiding what is going on from them.

On the other hand, this repulsion at being used is mitigated/countered by a sense of desperation in many men in the West. Owing to the nature of the SMP, they have limited options when it comes to female companionship. Naturally, this makes them desperate, and they are willing to take on women they wouldn’t otherwise if it gets them at least some measure of opportunity with them.

What seems to be happening is that many women are now certain that male desperation in the future will be greater than any sense of male self-respect, and so they can do whatever they want and not have to hide it. Part of me wonders if women see the ability to be open about their intentions/strategy as a status symbol- a woman who can act that way is a woman of value, and therefore a woman to be envied. The problem with this strategy, though, is that it relies on male desperation not having any limits. I suspect this to be a grave mistake. This is because the average quality of women in the West has been dropping fast, perhaps even faster than male desperation has been rising. If that is the case, we will soon reach a point where most men will simply not accept the (Western) women who are available, no matter how desperate they might have become.

All of this plays into part of this subject- the looming fight between women. Women at the margins of “value” will start to feel the pinch first. The “where have all the good men gone?” articles out there seem to indicate that this has already begun. It will only increase in tempo over time as more and more women drop below the acceptable rate for most men. Combine this with many men being burned or realizing what a danger most Western women are, and you get a huge disparity in outcome between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.

This may seem optimistic coming from me, but I think it will be ‘educated’ men who are the 3rd rail in this equation.

Men at the top end of the SMV curve will always be the commodity over which women will feel entitled to. Feminine hypergamy does not seek its own level, it looks for a better-than-market optimization. Thus the ideal ‘balance’ is one where there is a greater than 1-2 SMV degree difference between that of a man and the women he spins as plates or considers to become intimate with in the long term.

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies
For one sex’s sexual strategy to become realized, the other sex’s strategy must be compromised or abandoned entirely.

One of the greatest misdirections of gender understanding over the past 60 years has been the idea that both men and women should share the same sexual strategy. A naive equalitarian ideology dictates the need for both genders to have equally similar, cooperative gender life goals, and equally similar methods to realize them. But as with most feminine-primary social engineering, Mother Nature and men and women’s biological imperatives are always at odds with this.

Generally this assimilation of a commonized sexual strategy is ingrained early on in men’s feminization conditioning. I use the term ‘assimilation’ because men are taught and conditioned to presume that the feminine sexual strategy (however most women subjectively choose to define it) is universally the correct strategy – and any deviation from what ultimately serves feminine hypergamy is met with ridicule at best, accusations of misogyny and ostracization at worst.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Roissy dropped this maxim years ago, but in its simplicity it defines the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies as they apply to a post-sexual revolution, feminine-primary society. Remove all constraints on hypergamy, maximally forcing men to compromise or abandon the male sexual strategy.

As I outlined in the last post, feminine hypergamy essentially revolves around optimizing (and maximally protracting) women’s unilateral sexual selection from Good Genes men and Good Dad’s men. Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

From a biological perspective men’s sexual imperative is one of unlimited access to unlimited sexual availability. This isn’t to discount the very strong impulse in men to seek assurances of paternity in the children they ultimately sire, however, prior to his parental investment, the male impetus is to seek unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.

When we consider a male sexual imperative in the biological respect, and the strategies men use to effect it, it becomes easier to understand the social conventions and engineering the Feminine Imperative uses to control and maximally restrict men as sexual selectors.

Widespread ubiquitous pornography and then the social pathologizing of the male sexual response (while empowering and encouraging the female sexual response) are two very easy observations of this control. However, when we consider paternity laws, legal bans on genetic paternity testing, outlawing testosterone while making female hormones readily available and many other legal and social trends that restrict the male control not just of women’s hypergamous priority, but any degree of a man’s shadow of his own sexual strategy’s control, Roissy’s maxim becomes all the more clear.

Is Game Adversarial?

Almost three years ago I considered this question in a post. My critic at the time posed this to me:

“My biggest problem with the Ro writers is that Game is by definition adversarial. It’s us against them, don’t let the bitch win. That is most definitely Rollo’s approach, yet he commands respect from men here. I can only assume that good men read a lot of Roissy, Roosh or Rollo, incorporate some small fraction of it, and use it to improve their relationships, rather than for nefarious means.”

It took time for me to come into an understanding of the real nature of this distortion concern until May’s tragic events and the deliberate misdirections that followed it in the media and the blogosphere proper.

Game is adversarial because it has to be. I’ve gone on record stating that Game is the logical response to the changes feminism has wrought in society and gender relations over the course of the last 60 or so years, but it’s really more than that.

Game is a threat to feminine-primacy because it returns a degree of control of sexual strategy prioritization back into the hands of men. Game challenges that maximal restriction of male sexuality and leverages (however marginally) some of women’s hypergamous choice to his own purpose.

The Feminine Imperative hates Game because it’s an effective tool against its control – so anyone steeped in the conditioning of the imperative will naturally perceive that challenge as being adversarial. You’ll notice this (female) critic’s first concern was to presume men would use Game and a red pill awareness for ‘nefarious’ ends. This is a prime illustration of that terror of losing hypergamous control.

Tricks and Traps

As I mentioned at the beginning, hypergamy does not seek it’s own level. An ever pragmatic evolution drives hypergamy to seek a better-than-equal pairing. This is the evolutionary jackpot: to combine and send one’s genes into future generations with a (at least perceptually) better than equitable genetic match – and ensure one’s progeny with a better than SMV equitable provisioning.

For all of the handwringing about assortive mating recently, evolution’s capacity to adapt stagnates and stunts under conditions of homogeny. It may occur under less than ideal circumstance from a moral perspective, but assortive mating is regularly thwarted by the (usually hypergamous) drive to mate with a better than equitable sexual market value than the lesser partner.

The problem with the assortive mating equation is that hypergamy has two sides and two (often conflicting) aspects to optimizing it – Good Genes / Good Dad (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks). Assortive mating is not the same order as assortive pairing.

Nature has selected-for women with an instinctual capacity to satisfy and optimize the visceral needs of short-term breeding and optimizing on the genetic aspects of hypergamy. However the better-than-SMV assortive pairing aspect  relies on men adhering to and behaving within defined roles in order to optimize it.

The Feminine Imperative needs honest provider males to behave predictably in order for women to select a better than equitable provider.

The Feminine Imperative demands assurances of both better than equitable breeding and better than equitable provisioning – and it’s got a very brief window of sexual peak SMV competitiveness in which to assure them.

The imperative needs men to fulfill these roles according to calculated and defined sexual stations of each man. So any duplicity or challenge on the part of men to this defined order is a threat to the assurances that women need to optimize hypergamy. Hypergamy’s optimal window of peak SMV for women can’t afford to be tricked into presuming men are anything less or more than their feminine sexual strategies define those men’s roles as.

Hypergamy can’t afford tricks, the ‘tricks’ that Game’s breaking of their sexual strategy’s code represents to women expecting to have their sexual strategy remain unilaterally dominant. As women’s comfort level has increased with the confidence that their strategy will contain that of men’s, they are that much more offended when their strategy is figured out and read back to them by red pill aware men.

It’s an uncomfortable reminder that they’ve traded their believed capacity to intuitively filter for themselves the men who best fill their hypergamous roles; traded that is for the comfort of having men socially controlled to expect to fulfill those roles as a default.

This outrage isn’t just limited to women’s hypergamous ‘exploratory’ years in her SMV peak. Whenever you read an article or hear some 33 year old woman lament the lack of marriageable men of ‘equal’ pairing to themselves (intellectually, professionally or otherwise) know that every cry of ‘Man Up’ is really a frustrated cry over men not playing by the conditioning the Feminine Imperative assured them men would play by, before or once they got to the point of losing the capacity to attract those men.

That’s the trap.

 

Controlling Interests

controlling

I realize I dropped this quote last week, but it provides us with a unique illustration of the prevailing feminine psychology that’s been evolving since the sexual revolution.

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

In last week’s post I made note that Sheryl Sandberg was blissfully ignorant of her blatant admission of feminine hypergamy, but I felt her ‘advice’ to women here represented so much more than just a display of her solipsistic ignorance.

For as long as I’ve butted heads with many obstinate deniers of hypergamy’s influences, on women personally and society on whole, I’m not sure I’ve read a more damning indictment of hypergamy from a more influential woman. Sandberg’s advice to the next generation of women essentially puts the lie to, and exposes the uncomfortable truth about, women’s efforts deny the fundamental dynamic of female sexual strategy – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

Even if you want to argue the evolutionary (psychology) and biological origins of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, the fact is now socially evident; women have come to a point where they’re comfortable in openly admitting the truth that Red Pill awareness has been drawing attention to for over a decade now.

Courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg, the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks basis of women’s sexual pluralism is now publicly recognized. It’s kind of ironic considering that what the manosphere has been trying to make men aware of for years is now being co-opted, embraced and owned as if women had always practiced an open sexual pluralism – incredulous to any man’s shock over it.

However, the truth is that a feminine-centric social order can no longer hide the increasingly obvious fallout and consequences of a society restructured to accommodate women as the predominant sexual interest.

Last week I speculated that Sandberg was ignorant of the feminine-primary implications that her statements draw attention to – and I’m still of the opinion that an innate feminine solipsism motivates more and more women to this admission – but it’s impossible to ignore the new degree of comfort in which women feel in laying bare their dualistic sexual strategy.

To some significant extent the Feminine Imperative no longer needs to keep the ‘Good Genes’ / ‘Good Dad’ dichotomy ugliness a secret from men.

In last week’s post I mentioned that a new ambient sense of an assured long-term security in the feminine mind was predisposing women to prioritize the ‘Best Genes’ (Alpha Fucks) side of feminine hypergamy. Sandberg’s ‘advice’ is a vital confirmation of this, however, she tacitly acknowledges a window of  opportunity during which women possess a better capacity to pursue this side of hypergamy:

The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner.

In these two sentences Sheryl (and by extensions the Feminine Imperative) essentially confirms women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, my (now infamous) sexual market value graph depicting women’s peak SMV and decay, and the first half of the time line of women’s phases of maturity I laid forth in the first two installments of the Preventative Medicine series.

Selling the Beta

With regards to men, I believe the most salient part of Sandberg’s admission is found at the end:

These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.

For the better half of the time since the sexual revolution it was necessary for the Feminine Imperative to convince a majority of men that their eventual Beta providership for women was not only their duty, but also a prime aspect of feminine attraction. As I mentioned last week, under the (pre-sexual revolution) old-order attraction model this may have been the case to a large degree. However after the revolution, and as women’s hypergamy prioritized towards ‘Good Genes’ short-term sexual partners, the ‘Good Dad’ (Beta Bucks) men needed an ever increasing ‘sell’ of their own attractiveness by women.

This persistent sell was a necessary element of ensuring a future long-term security for women while pursuing increasingly more short-term breeding opportunities as feminine-primacy expanded into society. The future ‘Good Dads’ would need to be patiently waiting out women’s “indiscretion years” during their SMV peak, so the sell became an ever-evolving definition of what women found attractive in men based on that old-order model of dependability, patience, industriousness, and every other characteristic that defined a good provider.

Quoted from Why Muscularity is Sexy:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

Strategic pluralism theory is a pretty good definition of feminine hypergamy, but what this theory hadn’t yet accounted for (at the time it was published) was the necessitousness of women with regards to short-term mating strategies and long-term parental investment opportunities over the course of the various phases of maturity as they aged.

The Beta investment sell was necessary because it ensured male parental investment at a later (usually just-pre-Wall) time in a woman’s life. Thus, Sandberg’s praise of men “who think women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. [Men] who value fairness and expect or, even better, want to do his share in the home” will eventually be sexier than the Alpha “bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys” she encourages women to fuck earlier in life is an excellent example of this sell.

Ironically it’s exactly with this sell that women encourage the very transactional nature of sexual relations with men they’re screeching about recently. It’s the Choreplay fallacy on a meta scale – do more around the house, play into the equalitarian schema women think they need in a provider, support her ambitiousness and opinionatedness and you’ll be considered “sexier” and get her Best Sex she’s been saving just for a guy like this.

Building the Beta

The problem the Feminine Imperative runs into with selling the Beta is that as women’s “independence” expands this sell becomes less necessary and less effective. Less necessary because women’s personal, social and legal long-term security insurances have become almost entirely disconnected from men’s direct (not indirect) provisioning. Less effective because men have become increasingly aware of their disenfranchisement of the old-order provisioning model as being something they might equitably be rewarded for.

As the consequences and repercussions of women’s hypergamous priority shift to Alpha Fucks become more evident and real for men; and as their capacity and comfort with connecting and relating these experiences with other men becomes more widespread, the less effective the sell is for Beta men awaiting their turn to enter into a pre or post Wall monogamy with the women attempting the sell.

Throughout the 70’s, 80’s and most of the 90’s, the sell was effective because men were isolated socially and technologically from each other’s relative experiences. From the late 90’s onward that isolation has diminished while the societal results of feminine-primacy have become more glaringly, and painfully, evident to men.

In its ever-reinventive fluidity, the Feminine Imperative found it necessary to transition from selling men on being later and later life long-term providers for women into building a generation of men who would expect of themselves to fulfill that role when the time came. These men would be raised and conditioned to be the patient Beta providers women would need once they had followed the Sandberg model of hypergamy.

These would be the boys / men who would be taught to “naturally” defer to the authority of women under the auspices of a desire to be an equal partner.

These are the men raised privately and created socially to be ready for women, “when it comes time to settle down, and find someone who wants an equal partner.”

These would be the men ready to expect and accept a woman’s proactive cuckoldry of him in the name of being a pro-feminine equal.

These are the men raised to accept an open form of hypergamy in place of the selling to an old-order Beta provisioning model.

The Hypergamy Schism

The problem this creates for women becomes one of dealing with the men they need to sell a secretive hypergamy to and the men they build to accept an open form of hypergamy to. The increasing comfort with an open admission of hypergamy is relative to a woman’s capacity to get away with it.

A woman like Sheryl Sandberg has the means to decisively ensure her future independence and long-term security (at least in the financial sense) whether she’s married or not. She could very well return to the Bad Boys she found so arousing and advises women ‘date’ and never rely on a man’s direct provisioning. As such she’s very comfortable in publicly revealing the ins and outs of post-sexual revolution hypergamy without so much as an afterthought.

While she publicly affirms the build model of Beta provisioning (under the guise of equalism) and expects “those guys will be awaiting you” this doesn’t hold true for a majority of women. Women with affluence enough, or a physical attractiveness sufficient to virtually ensure their future provisioning are much more comfortable with the build a better Beta model than women who find themselves more lacking in this assurance.

The more necessitous a woman finds herself in the sexual marketplace, the more likely she is to deny the mechanics of her own hypergamy.

A woman less confident in consolidating on her future long-term security (and / or cooperative parental investment) has a much more personal investment in keeping the truths of hypergamy a secret from men. As such, these women will be more predisposed to misdirecting the men becoming more aware of this truth and relying more on the selling model of Beta provisioning.

Needless to say this split between women comfortable in open hypergamy and women reliant upon secretive hypergamy is a point of conflict between the have’s and have not women in the sexual marketplace. The more men become aware of women’s hypergamy and strategic sexual pluralism, through women’s open embrace of it or the manosphere, the more pressure the ‘have not’ women will feel to also embrace that openness.

Owed Sex

ron-hermione

In the aftermath of the Eliot Rodger’s tragedy there was one resounding go-to mantra from mainstream media, blue pill plugins and the femintariat alike…

“Men are not owed sex for anything.”

Last week I left a couple of comments on Dalrock’s blog outlining my expectations of having this be the first easily consumable public meme.

In its entirety:

This is the first binary retort I expect from feminists unwilling to dig any deeper into the transactional nature of human sexuality. God bless Roosh, but he didn’t do the manosphere any favors by simply stating that incidents like Eliot Rodger’s wouldn’t occur if men had more socially acceptable alternatives for sexual release or female intimacy, and then just leave the interpretation up to a media founded on feminism and feminine-primacy.

I get what his intent was, and probably most of the manosphere did too, but it was just too oversimplified not to be snapped up in the most binary (black or white) terms by feminist, like Linker, and the MSM as an easy mark to line up against. So of course “men” and fem-centrists throw out stupid bromides like “what, do we need ‘sex vending machines’ to keep men’s urges in tact so they wont shoot the pretty blondes they wanna fuck?”

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.

To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.

The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.

This first comment was in response to the Damon Linker article Dalrock was picking apart. I won’t steal Dal’s thunder, so if you’re interested in that full article go have a read of it in its entirety. Later Dal asked me to clarify what I meant about men “forcibly assuming control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.”

I’m not clear on what you mean here, and fear that others will take this as a justification of rape. What do you mean by “forcibly”? Are you talking about Game?

To which my comment was, again, in its entirety:

Game, rape, guilt, shame, prearranged marriage, obligation, moral enforcement, really anything that removes or limits a woman’s hypergamous filtering and puts that control into the decision making process of men.

In the case of Rodger, although his killings don’t bear it out, his intent, at least as interpreted by a feminized MSM, was a presumed obligation on the part of women (and top shelf women no less) to recognize his self-perceived superior qualifications for their intimacy and reward him with sex, love, adoration, affection, etc.

Granted, the kid was a sperg with a list of very real psychological disorders, but the only thing a fem-centric society focuses on is the audacity he had in presuming he, and by association Any Man®, could assume control of a woman’s hypergamous filtering – in this case via an implied obligation.

The Two Sides of Hypergamy

Anyone who’s read the first part of my Preventative Medicine series understands the dual nature of feminine hypergamy. From a biological level to a social level, feminine hypergamy demands the optimization of two disparate elements: securing the best genetic (breeding) option a woman can attract, and the best long-term provisioning (security) option she can attract in a male. From biologically prompted mating behaviors to contemporary social entitlements, women seek a balance between breeding optimization and security optimization – preferably in the same man, but failing this, optimally in different men.

I’ve written about women’s security needs in various posts, but it’s important to understand that optimizing a woman’s best available options for hypergamy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) prompts a deep, evolved, psychological need for certainty. Feminine Hypergamy is defined by a profound, often life-long, uncertainty and doubt over the choices she makes in breeding and / or bonding with a given pool of men in her lifetime.

The Need for Certainty

Women’s sexual filtering, vetting, nagging, shit testing, as well as many other evolved habits are all subconsciously inspired by a need for hypergamic certainty.

In a pre-sexual revolution social order, a woman’s capacity to optimize her hypergamy (and pacify the uncertainty) had a variety of extrinsic limitations.

Some of these I listed in my comment to Dalrock; guilt, cultural stigma, shame, moral and religious conviction, obligations to family, arranged marriages, polygamy, and yes, rape, were all a means to limiting a woman’s decision making capacity to optimize her innate hypergamy.

Before I continue, let me state in no unclear terms, rape, in its most visceral definition, is bad. I don’t believe the general population of men need a lesson in yet more feminine shaming efforts to understand this simple idea. As most readers know, it’s generally my practice to describe things – not to prescribe things – and allow readers to make their own moral conclusions, but I’ll break form in this case.

Any given reader may see a positive or a negative argument for limiting feminine hypergamy via cultural or religious doctrines, but I am not now, nor will I ever, endorse forced sexual penetration on women (or men) as anything but a negative. However, in light of its undeniable limiting of feminine hypergamous choice, throughout human history, rape is the most direct way men have most decisively removed a woman’s hypergamic decision making capacity. To ignore this truth, or to be cowed by even the thought of considering it, is to deny the obvious.

In a post-sexual revolution social order, women’s control over their hypergamy is only limited by their capacity to attract the best prospective mate their sexuality, personality and physicality will afford them. Whether provided for by the state, personal independence or other means women in a post-sexual revolution era, to a larger degree than any other time in western history, have the security side of their hypergamic optimization virtually guaranteed.

Even with women for whom this security isn’t fully realized, the greater social undercurrent for the past 60 years has been one which presents women with a social responsibility to break away from provisional dependency on men, thus granting women unilateral control over their hypergamous decision making.

Whether this security-side assurance comes from legal institutions, abortion laws, paternity laws, the advent of no fault divorce, child custody and support distribution, or, the security guarantee comes in the form of social conventions which foster the expectation of men to be bound to a one-sided provisioning contract, the modern message is clear for women; Independence from the necessity of men’s provisioning largely reduces or eliminates the uncertainty of  long-term security.

Or in other words, unilateral control of a woman’s hypergamy means Beta Bucks now takes a backseat to Alpha Fucks.

The Old-Order

The provisioning and personal investment in character, masculine virtue and ambition that made the, pre-sexual revolution, old order man an attractive prospect for a woman’s security-side hypergamy no longer carry the necessary appeal they did to ensure he would attract a marriageable woman. For women, the old order of attraction was based primarily on the security side of her hypergamous need because this was the most uncertain aspect she could secure in a social climate where her hypergamous decision making was more constrained.

Not unsurprisingly, women’s prioritizing long-term security inspired men to accommodate it by cultivating provider characteristics in themselves in order to be attractive. This isn’t to say the same Alpha side arousal we see in women’s sexual prioritization today wasn’t important, or tingle generating. Rather, the old social order prioritized women’s security needs since the Alpha Fucks side of her hypergamy was buffered by women’s general dependence on a man’s long-term provisioning.

The problem now is that, since the sexual revolution, the majority of (Beta) men are still raised and conditioned in this old-order context, based on an outmoded social contract that they were taught to ego-invest themselves into in order to best effect their own sexual strategy.

Although it’s the easiest dismissal fem-centric society would have anyone believe, only the most ignorant and self-important of men would ever come to the conclusion that they were owed (in the most transactional sense) the sexual and intimate affections of a woman in exchange for his personal investment, resources, dedication and acts of kindness. Certainly not men raised and conditioned to defer to a woman’s honor and respect, by default, above his own.

However, due to the old order social conditioning that taught them that a man in the unquestioning service of a woman’s security-side hypergamy should be the pinnacle of attraction, their conflict comes not in being denied an owed reward, but rather that rewards of sex, love, adoration, affection, respect, etc. the old-order convinced them they can and should earn is observably being offered to men who embody the exact opposite of his old order conditioning.

Relational Equity vs. Alpha Fucks

Deti picked up on this conflict in the comments of last week’s post:

We as human beings need to eliminate the words “deserve” and “entitled” from our vocabularies. Women are not entitled to anything from men; just as men are not entitled to anything from women. This entire “male sexual entitlement” strawman that our opponents have erected is just bull, plain and simple. Men do not go around claiming “entitlement” to sex; only psychopaths and mental defectives do that.

For anyone unacquainted with the fallacy of Relational Equity, I’d suggest reading that post to get some familiarity. Relational Equity is the idea that the more a man invests himself into his relationship, all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. equity he accrues for that dedication and commitment should be rationally appreciated by a woman and thus a buffer against the Alpha Fucks side of feminine hypergamy.

In essence this fallacy is the is rooted in the old order, security-side dependence of women’s hypergamy – the trust is that Beta Bucks will trump Alpha Fucks.

A man’s ego-investment into this fallacy is often the cause of his want to define Alpha in his own image, rather than remove his ego from the process and observe how women react and behave around men they actually have an Alpha arousal for. An example of this old order Beta disconnect is embodied in the person of Corey Worthington (a.k.a. the Alpha Buddah):

Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. 3 failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with his having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who’ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course.

I wrote this almost three years ago, but the parallels of this ‘Alpha in his own image’ dynamic that Eliot Rodger shared with men conditioned in the old order of earning or meriting women’s intimacy are undeniable. Despite Arthur Chu’s male-apologetic mewling, it’s not that men like this feel ‘entitled‘ to or ‘owed‘ sex with their idealized women, but they do feel their investments in a relational equity, and what they’ve been conditioned to believe should qualify them for women’s attentions have been betrayed to men who gratify the Alpha Fucks side of women’s hypergamous natures.

Feminine-Primary Assortive Mating

 “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

Ironically the best spokeswoman to illustrate the dichotomy between both sides of women’s hypergamy should be Sheryl Sandberg – the voice and embodiment of several generations of women raised on the Feminine Imperative and unilaterally unrestrained hypergamy. So oblivious is Sandberg to her feminine-primary, solipsistic confirmation of hypergamy that it never occurs to her that men would be anything but accommodating of her life-plan advice for younger generations of women. It never occurs to her that a “man who values fairness” would ever reject her (much less despise her) for the duplicity that women’s dualistic sexual strategy disenfranchises men of.

So you see, it’s not a red pill awakening that predisposes men to believing they’re ‘owed’, ‘entitled to’ or ‘deserving’ of sex, love, adoration, affection or anything else from women – it’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men – and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.

 

Male Space

female-boss-motorboat-elite-daily

There’s an interesting discussion that’s been belabored in the manosphere for a while now, that of traditionally “male spaces” being infiltrated by women and / or being redefined by feminized restructuring. The modern, western, workplace is the easiest example of this, but whether it’s the recent inclusion of women in the formerly all-male membership of Augusta Golf Club, or the lifting of the ban on women (and accommodating their prevalent physical deficits) being in combat roles in the military, the message ought to be clearer to red pill men; the feminine imperative has a vested interest in inserting itself into every condition of male exclusivity.

Whether this condition is an all male club or cohort (gender segregated team sports for example) or a personal state that is typically attributed only to the masculine – characteristic strength, rationality, decisiveness, risk taking, even brashness or vulgarity – the Feminine Imperative encourages women to insert themselves, and by association the Feminine Imperative itself, into masculine exclusivity. Scout Willis’ (Bruce Willis’ daughter) most recent ‘activism’ to encourage female equality by going topless in public is an example of this female-to-male parity (google it) – in an equalist utopia, if men can do it, women should be able to as well.

The First Woman

This push into male space is rarely due to a true desire to belong to a traditionally all-male institution or condition, but women are encouraged to believe they’ll make some dent in the universe simply by being the first to push past a “gender barrier.” It’s not about making a true contribution to that male institution or endeavor, but rather a goal of being ‘the first woman to do it too’.

For all of the misdirections of a hoped for equalism, it’s not about becoming an astronaut for a woman, but rather becoming the first woman–astronaut – then moving on to being the first woman assigned to a combat role in the military, then the first woman to play at Augusta. If equalism were the real intent, we could expect the desire of the endeavor itself would supersede this, but  the Feminine Imperative motivates women (and socially demotivates men’s resistance) to the first woman goal, not the actual accomplishment or excellence in that accomplishment or endeavor. The trail being blazed is less important than being the first woman trailblazer – in fact it can simply be the same trail men blazed centuries before and still be recognized as a significant accomplishment.

The goal is to be a woman in male space.

The cover story is the same trope the Feminine Imperative (and its social arm, feminism) always finds useful; the never ending push towards gender equalism. The practice however reveals the push into male space serves two purposes – social control and male oversight.

Social control is the easier of the two to grasp. Even when changing the rules of an all-male game to accommodate a lack of genuine female interest in a male endeavor, it fundamentally alters the nature of that game. The first woman allowed participation in that game is novelty enough to extend the Feminine Imperative’s social control into that male space (i.e. “nowadays women do it too”).

An easy example of this would be NASCAR’s embracing a driver like Danica Patrick. It’s not that she’s an exceptional driver, and I can’t vouch for her genuine passion for NASCAR, but the social control she represents is that she is the first woman to (dubiously) be taken seriously in the nominally all-male space of NASCAR drivers. The goal has been achieved, all that’s left now is female oversight of this male space.

Overseers in the Locker Room

The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.

When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting maintaining the former level of interest in the endeavor.

Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; According to their proper feminized conditioning, they embrace the opportunity to impress these ‘trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their feminine overseer(s), or they become easy foils of an “out moded” way of thinking that the new ‘in-group’ happily labels them with.

Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ‘feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space, while in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on out-group men’s failure to comply with, or the rejection of, the Feminine Imperative’s ‘correcting’ influence on the in-group.

‘Bro Culture’

When I was writing The Apologists I briefly delved into the topic of Bro Culture. It seems that a constantly self-reinventing feminism loves to attach “culture” to the end of anything it sees as threatening – Rape Culture, Male culture of privilege, and of course Bro Culture. Make no mistake, the concept of Bro Culture is an operative feminine social convention. It may be convenient to think of the stereotype of Bro Culture as a male creation, but this convention is the direct result of the Feminine Imperative’s controlling need to insert itself into male spaces.

There are other feminine social conventions with the same latent purpose, but the ‘Bro Culture’ meme is really a dual purpose shaming tactic intended to restrict and control traditional male bonding while also fostering infighting amongst in-group and out-group men once feminine influence has been established in a formerly all-male space.

One of the most threatening aspects of conventional masculinity for the Feminine Imperative is the cooperative potential of male bonding. When only men comprise an in-group, team building, common purpose and a masculine-primary environment tend to define that group. I would argue that the modern insertion of feminine influence into all male spaces is a concerted effort to limit this bonding and unity in favor of a feminine-primary ‘correctness’.

This limitation may not be directly influenced by a present female; often all that’s needed to foster feminine-primary correctness is a feminine-identifying male in the in-group (anonymous White Knight), or even just a prevailing attitude of not wanting to offend the suspicions that other in-group men may subscribe to this feminine-identifying influence for fear it may get back to a woman they perceive may have authority.

Infighting

From The Apologists:

This is the hallmark of a feminized Beta mindset – to believe that “guys being guys” is inherently aberrant. It’s something other guys do. I could go into detail about how men giving each other shit is an evolutionary (and useful) vestige of tribalism and how men would use this “challenging” to ensure the strength and survivability of the collective, but this will only grate against his ‘gender-as-social-construct’ belief.

This discomfort with ‘being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual dividends. These are the guys who never ‘got it’ that shit talking and locker room jabs (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective of humanity.

The fact that ‘Bro Culture’ is even a term, or the go-to archetypal examples of it begins with stereotypical jocks, “douchebags” and team sport locker rooms, illustrates the threat to which male-exclusive forms of communication poses to the Feminine Imperative. If male space can be co-opted in the name of gender equalism, it’s far easier to restrict that male communication and influence it to encourage a sense of responsibility towards  feminine-primary security needs. In other words, it’s a much easier task to create future Beta providers if a feminine influence can pervade all male spaces – this is facilitated all the better when it is men themselves who hold other men accountable to the dictates of the Feminine Imperative and feminine sexual strategies.

I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of the way men communicate, test each other, hone each other, give each other shit, etc. being primarily defined in the context of Bro Culture, douchebaggery, team sports, etc. That intra-male dynamic crosses so many social, racial and cultural strata it becomes an overarching threat to the Feminine Imperative.

It’s an easy task to set men against each other when they perceive sexual rivals to be part of an out-group, and feminine influence in male space fosters this passive (sometimes active) infighting amongst men. Disrupting male bonding, or even the potential for it, limits men’s potential to unify in their own interests and their own imperatives. There are many in-group examples of all male space where this infighting and resentment plays out – it’s important to understand that male-exclusive forms of communication, testing, encouragement and shit talking, are in no way limited to just the locker room. Even guys in the chess club will give each other shit – at least until the Feminine Imperative inserts itself there.

Resisting the Influence

I can’t end this post without drawing attention to the all male meta-space that has become the gestalt of the manosphere. The manosphere is male space writ large and a testament to what men can do when they come together, share experience and put their minds to a common purpose. The methods may vary, but the desire to collectivize male experience for the benefit of other men is a meta-scale form of male bonding.

And as should be expected, there will be resistance to that communication and bonding on a comparatively meta-scale by the Feminine Imperative and the men and women who subscribe to it. I should also add that a very obvious attempt on women’s inclusion into red pill ideology, theory and practice is also a move by the feminine into a male space with much of the same purpose I’ve outlined here – social control and female oversight of it.

Even the most well meaning of women involved (however peripherally) in the manosphere are still motivated by their innate security needs – and those hypergamous security needs imply a want for certainty and control. As such the psychological influence of the Feminine Imperative will always be a predominant motivator in their participation in this all male space. This leads women to a want to sanitize Game to fit the purposes of the imperative, as well as oversee the thought processes of the men who come to participate in it.

Just like any other male space, the manosphere is subject to all the sanitization efforts of the Feminine Imperative I’ve outlined in this post – by both women and men who still ascribe to feminine-primacy.

Intersexual Hierarchies – Part I

One of the withdrawal symptoms of unplugging from the Matrix is usually an overwhelming nihilism that results from being torn away from the previous blue pill preconceptions a man has been conditioned to for most of his life. It’s my hope that in the future red pill men will make the necessary interventions and apply what they’ve learned from their unplugging and red pill truths in general towards their sons (and daughters) as well as other men they know or are related to. Until then, the process of breaking away from that conditioning is usually going to begin as the result of a traumatic breakup, a divorce, or having had the relational equity he thought he’d built a long term relationship on proved worthless in the face of hypergamy.

It’s a sad reality of unplugging that it most often starts as a result of emotional anguish, but to pour salt in those wounds is then having to live with the harsh realities that the red pill makes men aware of – that more or less everything they’d held as an ego-investment up to that point was founded on a feminine-primary conditioning. I summed this up in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.

Try to keep this last part in mind as you read what I propose in these next two posts. I read a lot of guys in various forums getting despondent after having the red pill make sense to them, but that despondency is really a simple lack of not having a path already preset for them to follow. Instead of the easy answers and prerequisite responsibilities that the blue pill and the Feminine Imperative had ready for him to follow, now in his new awareness he’s tasked with making a new path for himself, and that’s both scary and exciting at the same time.

Love Styles

In almost 3 years of blogging and a book written, my three most popular posts have been the Love series – Women in Love, Men in Love and Of Love and War. Though my SMV graph gets the most link backs, these are easily the most viewed posts on Rational Male. Unfortunately they’re often the most misquoted and misunderstood.

One of the toughest revelations of the red pill is coming to terms with the difference in experience and concept that men and women apply to love. The core principle in Women in Love is often misunderstood. For different reasons, deliberate or otherwise, both men and women critically misunderstand the main premise of that post:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #6
Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

Most critics of my differing assessment of how either sex interprets and considers love tend to blow past this last part. They oversimplify my meaning and sputter out something to the effect of, “That Tomassi guy thinks that women can’t ever really love men, what preposterous crap!”

Of course that isn’t my assertion, but I understand the want to dismiss this notion, particularly for men and women invested in the ideal of equalitarianism. It’s a threat to the ego-investment that men and women are anything less than fully equal and rational agents who come together for each other’s mutually agreeable benefit. The simple fact of women’s innate hypergamy puts the lie to this presumption, as well as confirms the relevancy of women’s constant, qualitative conditionality for whom (really what) they’ll love. I think it’s ironic that the same people who disparage this concept are among the first to readily embrace the pop-psychology notion of Love Languages.

I get why that premise pisses off women (and feminized men); it’s very unflattering to be accused of loving men from a position of opportunism. However, it’s important to understand that I don’t make this observation to condemn the way women approach love – although I’m sure it will follow, my point isn’t to presume a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way for women to love men or vice versa. There are beneficial and detrimental aspects of both women’s opportunistic approach to love, and men’s idealistic approach to love. That said, I happen to believe that the differing ways men and women love each other evolved to be complementary to the other and for the betterment of our species.

For all the “OMG I can’t believe this red pill asshole thinks women can’t really love men” misdirection, I should point out that well intentioned men, especially the newly red pill, are also guilty of the same oversimplification. Theirs is an attempt to find validation in the (usually recent) trauma of having been cut away from their prior blue pill conditioning. A similar, “Rollo says women can’t really love men, of course, it’s all so clear to me now” satisfies a simplistic need for confirmation of their former condition.

And again, it’s not a right or wrong way of loving, it’s the lack of recognizing the difference and being on the punishing side of that lack. Most men will want to apply their concepts of honor or justice in assessing how ‘right’ men’s idealistic love is, while women will still see the inherent value in loving what a man is as a prerequisite for loving who a man is. Hypergamy doesn’t care about men’s idealistic expectations of love, but neither does men’s rationality make concessions for what facilitates women’s opportunistic approach to love.

Romantic Souls

From The Red Pill subreddit:

My whole life, I’ve had it nailed into me that I would be able to find true love if I was honest and hardworking. As I grew older it was, “If I’m somewhat fit and have a good job making 60k-80k a year, I’ll find that beautiful girl that loves me as I love her“.

As I’ve stated on many occasions, it is men who are the True Romantics. Granted, it’s the unthoughtful result of centuries of evolved ‘courtly love’, but in the realm of what qualifies as a true act of romance, it’s men who are the primary actors; it’s men who ‘make’ (or want to make) romance happen. And of course therein lies the problem, a man cannot ‘make’ romance happen for a woman.

For all a man’s very imaginative, creative, endeavors to manufacture a romance that will endear a woman to him, his ‘trying’ to do so is what disqualifies his intent. For every carefully preplanned ‘date night’ after marriage, there’s a college girl swooning to bang her boyfriend living in a shithole, sheets over the windows, furniture from the dumpster, pounding shitty beer and sleeping on a soiled mattress on the floor. Romance isn’t created, romance just happens, and it’s a tough, but valuable, lesson when men come to realize that a happenstance bag of skittles, or a ring made from a gum wrapper at the right time meant more to a woman than every expensively contrived ‘romantic getaway’ he’d ever thought would satisfy her need for lofty romance.

An important part of the red pill is learning that the most memorable acts of love a man can commit with a woman are acts of (seeming or genuine) spontaneity and never apparently and overtly planned (and yes, that applies to sex as well). This is a source of real frustration for a man since his blue pill conditioning expects the opposite from him, and his romantic nature – the nature that wants her to love him as he loves her – conspires with his problem solving nature, thus prompting him to ever greater romantic planning for what he hopes will be an appreciated, reciprocated love.

The Hierarchy

The true source of a man’s frustration lies in his misdirected hope that a woman’s concept of love matches his own. His ideal is a beautiful girl that loves him the same way he loves her. The presumption (a romantic one perpetuated by the myth of egalitarian equalism) is that his concept of idealized love is a universal one which women share with men in general and him in particular.

Thanks mostly to men’s blue pill conditioning, what most men fail to ever consider is that women’s hypergamic based love always considers what he is, before who he is. For a more detailed explanation of this I’ll refer you to my post Love Story. This is the root of the intersexual hierarchy of love.

Hierarchy1

Before the rise of feminine social primacy, the above ‘flow chart’ of love prioritization would hardly have been an afterthought for a man. Through any number of evolutionary and sociological progressions the base understanding of how Men’s love began from a position of protecting, provisioning for and directing of the lives of both his wife and children wasn’t a concern worth too much of his consideration. Neither was a prevailing desire for a reciprocal model of love an overshadowing concern.

To be sure, a baseline requirement of a returned love, sex, respect and fidelity were important elements, but this wasn’t the originating basis of male desire for being loved; there was no expectation of a woman loving him as he loved her (and by extension their children). To be a man was to have the capacity to provide a surplus beyond his own provisioning.

“A man provides, and he does it even when he’s not appreciated, or respected, or even loved. He simply bears up and he does it, because he’s a man.”

Gustavo’s monologue in my opening video may seem like an anachronism, especially in the light of a red pill awareness of the potential for injustice and the veritable certainty of a provisioning arrangement that will almost always be a one-sided proposition for a man – whether he’s loved, respected, appreciated, married or divorced.

Undoubtedly there’ll be men reading this bristling at the idea of a non-equitable model for love, but I’d argue that the idea of an equitable model is the result of the conditioning an egalitarian equalism has predisposed men to believe is even possible.

Before the rise of feminine primacy, a man’s expression of love through his support and guidance simply weren’t things women or children had the capacity to reciprocate. The advent of women’s independence, real or imagined, has served to strip men of this core understanding of the differences between male and female concepts of love. In the effort to feminize men more fully, and position men in a condition of confusion about what constitutes masculinity, this concept of love was replaced by a feminine-primary model for love.

While a woman’s respect, and a degree of love may flow back to her man, her primary love and concern is directed towards her children. One reason we’re still shocked by women who kill their children (pre or post natal) is due to an inherent acknowledgement of this natural dynamic. Women’s brain function and biochemistry largely evolved to predispose them to bonding with their children, and thus ensure the survival of the species. Beyond the rigors of physically gestating a child, raising children to self-sufficiency required a considerable investment of effort and resources – not to mention a constant attention. Nature selected-for women with an innate capacity to nurture and direct love primarily towards children.

The internal psychology women evolved to vet for men who displayed traits for both Alpha physical prowess and parental investment / provisioning potential are a result of children being a priority for a woman’s love. While a degree of maintaining a man’s continued commitment to the family unit requires her attentions in the form of sex and affections, a woman’s primary love focus is directed towards children.

Granted, not all women are capable of having children (or some even desirous of them), but even in these instances substitute love priorities still supersede directing her primary attention towards a man. It may seem like I’m attempting to paint women’s love as callous or indifferent, but this ‘directioning’ isn’t a conscious act, but rather due to the innate understanding that a man is to direction his love towards her as a priority.

 

This should give readers a bit to chew on for a while. In Part II I’ll detail the alternative hierarchy models prevalent for modern, post-feminine primacy relationships.

Preventative Medicine – Part II

Cougar-Cub-Curve

Navigating the SMV continues to be one of my most prolific posts. I can remember originally writing that post and plotting the graph as a one-off response to a comment (by Deti I think) made requesting a graphic representation of how both men and women’s SMV waxes and wanes as they progress through life. At the time I had no idea how influential and accurate the graph would be, but it seems that not every three or so months someone links or emails me an outside study with a graph that is so similar to my initial perception of sexual market valuation and devaluation that it kind of creeps me out a little bit.

This most recent graph comes to us courtesy of the Red Pill subreddit, linked to the Cougar and Cub Dating Study on Whatsyourprice.com.

From the chart above, we see that the perceived value of an attractive woman peaks when she reaches 25 years old, and gradually diminishes as she ages.  The perceived value of an attractive man however, starts at a much lower price when he is young, peaking only when he reaches the age of 34.  It appears from the value curve above that at least some stereotypes we often hear do hold some truth.  For example, that female models earn the most before they turn 30.  Or that men become more attractive as they age.

But no matter what some of you may read from the value curves above, it has proved a useful tool for predicting when Cougar-Cub couples get together, and when they are likely to break up.  The value curves also provide clues of what types of Cougar-Cub relationships stand the best chance of surviving in the long run.

Granted, my own parameters were slightly broader in scope (female SMV peaked at 22-23, men’s 36-38) but the base premise is astonishingly similar. As you might expect the comments are rife with “well-not-in-my-case”, “people are individuals” personal anecdotes, but the grouping of the graph plot is too similar not to recognize a consistency of form with my original SMV graph:

SMV_Curve

 

There are other studies and graphs that reflect this basic model. Some are more forgiving and project the feminine SMV decay a bit less or starting later – rarely is men’s SMV any less rigorous – and each study has differing objectives, but the form of the curves are so alike that it’s impossible not to notice the general similarities. I’ve done several followup posts in order to address the most common (deliberate) misunderstandings, as well as the most pressing questions about my SMV graph, so while we move on to the next section of the SMV timeline this week please be sure you reference the side bar category I have set up that exclusively covers the topic if you have questions. I’m prefacing this week’s continuation of Preventative Medicine with this graph because it will be an integral element to understanding the progression through the Epiphany and Transitionary phases.

 

Print

 

The Late Party Years

Although not a subsection itself, the latter third of a woman’s Party Years deserves some mention in that the end of this phase is often a prelude for the rationales women develop leading into the Epiphany Phase. As I mentioned here, some third party SMV studies will place a woman’s peak SMV as late as 25-26 years old. I’d argue that this is far too late in a woman’s life progression.

Statistically, most women express a desire to settle down, be married and start a family at or around the age of 27 to 30, and most marriages do happen between 26 and 30 for western women. The popularized, feminized ideal of a woman enjoying her prime – often excused as fulfilling her nebulous professional potential – is a primary contributor to this marriage postponement, but it’s important to point out to men dating women in this phase that the last two years of the party phase will be the stage at which a woman will begin to feel an urgency for long term commitment.

I summed this phase up in Cashing Out, however, it’s here that women, with the foresight to see it, will make their best attempts to consolidate on marriage with the man who best embodies, or has the potential to embody, the Alpha sexual-genetics with the providership parental investment that an optimized hypergamy seeks to balance in the same man. At no other time will a woman feel more urgency in capitalizing on her still prime attractiveness and sexual agency with a man she believes will fulfill the dual dictates of her sexual strategy.

“Where is this going?”

This is the most common phase in which a man will hear the words “where is this going?” from a woman, or is delivered ultimatums of withdrawal of intimacy (no more sex, or threats of break up) if no proposal is forthcoming in the foreseeable future.

Although women’s preferred method of communication rests in the covert, as she matures towards a condition of a lessened capacity to intra-sexually compete with her younger peers (competition anxiety) most men discover that women in this demographic, by necessity, lean more on overt communication. The coquetry, indirectness and blasé indifference that she used to hold and enjoy male attentions during her SMV peak years is progressively traded for more direct certainties of promised, committed assurances of future security.

Side note: Bear in mind that security for women isn’t always manifested as financial provisioning, but can be emotional investment, parental investment, physical security and most importantly fulfilling a masculine role of stability and dominance in her life.

Of primary importance is the consideration that women seek the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks (AFBB) balance of their hypergamous interests in the same man at this stage. That’s not to say this isn’t always the operative for feminine hypergamy, but it’s during the late party years phase that a woman (on some level of consciousness) begins to realize this time is her best opportunity to use her quick-burn SMV to consolidate on an optimized hypergamy. This isn’t due to premonitions of the Wall per se, but it is the first recognition of her diminishing capacity to sexually compete for male attention with young women experiencing their own SMV peak years.

During this period women will often make their first earnest attempts to find ways – sometimes by coercion – to ‘fix’ an Alpha into satisfying the Beta Bucks side of her hypergamy equation, or, to seriously evaluate an already committed Beta’s potential to ‘man up’ and be more Alpha, more ambitious and assesses (what she believes will be) his future SMV potential.

Lastly, bear in mind that women in this phase experience this urgency in direct proportion to what their looks, sexuality and command of male attention will afford them. It’s simple reasoning to figure that women who maintain their physical attractiveness / sexual agency and are consistently rewarded for it with male attention will prolong that state as long as possible. Thus, some attractive women may perpetuate their party years until such time as that attention abruptly ends.

The Epiphany and Transitory Phase

I’ve written extensively on these phases so please have a read of my prior posts The Epiphany Phase, Time’s Up and Cashing Out for a more in-depth understanding of what to expect from women during this stage of life.

Between the ages of 28 to about 30 (sometimes later for attractive women perpetuating their party years) women often enter into a more cognitive awareness of their personal conditions with regard to their declining SMV. This phase I call The Epiphany Phase; it is the point at which the subconscious awareness a woman has of her sexual market value in relation to her eventual date with the Wall can no longer be subconsciously repressed and ignored.

It is of primary importance to men to fully understand the significance this phase has for women. The epiphany isn’t about women hitting their SMV Wall  during this phase (though it’s possible) it’s about a woman conscientiously coming to terms with a markedly lessened capacity to sexually compete with her SMV-peak peers for the same male attention she enjoyed during her party years.

The abstract exaggeration is to think a woman necessarily hits the Wall at 30, her physical attractiveness shrivels and she magically transforms into a spinster cat lady overnight. Women absolutely (with effort) can and often do retain their looks and sexual agency past this phase; some into their late 30’s and 40’s.  However, what defines this phase is the conscious realization that their looks are no longer what they were in their prime. Combined with this is the awareness that they can no longer sexually compete at the same level as young women in their SMV peak for the attentions of men they now hope to consolidate their hypergamy on in long term commitment and provisioning security.

The Epiphany phase isn’t about women hitting the Wall so much as it is about an urgency to consolidate upon a man’s commitment of long term security with the competition anxiety that comes from realizing it’s now she who must to put forth the effort to secure it rather than having it offered to her as it was by the men in her SMV-peak years.

From The Epiphany Phase:

This is a precarious time for women where she makes attempts to reassess the last decade of her life. Women’s psychological rationalization engine (a.k.a. the Hamster) begins a furious effort to account for, and explain her reasonings for not having successfully secured a long term monogamous commitment from as Alpha a man as her attractiveness could attain for her. Even women married prior to this phase will go through some variation of self-doubt, or self-pity in dealing with the hypergamic uncertainty of her choice (“Is he really the best I could do?”).

A woman’s late party years are often the stage during which she entertains the hope that she can ‘civilize’ the Alpha Bad Boys who satisfy the visceral side of her hypergamy into assuming the providership role the other side of her hypergamy demands and is increasingly becoming more urgent for her – most Alpha Widows are made during this period. However, it’s during the Epiphany phase women (conveniently) make the rationalizations necessary for justifying this ‘fixing’ effort.

During the Epiphany Phase a woman’s inner and outer dialog is self-excusing, virtuously self-educational and self-congratulatory.

“I used to be so different in college, but I’ve grown personally” or “I’ve learned my lesson about pursuing the ‘wrong kind’ of men, I’m done with Bad Boys now” and “What happened to all the Nice Men?” are the standard clichés women will tell themselves and vocally (overtly) broadcast, directly or indirectly, to all the men with a providership potential in the hopes of signaling to them that she will now entertain their feminine-preconditioned offers of love, loyalty and dependability she had no interest in during her party years.

It’s during this stage that women will make radical shifts in their prioritization of what prerequisite traits qualify as ‘attractive’ in a man and attempt to turn over a new leaf by changing up their behaviors to align with this new persona they create for themselves. Since the physicality, sexual prowess and Alpha dominance that made up her former arousal cues in a Man aren’t as forthcoming from men as when she was in her sexual prime, she reprioritizes them with (presumed) preferences for more intrinsic male attributes that stress dependability, provisioning capacity, humor, intellect, and esoteric definitions of compatibility and intimacy.

For the spiritually inclined woman (which is to say most women) this may manifest in a convenient return to religious convictions she’d disregarded since her adolescence. For other’s it may be some kind of forced celibacy; a refusal to have sex under the hypergamic auspices of her ‘party years’ in the hopes that a well provisioning male (the ones not realizing their own potential SMV as yet) will appreciate her for her prudence – so unlike herself and all of the other girls who rejected him over the last decade.

The self-affirming psychological schema is one where she’s “finally doing the right thing”, when in fact she’s simply making the necessity of her long term provisioning and security a virtue she hopes men will appreciate. And if they don’t, then there’s always shaming them to think they’re ‘less-than-men’ for not living up to her eating her cake once she’s had it

While looks and masculine physical triggers in men are still an important attraction factor, her desire for a personal association with a man’s status and affluence begin to sublimate her physical priorities for attraction as she increasingly realizes the necessity of these attributes for her (and any offspring’s) long term provisioning. It should be noted that the appeal of a man’s potential for provisioning is proportional to her actual (or perceived) need for that provisioning.

As a woman moves into the Transitory phase (29-31) this re-prioritization also coincides with the adjusted self-perception of her own SMV. As a woman becomes more cognizant of her lessened ability to sexually compete for men who (she believes) would meet her best hypergamic balance, she’s forced to reassess her self-image. There are many feminine social conventions already pre-established to help her deny or buffer this reassessment. However, her hindbrain still acknowledges the competition anxiety that (unless, by effort or genetics, she’s a notable physical exception) she simply cannot command the kind of male attention women in their SMV-peak years do.

Note that the reality of this assessment, or realistic expectations of it, aren’t the source of this anxiety, but rather it’s what she believes them to be. An exceptionally attractive 30 year old woman may still be able to sexually select men above what most women her age can expect, but it’s what she believes about herself,  her internalized expectations for her age and party years experience has taught her. And as you may guess this self-assessment is also subject to the influences of social media and social conventions that pander to this same Transition period anxiety.

The Transition

I believe it was Roosh who stated that the only women who complain about men needing to Man Up or how men have somehow shirked the masculine responsibilities the Feminine Imperative society expects of them are always 30 years of age or older. Younger women simply have no motive to complain about what they believe they are entitled to in a man beyond his being ‘hawt’.

What I term as the Transition phase is the culmination of the Epiphany phase’s influence on a woman who’s thus far been unable to consolidate on monogamy with a male who fulfills the role of provider (Beta provider most often) that her hypergamy now holds in much higher priority order. When women in this phase complain of men’s “adequacy issues” what they’re really bemoaning is their chronic inability to find (or merit) a man who can balance the dual influences of her hypergamy.

The urgency for this consolidation is further compounded by the misconceptions most women hold about the Myth of the Biological clock, but in biological terms she’s well past the years of her prime fertility window and conceiving and bearing children becomes progressively more difficult for women with each passing year.

In the Transition phase the competition anxiety that prompted the Epiphany phase is exchanged for an anxiety that results from confronting the possibility a woman may never consolidate on a long term security. However, as always, feminine social conventions are already in place to absolve her of any real personal accountability for this incapacity.

Thus, begins the ‘Men are threatened by powerful women’, ‘Men have fragile egos’, ‘Men are shallow and only want young chippys they can manipulate instead of vibrant, women who are their intellectual equals’ and various other canards intended to simultaneously shame men into compliance with their hypergamous imperative and relieve women of any personal accountability for the anxiety the Transition phase forces them to experience.

In closing todays post, I think it’s important to consider other outcomes of personal decisions women often do make during these periods. As I mentioned in Part I, it’s not uncommon for women to already have consolidated on monogamy (LTR or marriage) well before either of these phase take place. While the experiences may differ, the underlying influences that prompt these phases remain more or less the same. I’ll elaborate more on this in Part III as it primarily relates to the later phases of women’s maturation process.

Women Talk, Men Do

talk

Towards the end of last week’s comment thread there were some very insightful questions about how Men and women communicate.

Jeremy:

Honestly, [Stingray], I’ve never met a woman who actually wanted…”deep meaningful conversations, often.” I think this is another lie that women tell themselves. What women seem to want, conversationally, is an authority figure. They want someone who can talk for hours about things they have no understanding of. They want to be intellectually dazzled more than participate in a “deep meaningful conversation.”

[…] To be honest, and this will sound like I’m being arrogant, most women I’ve spent any time conversing with are poorly-read, lacking creative thoughts, and have an abysmal understanding of politics and the world at large. Having said that, I still can’t stand it when women say nothing on a date.

Yohami:

”deep meaningful conversations” for a woman, means “emotional stuff about how I feel and what I want”, “reaffirmation and validation of my viewpoints” and of course “entertain me with stories that show me your character and make me feel good about myself for being with you”

So of course they want that often.

jf12:

Yohami, deep doesn’t mean just telling her how you feel about her feelings, it means also helping her to uncover her inner goodness in the way that she agonized for almost a few moments when she betrayed one friend at the expense of another. In other words, you hold your metaphorical conch of an echo chamber to her metaphorical ear and its solipsistic otoacoustic emissions, and she can hear what she wants to hear, deeply.

Stingray:

Woman are not good at and hate what men mean by a deep meaningful conversation. The argument and debate, presenting and then criticizing ideas, and the ad hominems (that so often you all can then get up from the table and it is ALL over). That is not our idea of deep conversation at all. Then the feelings are NOT good and most women hate it.

Deti:

And the last thing a woman wants in a “deep, meaningful conversation is for the guy to talk about things important to HIM or, even worse, about HIS feelings. HIS feelings, wants, needs, and desires are the LAST things she wants to talk about because that’s so….beta.

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.

Women talk, Men do.

Josey Wales:

Women typically don’t give a shit about world affairs, history, etc. They just don’t seem interested in pondering, learning about, debating the big issues.

There has to be a bio/evo explanation for this, and my best guess is that women’s concerns/interests have always been more provincial, localized and trivial. Picture a bunch of women sitting around a campfire hen party cluck session in primitive societies… Sharing gossip as they threshed the grain or made clothes.

I’m inclined to agree this. It’s no secret that men and women’s brains are wired differently, but what’s interesting is the complementarity between between both sex’s brains. It’s a mistake to think that women’s neural predilections for emotion and intuitiveness is inherently a weakness or a liability, but it’s equally a mistake to think that men’s dispositions towards rationalism, problem solving and inventiveness.

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.”

This pretty much confirms men and women’s communicative methods I outlined in 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.

From an evolutionary perspective, it’s likely that in 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 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 predispositions is likely due to how women’s ‘hard-wiring’ evolved as part of the circumstances of their tribal roles.

Men Like Women

When a man attempts to communicate like a woman (context-primary), women associate him with the feminine (i.e. he talks like a woman). This subconsciously indicates to her that a guy is Beta and making concessions of his maleness to better identify with the feminine. When you read about angry women feeling duped by the Nice Guy, who was only ‘playing nice’ in order to earn her intimacies, that deception is rooted in a guy relating to women as a woman would.

As you’re probably guessing, with the rise of social feminization, post-sexual revolution, men have been socialized and acculturated to express themselves increasingly as a woman would. This is part of boys-men’s earliest feminine conditioning; a calculated effort by the Feminine Imperative to train men to communicate as women do. I call this men’s “sensitivity training”, but in essence it’s a social effort to force men to rewire their brains to better accommodate a feminine-primary society. “Get in touch with your feminine side”, is really a plea for men to contort their natural ways of communicating into a feminine aligned mode of communicating.

The results however are very much the same as the faux-nice guy effect I describe. There is a subtle disingenuousness that the feminine mind perceives when a man communicates as a woman would. Alpha Men wouldn’t care enough to accommodate women’s communication preferences.

Incongruent communication styles is a tough obstacle for blue pill men to overcome when transitioning to red pill Game-awareness. The sincerity they hope to convey to women about their intentions is incongruous with how women’s limbic understanding of male communication style works. Men are men, because they talk ‘like men’ and are concerned with what Men are concerned with. Granted, the socialization of men to be more feminine-oriented doesn’t do a man any favors in unlearning this, but overcoming the fear of asserting himself as a Man and communicating to a woman as a Man would is imperative.

As most of the male commenters above will attest, there comes a point (usually for older, mature men with the experience to know) where forcing himself to relate to a woman on her terms is simply exhausting. It becomes mentally taxing to maintain interest – at some point men will want to speak their own language, feminine-primacy be damned, but it’s when he does revert back to his native gender language that he becomes more attractive.

When a Man drops the pretense of catering to the feminine, this is when he sets himself apart as a truly masculine agent. He is unapologetically masculine, and that is the mark of an Alpha – to not bend over into the feminine to better identify himself with the feminine. There is strength(and tingles) in our differences from women. So if you’re a newly red pill Man, start making efforts to consciously identify where you’re aligning yourself, your beliefs, your personality with accommodating the feminine and start unapologetically shifting them to a masculine-primary purpose.