hypergamy

Assurances

circusgirl

In 2015 women were offered workplace benefits that would allow them to freeze their eggs in order to grant them a promise of a future family irrespective of the personal or career choices they make in life. Granted, this benefit is only reserved for higher up positions in select tech firms that can afford to make a showing of concern for women’s professional and family aspirations (as a PR effort), but the message of even having an option to reserve giving birth at a later phase in life is clear:

Women want an assurance of Hypergamous optimization.

Whether it’s on the personal scale of socially engineering generations of men to accommodate this, or on the larger, more direct scale of legislating those assurances into common law, the underlying imperative is making that optimization as certain as possible for the largest number of women.

It’s important to remember that Hypergamy is rooted in doubt; doubt that any one man might serve to optimally satisfy the dual nature of women’s sexual strategy – optimal sexual agency for optimal genetic selection, and then optimal provisioning for optimal parental investment in offspring – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks. This doubt of optimization defines the subconscious hindbrain experience for women throughout all phases of their lives.

I covered these phases in Preventive Medicine the book, but to keep things brief, it’s a necessary review when we consider how this doubt extrapolates from the biological level, to the neurological level, on to the personal experiential level, to the interpersonal/intersexual, and on to the great societal and political level. Ensuring Hypergamy is optimized for a majority of women, irrespective of their own suitability for a majority of men, (and at the complete abdication of men’s sexual strategies) is at the root of all feminine empowerment, all socialization of feminine primacy, all cultural efforts to normalize it, and all legislation determined to enforce it.

The latent purpose of developing technology to freeze a woman’s eggs, for instance, is to cheat (or give the impression of being able to cheat) the otherwise naturalistic process of fertility that women are beholden to.

The latent purpose of every pop-cultural trend that contributes to the perception that women can realistically exceed the window of their fertility is offered as an assurance that women have more time than would be naturalistically expected to optimize Hypergamy.

Ostensibly the message for women is the cliché of ‘having it all’ – reassuring women that they can have a rewarding career and make a significant difference in their lives and the lives of others as well as realistically having a meaningful family experience later in life. The unspoken hindbrain message is that a woman has more time to optimize Hypergamy.

If this doubt ensuring requires men’s sacrifices or special dispensations in order to accommodate women’s naturalistic realities or individual deficiencies, those requirements are simply means to an end.

Furthermore, the Feminine Imperative makes exhaustive effort in social, personal and political spheres to assure women that even when their Hypergamous choices prove debilitating or damaging that they have the prerogative to reset their chances at optimization proactively or retroactively.

Whether this is realistic or not is irrelevant to the messaging. This messaging is couched in the social expectation that men are required to afford women this forgiveness of past indiscretions (single motherhood, Alpha Widows, etc.), but again, the purpose of this reset is to provide women with the maximum amount of leeway in consolidating on an optimized Hypergamy.

In Nursing Power I outlined the power dynamic behind women’s drive to maintain the primacy of a feminine defined social order, but it’s too easy to simply think that women’s ultimate end of attaining power is for the sake of power alone. That want for power is driven by the obsessive hindbrain need to quell the doubt that Hypergamy instills in women. All we need do is look at the societal changes women will push to legislate for once they have even marginal degrees of power.

Margins of Power

Serendipitously commenter Not Born This Morning took me to task on this idea in the last comment thread:

@ Rollo – “The new, post-sexual revolution order is a model ostensibly based on ‘sexual freedom’, but what this really represents is a return to that naturalistic sexual order based on pre-agrarian, evolutionarily incentivized hypergamy.”

This is not true.

The naturalistic sexual social order of pre-agrarian human existence expressed BOTH genders natural sexuality without preference of one over the other or the perversion of both that we see today. Today’s laws and social conventions prevent men from returning to THEIR natural sexuality. We are not returning to the naturalistic sexual social order and there is no indication that we will any time soon.

Many of todays “betas” are restrained “alphas”. Law and social convention restrains them.

As a point of order here, I wasn’t suggesting that ‘societally’ western culture is returning to anything like a pre-agrarian sexual paradigm, but rather that pre-agrarian evolved paradigm of Hypergamy is informing the social narrative. Both pre and post agrarian, Hypergamy still influenced and determined our socio-sexual direction – men performed, women chose.

It is not idealism, intellectualism, mental masturbation or “cultural changes” that determine human behavior. We like to pretend that emotional idealism steers history but it never has and never will. We think women are “liberated” by laws and social conventions but they are not. The laws and social conventions that we think make it possible for women to “enjoy” new “freedom” are not the cause, they are only ideals and “paradigms” that result from the real cause.

These laws and social conventions are only thoughts, documents and behavioral practices that confirm what has already happened and been accepted. Women have been liberated from responsibilities and hardships they faced prior to agriculture.

Technology and industrialization were the real enablers of female “liberation” and “freedom”. Today, because of technology, we are relatively safe from predators, famine, disease, and tribes of other humans, etc. We are intellectually advanced (maybe) but definitely physically and mentally weaker. Today’s human female does not need the superior strength, tenacity, strategic intelligence and initiative possessed by surviving males in pre-agrarian tribal groups. Back then, she and her children could not have survived without it him. Today we breed mostly wanna be hyenas and betas and they are voting accordingly.

While we may have a greater mastery over our environment and women may not need strength, tenacity, etc. women’s sexual nature is still informed by an evolved Hypergamy that responds to, and is aroused by, these cues in men.

However, NBTM has a point. Perhaps I should revise that idea, but I will say that post-Sex Rev, the paradigm has favored women’s sexual strategy as the one to define our predominant social order (i.e. unfettered Hypergamy).

Given that freedom and preferential deference to women’s imperatives in a social context, women use both to optimize on a Hypergamy that evolved from pre-agrarian physical and social environments.

Thus, with all the Beta security/provisioning aspects of Hypergamy being met by men (either directly or indirectly) the Alpha sexuality/breeding aspect of Hypergamy is the only thing not directly or immediately available to women without their own qualification for it.

And even this is progressively being accounted for both socially and legislatively with regard to sexual consent law ambiguities, ubiquitous abortion, divorce concessions and curbing every trivial expression of male sexuality from men not ‘worthy’ of expressing it. In fact virtually every socially mandated convention that limits men’s sexual expression or his most marginal want of qualification in women is really an effort in forcing men to comply with women’s need for optimizing Hypergamy.

That’s an important footnote in a social order that’s primarily focused on women’s Hypergamy as the predominant one, and then one that is primarily focused on men’s Alpha side sexual suitability. Beta provisioning needs being relatively assured, women demand satisfaction, qualified and verified satisfaction, of men’s suitability in an Alpha breeding context.

For example:

You’ll have to forgive me for using this video of Gronk (the first has been making the rounds on Twitter), but his nature, attitude and behavior are illustrative of a Hypergamous social order that forgives the excesses of a confirmed Alpha.

I stated in a prior essay that women will break rules for Alphas, but create and impose more rules on Betas while expecting compliance from them. This can be extended to the greater whole of a society based on the Feminine Imperative; feminine social mores forgive the Alpha while punishing the impotent Beta for daring to qualify himself as an Alpha.

One reason women despise the undeniable efficacy of Game is because it devises to bypass women’s innate, evolved filters for determining men’s Alpha suitability. Game depends on triggering women’s emotional states, bad or good, so in addition to intentionally working around her filters, Game also creates an emotional impact.

Bypassing women’s filters, and misrepresenting (or impersonating) a genuine Alpha article is a capitol offense to Hypergamous doubt. So it should come as no surprise that the most egregious laws and social mandates with regards to men’s “appropriate” sexual conduct center on women’s qualifying men and verifying his value to her optimization.

Example: Assemblyman Troy Singleton wants to introduce a bill that would make misrepresenting oneself as a means to sex to be equatable to rape-by-fraud:.

And thus we come to NBTM’s assertion that,…

Today’s laws and social conventions prevent men from returning to THEIR natural sexuality. We are not returning to the naturalistic sexual social order and there is no indication that we will any time soon.

Through cultural, religious or physical means Hypergamy has always had contingencies to keep it in check. These contingencies (rape included unfortunately) are all efforts for men’s assurances of paternity and fidelity in a long term mate, and ultimately (hopefully) constitute men’s exercising an influence on the direction of his culture and species.

From Martie Hasslton on Sexual Pluralism and Mating Strategies:

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.

I’ve emphasized the last bit here because it’s important to consider that the reproductive efforts of lower SMV men necessitate the institution of social structures that also (potentially) ensure his narrowly invested efforts in fewer (or one) mate and his offspring. That man cannot afford to be caught on the losing end of polyandry or cuckoldry. Thus the 80% of men with the most investment and most to lose in the conflict of women’s sexual strategy (Hypergamy) establish social conventions to develop assurances of their own.

Those social structures, religions doctrines and various cultural norms are contingent insurances against the results of a society based on unfettered Hypergamy. In essence those structures were established as buffers against the lack of influence men would have in a society that unilaterally empowers women’s Hypergamy and removes any decision making influence.

The Pareto Principle

Pareto

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

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

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

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

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

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

hypergamy-in-a-pic

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

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

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

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

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

Common Errors

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

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

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

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

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

Want is not have

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

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

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

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

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

The Male Side of the Principle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quality Assurances

Web

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Wife for Every Beta

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

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

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

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

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

The Warrior Princess

warrior-princess

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

Commenter Red light dropped this comment recently

The “Warrior Princess” myth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fempowerment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False Pride, Real Danger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outrage Brokers

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain

Well I finally had a chance to watch Roosh vs. the bloggers – there are no journalists left in the world – debate (it was anything but a press conference) and it was about what I expected. Every opportunity these bloggers had was to call him on his beliefs and his position on the state of the world with the intent to dismiss, marginalize or ridicule him.

By my estimate, there wasn’t a single blogger present who was older than 30 and each took turns couching their questions in terms that would challenge his perspectives with respect to their own. They weren’t there to report; they were there to debate questions they’d already written their own answers before going in because, like Roosh, they live and die by the impressions their readers/commenters. Roosh tried to classify them as ‘establishment’ or ‘the media’, but in reality they are bloggers – ‘journalists’ in name only. What they really are is outrage brokers and together they have a symbiotic relationship.

Roosh manufactures outrage, they distribute it to the cubicle workers who want to feel engaged in a world outside their cubes. Roosh cancels the meet ups, the cube workers feel like they’ve won a battle with edgelord shit-head misogynists and the Rooshites (preemptively) declare a victory for raising awareness of the ‘free speech’ Social Justice Warriors want to curb. Ding, ding! Return to your corners for the next round.

All this does nothing to benefit men in the Red Pill awareness even marginal Roosh proponents want to believe is the good that comes from this circus. “At least he’s raising Red Pill awareness. Any press is good press, right?”

Wrong. Ask Subway if they think the press their spokesman Jared Fogel generated with his 15 year sentence for child pørn charges was helpful in raising awareness of how great their sandwiches are. Not that anyone is boycotting Subway sandwiches, but likewise, no one’s minds are changed after Roosh had this presser. Not the bloggers or Twiteratti that hate him, not the Neomasculists who were already onboard with him and certainly no one that’s never heard of the ‘sphere in a public fashion.

Team Roosh and team SJW are still what they are. The fact that we get women and men IRL who know about this “leader of some MRA group who wants to legalize rape” should be evidence enough of the reach this quick hit, easily digestible ‘outrage bite’ has.

It’s easy to say that fence-riding men who’d never heard of the manosphere (the manosphere Roosh disowned, remember?) will be made aware of it and embrace it, but that’s a convenient and unmeasurable metric to justify what really amounts to a very damaging PR fuck up. Or maybe it wasn’t a fuck up? Maybe it went exactly as planned; maybe even more successful than planned.

Let me be clear, this is not an apologetic. Roosh masterfully turned (intentional or not) this to his advantage by playing all the bloggers present in the room to his narrative on his terms. He did exactly what he should’ve – no apologies, no admissions of guilt, and he forced these tools to play the cards he was dealing. He was handed a golden video op on a silver platter by these young journalists bloggers who knew going in that they were compromising the “journalistic integrity” their communications class teachers told them they had.

My concern isn’t how he handled this, it’s why he put himself (and other men who admire him) into this. My concern is that any genuineness he might’ve had about Neomasculinity is suspect of being just a vehicle for his own notoriety. If that’s the direction he’s chosen to go, if that’s how he’s decided to turn a dollar, I wish him good luck, but he’s become a dishonest broker of outrage at the expense (in some cases physically and financially) of the men who believed he was sincere.

If you read through the Deadbedrooms or Divorce subredds, there are countless men there who would save or change their lives if they embraced Red Pill awareness, but for whatever reason they get violently hostile at any mention of a TRP solution to their circumstances. How many of these fence-riders will look at Roosh and just have all those biases confirmed about TRP now?

Roosh is just playing a character now; one that the outrage brokers want and need:

I wrote about exactly this dynamic on Return of Kings in the only guest post I ever wrote for the site:

If the “postponement” of the ABC 20/20 manosphere “exposé” has taught us anything it’s that the writers seeking to cast light on the manosphere are looking for crazy. They need crazy because it’s the only thing they know how, or have the patience, to confront in as minimal an effort as it takes to type a few paragraphs dismissing it as misogyny.

Writers (vichy male writers) like R. Tod Kelly are also lazy. They see an opportunity for outrage that sells advertising. They wanted Stormfront and what they got was a global consortium of rational, well reasoned men with jobs, families and intelligence, men from all walks of life, all ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds expressing ideas that don’t fit into an acculturation of feminine primacy.

If you read Matt Forney’s 20/20 interview post you’ll see the desperation for crazy in their producer’s attempts to provoke him to become what they think he should be – a frothing, angry, hate-fueled misogynist. That would make it easy for them, they know how to sell crazy. The copy gets approved, the crazies get marginalized and we move on to the next Mabeline commercial.

But they didn’t get crazy from Matt, or Roosh (okay Paul Elam looks a bit like Charles Manson in a certain light)—they got well reasoned, sensibility that was hard to argue against, so they attempted to prompt the crazy by barraging Roosh with questions about rape in the hopes that he’d blow up. He wouldn’t. They wanted it to be easy. They wanted to know all they needed to know about the manosphere by sourcing Manboobz, interviewing three manosphere bloggers and then trot out the crazy, show off the carnival freak, demonize and marginalize him and frog march the crazy off the stage. They wanted fringe, the easy kind of fringe that their journalism, communications and women’s studies classes taught them the easy answers to confront it with.

But the manosphere isn’t fringe. For as much as R. Tod Kelly, or the producers at ABC would like it to be, the manosphere is too broad, too comprehensive, too diverse for anyone unfamiliar with it to really understand it, much less deliver an unbiased objective opinion of it. So Kelly follows formula and makes the same lame attempts at simple aspersion and misogynistic dismissal 20/20 had already failed in doing (as evidenced by their segment’s postponement). The Daily Beast wanted its formulaic red meat, but Kelly is just dishing out ABC’s cold left-overs.

The MSM wants crazy. Crazy gets clicks. There was a time Roosh would’ve responded with far more measured and reasonable responses to these allegations, now he’s found it necessary to adopt the crazy that the MSM wants. He did it artfully, but he’s given them the ugly caricature, the black & white melodramatic misogynist who’s easy to hate.

They want a villain, a misogynist, a chauvinist, a caveman and a guy easily ridiculed in a feminine-primary social order and it appears Roosh is more than happy to give that to them if it means he can profit from it.

The problem with delivering the crazy is that Roosh does so at the expense of men who would otherwise benefit from genuine Red Pill awareness. I approach Red Pill awareness from a bottom up perspective because it is important that men effect real change in their lives and their thinking on a personal level.

I disagree on many ‘doctrinal’ tenets of Neomasculinity for any number of reasons, but the core Red Pill principles Neomasculinity appropriates are still there. Roosh does Red Pill truth-seeking men no favors by making a mockery of those very core principles he claims for the basis of Neomasculinity with his readiness to play a dangerous game with those men’s lives for his personal benefit. All Roosh does in playing this character is polarize men into a team mentality with no real change beyond an Us vs. Them shift.

It might feel good to rally and shake a fist at SJWs and feminists, but it does nothing to educate a man with Red Pill awareness so he knows why he’s in the social conditions he finds himself with women and a large feminine-centric social structure. That takes far more effort and personal investment in that man than simply recruiting him with an easy cause and an easier enemy to hate.

Roosh calling for public meet ups on a RoK six weeks in advance on a site that claims 1 million unique hits a month is not just “a chance for likeminded guys to get together for a beer” it is the bait and the time needed to draw a response from exactly the opposition he’ll complain is out to get him when they predictably do. Granted, that opposition took the bait as predicted, and along with it the outrageous capital he’d hoped to generate, but he’s only going to be able to cry wolf like this so many times before he marginalizes not just himself, but the validity of Red Pill awareness.

In fact that may be forthcoming sooner than he expects. Of course the outrage brokers he hopes to offend will be more than happy for the blog fodder, but at some point he’ll become passé and like PT Barnum he’ll be forced to up his game due to people rolling their eyes at another one of Roosh’s set ups. This is the same formula he’s been using since the London stop of last year’s world tour; he’s got to go bigger on the next push to keep the interest going.

Satire and Irony

 

Roosh suggesting the legalization of rape on private property wasn’t satire. It was irony, it was juxtaposition to expose a counter point – that women need to accept at least some responsibility for the consequences of their sexual indiscretions – it was illustrative sarcasm, and it was an allegorical thought experiment, but it was neither satire nor parody.

It was an essay in exposing the duplicity of women’s hypoagency – the idea that certain individuals (e.g. women) lack agency in their own actions. They lack control. They are not actors … rather, they are acted upon. The corollary to that argument being that they are not responsible for their own actions. Yet the cultural narrative of the omni-empowered, Strong Independent Woman® is completely at odds with exactly women’s hypoagency with regard to rape. They are powerful and purposeful when it serves and entirely unaccountable and blameless when it’s not convenient.

There was an “entirely serious” article written by Femitheist (on Vice no less) not long ago ‘suggesting’ the systematic culling of 90% of the male population. It turned out to be less-than-serious, but it was written in the same vein as Roosh’s rape legalization “satire” to illustrate a counterpoint.

Difference? A woman wrote it.

If a woman had written, verbatim, what Roosh had, the irony wouldn’t have been intentionally missed. There would’ve been some friction for suggesting rape is any woman’s fault, ever, under any circumstance (hypoagency)  – and it would be even more salient had an anti-feminist woman wrote it – but readers would’ve gotten the gist of the irony. Just as they eventually did with Femitheist’s article.

If a homosexual like Milo Yianopoulos had written it, he’d have been met with the same friction, perhaps even more censorship at his speaking engagements, but readers would’ve gotten the irony – and with a giggle because he’s a cheeky Brit with fabulously gay bleached hair.

Outrage Sells

We live in an age of outrage media. I’ve written in the past about how women need indignation as part of their innate solipsistic make up, so it follows that in an era where men are feminized to the point that they think wearing skirts and heels are a legitimate form of protest against mass rape that fem-men would also lap up the same indignation. They lap it up because they identify with the feminine, with being women themselves.

All one need do today is search for “Rapsit beaten by” on YouTube or Google to see just how far that rape hysteria has ensaturated society. Label a man a ‘rapist’ in the slightest degree of seriousness and you have carte blanche to kill him or destroy his life and livelihood. No doubt Roosh is aware of this judging from the volume of death threats he’s received for the mere perception that he may be a rapist or the oblivious lack of critical thought that he’d seriously advocate for legalizing rape.

He knows this because he’s written, in my opinion, one of the most insightful essays on exactly this social order – The Most Insidious Method of Control Never Devised.

Roosh wrote the seminal essay on how insidious the threat of “stealing a man’s bread” has in controlling his decisions and silencing him. This is why it pains me to see Tweets like this after so elaborate an effort of publicity at the potential cost of other men’s bread – men who believe in the sincerity of what’s only a vehicle for his notoriety now:

https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/696825522727317504

I had to reconsidered doing this breakdown of Roosh’s very blatant attention trolling at the expense of anyone who would’ve thought his intents were genuine about organizing a world wide meeting of the tribes. I’m in a difficult position here.

By posting I get tagged with not being cooperative to the manosphere on whole by exposing Roosh for the marketeer he’s regretably turning himself into. On Twitter and the previous thread I get accused of cutting Roosh off at the knees for not being a team player because “any press is good press” (false) and even if he is the Svengali he is, well, at least the ‘sphere is getting some spill-over publicity.

I say that’s bullshit, and then I’m reminded of my own reasons for involving myself in writing what I do and who I write for.

Not only is it bullshit, but it’s bullshit that damages the capital that the ‘sphere collectively has developed for over a decade now. Roosh isn’t making any new converts to Neomasculinity or anything else with this, and while his epic trolling of SJWs and fem-stream media bloggers deserves the highest praise, it’s regrettable the cost should come from men who are genuinely looking for the answer Red Pill awareness provides.

 

The Red Pill Monthly

Niko Choski and I will be discussing this post and other topics on the next installment of The Red Pill Monthly youtube Livecast this Friday, February 12th at 10AM Pacific Standard Time.

You can follow the link here.

The War Brides of Europe

(h/t to greyghost for today’s video)

Comment from Kaminsky on Dalrock’s thread:

What I find with that video of the Danish feminist. If there were such a thing as a Master’s Degree in the manosphere, you could show the candidate that video and have him break down all the elements of the female mind displayed. Point by point;

  • Let’s you and him fight
  • Shit-testing
  • Extraordinary lack of accountability
  • Collectivism to the depths of her soul
  • A form of AF/BB…In that men have to be both ends of behavior to meet females’ changing needs. Meek and placid during the forty years of feminist play-acting fun-time, now all of a sudden a different kind of man is needed.
  • Victim/victim convenient duality. Victorious feminists imposed their will and opened borders, now they’re victims and it’s up to men to clean it all up.
  • Equalist/androgynous when it suits whatever need, strong gender roles when it suits whatever need.

So amazing.

“Intractable solipsism” belongs in that list as well.

I apologize in advance if this post comes off as overly dramatic or kicking a hornets’ nest. It’s not my intent to wax poetic, but it will serve a purpose.

I was asked about my take on the current ‘migrant crisis’ in Europe by several Red Pill friends (both online and in person I should add), and how I thought it played into what I’ve written in the past about the War Brides dynamic. As my readers know I never delve into issues of politics, race or religion on this blog unless those issues are directly related to intersexual social and personal dynamics.

So it was with this in mind that I considered connecting the dots between Hypergamy and the War Brides dynamic and what I believe we’re beginning to see now in Europe. However, before I get too deep I thought I’d pick Ms. Thranholm’s interview apart first.

A Schism in the Feminine Imperative

I’ll agree with Kaminsky on his take for the most part; the degree of default entitlement women feel they have to men’s physical protection is glaringly evident, especially coming from ardent feminists, but the side-glance vitriol for European men wearing skirts in protest to the rash of ‘migrants’ raping/harassing European women only highlights feminist duplicity.

Is this rash as widespread as these women are making it? Hard for me to say, but not a day’s gone by since this migration that several ‘incidents’ of these migrant’s sexual assault (assault that would land the average European male in jail or make an American man a sex offender overnight) has been in my Twitter feed. I’ll leave that interpretation up to my readers, however what’s glaringly evident is the duplicity in the reaction strong independent® feminists are having to these assaults.

In the video Thranholm at last drops the feminist boilerplate and makes the concession all feminists (and Red Pill deniers) are loathe to hear – our society has become feminized. I’ve been making this point since the days of my writing on SoSuave; western society has become founded on a feminine social primacy that prioritizes women’s imperatives (Hypergamy) above all other considerations (lead photo NSFW). The fabric of western society from our religions, to our work cultures, to our personal relations, to our educational institutions, to the foundations of our parenting, have been progressively and systematically feminized over the course of 60+ short years.

To have a woman like Thranholm voice this from a visceral, fear based necessity is an indictment of how unignorable this feminization as become. In a similar fashion to how Open Hypergamy and soon Open Cuckoldry are becoming too socially evident to ignore, so too is the fact that an increasing majority of western(ized) men believe that touchy-feely feminized solutions to conflict are their first best alternative to violent, physical, in-your-face conflict resolution.

“This militant feminism that has been going on for decades, now we see the consequences that many men here are brought up to be like women, and to think like women, and be soft-minded.”

Iben explains in no uncertain terms that a lack of conventional, complementary masculine strength is so lacking in Europe that even feminist women are beginning to feel uneasy in the uncertainty that their safety could be insured by average European men. Underneath all of the posturing of strength, feminism still needs “muscle” for its physical defense. When feminism looks to its loyal White Knights for that muscle it finds them dressed in mini-skirts and high heels.

Without missing a beat, scowling feminist interviewer, Anissa Naouai, presents the complete obliviousness of the gravity of the situation women are facing…

“But that is what Europe is about, that is part of the European qualities that the European Union promotes.

[…] “These refugees are coming to Europe, shouldn’t they adapt to that?”

This is a glaring example of the degree of cognitive dissonance that has been cultivated in our feminine-primary social order. The idea that men who wouldn’t recognize that feminine social primacy exist, much less who would entirely ignore it, is so alien a thought that it never enters Anissa’s mind.

An Appeal to Honor

Iben continues and answers Anissa’s question without really realizing it.

“Now we see that these post modern values are just a construction.”

I thought this was interesting when we consider how long we’ve been told the opposite – that the popular concepts of conventional, evolved gender roles are the social construction. However once these ‘post modern values’ are slammed into the harsh conditions of a reality that diametrically contradicts it, then, then it becomes a question of “where have all the cowboys gone?” Now the truth is revealed that it is in fact this post modern, feminized interpretation of gender that is the social construct – and one with potentially disastrous consequences.

“…and now we see that we don’t have any male that can stand up, that can fight, who can fight back those male aggressions that we are feeling. So the vacuum that feminism has created means that women are the victims of those male aggressions”

And now we come to the standard appeal to the Male Catch 22 I described in The Honor System many years ago:

Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

Perhaps we haven’t reached it quite yet, but we are approaching a social tipping point where the physical necessity of conventional masculinity will outweigh the liability to women in ceding the power that feminine social primacy represents. The need for ‘Man Up’ will outweigh the need for ‘Shut Up‘.

This need for women’s defense predictably gets couched in men’s Burden of Performance, and now that shit’s gotten real we see this dynamic laid bare in women’s shaming of men for not putting themselves bodily between them and an attacker. This is where Iben’s premise, and the sham of the Feminine Imperative’s social engineering, breaks down. And ironically the very idea of a new “male revolution” or supporting conventional masculinity on a social scale is even more appalling to Anissa than the reality of rising potential sexual assaults on women:

“It means that men need to take responsibility to go back to the old male virtues, to defend the women, the children and the culture. Because now this post modern project is dead, it doesn’t work…”

Iben goes on for a bit repeating the same men need to take responsibility for defending women trope in various ways and tries to explain to Anissa in as black and white a way that reality necessitates this. However the real disconnect, the most poignant illustration of feminisms denial of reality comes from Anissa after all of this:

“But the mass rapes shouldn’t be happening in the first place.”

“I’m sorry, uh, what?”

“The mass rape, the violence shouldn’t be happening in the first place. These are guests essentially who Europe has welcomed.

[…] should (women) have to protect themselves against mass rape on their streets at home?”

The utter cognitive dissonance of Anissa with her inability to grasp that these male ‘guests’ (who should be beholden to the Male Catch 22 by default) wouldn’t honor the dictates of feminine primacy is staggering. So much so it even fazes Iben for a moment. However, this disconnect is a textbook example of the sociological and psychological schism that is (or will soon) taking place for European women given their present reality.

I’ll stop here because Iben goes on to reiterate most of her points, and gets in another about the need for complementarity in conventional gender roles, but do watch the whole clip. The point I’m making with this is that there is a coming reckoning that a feminine primary society is beginning to face; post modern feminized gender constructs have fundamentally compromised the security of western culture.

Real Solutions

This then begs the question, what comes as a response to this? As I mention, the typical go-to strategy of the Feminine Imperative is to lean on men’s shame for not taking the masculine responsibility for women’s (and children’s) defense. However the same characteristics that make a conventionally masculine man a good defender are also a liability to women’s sphere of control once all her would-be attackers have been subdued. These are the same characteristic that have been ridiculed, marginalized, denigrated and punished by feminine-centric society for going on 7 decades now.

So what’s the proper response here? No doubt there will be the scorched earth factions who’ll quote us the following:

This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll whisper “no.”
– Rorschach, Watchmen 2009

If men need to take responsibility to go back to the old male virtues, to defend the women, the children and the culture it needs to come with a reciprocal incentive for men in doing so. Relying on men’s sense of duty to honor only works insofar as women are appreciative and rewarding of it. As it stands now, the average man either blindly believes his honorable action is to be more “soft-minded” in his approach to honor or has absolutely no motivation to risk himself for women who’ve told him they don’t need his “macho bullshit masculinity” for the past 60 years – right up until she’s assaulted or raped in 2016.

For a complementary gender restructuring of society it implies a reciprocal incentive on the part of women; one I don’t see forthcoming even in the desperate tones of Iben and Anissa.

It may be all well and good to let women such as Anissa to burn along with the rest of feminized Europe, however, Iben does make a valid point; if (European) men don’t do something by reassuming conventional masculinity they stand to find themselves in precisely the position I outline in War Brides:

Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism.

[…]women’s peripheral environment dictated the need to develop psychological mechanisms to help them survive. It was the women who could make that emotional disconnect when the circumstances necessitated it who survived and lived to breed when their tribe was decimated by a superior force. This is also known as the War Bride dynamic; women develop an empathy with their conquerors by necessity.

Men are the disposable sex, women, the preserved sex. Men would simply die in favor of a superior aggressor, but women would be reserved for breeding. So it served a feminine imperative to evolve an ability to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism.

Now, here is where I’ll step off the diving board and into the theoretical. It’s my purview that a lot of what men would complain are duplicitous acts of indifference towards them are really rooted in this innate feminine solipsism. That’s a bold statement, I realize, but I’d argue that what men take for inconsiderate indifference in a break up or in ruthless shit tests is really a woman tapping into this innate, self-preserving solipsism. Combine hypergamy with the chronically hostile environments of the past and you end up with a modern day feminine solipsism. Add to this an acculturated sense of female entitlement, social conventions that excuse this ‘duplicity’, and a constant misdirection of intent by women themselves, and you come to where we are now. As if that weren’t enough, throw in the element of hypergamy and the countdown in terms of fertility and long term provisioning that a woman must deal with before hitting the imminent Wall, and now you have a fuller picture of the conditions and stresses that necessitate this solipsistic nature.

It seems clear to me that women who align with Anissa’s feminine-primary mindset exhibit exactly this self-preserving solipsism in the subconscious knowledge that the men of their ‘tribe’ have become acculturated into becoming more like women and unable to defend them from a stronger, more conventionally masculine tribe.

Both Iben and Anissa are on either side of this War Brides dynamic, but both also illustrated the other’s solipsistic approach to dealing with it. I don’t claim to have the solution to this circumstance, and perhaps that should be the focus of discussion, but this is exactly the War Brides dynamic I laid out.

Ovulation & Dread

ovulation_dread

I had an interesting study brought to my attention recently (ht/ Robert Burriss) and I thought I’d get back to a nuts and bolts post with something useful I found in it.

Women Selectively Guard Their Desirable Mates From Ovulating Women.

As you might expect, much of the findings in this study reinforce many Red Pill principles founded in evo-psych, but there are a few new angles to consider here. Before I start to riff on this study, bear in mind that the concept of female mate guarding behavior centers on what the researchers define as ‘desirable mates’ to women. This subjective assessment of desirability will play into all this analysis.

For women, forming close, cooperative relationships with other women at once poses important opportunities and possible threats-including mate retention. To maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of same-sex social relationships, we propose that women’s mate guarding is functionally flexible and that women are sensitive to both interpersonal and contextual cues indicating whether other women might be likely and effective mate poachers. Here, we assess one such cue: other women’s fertility. Because ovulating (i.e., high-fertility) women are both more attractive to men and also more attracted to (desirable) men, ovulating women may be perceived to pose heightened threats to other women’s romantic relationships. Across 4 experiments, partnered women were exposed to photographs of other women taken during either their ovulatory or nonovulatory menstrual-cycle phases, and consistently reported intentions to socially avoid ovulating (but not nonovulating) women-but only when their own partners were highly desirable. Exposure to ovulating women also increased women’s sexual desires for their (highly desirable) partners. These findings suggest that women can be sensitive to subtle cues of other women’s fertility and respond (e.g., via social exclusion, enhanced sexual attention to own mate) in ways that may facilitate their mate retention goals while not thwarting their affiliative goals.

Right from the start here we have two Red Pill foundations confirmed; the influence that perceptual SMV plays in women’s sense of passive Dread and the fundamental influence that menstruation dictates to sexual arousal and concurrent motivations for sex appeal during women’s ovulation phase.

I’ve previously gone into the dynamics that play out between men and women with regard to perceived SMV of a partner versus the other partner’s self-perception of their own SMV and how this determines secure vs. insecure attachment. This post was more of an outline of results of SMV imbalance rather that the motivations for the characteristics of those personal attachments. This study illustrates these underlying motivators very well.

Anyone who’s heard my Man in Demand talk on Hypergamy understands the (menstrual cycle) biological root for women’s personal and sociological behavior, and this study provides yet another confirmation of it. I’ve also written in the past about men’s propensity for mate guarding and the behavioral cues women, both subtly and not so subtly, display that prompts them to mate guarding. However, I’ve yet to explore women’s mate guarding behaviors.

I’m bringing up the SMV ratios and Mate Guarding posts here because it’s important to bear in mind the subjectivity that perceived SMV plays in regard to motivating mate guarding. Depending on that balance (or imbalance) one partner will be more motivated to mate guard than the other. Which of course then brings us back to the Cardinal Rule of Relationships. Mate guarding impulse is contextual to the comparative value of both individuals and the value of others in their social environment (potential sexual competitors).

Thus, it is a significant challenge for women when other women attempt to poach their partners. For instance, over 50% of women admit to attempting to poach another woman’s partner, and over 80% of men admit to having been the object of another woman’s poaching—with about half of men admitting to “going along” with the poaching attempt (e.g., Schmitt et al., 2004; Schmitt & Buss, 2001). Women have good reason, then, to mate guard.

I’m going to encourage readers to take the time to, at the very least, read the introduction, premise and results of this comprehensive study. Naturally there will be incredulous women who will insist that men tend to overestimate the displayed sexual interests of women towards them. This is a common social convention that serves a very specific purpose for women; plausible deniability.

If the common group-think is that men are egotistical, think they’re “all that” and stupidly believe they’re seeing sexual cues from women because “that’s just how men are”, then we have a pre-established condition in which women can believably deny interest. Thus, should a man not find a woman attractive, or opt for another, this then serves as a rejection buffer as well as a precondition for her own rejection of a man should he make an approach and not be found attractive.

The Schmitt & Buss studies account for this, but even if they didn’t there would still need to be a functional reason for women’s mate guarding behavior. That reason puts the lie to the social convention of women presuming men aren’t as perceptive of their sexual cues as they’d like to believe.

[…] whereas men have at times physically isolated and sequestered their female

partners to restrict other men’s access to them (e.g., in harems), women may analogously socially isolate their partners from potential poachers—keeping them apart so as to preclude potentially costly competition for their romantic partners.

The usefulness of this strategy depends on women being able to identify those who might be likely and effective mate poachers, and then excluding them (but not others) from their social circles. If a woman indiscriminately distances herself and her partner from potential poachers (i.e., all other women), she is assured of his fidelity but at the cost of eliminating her access to the numerous benefits of female–female friendships.

Spoiler alert: The study confirms that women will covertly exclude themselves and their lover’s company from women who A.) outclass them in comparative SMV (hotter women than they perceive themselves to be) and B.) happen to be in the proliferative phase of ovulation.

This indicates that not only are women subconsciously (if not consciously) aware of intrasexual rivals ovulatory states – as evidenced by dress, ornamentation, vocal intonation, scent, sexual proceptivity, etc. – but they are aware enough to orchestrate covert methods to protect their sexual investments in a ‘high value’ male while ensuring future intrasexual friendships.

That may seem like an overly scientific way of saying women watch out for other women slutting it up, but the subcommunications of ovulation are so subtle that women’s subconscious, peripheral awareness of those cues evolved for a sensitivity that goes beyond the obvious slut. That’s how important retaining a better-than-self SMV optimal mating choice is to women in an evolutionary scope. That sensitivity is part of women’s psychological firmware.

[…]In addition, if a woman were to consistently and indiscriminately exclude other women from her own and, by extension, her partner’s social circle, she might gain a reputation for being non-communal and non-nurturing, and thus, for being an undesirable friend. This might not only thwart her ability to form future friendships with other women, but might also lead her partner to perceive her as highly difficult, uncooperative, controlling, and non-trusting.

Thus, on one hand, the costs of indiscriminately avoiding other women are high because women reap important benefits from making new same-sex friends, On the other hand, women can and do mate poach with frequency, and those women deeply embedded in one’s social circle may have increased access, motivation, and ability to poach successfully.

There’s a few things to unpack here before we can make this information Red Pill / Game applicable. The most important metric that female mate guarding indicates is her genuine assessment of a man’s SMV and how valuable his participation and investment in their LTR (or even STR sexual value) is to her.

I’ve seen this mate guarding play out in my own relationships before, both as a Red Pill husband who happens to work with beautiful women in the liquor industry and prior to my Red Pill awareness of it in my libertine 20s. Back then it was easy to pass off as ‘bitches be crazy’ when a girlfriend or a short term sex partner “just got jealous”. But in hindsight the timing of those fits of jealousy seemed a bit to regular.

I’m going to suggest that developing an awareness of a woman’s bouts of jealousy or her subtle timing in wanting to spend time alone with you, or her being more sexually proceptive (she wants to fuck more) with you at times you may think odd. These are Alpha or Beta Tells. A woman’s preoccupation with guarding you from other women is a prime indicator of your SMV worth to her. It stands to reason that only ‘desirable’ men deserve the effort of her mate guarding.

This is an important Red Pill sensitivity to have as it also allows you to determine a woman’s unspoken understanding of where she and you stand in relative SMV comparison. As I was saying in the introduction here, that ‘desirability’, that SMV ratio, that Alpha impression that makes you worth mate guarding is subjective to what a woman’s self-perceived SMV is in respect to your own. When we interact with women in the long term it’s very easy for men to lose sight of this balance and think that their frumpy wife is the best they can do. There is a definitive psychological game that women of low SMV will play with men they know are of higher value – they will continually devalue that man as a form of mate guarding.

That devaluation may take the form of browbeating, nagging or accusing him of being attracted to other women in an effort to get her higher value LTR man to self-limit his being poached by endlessly qualifying himself to his low SMV wife/girlfriend. It’s far easier, and far lower an investment of resources if a low SMV woman can convince her higher SMV man to mate guard himself.

Just as an aside here, there may be a few readers who’ll think women will rationally consider that their long term provisioning is virtually assured in a feminine-primary social order. Alimony, child support or pro-female government will assure her and her offspring a baseline of security, so why mate guard any man?

The answer of course is that women’s psychological firm ware didn’t evolve to acknowledge these considerations. Once again T-Rex doesn’t want to be fed, he wants to hunt. So even with the logical consideration that provisioning is assured women’s limbic (particularly on an Alpha Fucks short term breeding assurance) still wants those environmental and behavioral cues that indicate they have that security.

Passive Dread

So with all of this to digest how do we put this knowledge of women’s limbic desire for ensuring a mate’s exclusive sex and provisioning to use for us?

The obvious answer is in the title of this post – developing that awareness of your SMV worth to a woman is a good starting point from which you can subtly employ a passive form of Dread.

I’ve gotten a lot of grief for just my acknowledging Dread, much less using it beneficially for both a man and whatever woman he chooses (long or short term). It’s always about how horribly manipulative it is, or it’s just an unsustainable game of brinksmanship between a couple that destroys trust. But what these (usually female) critics never recognize is that Dread is already an integral part of every relationship by order of degree.

The fact that both male and female mate guarding behaviors are evidential facts of both sex’s hindbrain function should be proof enough that Dread, the concern of loss of investment, and the subconscious, comparative evaluation of SMV is something that’s always an operative. It’s inherent to our conditions as evolved human beings.

My advice in this instance is for men to become sensitive to the indicators of that ovulatory mate guarding dread and use that insecurity to promote a better, genuine desire in that woman. Suggesting this will seem counterintuitive to a Blue Pill mindset. The conditioned response will be to allay that woman’s fears (the ones she’s subconsciously aware of but will hate you for making her acknowledge) and provide her with comfort and familiarity.

But comfort and familiarity are anti-seductive and kill the genuine desire, the genuine need to fuck you in order to keep you and show her appreciation for your higher SMV. Why does a woman compete for what she is constantly comfortably assured she already has?

The trick to employing soft or passive dread is making yourself sensitive to the opportunities to use it and then gently provoke it in as covert and indirect a way as possible. One of the better ideas the early PUAs had was mastering the art of the Neg, or the backhanded compliment. The idea was to casually knock a woman’s self-image down to a manageable degree in order to get her to qualify herself the the PUA. Passive dread operates on a similar principle.

You need to see the opportunities for its use, and women’s propensity for mate guarding men they find ‘desirable’ is a reasonably predictable opportunity. See those chances for other women’s casual flirtations with you, look for those unsolicited opportunities for easy social proof, and don’t dissuade your woman’s initial mate guarding response. Casually push back on the mate guarding impulse, don’t jump to the reassurances of your undying love and interest.

See that opportunity for what it is – a chance to restate whose Frame she’s chosen to be a part of. She wants to merit your value. Take that effort away from her and you become valueless to her.

Red Pill Monthly

As I mentioned in the prior comment thread, I’ll be testing out a once a month(ish) livestream podcast with Niko Choski for a while. This talk is meant to be an informal discussion of topics I go into on The Rational Male, as well as what’s trending in the manosphere. It’s also to give guys an opportunity for some feedback and exchange in the live comments.

Some of my regular readers may be wondering why I didn’t advertise this first trial more and the answer is I wanted to use this one as a test to see the initial response. I’ll be promoting future livestreams more aggressively, but I knew this one would be less than polished. I deliberately tried to keep it to an hour to make it more digestible, but we did go a little over to answer questions.

In this cast we discussed my article on The Red Pill balance and how a Red Pill awareness is not just vital to a man’s personal development with women, but how it can help in various other aspects of his life. We discuss the differences of that Red Pill perception in the MGTOW community that Niko has recently divided himself from.

You can of course comment on the YouTube feed, but I’m going to take open comments here about what you thought of the discussion and even my engaging in a once a month talk like this. I expect more than a few from the MGTOW communities will find there way here, but I’m more interested in what you thought about the idea of us doing this.

I’ve been asked for a while as to why I don’t just do a solo podcast myself, but I don’t really like to do things off the cuff with regard to what I write and explain. I prefer to approach things from all angles in my writing before I hit the publish button. That said I do see the value in a discussion like this when it’s about topics I’ve already covered or perhaps something going on in mainstream society or the ‘sphere.

So let me know what you think. The comment thread is open so if you want to tell me it’s a bad idea, fine. If you like it, great. If you want to chime in on any of what we discussed feel free to.

A Teachable Moment

Teachable

While I’d had another post on deck for today I simply couldn’t let Divided Line’s most recent comment go unanswered. I was going to riff on his comment in that thread, but it occurred to me that his concerns would be educational for many new readers and what I tell him here might give even my regulars something new to think about.

This is the part I can’t get. I can look back and see how my beta behaviors made it impossible for my ex to respect and love me. I see those behaviors for what they are, but what I can’t do is internalize a competing value system, or a competing idealism, one which would allow me to judge myself in the way you’re judging yourself here. I still get stuck on “but she *should* have loved me for those behaviors,” even if I understand on an intellectual level why she didn’t. Even if I game myself into believing I feel differently about it, I know that on some level, I’m still going to be hoping that every girl I get involved with will prove to be capable of fulfilling that blue pill idealism. I fully expect to just fall back into oneitis and needy supplicating behaviors whenever I meet somebody. they just creep up on you without you even realizing it.

When I go into the intricacies of men’s innate sense of idealism this is what I mean. In a Blue Pill context there will always be an expectation of some possibility of an ideal state with a woman. The problem here isn’t men’s idealism, but rather the conditioning of it to expect an idealized Blue Pill outcome.

From a strictly deductive standpoint DL’s ex should have loved him for the idealized, pro-social, pro-family, pro-parental investment, pro-providership and pro-egalitarian that were some of the most integral parts of his life’s Blue Pill conditioning.

The reality is that he’d been convinced of a Blue Pill social order founded on an Old Set of Books.

Let’s get real about it. It’s not like women have good reason to behave the way they do. Whatever evo-psych explanation we can come with, it doesn’t provide them with an excuse. They’re not stewards of the gene pool, there is no greater good that is served by hypergamy. In a modern context it’s a liability, not an asset. At the limbic level they’re screening for traits that would have been advantageous 20,000 years ago, not in a modern industrial or post industrial society. Should I try to convince myself otherwise and judge myself according to my evolutionary fitness or something? It seems absurd.

When I wrote Our Sisters’ Keeper I delved into the question of whether it could be expected of women to take responsibility for their own decisions, moral or otherwise. It generally comes down to a question of the seeming determinism that Hypergamy represents, and the deductive male-logic that, idealistically, expects women to take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

In this respect Hypergamy doesn’t provide women with an excuse for the consequences, but the question of personal responsibility still doesn’t change the the underlying motivators, incentives and influences that Hypergamy exerts over women. The devil biology made me do it is the same alibi for Hypergamy as it is for men’s Selfish Gene.

While the software may change with the environment, our firmware and our hardware are still very much based in the evolution that benefitted our prehistoric predecessors. What measure you personally choose to judge yourself by is up to you, but again, the hardware and the firmware doesn’t change.

Under our modern social environment women have an unprecedented, virtually unilateral, stewardship of the gene pool. So much so in fact that women’s sexual selection strategy, Hypergamy and feminine social primacy are enforced by law and ensaturated into our social fabric. Whether this is for ‘the greater good’ or not all depends on who’s agenda defines what ‘good’ is.

For a very long time men had at least some measure of being able to direct the course that the gene pool was going. Men’s influence today is only as potent as women’s legislated sexual selection will allow them.

Women aren’t dogs, they’re human beings. They’re perfectly capable of self awareness and of awareness of others. In theory they’re perfectly capable of higher order idealism – anybody who can think at an abstract level should be. Women are unaware of themselves because the bar is so low for them, because they are profoundly privileged and everything is handed to them on a silver platter, not because they’re incapable of treating men in a way that would have made the blue pill equality ideal possible.

It really just boils down to a profound form of inferiority, their unwillingness to empathize or give a shit. They don’t care because they don’t have to. It’s a fundamental hollowness at the core of their character.

You’re presuming an egalitarian inspired similarity between men and women, and once again I’ll refer you to what I proposed above; you’re expecting software to override firmware and hardware. There are simply evidential and provable physical and cognitive differences between men and women.

I believe you’re correct – women are perfectly capable of self awareness and of awareness of others. In theory they’re perfectly capable of higher order idealism – however, this is not women’s firmware directive. It is not their initial mental point of origin.

True, women can learn to be empathetic, learn to be idealistic, and yes, learn to sublimate their innate solipsism, but their capacity to learn to override their firmware doesn’t erase the root conditions they must learn and practice to override.

And yes, we’ve reached a (western) social order that prioritizes and privileges women by setting the bar very low for them, thus making this ‘learning’, or even the desire to learn, to override their neural firmware not just a challenge, but entirely unexpected of them.

The capacity fro women to realize that Blue Pill ideal is there, but what this does is pit women’s innate dispositions against what men think would be an ideal state for both sexes, and then holds women personally responsible for not ‘learning’ to override their firmware.

Dalrock has a series of posts about feminism that blames men for the failures of feminism. Feminism would work if not for uncooperative men; the same is true for Blue Pill men – Blue Pill idealism would work if not for uncooperative women. Both blame the failures of their goal-states on the other sex’s personal / social character flaws without consideration of the hindbrain, firmware that always rebels against those states.

How do you just accept that and blame yourself for being beta? I’m not saying you shouldn’t, I’m saying I want to be able to do the same thing. I just can’t access that mindset.

What was so terrible about the blue pill equalism really? We all regard it with contempt, but we’re just being pragmatic, since it’s unworkable, a cruel lie we were all fed from birth. I get all that. But in and of itself, what was so terrible about it? Had it been possible – which it is not – would the idea been worthy of such contempt? I can’t convince myself of that.

Again, men’s idealistic root note wants some kind of cooperative Blue Pill harmony to exist in a mutually shared, mutually negotiated and mutually agreed upon state between men and women. Yes, Blue Pill equalism seems very pragmatic, that’s what makes subscribing to it so seductive, and potentially so damaging for idealistic men. The Feminine Imperative figured that out a hundred thousand years ago – men are the True Romantics, and that’s been their thumbscrew for millennia.

All I did was treat my ex the way I wanted to be treated. In fact, that’s all I did in any of my relationships. And not even because I was trying to be Ghandi or live according to some conscious code, but simply because that is what came naturally. That’s what made the relationship appealing and worth investing in in the first place. Feeling that way about her cultivated a selfless aspect of myself, one that I actually *like.* I miss feeling that way. I loved her because she inspired me to treat her the way I did, or to want to treat her that way. I can look back on it and see it as beta, and if I regard women like robots running an evo-psych script, I can see that it would have been impossible for her to love and respect me, I guess. So is that what it boils down to? Thinking about women as if they are children or dumb dogs and accepting it?

There is great power in the Golden Rule. I don’t mean that from the sentimentalist, “do unto others” perspective, but rather how available you make yourself to exploitation and manipulation when adopting that mindset. There is no position more vulnerable than an expectation of equal treatment from another for like treatment from yourself. It presumes a mutually shared acknowledgement of how that other would perceive treating you as they would themselves.

The fundamental differences between men and women (idealistic vs. opportunistic love concepts) virtually ensure that a conflict will occur when you pair this expectation of equal treatment and equal appreciation with the cardinal rule of sexual strategies:

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

Men’s predilection for idealism make them the logical candidates for this compromise or abandonment of their own imperatives, however, in doing so they fall prey to self-sacrifice in the hopes of mutual appreciation, earning relational equity and all while idealistically affirming for themselves their own righteousness of that sacrifice. The more you suffer the more it shows you really care, right?

The problem then becomes one of women fundamentally lacking the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate her own reality.

And thus we come back to the software vs. firmware conflict again.

This is what I mean when I say that women are “awful.” I don’t even have words for it. I don’t understand how I’m supposed to get past the contempt or sense of being wronged. You can tell yourself “stop being beta, bro. Don’t wish it was easier, wish you were better, etc.,” or anything you like, it doesn’t change the reality or the fact that I recognize the reality. It’s like trying to convince yourself that 2+2=5.

My idealism was co-opted to serve the FI, but what is competing idealism? Stoicism and being a badass who can take it? Beating myself up for being beta and striving for what? It’s like I’m supposed to improve myself, but I can’t see anything that I would actually regard as an improvement, just traits that would appeal to women’s hunter gatherer libido.

The first step is giving up hope on the Blue Pill ideals you’ve been conditioned to believe are desirable, much less achievable. You need to accept that Blue Pill idealism will never be achieved in a Red Pill paradigm.

The next step is to accept that you can create new hope and a new ideal founded on Red Pill awareness rather than succumbing to a nihilistic despair that’s based on the hope for Blue Pill falsehoods.

Men’s idealistic nature can either be his greatest vulnerability or the source of his greatest strength and drive. It’s the context and conditioning of that idealism that makes it a danger or a boon. Stoicism is a practical measuring of that idealism based on self-knowledge and a truthful understanding of the state in which a man lives (Red Pill awareness).

Why are we so much more idealistic and imaginative in our youth? Because we have very little life experience with which to measure that idealism against. This is exactly why the Feminine Imperative must condition men from an early age – to direct that idealism to its own Blue Pill ends before a man learns enough about his reality to reject the imperatives’ ends in favor of his own.

And that is why undiluted, uncompromised Red Pill awareness being widely available is a threat to the Feminine Imperative.