independent women

The Golden Ticket

Imagine, if you will, that you buy a lottery ticket and you win. After taxes the payoff is $2 million. Not an exorbitant amount by today’s standards, but still quite a lot of money for the average paycheck to paycheck person. For some it may be what could be described as Fuck You Money, easily enough for most people to retire on very comfortably.

How would this newfound fortune change your life? How would it change your family and your friend’s dealing with you? Would they be happy for you? Maybe jealous? Would you be able to manage the changes in your daily routine? If you were accustomed to one lifestyle and then switched to a more affluent lifestyle would it be a good change? Or would you become someone else?

Now lets say you could possibly win $100 million if you made an almost certain bet. There were still some risks involved, but nothing that would threaten your life in the short term. How would winning this kind of money reflect on your daily routine? Would it be different than your winning $2 million? Money would cease to be an object for you for the rest of your life and likely the lives of your children, maybe even grandchildren and all you really had to do was make a smart bet that you believed would pay off.

What if you only won $1 million or $500,000, but you were only making $36,000 a year and scraping by the best you could? Again, all you have to do is look for the best opportunity to make a short term sacrifice and the money would be yours. Would you compromise your ‘principles’ (assuming you have any) temporarily to change your life in the long term more significantly?

Imagine you had a Golden Ticket that had a potential to win you $70,000 per year or if you played things right it had the potential to earn you $10 million per year if you were wise enough to capitalize on it. How would that change your outlook on life?

What rationales would that prompt you to in order to reconcile that other people might not have the same potential for cashing in –without really earning it – that you do?

Here’s your Ticket

Okay, got that in your head now? Good. Now imagine that you’re given this Golden Ticket at the tender age of 12 years old. It’s handed to you and you’re told, “Keep this ticket with you forever. You can redeem it for more money while you’re young, but the longer you hold on to it the less it will be worth. Even still, it should be valuable for most of your life if you can manage to hold on to it.” And even after you’ve cashed the ticket in you can still retain it for a time, because some people have been able to trade one prize for a larger one by taking the ticket back and redeeming it for a better prize later.

Now you begin to believe that you deserve the biggest prize because, well, you’ve been deprived of things. You’re special; special enough to know you deserve the very best after having been deprived of these things as one of a long line of people who’ve also been deprived of things – the best things – or so they’ve told you.

You could always earn some money and get the things you and your people have never been able to reliably get, at least, again, that’s what they’ve told you. You have a lot of personal potential, you’re independent, you have a lot of respectable strengths, so you know you could always merit the things you deserve. But you still have this Golden Ticket in your hand, why wouldn’t you use it? You could earn some money, maybe a lot, but it will never be as reliable or as much as the money the Golden Ticket could net you – if you know just when to redeem it.

Stipulations

All that said, there are going to be a few stipulations to this lottery, but still, they’re not as steep when you compare them to having to actually earn a similar prize.

The first stipulation: You must stay physically fit. In fact, the better you look the better your potential prize could be. As you age this potential decays, but even still, you occasionally see some people cash out their ticket for great prizes despite their age. They just had to apply themselves more in the gym to get it.

The second stipulation: You must be agreeable, accommodating, even a bit flirty. You must put forward the impression that you are someone who genuinely deserves the best prize that the ticket might offer to a special person like you. You must give the perception that the experience of you deserves the highest potential prize imaginable.

The third stipulation: You must position yourself in social situations where the potential for the biggest payout for your ticket can be maximized. Sometimes, not always, but often these settings might make you uncomfortable, but hey, you wanted to make the most of the ticket, right? This stipulation really isn’t all that discomforting when you realize that once you have cashed in your ticket you’ll be the one deciding where you live and who you’ll choose to associate with anyway. At least that’s what the lottery organizers would have you believe.

There are a few more minor stipulations, but, for all of this, you still deserve the biggest prize that opportunity might bring your way. So, while the best thing would be for you to stay in shape and be ready for a big prize, the people playing the same lottery as you – most with the same potential – will tell you none of this really matters. They insist that you just being you is enough for you to win a big prize. Or it should be.

It’s almost as if they want you to believe that you can dismiss all the stipulations and still make out pretty good. In fact they praise you for going against the stipulations. They complain about how unfair these rules are and that for people as deprived as themselves, and for as long as they and their predecessors have been deprived, they should simply be given the highest, best and most secure forms of the prize – all irrespective of the very minimal stipulations as they are.

This is the Golden Ticket! How dare anyone place prerequisites on us to get the prizes we so thoroughly deserve. How dare anyone make us earn our birthright. But for all this discontent, the rules of the game still apply, and the people who embrace and master the stipulations largely seem to get the biggest and best prizes. And the ones complaining about the stipulations only seem to drag down the people with the same Golden Ticket, and their prizes are usually nothing compared to the people who take the stipulations to heart.

The Agreement

Finally, and maybe most importantly, there is one last detail of this lottery to consider. In order to keep the biggest and best prizes you have to sign a very loose and totally non-binding contract that only benefits you and ensures you will continue to be paid dividends should you decide to renege on the agreement and take your ticket back to use it again. The contract can be broken by you at any time, and even when you do you’ll still receive a substantial percentage of your original prize in monthly installments and usually for the rest of of your life.

Still, your signing this contract will limit your capacity to play this lottery in the future. If you see the potential for a better prize after you’ve signed the contract of limitations you’ll be less able to capitalize on it. However, the way that the contract is written it doesn’t necessarily exclude you from winning and even bigger prize should the opportunity arise. Your ticket reserves the right to be redeemed for other prizes if you make some wise bets.

So, at the end here, we get to the larger point of this metaphor; how would this ticket change the way you live your life? How would it influence your future decisions? How would the ticket affect your personal relationships with your best friends, some of whom have tickets themselves? How would the subconscious knowledge of the ticket alter your dealings with a husband, a wife, the children you may have or your immediate family?

Would the ticket define who you will become in life?

Topping from the Bottom

 

topping

In last week’s post I had an exchange with yet another attention seeking girl of 25. I wont be giving her any more than what she already thinks is her due writing for XOJane, however the topic of BDSM came up and I wanted to explore that a bit this week.

It’s no coincidence that the movie adaptation of 50 Shades of Grey is opening on Valentines Day this Saturday, so rather than my annual V-Day post I figured I’d also do a bit of early prognosticating about the knots the fem-stream media will be tying themselves into by this time next week.

Just as a recap, the exchange with this girl centered on her dissatisfaction with her boyfriend’s assertiveness and dominant status with her. At her insistence he Alpha’d up for her, but I was incredulous about her believing he’d done so, and with any amount of genuineness. For a man to Just Get It, he must get it on his own. Any woman inserting herself into the process of him just getting that he ought to be more dominant with her defeats the legitimacy of that change with her.

Observing a process will change that process. Just as genuine desire cannot be negotiated, neither can genuine change in a man’s mindset be negotiated at a woman’s insistence.

Hypergamy only believes the dominance of a man that a woman finds in him, never the one a woman needs to create in him.

During this exchange our goth girl mentioned she was into BDSM and the whole picture came into perspective:

Now I got it.

Sub in the dungeon, Dom in public. Most women into (overt) BDSM have issues with reconciling their desire for being dominated by a man and submitting to him in any other aspect of life.

I’m not surprised you felt the need to ask him to be more dominant. It’s not about his asserting himself with others it’s about your need for a genuinely dominant man giving you tingles. You want him to dominate you, but it doesn’t come naturally to him.

It sounds better to promote the image of him being a socially dominant character who’s come into it because you want that guy to be the character you fantasize he is in the dungeon.

You want a guy who’s genuinely dangerous, objectifying and powerful when you’re having sex, but you want the security and trust that comes from knowing he’s really safe, in control and socially dominant enough to ensure your security with his decisions.

That’s why BDSM is appealing to feminists. The dominance gets them off because it’s wrong, a taboo they shouldn’t really like because the feminist dogma says it’s disgusting to submit to a man (especially for an “empowered” woman), but the fantasy aspect of it legitimizes the desire and separates the “real” woman from the “sex act” woman.

I’m using the term “dungeon” metaphorically here, but I think it’s apt for any sex environment we put ourselves into with another person. One of the many aspects of masculine ridicule is the caricature of the strong, dominant business man paying for and playing the role of pathetic, tortured submissive to his vinyl-clad dominatrix with a whip, knee-boots and a bad attitude. The cliché serves the purpose of male ridicule of course, but it also reinforces the the latent message that those CEOs who rule the world, in their sexual selves, are really pathetic ass lickers who get off on humiliation from strong, independent women. Their sexual identities is who they really are.

Commenter 447 followed me up in that thread:

Things/actions that are called BDSM or can be put into that category (which can even be acts without any fetish objects, basically even normal, hard sex where the man just has his way with a female can be put there by twisting semantics) just *concentrate and thereby CORNER* all of femininity into ONE corner of the spectrum of life: Sex.

That explains a lot – from the massive number of Shades of Grey-Copies sold to the (sometimes almost comical) attempt of many young women to be “sexually perverted” even if they are not:

It is the only socially acceptable form known to them to be truly female today: By being a “whore”.

Only banged one feminist – can just add +1 to the description above – the more feminst bullshit they talk, the more they desire to be a sex slave or even an abused victim(!) in the bedroom. +1 to “explanations for rape hysteria” btw.

Roleplaying Games

As women find themselves coming into the open acceptance of Hypergamy and recognizing the social control they wield, the overstated perception they have with regard to their sexual market value will inflate with their collective egos. We address this often in the manosphere about how women’s self-perception of their SMV is grossly, unrealistically, inflated by social networks, media and popular culture. My assertion here is that BDSM – not just the overt kind, but the interplay of dominance and submission in any sexual intercourse – will become women’s fantasy outlet for a natural desire to be dominated by men.

In the case I illustrated with the CEO relegating himself to his mistress as a slave, so too will women’s sexual selves be a role they’ll play, and that role will be normalized for women through a feminine-primary social order. While men can be comfortably ridiculed for their desire to be dominated, women are sold the idea that their sexual selves are not their real selves, thus the need to be submissive can be forgiven of the strong independent woman® because her sexual self is not “who she really is.”

The Feminine Imperative defines for men that his ridiculous sexual identity is who he really is, but for women her sexual identity is a role she plays that insulates her from her real ’empowered’ identity. Through this roleplaying, women can reconcile and satisfy their real need of masculine dominance while maintaining the strong independent woman® identity that feminine-primary society expects of them.

In this sense women are put into a socially acceptable, socially expanded, form of topping from the bottom. The idea is that women can safely control and accommodate that want of sexual submission without losing self-respect by challenging the feminine social narrative of female state control. So long as that desire and the act are considered a fantasy that they can separate their true selves from, the sexual submission to a dominant man they desire can be balanced and reconciled if that act isn’t who they really are.

Furthermore there is a tantalizing sexual wrongness to engaging in submission only in a sexual theater. This is what fem-stream media will twist itself into knots about in the week following the opening of 50 Shades of Grey. In an era of Yes Means Yes consent forms and fantastical, falsified, rape hysteria, the go-to rationale for the runaway success that 50 Shades of Grey will undoubtedly be will be exactly this “its a fantasy so it’s ok, it’s not the real woman” separation of desire and ego preservation.

This is how the rape fantasy elements will be dealt with in the aftermath of so wildly popular a movie. It turns women on because it’s not supposed to turn them on. What fem-blogs will confront is the true nature of women’s Hypergamy being openly (likely proudly) embraced, but at the same time conflicting with the rape culture messaging that’s been pounded into our collective consciousness for the better part of 2014. Feminine duplicity will be on display and women will either say it’s their due, it’s “not for real” or that it’s Patriarchal sexual repressiveness that’s brought them to this (male shame).

Dalrock delivered this fantastic comment in one of my threads years ago, but I’m reminded of it now:

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 want 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.

The safeness women hope to effect for themselves can’t be entrusted to men. The dominant Alphas are inherently dangerous, and the more Beta men are too commonplace and less empowered than women themselves. The solution then is to rig the social structure to accommodate women’s thrill-seeking by socially expecting men to accept being topped from the bottom irrespective of “who a woman really is.”

The main reason ‘goth girl’ will never be content with a boyfriend she had to encourage to be more dominant is because his passivity was his mental point of origin for him. He’s already safe, before he’s allowed to play the role of dominance by her.

A Note About V-Day

If you haven’t read my previous V-Day post you may want to before Saturday. Considering it falls on a weekend and the impending “we’re just as sexual as men” lather women will likely work themselves into over 50 Shades, it might be a good refresher. I understand that some of my manosphere contemporaries are getting onboard with the billing that 50 Shades’ release will make for orgy-like conditions on V-Day, and while I’ll concur for the most part I think there are far more significant considerations men need to be aware of.

For the married or LTR man who’s wife insists on taking him to see the movie, or one who insists on a GNO with her semi-monogamous girlfriends there will be no post-movie orgy. One of the most common rationales I hear from men when their woman wants to go off with her friends to a male strip ‘revue’ is “hey, let her go have a good time, she’ll just bring that sexual impulse home to me, right?” These men are only rationalizing their part in their own cuckoldry.

The real question is how into sex do you think your wife would be after your coming home from hitting the strip club with your boys, downing three $12 appletinis and smelling like stripper perfume? Or better yet, perhaps you suggest you both hit a strip club together after you watch 50 Shades? You’re only taking that sexual energy home for each other after having outside sexual cues turn you on. Christian Grey will be the man fucking your wife while you sit on and watch.

For single men the situation is a pussy bonanza if you can play the ‘lonely hearts club’ Game correctly. On any other V-Day I’d suggest men capitalize on GNOs and women commiserating about how inadequate men are these days while they tie one on. The likelihood that an order of 50 million women will have seen 50 Shades just prior to hitting the bars with their girls on this night only makes your efforts that much easier with better sexual dividends.

While not overtly playing the Christian Grey role, if you cop the dominant energy (or if that’s what you’re about already) you can help a girl work off that energy. It would be too easy to say these women will be primed for Game, but remember, feminine-primary acculturation has taught her to justify the action of her sexual self apart from her real self. Saturday night may be the one time getting a girl to sign a sexual consent form will work in a man’s favor.

All that said, the opportunity for observing open Hypergamy in the field will be hard to ignore. Enjoy the mental-hamster contortions women will use to justify behaving exactly like the cads they claim to hate, and their sad sack Beta men sitting dutifully at home changing diapers while the girls are being girls. My advice would be to use that open Hypergamy environment to your advantage, but demonstrate it, don’t explicate it to them.

Be aware. You will see a great many Red Pill truths come to light in a short time frame. It may be a shinning opportunity to make your Blue Pill friend Red Pill aware.

The Brand of Independence

independence

The archetype of the Strong Independent Woman® has been culturally reinforced over the last half century in virtually every imaginable media. Whether it’s Disney’s capable Princesses ready to save themselves from certain doom – as well as their quirky, hapless but handsome male heroes – or the now clichéd ‘tough bitch’ of action movies and video game protagonists who measures herself by how well she can kick ass and /or swear as the culturally contextual equal of “any man”. Her template-crafted character is strong, confident, measuredly aggressive, decisive (but usually only when shit gets serious so as to prove to the audience she’s ‘digging deep within herself to discover her yet unrealized resolve), judicious, loving to those loyal or dependent on her (immediate family, children and female friends), capable of solving problems with little more than the feminine intuition men magically lack – but above all, she’s independent.

As this cultural archetype is broadcast to society at large, the want then is to find parallels of this Strong Independent Woman® in the ‘real’ world. The media character is only marginally believable now thanks to endless revisions and replications, so we look for the examples of independent women equalling and exceeding the, paltry-by-comparison, achievements of the unenlightened ignorance of their male “oppressors.” High ranking company CEOs are usually the first rock star independent women to nominally shine (often undeservedly) in such a role, but then, by order of degrees, we can move down the economic social strata and cherry-pick or conveniently create the match of any mediocre man. As most men are, or have been conditioned Betas it’s not too difficult.

It really is the End of Men you see. You’re no longer necessary because, well now, there is nothing men can collectively and uniformly do that women cannot find some individual example of matching and / or exceeding. Women don’t need men anymore, they’re independent.

The Branding

If there’s one thing I know, it’s branding. The Strong Independent Woman® caricature has generously earned it’s registered trademark. I sometimes use that ® to emphasize a particularly long-evolved meme; social conventions so embedded into our cultural fabric that they literally have become their own brand. The Strong Independent Woman® is actually one the best examples of this branding. However, to really understand the gravity of so long a cultural branding, you must go to the root of how the brand of the independent woman was originally intended to evolve by the 2nd wave cultural feminists who spawned it. In a way it’s succeeded far better than any feminist of the period really had the foresight to expect.

An Independent Woman was to be independent of men.

While a lot of feel-good aphorisms like confidence, determination, integrity, and the like became associated with this desire for independence, make no mistake, the original long-term feminist goal of fostering that independence in women was to break them off into individuated, autonomous entities from men. That individuation needed to be as positive and attractive to women as possible, so a social pairing of that independence from men, with a sense of strength and respectability, had to be nurtured over time.

Since the beginnings of the sexual revolution, women were acculturated to believe they could ‘have it all’, career, family, a husband (of her optimal hypergamous choosing) and, if she were influential enough, leave some indelible mark on society to be remembered by for posterity. To achieve this she’d need to be an autonomous agent, strong, and above all independent of men. Women would embody and perfect the maverick individualism that men seemed to enjoy throughout history. If she couldn’t manifest ‘having it all’ then she was still, by male force or by personal choice, not independent enough to realize it. Of course, the irony of all this can be found in the marriages of virtually every ‘high profile’ feminist luminary of the time (all the way up to our current time) to the very powerful and influential types of men their stated independence was to emancipate all women from in order to truly be independent.

The Case Against Male Self-Esteem

Matt Forney’s lightning rod post, The Case Against Female Self-Esteem drew a frenzy of internet hate, but at the core of that post was a question that Strong Independent Women® and their male identifiers don’t like be confronted with; do they truly want independence from men? Do the men they want to be independent from even exist, or are they conveniently useful archetypes; vaudevillian chauvinist cartoons from the 50’s, planted in their heads, courtesy of the feminine imperative?

While I can’t endorse a message that would diminish anyone’s self-esteem, male or female, Matt’s post, even so much as suggesting the idea of limiting female self-esteem, uncomfortably turns a cultural mirror back on over 50 years feminist and feminized social engineering. For over the past 50 years the case against male self-esteem, with the latent purpose of emancipating women from dependence on men, began in earnest — not with some anger inducing blog post, but as a progressive social engineering that would run the course of decades to effectively erase men’s inconvenient masculine identity, or even memory of what that identity ever meant to men. The case against male self-esteem has been the social undercurrent of popular culture since the early 1960’s.

I think it’s important for red pill men to internalize the popular idea of feminine independence. The true message that the Strong Independent Woman® brand embodies is independence from you, a man.

Its latent purpose isn’t the actual empowerment of women, or efforts to bolster self-esteem, strength (for whatever loose definition seems convenient), confidence or any other esoteric quality that might flatter a feminine ego. Its purpose isn’t to foster financial or economic independence (as evidenced by ever evolving fem-centric laws, educational and financial handicaps), or religious social parity, or even efforts to achieve its vaunted social equalism between the sexes. What feminine independence truly means is removing the man – independence from men. Feminine independence’s idealized state is one where women are autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient and self-perpetuating single-gender entities.

If that revelation seems aggrandized and over the top, it should. It’s extreme, because the purpose itself is extreme. When you consider that the sexes have coexisted in relative gender complementarity, to produce our very proliferate species, for a hundred thousand years, the idea and implementation of separating the sexes into independent and solitary entities is extreme. Obviously effecting this independence is an impossibility for a race of social animals like human beings. We’ve relied on cooperative efforts since our tribal beginnings and the species-beneficial psychological hardwiring of that cooperation is one trait that made us so successful in adapting to changing, dangerous, environments.

For most manosphere readers (especially MRAs) I don’t think I need to illustrate the many manifest ways that women are dependent upon the men; if not men’s generated resources and provisioning, then certainly their parental investment, companionship, emotional and sexual interest. We’re better together than we’ve ever been apart – even when the ugly mechanics of hypergamy, or male aggression, or any number of negatively perceived gender dynamics prove useful survival traits for us, there is no true independence between the sexes. There is interdependence.

This is what equalism makes a mockery of. In its striving for a homogenous goal-state of androgynous gender-parity it fails to account for where the species-success that the complementarity of the past 30,000 years has brought us. From a heroic male perspective we generally accept that no man is an island, but feminism and equalism disagree – a Strong Independent Woman® is an island,..or she will be just as soon as a man gives her her due to become so.