intergender relations

The Creep – Part 2

Just so we’re clear here, yes, I get that there are a lot of ways to take the term ‘creepy’. In last week’s essay I wanted to dig into what women claim is ‘creepy’ and how this term is really another illustration of ambiguous fem-speak rooted in how a guy makes a woman feel. Furthermore, this feeling is modified by where that man is stationed in her perception of his sexual market value (SMV).

Last week I got linked a Tweet about ‘creeps’ by Roosh (he still hates me). He had a good point, and I paraphrase,

“Creeps are just guys that go from 0-100 in sexualizing a conversation with a woman way too fast. A good PUA knows that slow and steady sexualization works best.”

Take that how you want, but I think this is definitely part of the creep dynamic. There’s a bit more to being creepy than overly fast sexualization (or presumed familiarity); we’ve got to account for a Blue Pill / Beta guy’s lack of social intelligence to understand that taking it slow should be something he knows already. And still, how can we presume this slow and steady sexualization is a proficient form of seduction when we see more Alpha, more immediately arousing men, go from 0-100 themselves and get a same night lay? I’ve done this myself more than a few times back in a time when there was no formal Game to be had. Right guy, right place, right time, and 0-100 is what a woman is hoping will happen. Hypergamy is nothing if not pragmatic.

That said, I am convinced that this over-investment, too quick, too soon is definitely part of the creepy dynamic. I’ve made the call in several prior posts that it’s part of the Beta mindset to want to bypass the arousal and attraction phases of seduction to go directly to rapport. Thus, you get a guy who shares too much way too soon and this itself is creepy for women. It’s a huge telegraphing of that guy’s state of desperation and optionlessness. There’s no mystery left about the guy (assuming the girl even had an initial attraction) and nothing left to figure out. This over-sharing is also a huge red flag to women’s Hypergamous filters; it’s an indication that a guy ‘doesn’t get it’ with regard to how to play the Game with her.

You see, this rush to get to comfort and rapport is usually because that ‘creep’ is anxious to get past the arousal phase, the sexual tension, because he has no clue what to do in that phase. It’s a real source of anxiety for him, and besides, every woman he’s ever asked has said she needed to be comfortable with a guy before she has sex with him (false). Comfort, rapport, familiarity (all of which are anti-seductive) should be where the sex begins to his way of thinking, so again, male deductive logic would follow that getting there quickly would be pragmatic.

When a more Alpha, natural, moves quickly it’s almost always because he’s working with a receptive (proceptive) woman. As I mentioned before, arousal covers for a lot of men’s deficits in Game or feelings of creepery.

The Creeps

As most readers will have probably guessed I’ve timed the release of this series to address the current Hysteria of sexual assault / harassment / rape charges that are  moving like wildfire through Hollywood first, and now through the rest of our pop-culture social strata. While it may be satisfying to see mealy-mouth self-righteous actors and moguls take a fall, it’s important to see the larger social mechanics in play here.

I wrote that essay over a year ago and I’ll say now that I’d never dreamed how prophetic that post would turn out. Criticizing this #MeToo sexual assault hysteria is next to impossible. For the same reasons no one wanted to question the veracity of the UVA fraternity rape hoax that Rolling Stone and Sabrina Erdley perpetrated – no one now wants to question the accusations leveled at the various personalities being conveniently outed for sexual assault/harassment that in some cases occurred 30-40 years ago. We are expected to believe the testimonies of women without question.

This isn’t to say that the celebrities involved didn’t do what their accusers are saying they did, it’s that we are expected to accept that this behavior is endemic in all men, and based on the same principle of believing whatever a woman has to say about it with no afterthought given to its truth or her motives. It’s one thing to presume that whenever a woman comes forward with a rape or assault claim we are expected to presume the man guilty until proven innocent, but we’re rapidly reaching a point where any claim a woman has about a man bears that same weight. When it comes down to ‘he said, she said’, what she said will hold the full weight of the law.

Our Feminine-primary social order is now repurposing this ironclad believability of women – and presumed guilt of men – for every crime a woman ‘feels’ she’s been a victim of at the hands of a man. At the same time we see sexual harassment being defined as something that even a wink from a man can convey, we also see the rapid criminalization of men  who would dare to talk to a woman they don’t already know.

When we combine this overarching presumption of male guilt with the potential crime of men dealing with a woman with the intent of establish intimacy, and then add to it the ever changing definition of what can constitute sexual assault or harassment (and with a uniquely endless statute of limitations), we begin to get a clearer picture of the direction the Feminine Imperative has for men.

I’m sure this all seems very reactionary, but so was the questioning of Sabrina Erdley’s story about a nameless girl who was violently raped on the shattered glass of a broken coffee table by fraternity boys. Once again, I’m not saying sexual assault doesn’t happen, I’m saying that the direction gynocentrism is taking is one in which men ought to lose rights and liberties that only women ought to be the judges of.

Creepiness is a feeling women get from men who lack the social skills to ‘just get it’ that they are or aren’t into them. What this distills down to on a root level is women’s presuming that men should know better than to approach them when they are beneath their Hypergamous attraction floor. It is the criminalization of men not understanding how they fit into women’s sexual strategies. I made a case for this in The Political is Personal. The more men resist the social intents of Hypergamy, the more it will become necessary to legislate men to comply with it.

Feminine-primary social doctrine is an extension of  women’s Hypergamy.

Any deviation from this is on the part of  men is met with a cultural reprisal designed to convince or coerce men to accept their inevitable role in providing those entitlements to women. When those social contingencies fail, or become played out, the Feminine Imperative then appeals to legal legislation to mandate men’s compliance to what amounts to women’s social entitlement to optimized Hypergamy.

We’re rapidly reaching this peak Hypergamous state. As I mentioned in Male Control, since the Las Vegas shooting the narrative of masculinity has shifted. There is no more “toxic” masculinity – it’s masculinity on-whole that is toxic. As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.

In the Zone

Morpheus had a great comment last week that hit on what I went into in Sexual Zoning:

The term “creep” can really lead in a bunch of different directions discussion wise, but I think a really big one is “sexual zones” vs “non-sexual zones”. Increasingly, there are all sorts of places where the default presumption is that women should be “free from” male advances. Work, school, etc. In these zones, the margin for error is very small. Unless you are an objectively visually attractive man with super tight game, the odds of you being perceived as a “creep” are much, much higher. In sexual zones, such as the Friday night bar, your margin for error is higher. The default presumption is men are there to meet women. You still need to have the right social vibe and not come across as a weirdo but you have a little more room to play with.

And from that post:

I would argue that a large majority of men accused of sexual harassment or even just suspected of impropriety are men who’ve found themselves in an environment they believed was an acceptable sexual zone. We are fast approaching a time when all zones will be so arbitrary and ambiguous that every environment with sexual potential will be avoided. This will have the effect of putting women into unilateral control of their own Hypergamy. It will be a state of Sadie Hawkins world – only women will make approaches on men and only those who match her Hypergamous ideal, an ideal fostered and reinforced by a steady diet of social media ego inflation.

A while ago I read this piece about Mike Pence:

“In 2002, Mike Pence told The Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.”

Naturally the media wants to pass this off as some masculine insecurity on Pence’s part. Certainly there’s a religious reason for Pence not wanting to present any perception of impropriety – I’ve know pastor who will never have closed door meetings with women or do counseling for women without their wives present – but there is a practical side to this habit. It prevents the accusations and opportunity for anything like what we’re seeing in the accusation cycling through Hollywood today. But still, shaming the masculine is the first reflex for the mainstream media.

This Atlantic article is an exercise in deliberately not seeing the intersexual writing on the wall. This is the practical contingency for a social order bent on removing men via accusations of sexual misconduct. Yet still, for all of the inherent dangers of a frivolous sexual harassment suit at the disposal of any and every western woman, men are supposed to leave themselves vulnerable to them:

Pence is not the only powerful man in Washington who goes to great lengths to avoid the appearance of impropriety with the opposite sex. An anonymous survey of female Capitol Hill staffers conducted by National Journal in 2015 found that “several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.” One told the reporter Sarah Mimms that in 12 years working for her previous boss, he “never took a closed door meeting with me. … This made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult.”

This is the social environment feminism and our gynocentric social order has chosen to establish for men and women. Men pragmatically look for ways to guard themselves against allegation, and yet are shamed for that sensibility. It’s gotten (or will get) to the point where old books “decent” behavior is too risky to engage in in the modern workplace. Powerful men must hide behind open doors, and still those men are shamed for being prudent. Why?

We live in a new era where marriage has become disincentivized for men by the risks of capital loss in divorce that overwhelmingly favors women with cash & prizes. Now add to this the increasing ego entitlements of women to high value men. As the prospect of marriage looks less and less like a good deal for men wanting to protect themselves there comes a need for women to create ways to bypass the requirement for marriage to access men’s capital. Enter the era of increasingly more nebulous, acrimonious, accusations of sexual harassment or assault and de facto believability of women’s testimony. Exit the era of frivolous divorce (okay maybe not entirely) and enter the era of more easily accessible capital via frivolous sexual assault lawsuits.

More to come in part 3.

The ‘Creep’ – Part 1

What makes a guy “creepy”?

For almost every woman I polled in researching this essay what makes a guy ‘creepy’ is the inability of a guy to ‘take a hint’.

Most seemed to believe that there was some ‘obvious’ (to them) boundary that ‘creepy’ men always crossed that made them into creeps. If that sounds a lot like my principle of ‘Just Get It’ you’re not too far off. Much of this goes back to women’s innate psychological filtering for optimizing Hypergamy and women expect men to ‘just get’ everything about intersexual dynamics, both positive and negative. However, there is a fundamental difference between what men define as creepy (in a general sense) and what women ‘feel’ is creepy with regards to creepy men. I’ll go into both in this essay, but it’s important to make this distinction because for both men and women there is a peripheral awareness about other people’s behavior that sets off psychological triggers which inform us that something isn’t quite right about that person and to beware of danger.

Personally, I believe we have evolved a pretty good instinct about what makes us feel unsafe about other people. For people who have some sort of clinical neurosis sometimes all it takes is to listen to that person’s speech or watch their mannerisms. If you meet someone who is drunk, it’s pretty easy to diagnose that person’s state without having to smell their breath. We instinctively get a feeling that this person is not speaking (slurring) or behaving like a sober person would. Drunkenness is an easy illustration of this instinct, but the same goes for true forms of insanity (schizophrenia, paranoia, bipolar disorder). Unless we’re really naive or just ignoring the indicators we can tell when a person is off.

Dementia and Alzheimers are easy diagnoses too. From there though, by degrees of subtlety, we really have to hone our senses to what’s right or wrong about a person’s behavior. What’s more difficult to wrap our heads around is sussing out people who have a better capacity to hide their disorders. Autism, Asperger’s Syndrome or just acute social awkwardness is sometimes manageable and we either accept it as part of their personality or we understand it as a disorder and we (as “normies”) choose to ignore it. This is where the social conditioning of today does us a disservice to some extent.

In our feminine-primary social order of tolerance and acceptance, this innate, often peripheral or unconscious, sense of understanding that something is off about someone is something we are taught we ought to keep sublimated. We don’t want to appear “judgmental” or we’re shamed for actually heeding the messages our instincts are telling us are red flags about people. Conditions and disorders that we used to consider abnormalities in the past are things we’re expected to progressively have more and more empathy for. That isn’t to say that we ought not be sympathetic to a person’s condition, but it is to say that this expectation of acceptance reduces our capacity to listen to what our instinct is telling us about a person. We get conditioned to tuning out our natural instincts about a person who may want to harm or manipulate us.

I mentioned this hindbrain instinct in Gut Check as being one reason we tend to get jealous or possessive of our mates.

Whenever you feel something isn’t quite right in your gut, what this is is your subconscious awareness alerting you to inconsistencies going on around you. We tend to ignore these signs in the thinking that our rational mind ‘knows better’ and things really aren’t what they seem. It’s not as bad as you’re imagining, and you can even feel shame or guilt with yourself for acknowledging that lack of trust. However, it’s just this internal rationalization that keeps us blind to the obvious that our subconscious is trying to warn us about. Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. So when that predictable behavior changes even marginally, our instinctual perceptions fire off all kinds of warnings. Some of which can actually effect us physically.

The dynamic of Mate Guarding is also a behavioral adaptation that evolved to ensure our paternity or parental investment with a mate. Our social order today teaches us that men who feel jealousy, suspect infidelity or are prone to mate guard are by definition “insecure”. This redefining is meant to cover for women’s control of Hypergamy, in the hopes that men will self-police these instincts, but in doing so they become sublimated. So we self-convince that it’s wrong for us to heed what our hindbrain is telling us for our own preservation.

However, when it comes to women’s instincts we exaggerate their importance beyond all realistic measure. Since we prioritize women’s hindbrain perception and feeling above all else, we would never downplay their importance without risking a lot of social fallout and shame. Whereas men’s instincts are signs of ‘insecurity’, women’s instincts (feminine intuition) are raised to a metaphysical level. So when a woman says a guy “creeps her out” or is acting “creepy” we tend to misunderstand what exactly it is her hindbrain is telling her and us. There are two aspects of ‘creepy’ to women:

  • The sense of self-preservation and imminent danger that is associated with a man whom her hindbrain is telling her that there’s something not quite right about. The guy is directly communicating or subcommunicating that he may be a potential threat to her wellbeing. Her intuition is something that is exaggerated beyond all reasonable, realistic perception, but her subconscious only knows what it knows and the social conditioning kicks in to be overly cautious. This may or may not be the actual case, but women evolved to err on the side of over-cautiousness – particularly when it comes to men’s behavioral cues and perceptions of anger.
  • The sense of insult to her capacity to optimize Hypergamy with a suboptimal male makes her “creeped out”. In this sense the “creep” offends her hindbrain’s expectation of reproducing with the best genetic partner her ego believes is really her due. As you’ll see in a moment, when a physically arousing man repeats the same behavior as a less-arousing man the feeling of ‘creep’ is diminished. Much of this has a lot to do with that guy’s sense of congruency between his behavior (sub-communications) and her intuition about his authenticity, but largely the initial ‘hotness’ of one man vs. a less hot one can spell the difference between a “creep” and “awkward-but-cute”. Arousal compensates for a lot of behavioral miscues, but the point is that this sense of ‘creepiness’ is fundamentally based in a woman’s ego-sense of losing direct control of Hypergamy and her capacity to optimize it. What ‘creepy’ distills down to is a woman’s Hypergamous-level revulsion of a man believing he may be someone she would eventually have sex with. Creepy is an insult to Hypergamy.

In both these instances it’s important to consider that we’re talking about both an instinctual dynamic and how it’s been modified by our social order. The following are a few of the most common descriptions of ‘creepy’ I was able to collate for this essay:

Getting in my personal space when I don’t know/barely know you. It’s weird and uncomfortable, and if you’re bigger than me then it can feel quite intimidating.

When I worked in a bar one guy told me I was prettier than anyone else there. But he kept going on about how they weren’t attractive and had nothing to offer as far as looks go. Yeah? Some of those are my dearest friends you’re bashing.

When I make it clear I’m not interested and he keeps trying. It makes me feel uncomfortable and it puts me in a bad position cause there are only so many times you can politely turn someone down.

Over Persistence

It’s an unfortunate but totally predictable response to much of our entertainment, where the storyline involves a man “winning” an initially uninterested woman either by wooing her directly or by performing some great feat. We’ve seen this archetypal story for centuries (since the rise of courtly love). Persistence is always rewarded in Disney Blue Pill fantasies Everyone is the hero of their own story. So if you’re raised on stories like that, of course you don’t take an initial “no” as the final answer. It’s all part of the story. You’re the hero and you want her, so you’ll get her in the end.

Persistence is always a sensitive topic in the ‘sphere. Some guys will tell you that even without Indicators of Interest a woman is only a conversation away from being into you if your Game is good enough to convince her. Others will tell you to balance your efforts and play to your strengths; why bother with a dead end if other opportunities are available? In either case a guy can come off as creepy when he takes this persistence to the extreme. It’s one thing to not “take a hint” from a woman, it’s an order of degree worse when a guy persists in not taking that hint because he’s been taught he’ll be rewarded for persistence.

I have had the “attempts-at-polite-rejection” turn scary (thankfully, the worst it ever got was being slammed into a wall) enough times that as soon as someone doesn’t take “no” for an answer once, I start internally freaking out.

Persistence when a woman has rejected a guy is the top complaint of creepiness. Women expect a guy to ‘just get it’. Social retardation (I mean that in a clinical sense) and Blue Pill conditioning teach a guy to never give up, to believe in some kind of predestination or romantic soul-mate date with fate, and all he needs to do is be persistent and a woman will come to the same romantic-but-logical conclusion.

Women make the mistake of believing all guys understand when they are communicating rejection to them – they very often don’t, and for the same reason they’ve been taught to be zealously persistent. The Blue Pill makes them resistant to this. Blue Pill ‘creeps’ usually respond with either anger or self-pity when they finally realize their predestined girl not only rejects him, but she is scared of him or despises him. So the Nice Guy turns mean and vindictive, or he loses faith in his Blue Pill romanticization and gets despondent. Both are potentially volatile for the Beta.

I think a lot of well-meaning Beta “Nice Guys” come off as creepy simply because they follow a Blue Pill old-books script they believe will be reciprocated by women. Much of this creepiness is the result of their inability to do a realistic assessment of their own SMV. This is a tough bit of insight even for Red Pill aware men, but for Blue Pill guys it’s almost impossible because they are struggling against a social conditioning that constantly tells them what they do and who they are is ‘enough’ – or should be enough for any girl who’s of a quality to appreciate their unique-but-commonness.

In a way it’s a lot like today’s women’s egos being overinflated by social media and our present social narrative to the point that they believe their own SMV is, or should be, enough for any man, but especially men who are well above their own SMV. More than enough actually. So too does the ‘creep’ believe his own pathological self-impression. The problem here is that, for men,  we must be the initiators and with that comes the potential to be taken as an aggressor or harasser.

Where’s my hug?

I think one potentially bad outcome for the ‘creep’ is when he comes across something like a PUA program and watches an ‘instructor’ run through a set and then tries his damnedest to repeat the same behaviors and script with a girl he thinks he may have a chance with. When a PUA presumes familiarity with a woman he doesn’t know, and his internal game is congruent with his delivery, it comes off as authentic and it can (potentially) be endearing. But when a Beta ‘creep’, who’s trying his best to solve his creepiness problem, presumes the same behavior will endear him to a girl – and isn’t congruent, or doesn’t “get it” – he gets even more despondent (or frustrated/aggravated) when all it does is reinforce and enhance his perception of creepiness.

A common Game technique is to presume a familiarity with a woman. When PUA with Game and congruency approaches a woman and says “where’s my hug?” the effect is the polar opposite of when an incongruent Beta delivers the same line. Worse still, the guy risks not just overt rejection and creepiness perception, but he also runs the risk of having his approach considered sexual assault by order of degree. I would argue that a lot of what would otherwise be considered witty banter from a skilled PUA is creepy to women when it comes from a struggling Beta who a woman doesn’t find arousing.

This dynamic also extends to over-sexualizing a conversation with women when no context has been established between the creep and the girl.

I get creeped out by guys who immediately start talking about sexual topics in response to everything you say, every single time you are within communicating distance of each other while you two barely know each other to drop a “hint”. I had a guy that found a way (albeit poorly) to turn everything I said sexual. And whenever I called him out on it and told him to knock it off, I was being a “prude”.

Also, asking personal (sexual) questions or sharing stories of the same, especially if you’re not even casual acquaintances. I know a lot of women who want to be polite but are totally creeped out by this.

What’s fascinating about this sex-conversation creep is that, when the reverse is true, there’s no better indicator that a woman is into having sex with a you. In an upcoming essay I’ll outline our social progression towards a unilateral control of every aspect of the intersexual process by women, but for now consider that when a woman immediately presumes a sexual context in conversation it’s a solid confirmation that you’ve passed (or are passing) her Hypergamous filter. And that’s the fundamental nature of this kind of creepy guy; he presumes an acknowledged state of sexual-ness without having passed this Hypergamous determination. I’ve said in the past that women don’t decide in the first five minutes of meeting a guy if she will have sex with him, rather, she knows if she wont have sex with him.

Again, Game sometimes reinforces the idea that a guy needs to establish a sexual context with a woman from the opening, but the creep doesn’t understand the artistry and nuance that goes along with applying this. My friend, Alan Roger Currie, is a big proponent of straight up, “I wanna fuck you, are you down?” style of direct Game. While I have seen this effective with women it does promote the idea that a guy can simply presume a sexual context with any woman from the outset. And really, when a creep tries to drop ‘hints’ about sex or attempts to get personal information in a blunderingly obvious (but he thinks stealthy) way he’s not employing a direct Game – he’s beating around the bush in the hopes that he’ll pass her sex test.

When a less-than-proficient, less-than-arousing Beta adopts this direct-but-not-directness he runs the risk of being perceived as creepy, or worse, as a harasser. For a mature, socially savvy man, the obvious retort is “well, no guy should presume anything, there needs to be some kind of rapport’, but remember, we’re talking about guys who in large part Don’t Get ItThis should make for a good conversation this week. Let me know your thoughts on what you think constitutes ‘creepiness’ in the comments.

As I was researching and writing on this topic It occurred to me how deep this dynamic really is, so I’ve decided to split it into a series. In part two we’ll go into a bit more of what makes for creepiness in a Hypergamous context.  I’ll also delve into how creepiness has been developed into a feminine-operative social convention.

Riff on This

A week ago I had a reader send me a link to this helpful list of “mother-may-I’s” and feminine-primary etiquette by Nicole Silverberg. Presently I’ve got a very in-depth essay in the works about exactly this shifting of the ‘toxic’ masculinity narrative to one that presumes all forms of masculinity are inherently toxic. However, as a prelude I guess, I think it’s impossible for the manosphere and Red Pill writers to ignore the debacle that was the Harvey Weinstein admissions of chronic sexual harassment with the up and coming starlets who (along with a long list of ‘male feminist’ celebrities) didn’t feel emboldened enough to not keep Harvey’s dirty little not-so-secret until now. This, as I predicted, was then repurposed by the Feminine Imperative to be presumptive proof that all men are prospective sexual harassers with the #metoo viral hashtag.

As I mentioned in Male Control, in the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting the Feminine Imperative took this as an opportunity to change lanes with regard to its gestalt perspective of masculinity. In previous eras, as with this one, the reflexive response to a shooting of this nature is to blame it on the accessibility of firearms in the US. That’s to be expected, but what follows this always-impotent reactions is usually some deep, ostensibly soul-searching, introspective as to the motives of the shooter. And in this the imperative always comes to the ‘angry male’ narrative.

The presumption we’re expected to come to is that it is men’s toxically masculine socialization that makes them all potentially violent. Overwhelmingly it becomes an argument about traditional masculinity and raising boys into men in a laughably clichéd, laughably anachronistic way that is always founded in social constructivism. Yes, the allusions to testosterone being the most volatile chemical on earth gets bandied about, but usually the proponents of the Feminine Imperative rely on the ridiculous lie that boys are being raised in some hyper-masculine tribal order that tells them to “toughen up” and “don’t cry, boys don’t cry”.

However, not to get ahead of myself, in this new shift it’s no longer “toxic” masculinity, it’s masculinity that is toxic. It ought to be interesting to see how the Village eels its way around men’s biological nature to get to some suitably social constructivist rationale for this shift. The difference now is that just being a man makes one a potentially violent criminal – or a potential sexual harasser.

What Weinstein and dozens of other accusation of (usually ‘male feminist’) men following in his wake has reinforced is that masculinity makes us inherently evil. So evil, in fact, that men must be reeducated by the Feminine Imperative to ensure that one’s fellow man (a prospective harasser/rapist/gunslinger) is acting in accordance with the dictates of the Great Masculine Scare of 2017.

The list below, which I intend to riff on, is one of many recent attempts of feminist writers to enlist the aid of sympathetic female-allies men (yes, the ones they say they implicitly distrust) to help police social discourse and intersexual interactions. There are lots of other ‘helpful lists’ like this, and before I dig in I’ll declare that this is a tongue in cheek response to what is really a very serious shift in the popular narrative about perspectives on masculinity.

  • Talk to your friend who is “kind of a creep” at work.

And what exactly would Nicole have us say to our creepy ‘friend’? What is it that makes a guy ‘creepy’? Rarely is ‘creepy’ ever concretely defined by women, but I’d define it as a guy who’s so socially unintelligent and sexually destitute that he’d unwittingly bet his personal life on the very low prospect of a woman responding positively to his ‘creepy’ approaches of her. I could likely write an entire essay about this ‘creepy’ dynamic (likely will), but what ‘creepy’ distills down to is a woman’s Hypergamous-level revulsion of a man believing he may be someone she would eventually have sex with. Creepy is an insult to Hypergamy.

  • Don’t talk over women.

Ah, the old mansplaining chestnut, only this is its newer cousin, men over-modulating women. Men and women communicate differently. We are different creatures and we have our own preferred forms of communication. Women place far more import on context (feeling) in conversation. Yes, this demand is presumptuous in that it presumes anything a woman would say is more important than men’s need to get to the damn point efficiently (we prioritize content/information in conversation). However, a lot of this gripe is about women’s wanting to prioritize their own communication style above that of men’s.

  • If you are asked to be on a panel/team and see that it’s all men, say something. Maybe even refuse the spot!

So, refuse a lucrative position on a work team project with the potential for advancement, greater status and maybe a higher state in the male dominance hierarchy (that attracts all the women who insist on never settling for a less than ‘equal’ pairing) all to appease what passes for women’s moral imperatives? If it ever were all men on the panel in today’s work culture I’d be thanking my cubicle Gods that we’d all get something done and have time to go home to see my wife and kids that evening.

  • When you see another guy talk over a woman, say: “Hey, she was saying something.”

This is the “lets you and him fight” social convention women are all too happy to use when there is absolutely no contingent consequence to themselves. This suggestion already appeals to Blue Pill White Knights who believe that their AMOGing at work will go appreciated and maybe get them laid for championing women at work. Ironically, it’s the ‘creepy’ Betas we’re supposed to say “something” to who are most likely to employ this if they thought it would get them in good standing with women.

On a serious note, all this convention reveals is the solipsistic self-assured certainty that anything a woman might say is, by default, worthy of undivided attention.

  • Learn to read a fucking room.

Most Red Pill aware men already know how to read socially. What this is is an appeal to Betas to know when to shut the fuck up socially.

  • Don’t call women “crazy” in a professional setting.

I would suggest not calling anyone ‘crazy’ in a professional setting, but again the intentional ambiguity of not defining what constitutes ‘professional’ is why this is disingenuous. Can I call a woman crazy if the project team is having drinks after 5 on a Friday?

  • Don’t use your “feminism” as a way to get women to trust you. Show us in your day-to-day life, not in your self-congratulatory social media.

The reason this is chaffing for Nicole is that most of the male-feminist / female-allies are usually facing sexual harassment lawsuits within months of publicly declaring they are male feminists. I get that this is just Nicole venting, but that need to vent comes from knowing that the only reason men say (or even show in their daily lives) they are feminists is because it’s a deductive form of Beta Game.

  • Don’t touch women you don’t know, and honestly, ask yourself why you feel the need to touch women in general.

Good advice, don’t touch women you don’t know; you are giving a woman the keys to your castle by doing so. In today’s workplace women are constantly looking for even a hint of impropriety they can take to HR for the next harassment suit. Better still, refuse to work in situation where just the impression of her advancement depends on your hard work and behavior around her.

Nicole, the Beta need for physical contact is a desperation born from dealing with women who think he’s creepy.

  • Do you feel that any woman on earth owes you something? She doesn’t. Even if you’re like, “Hm, but what about basic respect?” ask yourself if you’ve shown her the same.

There is a constant presupposition on the part of fempowered women to believe that men feel entitled to anything from. The real truth is that it is women who feel entitled to virtually everything in their solipsistic experience – this very extensive list is a prime example of what women believe they are owed from men.  In 2017 no man ever concerns himself with notions of being owed anything (even basic respect) from women. But what confuses men is women constant (Hypergamously incentivized) implications of a transactional nature. If you don’t want men to feel like they are owed your time, concern, respect or attention then don’t present a transactional pretense to your interactions with them.

  • Don’t send pictures of your penis unless she just asked for them.

Never send a woman dick pics, especially if she asks for them. Never send a woman dick pics, even to your wife. In 2017 this is a red herring for women who are planning to file for sexual harassment.

  • If a woman says no to a date, don’t ask her again.

Agreed. Next her, and move on. That said, no guy asks a girl for a date today. They hook up on Tinder or bump into each other at the club. It’s so quaint Nicole still thinks dating works like it did on Happy Days.

  • If a woman has not given an enthusiastic “yes” to sex, back the hell off.

Guys learn this part real easy, what they don’t learn, and what women deliberately keep ambiguous, is that even after “enthusiastic consent” is officially declared, he can still be charged with rape for touching her boobs (or anything else for that matter) the wrong way. Again, control the narrative, control the definition of the language and control what the consequences are and you can control the frame.

  • If a woman is really drunk, she cannot consent to you and she also cannot consent to your buddy who seems to be trying something. Your buddy is your responsibility, so say something and intervene.

Funny how we never see public service announcements stating that women still need consent from drunk men to have sex; but my buddy is not my responsibility, just like driving a drunk woman too hammered to drive home isn’t my responsibility. Good intentions get you put in jail today. If a woman is really drunk is she now ‘owed’ my assistance?

  • If you do the right thing, don’t expect praise or payment or a pat on the back or even a “thank you from that woman”. Congratulations, you were baseline decent.

Oh, trust me, every Red Pill aware reader I’ve ever had has come to realize that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate anything a man does for her.

  • Involve women in your creative projects, then let them have equal part in them.

Why would a woman deserve being included in any creative project I endeavor in just by virtue of being a woman? Why still would I allow her to have an equal part in a creative project I envisioned? Is it because they are owed that honor for being female?

  • Don’t punish women for witnessing your vulnerability.

But wait, I thought ‘vulnerability was sexy‘? Weakness is strength right?

Okay, sorry, I can’t possibly subject my readers to more of this inane list. You get the picture. My point is that lists like this only serve to highlight the new gender landscape that’s been brewing for years now. We now live in the “future is female” years and this is what we can expect from the Feminine Imperative that’s now comfortable in in asserting its true agenda of disempowering, disenfranchising and eradicating men and masculinity from popular discourse.

Male Control

Back in October, 2016 I wrote an essay called Sexual Zoning. In that post I explored the social inconsistencies and potential for (sometimes catastrophic) consequences for men in misunderstanding what were, and what have become, particular zones in which men and women covertly acknowledge the potential for an intersexual connection.

In the bygone Western social system, young people were expected to regularly interact with one another in controlled, regulated environments, in a way that fostered productive, long-term, monogamous, assortative relationships. This was a sort of “holistic” milieu, so to speak, where young people treated one another as potential future partners, sexual and otherwise, in a socially regulated manner, in all cases when they were permitted to interact. This was even the norm in workplaces where both men and women were present. The average man found a girlfriend through his extended family or social circle, because families and social circles were normally large.

What we have today is the complete opposite: “sexual zoning”. Some mixed-sex environments, like the workplace, schools and campuses, are made completely asexual – sterile, so to speak. No sexualized interactions are permitted to take place. This is demanded by law and expected by society. In such environments, you’re supposed to treat members of the opposite sex strictly as colleagues or professionals, non-sexual beings. (Hot men are allowed to get away with more, of course, but that’s another issue.) Other mixed-sex environments, on the other hand, like nightclubs, are expected to be full-on sexual. Everybody there knows that all interactions entail the future possibility of casual sex. It’s basically a meat market. You’re expected to hit on girls, and girls expect to be hit on by attractive men. Socializing in these environments requires action, engagement. If you want to find a partner, either just for sex or something more, you have to go there, you have to have Game etc.

The video I’ve chosen to dissect here is a prime example of how generations of men have been raised to deliberately misunderstand intersexual dynamics and at the same time demonize the conventional masculinity that so much of western culture has been founded upon. To be thorough though, really every culture throughout history has been primarily founded on conventional masculinity and the aspects that contribute to maleness.

Jonathan McIntosh finds an easy mark in the archetypal masculine characters of Harrison Ford, but there’s a very important reason the 80’s icon is so egregious to the men of McIntosh’s generation. Han Solo, Indiana Jones, etc. are all the Alpha male rogues this generation has been taught to love in terms of bravado, but to hate because they ‘always get the girl’; and they get her in such a way that it grates against all that their feminine-primary upbringing led them to believe was just this side of sexual assault.

McIntosh relates that he was part of a generation that idealized Harrison Ford’s most iconic characters, yet now he feels pangs of regret and resentment for having looked up the characters’ archetype. This is a perfect illustration of how conventional masculinity has been reverse engineered by our feminine-primary social order since the Sexual Revolution. I’ve mentioned in many prior essays that while overt masculinity is vilified as the cause of all social evils, it still remains the most arousing aspect of men for women. Boys like McIntosh saw this archetype and made that connection to female attraction, but it took generations of Blue Pill reconditioning to make them feel bad for ever attempting to adopt that bravado into their own personalities.

While growing up the message was the same Blue Pill identifying with the feminine (in fact Beta Game depends on that identification). Play nice, play equal, respect all women by default and never assert yourself too overtly or too crudely lest you risk offending her sensibilities. These are the boys who were raised by family, media and their schooling to expect a rationality that women could be expected to say what they mean and then do what they said. Yet that never seemed to gel when they would deductively see the girls they wanted, the ones who told them they wanted a ‘nice guy’ who respected them, consistently reward the asshole jerk with the intimacy and sex they thought would come to them if they followed what they were told.

In the end, Han Solo and Indiana Jones get the girl and she genuinely desires him – not because this is some odd fantasy of the writer’s imagination, but because this is (was) a standard aspect of women’s genuine attraction to men. The aberration is the idea that the attraction and affair would go any other way. Only in this feminized generation does thousands of years of male-female interaction seem at all unsettling.

So, here we have conventionally masculine archetypes – sometimes rakish, sometimes bold and dutiful – following their own path, making themselves their Mental Point of Origin, and making their mission (not their woman) their priority. Whether it was Captain Kirk, Han Solo or Conan the Barbarian the mental order was always firmly focused on the individual man and his action. Between the time of the Sexual Revolution and 2017, the Feminine Imperative has systematically erased the conventionally masculine archetype; so much so that the gender-loathing men of this generation are either appalled at displays of masculinity or they simply have no frame of reference with which to contrast it with the distorted and blurred ideas of what masculinity should mean to them.

For some ‘men’ the notion of conventional masculinity itself is rejected altogether. It doesn’t mean anything to be a man for this generation, so conventional archetypes of men are offensive.

As a result of these four to five generations of progressively more feminized men we now see the confusion and disgust at conventional masculinity coming from this generation of men. We see a generation of males who have no positive association with their own gender. They become increasingly more isolated because they are convinced that anything that might be gender-exclusive to men alone is, by default, a form of misogyny. There is nothing ‘positive’ about being a man, yet for all of the misconceptions about gender being social constructs, exclusively female organizing of women and fempowerment is still viewed as beneficial; a sign of society ‘evolving’.

I recently read an article in the Boston Globe about middle aged men’s increasing social isolation. I would argue that for all of the raising of awareness about this phenomenon it is primarily generations of men’s inability to interact with other men that is at the root of this isolation. For decades now men have been discouraged from meeting with other men in any formalized fashion. Men are either suspect of misogyny or homosexuality if they get together for the sake of being men. What were seeing now is generations of men who no longer understand how to socially interact with other men.

Furthermore, when this isolation becomes a concern of women, those men are again berated for not interacting with other men in the ways that women do. Women talk, men do, but a feminine-primary social order only approves of one way for men to associate with one another – in the way that women do. Thus, we see the confusion of women that men don’t call each other up to schedule a coffee date for the express reason of conversation. Men and women have different forms of communication, but the socially approved form is only ever from the feminine context. Men interacting “as men do” – in a conventionally masculine way – is always misogynistic. Thus, we see overseers in the locker room, if only symbolically, to regulate what and how men communicate with each other.

The End of Toxic Masculinity

Dalrock had a great quick-hit post recently about how Michael Moore was suggesting that men be required by law to seek their wife or long-term girlfriend’s (or most recent Ex) signed permission to purchase a firearm in the wake of last week’s mass shooting in Vegas.

That this idea would ever be a serious consideration speaks volumes about how masculine gender-loathing has become endemic in western culture. I get that Michael Moore is a self-inflicted cuck, but all I’m seeing in the wake of the Vegas shooting is less about gun control and more about male control.

It’s no longer about categorizing masculinity as “toxic” or “hyper” – that narrative is officially dropped after this shooting. Now, any masculinity is a threat, any expression of conventional masculinity is the true problem. Suggesting that a woman’s oversight and discernment should be necessary for a man to have access to a civil right only further reinforces what I’ve been saying for some time now – only the feminine is ‘correct’ in any social discourse. Only the feminine is legitimate in exercising judgement, educating new generations and deciding which man will breed and which will not.

Think about this; what’s being suggested is that men be denied a civil right that apparently only women should legitimately have. For all the fallacious blathering of women in pink pussy hats about how they think they’re losing rights today, here we have an actual right of men being denied by women, by the Feminine Imperative.

The ‘toxic’ masculinity narrative made a qualitative distinction between a feminine-acceptable form of masculinity and a potentially dangerous form. Needless to say the accepted form always consisted of whatever aspects of masculinity that was immediately beneficial to womankind. ‘Toxic’ masculinity was always characterized as Man Up or Shut Up masculinity:

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.

Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

Now, in the Feminine Imperative’s unceasing efforts to Remove the Man a distinction between a useful masculinity and a dangerous masculinity is no longer something that resonates. All masculinity, all aspects, beneficial or detrimental, are to be considered the problem:

That the problem might just be masculinity, plain and simple, is not something we’re eager to countenance. While we might be prepared to apply a little structural analysis to the situation – yes, there is something about men and the way they are conditioned that leads us to this place – we’re unwilling to draw any final conclusions. Masculinity doesn’t kill people; it’s those mysterious toxins that are to blame.

[…]But strip away the so-called toxic aspects of masculinity: the aggression, the violence, the hate, the guns, and what are you left with? Strength, endurance, a woody-scented perfume, a liking for the colour blue? Certainly nothing that need be associated with manhood or maleness. These are simply individual qualities. The only reason to code them as “masculine” is to preserve a social hierarchy that ought to be destroyed.

[…]What would be so terrible about a world in which boys were treated no differently to girls from the day they were born? In which there are no pink/blue codifications to hide behind? In which a man’s anger and aggression were considered every bit as aberrant and unnatural as a woman’s?

The problem we’re facing isn’t toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. It’s time we questioned even its most subtle manifestations.

Going forward this will be the narrative. There will be no distinction between misogyny, masculinity and maleness. What this author, perhaps deliberately, doesn’t want to address is that masculinity and all the associated ways our thinking and our behaviors that manifest from the biological side of our nature aren’t something that can be dissociated from us without killing us or erasing what we were evolved to be. There are no truly positive or negative aspects of masculinity, just as there are no positive or negative aspects of Hypergamy. They just are, and what makes them beneficial or detrimental all depends on the context in which they are applied. That may seem strange coming from the author of a book titled Positive Masculinity but understand that what is positive about masculinity is made so by need and by circumstance.

In a world created in the image of the Feminine Imperative masculinity itself is a horrible evil, until it’s needed to save women from rising floodwaters.

You see, for as much as the imperative would like to remove the ‘man’ from our language, our cultural consciousness, that man will always be needed in spite of the hate directed towards masculinity. This is what a feminine-primary society would have us redefine as some other term, something not unique to a male human being. But conventional, evolved, masculine strength and purpose will always manifest in men who unapologetically embrace it without an afterthought.

In my interview with Craig James we discussed men’s higher order thinking and purpose as well as our vital animal nature. You don’t separate one from the other. This is what the Feminine Imperative would have from men; a unilaterally female controlled utility-based masculinity that saves them from the worst consequences of both their environments and their decisions and simultaneously disappears when inconvenient. We hear women bleating about a lack of Real Men and the disappearance of true grit, and in the next article linked we see efforts to erase men entirely from social influence.

As I told Craig, when I’m in the squat rack I’m glad I have a feral, animal nature. It’s a survival aspect of human evolution. I’m not suggesting with this essay that men will become extinct; on the contrary I think what will help define our new conventional masculinity will largely be determined by how we express it in spite of a world arrayed against Man-kind. An equalist culture based on blank-slate equalism doesn’t see that you don’t separate the animal side of the human being from the high-order side. It is unwilling to accept that we need both; that we benefit and sometimes suffer from both.

Masculine by Design Interview

If you’re a regular reader here you probably know that I’ll be giving two talks in Orlando, Florida this week at the 21 Convention with my fellow Red Pill alumni Christian McQueen, Goldmund, Tanner Guzy and so many more guys from the manosphere. I do have plans to do some quick hit Periscope feeds to and at the event so check my Twitter for updates.

Furthermore, in the interests of fairness and objectivity, I will be doing a no-punches-pulled review of the convention is a similar fashion to the one I did for the Man in Demand Conference I did in Vegas two years ago. As I’ve related in a few prior posts and some live interviews, I was reluctant to accept a speaking spot for the 21 Convention because I felt that it had a reputation for toeing the Purple Pill line for much of its years of existence. I’m happy to say that, with a few exceptions’ the lineup this year is far more ‘red’ than this conference has ever been.

There’s a lot more to the reasons why Anthony Johnson, the convention founder and organizer, has made this shift. Primarily it’s been his experience with what any guy with a peripheral Red Pill Lens would’ve seen as a high-functioning BPD woman who was his unofficial wife. If you want more information on this experience you can see his seminar talk about exactly this here.

As a result of this, and consequently digging into my books and blog material, his true unplugging has given him a new Red Pill awareness. In the interests of full disclosure, I’ve had a fairly regular correspondence with Anthony about his unplugging and have counseled him through some of my own material. This really prompted a new perspective for him and this is manifesting itself in his drawing more Red Pill speakers to this convention than I think have ever been assembled in one place.

That said, I would be remiss if I didn’t pass this whole conference through the same level of scrutiny that I gave the Man in Demand conference. So, I’ll be doing some quick hit updates throughout this and next week’s blog posts and highlight the best and not-so-best parts of the convention as things transpire, and then summing things up at the end of it all. Be sure to follow me on Twitter for updates, high-lights and some Periscope videos too. The hashtag for the convention is #21Con.


In the meantime,…

I took some time away from my talk preparations to do an interview with Craig James from Masculine By Design to discuss the main aspects of my third book Positive Masculinity as well as some general Red Pill discussion. Craig is starting to make a name for himself as a manosphere podcaster now, filling the unfortunate vacuum left by the departure of Mark Baxter from his own show. Craig primarily focuses on married Red Pill issues and parenting. I probably don’t align perfectly with his perspective on a few things, but on whole he’s got a solid Red Pill blog and podcast that I think will only gain more traction in the manosphere and particularly among more mature men and the “awakened-while-married” set of Red Pill readers.

Do check it out. We went for a bit over two hours and I’m sure you’ll enjoy the discourse. Much of what we discuss will be key aspects of my second 21 Convention talk on Positive Masculinity.

But wait, there’s more,…

And finally, I also did about a two and a half hour interview with the Hanging Chads podcast. This was a great interview as well and much more casual and fun than most of the interviews I’ve done. Be warned, they have a political bent to their material, but the material we covered was Red Pill from an intersexual dynamics perspective (as you might expect from me). The audio wont drop until Thursday, but check back here or there when it does. I’ll update this post when it goes live.

So, there you have it. If I’m meeting you for the first or second time at the convention, please, come up and introduce yourself. There’s a lot going on at this event outside the talks themselves so there’ll be plenty of time and opportunity to pick my brain while we’re there. And yes, I’ll see about getting some candid video of the dinners and social meet ups too. Watch this space.

See you in Orlando!

The Lie of Equality

Reader KFG dropped this insight in last week’s post and I thought it was very relevant to something I’ve been contemplating for a while now:

As a general principle genetic fitness is always relative to the environment. A spread of genetic traits makes a species more robust, because it will have individuals better suited for survival in a greater range of environments.

There’s more than one breed of working dog because no one is “better.” Each has its specific strengths, paid for with corresponding weaknesses. A terrier is to small to hunt wolves, but you’re not going to stuff a wolfhound down a badger hole.

This was a great analogy. It’s also one of the primary reasons I believe the egalitarian equalist narrative is a deliberate lie with the hoped-for purpose of empowering people who cannot compete, or believe they have some plenary exclusion from competing in various aspects of life. One of the primary selling points of egalitarian equalism for men is the idea that they can be excluded from the Burden of Performance.

There is no such thing as ‘equality’ because life doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

The tests that a chaotic world throws at human beings is never equal or balanced in measure to our strengths to pass them. Equality, in the terms that egalitarian equalists are comfortable in defining it, implies that that every individual is equally matched in both value and utility within a totality of random challenges. Aside from this being patently false, it also demerits both strengths and weaknesses when that individual succeeds or fails at a particular challenge as a result of their individual character.

This is ironic in the sense that it provides easy, repeatable, excuses for a person’s successes or failures. If someone wins, well, we’re all equal so that person’s strengths which led to the success can be passed off as a result of assumed or circumstantial ‘privileges’ that made them better suited to their challenges – rarely is their hard work recognized, and even then, it’s colored by the overcoming of a presumed-unequal adversity that grants them ‘privilege’. If they fail, again, we’re all equal, so the failure is proof of a deficit, or a handicap, or a presumed repression of an equal person in a state of baseline equal challenge.

Individual Exceptionalism

One of the longest perpetuated cop outs (I should say paradoxes) that equalists cling to is the notion that People are People; that everyone is a unique individual (snowflake) and as such there is really no universally predictable method of testing character or knowing how a particular sex will respond to various challenges. It’s all random chance according to the individual’s socially constructed character and their capacity to be a ‘more evolved’, higher-thinking being.

On the surface this all-are-individuals notion may seem the antithesis of the ‘equality’ narrative that equalists cling to, but it is part of a cognitive dissonance all equalists struggle with. This approach is a means to standardizing individuality, so no scientific evidence that might find patterns of an evolved ‘nature’ of a person – or in our Red Pill case, a sex – can be predicted. It’s the hopeful cancellation of reams of empirical evidence that show how influential our biologies and inborn predispositions are. This ‘higher order’ individualism is always touted so the equailist mindset can claim that the exception to the rule disqualifies the overwhelmingly obvious general rule itself.

“We’re all exceptions to the rule.” – Carl Jung

“…and when we’re all special, no one will be.” – Syndrome

This fallacy is where we get the NA*ALT (not all ____ are like that) absolution of the most unflattering parts of human nature. Not All Women Are Like That is standard feminine-primary boilerplate for women and sympathizing men (White Knights) who’d rather we all ignore the aspects of female nature that shine a bad light on what are easily observable truths about their behavior and the motives behind them. The social convention relies on the idea that if there is even one individual contradiction to the generalization (always deemed an ‘overgeneralization’) then the whole idea must be wrong.

Of course, this individual exceptionality rule only applies to the concepts in which equalists have invested their egos in. When a generality proves an equalist’s ego-investment, that’s when it becomes an ‘endemic’ universal truth to their mindset. A binary over-exaggeration of this effect is the reflexive response for concepts that challenge their ego-investments. Thus, we see any and all of the (perceptually) negative aspects of masculinity (actually the totality of masculinity) painted as evidence of the endemic of ‘toxic’ masculinity as a whole. The individualist exceptionality in this instance is always ridiculed as ‘insecurity’ on the part of men even considering it.

The exceptionalism of the individual is always paired with some high-order consciousness, and/or the idea that anything that proves their ego-investment is “more evolved” – despite any evidence that proves the contrary – is proof of that this individual is a being who represents some evolutionary step forward. If you agree and support feminine-primacy it is ‘proof‘ that you are more ‘evolved’ than other men. Thus, the ‘more evolved’ status becomes a form of reward to the individual who aligns with the ideology. Conversely, the avoidance of being perceived as ‘unevolved’ serves as a form of negative reinforcement.

This is kind of ironic when you consider that the same equalist mindset that relies on the individualist exception is the same mindset that insists that everyone is the same; equal value, equal potential, equal purpose and equal ability. Again, the irony is that everything that would be used to establish the ‘unique snowflake’ ideology (so long as it contradicts innate strengths and weaknesses of an opposing ideology) is conveniently ignored in favor of blank-slate egalitarianism. There is a degree of wanting to avoid determinism (particularly biological determinism) for the individual in this blank-slate concept, but it also provides the equalist with a degree of feel-good affirmation that the individual is a product of social constructivism. So, we get the idea that gender is a social construct and, furthermore, that blank-slate individual is ‘more evolved’ to the point of redefining gender for themselves altogether. Even when that ‘individual’ is only 4 years old and hasn’t the capacity for abstract thought enough to make a determination.

To be an egalitarian equalist is to accept the cognitive dissonance that the individual trumps the general truth and yet simultaneously accept that the individual is just the blank-slate template of anyone else, thus negating the idea of the individual. It takes great stretches of belief to adhere to egalitarian if-then logic.

I apologize for getting into some heady stuff right out the gate here, but I think it’s vitally important that Red Pill aware men realize the self-conflicting flaw in the ideologies of post-modern equalism. Our feminine-primary social order is rife with it. They will disqualify the generalities of Red Pill awareness with individualist exceptionalism and in the next breath disqualify that premise with their investments in blank-slate egalitarianism.

This is easiest to see in Blue Pill conditioned men and women still plugged in to the Matrix, but I also see the same self-conflicting rationales among Red Pill aware men using the same process to justify personal ideology or their inability to de-pedestalize women on whole. There’s a common thread amongst well-meaning Red Pill men to want to defend the individual natures of women who align with the Blue Pill ego-investments they still cling to. All women are like that so long as those women are granola-eating, furry-armpit feminists – ‘Red Pill Women’ then become the individual (snowflake) exceptions to the otherwise general rule because they fit a different, idealized, profile.

The Inequality of Equality

I’ve stated this in many prior threads, but, I do not believe in “equality”.

I don’t believe in equality because I can objectively see that reality, our respective environments, our personal circumstances, etc. are all inherently unequal. Everyday we encounter circumstances in life which we are eminently unequalled for in our ability to address them. Likewise, there are circumstances we can easily overcome without so much as an afterthought. Whether these challenges demand or test our physical, mental, material or even spiritual capacities, the condition is the same – reality is inherently chaotic, unfair and challenging by order of degree. To presume that all individuals have equal value in light of the nature of reality is, itself, an unequal presumption. To expect sameness in the degree of competency or incompetency to meet any given challenge reality throws at us is a form of inequality. And it’s just this inequality that equalists ironically exploit.

As KFG was stating, “each dog has it’s strengths for a given task”. One dog is not as valuable as another depending on what determines a positive outcome. What equalism attempts do to – what it has the ludicrous audacity to presume – is to alter reality to fit the needs of the individual in order to make all individuals equally valuable agents. This is the ‘participation trophy’ mentality, but it is also a glaring disregard for existential reality. Which, again, contradicts the idea of individual exceptionalism; reality must be made to be equal to accommodate the existence of the equally valuable individual.

To say you don’t believe in equality is only outrageous because it offends the predominant social narrative of today. It seemingly denies the inherent value of the individual, but what is conveniently never addressed is how an environment, condition and state defines what is functionally valued for any given instance. Like the dog bred to hunt ferrets out of their warrens is not the functional equal of a dog bred to run down prey at 45 MPH. The value of the individual is only relevant to the function demanded of it.

The default misunderstanding (actually deliberate) most equalists believe is that functional worth is personal worth. I addressed this in Separating Values:

When you attempt to quantify any aspect of human ‘value’ you can expect to have your interpretations of  it to be offensive to various people on the up or down side of that estimate. There is simply no escaping personal bias and the offense that comes from having one’s self-worth attacked, or even confirmed for them.

The first criticism I’ve come to expect is usually some variation about how evaluating a person’s SMV is “dehumanizing”, people are people, and have intrinsic worth beyond just the sexual. To which I’ll emphatically agree, however, this dismissal only conveniently sidesteps the realities of the sexual marketplace.

Again, sexual market value is not personal value. Personal value, your value as a human being however one subjectively defines that, is a definite component to sexual market value, but separating the two requires an often uncomfortable amount of self-analysis. And, as in Ms. Korth’s experience here, this often results in denial of very real circumstances, as well as a necessary, ego-preserving, cognitive dissonance from that reality.

Denial of sexual market valuation is a psychological insurance against women losing their controlling, sexual agency in their hypergamous choices.

This is where the appeal to emotion begins for the equalist mindset. It seems dehumanizing to even consider an individuals functional value. Human’s capacity to learn and train and practice to become proficient or excel in various functions is truly a marvel of our evolution. Brain plasticity being what it is, makes our potential for learning and overcoming our environments what separates us from other animals. We all have the potential to be more than we are in functional value, and this is the root of the emotional appeal of equalists. It’s seems so negative to presume we aren’t functional equals because we have the capacity and potential to become more functionally valuable. The appeal is one of optimism.

What this appeal ignores is the functional value of an individual in the now; the two dogs bred for different purposes. What this appeal also ignores is the ever-changing nature of reality and the challenges it presents to an individual in the now and how this defines value. What equalism cannot do is separate functional value from potential value.

Adopting a mindset that accepts complementarity between the sexes and between individuals, one that celebrates and utilizes innate strengths and talents, yet also embraces the weaknesses and compensates for them is a far healthier one that presuming baseline equivalency. Understanding the efficacy of applying strengths to weaknesses cooperatively while acknowledging we all aren’t the same damn dog will be a key to dissolving the fantasy of egalitarian equalism and create a more balanced and healthier relations between the sexes. Embracing the fact that condition, environment, reality and the challenges they pose defines our usefulness is far better than to assume any single individual could ever be a self-contained, self-sufficient island unto themselves – that is what equalism would have us believe.

To Each His Own

In a couple of weeks I’ll be making my first and only personal appearance this year at the 21 Convention in Orlando, Florida. This event will be unique in a number of ways. To my knowledge, this convention will be the first large-scale gathering of Red Pill writers, bloggers, podcast hosts and thought-leaders ever organized. I’m truly appreciative of Anthony Johnson in being open to my suggestions for speakers. It was a collaborative effort in this regard and over the course of this year we did our best to collect a group of speakers who would represent many different aspects of Red Pill intersexual dynamics. My only regrets are that we couldn’t fit more speakers in to the schedule and some men I highly respect were unable to attend this year.

It was my hope that this ‘new and improved’ 21 Convention might eventually be an annual Red Pill summit of sorts. This build up hasn’t been without a bit of controversy from the previous Purple Pill speakers who used the 21 Convention’s prior events as a platform for their blogs and coaching businesses. That was to be expected just as the same tired criticisms of the Red Pill were too. I have no doubt that the previous ‘life coaches’ taking issue with this event’s Red Pill turn sincerely believe they have some valuable insights to help men become ‘better men’. The problem, however, becomes one of how these coaches would direct men according to the Blue Pill preconditioning they have never been able to disabuse themselves of.

I understand the necessity these guys must feel with regards to discrediting the Red Pill as a praxeology. The dots we connect in Red Pill awareness are often at odds with their deeply held Blue Pill ego-investments and hopes, as well as a threat to their (often LARPy moralistic) “Man Up but not too much” profit model. In fact, even just the idea that the Red Pill should be a praxeology of men’s collective experiences about intersexual dynamics is enough to make them want to disqualify it. Their criticism is that, as a praxeology, the Red Pill is long on explanations and short on solutions – solutions you can presumably get by signing up for their email blasts and coaching sessions.

The praxeology that is the Red Pill is inconvenient for them because it tears away the veneer of their Blue Pill idealism about women and reveals some very unflattering truths about them and the feminine on-whole which they still largely have on a pedestal in their heads. Red Pill awareness has a way of exposing the pretty lies that make for the good marketing material that most Purple Pill coaches depend on for their livelihoods. I mean, when 80%+ of men are Beta, who wouldn’t want to buy the secret 12 point list of things a man must do to be a real man and get the woman of his dreams?

Two Complaints

There are generally two common complaints I read coming from Purple Pill life dating coaches. The first is easy, and one I’ve refuted so many times I wont bore you with repeating myself, and that’s the presumption that Red Pill awareness must be false or detrimental to a guy because it makes guys so angry with women. This is the easiest dismissal for critics because it is true; men do go through a phase of anger when they unplug from the Blue Pill illusions they’ve been so convinced of for the better part of a lifetime. And yes, some get stuck in this phase and some do become despondent because they don’t want to face the abyss it represents to them. Some go MGTOW, some turn into Purple Pill coaches themselves because they don’t want to accept the whole of what Red Pill awareness means. But most men go through this phase and come to an acceptance that there is hope in a Red Pill paradigm for them. They come to see their new awareness as a safety net and boldly embrace rebuilding themselves into better men based on this full awareness.

So the sales pitch then becomes, “Don’t be angry with women like those Red Pill guys. You can still live in Blue Pill happiness and harmony with a loving unicornQuality‘ woman by following these 5 simple steps to make yourself into the man women want you to be.”

What the Purple Pill anger critics (deliberately) refuse to get is that the Red Pill isn’t (and was never) intended to get men to hate women, but rather to inform men about the inherent nature of women so they wont hate women for what they can never be to them. This is the disillusionment that men who still cling to Blue Pill idealism can’t seem to get past – they cannot abandon those Blue Pill hopes that they believe women are capable of fulfilling for him, but the Red Pill disabuses him of. So they get angry. They get angry at themselves for ever having believed in them. They get angry for having wasted so much time investing themselves in them. They get angry, most importantly, because they realize that women simply aren’t built to fulfill the hopes his Blue Pill conditioning made him believe should be possible.

The Purple Pill coach believes that this Red Pill realization leads to men hating women. The second complaint I read from them is that Red Pill awareness gives men some license to feeling like victims. This criticism is deductive to coaches for two reasons; it serves his ‘get-rich-quick-on-the-internet-by-selling-sunshine’ man-up and do better to qualify for women blog template, and it discourages men seeking answers from becoming Red Pill aware in a way that crushes their still Blue Pill belief set.

For the record, and as boldly as I can put this, if you are Red Pill aware man and still believe you are a victim of some sort because of your previous Blue Pill indenturement to pedestalizing women or the Feminine Imperative, you are only a victim of your own lack of vision. Red Pill awareness has set you free – free from the blur and distraction that a feminine-primary social order would pull over your eyes, free from the delusional Blue Pill hopes that are only greater shackles for a man, and free from never seeing the intersexual pitfalls you were prone to fall into before. But Red Pill awareness comes at a cost; the truth may set you free, but it doesn’t make it pretty. If you have a responsibility as a Red Pill aware man it’s that you are never allowed to play the victim. You now know the rules of engagement. Play it well, change the rules if you can, but you are no longer allowed to say you didn’t know the score.

Most Purple Pill coaches know this victim complex is bullshit, so they deliberately conflate Red Pill awareness with MGTOW or the MRM or even the “flip side of feminism” in an effort to muddy the waters and dissuade men, who are genuinely hurting and seeking answers, away from the real life-changing influence that the Red Pill represents.

When I petitioned my readers to leave a testimonial as to why they thought the Red Pill represented more confidence or a ‘safety net’ to them I got much more than I anticipated from that comment thread. I had been looking for some good quotes to add to the back cover of Positive Masculinity, but what I got was over a thousand revelations about the power that Red Pill awareness has in changing men’s lives for the better. These are men who took what the Red Pill had shown them and transformed their lives with that knowledge. They did this because Red Pill awareness empowered them, gave them the tools, to implement changes in themselves and how they interacted with women and a feminized world. They did so without anger or feeling like victims, and they did so without a Purple Pill hack trying to coax them back onto the plantation and into their failed, and false, Blue Pill belief sets.

And this is what scares the coaches; that a free and open source Red Pill praxeology is responsible for more men taking the initiative and bettering themselves than anything their ‘coaching’ has been responsible for.

Personal Development

I am not now, nor have I ever been a motivational speaker, a ‘guru’ of any stripe, a psychotherapist or a personal development coach. Though I’m humbled to be counted among the Godfathers of the Red Pill, I have never claimed ownership of the Red Pill. It’s always been my belief that the Red Pill – the true Red Pill that has always been about intersexual dynamics – should be an ‘open source’ community. Decentralization is one of its strengths, but it also allows for bastardization from men and women who want to define it.

In each of my books and on this blog I’ve made things plain about my non-approach to men and their own personal development; I’m not interested in making better men, I’m interested in men making themselves better men. I am not interest in making men “Tomassi Men” or in anyway selling them on a template for what I think a real man ought to be. My life and my interpretations of it are not going to be a template for anyone else to follow. Red Pill awareness, based on the praxeology of intersexual dynamics in the personal and social realms, will save and/or improve your life, but that life has to be lived by you as an individual.

That said, of course I realize that men seeking answers will want a codified system of guidelines for their own personal development. I’m not the guy who’s going to give that to you, neither is that Purple Blue Pill life coach with the 12 point plan, neither is the motivational speaker selling you the same tired power of positivity message that’s been around since the 1930s. You are going to come up with that plan, you are going to take what the Red Pill makes you aware of and you are going to apply it to how you live your life. And you will have the satisfaction of knowing that your personal development and the successes (and failures) that came from it authentically came from your own plan and according to your judgement, not someone else’s vision or template.

I wanted to take a moment in this post to preface the 21 Convention by addressing the ways in which men come to unplug themselves from their old, Blue Pill conditioned way of life and reconstruct themselves. Reader Blaximus added this in a recent comment thread and it sums things up well:

Fourth: there is no ‘ system ‘ for teaching or learning Game. None. The process is highly individualized and virtually no two guys will learn at the same rate, or achieve the exact same level of understanding or real world application. No cheat sheets in game. You either get it and apply it and internalize it, or you don’t. It’s not about picking up chicks in clubs. That’s PUA. Game picks up chicks at a funeral. Lol. True game will be disliked by the masses.

Far too many Purple Pill dating coaches don’t want to get this in their heads. They think that because the Red Pill is a praxeology it implies it’s a cop out on developing real solutions for guys. They either don’t understand the necessity for men’s individual needs to personally develop Game for themselves, or they need a convenient dismissal of the Red Pill as ‘those angry guys have no answers’.

I have stressed in more essays than I care to recount the importance of combining what the Red Pill informs Game about with what Game informs the Red Pill about. One is the theoretical, the other is the practical, and neither is complete without the other. Yes, it is entirely vital that you, as a Red Pill aware man, get out into the field to employ the ideas, and test the practicality of how the Red Pill relates to your situation in your environment according to your strengths and gifts. That field may be a night club, or day Game on the street, in a social circle, with your wife of 10 years or in your churches singles’ group. The fact remains, Red Pill awareness is applicable through Game in a variety of environments, social and cultural contexts.

Game Works, but it only works if you turn off the computer and do something. How do you learn from a book? You put it down and you go outside (and yes, that counts for my books too). Investing oneself in Red Pill awareness as a praxeology is not a cop out for coming up with real solutions – it gives men a toolset from which they can create their own solutions. What frightens Purple Pill coaches is that men’s individual solutions, often enough, don’t affirm their Blue Pill romanticizations, their pretenses of morality, or their idealistic inability to look at the abyss and find hope on the other side of it. They want solutions, but they want their solutions to be affirmed by a Red Pill awareness that contradicts their ego-investments.

When your revenue depends on not getting it it’s hard to convince a Blue Pill man otherwise.


I will be discussing aspects of this essay at the 21 Convention in just two weeks. If you are attending I’d like to take this opportunity to extend you a personal invitation to talk with me at the convention and possibly have dinner with my colleagues and I at the event. On the topic of just getting out there in the field and doing it, I know that my friends Christian McQueen and Goldmund will be heading out into the wilds of the Orlando nightlife and I will be accompanying them on at least one of these outings.

Lastly, if you are in the Central Florida area, or if you want to make the drive in for the weekend, and you really really want to attend the convention, but just can’t come up with the funds, hit me up via email, Twitter or leave a message on my About page here and I will personally see about getting you some kind of hardship discount. Remember, this is only if you’re truly desperate to attend.

See you in two weeks.

Band of Brothers

Peterson drops the ball in a couple of forgivable instances here. First, many contemporary studies show that women do in fact enter an estrus state. Secondly, while he is entirely correct about women’s Hypergamy never seeking its own level, he implies here that it is singularly a man’s capacity to produce and share resources that forms the basis for women’s attraction. This is an interesting overlook when you consider how often he’s made reference to how women primarily look for sexual dominance in men. From the Beta Bucks, provisioning, side of women’s sexual strategy, a man’s capacity for production and sharing resources is certainly an attraction cue, but it is only a cue insofar as it applies to women’s long term security needs. From the Alpha Fucks, short term mating perspective, it is a man’s capacity for sexual arousal and his sexual availability to her that is the basis for assessing a man’s SMV.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Peterson. I count him amongst the greatest minds of Red Pill awareness, however, his analysis is often subject to a Blue Pill conditioning that predisposes him to a default belief in the inherent ‘goodness’ of the female psyche. That isn’t to say women are inherently ‘bad’, but it is to say his objectivity is colored by a want to see the feminine on a pedestal. Peterson tends to pepper in a Blue Pill conditioned masculine ridicule into his observations about men when he’s detailing gender differences and it’s his habit to presume the best from women. He accurately makes the case here for how men are continually driven by an existential crisis when it comes to being accepted by (‘perfectly well-intended’) women in passing on their genetic material, but falls into the trap of believing that women would only, logically, want to breed with men who have good long term prospects for providing and sharing resources. There’s a 30+ year body of evo-bio / evo-psych research that contradicts his presumption.

However, in this instance, Peterson hits upon the fundamental reasoning as to why men are by nature more competitive than women. Over the millennia of human evolution, the stresses of men’s breeding strategies and realities has become hardwired into the male mental firmware, and as such it has selected-for men having a more competitive nature than women. I would go so far as to suggest that competitiveness is a primary aspect of conventional masculinity – and one that requires a constant effort to socialize out of modern males today.

On the female side we have to consider how women evolved, socially and psychologically, in hunter-gatherer, foraging tribes, and how the environmental stress of maintaining a social collective shaped women’s mental firmware. It’s my belief that women’s intense need for long term security (as well as Hypergamous doubt) is directly descended from the need to hedge against the environmental uncertainties of our evolutionary past. The rigors of gestation, carrying a child to term, child birth and then rearing that child to puberty – all while gathering food and resources and defending that child and the collective against external (and sometime internal) threats selected-for women with a collectivist / cooperative mental firmware. While the men of the tribal society were off hunting game or defending the tribe, it would follow that women would develop a more unitary, collectivist social order of intrasexual cooperation in order to survive and, as Dr. Peterson points out, ensure that the genetic material of the men they selected (or were selected by) survived for posterity.

In several essays, and in my latest book, I describe women’s natural social order as the Sisterhood Über Alles. That is ‘women above all else’, and from an evolved psychological perspective this solidarity, collectivism and cooperative bent is the mental vestige of an evolution that demanded women to be so in order to survive. Evolution doesn’t care how women breed and survive, just that women breed and survive. Flash forward to modern times and we see women of every and any social, political, religious and racial stripe preempt any conviction inspired by them with the concerns of womankind.

There are several studies that indicate that collectivism is a characteristic of women’s mental firmware. When presented with the distribution of a common wealth (or resource) it’s women’s predisposition to mete those resources out to the familial, feminine-primary social group (tribe) in as even a distribution as possible, or by an individual’s most pressing needs. Again, this is convincing evidence of a mental framework that leans towards a collectivism that finds its roots in our evolutionary past.

This fundamental prioritizing of the survival, needs and best interests of women as a collective is what now forms the basis of, and drives, what I commonly refer to as the Feminine Imperative. And from the Feminine Imperative, combined with a male-permissive social structure that has allowed for women’s social primacy, we have largely developed into a feminine-primary social order that is founded on the evolved, collectivist social structure that women’s mental firmware naturally predisposes them to.

Collectivism, socialism, is a fundamental aspect of the female psyche. In a social order that prioritizes female interests above all else we see the rise and perpetuation of an egalitarian equalism that finds its roots in women’s natural predisposition for collectivism. I would argue here that the egalitarian equalism we contend with today is really a convenient cover-term for female social primacy, and one that is a result of women’s collectivist nature.

Male Dominance Hierarchies

As Dr. Peterson briefly details in this clip, it is primarily men’s performance burden (and a man’s capacity to share the fruits of it) that has historically been the basis of women’s selection criteria for the long term provisioning aspect of women’s Hypergamous natures. And as I mentioned, this only covers half of what makes for women’s true assessments of men’s sexual market value. DNA mapping of our foraging ancestors reveals the real story about the importance sexual arousal and strategic pluralism played in women’s sexual selection. Historically, only 20% of men bred with 80% of women. If we only look at this fact from Peterson’s perspective we’re left to conclude that this 20% looked like good long term prospects with resources to share, rather than consider the uglier side of Hypergamy and women opportunistically breeding with the best physical specimens they had access to and, proactively or retroactively, cuckolding the ‘good provider’. The mental schema of mate guarding didn’t develop in a vacuum – there are very good evolutionary reasons why men developed a subconscious, peripheral sensitivity to the behaviors that indicate women’s ovulatory phase.

Hypergamy doesn’t care, but it did indeed play a part in the evolution of men’s dominance hierarchies as Peterson suggests. Whether the criteria for selection was physical prowess or provisional prowess, the breeding pressures placed on men by women’s sexual strategy is responsible for a great deal of what we consider the male nature and conventional masculinity itself. While it may be a pleasant fiction for men to apply terms like strength and honor and fidelity to male-kind, those concepts exist outside the evolved male-competitive nature. Kings and emperors had breeding rights to harems while their subjects, by order of degree, had sexual access to progressively diminishing opportunities with women.

One aspect I think Peterson didn’t get around to explaining in this clip is that women have only had unilateral sexual selection opportunity in the past century due to the social and physical unfettering of Hypergamy. Being a king may’ve meant that man had more breeding opportunities than that of his lessers, but it in no way made him the best, or even the willing, choice for the women he bred with. Up until the rise of feminine social primacy, men have always had social, moral, ethical and yes, physical, means of exerting their own control over Hypergamy.

Competitiveness is what defines masculinity for every generation of men. While it may be part of women’s mental firmware to consider the collective first with regard to resource distribution, it is most definitely an evolved characteristic of men to accrue resources in order to be considered a good prospect for women’s long term security needs. When we consider the criteria women have in order for a man to represent an optimal Hypergamous prospect, it makes pragmatic sense that an innate competitiveness would be part of men’s psychological firmware. Nature would select-for a natural competitiveness in men. As such we observe that men consider merit and performance first in distributing resources (rewards) in order to recognize, in theory, an exceptionality in men. Even if it is within our selfish-gene nature to want to retain as much for ourselves (and thus make ourselves better prospects for Hypergamous optimization) we still recognize merit, or lack of it, in men’s burden of performance.

So, with regard to the bigger societal picture, what we’re seeing in our egalitarian equalist social experiment of today is not just a conflict in men and women’s social approaches, but also a fundamental conflict in which sex’s sexual strategy will be the socially predominant one. In a social sense it is a conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual StrategiesSince the time of the Sexual Revolution the answer has been clear; it is women’s sexual strategy that has been allowed to define our social order.

Brotherhood

Jack Donovan had a great post back in February titled We are not Brothers. I entirely cosign his sentiment in this essay – today men bandy around the term Brother without really considering the deeper implications that true, in-group, exclusively male, brotherhood entails. It’s a good essay, but I think one reason Jack is sensitive to the term losing its meaning is due to the efforts the Feminine Imperative has made in destroying men’s understanding of conventional masculinity. It’s deliberate, so Brotherhood means whatever the feminine feels comfortable in allowing it to mean, and it can effect control over its significance for as long as it can continue to confuse men about the sacrificial nature of conventional masculinity.

Men’s dominance hierarchies and breeding strategies predispose men to maverick independence (sigmas) or intrasexual rivalries within a fraternal group (tribes). Men’s collective, cooperative social structures – traditionally, exclusive male spaces – existed in spite of this intrasexually competitive nature. Even amongst the most steadfast, cooperative and loyal of brotherhoods there will always be intrasexual rivalries for breeding opportunities. And as Jordan B. Peterson notes, it is women’s Hypergamy that gives rise to male dominance hierarchies, but moreover it has led to the necessity for developing an evolved predisposition for men’s being competitive.

It is precisely this competitive mental firmware in men which makes it next to impossible for their to ever be a Brotherhood Über Alles – and in an age where men are shamed for masculinity, an age in which women will force themselves into male space as overseers, an age where men will adaptively define masculinity to mean whatever suits their weakest proficiencies, it’s easy to understand the difficulties in men cooperatively coming together to enforce their own collective best interests as men. In ages past, when masculine cooperation determined the fate of a tribe, a people, a nation, etc. this fraternity was a much more imperative concept for men.

It’s been noted before that in earlier eras formalized monogamy was a social adaptation with the latent purpose of solving men’s evolved imperative to ensure his own paternity. Whether this adaptation was (is) a successful hedge against women’s Hypergamy is debatable, but the relative insurance a man was afforded by formal monogamy was that he could send his genetic material on to successive generations. From an evolutionary perspective, men’s primary existential crisis is reproduction, and in order to successfully solve this problem women’s Hypergamy must be controlled for. As this push for male control superseded women’s imperatives it’s made for a social guarantee that a man would reproduce with a lessened need for competition and a lessened burden of performance for men. While high SMV men were guaranteed reproduction, the monogamy adaptation meant that, theoretically, only the lowliest of men wouldn’t find a mate.

That was the latent socio-sexual contract prior to the Sexual Revolution. Today, we see parallels for this struggle between men and women’s sexual strategies and women’s own social push to unilaterally control and institutionalize Hypergamy. Now the script has been flipped to socially create and enforce a new feminine-primary structure that has the latent purpose of ensuring even the lowest SMV woman can fulfill Hypergamy to a greater degree. Just as formal monogamy sought to ensure men could solve their reproductive purpose in spite of his performance burden, now we have women as the primary beneficiaries of a society structured to, theoretically, ensure they have access to both the best genes (Alpha Fucks) and the best provisioning (Beta Bucks) – all to the point that men are conscripted into doing so.

As women have less and less need of men who can (directly) produce and share resources the concept of masculine cooperation in enforcing their best interests becomes a farce at best, a ‘hate crime’ at worst. The more women can produce and/or consume resources, or conscript men to involuntarily produce and share, the more women lean towards the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy in prioritizing their sexual selection. As a result, male dominance hierarchies will continue to develop around the short term sexual breeding criteria of women. In the past, as per Dr. Peterson, that hierarchy may have been centered on long term provisioning; today it is all about women’s pleasure in accessing the best genetic material her evolved hindbrain determines is in her best interests.

Yet still we hear women bemoan a lack of marriageable, long term producer/sharers who are their (perceived) status equals or better (always better). The evolved need for that security providing, competent male is still part of her mental firmware, no matter what the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative are telling her conscious self. And in a pragmatic, adaptive response, men will continue to define masculinity for themselves, continue to prioritize short term sexual arousal above long term attraction, and continue to be befuddled or embarrassed by the ideas of forming Brotherhoods with any deeper meaning than what pop culture will define them for men as.


Late edit: Reader Novaseeker had a brilliant observation about the reasons women’s collectivism evolved.

The innate sisterhood, or herd, also arises from the reality that most human tribes were patrilocal and not matrilocal. That is, the core of the tribe was a group of males bonded by kin, and they brought in females from other tribes (trade/conquest) routinely for mating. Thus, the males had relatively high levels of cooperation due to being kin-bonded (not perfect levels of cooperation — rivalries always exist, violence happens in kin bonds as well — but much higher than among non-kin-bonded males), whereas the females had to adapt to cooperate with the other females despite the lack of kin bonds between them as a kind of counterweight to the innate solidarity that the kin-bonded males had vis-a-vis the females. The kind of female sisterhood/collectivism that we see in women evolved, in addition to what you write about, as well from the need to counteract the male solidarity in patrilocal tribes — women evolved to cooperate with other “strange” women in the face of this male solidarity which was based on kin bonds.

A key point of this — and something which explains much of the behavior of women *politically* in the last 200 years or so — is that the context in which this evolved was specifically to counterweigh male power. That is, because females would otherwise have remained weak and isolated in the face of a tribe of kin-bonded males, they evolved this sisterhood/collective mentality specifically to provide a counterweight to male power. This is important, because it’s this specific context in which this mentality comes to the fore most prominently in women, even today. Women can fight and scratch and claw with each other and be bitches with each other incessantly, but when one of them comes into conflict with a man or “with men”, the sisterhood/collective mindset kicks in in high gear, precisely because this is the specific context it emerged to counter. In other words, it’s specifically evolved to offset male power, to counterbalance male power, by forging solidarity between females who otherwise would not have any reason to act like a sisterhood (and who may even dislike each other).

Contemporary feminism is perhaps the most obvious form of this, but it isn’t the only one. The pronounced female in-group preference is another easy to spot one as well. But in any case, a key point to understand is that the sisterhood isn’t neutral — it’s evolved to counterbalance any kind of male power that threatens women’s interests as a group. This is the case even though women haven’t lived in patrilocal conditions for a long, long, long time, and even though contemporary men have no solidarity to speak of at all which could possibly threaten women’s interest as a group. That evolutionary history casts long shadows, and the tendency for women to see men as a cabal acting to control women — when in fact, as we all know, we’re kind of the exact opposite of that — arises from the collective evolutionary memory of adaptations to deal with the very real male solidarity females faced when they were imported into patrilocal male tribes of kin-bonded males.