“The Believers” vs. The Empiricists

I’ve been meaning to do a post about this for a while now, and given the present ideological schism in the Manosphere (still searching for a better term) I thought reposting this would be relevant to the discussion. This is from an old Purple Pill Debate thread on Reddit. I was made aware of it by Rian Stone about a year ago and I’ve returned to it often enough in commentary and Tweets that I felt it deserved a post and a discussion of its own here.

Now, I understand that the definitions of what constitutes a red pill understanding versus a blue pill outlook are always going to be subjective to the individual guy. The “red pill” and the “blue pill” have become so distorted recently that as terms, as loose brands, they’ve become effectively meaningless. Anyone who reads my work or has heard me opine about these terms already grasps what my own interpretations are. However, far too many disingenuous actors have entered this community of late and all have an interest in shifting those definitions to cater to their pet ideology. In fact, converting the Red Pill to be interpreted as an ideology rather than a praxeology (or a heuristic if you prefer) founded in an objective understanding of intersexual dynamics has been their primary goal.

All this redefining has done is (deliberately) confuse the purpose of understanding gender interrelations by inserting ideology into the mix. Often this is an effort at reprioritizing how interpreting intersexual dynamics ought to discussed. Most often it’s a conflict of the ‘correct’ way of approaching the interpreting of observable facts & data. So moralists believe in one goal for the interpretation while objectivists see another. The result is we talk past one another. Then one disavows the other, goes off to broadcast what he thinks is truth – according to their origination premise – and builds a brand based on that redefinition of “the red pill” according to them.

You’ll get a better understanding here (emphasis my own):

__________________________________________________________

Red Pill and Blue Pill people end up talking past each other because they cannot even agree on what they should be debating about. The sets of values they hold are completely disjointed. They cannot even agree on what a “debate” is, and what the goals of a “debate” are.

Red Pill people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:

  • They believe that there is exactly one reality, and that truth is what accurately describes that reality. The better a statement describes reality, the more true it is. They are factual absolutists.
  • They believe that whether something is “good” or “bad” is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a result, and it is therefore pointless to argue about whether something is “evil” or not, instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists.
  • They believe that the goal of a debate is to establish what the facts are, and how this knowledge can be used to control outcomes. They argue about what is true.
  • They believe that debates are a cooperative process between two or more people who have the shared goal of achieving a more accurate picture of absolute reality, and that, while people may stick vehemently to their positions, they can also reverse them on a dime if new information comes to light, because the only real attachment is to the truth. They believe debates occur between theories, not people. Thus questioning someone’s character is off-limits, because it is irrelevant.

Blue Pill people generally bring the following assumptions to a debate:

  • They believe that reality is subjective, and what is “true” is simply a matter of who you ask. What is called “truth” is simply a codification of someone’s perspective, and it is therefore pointless to argue about what is “true“. They are factual relativists.
  • They believe that there is exactly one set of moral laws, which human beings have gradually discovered in a historical climb towards ethical perfection (or degeneration). Certain people are ethically better or worse based not only on what they do, but also on what they believe. They believe that different ethical systems exist, but they can be ranked from ethically worst to ethically best based on a sort of meta-ethics whereby they can be tested for degree of compliance with the one absolute set of ethics that underlies reality. They are moral absolutists.
  • They believe that the goal of debate is to establish what is morally better, and what everyone should do. They argue about what is right.
  • They believe that debates are a competitive process between two people, who each have the goal of establishing their views about right and wrong by attaining a state of moral ascendancy over the other person. They believe that anyone who changes their views is revealing a flaw in their moral character (because their previous views were not morally correct), and must thereafter relinquish the moral high ground and submit their actions to the moral judgement of others (usually the person who won the debate). They believe debates occur between people, not ideas, for the precise purpose of establishing who should be allowed to set standards for the behavior of others (because they are morally superior). Thus, questioning someone’s character is not only relevant, it’s the whole point.

This is why Blue Pill adherents think “those Red Pill guys” are “misogynists” or bad people. Because they cannot imagine an analysis that does not occur for the purposes of judgement, much less one that doesn’t include any idea about what people “should” do.

This is why the Red Pill insists that the Blue Pill are willfully blind. Because, to them, anyone who doesn’t admit the truth must be unable to perceive it. They cannot imagine anyone not caring what the truth is.

This is why Blue Pillers keep thinking that Red Pillers are trying to restore the Dark Ages. They cannot imagine any group with shared views not having one moral agenda that they wish everyone to abide by.

This is why Red Pillers think that Blue Pill adherents must be hopelessly bad at understanding human social structures. They cannot imagine anyone not wanting to do things in the most effective possible way.

Here’s an example of this kind of misunderstanding in action:

Here we see an interaction between RP and BP regarding age of consent laws.

  • RP’s primary objective to propose an algorithm for making legal judgements about consent or lack of it, which he believes will best serve what the majority of people desire to see these laws do. He looks at the issue as an engineering problem, and he proposes a solution.
  • BP’s objective is to establish whether or RP is a bad person. If he can be gotten to agree to a statement which BP thinks of as diagnostic of “evilness”, then the debate can be won, and anything RP says can thereafter be dismissed as originating from an evil person.
  • BP says “All this so you can justify getting laid.”. BP thinks RP is trying to “justify” something according a set of moral rules, because to BP, every act has a moral valance, and anyone who wishes to do anything must at least be ready with a moral excuse.
  • RP has been arguing, meanwhile, about which metaphors best illustrate human social and mating dynamics. RP does not address the issue of right or wrong at all, and seems to believe BP is engaging with him on factual level.

Thus RP and BP cannot even agree on what the argument is about.

RP thinks right and wrong are a matter of opinion, and BP doesn’t care what the facts are.

__________________________________________________________

I imagine the discussion thread for this post is going to get pretty heated. However, I want to point out that a lot of what I’m seeing in the Manosphere at present is rooted in factual relativists attempting to establish what the “Red Pill” ought to mean to people, and thereby redefining it to suit their goals of couching any objective discussion in moralist terms.

What’s happening is that factual relativists want the Red Pill to be about what’s right or wrong according to their ideological bent. So they will bend over backwards to reinterpret what is actually an objectivist exploration of intersexual dynamics to fit their ‘interpretive headspace’ – or they will simply write off the Red Pill wholesale and say “Those Red Pill guys are just bitter, negative, misogynists” without a hint of their own irony.

Example: The realities of Hypergamy aren’t right or wrong, they simply are. In any of my numerous essays outlining Hypergamy, and for all my attempts to dispel the misconceptions about it, I’ve never once stated that Hypergamy was ‘evil‘ or that women’s nature is evil because of it. It’s simply a reproductive strategy that manifests per the realities of women’s nature and needs.

The factual relativists responds to this in two ways: First, is the nihilistic approach (Black Pill if you must) – Hypergamy conflicts with their personal interests and ideological bent. Thus, Hypergamy, or women’s inability (or choice) to police it for their betterment, or humanity’s betterment are evil. Second, is the approbation approach – “You talk about Hypergamy too much (or at all), it must be because you’re fundamentally a bad, damaged, morally compromised person.”

A debate never really occurs between these headspaces because the goals of the debate are never the same. Now, add to all this that factual relativists are appropriating the ‘red pill’ as their own “Brand of Me” and building revenue streams around their ideological interpretation of its original intent. Any counter argument proffered by factual absolutists is not only a challenge to their ego-investments, it’s also interpreted as an attack on their livelihoods.

In 2015 and again in 2018 I made this point:

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.

Furthermore, any co-branding will still be violently disowned by whatever ideology it’s paired with because the Feminine Imperative has already co-opted and trumps the fundaments of that ideology. The fundamental truth is that the manosphere, pro-masculine thought, Red Pill awareness or its issues are an entity of its own.

Unfortunately, this is where we are at today in the modern ‘Manosphere‘. The reason I’m attacked with accusations of enforcing some ideological purity tests for the Red Pill is directly attributable to the mindset of the factual relativists; whose livelihoods are now dependent upon the redefinition of whatever the Hell the “Red Pill” means to them or should mean to those they broadcast it to.

So, I become a ‘Cult Leader‘ because their minds can only think in terms of ideology. Again, the factual relativist never leaves the ideological Frame in which they believe the debate takes place.

Gender War

Well, once again my thought process for the next post is interrupted by another real-world example of what I’ve been discussing on this blog for some time now. My State of the Manosphere address I delivered at the 21 Convention last October is set to drop next week. I’m not going to tell which day exactly, but I feel it’s necessary to break a little protocol to make a larger point in this essay.

As most readers know, in my speech I addressed some of the social shifts in narrative that I believe we can expect in 2019-2020. Much of this foreshadowing was about how it will be necessary for a feminine-primary social order to ’till the fields’ socially in order to lay the ground work for the 2020 election cycle. On December 29th, on the Year in Review episode of The Red Man Group, I also made a few more predictions for 2019, in which I said the next Democratic presidential candidate to run against Donald trump will be a woman. Maybe that’s not too much of a stretch to believe, but I also predicted that in order to have any realistic chance of success the entirety of western American culture will need to be primed to accept a female candidate that will likely not be Hillary this time.

In my speech, and if you’ve been following my Twitter feed, I make mention of a coming #genderwar. A lot of this prediction came from the cultural suspicions that in present day America we are now in the midst of an ideological ‘cold war’. A large part of that cold war centers on issues of gender . If the U.S. populace is to accept new female candidate they will need to be ‘softened up’ with a cultural shift that empowers women to degrees never seen before. Furthermore, there will need to be a reverse effort in disempowering men. This is disempowerment has taken many forms over the past 3-4 years with social pushes for #MeToo and it’s later weaponization revealed its latent purpose – it was never about equality or raising awareness of sexual misconduct; it has only been an effort in silencing men and instilling fear. The MeToo weaponization effort came into full view during the Kavanaugh hearing in 2018. No longer was it a grass-roots hashtag ostensibly about raising awareness of sexual misconduct, now it became the weapon of socio-economic threat that the Village has always intended it to be.

However, for all the threat MeToo represents as a social weapon against men, it will only be one such weapon the Village uses in the coming Gender War. Last week I wrote about the new official guidelines issuance from the American Psychological Association (APA) deeming that “traditional” masculinity was harmful to men and boys. The decree was based on the flimsy and biased determinations of an association that sets the standards for licensed psychologists in this country. To act in defiance of this militantly feminist guideline risks the livelihoods of any psychologist who disagrees with it. And this issuance was only the latest, most visible, move against masculinity in a string of public and state university classes and organization attempting to categorize masculinity as a “disorder”. The push is literally an effort to classify “traditional masculinity” as a psychological disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) used by all psychologists.

I could bog myself down in how the APA have become the lords of the new church in carrying feminist ideological water, but this would miss the forest for the trees. The larger narrative here is what’s in play. And that narrative is one of getting a larger society to accept, by default, that the inherent nature of masculinity is evil. It’s now less about ridiculing men (though that’s definitely still a tactic), and more about establishing a qualitative state of masculinity being a personal and social evil.

In the manosphere we’ve always sussed out how western society has been Fempowered while men have become more and more feminized. Today this is not enough. Today we are being programmed to believe that any masculinity, in all its aspects, is not only anti-social, but an abnormality – a certifiable disease. And anyone who would dare to disagree with this will, as Roosh once wrote, ‘have their bread taken from them‘.

In Male Control I explored what I saw as a narrative shift coming from the Village with respect to masculinity. This post was written after the Las Vegas mass shooting in October of 2017 (for which we have no definitive answers, and even less people asking questions) and in its wake came the predictable series of articles from the Fem-Stream media. Usually this narrative starts with appeals for gun control, then it shifts off to how it’s always men or boys and ‘toxic’ masculinity, and OMG we need to teach our boys to be better girls. This time though it was different. The narrative shifted to “masculinity itself is toxic”. In that 2017 article I predicted that this would be the new message coming from the Village for the foreseeable future. And right cue the concurrent mass shooting events and any incident of “men behaving badly” in the MeToo era was (still is) written from the ‘masculinity IS toxic’ perspective.

Well, the future is now. We are in a post-‘toxic’ masculinity era. That narrative has been replace by a ‘Masculinity is toxic’ message. No longer is it about certain, perceived negative aspects of masculinity being toxic – if you are male, you need to learn to repress your maleness altogether. We are no longer just teaching our boys like defective girls, the Village is teaching men they need to become woman-like in order to be an acceptable member of western society.

Less than a week after the APA’s holy decree that ‘traditional’ masculinity is a psychological disorder we see the now infamous Gillette “commercial”. In this video men are ubiquitously portrayed as ridiculous buffoons, but also as borderline perverts, potential rapists, oblivious fathers and uncontrollable hard-ons. The message is overwhelmingly “masculinity is this, you males should do the opposite”. And this is the message most plugged in men got when they watched the show. What they fail to realize, due to a continuous feed of the narrative, is the overwhelmingly misandrous subtext to the video.

This narrative is the same one I wrote about in Good Humans. There was a message that accompanied feminist mothers’ boys when they marched in the Women’s Marches of 2017-2018; it was no longer ‘Boys Will Be Boys’ but ‘Boys Will Be Good Humans’. This then begs the premise, if you are a boy, if you are male, then you are not a Good Human. This is a fundamental redefining of what it means to be a man, according to the Village. In the Red Pill we understand the importance placed on living out the conventional definition of masculinity – manhood is not something to be given or taken away by the ambiguities of gynocentric society. But this is what the Village is fostering as it’s direction for men. It’s not enough for them to withhold your ‘manhood’, now if you resist their correction, if you embrace your innate male self, you are a “no good human.”

I’m hesitant to call this Gillette video a “commercial”. In actuality it is a feminist agitprop piece directed by a well-known radical feminist, Kim Gerhig. Kim and her producer, Sally Campbell, are notorious for producing exactly this deliberate misandry when they’re not creating videos of singing vaginas. This, of course, is the ugly detail the Fem-Stream media would rather the mainstream pay no mind to. Our attention is supposed to be either on the message of “Men need to do better, what’s so wrong with that?” or “Only man-babies are crying about this ad.”

If this sounds like the Male Catch 22, you’re correct:

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.


I wrote this back in 2011, but these truths are timeless. The Feminine Imperative will always fall back on the duplicity of expecting Old Books responsibility from men in tolerating New Books expectations from women.

The latent message in the Gillette video is ‘men are bad humans’. Men are no longer even referred to as “men”; they are now “Allies”. The compliant ones are Allies to be used in policing the bad humans who fail to acknowledge and promote the interests of the Feminine Imperative. Just as #MeToo is a weapon to be used against ‘bad humans’, so too are Allies to be used in opposition control. And likewise, Allies use the same social shaming tactics that the Village has taught them to use.

But wait, there’s more. Not to be outdone by Gillette, now we get a video from PETA portraying men as,…guess what? Yes, ridiculous buffoons obsessed with their genitals. This is interesting considering that Kim Gehrigs agency, Somesuch, seems to be fixated on vaginas – but vagina wallpapers are okay in this world.

You’ll once again notice that the APA guidelines are being quoted here as gospel less than a week after they were made public. “Traditional” masculinity is the bugbear again, but it’s almost like this was part of a planned narrative. You can ‘cure’ toxic masculinity by going vegan.

Next we have confirmation of this connection just a day after the Gillette “commercial” went public. “Scientists” agree,…”

Again, it’s almost as if these articles were written in advance of the APA ruling as well as the timing of these videos. Now, I know, that all sounds conspiratorial. It may be some coincidence, or perhaps this is a topic that inspires a lot of writers to write about it immediately. The truth of it will come out in the coming months.

However, my predictions about all this have been remarkably accurate thus far. In fact, if I was wrong about anything it was in my thinking this social narrative campaign would be more gradual. I shouldn’t have underestimated the readiness that the Village had in wanting to spit this misandrous venom. They are going to go hard from the outset and I believe the next 2 years will be a defining moment for conventional masculinity versus its distortion and perversion at the hands of women and their allies. The line will be drawn between men who embrace their dominant, beneficent, conventional masculinity and males who toe the feminist line, gender-loathing and hoping for affirmation from their female ‘betters’ by ridiculing men who embrace it.

Understand, all of this is part of the groundwork necessary to create a social condition of distrust between the sexes. This is a Genderwar of the Village’s creation. The pretense of equality between the sexes is officially gone. Women are encouraged to embrace female supremacism now:

I would expect the next big dust up in this cold war will be on Super Bowl Sunday. The millions of ad dollars spent on these commercials will be a testament to the message of the companies’ position in this Genderwar. Remember, prior to the 2016 elections, many companies poured millions into ad buys and re-scripted their movies and TV shows based on their belief that by then we’d have the First Female President. That was a bad bet for them, but it shows how they operate. It proves how ad agencies and Villagecreatives make cultural assumptions and then sell companies on them. That’s exactly what Gillette has done here, but they weren’t the first old school company to buy into the feminist hate of masculinity; Campbell’s soup was the first to fall.

Bear in mind, these videos, these ads, these movies (Ms. Marvel will be another hit against masculinity) are only the opening salvoes in this offensive. I fully expect that by the time we get into the last 6-8 months of the next election cycle this Genderwar will have the sexes more polarized than at any time in human history. Men must be seen as a vile enemy if the Village is to ever get its First Female President. If this backfires on them it will be because they pressed too far in their zeal to debase men. They want to kick men in the nuts so bad that they might engender more sympathy or female backlash than the manufactured rage to prompt women and allies to vote for their female candidate.

Going forward, all politics will be gender politics. The litmus test for all leadership will be about vaginas and penises. We’re already seeing this Genderwar rhetoric come to the surface in the incoming fresh-women class of this year’s congress. The only imperative they have is destroying masculinity and raising up female supremacism, and this imperative will be borne out by every word they speak and every policy they concern themselves with.

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.