Purple Pill

The Anger Bias

I don’t think it will come as a shock to my readers, or anyone who follows me on Twitter or on the Red Pill Reddit forum, that I’ve gone to bat in recent months to combat the (often deliberate) misperception that self-described ‘Red Pill’ men are inherently angry men. As such, we’re also meant to presume these ‘angry men’ have a potential for violence or at best self-loathing.

The idea, of course, is proposed that “the guys in TRP are just embittered, deeply hurt men who’ve taken the truths that Red Pill awareness has presented to them and converted it to a real, genuine misogyny”. Furthermore, the convention is proposed that these guys cannot come to terms with their own failures and want to blame them all on women, or at the very least an unkind, unforgiving, pro-female world in which they’ve always struggled (i.e. “losers want to blame their losing on women”). Thus, these ‘bitter terpers’ (TRPers) promote either hostility towards women, or they attempt to check themselves out of the sexual marketplace entirely by “going their own way”. In either case, it’s proposed that it’s men’s inherent anger that motivates them to an anti-woman mindset.

I addressed much of this misguided argument in my essay Anger Management:

But are we angry? I can’t say that I haven’t encountered a few guys on some forums and comment threads who I’d characterize as angry judging from their comments or describing their situations. For the greater whole I’d say the manosphere is not angry, but the views we express don’t align with a feminine-primary society. Men expressing a dissatisfaction with feminine-primacy, men coming together to make sense of it, sound angry to people who’s sense of comfort comes from what the feminine imperative has conditioned them to.

Most of the men who’ve expressed a genuine anger with me aren’t angry with women, but rather they’re angry with themselves for having been blind to the Game that they’d been a part of for so long in their blue-pill ignorance. They’re angry that they hadn’t figured it out sooner.

I understand that a lot of what is written in the manosphere can certainly be interpreted as coming from a source for anger. When I (or anyone else) outline the fundaments of hypergamy for instance, there’s a lot to be angry about for a man. Women get pissed because it exposes an ugly truth that the feminine exhausts a lot of resources to keep under the rug, but for men, learning about the feral reasons for feminine (and masculine) behaviors often enough cause a guy to become despondent or angry. That impression should never be the basis for a Man’s Game, nor is it ever really an aspect of internalizing Game that will benefit him personally.

Anger bias and attribution to men is an easy follow for a social order predicated on empowering and protecting the feminine. From an egalitarian mindset that insists on socially constructed equalism between the sexes it’s ironic that the attribution of a default anger to men, and the conventionally masculine, is something entirely unique to the male sex. To the feminine-primary mindset, all-is-one until a negative trait unique to the male biology serves a purpose, and a positive trait unique to women is flattering for them. Then the ideals of social constructionism are suspended insofar as biology agrees with a feminine-primary social order.

I would also argue that predisposed anger is just one attribute the Feminine Imperative finds useful in men to create operative social conventions. The default presumption of mens predisposition to anger is the basis of most domestic legislation (paternity, domestic violence, child custody, etc.) between men and women.

This is a convenient social constructivism based (ostensibly) on egalitarian equality until a particular emotion or personal quality is predominantly attributable to one sex in the positive or negative; then it’s the ‘differences’, not the similarities, between the sexes that make for social control. It’s funny how we’re all equal, blank-slates until anger is better attributed to “toxic” masculinity and some preternatural capacity for empathy in women are beliefs the Feminine Imperative reinforces in its cultural context.

Anger is a useful emotion for fem-centrism. It’s all too easy to classify men’s propensity for anger (and associated violence) as ‘toxic’ yet women’s anger is something transformative and empowering. This connects back to the social efforts of the past five generations designed to feminize men and masculinize women; the inverse traits that would be conventional to one gender are encouraged as positive traits in the opposite gender.

This may be somewhat remedial for my regular readers, but I’m reviewing this because it illustrates a dichotomy that a Blue Pill mindset is all too ready to accept. To the equalist ideology, biological gender-specific truths are only a minor factor in the human condition – unless the truth of that gender-specific biological fact is something advantageous to the feminine and disadvantageous to the masculine.

For instance, to suggest that women’s evolved neurological capacity for communication makes them more intuitive and sensitive to verbal and nonverbal sub-communication we’re supposed to embrace this biological fact as something that sets women apart as ‘special’ or evidence of women being “more evolved”. But when we suggest that men outclass women in cognitive spatial ability, or neurological gender differences in rational abstract thinking gives men a biological advantage in areas like mathematics, then male professors lose their tenured jobs for expressing these facts publicly. If a biological difference is flattering to women it’s an exception to the blank-slate ideology; if a difference is unflattering to women it’s considered evidence of an institutionalized sexism on the part of men.

For all purposes, a social order founded on the blank-slate ideology of egalitarian equalism (serving the Feminine Imperative) regularly, and ruthlessly, quashes any discourse of biological gender differences – unless those factual differences are flattering to the feminine and/or damning of the masculine.

Anger Bias

One biological difference equalism is happy to promote is the notion that men are biologically predisposed to anger, aggression and violence. The motivating impetus behind this anger is rarely something the equalist mind will consider, but that men are predominantly, naturally, more ‘angry’ than women is a meme that is actively encouraged. If anything, this biological fact is a root basis for the cultural concept of “toxic” masculinity.

However, the fact does remain, healthy men possess 12 to 17 times the biogenous serum testosterone that women do. This naturally predisposes men to be more muscular, hairy, lower voices, libidinous and yes, aggressive. It’s no secret that statistically men are biologically more prone to anger, aggression and potentially violence. In a feminine-correct social context this natural predilection is the basis of all masculine attributes being ‘toxic’, if for no other reason than it presents a threat to women’s social control.

For all this, the male gender-bias towards presumption of anger has a foundation in evolutionary psychology. Men will always be considered more angry than women because of an evolutionary adaptation known as Error Management. And in men’s case, this anger attribution is a species-survival adaptation. The following quotes originate from a study called, Seeing storms behind the clouds: Biases in the attribution of anger. This experimental study, and another similar study (If looks could kill), come to us courtesy of Dr. Martie Haselton and her colleagues in the evo-psych department at UCLA. These studies outline the inherent biases towards anger all humans theoretically harbor subconsciously.

Anger-prone individuals are volatile and frequently dangerous. Accordingly, inferring the presence of this personality trait in others was important in ancestral human populations. This inference, made under uncertainty, can result in two types of errors: underestimation or overestimation of trait anger. Averaged over evolutionary time, underestimation will have been the more costly error, as the fitness decrements resulting from physical harm or death due to insufficient vigilance are greater than those resulting from lost social opportunities due to excessive caution. We therefore hypothesized that selection has favored an upwards bias in the estimation of others’ trait anger relative to estimations of other traits not characterized by such an error asymmetry.

Anger attribution to physical and gender cues is an “adaptive rationality”. In other words, it’s probably better to err on the side of caution and misattribute anger to an individual displaying even marginal cues of a potential for aggression (for instance, they hold implements or tools that could cause physical harm) than to miss that cue and wind up dead or injured.

Moreover, we hypothesized that additional attributes that 1) make the actor more dangerous, or 2) make the observer more vulnerable increase the error asymmetry with regard to inferring anger-proneness, and should therefore correspondingly increase this overestimation bias.

This is an important distinction to make when we extrapolate this theory to a larger social scope. When the actors (men in our case) are made to appear more dangerous, or the observers (women & feminized men) are made to feel more vulnerable there is an increase in the perception that the actors are in fact more prone to anger (asymmetrical error attribution).

Adaptive rationality and error management

The “adaptive rationality” approach contends that the mind was shaped by selection to enhance fitness in ancestral environments rather than to yield accurate judgments. Therefore, human cognition can manifest seemingly irrational biases that are, in fact, “adaptively rational.”

I explored this topic in my essay, Vestiges.

Anger attribution is one domain in which this might occur. Perceivers can commit one of two errors: underestimate an individual’s trait anger (false negative) or overestimate it (false positive). On average, underestimations will have been costlier than overestimations in ancestral populations: assuming that an anger-prone individual was temperate placed the perceiver at risk of assault, whereas assuming that a temperate individual was anger-prone merely led to foregoing potentially profitable interactions. Thus, overall accuracy (i.e., committing false negative and false positive errors with equal frequency) did not maximize fitness over evolutionary time. Rather, in line with error management theory, we hypothesize that selection favored a biased tendency to commit the less costly false positive — overestimating trait anger. Although the same logic applies to the estimations of state anger, our predictions focus squarely on trait anger because traits predict future behavior, and it is costly to underestimate an individual’s anger not only in the moment, but also in future interactions.

For the Red Pill aware, what I’m suggesting is that there is an evolved predisposition to perceive men as generally more prone to anger, and thereby more susceptible to aggression/violence, than may in fact be the actual case with men individually. Largely, as a man, you will always be perceived as potentially angrier than a woman.

Contextual factors can influence this asymmetry, resulting in a concomitant increase in biases in the perception of a given emotion. Anger motivates aggression, hence an important contextual factor in anger perception is the capacity of the perceived individual to inflict harm. The greater the capacity to harm, the more costly it is to underestimate the extent to which the target is angry, and therefore the more that perception should be biased in favor of overestimation.

I would argue here that men’s state in western(izing) cultures is one that grossly exaggerates men’s overall potential for anger, and by extension violence. Presuming that Red Pill men are “a bunch of angry misogynists” is one such error, but it is also a useful one in that it plays upon this overestimation of anger in men on whole. This anger attribution in men will always be an easy method of poisoning the well or creating straw men arguments from which opponents of Red Pill awareness will dismiss valid, factual arguments.

As you might guess, this male anger bias is a simple tool to use – and one I unfortunately see being employed by many Purple Pill dating coaches who’d like to dissuade their clientele from the less marketable aspects of Red Pill awareness. Anything Red Pill that disagrees with their feminine-sanitized advice is conveniently dismissed as “negative” or the rantings of angry, bitter, burned men. It becomes “Truthful Anger”, but their emphasis is always on the anger part rather than the truth that would kick a leg out from under their positivity marketing scheme.

The default state of women and feminized men is one of a presumed vulnerability due to a persistent social characterization of a default female victimhood in popular culture and media. Likewise, men are portrayed as quick to anger – all in spite of generations of effort spent in Blue Pill conditioning of men to be ideally passive, supportive, non-assertive and entirely less masculinized. Despite all that sensitivity conditioning, from the earliest ages, the default presumption that’s still popularly reinforced is that men are always the angry/violent ones. Domestic violence laws presume a man is always the attacker and always the party to be removed from the home because of this preconception.

Both the Feminine Imperative and even well meaning Red Pill men default to this overestimation. I get that this is largely merited on whole as a characteristic of men. This error management is a useful and pragmatic adaptation, but it is also a useful foil for dismissing men on whole. It’s interesting that I’d be pilloried for expressing that the realities of women’s menstrual cycle predispose them to ovulatory shift, as well as anti-social, behaviors, yet were I to explain that testosterone predisposes men to aggression we largely accept this as a given.

My intent in this essay isn’t to say men aren’t as angry as their evolutionary nature makes them. The point is that a feminine-primary social order readily makes this nature a useful tool in dismissing what would otherwise be valid, but uncomfortable Red Pill truth. This anger bias mechanism is a tool for message control.

The Purple Pill

review

Four years ago I wrote a post titled Could a Man Have Written This? I opened that post with a short, I thought positive, critique of an article by Mona Charen in which she in turn took a then relatively unknown Kate Bolick to task over her All the Single Ladies article. You can read the whole post; it was one of my earliest essays on this blog and, as I’ve come to realize, one of my more prophetic ones too.

My intent in that essay wasn’t to call Charen to the carpet, but rather to illustrate the point that only women are allowed to write an article that criticizes issues specific to women. It is an indictment of, and evidence of, the feminine centric social order we find ourselves in today that any man brazen enough to write verbatim the same offering would be dismissed and passed over as a misogynists at best – lose his long career and personal life at worst.

No man could write this critique and be taken seriously, and therein lies the danger in women co-opting the message the manosphere has been compiling for 12 years now. The environment is such that anything remotely critical a man might offer is instantly suspect of misogyny or personal (‘he’s bitter”) bias, however, couch that message in a female perspective, play Mrs. Doubtfire, and you’ll at least reach the audience beginning with something like validity.

Not surprisingly this element of message delivery is lost on most women. Adopting the male perspective seems novel, something that might set a woman apart in a sea of common fem-speak, but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context. It’s Man Up 2.0; make a token push to “re-empower” men just enough for them to idealize the romanticism of the responsibilities required for living up to women’s expectations.

I daresay this last part is exactly what the manosphere is seeing now. Like any other Male Space the Feminine Imperative makes it its business to ensure that ‘overseers in the locker room’ – in this case the social awareness of the Red Pill –  are emplaced to control a narrative and a condition to suit its purposes. That may sound conspiratorial, but there is no need for a concerted effort when women’s natural, fluid interest in attention and indignation will motivate them to co-opt the narrative of Red Pill awareness.

From Male Space:

Overseers in the Locker Room

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

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

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

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

It’s very important for Red Pill aware men, manospherean men, to keep this dynamic in mind when they are assessing and evaluating the various messages and intents of the men from whom they’re considering taking advice from.

The Purple Pill

In the community, The Purple Pill is a euphemism for men who’ve become Red Pill aware, but for a variety of insecurities have decided to temper the uncomfortable truths of that awareness with their previous Blue Pill hopes. The harsh, ugly truths that the nature of women, the nature of Hypergamy and the natural selection process of intersexual dynamics presents to these guys becomes too much to bear. It’s all encompassing; when a man begins to see his surroundings with a Red Pill lens the difficult truth needs for an optimistic solution to counter what would otherwise be nihilism.

As I detailed in A New Hope, there’s a want for some sort of Red Pill solution in achieving Blue Pill fantasized goals.

Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context with red pill awareness.

I’ve included as my blog picture the first and last book covers published by former Frat Boy PUA Tucker Max. I could just as easily have used Neil Strauss’ most recent book, or Athol Kay and Married Man Sex Life as an example, but I think Tucker’s covers tell the story better than a thousand words. When women, women’s interests and women’s sexual strategies become an endemic part of that man’s previous message or a male-specific social movement, the fundamental, underlying impetus becomes compromised. It becomes a tool of the Feminine Imperative.

The present condition of the Mens Human Rights movement is a glaring example of this insaturation of feminine influence. At some stage along the evolution of this otherwise laudable movement its leaders recognized that their best messengers – really their only options – for their grievances were women. Our feminine-primary social order only allows women to be critical of other women, thus the only avenue became investing their message in the women who would voice it for them.

Although I’m cautiously optimistic about the production and release of The Red Pill movie in the coming year I have to temper that with the knowledge that a documentary about the MRM will, once again, owe its credibility to a self-identifying feminist, Cassie Jaye, to tell the story for them. For all of the reassurances and promises of objectivity on her part, the subplot of the documentary prominently features her self-doubt and questioning of her own feminist beliefs during the process of her making the documentary.

On the surface this female self-discovery probably seems like a confirmation of purpose to the men of the MRM, but from a Red Pill perspective – the true Red Pill awareness neither she nor the notables of the MRM are willing to acknowledge – this is yet one more example of the innate feminine solipsism we’ve dissected for a decade now. From Eat, Pray Love to Gone Girl, the female self-discovery script is almost cliché now, but I expect that the bulk of the publicity and interviews of Jaye that follow this film will be less about the MRM and more focused on her very predictable “personal growth journey”.

As I stated in Male Space, the purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. This has been a constant bugbear for the Mens Rights Movement, and is the primary reason they must maintain an inclusionary egalitarian / equalist aspect to their message.

The present state of the MRM is just one of the more apparent examples of men’s groups inviting this feminine influence to ostensibly validate their message. There are others. Tucker Max’s most recent venture appears to be selling himself as a reformed cad who followed the romantic comedy script and is now appeasing his wife’s influence by helping men better understand how to better accommodate Hypergamy.

From The Script:

For women, the only thing better than experiencing this script vicariously through movies and stories is to see it happen live. David D’Angelo, Tucker Max are a few manosphere notable who’ve played the come-full-circle surrender to the script. There are far more guys who play it in a more visual sense (the repentant ‘Womanizer’ episodes on the Tyra Banks show comes to mind), but no one really remembers them, and certainly not in the ‘sphere. While there’s a sense of vindication for women to have a guy surrender his anti-social (i.e. anti-feminine primary) lifestyle and beliefs in favor of a feminine paradigm, and “settle down” into a feminine framed, normalized monogamy, surrender is still surrender. Essentially the strong vibrant man who posed such a challenge to her, the one who’s steadfast determination and conviction made him a man she was hot for as well as one she could respect, loses his status.

He’ll say, hey, you don’t know where I’m at in life, you don’t know the experiences I’ve had, life has taught me the value of compromise. Women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate a feminine reality, but if there’s one thing women outright despise, one thing men foolishly believe women should be able to appreciate, it’s a man willing to compromise the beliefs he’s established his reputation and integrity upon in order to facilitate her feminine reality. That’s the definition of a sell-out.

As I said there are many other examples; Athol Kay and the revenue dependence he now has on his pandering to a female audience (and the inclusion of his wife and other women in his message). Evan Mark Katz’s pandering almost exclusively to upper middle class women bemoaning the same tired tropes of  “no good men” that led them to their spinsterhood in the first place. There are more, but in all these cases these men’s financial livelihood depends on their capacity to include a feminine-primary influence into their dubious male space.

This Purple Pill dynamic has also found its way into mainstream religion for much of the same reasoning these ‘Dating Coaches’ find it necessary to cater their message to a feminine-primary audience. Most will season-to-taste just a bit of whatever they’re peripherally aware of about Red Pill truth, but only enough to appear in touch with the burden of men’s performance owed to the women that make up their audiences. Like the Dating Coaches, the Purple Pill Pastor understands that his revenue depends on hold women’s attention and usually this comes in the form of playing to women’s inherent need for indignation.

And finally, there are the apologist,…

This is an old video, but it’s brought to you by the same faction that’s now fronting conferences like the Conscious Men Summit. It pains me to see Dr. Warren Farrell speaking/endorsing this new age masculine apologist movement, especially since he’s a featured interview in The Red Pill movie for the MRM. Farrell has always been an adherent of the same gender-equal fantasy he learned from 70’s feminism, but I do credit him with aiding in my own unplugging when I read Why Men Are The Way They Are.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too shocked, but the masculine apologists of this century also have a need to mix in just enough Red Pill awareness to appeal to, what they hope are the more dominant sensibilities of men. New age (really reheated 70s) masculine apologist still cling to the fallacies inherent in gender equalism, but they transition this into a restitution script they believe women will appreciate in an age where women despise their pathetic acquiescence to the Feminine Imperative they’re oblivious of.

If these guys’ message makes your stomach turn, well, I share in your disgust, but it’s important to remember that in the coming years men like this will attempt to co-opt into their message just enough of what the Red Pill as a collective has developed for the past 13-14 years.

After Roosh decided to set fire to the Red Pill community in an effort to create his own brand in neomasculinity he put out a video in which he laid claim to having ‘fathered’ the Red Pill. Now we have the MRM making similar claims of ownership to this collective with their upcoming documentary. The cover story is of course “only in name, because no one can really ‘own’ the Red Pill”, but their notables understand the conflation all too well. Furthermore we have the influences of the ‘overseers in the locker room’ effect with the likes of Tucker Max and other half-measure Purple Pill fence riders.

Back in 2011 I anticipated women writers co-opting the Red Pill and acknowledging what of it that serves their sexual strategy (Open Hypergamy) and in claiming authorship of the Red Pill they also claim the authority to define it in the ways that most fluidly serve the Feminine Imperative. The Purple Pill pushers will use what ever conveniently complements and reinforces their Blue Pill insecurities while sweeping the ugly, harsh, unflattering truth of the Red Pill aside or disqualifying them as the negativity of misogynistic complainers.

While I am humbled to be accounted as one of the Red Pill’s prominent writers I will never lay claim to having created it. The Red Pill in its truest sense belongs to the collective that has contributed to it as a whole. It belongs to the men who’ve fostered it, who’ve risked their livelihoods and families apart from it to make other men aware; it belongs to those who understand that its objectivity is what’s kept it open and honest, discussable and debatable.

At the Man In Demand conference in Vegas I opened my talk by asking those seated what they believed the Red Pill was. I did so because I believe that in the coming years there will be a concerted effort to claim authorship and definition rights to the “Red Pill”, and it’s important for anyone identifying as being Red Pill aware to acknowledge that what we’re a part of is a collective experience. We are, we become, the developments of a totality of men’s experiences across the world.

Beware of any man or woman attempting to lay claims of ownership of the Red Pill. Beware of anyone defining this awareness, distorting these truths, to accommodate their narratives.