sexual market value

Zeroed Out

Last week I introduced a new concept in what most men can expect at some point in their lives. This is the idea of being Zeroed Out – basically men having most of a lifetime of status, financial equity, reputation, professional & educational growth, emotional investment and other metrics of men’s life equity being erased. I wanted to detail this a bit more here now as I think much of this concept gets easily misconstrued for men.

I think it ought to be part of any Red Pill aware man’s understanding that at many points in our lives we will be confronted with the prospects of having to rebuild ourselves. Failure, rejection and disappointment will happen for you, that’s just part of a man’s life, and it’s easy to rattle off platitudes about how many times you get back up being the measure of a man. But what I’m saying is there will be times when total reconstruction of your life will be a necessity.

You will be zeroed out at some point, and how you handle this is a much different situation than any temporary setback. This zeroing out is made all the more difficult when you confront the fact that what you believed to be so valuable, the equity you were told was what others would measure you by, was all part of your Blue Pill conditioning. At that point you need to understand that there is most definitely a hope for a better remake of yourself based on truths that were learned in the hardest way.

As I mentioned last week, it’s really easy to think of this as male victimhood or that a guy is complaining about his lot in life. Empathy, especially amongst men, has always been in short supply. I’ve learned the hard way never to bring up how sick I am, how bad my job is or how little sleep I got the night before in the company of 3 or more men – because I guarantee you that one has cancer, the other works in raw sewage and the last one’s an incurable insomniac. As men, our masculinity has classically been about how well we accept and adapt to adversity, so like I said, just mentioning a guy would be Zeroed Out at some stage in his life sounds like I’m saying “menz gots it so tough”. We’re supposed to take it on the chin and come back for more.

Guys will even get competitive with each other about how hard they’ve had it and how well they adapted to a bad situation. Others just don’t want to hear about another guy’s misfortunes, and others still will just say that men are living their lives wrong if a he bases his sense of self on the opinions of others – and women in particular.

The first two are simple to address. Men are in a general state of competition with each other even if this is only ever recognized as something going on in the social background. It doesn’t necessarily have to be vicious competition; even friendly rivalries are still rivalries.

It stands to reason that men will certainly be sympathetic with one another depending on circumstance, but that competitive nature is still something winners and losers instinctually understand. Out-group men will understand this state much more distinctly than in-group men (kin affiliation is an evolved survival adaptation), but even within that in-group there will still exist male dominance hierarchies. How those hierarchies are established is contextual to societal and environmental influences, but that they exist at all is often something our feminine-primary social order would like men to sweep under the carpet for themselves.

Qualifying Value

Competition is one thing, however, the idea that a man might base his life’s expectations, and his metric of success or failure, on external qualifiers is something I’d like to explore here. Social influences, family influences and men’s (often conditioned) subconscious understanding of how he can best effect intimacy and reproduction with women according to what he perceives are their expectations of him is a point of contention. If men feel Zeroed Out at various points in life, is that ‘zeroing’ just the effect of a man having built his personal integrity and equity on a foundation of Blue Pill sand?

MGTOWs are invited to correct me here, but as I understand it, this is a primary tenet of men going their own way – a rejection of women’s qualifying men’s personal worth based on their Hypergamous standards. I get that, but I would argue that there’s more to a man’s sense of self-worth than any qualifier womankind might place on him.

It’s no secret that Red Pill aware men need to understand the Game that they’re a part of and should indeed reestimate their personal worth based on this cutting away of oneself from their prior Blue Pill deceptions. This is why I believe every man who unplugs himself from his old ideals is, by order of degree, going his own way, but where he decides to go with it and how he decides to create value in himself according his new understanding is what’s at issue. Even in creating and building a new sense of self-worth there is still the potential of men becoming subject to losing that value irrespective of how he believes it should be measured.

I can imagine that whether or not a divorced man is ‘woke’ and living by his own terms, losing custody of and influence in the lives of his children can be something of a zeroing out for him. There are aspects of what we hold as our own personal worth that can be zeroed out no matter by what metric we think we should be evaluating it by. As I’ve always said, a woman should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it, but regardless, we still have intrinsic value that can be erased and it doesn’t alter the fact that women, family, career peers, etc. will be affected by it.

That said, it’s just an easy cop out to just say “Well, what you thought should be valued by others really isn’t, and because you thought it was, when you lose it you lose everything.”

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

This is the third commandment from Roissy’s 16 Commandments of Poon. It has relevance here because it’s illustrative of how a majority of men think about prioritizing what metric to build their personal equity on. As Red Pill aware men it’s too easy to get upset at plugged in men who are blind to some of the simplest Red Pill principles. It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that most men are still Blue Pill and will fight you just for suggesting they might be wrong about the reality they find themselves in. They need that comfort even if they fail to see it will potentially be their undoing.

More importantly, we need to remember that the suicide rates I quoted in last week’s essay are based on men who built their own personal value on what their Blue Pill conditioning embedded into their psyches for a lifetime. That’s what we’re up against, and until more men come to unplugging this sad fact will continue. This is the gravity we’re faced with as Red Pill aware men trying to help other guys unplug. It’s not just about how a guy can get himself laid better; it might be about saving his life.

As I was saying in the last post, my brother in-law killed himself because he was convinced for a lifetime that by sacrificing every ambition and ‘doing the right thing’ he would be appreciated for it all. The Blue Pill quite literally killed him. He was convinced that he couldn’t live without his ONEitis of whom he’d made the “center of his existence”. Remove that center and he ceased to exist. Tragically though, his was only one story that mirrored countless more men’s. We live in a very dangerous age for men. The Blue Pill is even more of a liability today than it was in times past, because we live in an era that encourages men going all-in in their life’s investment in that conditioning.

Seeing that men build their sense of self-worth on this false ideology is obvious. And yes, we should make ourselves our own Mental Point of Origin, but more important is realizing that our lives depend on Killing the Beta and discarding the idealistic hope that our personal equity ought to be measured by a Blue Pill metric. One reason I take umbrage with Purple Pill hack ‘life coaches’ is because this is the dangerous value system they can never let go of and encourage other men to readopt.

Men will find themselves Zeroed Out at various stages of their lives, but if those guys are still mired in a belief set that the Blue Pill has convinced him is the only legitimate way of valuing himself he’s positioned to become another suicide statistic. And the real tragedy is that its this false evaluation that will lead most men to it – all the while he hears ‘atta boys’ and positivity thinking mantras from others who really don’t know what else to say.

The Creep – Part 3

One of the parts of our evolved, human mental firmware is a need to see order in the chaotic. Pattern recognition in humans seems likely to have been a selected-for trait that aided in our survival in the past. Thus, we look for consistencies that help us predict what will likely come to be or to help us plan for eventualities. As such we had a need to categorize things in our environments as well as in other people (members of our tribe vs. the members of a competing tribe for instance). Naturally, we apply this need for familiarity and recognition to other people which is how stereotypes emerged. I feel the term ‘creep’ is one such categorization, but this is really a proxy term for a type of person that conveys a certain feeling we get from them.

There is an instinctual, animal-level recognition we get from other people’s behavior, looks, smells, subcoms, voice intonations, etc. Pattern recognition has been a survival adaptation in human being’s for sometime because it saved our conscious mind from having to perform rote memorization of each of these aspects and forming a definite identity for each and every individual we meet. It saves our brains from having to consciously process large amounts of data without being overwhelmed.

From People are People:

Human beings have an amazing capacity to multi-task, but a real trained focus on multiple sources of stimuli was problematic for us in our evolutionary past. Too much constant stimuli leads to sensory overload and a breakdown in functionality, which then proves fatal if we’re distracted from reacting to a lethal threat. Thus, we evolved psychological mechanisms to push less (though still) important information to the peripheries of our conscious awareness, to afford us a mental acuity on information of more importance.

One of my personal, foundational theories about psychology is that people are intimately aware of their own conditions.

This is a good starting point in clarifying why we feel a need to typify others. 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. I’m starting off with this today because the last part of the creep story is about men setting off this trigger in women.

I’ve written on several occasions about how women constantly complain about how the stereotypical ‘Nice’ guy can turn into a ‘creep’ when it turns out that all the guy was being nice for was part of his Beta Game of identifying with her in order to get to intimacy. There’s a lot going on in a situation like this, but fundamentally it represents a situation where a woman’s Hypergamous filters are fooled (or not) by a guy misrepresenting himself as one asset to her Hypergamous understanding of him and then his revealing and confirming for her that he expects her to believe he’s something else.

I’ve also written before that nothing is more flattering for a woman to believe that she’s figured out a man by using her mythological feminine intuition. However, there is a flip side to this ego-compliment to women, and that’s when her ‘intuitive’ assessment of a man’s SMV status compared to her (self-perceived) own proves to be false. Nothing is more offensive to a woman than for her to have made an assessment of a guy based on her mythical intuition and then to have it prove inaccurate.

The reason this is so offensive is because women’s Hypergamous optimization with any man is largely dependent on her intuition. Hypergamy and women’s long -term breeding strategy depends on assessing men’s SMV and their utility to her accurately. This is often compounded by women being sold on the infallibility of their feminine intuition – courtesy of a feminine-primary social order – and grossly exaggerated self-perceptions of their own SMV, and the caliber of men they ‘know’ they must deserve. But as with most things human there is also a learned / trained aspect of pattern recognition. Much of this learned side for women is often distorted by our female-important society.

Hypergamy cannot afford to incorrectly assess a man’s status and value. There is only a finite window of optimization while a woman is in her peak desirability in life. So it should come as little surprise that if a man misrepresents himself as something other than what he is – either deliberately or by misunderstanding – women feel an offense on the limbic level. It’s an offense that confirms she’s wasted her very precious time with a Hypergamous dead end. And, needless to say, Game is a form of deliberately tricking a woman’s Hypergamous filtering – at least in the PUA sense, if not an authentic sense – thus, Game is so vehemently disparaged in women and their identifying sympathizers.

When a woman typifies a guy as a creep what she’s responding to is the fallibility of her intuition, but also his efforts to misrepresent himself as something he’s not to her filtering mechanism. I should also add here that concepts like preselection and social proof are extensions of this filtering process. Only in this case it’s women’s collective, social filtering that’s aiding in an individual woman’s selection and optimization process. As such, that collective of women (the Sisterhood Über Alles) needs a type of man to be the representative of the ‘deceiver of Hypergamy’ – enter the Creep.

I’m actually kind of glad I held out for three posts in this series; it allowed for that many more sexual misconduct allegations to come forward in what’s being called a masculine moral panic today. And as I predicted in Male Control, the feminine social narrative has shifted from a type of masculinity being “toxic” to masculinity itself is toxic.

THE FACT IS, IT’S YOU. IT’S MEN. THE SOCIAL ILL THAT WE CAN’T QUITE PUT OUR FINGER ON IS MEN.

This is a quote from a recent article in Esquire. Yes, Esquire, a magazine that used to be an exclusive male space dedicated to men’s higher aspirations and betterment is now a vehicle for this new narrative of male shaming, and gender loathing. That’s to be expected these days – GQ is a similar platform for the Feminine Imperative’s messaging – but what I found interesting in this article was some of the examples of ‘creepiness’ women believe is rampant in American workplace culture. I had thought that with the rise of HR departments’ directives to police male behavior (at the risk of future unemployability) the issues she mentions would be something men would fear – I guess not.

A coworker knew I had a date the night before, so he asked me how it went. He said, “So, did he get lucky?”

Don’t ask about her romantic life. Don’t refer to her sex life. Don’t ask about the quality of the sex she’s having. Don’t comment that she seems like she needs to get laid. Don’t tell her to lock down a guy before she gets too old and decrepit. Don’t reassure her that with tits like hers, she’ll find a guy some day. Don’t relay details of your own marriage and past in order to comment on hers. Don’t make knowing eyes when she mentions she’s going on date number three. Don’t tell her how to behave on a date. Don’t tell her what guys like on a date. Don’t tell her to wear a low-cut shirt on a date. Don’t make any reference to getting lucky, like, ever.

What guy does any of this? How does he know when a female coworker had a date to begin with? There’s a lot that goes along with how a woman comes to a list of Don’ts, but I think this list represents a good illustration of the creep dynamic. The primary concern she has in all of these Don’ts can all be distilled down to a guy beneath her Hypergamous attraction floor presuming a familiar intimacy with her. I find it very hard to believe any of these Don’ts would be actual occurrences, but I’m looking at them through a Red Pill Lens – yes, it’s entirely likely that Blue Pill creeps would in fact resort to some of these comments.

Essentially the entire article is an effort in berating the Beta men women really want nothing to do with.

YOU SHOULD BE AFRAID OF SAYING OR DOING A WRONG THING AND HAVING IT BE INTERPRETED IN EXACTLY THE WAY YOU MEANT IT.

Women want lesser men to be afraid to approach, compliment and engage with them, but the message is wrapped in generalities to imply all men do these things. This message has the potential to throw the Alphas out with the bathwater, so I would predict there’ll be a few related articles that will of course shame men for not ‘manning up’ and approaching women like a “real man” should.

Dangerous Times

All that said, I can easily imagine Beta men, confused about sexual zoning, engaging in exactly the behaviors described here. It is a very dangerous time to be a Blue Pill Beta today. In fact, I’d argue it’s never been more potentially hazardous for guy ignorant of Game and the nature of intersexual dynamics. I find it very ironic that the men who actually understand the potential for some real life-damaging accusations in the workplace or any other off-limits social context, who take the open door, have-a-witness, policy for working with women are being shamed for it by women. This is the environment they created, but they created it in response to a want for absolute control of their Hypergamous choices.

A “creep” can pretty much be anyone a woman (or women) want that guy to be – even guys who were previously attractive with whom they had consensual sex with. That Alpha they didn’t mind oversharing their sex life information with can be the “creep” if he decides to break things off with her. Again, this comes back to unfettered control of women’s Hypergamous choices as well as absolving them of any regrets they may have had that resulted from them.

Edelweiss had an excellent comment in last week’s thread:

From my perspective, the guys most often labeled a “creep” are those with poor social awareness and/or men who those women see as offering no real value to them.

Now in my mid 40’s, I can see things that would never have registered for a 20yr old version of me. I often think “how did I miss this before?”. My focus now is almost entirely on body language. A woman can consistently lie with what she says, but she (anyone really) can’t consistently lie with their body language. Any guy not well versed in reading the various signs of interest, or a lack of, needs to spend some time studying the basics. It seems simple now.

One of the major mistakes I see guys make, is escalating too quickly. Touching, and sexualizing around a woman who isn’t into you, or is unsure of your value, is a great way to be labeled a creep. How many times have you seen a guy double down on an approach that isn’t working, and consequently become known as a “creeper”? A good number of men get into “pursuit” mode, and completely fuck up their chances by being overzealous.

I’ve got to repeat this, it’s never been a more dangerous time for men unaware of Red Pill intersexual dynamics and even basic Game principles. Blue Pill Beta men have been conditioned and acculturated to default to a Beta Game that is the perfect storm for so volatile a time. These guys literally have no idea that what their interacting with women is doing is setting them up for. Simple compliments and treating women with a default respect is becoming a liability for men with poor social awareness, but this is exactly the type of men our social order has developed for the past 4 generations. These Beta ‘creeps’ who should just know better than to try to approach the ‘average’ woman are the result of decades of raising and acculturating boys to hate their masculine nature and confuse their good intentions with some form of Game women might appreciate.

Pook once had a great quote back on the SoSuave Forum. He said,

How do I judge a woman’s character? I see how she treats people who can do nothing for her.
This test has never failed me.

At this point in time I think we are seeing how women treat the men who can do nothing for them.

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.

The War on Paternity

One of the most pressing imperatives human males (really most primates) have evolved is a need for certainty in their own paternity. Up until the last century with the advent of DNA testing it has been an imperative that has really been at the control of any female with whom a man copulates with. Indeed, even today a ‘father’ is really whomever’s name a woman puts on a birth certificate, generally no questions asked (and no information relayed) of that mother by the OBGYN doctors. Prior to the Sexual Revolution and the millennia leading up to it social and religious controls were instituted to keep rampant Hypergamy in check. An argument could be made that, even in a post-agrarian social order, ubiquitous monogamy and marriage were socially mandated as a way to not only control for women’s Hypergamous impulses, but were also the only practical means of control over certifying that a man’s child was of his own genetic line. And even this had its flaws.

Up until the advent of genetic testing the only practical, somewhat assured failsafe for knowing paternity was long term, pair-bonded monogamy and the social conventions that were instituted around it. Men’s sexual strategy (our masculine imperative) is scattershot. Our biology functions such that we can father countless children with each ejaculation and continue to do so well into our later years of life. This strategy is a counterbalance to women’s quality-over-quantity approach to their own sexual strategy. For each environmental obstacle one sex’s reproductive imperatives poses, the other will evolve contingent strategies to compensate for it.

To understand this conflict all we need to consider is the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies – For one sex’s strategy to be fulfilled the other’s must be compromised or abandoned. 

For men, in a social order founded on monogamous pair-bonding, this means abandoning his scattershot sexual strategy and adopting the strategic goals of women’s strategy. What were looking at here for men is exactly the type of evolved contingent strategy I mention above – abandoning his sexual imperative to essentially bet his genetic legacy on one horse, rather than diversifying his odds with, potentially, many sexual opportunities. This is a very important distinction for Red Pill aware men to make with regards to their own sex; opting in for long-term monogamy over a man’s evolved sexual strategy (scattershot) represents adopting a woman’s (ultimate) sexual strategy as his own. This dynamic is defined by what’s called strategic pluralism theory:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

If we consider that men are overwhelmingly (80%+) rated as unattractive by women today we begin to see the adaptive logic of strategic pluralism for men. Less opportunity equals less potential to follow a man’s sexual imperative. Solution: invest all your sperm and all your efforts into one long-term bet; reproduction with one or relatively few sexual partners – and if you can build social and moral conventions around this adaptive strategy to reinforce it, so much the better.

If men can compel intrasexually competing men, and women (whose strategy might be compromised by adopting it), to believe that monogamy is a social and moral imperative, then they increase the odds that they’ll successfully circumvent what would otherwise be the natural limitations of their own reproduction.

As you can probably guess, this adaptation for singular parental investment imposed a much higher premium on men’s need for certainty of their own paternity. To be sure, the Alpha Males of most primates have a habit of killing the offspring of any prior Alpha that had access to fertile females in a group prior to his own breeding with them. This infanticide is yet another adaptive insurance that a male primate can be certain that any resources, protection and parental investment he put into any progeny would be of his own paternal line. If it can be assumed that the importance of paternity is a primary, evolved drive in primates, how much more imperative must it be for human males adopting a sexual strategy of singular investment? How much more imperative must it be for women to collectively confuse paternity within a social collective (tribe) and protect against a perceived threat of infanticide or loss of resource provisioning if left on their own?

Even in our march towards ‘civilization’ we find this anti-paternity bias in the killing of male members of a social collective while preserving fertile females for potential breeding purposes. Today we may not be killing the sons of rival clansmen, but we can certainly see the paternity bias in how we regard kin affiliation above out-group affiliation in our personal dealings. Concerns of paternity, for men, evolved to be part of our mental firmware – and certainty of it became of paramount importance.

Strategic pluralism, however, is not without its own counter contingencies. Even within a social and moral environment that restricts Hypergamy, women are still psychologically compelled to optimize their own sexual strategy to its fullest. 8,000 years ago 17 women reproduced for every 1 man – and this was after the advent of agriculture. There’ve been other studies that reduce this number to a 5 to 1 ratio, but still the fact remains that even in a social order that (ostensibly) prioritizes pair-bonded monogamy, women have provably found ways to optimize Hypergamy and confuse paternity to a socially stable degree. Thus, we see counter-adaptations in behavior on the part of men to mate guard, to once again, insure certainty of paternity. Even in the relative stability of monogamy, men’s psychological imperative for paternity supersedes the social environment.

Cuckoldry by Any Other Name

As I’ve mentioned in prior essays, cuckoldry deserves a much broader definition today; one that goes beyond the obvious duplicity of birth fraud. Women have found that by tweaking the social conventions that would limit their own sexual strategy they can circumvent the monogamous side of sexual pluralism socially enforced by men. Thus, we get new feminine-primary social conventions that celebrate, socially reward and positively reinforce men’s acceptance of the parental investment responsibilities of other men who fathered children with a woman they’ve pair-bonded with. Step-dads get the big thumbs up and we rejigger the positive reinforcement to downplay father’s day and replace it with special person’s day.

Now, consider this with respect to the potential for infanticide that a woman’s hindbrain believes men are capable of. That fear of infanticide represents a root-level limbic part of women’s evolved need to optimize Hypergamy and the great potential for loss of having optimized it in her offspring. So imperative is this to the female psyche that it became necessary to socially condition men’s evolved paternity need out of them once women and the Feminine Imperative became the dominant social driver.

On a larger social scale, one that is defined by a post-Sexual Revolution, feminine-primary social order, the answer is simple and total; men must be convinced to completely abandon their biological imperative of parental certainty before they commit to a monogamous relationship with a woman. Socially, we make paper heroes of men who will accept the parental investment responsibilities of a child he didn’t sire. That ‘heroism’ of the guy who accepts his assigned role as a retroactive cuckold is short-lived, but the archetype of that guy who ‘man’s up’ and adopts the children of a single mother is now embedded into our modern folklore.

I would also argue that a large part of the Blue Pill conditioning of men for the past 5 generations can find its roots in women’s need to optimize Hypergamy while ensuring the security that once she does a provider-male will step in to fulfill his role as a dutiful cuckold. In order to achieve this, free from the fear of infanticide, boys and men must be conditioned to unequivocally revoke any need for certainty of their own paternity.

A few years ago I outlined the next step in Open Hypergamy would be transitioning to a state of normalized and accepted Open Cuckoldry. Wrapped into this transition is also the social efforts to normalize a feminine-controlled form of polyamory – one in which primarily a woman is presented with the options and control of exercising both the short-term sexual, and long-term provisional, sides of Hypergamy. Today this is what’s termed a polyamorous relationship with male partners representing Alpha seed and Beta need. In moving from a normalized state of Open Hypergamy to Open Cuckoldry there are a series of social changes that need to occur and find acceptance in the general population of men. One of these changes is a large scale, socialized effort to get men to accept that their biological imperative to ascertain paternity – even the questioning of paternity – be equated with “toxic” masculinity.

The War on Paternity

Increasingly we are seeing a push on the part of the Feminine Imperative to delegitimize the innate need of men to ensure their paternity. It’s actually an aspect of a war that’s been going on since the Sexual Revolution to redefine masculinity and fatherhood. As I mentioned in Positive Masculinity the definition of what makes a father is becoming more and more ambiguous, while fathers become increasingly more superfluous. In order to complete this delegitimization of masculinity men must be convinced that their innate need to know paternity, and the importance they inherently place on it, is something to be ashamed of.

Every social mandate we see today puts the interests of the mother and child well above that of any father. This is why paternity is rarely ever a factor in issues of child support; even for children that a man didn’t father but is held legally liable for. Socially, even religiously, any importance of paternity for men is being systematically erased. From doctors being gagged from informing cuckolded fathers of genetic tests, to limiting their access to DNA tests themselves, to encouraging men to ‘man up’ and marry single mothers as a moral imperative, paternity for men is now some sort of shameful insecurity.

Why would the Feminine Imperative seek to root out what has been a fundamental, evolved, part of men’s mental firmware since the time of our hunter/gatherer beginnings? Because Hypergamy needs security. Hypergamy needs assurances to quell the doubt that a woman has optimized both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of her sexual strategy. I would argue that men’s psychological need for certainties in his paternity is on par with the need women have of certainties in their need for optimizing Hypergamy.

All this war on paternity amounts to is an ensuring that women’s unquestioned, unilateral control over Hypergamy is baked into men on a societal level. Convincing men to abandon any claims on certainty of paternity, and at the same time shaming men who put any importance on it, is an effort on the part of the Feminine Imperative to get men to surrender their sexual strategy by abandoning it wholesale, while praising them for playing a willing role in fulfilling women’s sexual (and life) strategy. Even when that sexual strategy is one where a man acknowledges his lesser sexual market value and seeks to put all his investment into one woman, the push to delegitimize men’s need for paternity circumvents this strategy.

Delegitimizing men’s need for paternity cancels any and every upside that long-term monogamy had for Beta men using this sexual strategy. Thus, a return to a scattershot, some would say ‘less civilized’ sexual strategy becomes the only obvious alternative for men who want parental certainty.

Erasing the importance of paternity for men is literally the last nail in the coffin that is now contemporary marriage. It reduces men to little more than draft animals and livestock for women’s breeding purposes by erasing any claim a man may have to know his children are his own.  Most well-conditioned Blue Pill men adopt this archetype unquestioningly. There are no ‘Fathers’ anymore; all men are interchangeably either breeding stock or simply childcare workers in this new social framework. And boys and young men’s pre-acceptance of this state of men is part of their Blue Pill conditioning.

To fully effect Open Cuckoldry the goal of the Feminine Imperative is to have men define masculinity as accepting parental investment as separate and apart from evolved concerns of paternity.

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.

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.