sexual revolution

Dangerous Times – Part 1

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.

Welcome to the #MeToo era. What we’re experiencing in our social environment today is a sea change in intersexual dynamics. The underlying fundamentals haven’t changed; our evolved natures and the latent purposes that are driven by them haven’t shifted, but the social dynamics and sexual acculturation that serve as checks and balances on them has drastically shifted, and in a very short time. While you could make an argument for an idealized free love era that took place right after the Sexual Revolution, now we find ourselves in a time that is so calculating in its design on intersexual social dynamics that it makes the late 60s seem romantically naive.

Back in October of 2014 I wrote a post called Yes Means Fear. This essay was a response to the, at that time new, Yes Means Yes sexual consent legislature that was being instituted on California university campuses. Dalrock had written similar essays regarding this latest form of sexual consent aptly titled The Sexual Revolution’s Arab Spring and Making the World Safe for Promiscuous Women. It may take you a while to review these posts, but please read these and skim the comments to get a gist of the conversations we had going on just three years ago.

One of these comments was the inimitable Deti:

At the end of the day, college women (soon all women) will be able to use the “lack of consent” law/policy as a weapon against undesirable men to do the following:

1. Weed out and eliminate unattractive men by chilling their conduct

2. Making even the most innocuous sexual conduct (i.e. approaching, asking for dates) so dangerous that the only men who will engage in the SMP are attractive men with proven successful sexual track records who will never get reported for doing anything “untoward”; thus ensuring that only attractive men will approach them for dates and sex

3. Giving women more power over the SMP so even unattractive women can use and select men for alpha fux; then have the sole ability to pursue and select men for beta bux when they see fit.

Open hypergamy. It will be “we women are going to do this, and if you want sex, you’ll do it our way, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.”

Deti posted this comment on October 15th, 2014. The inter-blog debate then (at places like the now defunct Hooking Up Smart) was that Yes Means Yes was solely meant as a firm response to the supposed on-campus rape /sex assault panic that was being circulated in the mainstream media at the time. From the Red Pill perspective, we saw what potential this legislation represented to what would later become a societal scale institution.

Of course, they called us reactionaries, called us ‘rape apologists’ for simply pointing out all the ways this legislation would be expanded to a societal scale. They said we were exaggerating when we illustrated that, even for long-married couples, there would need to be a check list of approved acts of intimacy for each and every act performed, and men would need some form of hard evidence to prove that consent had indeed been granted.

The new California college/university sexual assault policy requires the following:

“An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”

There was sex, which is clearly “sexual activity.” The question then becomes whether there was “affirmative consent”. In order for there not be consent, the woman would have had to show affirmative conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sex with the man. It is the man’s responsibility to make sure he had that consent. She had to manifest, verbally or nonverbally, consent to it.

Silence doesn’t mean consent. Her not resisting or saying “no, please stop” doesn’t constitute “affirmative consent”. So really, the only way to make sure that consent is present is for the man to continue asking her throughout the encounter: “Is this OK? Can I keep doing this? Is this thrust OK with you? Is THIS thrust OK? Can I thrust again? How about this one? Can I keep going? Do you want me to stop?”

If that did NOT happen, if the man did not get EXPRESS, VERBAL statements that he could continue, then yes, there was sexual assault.

The way this plays out in situations like this is that verbal consent is REQUIRED. She cannot manifest “ongoing” “affirmative consent” any other way. That’s because of the way the law is written. Lack of protest is not consent. Lack of resistance is not consent. Silence is not consent. Thus, a wife, just lying there, starfishing it, giving duty sex to her husband, is putting him in jeopardy, because she is not manifesting “ongoing” “affirmative consent”.

All of that they said was ridiculous. Women would never be so petty as to make a man ask permission for, nor hold him accountable for, sex that she wanted to have with him. Furthermore, this ruling was only meant to curb campus assault; any extrapolating to a larger societal norm, we were told, was just us Red Pill men and their insecurities about the intentions of women and sex. If we’d Just Get It we’ll have no problems.

We were told it was limited to penis-in-vagina sex only. We were told it was just in cases of “drunken sex”. All of these proved false. This law was intended to govern, regulate and control every single sexual interaction between a man and a woman. This law is intended to require a man to get express consent at every single step of the process, from initial touch to banging. This law is intended to chill all male sexual conduct. This law by its very terms requires express consent for every sexual act, starting with kino.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality – Heartiste

A World of Fear

When I wrote Yes Means Fear (also 3 years ago) it was initially in response to an article by Ezra Klein, Yes Means Yes is a terrible law, and I support it completely. This reads through as bad as any gender related article on Vox, but Klein’s salient point was summed up in one sentence.

To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

I’m reasonably sure Ezra was aware of the larger scope – larger than just California college campuses – that his giddy Beta love of a world where men would be afraid to so much as approach a woman would lead to. But now we find ourselves here in his idealized sexual marketplace founded on men fearing to interact with women at the risk of losing everything. At the risk of being Zeroed Out. Today, just three years later, we’re experiencing the #metoo moral panic based exactly in the fear Ezra said would serve us so well. Ezra must be proud that the gold rush hysteria of sexual misconduct allegations any and every woman (who ‘might’ have ever felt an accidental hip brush 50 years ago) feels entitled to is the result of this cleansing fear he loved so much. Unless he’s defending allegations himself of course.

If you go before the college board and say that the woman accusing you of assault simply doesn’t remember that she said yes because she was so drunk, then you’ve already lost.

Gone is the college board now in favor of the popular court of social justice – the court that condemns a man for even the suspicion of an allegation of sexual misconduct. Gone too is part of women’s remembering the pretense of a sexual encounter. Whether a woman was drunk and doesn’t remember the details, or if she conveniently recalls them 40-50 years after the fact is immaterial. The operative point is that we always believe any and every allegation of rape or misconduct a woman brings forward.

Articles of Belief

Shortly after I wrote Yes Means Fear I wrote Hysteria, an essay intended to address the disgraceful (now thoroughly proven) UVA fraternity rape hoax story written by Sabrina Erdley and published by a complicit Rolling Stone Magazine. Just daring to question the validity of so outrageous a rape account was heresy to women back then. Bear in mind this took place after the Yes Means Yes consent ruling in California. At this time, just to question the story of a woman’s rape account was enough to earn you the title of ‘rape apologist’. But moreover, we were popularly expected to repeat this mantra and always accept a woman’s account as infallibly true:

“No matter what Jackie said, we should automatically believe rape claims.” http://t.co/3HFlXR7jme True insanity pic.twitter.com/AFXIyn32FS

This was the sentiment (now deleted) tweeted by Zerlina Maxwell on December 6th, 2014. Since then this meme that anything a woman had to say about sexual assault must be believed by default has snowballed into a default belief that anything a woman alleges against a man must also be believed. Whereas a male college student might stand in front of his kangaroo court at a university, now men must stand in front of the kangaroo court of public opinion where a woman’s word outweighs all pretense of due process. That college kid is now the average man who must prove his innocence because if a woman alleges it due process is reversed.

What we’ve witnessed in just 3 years is the systematic removal of a man’s right to habeas corpus with regard to women’s allegations.

And I expect that this removal will extend to much more than just women’s believability in regard to sexual misconduct. Imagine a culture where it’s expected that anything a woman accuses her ex of is to be believed in divorce proceedings.

We’re now seeing exactly what myself, Deti, Dalrock and countless other Red Pill bloggers and commenters predicted would happen, but it’s also so much more that what we could see coming. In just 3 years Yes Means Yes moved off the campus and into mainstream culture; a culture predicated on female social primacy. In a feminine-primary social order even “affirmative consent” isn’t enough – “enthusiastic consent” must now be established and maintained. That “enthusiastic consent” is a new ambiguously defined terminology, and part of the larger narrative meant to further confuse and instill fear in men.

Last week Novaseeker, once again, had a terrific comment that illustrates what consent has come to today.

Yep, that’s the newest goalpost move.

We went from No means No (which meant that if she doesn’t say no, it’s on … which pretty much is the basic human mating script) to “affirmative consent” (“may I kiss you now” … “may I lick your breast now?”, etc., per the “rules” required before any physical contact *and* at “each stage of escalation”). Very few people actually follow affirmative consent, as we know, but it’s the rule at most colleges and universities. It isn’t the legal rule for rape, in terms of determining what was “consensual”, currently, but the FI is working on that, believe me.

Now, we have the goalposts moving even further along, from “affirmative consent” to “enthusiastic consent” — which means that if her consent is even verbally expressed, but isn’t clearly enthusiastic, then it isn’t “reliable as consent” because it could be the result of “pressure”, and if the consent “was real, it would be expressed enthusiastically, because when people really are consenting to sex, they’re always enthusiastic about it”. So essentially the standard they are pushing now (and which is getting rolled out on campuses right now) is that if the girl isn’t jumping your bones and begging for your cock, it’s rape/assault. Of course, again, not the legal standard, but that doesn’t matter that much — as we can all see what is happening right now is that the legal standard is being marginalized, because people can be destroyed in our media saturated environment without any involvement of the legal system at all, and the standards that apply in that extra-legal environment are the ones that the FI wants to apply, whether the legal system applies them or not.

There are a few ways to look at this, but one obvious one is that this is a way for the FI to tighten the screws on betas. Very little sex that betas have, if any, is “enthusiastic consent sex”. Everyone knows this. Under this standard, basically all sex with betas is rape. That’s the intention.

And thus we come full circle to the latent purpose of legislating Hypergamy that I’ve continually repeated in many essays. It is Roissy’s maxim of feminism: The end goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Recently I found myself in a Twitter war on a story by CBS Los Angeles asking whether it was still OK for men to hug women. I used the cartoon I posted in The Creep 2 to illustrate my bigger point:

And of course the feminist tropes (from men and women) and the point & sputter ad hominem attacks flowed from there. However, this rage is precisely what I would expect from women who are now coming into a default expectation (entitlement) of all men to ‘Just Get It‘.

Only in this instance it is Blue Pill, Beta men who should know better than to approach a woman below their (self-perceived) sexual market value. Those men, the lesser men that her social media overinflated sense of SMV has convinced her are beneath her attraction floor should ‘just get it’ that they shouldn’t be flirtatious or even too friendly with her or risk the punishment of an allegation that might be his zeroing out. The Beta man who doesn’t ‘get it’ is an insult to her self-worth and deserving of an optimized Hypergamy.

In the next post I’ll be exploring the ramifications of the “enthusiastic consent” concept and how even consensual-but-unwanted sex and “duty sex” will be the next chapter in marital rape. I’ll also be detailing the the “Cat Persons” story that’s been making the rounds this week.

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.

The Curse of Jung


The sexual revolution represents a far more significant turning point in human events than I think most people living post-sexual revolution will ever fully appreciate. I was born after it, and I would presume most of the influential participants involved in our current gender discourse today were also products of a post sexual revolution acculturation. The vast majority of authors dutifully typing away on both manosphere and feministing blogs are, for the better part, results of the social-gender restructuring that occurred in the late 60s. With this in mind I think it’s important to reflect on the era prior to this to really grasp the significance of that change, and to understand how we’ve come to take certain aspects of our new gender reality as simply matter of fact. It’s hard to believe there was a time when we didn’t need to ask why men were Men.

1950

A lot of critics of really anything pro-masculine today will always fall back on the canard that the ‘misogynist’ author would “love to return to the 1950’s”. The epithet “misogynist” is as useful as “homophobe” for the same reason that it’s an easy throw-away label to help disqualify a dissenting point of view. If it’s hurtful or forces critical thinking that challenges an ego investment it’s far easier to categorize the offender as holding to outdated modes of thinking. Make your opponent’s views an anachronism and your perspective appears more valid simply because it seems the more novel and developed. But were the 1950’s some gilded age of masculism? What about the 30’s or 40’s, or even the 19th century? Feminists and feminized men fondly resurrect the specter of the 1950’s as if the decade were some apex turning point in women’s enslavement; like the Hebrews under Pharaoh’s yoke yearning for the promised land. All the men who held any sway over society are caricatures of white, middle class boors – more Archie Bunker than Ward Cleaver, but even Ward’s benevolence and bearing would be suspect of passive-aggressive patriarchy.

What’s tragic in this silly dismissal of a masculine mindset is that it presumes any man in this, or the past three generations could ever have any realistic frame of reference for life in the 1950’s. This is doubly true for contemporary women using this shaming association, but in recognizing this we have to open up a new pandoras box. What else is the feminine imperative using (deliberate or unconsciously) as “common sense” to rise to prominence?

Modern feminist understanding of gender, and really our feminized society as a whole, is based to it’s very foundations on an anachronism even more outdated than some mythologized chauvinist era when “men had it so good, while women were their doting, unwitting slaves.”

The Curse of Jung

I go into a lot of detail describing feminine social conventions on this blog. Some people think it’s unfair to target just female conventions; there are after all many other social conventions that apply to men as well. I’d agree with this of course, and besides this blog’s focus being given to the social/psychological aspects of Game,  those male conventions have already been (and still are) the subject of, literally, centuries of analysis and scrutiny. However, I’m going to focus on one to illustrate the progression of  the cultural shift that was prompted by the sexual revolution.

Among the many archetypically masculine traits is a man’s reservations of emotion. For various biological and neurological reasons, men are the more rational of the sexes. This isn’t to deny them an emotional element. Indeed I’ve described men as the true romantics, however, classically men have to a better degree than women, been the more reserved gender when it comes to expressing emotion. What I’ve just described here is one of the base tenets of Carl Jung’s school of psychological theory. It’s kind of ironic that Freud would be so vilified by modern feminism, yet find his protege Jung would contribute so much to the fundamentals of the feminization of society.

One of the key elements Jung introduced into western culture’s popular consciousness is the theory of anima and animus; that each individual, irrespective of sex, possesses greater or lesser degrees of association and manifested behavior of masculine and feminine psychological affiliations. In 2012, when you hear a 6 year old girl tell a 6 year old boy “you need to get in touch with your feminine side” in order to get him to comply with her, you can begin to understand the scope to which this idea has been internalized into societies collective consciousness. So long and so thoroughly has this theory been repeated and perpetuated that we can scarcely trace back it’s origins – it’s simply taken as fact that men and women possess varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. First and second wave feminism founded their psychological premises of gender on Jung’s ideas and so evolved the reasonings for a push towards the social feminization we know today. The seeds for the feminine-centrism we take for granted today were planted by a Swiss psychiatrist in the early 1900’s.

Whether or not there’s merit to Jung’s ideas, there’s little doubt of the impact they had on fem-centrism. Early feminists saw Jung’s theory as the perfect springboard to further a pretense of ‘gender equality’; thus making individual gender balance (i.e. androgyny) a new idealized goal state. Men simply needed to be perfected by exploring their ‘feared’ feminine natures, and women needed to be allowed the opportunity and freedom to masculinize themselves in order to perfect that androgynous balance. Introduce convenient, feminine controlled hormonal contraception and viola, gender equalism was born.

Dangerous Thoughts

I’m going to introduce a radical thought into the gender landscape that’s been manicured by the feminine imperative and Jungian theory for so long; what if it’s a good thing Men should be masculine and women should be feminine? What if it’s beneficial to our species survival that our very biologies are complimentary to our gender? What if we should be teaching our boys to get in touch with their masculine sides? What if gender is actually more nature than it is nurture? What if Jung got it wrong and we’ve allowed the feminine imperative to standardized our perceptions of gender for over a century based on an incorrect presumption?

The prevailing feminist wisdom clings to the Jung inspired notion that gender is a just social creation and one that sustains a Patriarchal hierarchy. All we need do is dress our children in as neutral an environment as possible and society will progress towards a more idealized, more humane, androgynous norm. But this is counter to the new data we find with ever increasing regularity, both in clinical studies as well as a better scientific understanding of neurology and endocrinology and their relation to sexuality and gender identity. In the early 1900’s Jung lacked even a fraction of the knowledge we’ve studied and proved about the human animal in 2012. In addition to this we have over 100 years of advances in fields of psychology that didn’t even exist in Jung’s time. We’ve seen the social impact of over 40 years of feminized Jungian theory – are we seriously going to continue this ideology, oblivious to the long outdated legacy it has on contemporary culture? Are we going to allow the originator of Beta Game to continue defining what constitutes masculinity and femininity in our society?