women

The First Female President®

As a matter of policy I’ve always kept this blog’s topics about intersexual dynamics and left direct issues of politics, religion, economics, race, etc. to other blogs. The only time I cross into these issues is when they relate to inter (or intra) sexual dynamics, and usually when I do it makes for some heated discussions about whatever ideology seems to be the most “Red Pill”. In these circumstances I’ve learned (the hard way) that it’s wise to wait and reserve my opinions until all the cards have hit table. With respect to the gender-social landscape of a Trump presidency I think that time might be now.

If you’ve listened to any of my recent interviews over the last year (and American campaign cycle) you’ll understand my take on how I believe Red Pill issues have colored the last campaign. With the first real shot of a female president on the table I could hardly not be asked about what I expected. If you follow me on Twitter you’ll also know I made a prediction that it would be Red Pill issues, from the intersexual perspective, that would be a defining catalyst of the campaign. I was not disappointed.

While I’ve never been an ardent Trump supporter, my political decisions were made for me with the campaign of Hillary Clinton being his opposition. I didn’t vote for Trump, I voted against Hillary, and I don’t think I was alone in that assessment. As far as I’m concerned the jury’s still out on a Trump presidency, so I’ll reserve my skepticism, but one thing I am eminently thankful for is that Hillary was denied the presidency. From a socio-sexual standpoint, and being a Red Pill writer for some time, my analysis of this being a campaign rooted in Red Pill dynamics, those the manosphere has been sussing out for going on 15 years, centered on the fact that Hillary was the Feminine Imperative’s best hope for the First Female President®. I think it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that it wasn’t Hillary herself who was running, but the ideal of the first real hope for a woman in the White House.

As a long-time Red Pill author, the feminine-primacy narrative in her campaign was blatantly obvious to me. Even ‘Obama-the-feminist’ carried the Fempowerment water for her. That was to be expected, but what I found equally predictable was the pro-woman narrative using many of the Social Conventions I’ve detailed for a decade now. Naturally, there were the feminist tropes, but the feminine-primary ‘Village’ couldn’t just pander to women, it needed some outreach to men. So, the predictable appeals to “real manhood”, the Male Catch 22 and the ever-present shaming of conventional masculinity had to follow. Men needed to declare, “I’m with Her”. It was a ham-fisted hope that male Hillary supporters would ostracize other men into supporting her – or at least they might self-police men’s vocal opposition to her.

Again, as expected from the Feminine Imperative, any dissent, any criticism, any doubt or about Hillary (no matter the issue debated) was tantamount to misogyny. This has been the spoken and unspoken presumption of any man who might be critical of anything pro-female for sometime now, but the Bitter Misogynist narrative needed some freshening up to remind women and men about their duty as responsible members of a feminine-primary social order to elect the First Female President®. This played out on a larger scale in the Clinton campaign’s late-game efforts to dig up the endless words Trump might’ve said that proved his misogyny. However, it didn’t matter what Trump did or didn’t say; the fact that any man would oppose the First Female President® made him a misogynist by default.

He versus Her

From my Red Pill perspective, the campaign wasn’t about Hillary and Trump, it was about the Feminine Imperative vs. conventional masculinity. I believe the feminine-primary hope was to definitively defeat all vestiges, all semblances, of conventional masculinity. I’ve written on numerous occasions about feminine-primacy’s efforts to remove men from all aspects of our collective thought, but a Hillary presidency was to be a decisive victory over the mythical Patriarchy and the symbolic defeat of all that is men. Hillary and Trump were mere caricatures, effigies, placeholding representative of the ridiculous extremes we’re meant to presume of women vs. men – Trump, the living image of Patriarchy and Misogyny, Hillary, the pinnacle of exaggerated female empowerment that’s been culminating since the time of the suffragettes.

It was the school yard, boys-against-girls, battle of the sexes writ large on a geopolitical scale, and the end-game victory of the First Female President® was all but a given certainty. I will admit myself, I thought Hillary had it in the bag. That’s what anyone plugged into the narrative was certain above all doubt would happen. She was supposed to win. On countless female-supremacist blogs the mantra was “Its Her turn” – it wasn’t specifically Hillary’s turn, it was Her turn, it was women’s turn. That was the foregone conclusion and anyone could see it. Even the polls who we’d later wonder “how could they have gotten it so wrong?”, even they just knew it was “her turn”. If you believed TrumpHis‘ would win it was just a sign of your stupidity in the face of such overwhelming surety.

In fact, such was the surety of the First Female President® that companies, social organizations, advertising agencies, publications of every ideological stripe, all banked on Her winning the White House – and all prepared to be ready to welcome the First Female President®. With the surety of a woman president came the surety of an ushering in of a new Era of the Woman. It was simple pragmatism to prepare well in advance for what everyone was convinced would be the zeitgeist of the next 4 (and likely 8) years of the First Female President®. Him winning was inconceivable, so it made sense to get advertising, commercials, corporate policies, special events, preliminary legislation, etc. all in readiness and in line with the coming Era of the Woman. The smart money was ‘being on the right side of history’, especially given the certainty of it and the idiocy you’d be accused of for betting against it.

But then Election Day came, and with it came the inconceivable, the unbelievable. ‘He‘ won, not ‘Her‘.

We were then treated to the tearful videos of young women in disbelief, sure that their efforts to elect Her were wasted and the certainty of their empowerment left in doubt. Their part in ‘history in the making’ was to be denied.

We had the hurriedly written concession speech only after a day or so, such was the hubris there was no need to write a ‘concession’ speech prior. Then came the existential cries of soul-destroying anguish when He was sworn in. And we were introduced to protests of a hostility never before exhibited by the followers of Her. His character was no longer about misogyny so much as it was converted to fascism. A vote for Him was considered a hate-crime, mirroring much of the same fluidity and ambiguity applied to the definitions of ‘rape’ and ‘consent’, before He came along.

With the inconceivable Trump presidency those pre-bought ad campaigns, those forward-thinking companies had to switch the narrative from a feminine-supremacism victory lap to one of ‘we shall overcome’ in spite of the same old sexism we’re supposed to presume is lurking under every male CEO’s desk. You can see this in stark contrast when you look at any of the multi-million dollar Super Bowl commercial spots that are shot a year well in advance of their air-time date. Audi’s commercial being the most glaringly evident of the presupposition of a woman president.

Turning Over Stones

What His victory has really exposed for us as a society is a condition of feminine-primacy I have been writing about for well on 14 years now. When I wrote Fem-Centrism and The Feminine Reality I was attempting to bring to light the ways in which we exist in a feminine-primary social order. I caught a lot of flack for those posts back in the day, but they’ve served as a keystone understanding for many of the social paradigms and the intents of feminization efforts I’ve written about over the years. For several generation we’ve been conditioned to believe “it’s a man’s world” and we accept notions of the evil Patriarchy to be a settled truth. Along comes Rollo Tomassi and he turns over the stones to reveal that it is in fact a feminine-primary social order men serve in – gynocentrism, gynocracy, misandry – and all pretense of ‘Patriarchy’ is really part of one more operative social convention to sell men and women on the idea of female victimhood.

All of that changed on Election Day, 2016. All of the preplanned victory lap celebrations, all the feminist triumphal marches scheduled to follow in the wake of the First Female President®, were converted to protests marches, riots, violence and demonstrations against the prospect that He might potentially remove Her rights. All of the pretense of our feminine-centric, feminine-primary social order being a social undercurrent has been, and will be tossed to the wind now. The Empress has no clothes (often literally), and all she wears is a knitted pink-pussy hat; the new uniform of female supremacism. In the span of one election cycle virtually every premise I asserted about the validity of the Feminine Imperative has been confirmed. But moreover, that imperative, so angered by the denial of the First Female President®, is comfortable in its existence being laid bare.

For years I’ve addressed the comfort women now have in openly acknowledging their Hypergamy. Open Hypergamy and Open Cuckoldry are not just embraced, they’re celebrated among women and among the feminine-primary social order to the point that we make commercials and sitcoms based on women’s sexual strategy. Now that we’ve achieved Peak Hypergamy the final step is casting off all pretense about the designs on Female Supremacism. His victory appears to be the catalyst for this.

The jig is up and the Sisterhood Über Alles has revealed the true nature of the Feminine Imperative. Even the pretense of a desire for ‘equality’ among the sexes is now replaced with a visceral contempt for all things male. More attempts to remove the man from all language is the first initiative in both the military and on campus. No longer does the femosphere feel a need to hide or sweet talk its agenda; the intent isn’t lofty dreams of gender-equality, it is, and always has been Female Supremacism and the complete erasure of anything conventionally male or masculine. If it is male and can be replaced with a female proxy, so be it. If it cannot, its complete destruction is preferred.

The Women’s March on Washington last January was the most glaring confirmation of everything I’ve ever written about the Feminine Imperative. My timing of publishing this post with tomorrow’s Day Without Women international protest is no coincidence and I have no doubt that the embrace of feminine supremacism will offer increasingly more evidence of what I’ve asserted about the Feminine Imperative. Men, Red Pill or otherwise, need to be aware of this embrace of Open Female Supremacism and their complicity in it. The Era of the Woman has now shifted to one of a blatant, naked, power grab that likely would’ve been made all the easier had the First Female President® not been denied “her turn”.

Had Hillary won the presidency I have no doubt we’d still hear platitudes of how feminism is really about ‘equality’, and how it really benefits men too. Instead we have open contempt for all that appears masculine. Even the protests themselves are converted into programs meant to emasculate men. Instead of notions of ‘equality’ we get further atomization between the sexes in the name of Fempowerment. And instead they will openly make masculinity a disease to cure.

In the coming year(s) I predict we’re going to see more of the “women-as-oppressed” in advertising, in our cultural narrative, in or social dialog, because this is what a feminine-primary social order believes will resonate with damn near every demographic. And for those whom it doesn’t, then those who disagree will have to deal with those it does. It would be easy to dismiss all of this as over exaggeration; after all this isn’t really anything new to Red Pill aware men. I’ve been writing about for almost 14 years. What is new is an increased social urgency combined with the denial of the feminine entitlement the Red Pill community has been talking about among individual women for a decade.

It’s as if women everywhere were promised the First Female President® and then had her snatched away by the living embodiment of misogyny they’ve been taught to exaggerate for generations. They were ‘entitled’ to her winning – so much so that they would change the rules of the game in order for that certainty – but He took it away. He stole it, he cheated, he,…did anything but legitimately win it. That is a very BIG hit to the collective ego-investments of a feminine-primary social order. Thus, we will see in the years to come even grander displays of this entitlement, yes, but also the stripping away of all pretense women ever had of coexisting with anything looking like masculinity.

Masculinity is misogyny now. If you thought intersexual Red Pill awareness was derided before, it will be reviled as a hate-crime in the coming era. I once joked that if things kept going the way they were socially, The Rational Male would need to be secretly smuggled to groups of men to read by firelight like Bibles in Mao’s China. I’m not laughing about that these days.

False Equivalencies

equivalencies

One of the more persistent questions I get asked about Hypergamy is if there’s a parallel to it in men. I’ve answered this in several comment threads both here and in other forums, but I’ve never really addressed it in a post. When I was considering this I remembered a couple of comments from manosphere luminaries Deti and Novaseeker who I thought summed up this (often deliberate) misconception. Deti was kind enough to provide me with his own observations which I’m quoting and riffing on here:

It’s often said that men and women are both hypergamous.  This isn’t true.  Both men and women optimize.  But only women are hypergamous.

Hypergamy has become a term of art in the manosphere.  It has a very specific meaning which differs from the meaning social scientists ascribe to it.  In social science it refers specifically and only to marriage relationships.   The term is used to refer to women marrying men who are perceived to be wealthier or of a higher social/economic standing or caste, usually observed in Hindu cultures on the Indian subcontinent but also observed in early American society.  In the United States it’s often referred to as women “marrying up”.   

 F. Roger Devlin, himself having a social science background, appropriated the term in his essay entitled Sexual Utopia in Power when referring to his observation that young single women always seemed to be looking for the best man they can get at any one time, seeking the most attractive man or men for sex.  Devlin observed modern Western women’s propensity to discard one man in favor of a better man, in serial fashion, always doing their best to “move up” and get  a more attractive, better man with each successive discard and pairing.  

Expanding on this, manosphere writers and bloggers noticed that hypergamy operates at a low hum, like a background operating system, in every woman.   It is “satisfied” while she’s with a man of sufficiently high value. But if a man of perceived higher value or greater attractiveness  shows interest, and/or her current man’s value is faltering, that low hum becomes a loud alarm. This can cause her, at the very least, to have feelings of attraction for the new man and feelings of dis-attraction for the current man. This can in many cases cause her to leave the current man for the new higher value, more attractive man. This doesn’t always happen, but it can happen. Hypergamy can operate in any combination – more attractive man showing interest; current man’s attractiveness waning or falling, and anywhere in between. Thus, the manosphere’s use of the term “hypergamy” came into being, to refer to a core aspect of female sexual nature which is unique to women. 

If you do a Google search for the term ‘Hypergamy’ you’ll find The Rational Male and the topic category link for all the posts I’ve ever done on it is the second return you’ll get below the Wikipedia entry for the term. At the risk of a humble-brag, I’m not sure anyone in the ‘sphere has written more extensively on the subject than myself and I think Deti sums up the conflict in definition that both critics and the uninitiated have with their understanding why there is a need for a broader definition of Hypergamy.

I made an effort to address this in The Hypergamy Conspiracy, but this was some time ago. ‘Hypergamy’ serves well in a much broader capacity, but should the Feminine Imperative find that broader definition threatening to its purpose it will casually dismiss it as illegitimate, because the manosphere appropriated the term. Thus, we’ll see feminine-primary society embrace the larger ideas of Hypergamy (as in the embrace of Open Hypergamy) so long as it’s flattering to, and benefits most, women. Once it gets ugly, then it conveniently denies the legitimacy of the broad definition and it’s strictly about the “women having a tendency to marry up” sociology term.

People confuse “optimization” with “hypergamy“. Both men and women optimize; meaning they want the best they can get, of anything and everything. Men and women optimize everything:  jobs, cars, houses, furniture, friends, even churches. Men and women optimize with each other. But men and women optimize with the opposite sex in different ways, and that’s where the confusion comes in.

Hypergamy in its current iteration in the manosphere means essentially “is attracted only to people who are more attractive than I am”.  Women will be sexually attracted to men who they perceive as “above” them in attractiveness.  They will be somewhat attracted to men who are at their rough SMV level, but that man must bring other things to the table, usually provisioning and commitment, before she will have sex with him. And women are never ever sexually attracted to men who are perceived to be beneath their own SMV level.  

Example:   A woman with SMV = 7 will be sexually attracted to males with SMV of 8 and up.   She will pair with a male 7, if and only if he brings “other things” to the table. She will never be sexually attracted to male 6s on down.  And she will be able to easily get sex with men above her in SMV.  She can occasionally get relationships with male 8s.  She can easily get relationships and sex with male 7s.  Male 6s on down are her orbiters, with whom she’ll never have sex.   

Female critics of the broader definition of Hypergamy often have a (contrived) problem with the distinction between optimization and Hypergamy. And, as Deti explains, a lot of this comes from the fact that women’s sense of their own sexual market value is largely overinflated. Women rate 80 percent of men below average in attractiveness. When you contrast, even loose, statistics like this against the broader idea of Hypergamy you start to see why women would want there to be some analogous kind of Hypergamy for men. Hypergamy in women is founded on three bedrock truths:

  • Persistent doubt that a woman has adequately ‘optimized’ on Hypergamy with any man she has, or will potentially have, consolidated on a long term relationship with.
  • Hypergamy never seeks its own level. Women are always looking for a better-than-equal pairing with men in respect to their own SMV compared to his. When 80% of men are (loosely) agreed to be below average in attractiveness to women, we must consider that this assessment is measured in relation to what women’s Hypergamous doubt might be optimized with in a man.
  • Women’s Hypergamy is based in, and the source of, women’s dualistic sexual strategy. The manosphere euphemism for this is Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks. This shorthand refers to Hypergamy seeking optimization in both short-term-sex breeding potential and (ideally) long-term parental investment, protection and provisioning security potential.

It’s important to review these principles of Hypergamy because, for all the protestations of women wanting an equal comparison, there are no parallels of Hypergamy for men’s sexual strategy.

Deti continues:

Men do not operate like this at all.  And that’s the difference.   Men are not attracted only to women who are above them in SMV. A man can be, and often is, attracted to women above him in SMV, and to women at his SMV level and also to women below him in SMV. What is also different is the level of women he can get and how well his relationships will work out, based on his and her SMV.   

A man will be unable to continue a relationship with a woman above his SMV. He is very sexually attracted to them, and occasionally lucks out and gets sex with one or two; but he can’t sustain a relationship with them. He can get sex from women at his SMV level but only if he goes all in and offers commitment. He can most easily get sex with women below him in SMV, many times no strings attached sex. 

Example: A male 6 will rarely get sex with a 7 but can’t keep anything with her going. He’s not even on the radar of female 8s on up. He can get sex with a female 6 only if he offers commitment and provisioning. He can most easily get sex with female 5s on down. 

And here’s the grand difference: A man is OK with having sex with women at and below his own SMV. In fact, he’ll be happiest in his relationships with women beneath his own SMV – a woman is “meh” about sex with men at her SMV, and she is positively repulsed and sickened at having sex with men below her own SMV. She’ll be happiest in a relationship with a man above her own SMV and she can tolerate a man at her SMV. And she’ll be miserable at best with a man beneath her SMV and will tend to blow up those relationships. 

Men and women both have attraction floors. Men’s attraction floor is below their own SMV.   Women’s attraction floor is either above her own SMV and sometimes at her own SMV, but never beneath it.

I explore the fundamentals of intimate attachments and how SMV status influences it here. That article might be worth reviewing because in it is a lesson about Hypergamy. Again, compare the idea that the most secure attachments between couples are ones where the dominant, man’s, SMV status is roughly 1-2 points above that of the woman’s and contrast that against the fact that women rate 80% of men’s attractiveness as ‘below average’.

Also, keep in mind the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

The other, minor difference is that men are polygamous, not hypergamous. A man’s imperative is not (necessarily) to get the best woman. It’s to get as many women as possible with as little investment and commitment as possible. If he can do it, he would love to get as many women as possible at and a little below his own SMV, and have sex with as many of them as possible for as long as possible, without committing to or investing in any of them.   That’s spinning plates. Most men don’t do this, because they can’t, because they’re not attractive enough, but that’s a different post.  

A woman’s imperative is to get the best one man she can get for sex and for provisioning.     That’s why you don’t see many women “dating” (i.e. having sex with) several different men at the same time. Women don’t spin plates; they pick the best plate they can and take care of it as best they can. Instead of trying to collect plates, they just change out the plates, one for another, when a bigger, better one comes along.  

This is why the best long term relationship is one in which the man outranks his woman in SMV. He should be at least +1 and preferably +2 in SMV.  This makes both of them happiest in the long run.

On many an occasion I’ve fielded the question, “Well Rollo, if there’s a Feminine Imperative, there must be a Masculine Imperative.” People don’t usually like the answer, but from a strictly evolutionary and biological perspective, the Masculine (or male) Imperative is Unlimited Access to Unlimited Sexuality.

Deti summed this up adequately here, but the more high-minded of my critics will often think the ‘male imperative’ is setting the bar too low for men, but usually this comes from a want of something more than the visceral truth of what motivates us. And I’d agree with this for the most part, if men are to become something more than their base natures would have of them. But using the same reproductive metric I use in describing women’s Hypergamy I’ve also got to recognize that men’s drive for sex has been the incentive for our greatest achievements and our worst proclivities. If we are to be ethical in our judgements we must be amoral in our assessments. Sometimes those assessments will be unflattering for men and women.

The objective issue here is that men’s imperative is not analogous to women’s imperative. When we look at men’s approach to gratifying this imperative we see the stark contrast between women’s Hypergamy and men’s sexual strategy.

False Equivalencies

One of the most predictable responses I expect to hear from women when they chafe at various Red Pill truths is always the first presumption of false equivalencies between the sexes. Whenever I, or any Red Pill man relates some unflattering truth about the nature of women, without fail, the first reflexive response is “well, men do this too, and it’s worse,…” or there’s some other unflattering presumption about the nature of men that’s supposed to provide some counterbalance to the ugly truth about women that’s being related. Feminized men and White Knights will also adopt this tact in order to defend the honor of the Sisterhood so as to have there be no doubt that they ‘aren’t like typical men’ in their identifying with women.

This is to be expected though. The first impulse is to defend against anyone acknowledging that truth by distraction. “Ooh, ooh, men do it too!” is a distraction meant to refocus the intent of objectively (amorally) assessing what is otherwise an unflattering aspect of female nature, behavior and/or the motivators that prompt it. In order to do so we are expected to first presume a co-equal state between men and women, as well as a co-equal state of mutual goals. Thus, for women’s distraction to be effective there must be a presumed state of equivalency between men and women.

As such, we are, by default, expected to accept that if there is a female Hypergamy there must also be a male form of Hypergamy. This is a very useful illustration of the false equivalency principle women rely upon. Deductively it should make sense, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, but only in a mindset and a social order based on egalitarian-equalism is that reaction presumed to be the binary opposite of the original action.

If, as equalism would have us accept, men and women are functional equals, then it follows that there must be a male Hypergamy that is the reaction to women’s (often unflattering) Hypergamy. Women’s innate solipsism only reinforces this presumption because only an action that impacts a woman (positively or negatively) is deemed a legitimate truth to that mindset. I would argue that this is exactly why women’s first reflexive defense (to anything challenging her gender-defined ego-investments) will always be to presume some gender-opposite reaction for men. The belief is that while she can’t deny the proposed truth, at least (she) women aren’t as bad as men. From there the objective is to distract from that uncomfortable truth by indicting (functionally equal) men’s natures.

All of this presumption only functions in a social order that’s based on the idea of egalitarian-equalism between the sexes. When we look at things from a gender-complementarity perspective, and we accept that there are fundamental differences in the innate natures and motivators of men and women, those distractions become less effective. Just as Deti explains for us here, once we accept that men are not co-equal agents with women, we don’t even expect that there would be an equivalent to women’s Hypergamy in men.

The genders are different. We both have strategies for sex and life and fulfillment that are often not analogous to one another. Women only expect that there would be analogies because they presume that a female experience, female goals and contexts that benefit the Feminine Imperative will necessarily be what men mutually agree upon as what’s best for themselves. Only in a state of equalism, ignorant and intolerant of anything not agreed upon by ‘feminine correctness’, is there a presumption that men must have some parallel to the motivators and behaviors that prompt women. Only in a state of solipsism is this the subconscious assumption.

This is something to keep in mind the next time a woman bemoans how unfair double standards are for women. Men are not women, women are not men. Our strategies are often incompatible, or at the very least require a degree of compromise or total acquiescence to coexist in an ostensibly symbiotic relationship between men and women. It is only women (and feminized men) who default to supposing men are their functional equals.

Of Ego and Choice

ego

Last week I ran across a thread on the ‘Purple Pill Debate’ sub on Reddit that called into question the Red Pill idea that women’s egos have become overblown. This “debate” sub is essentially a forum dedicated to Blue Pill hacks expressing their dubious confusion about various topics discussed on the Red Pill sub so I wont grace the forum with a link here. That said, it is an interesting forum to peruse when looking for examples of how a lot of the fundamentals of Red Pill awareness are deliberately misconstrued. The Blue Pill mindset will make great efforts to insulate itself from unignorable Red Pill truths that threaten to break comforting ego-investments. Those efforts begin with a willful misunderstanding (and later denial) of Red Pill premises.

I’ve explored the topic of women’s ego inflation in various post on this blog, but truth be told I’ve had this more thorough examination sitting in my drafts folder for a while now. The idea that women’s sense of self-worth has been grossly overblown is something I think the Red Pill community often takes for granted. It’s fairly easy to see both online and in real life. I resisted fleshing this post out for a while because it presents the risk of being perceived as some gratuitous attack on all-women-being-like-that in their ego aggrandizements, so I’ve been content to just allude to this phenomenon in my posts.

It’s easy to throw red meat to the manosphere in this respect since women’s inflated egos are something most factions of the ‘sphere almost unanimously agree on. And of course, simply doing so makes the man pointing it out, by default, a misogynist. Then, either the mud gets slung by indignant tumblrinasor his points are perfunctorily dismissed and the conversation ends.

The Purple Pill “Debate” thread was simple enough, but such misguidance needs to be:

A narrative that is constantly pushed is the notion that the female ego is inflated from a constant barrage of male attention, thus leading women to have an inflated sense of value.

Attention and offers of sex from random strange males is not validating in most cases. Male attention and offers for sex are so easy to come by, they hold next to or even absolutely no value. To put it into a more crude term “dick is cheap”. Being offered free sex from a man that is not attractive to you is the equivalent of being offered a free bag of feces. It is free and it still might have some value, but I am not going to take it.

The whole idea that any of this is extremely validating is farcical and incorrect.

This premise is misguided in two respects. The first is defining exactly what is contributing to women’s ego inflation. The second is how a woman is validated by the attention that contributes to it. I’ve written extensively on the psychological effects attention has on women. Attention is the coin of the realm in girl-world. Women use attention as a form of currency with other women, which in turn establishes peer status among women’s social groupings:

The capacity to attract and hold attention denotes social rank within the peer clutch. The more attractive the girl, the more popular she becomes and the more influence she wields. This isn’t to say that any particular female is cognizant of this. However, when ostracized from the collective, this capacity for attracting attention in a high degree makes her despised. The attention can still be beneficial for affirmation (i.e. realized jealousy), it’s just that the intent that has changed.

Thus, women use attention not only for their own affirmation, individually and collectively, but also to do combat with each other. Far more damaging than physical fighting is the long term psychological impact of denying this reinforcement, or better still, delegitimizing or disqualifying a girl/woman’s capacity to attract this attention. Combine this with a woman’s natural, and innately higher agency to communicate both verbally and non-verbally (i.e covert communications) and you can see the potential this has in damaging a rival. This might explain a woman’s natural propensity to gossip. When a woman attacks the respectability and character of another (“she’s such a slut”), in essence, she is assaulting the woman’s agency for garnering attention by delegitimizing it.

The first misdirection in this thread is that attention only comes in one form that is ‘validating’ for women. It is a mistake to assume that male attention is all that contributes to women’s validation. My guess is that the original poster was male and trying to wrap his head around what form of attention ought to be validating from a male perspective. I say this because this mistake is also a common one amongst recovering Betas considering MGTOW. They often think their case is hopeless because women are so far removed from them due to all the “incredible amount of male attention” they receive online and in real life.

From this respect I can understand the OP’s point. Attention and ‘offers’ of sex – tacit or direct – from random strange males is not validating in most cases. With the proper incentive, male attention and offers for sex are so easy to come by, they hold next to or even absolutely no value. From the perspective of male attention, the (I think accurate) presumption is that unless a man is perceived as Hypergamously optimal his attention is worthless in ‘validating’ a woman’s ego.

The term “validation” is easy to mold to whatever definition a man or woman might find convenient with regard to affirming one’s ego. In a Red Pill aware sense this validation needs to translate into some sort of reinforcing of a person’s self-perception of their sexual market value (SMV). On the ‘Man Up’ side of things the perception is one that men ought to find some esoteric source of inner strength and purpose to find ‘validation’ for their egos, while avoiding the idea that how many women he sleeps with or the ‘quality’ of the woman he’s banging might contribute to ‘validation’.

It’s funny how Blue Pill (and a few Red Pill) critics will foster the idea that the only reason men learn Game is because they’re “validation seeking“, but yet they resist the idea that women’s egos would be similarly validated by the “incredible amount of male attention” they believe even the most mundane of women is capable of generating.

However, the OP is asking the wrong question. Women’s egos are not inflated by the value of men’s attention, but rather the perception of an unending abundance of prospective men. An abundance of male attention contributes to a sense of security for women’s SMV. A lot gets made about the influence of “thirsty” guys on women, but the only value they represent is a Buffer against women ever having any personal insight about their ego valuation. Thirsty guys only serve to convince a girl she has options and therefore leisure to demand a better-than-merited Hypergamous option (i.e. apex fallacy Alphas).

Feeding the Beast

Recently Petapixel had a not-so-funny photo exposé of the dutiful Betas behind the ego-validating shots of girls on Instagram. The complicity of the average Beta male in the feeding of the female ego is never to be underestimated. Not the least of which because they are unaware of their active participation in creating a generation of woman who will have nothing to do with him while she enjoys her peak SMV years, but also to complain about his inadequacies of meeting the requirements her ego demands of men when she finds it necessary to lock down a ‘marriageable’ man. He is the architect of his own failings, but it seemed like she’d like him better if he took the Instagram shots of her at the time – the ones she would use to advertise her SMV to the Alphas who she knew were the only men worth taking a picture for.

At no other time in the history of humanity has it been easier for a woman to validate her ego or (falsely) evaluate her SMV. But that validation isn’t based on quality, but rather perceived quantity. It’s not just male attention that contributes to this. A constant chorus of ‘go grrrl’ supporters, endless Fempowerment memes and special social dispensations since before a girl enters preschool make up a far greater influences for ego-inflation than male attention. If anything girls are taught from a very early age not to value male attention (in abundance or lack) as a source of validation or confidence. This returns us to the nebulous ‘inner strength and purpose’ meme, albeit with the Strong Independent Woman® branding.

In contemporary society women’s attention and indignation needs are as ubiquitously satisfied as men’s need for sexual release (i.e. internet porn) is . This, of course, leads the larger whole of women to perceive their social and SMV status to be far greater than it actually is – and when that inflated SMV is challenged by the real world there are countless social conventions already established to insulate women and simultaneously convince men that women’s perceived status should be the fantasy they believe it is.

It’s important to keep this in mind because men’s adaptive sexual strategies key on women’s self-impressions of their SMV (and often personal worth). This then forms a cycle wherein men’s attentions for women’s inflated sense of self-worth become the benchmark for future validation of it.

Hypergamy predisposes women to evaluate male attention on various levels. The attention of random strangers offering sex to her (even if this is her imagined state) is still attention, and while not as validating as the genuine sexual interests of a guy she perceives as Alpha, it’s still contributing to her overall sense of self. The quantity of attention skews the perception of her own desirability. Women rarely complain about the attentions of ‘friend zoned’ Beta orbiters – even when they know these men are playing what they think is a worthwhile ‘long game’. What women bemoan is a lack of Alpha, Hypergamously acceptable, men’s attentions. What we hear are complaints of quality, not quantity.

Why is it that women are distressed over a deficit of “marriageable” men?

Have a read of this Brookings Institute study

This data is nothing new. Compare this to Newsweek’s 1986 survey of women’s “chances” of marrying a suitable man.

As I’ve stated many times over, Hypergamy is founded on an evolved, biological-level doubt. Doubt that a woman will ever consolidate on an optimized (better-than-SMV-merited) attachment with a Hypergamously ideal male. Doubt that the male she consolidated on is in fact the ‘best she could do’.

The primary reason the anxiety of finding a ‘marriageable man’ is persistent in women is because they believe that their due is to marry a man of “equitable” value to what they perceive themselves to be. That self-perception of value is the result of a woman’s conditioned beliefs over the course of her lifetime. The popular response to this is that women have “made themselves better than ever and it’s listless men who aren’t keeping pace” in respect to education, career advancement, etc. The evaluation of self-worth for women (at least in the sense popularized by the Feminine Imperative) is ostensibly meant to be founded on criteria for attraction which has conventionally been a standard for male to female attraction. But notice that it is once again men who must shoulder a greater burden of performance to even be considered “equitable” in self-worth to make him ‘marriageable’ for women.

The truth is that Hypergamy always seeks a better-than-deserved arrangement when it comes to the men women want to breed with and share parental investment with. The anxiety is one born of women’s doubt in their capacity to optimize Hypergamy as contrasted to what their socially-inflated egos lead them to believe they’re entitled to with men. As women’s egos and self-aggrandizement expand, so too does the expectation of entitlement to an even more aggrandized male expand. The dearth of ‘marriageable’ men is both a reflection of men’s unwillingness to participate in their own indenturing and women’s unrealistic expectations of men prompted by an unrealistically exaggerated sense of personal worth.

Again, as a solution, we have a plea from the Blue Pill world for men to Man Up and accommodate this exaggeration. Women’s ego-aggrandizement is nothing that can’t be solved by Blue Pill men’s more invested efforts in appeasing it. Almost 7 years ago Roosh wrote an essay on what he expected from women (and it’s Game implications) in the future. It turned out to be quite prophetic, but in this essay he made this prediction:

Game Plus Fame Will Be More Important Than Anything

It doesn’t have to be national fame, but you must be known for something with a reputation that precedes you. You must have a YouTube channel with millions of views. You must be a proprietor of a hipster butcher shop. You must be a popular writer, artist, or musician. You must be nightclub promoter or DJ. You must be a competitive skateboarder. Your must be the notorious editor of a cupcake newsletter. In a culture where a million people are “famous,” you’ll have to work your ass off for scraps if you’re not. Nurture your own style and niche and then leverage that to get pussy. Game will always have its use, but game plus fame will be the qualities that tomorrow’s Casanova possess. Otherwise you’ll be approaching all day and night to fuck a 6 who stops calling you after a couple bangs. You must have the complete package to get the hottest girls, with game being only the first ability of a multi-level game warrior. Guys without game will simply not get laid, not even with ugly girls.

While I would disagree with the assessment that ‘fame’ is a prerequisite element to get the lay today, I do agree with the idea that the social proof that comes with genuine ‘fame’ status is now a vital part of what makes for male attention that women perceive as validating of their egos. As Roosh implies here, that fame need not be anything more than the contextual variety, and I’d also add that the perception of fame, or even the perception of a potential for fame, is now a required element for a man women would consider ‘marriageable’.

From an Alpha Fucks, short-term, ovulatory phase Hypergamy perspective, a man can get by on Game, looks, confidence, etc., but for anything more than this men are in a competition. This is not a competition with other men per se, but with the expected entitlements women’s egos and an entire feminine social order has convinced them is men’s duty to embody for them.

In our brave new world of instant global communication, social media and the ego aggrandizing influence it has on women is exactly what anyone should expect it would be. When we look at the progress of the social and legislative repercussions that the influence of unfettered Hypergamy has had on our social order should we really be surprised that women would use social media as a vehicle for expressing and advancing their sexual strategy?

V-Day

Time again for the annual re-post of this Classic:

_____________________________________________

Nothing says “I love you” like saturated fat and slutty lingerie.

In the U.S. businesses expect men to spend on average $186 for Valentine’s day – over three times the average a woman spends on a man. Explain to me why women own V-Day? If it’s a “celebration of romantic love” why should it be an annual shit test?

Lets clarify a few things about Vagintines Day since it’s become probably the most irksome manifestation of westernized/commercialized romanticism. V-Day is far and away the most vulgar display of female entitlement. On no occasion – even a woman’s birthday or her wedding anniversary – is this sense of entitlement more pronounced and our refined commercialization of this entitlement/expectation simply twists the knife in further for men to live up to this with ZERO expectation or entitlement to any reciprocation. He gets ‘lucky‘ if his romantic offerings are sufficient to appease her (social) media fueled expectations of ‘good enough’ to reward him with sex.

And exploit the media does. I can’t get away from it; Every radio station, every TV show, every newspaper and magazine article. Go to askmen.com right now, I guarantee there’s a “how not to fuck up this year’s V-Day for her” article there.

I listened to a talk radio show that I regularly tune into on my commute home on Friday; it was about what not buy this year. “Don’t buy lingerie, she knows it’s really a gift for you” or “Don’t pick up flowers at the gas station, women know they’re cheap”, and “God forbid you pick up some cheap jewlery or stop at one of those roadside urchins selling prepared flower baskets or arrangements – women know you didn’t think about it until you were on the way home.” On my way to work this morning, different show, same list. [Side Note: Never buy a woman lingerie, she will never be happy with it. A woman has to do this on her own to “feel sexy”, make sure it fits her right, and it’s HER IDEA. When you buy it for her it’s contrived and it is overt and overt is often the kiss of death for a try-hard guy.]

Why wouldn’t women have these expectiations? They’re relentlessly marketed to as the primary consumers in western culture. V-Day isn’t a celebration of romantic love, it’s a machine that drives a wedge of expectation and entitlement in between otherwise happy, relatively contented couples.

I’m not down on the idea of a special occasion to celebrate love (I actually proposed to Mrs. Tomassi on V-Day 18 years ago), I am down on the twisted expectations that have been perverted into it that puts a woman on some pedestal of entitlement by commercialized popularization of this feminized ideal. Why isn’t there an official “fuck your boyfriend like a wild animal” holiday or a list of criteria to meet that’ll make his day special? “Show him how appreciative you are of all his dependability and hard work this year – buy some lingerie ON YOUR OWN and pretend that you like him cuming in your mouth on his special day!” If women are so liberated and interested in equality, one would think this would be the first thing to occur to them. We need a special day to make us apprecitae each other?

Gentlemen, beware of falling into the trap of negotiating desire for Valentine’s Day performance. Don’t be lulled into thinking Game is any less necessary on V-Day. In fact, I can’t think of a more direct illustration of how the feminine encourages the transaction of men’s goods and services in exchange for a woman’s sexuality than reserving a ‘special day’ just for it. Remember, you cannot negotiate genuine desire; and with the right art, a bag of Skittles can be a more romantic gesture than all the sonnets, flowers and jewelry your inner romantic soul will ever be appreciated for by her.

Note to PUAs

Valentine’s Day is ripe with opportunity for an enterprising Man with the ability to see it. Go hit the clubs tomorrow night, particularly the ones that cater to a 25-40 y.o. affluent crowd. There’s a million different venues you can hit, all with promotions to help single ladies feel better about not having a date – usually with genderist drink specials to help your approach too. You’ll notice impromptu GNOs (girl’s night out) set up just for this occasion to prove to themselves “they don’t need men to have a good time.” A good PUA couldn’t arrange a better opportunity to hook up in multiple sets.

Don’t go play ‘pity friend’ with any girl on V-Day, don’t be the “you’re such a great friend” consolation date.. Call up your best wing man and sarge on the best night of the year to sarge. Wedding receptions aren’t even as good as V-Day for this.

V-Day in the Matrix

Just in case you weren’t already convinced of the complete totality of media control that the Matrix has, let me offer yet one more Valentine’s Day example:

I was in a grocery store this weekend picking up something to grill and thought it would be a convenient time to pick up a Valentine’s Card for my wife since it’s coming this week. So I meander over to the greeting cards section to sift this years crop of mushy sentiment.  Much to my disgust the only cards available in the “For My Wife” section of the Valentines Cards (and I mean ONLY cards available) come in two types:

A.) The sentimental, “My life was nothing before you and would be nothing without you”, tripe that reduces a man to a simpering, codependent who owes his very existence to the woman who deigned to marry the poor soul.

B.)The “humorous” Valentine that is essentially the greeting card equivalent of Everybody Loves Raymond or Family Guy. These are basically intended to beg for a wife’s forgiveness for all of his uniquely male faults and foibles, that only she can solve by virtue of her infallible feminine wiles. Judging from the ‘humorous’ intent of these cards, no man is capable of feeding himself much less ask for direction or leave a toilet seat down, but on “her special day” this card is meant to prompt an appologetic laugh.

Needless to say I’ll be making my own card this year, but for fuck’s sake, how can we ever get a break from this shit when we’re ankle-bitten at every opportunity? You simply cannot buy a card that doesn’t force a man to be self-depricating.

The Reconstruction II

reconstructionii

One of the most influential books I’ve ever read I picked up from my father’s home library when I was about 25. That book was Dr. Warren Farrell’s Why Men Are The Way They Are. At the time it didn’t strike me as odd that my father would have this book in his collection – my clinically depressed, 3rd wave feminist, aging hippy of a step-mother had eventually roped him into reading it for some Unitarian book club they belonged to in the early 90s. I still have it. It’s even got her penciled-in liner notes scribbled in the margins with all the feminist outrage I imagine it must’ve inspired for her. It’s sort of a cosmic irony that the book she raged over would be instrumental for my own writing and online persona.

People always ask me when my point of unplugging came about, but if I’m honest, it was a gradual process that required a lot of bad experiences to learn my way out of the Matrix. However, Farrell’s book was a turning point for me. I’ve since had to reassess my opinion of Dr. Farrell – he’s still very much Blue Pill and will likely go to his grave never making the connection that a belief in egalitarian equalism (as taught to him by early feminism) is what’s kept him blind to really accepting Red Pill awareness. But if I had a moment of unplugging I’d say it was directly attributable to this book.

I think what got me the most about it at the time were the many stories of the men Farrell had done ‘men’s group’ sessions with while doing his research for the book. It was published 1986 (about 7 or 8 years before I read it) so it was already kind of dated when I read it, but for the most part these men sort of had these sit-ins with other men to relate with each other. If you’ve read my essay Tribes you’ll understand why these new-agey get together seem very contrived to me, but the stories these guys were relating in the early to mid 80s were about what I’d expect coming from my own Dad.

They all did everything right. Some were the products of the free love generation or the hedonistic 70s, but overall these guys were caught in the perfect storm of still clinging to the old books Beta-provisioning social contract and the expectation of 3rd wave feminists that they be ‘evolved males’. More than a few were attending these men’s groups at the behest of their empowered wives in the hopes that they’d learn to get in touch with their feminine sides or at least find some better way to meet their “needs”. I could see my father as one of these men.

Papa Tomassi was a very confused man with regard to women as it was, but to be caught on the cusp of an era when feminine social primacy coming into its own and still being part of the ‘do everything right’ social contract and the belief system that was doomed to fail in the decades to come, I can understand a lot of that confusion. One man in the book described it thusly:

“I feel like I’ve spent 40 years of my life working as hard as I could to become somebody I don’t even like.”

Each one of these guys related a similar frustration. They busted their asses for decades to fulfill the old books social contract, the one that had been the way you did the right thing in order to have a life with a woman, a family, kids, maybe grandchildren, and all of that was no longer working for men. The 24 year old Rollo Tomassi reading this book didn’t know what Hypergamy really was back then, but as I recount these men’s confusion today I can see that it was a result of being the first men to realize that institutionalized Hypergamy was erasing that old social paradigm for them.

Bad Investments

I’ve covered the fallacy of Relational Equity in a prior post, but I think it’s necessary to revisit the idea here to understand how it still undermines men in an era of Open Hypergamy and feminine social primacy. These men, most of whom are likely into their 70s now, had a preconception of what it meant to ‘do everything right’; to play by an understood rule set that women were supposed to find attractive, to acknowledge and honor. Furthermore, they were taught to expect a degree of mutual reason from these new, empowered and evolving women. If needs weren’t being met, well, then all that was necessary was a heart to heart and open communication and negotiation would set things back on track because women could be expected to be the functional equivalents of men. This was the golden, egalitarian, sexual equality, future that feminism promised the guys in the 70s and 80s.

Relational Equity is the misguided belief that ‘doing everything right’ would necessarily be what ultimately attracts a woman, kept a woman, a wife, an LTR, from both infidelity, and was an assurance of her continued happiness with her man. Needless to say, the collected experiences of men that’s led to the praxeology of what we know as Red Pill awareness puts the lie to this – but as men, we expect some kind of acknowledgement for our accomplishments. Rationally, in a male context, we expect that what we do will at least be recognized as valuable, if not honored, by other men. So by extension of our equalist social contract, women, whom we are told we should expect to be co-equal agents with men, should also be expected to see past their emotional Hypergamous natures and make a logical conclusion to be attracted to men who are good fits in a mutually understood sense.

This, of course, is nonsense for the same reason that expecting genuine desire can be negotiated is nonsense, but essentially this is essentially the idea the shifting social contract of the time was trying to convince men of. And as you might expect, those men, the ones with the insight to recognize it, saw it for the opportunism it really was. Even if they ended up at 40 hating who they’d become.

From Relational Equity:

This is a really tough truth for guys to swallow, because knowing how hypergamy works necessarily devalues their concept of relational equity with the woman they’re committed to, or considering commitment with. Men’s concept of relational equity stems from a mindset that accepts negotiated desire (not genuine desire) as a valid means of relationship security. This is precisely why most couples counseling fails – its operative origin begins from the misconception that genuine desire (hypergamy) can be negotiated indefinitely.

When we become Red Pill aware there is also a kind of Relational Equity we need to acknowledge and manage. Once we’ve unplugged it’s easy to get caught up in thinking that because we know the game, because we’ve gone through the trials, because we know we’re higher value men – if for no other reason than that we no longer subscribe to the misgivings of out Blue Pill conditioning – because of that awareness we tend to think that this should be consciously or tacitly appreciated by a wife, a girlfriend or the women we’re sarging in the club.

This can be kind of tough for an aware man because it’s often something we need to keep latent in ourselves. Being overt about Red Pill awareness with women is almost always self defeating because it exposes the Game. Women want to play the game, they don’t want to be told how it operates. In our everyday lives it’s necessary to reserve and observe or we risk changing the process.

Openly acknowledging the value a man believes he ought to inspire in a woman will alter her perception of that value. Most men who resort to forcing a woman’s hand by laying bare all the qualities of himself (real or imagined) he believes she should recognize and appreciate are only exposing their belief that Relational Equity and an old paradigm mindset is his mental point of origin. In truth, guys who attempt to set themselves apart by listing all the ways they’re valuable and playing by the rules generally get shamed by women in the end because those qualities have become so common place and expected that they’ve become debased.

So you’re a great father to your kids and a devoted husband who built himself into the guy that any woman should be attracted to, who should be a great catch? That’s great, but that’s what you’re supposed to do. And all those things you’re supposed to do, those aren’t what engender a woman’s genuine desire. In a feminine-primary social order – the same order that deliberately misdefines masculinity for men – all men need to do, endlessly, is just a bit more to do everything right.

The Awakening

On both the Married Red Pill and MGTOW Reddit forums there’s been discussed the concept of being ‘awakened while married’. Hopefully I wont butcher that concept too badly here, but I think one aspect of becoming Red Pill aware, whether you’re a young single guy or an old mature married one is that there comes a point when you are awake and aware of the conditioning and the intersexual paradigm you truly live in. Honestly, I envy the younger men who come into this awareness early in life, but I also recognize that theirs is a greater responsibility to the truth for the rest of their unplugged lives. Men awakened while married at least have the excuse of having been deluded by Blue Pill conditioning for most of their lives to that point.

For younger men the Red Pill presents challenges with each new prospective woman a man applies himself with. For the awakened married man, his challenge is reinventing himself in a Red Pill aware paradigm with a woman who is already intimately aware of his persona, possibly for decades. We always say that once you’ve become Red Pill aware there is no going back. Even for men who go into total denial and choose to live with the cognitive dissonance of what they know about their own Blue Pill conditioning and the socio-sexual game going on around them there will always be reminders of Red Pill awareness he’ll notice on his peripheries.

For a man awakened to his condition while married, his state is a never ending reminder of what his Blue Pill indenturement has made of him. Like the guy in Farrell’s men’s group, the Blue Pill husband has spent most of his life trying to become someone he may or may not like, but that process of becoming was prompted by his Blue Pill conditioned existence. Once that man becomes Red Pill aware he’s now faced with two problems – how will he remake himself and how will his wife accept that remaking?

From the earliest posts of this blog I’ve always stressed that a man’s dominant Frame in his relationship is vital to the function of that relationship. Unfortunately, most men who were awakened while married began their relationships with a strong Beta perception for their wives. We can debate as to whether just the commitment of marriage itself makes for a predominantly Beta perception of a man, but in an era of  masculine ridicule, Open Hypergamy and Alpha Widows it’s a good bet that women’s impression of their husbands is rarely one of reserved Alpha confidence.

This is a tough position for a Red Pill aware husband to confront. Sometimes a wife’s impression of his Beta-ness is too embedded, or she’s built a relational framework around expecting him to be a hapless Beta. Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people’s actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. I should add that this expectation of predictability isn’t just limited to a wife’s perception of her Beta husband. That can, and often does, extend to a man’s family or friends who also expect him to be the Beta he’s always been. This then presents another challenge in remaking himself into something new, dominant and respectable in his Red Pill awareness.

Many of the men I used to do peer counseling with back in the early 2000s only wanted one thing; they wanted their wives to have a genuine desire to fuck them with either an enthusiasm they’d never known (but believed was possible) or they hoped to re-experience (and hopefully sustain) a genuine sexual desire they’d enjoyed with their wives while they were dating. None of them wanted (at least at first) to abandon their marriages, they just wanted to do thing right so their wives would fuck them, love them, respect them. They really wanted things to work, and so much so that they would overtly ask their wives “what do I have to do to get you to love/fuck/respect me and I’LL DO IT!” Which of course was precisely the thing that turned their wives off even more.

Their overtness and desperation was only more reinforcement and confirmation of these men’s wives perception of their Beta statuses. However, these men are the descendants of the generations that convinced them that ‘open communication’ solves all relationship problems, but here they were, being open, direct, expecting a rational, negotiable solution to their problem only to have it drive their disgusted wives further from them.

Hypergamy doesn’t care when a woman’s lasting impression of a man is his Beta status. How a man’s Red Pill awareness and the changes it brings in him will be accepted depends largely on his predominant condition. What husbands want is a sea change in their wives’ impression of them once they adopt a Red Pill / Game aware way of life. Most husbands have to weigh their emotional and personal investments in their wives with the reality that their wives’ impressions of them may simply never change. Becoming Red Pill aware forces husbands into a position of having to judge whether their marriages are even worth the considerable effort of trying to improve.

In the next part of this series I’ll be exploring the challenges an ‘awakened while married’ man has to face while weighing his wife’s impression of him with the impressions women outside his marriage have of him.

 

 

Alpha-Beta Communication Modes

communication

I had a really good comment from Rites of Passage from Elooie I’ve been meaning to get back to for a while now:

This post has been here for about a week so this comment might get buried but I was wondering if it would be an interesting post for you to speak to the difference in how women communicate with men they find alpha and men who are their emotional dumpster. (Its been covered in aggregate by multiple posts but not specifically how women frame the conversation)

At my work, I am an expert in not only my field but in our company. Even our newly hired CFO made a comment about finally putting a face to the legend he had heard about (when we met).

Since becoming red pill aware and really beginning to actively observe men and women in the office, I have found that women come to me specifically for career advice, my expertise, leadership and my help to make things happen. They don’t complain, they don’t dump their emotions they don’t ask me how I feel other than to make sure I approve. This defer to leadership (as I call it) has been happening more and more recently (either from my continued awaking to RP or my ability to finally notice)

What made me think to bring this female communication between alpha (defer to leadership for help/decisions) and beta men (let me dump my feeling on you) was a co-worker I used to work with a lot looked out of sort and I made a joke about her being high.. and she almost emotionally broke down when she told me her brother recently died. She visibly choked it down and I changed the subject before she broke down. She was incredibly relieved. In a way, changing the subject gave her strength or at least a distraction. Since then she has tried to be more engaged with me and constantly asking for my approval of what she does. I find it interesting that blue pill men might have wanted to try and help by having her discuss her feelings or try to connect with her and talk about how awful he feels for her.

Another example is a girl I used to sleep with texted me after the election out of the blue about how distraught she was and how the world was going to end because Trump won. (She doesn’t know I prefer Trump to Hillary). In the ramblingly long text she even mentioned how angry and unstable her current boyfriend was over it. All I said back was, “Take a deep breath, its going to be fine.” From that point on she has been trying to re-engage me and always flirty. Its obvious to me she wasn’t looking for someone to have an emotional conversation with..(her distraught beta boyfriend could have handled that) she wanted someone to tell her she was freaking out and pull her back to earth.

Both of those situations in a blue pill world would have triggered the “lets explore how we feel” conversation, but really they didn’t want that.

I’ve written several essays about the difference in men and women’s communications priorities and the importance each sex places on particular aspects of communication. However, most of these simply outlined the dynamics. It’s no secret, even to Blue Pill men, that men and women communicate differently. Men place primary importance on the information or content of what is being communicated, while women put context, or how what’s being communicated makes them feel about the exchange as their primary importance.

This is actually one area of Red Pill awareness you’ll get the least amount of resistance from Blue Pill guys or the femosphere about. Women love to tell us how superior their communication skills are, or how they get so much more from sub-communications that men are largely ignorant of. The point of pride comes from the idea that women tend to communicate more “effectively” than men, because they utilizes non-verbal cues such as tone, emotion, and empathy whereas men tend to be more task-oriented, less talkative, and more isolated. Men have a more difficult time understanding emotions that are not explicitly verbalized, while women tend to intuit emotions and emotional cues. These differences explain why men and women sometimes have difficulty communicating and why men-to-men friendships look different from friendships among women.

The problem with all of this is that it presupposes that women’s communication is the ‘correct’ form while men’s is incorrect because it is more blunt and devoid of nuance. The measure of “effective” communication in a feminine-centric world is judged from a feminine-centric (emotional) metric, not how well information is transferred. There’s really nothing isolating about men’s capacity to communicate, it just doesn’t appeal to a social order that’s founded on what ought to be correct for the Feminine Imperative. As you might guess, a high importance is given to emotion and a capacity to emote in a feminine-primary social order. Thus, emotionalism becomes the benchmark for that order’s metric of “effective communication”.

I’m stressing this here because as western(izing) societies have effectively feminized men for the past 4-5 generations the majority of men (largely Beta) have adapted to learn, and default to, this context-first female form of communication. In spite of men’s neurological differences in communication, their Blue Pill conditioning teaches them that ‘effective’ communication is female, emotive, communication. Although they lack the hardware for it, men learn to alter their communication style to accommodate that of women’s because it is seen as a means to intimacy with women in feminine-primary society. Beta men, as part of Beta Game, are conditioned by the Blue Pill to reprogram themselves to identify with the feminine – a large part of that is learning to communicate as a woman communicates.

Boyfriends and Girlfriends

Women have boyfriends and girlfriends. If you’re not fucking her, you’re her girlfriend.

I wrote that as part of my posts on intergender friendships. Women get upset by that quote because it’s unflattering, but true. Blue Pill guys get upset because they see themselves in it and then seek to rationalize how their situation with their ‘girl’ friends is different. But what they both rarely want to confront is that Beta men communicate with women like women. And conversely, women communicate with Beta men in the same mode of communication they are comfortable with when communicating with their same-sex girl friends.

Most Blue Pill / Beta men are largely oblivious to the fact that their communication’s methods and priorities have been conditioned to have them subconsciously default to a feminine-primary, context (feeling)-first form of communicating with women. This is so engrained in Beta men’s personalities that few are ever aware that they do so. It’s just ‘how they are’, and few if any ever give an afterthought to how they communicate with women as women. Many a Beta guy gets very hostile when they have this pointed out to them because it conflicts with their distorted Blue Pill-defined concept of masculinity. So, if you tell a Beta, ‘you communicate like a woman’ the conditioned response then is to question the security of the masculinity of the guy pointing it out and he goes back to feeling good about himself for being evolved enough to communicate correctly – as a woman.

It’s when guys unplug and become Red Pill aware that they begin to understand this dynamic. Most Beta men’s feminine-primary communication mode makes them subconsciously indistinguishable from women’s ‘girlfriends’. I mentioned this in some past essays on intergender friendships, but what happens is that as part of men’s Blue Pill conditioning that convinces them to adopt a personality of passivity, equalism, sensitivity and identifying themselves with the feminine, in most respects they become a woman’s same-sex girl friend. This feminization of the Beta is confirmed for them when that Beta communicates in the same mode as her best girl friends. The appearance might be male, but the hindbrain registers female for her.

This context-primary form of communication is the most common among men (largely Beta) today so it’s literally what women are accustomed to when they interact with men. They become used to being deferred to, used to being communicated with in her own mode. This then sets the baseline for what women expect from men’s communication – they expect him to communicate like a same-sex friend – so when that mode becomes taxed or a guy slips back into his blunt, low-nuance content driven mode it’s naturally an attraction. No doubt, that guy will get called out for being a ‘typical dude’ and shamed for his incorrect form, but it is attractive not only for being a break from the feminized communication patterns she’s used to, but also because it implies that he’s his own mental point of origin. It communicates that he is confident enough not to care about accommodating her form of communication (feminine-primary).

One reason Amused Mastery is so effective is because it forces a woman to communicate on male terms. Amused Mastery implies a man actually has a mastery above that of the woman he interacts with. When a man employs Amused Mastery it registers in a woman’s hindbrain through his unapologetic insistence on communicating with her on his communicative terms.

You’re Not Listening

Women’s biggest complaint about men with regard to communication is that they don’t listen. The common Red Pill observation about this that women only come up with that gripe when men wont do what she tells him to, and that it’s about a Frame grab. That’s certainly true, and especially evident in relationships where a woman presumes her Frame is the dominant one, however there’s a bit more to this. ‘Men don’t listen’ is also a conflict in communication modes. Since men’s communication mode centers on content and information, we tend to filter out the background noise – and most of the background noise that comes about from intergender communication comes from exactly the emotional chaff that women are so proud of in their ‘correct’ form of communicating. Men intensely listen to content, what they filter is unimportant non-content and usually this amounts to the contextual delivery of what’s being communicated.

However, women do filter for that emotiveness, so once again when a man does listen to feelings and identifies with women expressing them women’s hindbrains associate that with a feminine (or feminized) character. Ergo, the association is that Beta men are ‘listeners’, which ultimately is anti-seductive for any man wanting to develop a woman as a romantic prospect. And thus, you become her girl friend.

The Alpha & Beta Communication

So, to Elooie’s point, yes there are communicative differences in the ways women will relate to men they perceive as Alpha and Beta. As you may have guessed, how a woman communicates with you is a very strong indicator of her sexual market value estimate of you. Going back again to Amused Mastery, if you are perceived as an authority of something a woman’s communicative mode will often shift to a more content specific (male) form of interacting. This is particularly so when her need dictates she solve an immediate problem. Women with pressing real-world problems will often confuse men they perceive as Beta by deferring to their particular expertise on whatever it is they believe will solve that problem.

A lot of Beta computer guys know what I’m talking about. A woman communicates with them in her own feels-first contextual mode when it’s all solipsistically about her personal problems, but let her iPhone or laptop malfunction and then she shifts to content driven communication. She does this to solve a pressing problem by shifting the mode of interaction to deferring to him. He registers this and defaults back to his content-driven communication (with not a little bit of pride that she recognizes his convenient expertise). Once the problem is resolved, she goes back to her mode of communication (feels-first) and shames him for being a typical guy if he doesn’t adjust back to her communicative frame.

Another scenario is what Elooie describes. Women who already have an Alpha impression of you will often begin an exchange in what she expects will be your male-centered way of interacting. In PUA terms you might call this a preset buying temperature, but when a woman is attracted to you she is expecting you to communicate as she expects a man will communicate. In fact this is an excellent Alpha Tell if you have the skill to recognize it. In the early stages of interacting with a woman you will notice that playful banter is almost always performed in men’s communicative mode. This is the mode an attracted woman is hoping you’ll insist on maintaining. In fact, I’d argue that most shit tests a woman delivers (at least the active shit tests) are issued in the hopes that you will pass them from within a male-centered communicative mode.

That’s not to say that men’s content-based communication leaves no room for wit or nuance – nothing entertains a woman more than a guy who ‘Just Gets It‘ but also knows how to communicate that he does get it. This is the intergender thrust, parry, riposte of Game. If a man defaults to being Mr. Sensitivity, self-conscious of his every response and reflexively communicates in a female-centered mode from the outset, he gets relegated to Beta status; only useful for convenient chores and emotional tampon duties.

I think it’s a really good exercise for newly Red Pill aware men to put on their Red Pill Lenses and really listen and watch how women interact with men and each other. Make mental notes about how you think a woman interprets the SMV of men as well as the women she communicates with. Watch for the shift in communication modes, see if you can predict the shift when a woman talks with a man you think is Beta and then with a man you think she perceives as Alpha. It’s really not that hard to guess. In fact, we’re really preprogrammed to acknowledge it even in a Blue Pill sense, but with Red Pill awareness it’s educational and entertaining.

Once you get a good understanding of how this communicative interplay shifts according to personality, need, environment and attraction you’ll get a better grasp of the message a woman’s medium is telling you personally. Then, learn to pull your head out of a female mode of communicating and insist on her coming into your mode of communicating. This will be an essential part of establishing your dominant Frame.

Rites of Passage

aboriginal-passage

In the past I’ve discussed the hesitancy of young men to refer to themselves as ‘men’ or to really even embrace what might be considered a ‘conventional’ idea of masculinity. You’ve probably read me using that word before. I use the word conventional because I feel it conveys a better understanding of a naturalized expression of masculinity in a way that men evolved into. Occasionally I have a reader ask me why I don’t use the term ‘traditional’ with respect to masculinity, but I’m not sure they really mean the same thing.

It’s easy to think of masculinity in terms of tradition, but whose tradition are we really referring to? ‘Traditional Masculinity’ as a term has assumed a derogatory meaning in a feminine-primary social order. It’s become one of those catch-terms that we’re all supposed to understand as being characteristic of backward mindsets. It’s part of the social convention that seeks to ridicule, shame and confuse boys who later become men about what masculinity ought to mean to them. So, it’s for this reason I use the word ‘conventional’. It conveys the idea that masculinity in a binary sense has evolved aspects that are inherent and unique to men. So while certain cultures may have had different traditions and traditional roles for men, there is a unifying conventionality of masculinity that relates to all men and maleness in general.

Feminine-centrism doesn’t like this idea. It doesn’t like the idea that masculine characteristics or behaviors are the sole propriety of men. The reflex then is to paint any conventionally masculine attribute, way of thinking, aggression, passion or aspiration as either representative of ‘toxic’ harmful or anti-social, or, depending on its usefulness in securing power, it’s cast as something “not necessarily masculine” since some women can lay claim to that trait.

In several prior posts I’ve outlined how boys are taught from a very early age to gender-loathe their maleness. It’s part of Blue Pill conditioning, but more so, I think it’s important for Blue Pill or unplugging adult men to understand the mechanics and reasoning behind why it’s in the Feminine Imperative’s interests to keep conventional masculinity something ambiguous, arbitrary or something men ought to be able to fluidly define for themselves. That last part there is important, because what most men think is their own self-definition of masculinity is always founded in what the Feminine Imperative has conditioned him to believe is correct.

Latent Purposes

In a social order that’s ostensibly founded upon a baseline equalism (in principle) among men and women we have to look at why it might be necessary for boys to be taught that ‘traditional’ masculinity is toxic. The easy answer is a want for control, but not so much in the terms of convincing boys to become men who will loathe their maleness. Remember, there’s a lot of conventional masculinity that is conveniently useful to further the interests of women and Hypergamy – but the conditioning becomes one of selectively classifying the useful aspects as ‘healthy’ and the non-useful ones as ‘toxic’.

The most important thing to consider here is that, for future men, equalism’s purpose in their upbringing is to prevent them from ever internalizing the idea that they should be their own mental point of origin. This I think is one of the fundamental issues most Blue Pill men struggle with in their own unplugging.

One of the old books, traditional, understandings is that men, by virtue of being male, can expect a degree of authority in their lives and in their families. A man may not be the boss at work, but the traditional understanding was that he could expect to be the head of household in his own home. Feminine primacy, under the auspices of equalism, has effectively conditioned this idea out of men over the course of generations. If men and women are blank-slate functional equals, ideally, there will never be a default authority in an intersexual relationship.

From a conventional, evolutionary perspective we know this baseline equalism is not just false, but we also understand that it serves as a control over the masculine nature men are born into. Men and women are different; cognitively, neurologically, biologically and psychologically, but our socialized presumptions with regard to how boys are raised to be men deliberately conditions them to believe we are the same – or at least functionally so.

The Crime of Being Male

There’s been some pushback to this in our Red Pill awakening, and not all of it is the result of the manosphere. As Hypergamy becomes more openly embraced in a larger social respect, more men are made aware of their deliberate conditioning to accommodate it. What they choose to do with that awareness is up to them, but the response from the Feminine Imperative to this awareness is to criminalize or make toxic the embrace of conventional masculinity on the part of men. It becomes a hate-crime to express any conventionally male attribute.

This is a potential danger for Blue Pill men in that the expressions of maleness that they display are on one hand desired by women, but also a risk to their reputation or livelihood if that expression is offensive to women. Red Pill aware men may have the advantage of knowing women’s nature well enough to mitigate the risks, but Blue Pill men will be stuck in a paradigm that puts them at risk for wanting to be men.

Again, equalist Blue Pill conditioning’s purpose is to prevent men from assuming themselves as their mental point of origin, but once a man’s disabused himself of putting the feminine as his primary internal concern there must be an opposite, contingent, reaction on the part of the Feminine Imperative to put him back into compliance. Thus, we see the criminalization of maleness.

Pedestals

For some time it’s been a manosphere staple to tell guys to take the girl off the pedestal if he wants to be successful with women. We call it pedestalization, but one reason that dynamic, to put a woman on a higher order than oneself, is so pervasive in men is due exactly to this “equalist” conditioning. The internalization is one of making that girl, that woman, the centerpiece of a man’s headspace. This becomes who he is and it’s the result of a childhood that taught him he must place the concerns of girls above his own on many different psychological levels.

Once that guy becomes Red Pill aware, no matter who does his unplugging, not only does he remove girls from the pedestal personally, but also on a larger sociological scope. And this scope is what the Feminine Imperative must pushback against.

Blue Pill conditioning teaches boys/men to cast doubt on their own masculinity. What constitutes masculinity? Is it a mask or a performance they put on? Is it something to be proud of or some problem to keep in check? Should boys/men feel insecure or secure about it? These are the consistent ambiguities the Feminine Imperative wants to invest into the next generations of men because it keeps women on the pedestal. Only women possess the solution to their problem of maleness.

But the Blue Pill also conditions boys/men to never presume to consider themselves as a “man”. The joke is that men are never really men, but rather they become ‘bigger boys’. This is a social convention that attempts to keep men in a juvenilized state and thus ensuring women are the only ‘adults’ to make the judgement call. This ridicule has the purpose of denying men their status of ‘manhood’. If men are perpetual boys, they can never assume the default ‘headship’ of being men. It is a control for authority.

This is another reason men are conditioned to keep women on the pedestal; only women can confirm ‘manhood’ from a superior (mental) position in that man’s mind. When a woman is at the top of a man’s mental point of origin – and not even a specific woman, but womankind – she decides his status of being a man. So it follows that men ought to internalize the doubt of understanding manhood or conventional masculinity.

So, the struggle men have in coming to a Red Pill awareness is one of removing women from this pedestal, but also one of giving oneself permission to be a man. This may seem kind of simplistic, but to a guy who’s been conditioned to put women before himself in his own internal, mental, conversations it’s a very tough challenge. Blue Pill conditioning invests a doubt into boys and then men. They are conditioned to self-regulate on many levels, but to generally put their own concerns beneath those of others and largely the feminine. They are taught to self-sublimate by never giving themselves permission to be “men” in a conventional sense.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #9

Never Self-Deprecate under any circumstance. This is a Kiss of Death that you self-initiate and is the antithesis of the Prize Mentality. Once you’ve accepted yourself and presented yourself as a “complete douche” there’s no going back to confidence with a woman. Never appeal to a woman’s sympathies. Her sympathies are given by her own volition, never when they are begged for – women despise the obligation of sympathy. Nothing kills arousal like pity. Even if you don’t seriously consider yourself pathetic, it never serves your best interest to paint yourself as pathetic. Self-Depreciation is a misguided tool for the AFC, and not something that would even occur to an Alpha.

One important reason I made this an Iron Rule was because it’s almost a default response of men to presume their own ridiculousness. The reflexive response is of course to not take yourself so seriously and have an ability to laugh at yourself when it’s merited. That’s all fine and well, a necessity for a healthy sense of self, but few men realize their ease with self-deprecation is a result of their conditioning to find themselves ridiculous as men. “Men” are ridiculous.

It’s very easy for Red Pill aware men to lose sight of what the Blue Pill conditions men for and how this conditioning has evolved over the course of generations. The latent purpose remains the same (preventing men from adopting their own mental point of origin), but the methods and social mores change fluidly with what the Feminine Imperative finds most efficient for the time. For the past 20 years there’s been a concentrated effort to remove men from deciding their own manhood for themselves.

Rites of Passage

From Remove the Man:

Guys vs. Men

I was participating in a conversation just recently with a young woman of 26 and a young man of 18. The conversation itself wasn’t important, but at one point the young man referred to himself as a ‘Man’. He said something to the effect of, “Well I’m a man, and men do,..” At the word ‘man’ she cut him off with the unconscious snigger that’s resulted from years of feminine ridicule conditioning. Just the mention of a man self-referencing as a “man” is enough to inspire feminine ridicule. It’s laughable for a man to consider himself a man.

This exchange got me to wondering about the turning point at which I began to self-reference as a “Man”. In the face of a constant conditioned ridicule, it’s almost an uncomfortable recognition to distinguish yourself as a Man. It’s too easy to just think of yourself as a ‘guy’ and never be so presumptuous as to insist upon your manhood. In girl-world, to claim to be a Man is to admit to arrogance – it’s to embrace a flawed nature.

It’s important to note here that in embracing your status as a Man, instead of ‘just a guy’, you are passing a meta-shit test. By embracing self-referenced manhood, you are rejecting what a world aligned against you would like you to believe about yourself. You’re endorsing yourself as a Man with self-assurance despite the self-doubt the Feminine Imperative relies upon men believing about themselves, masculinity and the dubious state of manhood as a whole. By flagrantly referring to yourself as a Man you are passing the meta-shit test – you’re overtly stating you’re a Man, but you you’re covertly stating “I Just Get It.”

One of the key elements to unplugging is changing your mind about yourself. This is one of the biggest obstacle to guys coming to accept a Red Pill aware reality. This self-denial of their own ‘manhood’, which becomes a resistance to embracing anything conventionally masculine as being positive, is a foreign thought.

As I mentioned in that post, there used to be a time when boys would go through some rite of passage and be considered a ‘man’ by his family and peers. It’s important for Red Pill men to realize how this passage into a state of manhood has been deliberately confused or shamed out of significance to all but the most traditional of cultures.

Most male rites of passage are painted as cruel and barbaric hazing rituals in a fem-centric society. That’s a popularized and easy connection to make, but what underlies this effort to disqualify manhood as legitimate is a push to force men into compliance with the Feminine Imperative and feminine-primacy.

I would suggest that men coming into a Red Pill awareness need to embrace being a “man”. Red Pill men need a rite of passage of some sort. Sometimes we ask about when a guy finally came into his Red Pill awareness. We compare stories about what we were like when we were still living in a Blue Pill paradigm and then what form of trauma (or not) triggered that Blue Pill disillusionment. We discuss going through the various stages of grief for our past Blue Pill idealism, the nihilism, the anger, the disbelief, then the acceptance and the new enthusiasm of being Red Pill aware and the potential that means.

But there needs to be a rite of passage for passing from that Blue Pill state to a new Red pill awareness and part of this should be a conscious acknowledgement of  giving yourself permission to be a man. This needs to be part of changing your mind about yourself as you become more aware of the agency you really have in a conventionally male respect. You need a point at which you set yourself apart from Blue Pill men and a feminine-primary social order.

Most (Beta) guys have a difficult time embracing the authority and due deference that being a conventional man should convey to him. They are uncomfortable on an ego-personality level with accepting this dominant male role because it goes against everything their feminine-centric upbringing has taught them to internalize.

However, with that authority comes responsibility. I would argue that many a Blue Pill guy is comforted by the lies of equalism because he believes that egalitarianism and the expectations that men and women are functional equals in some way exempts him from his uniquely male burden of performance. On some level of consciousness, even the Beta men who are comforted by equalism still realize that their maleness, their ‘secure’ masculinity, will only ever be merited and judged by his performance. And that performance is firmly grounded in conventionally male tests.

 

The Unbearable Rightness of Being Female

unbearable

The following post quote has been making the rounds in professional circles. It’s from Sallie Krawcheck, CEO of Ellevest, an investment firm dedicated to helping women with financial investment (no jargon, no ‘playing’ stocks for sport, no mansplaining, you got this). She’s also the “chair” of Elevate Network, a global professional women’s network. I’m adding this here to make a later point, but it’s important to understand how normalized it’s become for women to create a sexually exclusionary organization for women who will simultaneously complain about men’s sexism for not accommodating their (presumably successful) business culture to the interests of women. More on that later.

I thought I’d riff on this click-bait for, I assume, professional women because I expect we’ll see more of this prefabricated outrage in the coming years as a response to what will undoubtedly be the suffering of the Trump era in America. I’ll be the first to admit I was surprised by Trump’s win, but the denial of the First Female President® into the White House will be the cause du jour for every jilted woman who believes she’s a “professional”. Even if Clinton had won the mainstream would’ve been inundated with how ‘we still have a long way to go’ stories, however, with Trump in the Presidency the same tired narrative of systemic male sexism will get reinvigorated in the coming years.

From, A Letter to young women, in the age of Trump:

When I was your age, I thought it was over. My mother was a feminist, so I wanted to call myself anything but a feminist. And anyway, I seemed pretty welcome at work. Even though it was Wall Street, my analyst class was about a third women. We weren’t just on our way — we’d arrived.

But then…there were the inappropriate pictures left on my desk. The guy miming a sex act when my back was turned. I wasn’t given the great assignments; the more senior woman I worked with was likewise dismissed as “lightweight” (and, lest you think that might have been true, that woman was Safra Catz, now the co-President of Oracle). Then the women started to fall away in their 30s…more in their 40s. But the worst of it, I thought was over.

And now Trump has made it clear to everyone that the battle for us women is not over.

In femopshere there will always be an ‘us’. As I’ve outline in many prior essays, the Sisterhood will always take precedence above religion, politics, personal conviction and even family affiliations for women. Largely this is due to women’s evolved propensity for collectivism among their own sex. In our hunter gatherer beginnings women had an interdependent need for collective support for keeping tribal cohesion as well as child rearing.

This intrasexual collective support has carried over into what’s become the Sisterhood today. If you look at the interactions of young girls and their social group interdependence you begin to see that nascent tribal collectivism naturally come through. In terms of larger societal scope this collectivity becomes about acknowledging a shared experience of an imagined oppression by men. Between all women there is a gestalt understanding of “the plight of women” and a presumption of an endemic sexism no matter how culturally or socioeconomically dissimilar those women are.

As I mentioned, Trump is now a universal icon of that presumption of sexism and oppression. Granted, it could’ve been any man who displaced a woman in the history books, but the fall back presumption is that whoever ‘he’ is, he becomes emblematic of a ready narrative of sexism irrespective of merit. We presume sexism, we presume a guy would mime a sex act behind a woman’s back and leave ‘inappropriate’ pictures on a woman’s desk despite decades of workplace harassment legislation. We believe it because it sounds right; it sounds like something a typical sexist guy would do.

I can’t stop thinking about this and what we can / should do:

Remember that gender bias in the workplace is not a thing of the past. I’m sorry if I didn’t act when I should have. I thought we had left sexism behind us by the time I was in more senior roles. After all, we had complaint hotlines and diversity plans and requirements for diverse slates of candidates for every job. But now I’m remembering one of the members of the senior leadership team who would kiss younger women on the cheek at the beginning of meetings. Creepy, right? I now wonder what was being said when I wasn’t in that room.

What’s creepy is that in spite of years in a professional field that’s been the domain of men she’s just now remembering this fact. Would it have been less creepy if he’d kissed only his age-appropriate women on his leadership team? Professional women’s default presumption is that it is always sexism that is holding them back from breaking through a mythologized ‘glass ceiling’, but as is women’s solipsism, their first thought is that their problems are caused by externalities. Never is there an insight that they may simply lack the skills or that they don’t perform at their peak in a job they were told should be rewarding to them.

Gender biases will never be a thing of the past because to suggest they ever might be so is to presume a default state of egalitarian equality between the sexes. The gender biases in the workplace are most evident in the peer selection and peer evaluations of women – not some secret group of guys getting together in a private office room to expressly talk about a their co-workers’ tits.

As it stands in today’s modern office men are scared shitless every time they are called to cooperate with a woman on work projects for fear of being accused of sexism or harassment:

“In a lawsuit-happy culture, where claims can be made on a ‘he said/she said’ basis, men are now trying to ensure their actions are always covered by a third party witness”

“The terror of being accused of sexual harassment is now so common it has its own term, ‘backlash stress”

There’s a reason HR departments are largely staffed by women, because they want to be positioned in a way that they can execute policy. HR departments no longer exist to serve the company with regards to employees, rather they exist in order to protect that company from lawsuits and enforce feminine-primary conditions in the workplace.

Ask tough questions, and call the guys out when necessary. I recently asked my best guy friend: “Do guys really talk like Donald Trump and Billy Bush behind closed doors?” His response: “No, but…” And the “but” was that the conversations are more along the lines of: “Boy, she has great legs,” or “she’s a looker” or “Whew. Wouldn’t touch her with a ten-foot pole.” When I asked him how he responded to this, he said he didn’t say anything; after all, he has to work with these folks.

But so do we. And breaking us down to our body parts or our appearance dehumanizes us in some way. Maybe it’s only in some small way. But it’s clear that for some years, we (and by we, I mean I) were likely too complacent about the inevitability of gender progress in the workplace and relaxed perhaps just a bit too much.

It’s funny and irreverent when all the girls in the office get together for drinks or a male revue strip show after work, but it’s dehumanizing when men do the same. I’ve known very few men who would ever comment on a woman’s anatomy in a workplace environment. I have known men who would scold other men for staring a little too long at a female co-worker. I have known women to actively flirt with guys and wear inappropriate outfits to get attention from them. I’ve known women who’ve called me and other men I’ve worked with their “work husbands”.

I’ve worked in the liquor and casino promotion businesses for two decades now. I see some pretty wild behavior on the part of women who are not unlike the poor victimized dears Krawcheck describes going to work on Monday mornings.

The modern workplace culture has conditioned men for fear of women thanks largely to strict codes of conduct, but also because these men have been raised from birth to be dutiful Betas and White Knights who look for every opportunity to correct a ‘typical man’ for his sexist and rude behaviors. They look for these backroom boys clubs where women are rated on their looks so as to expose their heinous misogyny and institutionalized sexism, but they are disappointed when they don’t actually find it. So instead they contribute to an atmosphere of fear in some lame form of Beta Game they hope will be recognized and rewarded for by workplace women.

If you’re in a bad work situation, it’s ok to quit. So many women think that it’s a “failure” if you quit your job; and you know how hard we females take failure. But sometimes it’s not us: it’s them.

I recently left the board of a non-profit that I LOVE. I had been on it for years (and years). At nearly every meeting I asked how much we were spending on our investment managers, in comparison to the return we were getting. Meeting after meeting I was told that the answer was complex, it was hard to calculate, it would take a lot of work – and why did it matter anyway? It was really the net returns that matter, regardless of how much we paid for them. And then, last spring, before I could bring up the topic, one of the men did; and all the other guys eagerly agreed with him, that we need to keep an eye on fees because those are really all we can control.

I quit the next week.

Life is too short, and I can have a lot more impact with the week-a-year I get back instead of being ignored in meetings.

I know not everyone is in the position to quit; I wasn’t earlier in my career. So the onus is also on those of us who are more senior to be more supportive of women who leave these situations. I am hopeful that an outcome of this election will be greater understanding of this.

If it had been a woman who’d made the same suggestion would we be hearing about this? Shit like this happens all the time in the workplace. One reason The 48 Laws of Power resonated with men so well is because it was relatable to exactly this kind of situation. Law 7: Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit for it yourself. Sallie sees this as sexism because it happened to be a guy who pulled it on her, but would she have quit the non-profit had it been a woman who outplayed her?

This is the reality of even the most seemingly benign of companies. They are defined by the interplay of power dynamics, but when women are bested in it the sexism narrative is ready on standby to comfort and explain their failure. So it becomes OK to quit, because the environment is always sexist. The business environment is one defined by competition and this grates on women’s expectation of it to be cooperative and collective. Women like Sallie expect recognition for merit, but wish for things to be easier rather than developing the skills to play the game better.

Get yourself a senior, successful – preferably female – mentor, who can help you navigate the politics of your company. This includes the gender politics. Can’t find one on your own? Speak to HR about helping you find one; this is their job, after all.

Your company doesn’t have a senior, successful female? Get the hell out of there.

Really the only sexism I’m seeing in this piece has been one coming from and endorsed by Krawcheck. She bemoans a lack of gender equity and then suggests a female mentor would be preferable to a male one. Her sexism is blatant here – the only definition of a solid reputable company is one that ensures it has a senior, successful female in it. Since most HR departments are staffed primarily with women it’s their job to help you find a senior, successful and female mentor? I’m not a business insider, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t their job.

I made this point in Male Space, but what happens when women insert themselves into a traditionally male dominated domain is that the enterprise becomes about accommodating the female influences rather than the enterprise itself. This entire article is an indictment of this. Again, the solution to a woman’s problem of not being successful is sought externally.

Do your best to make sure that your success is quantified. Be it a sales goal, a client satisfaction rating, an output metric, a quality target. Numbers count here because they’re black-and-white, cut-and-dried. Were you successful or not? I recommend this even if you work in a “normal” company, because implicit gender biases and expectations still exist for all of us.

Solid enough advice, but it’s couched in the context of an expectation of gender biases (at least the type of bias Sallie finds unacceptable). There’re implicit gender biases, but the ones we see dominate even ‘normal’ companies are ones that favor a feminized workforce.

Think about starting your own thing. This is what’s exciting; we have the ability to start our own businesses today, in a way we didn’t in the past. Why not take our marbles to our own playgrounds and build great businesses and cultures? Our mothers couldn’t do this because the cost was so high – but the costs of everything-about-starting-a-business, including technology, people (i.e., freelancers), real estate (co-working spaces) and support services are coming down. And then no one can relegate you to the less-interesting jobs.

Women are taught that they deserve the luxury of interesting jobs. In fact this is the sole reason for even wanting to enter the workforce most times – a rewarding career that’s fulfilling, but as I wrote in She’s Unhaaapy… that fulfillment is always elusive. Therefore it must be that uncooperative men are holding women back from this happiness.

I’m not sure opening another gourmet cupcake eatery counts as contributing to the status of women in business, but I would say that women ought to be encouraged to start up their own businesses rather than rely on the proven successes of established ones to prove their business acumen. Carly Fiorina and Sheryl Sandberg are not innovators in any sense. Neither started a company from scratch, but they are lauded as powerful businesswomen because they supposedly had the moxie to compete with the big boys and their sexist enterprises – not actually as a result of their companies wanting to present a feminine-correct public image.

I would love to see women’s organic business successes despite themselves, but my guess is that every failure or setback would have some tinge of external sexism attached to them. The truth is there are very few women who actually create something of worth because the easier path to success is to create a social convention that shames men for not including women in their own successes. It will always be easier for women to appropriate the success of men rather than create anything for themselves.

I am going to go out of my way to support other women. It’s clear now: we can’t do this alone. Another woman who is promoted or celebrated or funded clears the way for another. I am actively looking to buy from women-owned businesses, which is much easier these days — Glossier, Outdoor Voices, and Project September are just a few of a new wave of startups led by women — and avoid companies that remain all-men. I’m just so over supporting them.

And here we have yet more fem-centric sexism in a piece decrying male sexism. Weren’t we just reading about how surprised Sallie was about gender bias not being a thing of the past in the workplace? Because Trump won the election she calls for a boycott from buying anything from male owned companies?

One thing I’ve always found ironic about women’s call for collective, gender-exclusionary support for other women is that women are often guilty of even worse infighting than men are in the workplace. Lets face it, women hate other women to a degree that most men are unaware of. Their capacity for sub-communication and psychological warfare among themselves makes intra-sexual competition more brutal than having to deal with any so-called sexist male co-worker. From women’s collectivist perspective one would think that women’s intra-sexual support of other women would make them all outstanding successes in business, but we find the opposite is true. Women have a very hard time making an all-female enterprise a success. Naturally this is blamed, again, on men’s sexists brinksmanship and outmaneuvering them, but by and large it’s internal conflict that destroys all-female run enterprises.

Invest. Having spent my career on Wall Street and now being the founder of Ellevest, a digital investment platform for women, I know I’m a broken record on this topic. But men invest to a greater extent than women do, and it costs us. Indeed, I believe investing is the best career advice women aren’t getting. Think about it – are you more able to tell your boss to take this job and shove it if you have more money or less money?

That’s what I thought. At the end of the day, money is the real key to gender equality.

Of course we get the sales pitch at the end. Women don’t invest because it’s not sexy. It requires a degree of commitment and a depth of insight that goes well beyond what an average woman has any interest in. I do find it entertaining that Sallie finally gets to the real reason for a gender inequality she claims she wants to see abolished. Money is most definitely a key to establishing social dominance and that creates a fundamentally unequal condition between men and women.

Businesses, successful ones, are founded on competition, not cooperation. This is the fundamental conflict we are experiencing in today’s corporate culture; women’s collectivism promotes what they believe should be a successful enterprise based on egalitarian cooperation while men largely see the enterprise as competition. Sometimes this is a win-at-any-cost type of competition, other times it may be more subtle, but the crux is that women’s propensity to want for a more collectivist approach to a successful enterprise is at odds with men’s competitive approach. Success in business is fundamentally unegalitarian, there are winners and losers, not co-equal participation trophy winners. But as women continue to insert themselves into the unegalitarian male spaces of enterprise we will see this push for cooperative hopes for business success fundamentally alter the purpose of these businesses as we attempt more and more to accommodate them.