Prior to the post-Sexual Revolution era men adapted to their socio-sexual and relational realities based on a pre-acknowledged burden of performance. Later I’ll outline the expectations of this period in The Second Set of Books:
[…] when men transition from their comfortable Blue Pill perspective into the harsh reality that the Red Pill represents, the experience is a lot like Ball discovering that the set of books (the set of rules) he’d believed everyone was using wasn’t so. Likewise, men who’ve been conditioned since birth to believe that women were using a common set of rules — a set where certain expectations and mutual exchange were understood — were in fact using their own set. Furthermore these men ’just didn’t get it’ that they should’ve known all along that women, as well as men’s feminization conditioning, were founded in a second set of books.
During the eras prior to the Sexual Revolution that first set of books was more or less an established ideal. Men were every bit as idealistic as they are today, but the plan towards achieving that ideal (if it was in fact achievable) was preset for them. Even the worst of fathers (or parents) still had the expectations that their sons and daughters would follow that old-order rule set as they had done.
For men, a greater provisioning was expected, but that provisioning was an integral aspect of a man’s Alpha appeal. The burden of performance was part of a man’s Alpha mindset or was at least partly associated with it.
The danger in that mindset was that a man’s identity tended to be caught up with what he did (usually a career) in order to satisfy that performance burden. Thus, when a man lost his job, not only was he unable to provide and meet his performance expectations in his marriage, he also lost a part of his identity. Needless to say this dynamic helped incentivize men to get back on the horse and get back to his identity and his wife’s esteem (even if it was really her necessity that kept her involved with him).
A lot of romanticizations revolves around the times prior to the Sexual Revolution; as if they were some golden eras when men and women knew their roles and the influence of Hypergamy was marginalized to the point that society was a better place than the place we find ourselves in today. And while it’s undeniable that cultural shifts since the sexual revolution have feminized and bastardized those old-order social contracts, men will always adapt to those new conditions in order to effect their sexual strategies.
There’s a lot of nostalgia for these idealized periods in the Manosphere as of this writing; seemingly more so as its members mature past their “Gaming” years and begin to feel a want for something more substantial in their lives. Men are the true romantics of the sexes so it’s no great surprise that their romantic / idealistic concept of love would run towards romanticizing a hopeful return to what they imagine these eras were like.
It’s kind of an interesting counter to how feminism and the Feminine Imperative paints these eras — rather than some idyllic place where women appreciated men, feminists exaggerate and deride these times as oppressive; the Sexual Revolution akin to the Jews exodus from Egypt. What both fail to grasp is the realities of these eras were still just as susceptible to human nature — the human nature described by what we call Red Pill awareness — and both sexes adapted to the social environments of the times to effect their natures.
Condoms were widely available in the 1940’s and men painstakingly painted half-nude pinup girls on the noses of their war-time bombers. Women also adapted to that environment. These quotes come from two books by John Costello; ’Virtue Under Fire’ and ’Love, Sex, and War’ in which all too much of the female psychology manifested itself:
“Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate — and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out-of-wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher:
Some were adolescent girls who had drifted away from homes which offered neither guidance nor warmth and security. Still others were women with husbands on war service, who had been unable to bear the loneliness of separation. There were decent and serious, superficial and flighty, irresponsible and incorrigible girls among them. There were some who had formed serious attachments and hoped to marry. There were others who had a single lapse, often under the influence of drink. There were, too, the ’good-time girls’ who thrived on the presence of well-paid servicemen from overseas, and semi-prostitutes with little moral restraint. But for the war many of these girls, whatever their type, would never have had illegitimate children.
“Neither British nor American statistics, which indicate that wartime promiscuity reached its peak in the final stages of the war, take account of the number of irregularly conceived pregnancies that were terminated illegally. Abortionists appear to have been in great demand during the war. One official British estimate suggests that one in five of all pregnancies was ended in this way, and the equivalent rate for the United States indicates that the total number of abortions for the war years could well have been over a million.
These projections are at best merely a hypothetical barometer of World War II’s tremendous stimulus to extra-marital sexual activity. The highest recorded rate of illegitimate births was not among teenage girls, as might have been expected. Both British and American records indicate that women between twenty and thirty gave birth to nearly double the number of prewar illegitimate children. Since it appears that the more mature women were the ones most encouraged by the relaxed morals of wartime to ’enjoy’ themselves, it may be surmised that considerations of fidelity were no great restraint on the urge of the older married woman to participate in the general rise in wartime sexual promiscuity. (pp. 277-278)”
Women of the “greatest generation” were still women, and Hypergamy, just like today, didn’t care about the social environment then either. My fellow blogger Dalrock made a fantastic observation in a post once, but paraphrasing he said:
“Every generation in bygone eras dated differently than the ones before it. Your parents dated in a social condition that was very different than your grandparent or their parents. No one in this generation is going to date like they did on Happy Days.”
I think it’s important we don’t lose sight of this, but it’s also important to consider that in all those eras men and women’s sexual strategies remained an underlying influence for them. All that changed was both sexes adapted to the conditions of the times to effect them.
Post-Sexual Revolution Adaptation — The ’Free Love’ Era
While there’s a lot to criticize about the Baby Boomer generation, one needs to consider the societal conditions that produced them. Egalitarian equalism combined with ubiquitous (female controlled) hormonal birth control and then mixed with blank-slate social constructivism made for a very effective environment in which both sexes sexual strategies could, theoretically, flourish.
Women’s control of their Hypergamous influences, not to mention the opportunities to fully optimize it, was unfettered by moral or social constraints for the first time in history. For men the idea of a ’Free Love’ social order was appealing because it promised optimization of their own sexual strategy — unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.
The new Free Love paradigm was based on a presumption of non-exclusivity, but more so it was based on an implied condition of non-possessiveness. Men adapted to this paradigm as might have been expected, but what they didn’t consider is that in this state their eventual cuckoldry (either proactively or retroactively) amounted to women’s facilitating the optimization of their own Hypergamous impulses.
The social contract of Free Love played to the base sexual wants of permissive variety for men, or at least it implied a promised potential for it. Furthermore, and more importantly, Free Love implied this promise free from the burden of performance. It was “free” love, tenuously based, ostensibly, on intrinsic personal qualities. It was what’s on the inside that would make him lovable — not the visceral physical realities that inspired arousal nor the rigorous status and provisioning performance burdens that had characterized the old-books intersexual landscape prior.
It should be mentioned that ’free love’ also played to men’s idealistic concept of love in that freedom from a performance-based love. The equalist, all’s-thesame, environment was predicated on the idea that love was a mutually agreed dynamic, free from the foundational, sexual strategy realities both sexes applied to love. Thus men’s idealism predisposed them to being hopeful of a performance-free love-for-love’s-sake being reciprocated by the women of the age of Aquarius.
That’s how the social contract looked in the advertising, so it’s hardly surprising that (Beta) men eagerly adapted to this new sexual landscape; going along to get along (or along to get laid) in a way that would seem too good to be true to prior generations. And thus, their belief set adapted to the sexual strategy that, hopefully, would pay off sexual dividends for them in this new social condition.
For women, though not fully realized at the time, this Free Love social restructuring represented a license for optimizing Hypergamy unimpeded by moral or social restraint, and later, unlimited (or at least marginalized) by men’s provisional support. For the first time in history women could largely explore a Sandbergian plan for Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks and, at least figuratively, they could do so at their leisure.
The problem inherent in the Free Love paradigm was that it was based on a mutual understanding that men and women were functional equals, and as such a mutual trust that either sex would hold the other’s best interests as their own. That basis of trust that either sex was rationally on the same page with regard to their sexual strategies is what set the conditions for the consecutive generations to come. This trust, on the part of men, was that these “equal” women would honor the presumption that it was “who” they were rather than “what” they represented to their sexual strategy at the various phases of their maturity that would be the basis for women’s sexual selection of them.
Into the 70s
When I first published the comparative sexual market value (SMV) graph a few years ago (see The Rational Male) one of the first criticisms was that the age comparisons between men and women seemed too concrete and too specific to contemporary times. I tried to make concessions for this then, but when I was writing that essay it was at first meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Still, I try to write with the presupposition that critics will take things either too literally or too figuratively. I knew that the literati then and now would think, “…well, yes it’s a good outline, but you’re looking at the SMV from the perspective of 2012 and society was much different 50, 70, 100, 2,000 years ago so this graph is flawed…”
My SMV (sexual market value) graph was never meant to be some canonical tablet handed to me from the Almighty. I thought of it then, and still think of it now, as a very good workable outline for how men and women’s comparative SMV relates to the other. This has been borne out in many other statistics from individual studies sent to me by readers or just my coming across them since I created that graph. That said, those critics aren’t wrong to suggest that this outline would be subject to the social environments and simple physical realities of earlier times, and likely some times yet to come.
Take what I’m about to delve into here with a bit of salt; I’m not a historian. One of my favorite figures from the civil war era was Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. If you’ve seen the movie Glory you know who I’m referencing here. This young man was 23 when he enlisted and 25 when he was promoted to Major and then Colonel. In that time Shaw saw some pretty grisly shit, including the battle of Antietam.
I’d seen the movie when it first came out in 1989, but after watching it again for a class assignment I had a new appreciation for the real man who was Robert Shaw. I saw the film using what was just becoming my Red Pill Lens. It struck me that the realities of that era forced men to become Men much sooner than men do today. The realities of our times give us a leisure the men of Shaw’s age simple couldn’t imagine. The realities of that time necessitated a quick maturation to bear the burden of heavy responsibilities. Those burdens were much more imperative then, but a 23 year old is still, biologically, a 23 year old.
I thought about how I’d spent my own years between the ages of 23-25 when
I was at the peak of my semi-rock star tail chasing in the late 80s - early 90s Hollywood scene. I began to really think about the differences in the social and physical environments of the 1860s and the 1980s-90s. I’ve always joked that men don’t become Men until they’re 30. Even on the SMV graph the point at which I attribute men’s real ascendancy to their peak SMV at around age 30, but this wasn’t always the case in the past.
Men (comparatively) live longer lives as a result of health and medical advances, but (at least in westernizing culture) it takes much more time and personal investment, as well as acculturation for men to realize their personal potential. Men’s burden of performance wasn’t much different in prior eras, but the time frame necessary to reach a man’s peak potential was much more accelerated.
So to address the concerns of the temporal critics of the SMV graph, yes, that graph might look a bit different to the men and women of the 19th century. Considering lifespans of the era and the social conditions then, the ages during which a woman would reach her own peak might be around 17, and a man’s may be 25, however the same curves of the bell wouldn’t change drastically. Men adapted to the conditions their environment dictated to them then in much the same way they did before and after the sexual revolution. And this adaptation came as the result of what was expected of them as their burden of performance of the time, as well as what their social leisures would permit them.
Love American Style
Into the 70s the new social contract of the Free Love generation began to take a new shape. Bear in mind that this new equalitarian contract was based on the hopeful presumption that both sexes would mutually honor the “what’s on the inside is what counts” normalization of attraction. Under this contract women’s Hypergamous natures could flourish, while men’s unlimited access sexual strategy could ostensibly be realized.
Of course these lofty, higher-consciousness, presumptions were meant to supersede human nature and an evolved sexual arousal function based on human biology. One thing that still thwarts ideological feminism today is that its perceived goal states contradict human beings’ natural, evolved states. This contradiction gets narratively blamed on men not wanting to cooperate with feminism, but even the most ardent feminist is still guilty of her own biology and arousal triggers contradicting herself.
Biology trumps conviction. People get fidgety when I apply this in a religious context, but it’s equally applicable to feminism and really any ideology that under-appreciates human nature and the realities of its conditions.
As the new sexual landscape began to solidify, men began to adapt their own sexual strategies to the conditions of this fast and loose environment. Just prior to the Disco Generation hardcore pornography began its path to the ubiquitous free porn we know today. The sexual restraint necessitated by the realities of prior generations loosened in light of widespread hormonal birth control and safe(er) legal abortion.
While Hypergamy was effectively unleashed, the women of this era hadn’t fully grasped the scope of it being so or what it could become. Socially acceptable premarital sex, abortion, sperm banks and unilaterally feminine controlled birth control meant that women had an unprecedented degree of control over their Hypergamous decision making. I doubt many women of the time understood this, but the only real control men had (and still have now) over women’s breeding and birthing outcomes was now grounded in the psychological (Game) or the physical (arousal). Provisioning was still a consideration for women, but the division between short-term and long-term pairing became more pronounced.
As I mentioned here in the beginning, a slowing of the maturation process was the inevitable result of women’s freedom of Hypergamous choice. Short-term Alpha Fucks no longer posed the same societal and personal risks of a pre-birth control generation, thus, long-term pairing choices (Beta bucks) began to be delayed. The ideological cover story was one of women expecting men to “love their insides” despite their age, psychological baggage or their increasingly more overweight physical condition.
Women’s preoccupation with The Wall was ostensibly mitigated by the Free Love social contract that men would honor their end of the higher-consciousness equalitarian dream of a mutually agreed attraction based on intrinsic qualities.
The biological realities for both sexes was much different.
Women trusted they could be sexually ’free’ without social stigmatization, but the reality was that the long-term needs of Hypergamy could be postponed in what would eventually become an Open Hypergamy sexual strategy. The more Alpha men of the time — ones in touch with the visceral nature of women and themselves — understood the incredible boon this represented for them. It’s important to bear in mind that Hypergamy was not the openly embraced dynamic it’s come into today. Thus, the unspoken, secretive nature of Hypergamy was something a man who ’just got it’ instinctively understood and women were aroused by it.
During the 70s ’Macho’ men began to adapt to a new paradigm. They adapted to the reality that women were conflicted by the Free Love paradigm. These men embraced both the sexual openness expected of women, but they also understood that in spite of the social contract of love being based on intrinsic qualities, women still wanted to fuck (with abandon) the men with extrinsic arousal triggering qualities. Evolved physical attributes began to take priority above the emotional pretentiousness.
The Macho quality could take different forms. Whether it was the good ole’ boy of the south or the Tony Manero at Studio 54, understanding the mindset is what’s important here. Conventional masculinity was what was driving the sexual marketplace underneath the Free Love veneer.
Macho men in the discos and key parties of the 70s figured out they could ’Game’ the old paradigm of non-exclusivity paired with birth control by re-embracing (with disco era gusto) a masculinity that had been abandoned just a decade earlier with the Hippies. Unlimited access to unlimited sexuality was for men who overtly challenged the Free Love preconditions. They enjoyed the rewards of its expectations of women while rebounding off the self-expectations of the Beta men who were still cooperating with the Free Love social contract.
This era is an interesting parallel to our own. I think much of the Red Pill resentment coming from men still plugged into a Blue Pill mindset is rooted in a similar perception that they’re playing by an acceptable set of rules that “men with Game” are exploiting for their own selfish ends. What they don’t realize is that their Blue Pill interpretations are a designed part of a social paradigm that supports feminine primacy. Game works because, like the macho men of the 70s, it’s primarily based on women’s inborn psychology, innate arousal triggers and the visceral realities of women’s biological impulses.
Beta men in the 70s still believed that the Free Love mindset was equally and mutually beneficial for both sexes since it was supposedly based on a freedom from performance for themselves while freeing women from “sexual repression” and (covertly) from the reality of the Wall. In reality, the Free Love paradigm put men at a disadvantage by giving women almost total control of Hypergamy and the time in which to realize short term mating and long term provisioning.
So these Beta men’s resentment of the Alphas of the era is understandable when you consider that their visceral attractiveness was observably and behaviorally arousing to women who were supposed to idealistically love them for who they were not what they were. These Macho men represented a return to that burden of performance Betas had hoped to avoid in the Free Love contract.
These Alpha men understood women’s base impulses then, and that understanding became an integral part of their “just getting it” attraction. However, these men would eventually become the butt of their own joke as the Feminine Imperative fluidly transitioned into a new social paradigm of Fempowerment developing in the 80s and reaching its apex in the 90s.
The arousing ’Macho’ men, the Alphas of the era, would systematically become the most ridiculed parodies and caricatures of masculinity as women came into a better understanding of the power they were only beginning to realize and the Beta men took their perceived revenge. And likewise, men adapted to this new paradigm based on the same visceral reality that women’s sexuality is fundamentally based on.
This chart comes courtesy of Time’s 2014 analysis of how Americans met their spouses. Blogger Heartiste (Roissy) provides the most obvious reasoning for these stats:
Every inception source of romance is down over the past 70 years except for bars and online. What happens in bars and online that doesn’t happen in the normal course of events when couples meet through the more traditional routes? That’s right: Intense, relentless, and usually charmless come-ons by drunk and socially clumsy men, that pump girls full of themselves. We’ve entered the age of the narcissistically-charged woman who houses in the well-marbled fat of her skull ham a steroid-injected, Facebook-fed hamster spinning its distaff vessel’s place in the world as the center of existence.
Not to be outdone, but what he doesn’t address here is the adaptive strategies men are pragmatically employing in order to facilitate their own sexual strategy. What this chart illustrates is a graphic representation of the adaptive sexual strategies of the sexes over the course of 70 years.
Granted, in contemporary society women’s attention and indignation needs, via social media, are as ubiquitously satisfied as men’s need for sexual release (i.e. internet porn) is . This of course leads the mass 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 established to insulate women, and simultaneously convince men, that their perceived status should be the fantasy they believe it is.
It’s important to keep this in mind because men’s adaptive strategies key on women’s self-impressions of their of their own SMV (and often personal worth). The intergender conditions we’re experiencing today were seeded by the adaptive strategies men used in the past and the contingent counter-adaptations of women employed then too.
The Abdication Imperative
Hypergamy is rooted in doubt. Hypergamy is an inherently insecure system that constantly tests, assesses, retests and reassesses for optimal reproductive options, long-term provisioning, parental investment, and offspring, and personal protection viability in a potential mate. Even under the most secure of prospects Hypergamy still doubts. The evolutionary function of this incessant doubt would be a selected-for survival instinct, but the process of Hypergamy’s assessment requires too much mental effort to be entirely relegated to women’s subconscious. Social imperatives had to be instituted, not only to better facilitate the hypergamous process, but also to reassure the feminine that men were already socially preprogrammed to align with that process.
In an era when women’s sexual selection has been given exclusive control to the feminine, in an age when Hypergamy has been loosed upon the world en force, social conventions had to be established to better silence the doubt that Hypergamy makes women even more acutely aware of today. And nowhere is this doubt more pronounced than in the confines of a monogamous commitment intended to last a lifetime. Thus, we have the preconception of “Happy Wife equals Happy Life” preprogrammed into both gender’s collective social consciousness. It’s as if to say “It’s OK Hypergamy, everything is gonna be alright because we all believe that women should be the default authority in any relationship.”
When you disassemble any operative feminine social convention, on its most base, instinctive level the convention’s latent purpose is to facilitate and pacify Hypergamy.
Heirs of Free Love
Earlier I mentioned the “Free Love” movement. When most people hear that term their first mental impression is usually something like the picture of hippies at Woodstock smoking pot. Later it quickly morphed into the 70’s adaptation of socially permissive promiscuity. However, it’s very important to understand that this most recent Free Love social push was by no means the first in human history.
Our impression of Free Love today was colored by the Baby Boom generation, but there have been many Free Love “movements” in the past. This was a fascinating read in light of the recent legislative ruling on gay marriage. The following is a quote from Wikipedia’s research on Free Love:
A number of Utopian social movements throughout history have shared a vision of free love. The all-male Essenes, who lived in the Middle East from the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD apparently shunned sex, marriage, and slavery. They also renounced wealth, lived communally, and were pacifist vegetarians. An Early Christian sect known as the Adamites existed in North Africa in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries and rejected marriage. They practiced nudism and believed themselves to be without original sin.
In the 6th century, adherents of Mazdakism in pre-Muslim Persia apparently supported a kind of free love in the place of marriage, and like many other free-love movements, also favored vegetarianism, pacificism, and communalism. Some writers have posited a conceptual link between the rejection of private property and the rejection of marriage as a form of ownership
[…] The challenges to traditional morality and religion brought by the Age of Enlightenment and the emancipatory politics of the French Revolution created an environment where ideas such as free love could flourish. A group of radical intellectuals in England (sometimes known as the English Jacobins), who supported the French Revolution developed early ideas about feminism and free love.
Notable among them was the Romantic poet William Blake, who explicitly compared the sexual oppression of marriage to slavery in works such as Visions of the Daughters of Albion (1793). Blake was critical of the marriage laws of his day, and generally railed against traditional Christian notions of chastity as a virtue. At a time of tremendous strain in his marriage, in part due to Catherine’s apparent inability to bear children, he directly advocated bringing a second wife into the house. His poetry suggests that external demands for marital fidelity reduce love to mere duty rather than authentic affection, and decries jealousy and egotism as a motive for marriage laws. Poems such as “Why should I be bound to thee, O my lovely Myrtle-tree?” and “Earth’s Answer” seem to advocate multiple sexual partners. In his poem “London” he speaks of “the Marriage-Hearse” plagued by “the youthful Harlot’s curse”, the result alternately of false Prudence and/or Harlotry. Visions of the Daughters of Albion is widely (though not universally) read as a tribute to free love since the relationship between Bromion and Oothoon is held together only by laws and not by love. For Blake, law and love are opposed, and he castigates the “frozen marriage-bed”.
There are certain Manosphere writers of note who believe that our current state of “social degeneracy” is unprecedented in human history. And while it’s certain that no prior generation did it in the same manner as the one before it, ours is simply one more chapter in a Free Love flareup that’s punctuated history for many cultures, not just the west — all prompted by the underlying bio-evolutionary / psychological impulses our race has always been subject to.
That said, it’s important to consider the residual social after effects of our most recent Free Love incidence. I can’t speak to the era in the past, but the Free Love ideology is very much an evident part of the egalitarian equalism ideology that’s rooted itself in our contemporary culture. As western culture spreads, so too does that equalism rooted in Free Love.
The Rise of Fempowerment
By the time the 80s had begun the redefinition of conventional masculinity — masculinity adapted to capitalize on women’s short-term, Alpha Fucks, sexual strategy — was beginning to take shape. By the mid 80s, gone were the Captain Kirk and Han Solo archetypal machismo characters. They were systematically replaced by sensitive, supportive, asexual and thoroughly nonthreatening Dr. Huxtable and increasingly contrasted with laughable parodies of conventional masculinity; these roles redefined to fit into shaming and obfuscating any former idea of masculinity and any men who might attempt to embrace it. The action heroes of the era abounded, but the expectation to accept a new archetype, the Strong Independent Ass Kicking Woman® was coming into its own.
Granted, the feminization process was gradual. Throughout the 80s this feminization was primarily reinforced by men (or men like them) who’d borne the brunt of the ’Macho men’ of the 70s sexual opportunism; a substantial number of which were increasingly raising their children for them. Beta men of the post Disco Generation and the men who identified with them adapted their own Beta Game of increased identification with the feminine, and thus began the rise of the era of feminine empowerment, or Fempowerment.
A new paradigm was evolving; a social environment founded on the same ’higher selves’, faux-equalism, of the Free Love generation(s), but one predicated on Beta men’s enthusiastic supportiveness of women’s imperatives. Gradually, the Free Love narrative was sublimated by a one-sided expectation of male supportive sacrifices and self-identification with women.
From Identity Crisis:
Far too many young men maintain the notion that for them to receive the female intimacy they desire they should necessarily become more like the target of their affection in their own personality. In essence, to mold their own identify to better match the girl they think will best satisfy this need. So we see examples of men compromising their self-interests to better accommodate the interests of the woman they desire to facilitate this need for intimacy (i.e. sex). We all know the old adage women are all too aware of, “Guys will do anything to get laid” and this is certainly not limited to altering their individual identities and even conditions to better facilitate this. It’s all too common an example to see men select a college based on the available women at that college rather than academic merit to fit their own ambitions or even choose a college to better maintain a preexisting relationship that a woman has chosen and the young man follows. In order to justify these choices he will alter his identity and personality by creating rationales and new mental schema to validate this ’decision’ for himself. It becomes an ego protection for a decision he, on some level, knows was made for him.
Beta Game is predicated upon this effort to become more alike, more in touch with a calculating feminine ideal men they were being conditioned to believe was equitable to their concept of love and would be reciprocated with appreciation and intimacy. Into the 90s, men built their lives around the ’high self’ hope that if they could just relate more to the feminine — supporting their girlfriends and wives in equalist endeavors women of the past never had access to — they could out-support the ’ridiculous cad’ parody straw men they’d created for themselves.
The burden of performance that the men of the Free Love eras had hoped to avoid with higher self conditions of love were replaced with a burden of more accessible Beta supportiveness. Thus, into the 90s we had more and more characterization of masculine competition become associated with men out-supporting one another. Stay-at-home Dad became a socially lauded life choice to be proud of. Tootsie, Mr. Mom, Friends, and the culmination of total abdication to feminine identification, Mrs. Doubtfire, became apex examples of men adapting to a socio-sexual environment they’d been conditioned for — a burden of support.
Mrs. Doubtfire was a particularly egregious depiction of this male to female transition. The apex Beta Father Provider versus the social and sexual Alpha ’great guy’ in a battle for the genetic rights to the Beta’s children (which he eventually concedes and accepts). This story epitomizes the subtle undercurrent of socially acceptable cuckoldry that would define men’s adaptations during this era. The Beta must become a woman to have any relationship with his kids.
By assuming the female role, by identifying with the feminine they’d been convinced was so lacking in themselves, men reinforced, aided and abetted the rise of contemporary women’s default entitlements; not just to support, but to conventional masculinity when convenient, and equalist independence when convenient.
There’s a presumption in the manosphere that women have become more masculinized today, and while this is true, the Hypergamy that’s defined every era for women is more dominant now than in any other age. There is nothing that defines the feminine more than the Feminine Imperative’s want for the security of provisioning and sexual optimization that the masculine provides for women.
As men, we’re prone to believe that if we’ve become more feminine women have become more masculinized, but is it this or is it the expectation that women need to adapt a masculinized outlook to counter men’s conditioned Beta passivity? Even staunch feminists get tingles from conventionally masculine, unapologetically Alpha men.
There’s an interesting discussion that’s been belabored in the manosphere for a while now, that of traditionally “male spaces” being infiltrated by women and / or being redefined by feminized restructuring. The modern, western, workplace is the easiest example of this, but whether it’s the recent inclusion of women in the formerly all-male membership of the Augusta Golf Club, or the lifting of the ban on women (and accommodating their prevalent physical deficits) being in combat roles in the military, the message ought to be clearer to Red Pill men; the feminine imperative has a vested interest in inserting itself into every social and personal condition of male exclusivity.
Whether this condition is an all male club or cohort (gender segregated team sports for example) or a personal state that is typically attributed only to the masculine — characteristic strength, rationality, decisiveness, risk taking, even brashness and vulgarity — the Feminine Imperative encourages women to insert themselves, and by association the Feminine Imperative itself, into masculine exclusivity. Scout Willis’ (Bruce Willis’ daughter) ’activism’ to encourage female equality by going topless in public is a more extreme example of this female-to-male parity — in an equalist utopia, if men can do it, women should be able to as well.
The First Woman
This push into male space is rarely due to a genuine desire to belong to a traditionally all-male institution or condition, but women are encouraged to believe they’ll make some dent in the universe simply by being the first to push past a “gender barrier.” It’s not about making a true contribution to that male institution or endeavor, but rather a goal of being ’the first woman to do it too’.
The social presumption is always one of men holding women back, or some institutionalized sexism that conflicts with the equalist ideal that men and women are exactly the same except for the plumbing. Needless to say this ideology more often than not conflicts with physical realities of both sexes, but women’s default victimhood status requires that ’common sense’ says it’s sexist men keeping girls out of the tree house.
For all of the misdirections of a hoped for equalism, it’s not about becoming an astronaut for a woman, but rather becoming the first woman—astronaut — then moving on to being the first woman assigned to a combat role in the military, then the first woman to play at Augusta. If equalism were the real intent, we could expect the desire of, and passion for, the endeavor itself would supersede this. But the Feminine Imperative motivates women (and socially demotivates men’s resistance) to the first-woman goal, not the actual accomplishment or excellence in that accomplishment or endeavor. The trail being blazed is less important than being the first woman trailblazer — in fact, the goal can simply be the same trail men blazed centuries before and it will still be recognized as a significant accomplishment for the first woman to do it too.
The goal is to be a woman in traditionally male space. No thought is given as to why it’s been a traditionally male space beyond the default presumption of male sexism.
The cover story is the same trope the Feminine Imperative (and its social arm, feminism) always finds useful; the never ending push towards gender equalism. The practice however reveals the push into male space serves two purposes — social control and female oversight of a previously male space.
Social control is the easier of the two to grasp. Even when changing the rules of an all-male game to accommodate a lack of genuine female interest in a conventionally male endeavor, it fundamentally alters the nature of that game. When the WNBA first formed there was a push to lower the height of the net since very few women could get above it.
The first woman allowed to participate in that male-game is novelty enough to extend the Feminine Imperative’s social control into that male space (i.e. “nowadays women do it too”). An easy example of this would be NASCAR’s embracing a driver like Danica Patrick. It’s not that she’s an exceptional driver, and while I can’t vouch for her genuine passion for NASCAR, the social control she represents is that she is the first woman to (dubiously) be taken seriously in the nominally all-male space of NASCAR drivers. Once the goal has been achieved, all that’s left now is female oversight of this male space.
Overseers in the Locker Room
The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the ’locker room’ the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ’boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ’man cave’ is — the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.
When the influence of feminine-primacy is introduced into social settings made up mainly by men and male-interests, the dynamics and purpose of that group changes. The purpose becomes less about the endeavor itself and more about adherence to the feminine-inclusionary aspect of that endeavor. It starts to become less about being the best or most passionate at what they do, and more about being acceptable to the influence of the Feminine Imperative while attempting to maintain the former level of interest in the endeavor.
Men unaccustomed to having women in their midst generally react in two ways; most men being Betas, they act according to their proper feminized conditioning. They embrace the opportunity to impress these ’trailblazing’ women (hoping to be found worthy of intimacy) with their enthusiastic acceptance of, and identification with, their new feminine overseer(s), or for the less socially savvy, they become easy foils of an “outmoded” way of thinking that the new ’in-group’ happily labels them with.
Once the feminine-primary in-group dynamic is established a ’feminine correct’ social frame follows. This feminine correction restructures the priorities of goals, and validates any accomplishments, in terms of how they reflect upon the feminine as a whole. Thus any in-group success is perceived as a feminine success in male space. However, in-group failures or simple mediocrity is either dismissed entirely or blamed on the out-group men’s failure to comply with the Feminine Imperative’s ’correcting’ influence on the in-group.
Bro Culture is an epithet created by the social justice warrior mindset to easily identify men who follow conventional masculinity despite the efforts to cull it by feminism and its failed dictates. It seems that a constantly self-reinventing feminism loves to attach “culture” to the end of anything it sees as threatening — Rape Culture, Male Culture of Privilege, and of course Bro Culture. Make no mistake, the concept of Bro Culture is an operative feminine social convention. It may be convenient to think of the stereotype of Bro Culture as a male creation, but this convention is the direct result of the Feminine Imperative’s controlling need to insert itself into male spaces. Thus, any conventionally masculine endeavor always smacks of the jocks they hated in high school.
There are other feminine social conventions with the same latent purpose, but the ’Bro Culture’ meme is really a dual purpose shaming tactic intended to restrict and control traditional male bonding while also fostering infighting amongst in-group and out-group men once feminine influence has been established in a formerly all-male space.
One of the most threatening aspects of conventional masculinity for the Feminine Imperative is the cooperative potential of male bonding. When only men comprise an in-group, team building, common purpose and a masculine-primary environment tend to define that group. I would argue that the modern insertion of feminine influence into all-male spaces is a concerted effort to limit this bonding and unity in favor of a feminine-primary ’correctness’. The purpose is to isolate and confuse men’s understanding of masculinity.
This limitation may not be directly influenced by a present female; often all that’s needed to foster feminine-primary correctness is a feminine-identifying male in the in-group (anonymous White Knight), or even just a prevailing attitude of not wanting to offend the sexism suspicions, or other in-group men may subscribe to this feminine-identifying influence for fear it may get back to a woman they perceive may have authority over them.
This is the hallmark of a feminized Beta mindset — to believe that “guys being guys” is inherently aberrant. It’s something other guys, typical guys do. I could go into detail about how men giving each other shit is an evolutionary (and useful) vestige of tribalism and how men would use this “challenging” to ensure the strength and survivability of the collective, but this will only grate against a Beta’s ’gender-as-social-construct’ belief.
This discomfort with ’being a guy’ is the root disposition of many high-functioning Betas, and particularly those seeking to better identify with the feminine in the hopes it will pay off in sexual dividends. These are the guys who never ’got it’ that shit talking and locker room jibes (the same male space invaded by the feminine) are intended not just to determine masculine fitness, but to foster living, building and measuring up to a better masculine standard that benefits both the individual man and the collective tribe.
The fact that ’Bro Culture’ is even a term, or the go-to archetypal examples of it begins with stereotypical jocks, “douchebags” and team sport locker rooms, illustrates the threat that male-exclusive forms of communication pose to the Feminine Imperative. If male space can be co-opted in the name of gender equalism, it’s far easier to restrict that male communication and influence it to encourage a sense of responsibility towards feminine-primary security needs. In other words, it’s a much easier task to create future Beta providers if a feminine influence can pervade all male spaces — this is facilitated all the better when it is men themselves who hold other men accountable to the dictates of the Feminine Imperative and feminine sexual strategies.
I think it’s important that we don’t lose sight of the way men communicate, test each other, hone each other, give each other shit, etc. being primarily defined in the context of Bro Culture, douchebaggery, team sports, etc. That intra-male dynamic crosses so many social, racial and cultural strata it becomes an overarching threat to the Feminine Imperative.
This is the “let’s you and him fight” dynamic women will employ with their own power rivals. While a certain element of intersexual competition is a part of this, the purpose of this social convention is one of occupying men with an infighting that suppresses their power over her.
It’s an easy task to set men against each other when they perceive sexual rivals to be part of an out-group, and feminine influence in male space fosters this passive (sometimes active) infighting amongst men. Disrupting male bonding, or even the potential for it, limits men’s potential to unify in their own interests and their own imperatives. There are many in-group examples of all male space where this infighting and resentment plays out, but it’s important to understand that male-exclusive forms of communication, testing, encouragement and shit talking, are in no way limited to just the locker room. Even guys in the chess club will give each other shit — at least until the Feminine Imperative inserts itself there too.
Resisting the Influence
I can’t end this section without drawing attention to the all male meta-space that has become the collective gestalt of the Manosphere. The manosphere is male space writ large and a testament to what men can do when they come together, share experiences and put their minds to a common purpose. The methods may vary, but the desire to collectivize male experience for the benefit of other men is a meta-scale form of male bonding.
And, as should be expected, there will be resistance to that communication and bonding on a comparative meta-scale by the Feminine Imperative and the men and women who subscribe to it. I should also add that a very obvious attempt on women’s inclusion into Red Pill praxeology, theory and practice is also a move by the feminine into a male space with much of the same purpose I’ve outlined here — social control and female oversight of it.
Even the most well meaning of women involved (however peripherally) in the Manosphere are still motivated by their innate security needs — and those hypergamous security needs imply a want for certainty and control. As such the psychological influence of the Feminine Imperative will always be a predominant motivator in their participation in this all male space. This leads women to a want to sanitize Game to fit the purposes of the imperative, as well as oversee the thought processes of the men who come to participate in it.
Just like any other male space, the Manosphere is subject to all the sanitizing efforts of the Feminine Imperative I’ve outlined here — by both women and men who still subscribe to feminine-primacy.
I’m often asked by ’fempowered’ women critics whether I ’believe’ in some of the more socially acceptable tenets of feminism. It’s usually something like, “Do you or do you not think women ought to have the right to vote?” Or it’s the ever-reliable “Shouldn’t women have the right to do with their bodies what they choose?” These questions are always binary (“yes or no will do”) and usually couched in a context that implies that if you even slightly disagree or have a slight caveat to answering ’appropriately’ you’ll be dismissed with a name tag that has “misogynist” printed on it. Say ’no’ and you’re a despicable misogynist. Say ’yes’ and you’re tar-pitted in “yes, but” caveats — mansplaining — that are disqualified because you’re a man. Until recently, it’s been a very effective means of silencing uncomfortable truths about the Feminine Imperative.
I’ve always found it ironic that a movement (feminism) that predicates itself on an egalitarian notion that rational, reasonable considerations of issues should lead us to ideals of equality is the first to reduce itself to unquestioned, blind faith binaries at the first sign of that rational reasonable truth being unflattering to women. If you want to know who holds power over you, look at whom you aren’t allowed to criticize — or even hint at criticism.
My position on these and many other questions of the sort is usually met with simple observational analysis (as you’d probably expect). I don’t necessarily have a problem with women voting or even having access to legal (relatively safe) abortions. What I have a problem with is the latent purpose behind the reasons that led to women’s decisions to vote a particular way or the latent purposes that brought them to having that abortion. For the greater part, any dubious ’right’ women feel they were somehow denied in the past usually comes at the expense of men being liable for decisions they had nothing to do with today.
What I have a problem with is an expectation of lowering the standards of the game and thus fundamentally altering the game, to better accommodate the variable strengths and weaknesses of women — up to, and including changing the nature of women’s realities that would endanger the wellbeing of both sexes. What I take issue with is the expectation of making men liable for the decisions and consequences of the rights and freedom of choices we’ve reserved for only women to make (almost unilaterally Hypergamous choices) that are not in men’s best interests.
Men today find themselves in a very precarious position with regard to entertaining women’s perceived wrongs of the past. Men are expected, by default, to be held accountable for past injuries to the ever-changing Feminine Imperative for no other reason than they were born men. Your existence as a man today, your failed understanding to accommodate women’s social primacy, your lack of catering to the ambiguous nature of what conveniently passes for masculinity, is a constant affront and obstacle to the “advancement” of women. The Feminine Imperative has known how to manipulate men’s Burden of Performance for millennia, and at not other time in history has it had the unfettered leisure to do so than now.
Thus, we get socially acceptable default presumptions of ’male privilege’ without qualifying what it even means, or we get catchy jingoisms like ’mansplaining’ to give a name to women’s need for silencing men’s inconvenient observations of women’s ’presumed-correct’ perceptions, their decisions and the reasons they came to them. We get default presumptions of male guilt for sexual assault and lack of sexual consent as fluidly defined in as convenient a way that serves women’s imperatives. The true intent of feminism has never been about establishing a mutually agreed ’gender equality’, rather it’s always been about retribution and restitution for perceived past wrongs to the Sisterhood.
There has always been a subtext, a cover story, of equality mentioned in the same breath as feminism. Only the most antagonistic asshole, only the most anti-social prick, would be against “equality between the sexes”. Thus, to be against feminism is to be against a simplistic concept of baseline equality. However, taken out of the propagandizing efforts to shame and ’correct’ men’s imperatives, it’s easy to demonstrate that the true intent of feminism is female ’fempowerment’ in the guise of an equality that no man (or woman) wants to appear to be against.
I found an interesting example of this Catch 22 in the Economist:
Pick and choose: Why women’s rights in China are regressing.
In 2007 China’s official Xinhua news agency published a commentary about women who were still unmarried at the age of 27 under the title, “Eight Simple Moves to Escape the Leftover Woman Trap”. The Communist Party had concluded that young Chinese women were becoming too picky and were over-focused on attaining the “three highs”: high education, professional status and income. Newspapers have since reprinted similar editorials. In 2011 one said: “The tragedy is they don’t realize that as women age they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their MA or PhD, they are already old, like yellowed pearls.”
This is illustrative of the expansion that the Feminine Imperative has taken on a global scale. One of the old missives of the Manosphere has always been about how American women are too far gone to be worth entertaining anything beyond a pump-and-dump consideration. They are too damaged. Too self-absorbed beyond all redemption, and men ought to expatriate to another country where women are more feminine, pleasing, or at least necessitous enough to appreciate a conventionally masculine man.
I get that. I understand the want for a Pussy Paradise or some promised land where women are still raised to respect and love men by being conventionally feminine. I also get that there exist certain cultures where this is still true, but for all of that, I think it’s important to recognize the social undercurrent that the Feminine Imperative exercises in these cultures. ’Feminism is Cancer’ is a popular meme on Twitter, but there’s a kernel of truth to the humor of this. The spread of the westernizing social primacy of the Feminine Imperative is spreading, not unlike cancer, into what we would otherwise believe were societies and cultures still oppressed by the mythical Patriarchy — a belief necessary to perpetuate the narrative of default female victimhood.
It may not be now, but at some stage, the Feminine Imperative will exercise its presumptive control over even the societies we think ought to be immune from that cancer. Even in underdeveloped countries where we would expect to find the horrible oppression of girls and women, we make a triumphant example of the incidents of where girls (not boys) are taught to read and “think for themselves”. Westernized culture, founded on the Feminine Imperative, celebrates every time a woman in Saudi Arabia is allowed to drive a car, much less run a business on her own as if it were some blow against the tyranny of men.
Little by little, or in leaps and bounds, your second or third world Pussy Paradise will eventually be assimilated by the Feminine Imperative.
I bring this up because China is also experiencing the long-term results of having adopted feminine social primacy in its own culture. From women’s popular consciousness, we’re still, to this day, told of how horrible “communist” China has been in mandating its one-child policy and how its draconian ’sons live, daughters die’ social structure has been the result. However, once we reasonably investigate it, we find that China now has a problem with “Yellowed Pearls” as
a result of a cultural shift that placed women’s interests as preeminent in that culture. And it should be noted that this shift came about as the direct result of the men who adopted and accommodated the Feminine Imperative as their own.
Now the problem for women in China is not unlike the plight of American women bemoaning the lack of men with “equal” marriageability as themselves. And likewise, the self-same social authorities responsible for institutionalizing the fempowerment of women are now the horrible misogynist villains for suggesting that women ought to lower their unrealistic standards.
The tone of these Yellowed Pearls articles is surprising, given the Communist Party’s past support for women’s advancement. Mao Zedong destroyed China, but he succeeded in raising the status of women. Almost the first legislation enacted by the Communist Party in 1950 was the Marriage Law under which women were given many new rights, including the right to divorce and the right to own property.
This sounds a far cry different from the pictures women, even women in this century, have painted of China’s institutionalized, one-child sexism doesn’t it? Remember, this advancement in women’s rights took place before the Cultural Revolution in China.
Though collectivization made the latter largely irrelevant, women played an active role in Mao’s China, and still do today. By 2010, 26% of urban women had university degrees, double the proportion ten years earlier. Women now regularly outperform men at Chinese universities, which has led to gender-based quotas favoring men in some entrance exams. However, many of the earlier advances have been eroded in recent years by the gradual re-emergence of traditional patriarchal attitudes.
Consider this part in contrast to other industrialized nations and how women have increased their socio-political standing as the result of having the Feminine Imperative adopted as the primary social order of those cultures. Even in cultures that are still popularly deemed “repressive” to women we still see educational and socioeconomic parallels to western(ized) cultures. We also see the same resulting consequences and the shifting of blame for them to men. The downside consequences of Yellowed Pearls is placed at the feet of men for not living up to the convenient, feminine-primary definition of what their Burden of Performance ought to mean in promoting and forgiving women’s decisions.
The party has joined an alliance of property companies and dating websites to confront the issue. Government surveys on marriage and property are often sponsored by matchmaking agencies, and perpetuate the perception that being “leftover” is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. They also promote other myths, such as the idea that a man must have a house before he can marry.
As you may expect, the tone of the article is written to emphasize the egalitarian perspective that conflicts with a reality that the Feminine Imperative would have men change or be responsible for not having changed. It’s men’s fault that women might feel bad for not having married by a post-wall age. It’s men’s fault for promoting myths that women would expect that a man must be successfully established in his life and career before any considerations of marriage occur to him. It’s also a man’s fault for clinging to the “myth” that women don’t want him to be established.
The law is reflecting the shift away from women’s empowerment too. An interpretation by the Supreme Court in 2011 of the 1950 Marriage Law stated that, when a couple divorces, property should not be shared equally, but each side should keep what is in his or her own name. This ruling, says Ms. Fincher, has serious implications. In the big cities a third of marriages now end in divorce but, based on hundreds of interviews, she finds that only about 30% of married women have their name on the deeds of the marital flat. Women believe the party hype about becoming a “leftover” woman so strongly, she says, that many rush into unhappy marriages with unsuitable men, made on condition that the brides agree not to put their name on the property deeds.
Feminism Would be a Success if Men Would Only Cooperate More
Several years ago fellow blogger and friend, Dalrock, had a post detailing the sentiment of feminists that feminism would be a success if only men would cooperate with the ideology by abandoning their own interests and sublimating their own biological impulses. The fact remains that feminism and egalitarianism are failed ideologies because at the root level those ideologies ask men to participate in their own extinction. Not only this, but they ask men to raise successive generations to accommodate and participate in their own degradation.
This narrative expects Yellowed Pearls to be prized by men, or respected as Spinsters, or pandered to as ’Cougars’ while still maintaining that men sublimate their own imperatives by willfully ignoring the fact that abandoning their own sexual strategy is what is being asked of them.
As I stated in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies, for one sex’s strategy to succeed the other must either be compromised or abandoned — and what better way is there to assure this for women than to socially mandate through shame, persecution or financial liabilities that men abandon their own strategy in favor of women?
For some time now, I’ve detailed how, for the past 4 or 5 generations, there has been a popular social re-engineering effort to raise and condition boys to become the ’better betas’ — boys designed to become the supportive, male-reinforcement of empowering women’s interests and imperatives. For a greater part this effort has been primarily focused on boys and men in western society, and while it’s still open for debate, I’d say that westernizing cultures are really the only cultural environments that can afford to entertain this ’fempowerment’ social initiative. This is changing radically now, if it was ever really the case to begin with.
In the Manosphere we like to highlight the ’pussification’ of modern men through various efforts on the part of a nebulous ’society’ aligned against masculinity. However, the flip side to this is the fempowerment agenda; a feminine-primary social structure that disallows any criticism of inherently female nature while promoting the empowerment of women on every level of social strata.
We coddle and cater to the feminine in every aspect of social interaction, every aspect of academic achievement, every socioeconomic advantage thinkable, every story we tell in every form of media and we do so under the threat of not being supportive or misogynistic for suggesting anything marginally pro-masculine. This is the other side of the demasculinization imperative of boys & men — the total consolidation of handicapping men and empowering women into unrealistic effigies of feminine triumphalism.
How do you counter this?
I’m always lauded for describing these social dynamics, but I’m run up the flagpole for not offering concrete ways of dealing with and pushing back on these imperatives. Many a MGTOW (men going their own way) will simply suggest men no longer play the Game; that isolationism is the way to go, but this only serves to eventually concede power to the Feminine Imperative. You don’t get to check out of the Game even if you refuse to play it.
For all the guys who left for parts unknown to find their quasi-utopia of feminine women in a foreign country, even they will explain that the tide of feminism is changing those seemingly idyllic places. And for every guy to voluntarily go celibate and “refuse to deal with women” I’ll show you a man whose tax dollars go to fund the consequences of women’s legislated rights to Hypergamous choice.
Sooner or later Men will have to confront and push back against both men and women who are convinced of their purpose in idealizing the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. A lot of men in the ’sphere believe they’re being clever when they refer to people with this world-view as ’SJWs’, social justice warriors, but for every hair dyed, gender-confused man-woman you see on Twitter there are hundreds of ’normal’ people who all share similar perspectives — some are just subconscious generalization they’re oblivious to — sitting next to you at church, or working in the cubicle next to you.
As I’ve mentioned countless times, the change needs to take place by appealing to the hearts and minds of Men by making them Red Pill aware from the bottom up, but moreover, we need to live out that awareness in our own lives and lead by Red Pill example. Our decisions in life, our aspiration in parenting, family and career, in our business dealings, in the women we Game and the people we hire, all of these aspects need to take on the perspective of how they fit into pushing back against a feminine-primary world that demands we surrender any thought of individuated male power.
As Men, we need to unapologetically exercise what little power we’re left with to inform this, and successive, generation of Red Pill truths tactfully, but with strength of conviction in the face of a feminine-primary society bent on our surrender.
Life finds a way. Feminism and the consolidation of the Feminine Imperative have failed because Men were not evolved to acquiesce their dominant spirit. On the same evolutionary level women also evolved to requiring that conventionally masculine dominance. This is why feminism and egalitarianism will ultimately fail — nature simply will not cooperate with it’s own stagnation. As men, we can use this truth to our Red Pill aware advantage.
The Political is Personal
My friend Dalrock had an interesting post titled Black Fathers Don’t Matter. I’ll be quoting from this here, emphasis mine:
While HHS (Health and Human Services) says any man currently shacking up with mom counts as the father, the Census says any man currently shacking up with mom counts as the father so long as mom says so. Either way, fathers clearly can’t matter that much to the US government if distinguishing between the actual father and the man currently banging mom isn’t important.
There are other ways we can tell that fathers don’t matter (and therefore Black fathers don’t matter). Under our current family system fathers are a sort of deputy parent. Just like a sheriff’s deputy serves at the pleasure of the sheriff, a father in an intact family serves at the pleasure of the mother. Our entire family court structure is designed to facilitate the removal of the father should the mother decide she no longer wants him to be part of the family unit. How important can fathers really be, when we have a massive and brutal bureaucracy devoted to helping mothers kick them out of the house?
What Dal is pointing out here has a far broader implication than simply how various governments define fatherhood. Many critics of how I define the Feminine Imperative like to think it’s a work in conspiracy. However, as I’ve explained before, there really is no need for a conspiracy; the Feminine Imperative has no centralized power base because feminine-primacy is so ensaturated into our collective social consciousness. It needs no centralization because feminine social primacy is literally part of women’s self-understanding — and by extension men’s understanding of women and what women expect of them.
Thus, on a Hypergamous social scale we see that male objectification is ignored while female objectification is railed against. The message is clear — It is Men who must perform, Men who need to change themselves, optimize themselves and strive for the highest physical ideal to be granted female approval. Women should be accepted, respected and expected to inspire genuine desire irrespective of men’s ideals, physical or otherwise.
On more than a few occasions I’ve made the connection that what we see in a feminine-primary societal order is really a reflection of the female sexual strategy writ large. When we see a culture of obesity, a culture of body fat acceptance and a culture that presumes a natural evolved order of innate differences between the sexes should be trumped by self-impressions of female personal worth, we’re viewing a society beholden to the insecurities inherent in women’s Hypergamy.
A feminized, feminist, ordered social structure is one founded on ensuring the most undeserving women, by virtue of being women, are entitled to, and assured of, the best Hypergamous options by conscripting and conditioning men to comply with Hypergamy’s dictates.
It’s important for men to really understand that the power struggle women claim to be engaged in with men has already been settled on a meta, social scale. When a father is whomever a woman says he is, that’s a very powerful tool of social power leveraging.
· A father is anyone a woman/mother claims he is
· A father is legally bound to children he didn’t sire
· A father is prevented at great legal and social effort from access to DNA testing of children he suspects aren’t his own
· A father is legally responsible for the children resulting from his wife/girlfriend cuckolding him
· A father is financially obligated to the support of children that he didn’t sire or he had no power in deciding to sire
These aren’t just examples relating to men’s lack of power in parenting; these are examples of determining the degree of control a man can exercise over the direction of his entire life.
Real Power is the degree to which a person has control over their own circumstances. Real Power is the degree to which we control the directions of our lives.
The inherent insecurity that optimizing Hypergamy poses to women is so imperative, so all-consuming, to their psychological wellbeing that establishing complex social orders to facilitate that optimization were the first things women collectively constructed when they were (nominally) emancipated from men’s provisioning and granted social acceptability for exercising their control of Hypergamy around the time of the sexual revolution. Ensuring the optimization of women’s biologically prompted Hypergamy is literally the basis of our current social order. On a socio-political scale what we’re experiencing is legislation and cultural mandates that better facilitate Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.
A commenter, Driver, had a good comment that illustrates another aspect of this feminine-power consolidation:
“All the “feeling good about your body” that a fat woman can muster is NEVER going to be an aphrodisiac or a substitute for having a great body that men are aroused by.”
It’s funny how women are very attracted to a guy who works out, eats right and takes care of his body but they fully expect men to love them (or be attracted to them) for “who they are” — thin or big. You would think that these overweight women would get the memo by now but women (and more of them) keep getting bigger each year.
Feminine-Primary Social Doctrine is the Extension of Women’s Hypergamy
In a feminine-primary social order women presume, without an afterthought, that they are entitled to an attractive guy who works out and meets or exceeds women’s very stringent and static physical ideal. At the same time they expect an entitlement to absolute control of that attraction/arousal process regardless of, and to the exception of, any influence or difference in men’s control of that process. And they expect this without any thought to meriting it beyond appeals to a nebulous and inflated concept of their personal self-worth.
When we consider the present, ambiguous state of sexual consent laws we begin to understand the latent Hypergamous purpose those laws serve — absolute consolidation of women’s Hypergamous strategies as the motivator of any sexual encounter.
Furthermore, they expect an entitlement, either directly or indirectly, to the material support and provisioning of men for no other reason than they were born female. Any deviation from this is on the part of men is met with a cultural reprisal designed to convince or coerce men to accept their inevitable role in providing those entitlements to women. When those social contingencies fail, or become played out, the Feminine Imperative then appeals to legal legislation to mandate men’s compliance to what amounts to women’s social entitlement to optimized Hypergamy.
From the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy this amounts to socially shaming men’s sexual imperatives while simultaneously empowering women’s short-term sexual strategies and fomenting men’s societal acceptance of it (i.e. the Sandberg plan for Open Hypergamy). This is further enforced from a legal perspective through consent laws and vague “anti-harassment” legislation to, ideally, optimize women’s hypergamous prospects.
When we read about instances of the conveniently fluid definitions of rape and harassment (not to mention women’s pseudo-victimhood of not being harassed and feeling deprived of it), this then turns into proposed “rape-by fraud” legislation. Hypergamy wants absolute certainty, absolute veracity, that it will be secured in its optimization. And in an era when the only restraint on Hypergamy depends on an individual woman’s capacity for being self-aware of it, that Hypergamy necessitates men be held legally responsible for optimizing it.
Even the right for women to have safe and legal abortions finds its root in women’s want to mandate an insurance of their Hypergamous impulses. Nothing says “he wasn’t the right guy” like the unilateral power to abort a man’s genetic legacy in utero.
Feminist boilerplate would have us convinced that expanding definitions of rape is an effort to limit men’s control of women’s bodies — however, the latent purpose of expanding the definition is to consolidate on the insecurity all women experience with regard to optimizing Hypergamy.
The Beta Bucks insurance aspect of Hypergamy is evidenced by cultural expectations of male deference to wives’ authority in all decision making aspects of a marriage or relationship. And, once again, this expectation of deference is a grasping for assurances of control should a woman’s Hypergamous choosing of a man not meet her shifting, long-term expectations. This is actualized covertly under the auspices of egalitarian equalism and the dubious presumptions of support and feminine identification on the part of men.
Beyond this there are of course the ubiquitous divorce, financial support, child support and domestic violence legalities that grossly favor women’s interests — which should be pointed out, are rooted in exactly the same Hypergamous insecurity that her short-term Alpha Fucks mating strategies demand legislation for.
As Open Hypergamy becomes more institutionalized and made a societal norm by the Feminine Imperative, and as more men become Red Pill aware (by effort or consequences) because of it, the more necessary it will become for a feminine-primary social order to legislate and mandate men comply with it.
The Sisterhood Über Alles
I’ve never done politics on The Rational Male. I will never do screeds on race or multi-culturalism or religion for a very good reason — it pollutes the message.
We now are seeing the results of this pollution as the Manosphere is attacked from both sides of the political spectrum.
I’ve given this example before, but if you put Gretchen Carlson and Rachel Maddow on the same show and confronted them with Red Pill truths about women and Game-awareness they would readily close ranks, reserve their political differences and cooperatively fight for the Feminine Imperative.
This is the degree to which the Feminine Imperative has been saturated into our western social fabric. Catholic women in the Vatican may have very little in common with Mormon women in Utah, but let a Mormon woman insist the church alter its foundational articles of faith with regard to women in favor of a doctrine substituted by the Feminine Imperative and those disparate women have a common purpose.
That is the depth of the Feminine Imperative — that female primacy should rewrite articles of faith to prioritize women’s interests.
Religious doctrine, legal and political legislation, cultural norms, labor and economic issues; all are trumped by the Feminine Imperative. All have been subverted to defer to the Feminine Imperative while maintaining a default status of victimhood and oppression of women and women’s interests necessary to perpetuate that covert decentralized power base.
It doesn’t matter what world view, ideology, conviction or political stripe the opposition holds; men, masculinity and anything contrary to the feminine-primary social narrative will always be a common enemy of the Feminine Imperative, and both liberal and conservative will climb over one another to throw the first punch if it means defending women and defending the feminine social order by proxy.
This is why anything even marginally pro-masculine is vilified in mainstream society. Anything pro-masculine is always an easy, preferred target because it’s so hated, so incorrect, in a feminine-primary context that it can unite people of hostilely opposed political and ideological differences.
It’s my opinion that Red Pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.
Furthermore, any co-branding will still be violently disowned by whatever ideology it’s paired with because the Feminine Imperative has already co-opted and trumps the fundamentals of that ideology. The fundamental truth is that the Manosphere, pro-masculine thought, Red Pill awareness or its related issues are an entity of its own.
This is what scares the shit out of critics who attempt to define, contain and compartmentalize the Manosphere / Red Pill awareness; it’s bigger than social, racial, political or religious strictures can contain. It crosses all of those constructs just as the Feminine Imperative has co-opted all of those cultural constructs. The feminized infrastructure of the mainstream media that’s just beginning to take the Manosphere seriously enough to be critical are now discovering this and trying to put the genie back into a bottle defined by their feminine-primary conditioning.
The idea that one of their own, whether in a liberal or conservative context, is genuinely Red Pill aware and educating others of that awareness is unnerving for the Feminine Imperative that’s already established strong footholds in either ideology.
During the Q&A section of the Man in Demand talk I gave back in September of 2015 I was asked about where I believed the social dynamic of Open Hypergamy would lead. In specific, the idea was proposed, and I agree, that the logical next step for a social order founded on Hypergamy, and one that prioritizes the female sexual strategy as preeminent, would lead to a state of openly accepted cuckoldry.
Although I can’t say it’s an accepted social dynamic as yet, there are many social indicators that are revealing this push towards a normalized cuckoldry. I’ll explore these for a bit in here, but for now these indicators are about a move away from conventional monogamy in the hopes that a ’soft cuckoldry’ might be a precursor to instituting a more accepted open cuckoldry.
I think it’s also important to keep in mind a couple of primary principles about this shift. First is the fact that, initially, an openly accepted state of feminine-controlled cuckoldry will never be called ’cuckoldry’ proper. If we use the example of a socially accepted (if not celebrated) open Hypergamy as a model, open cuckoldry will be sold as a more logical, more humane sexual strategy for men and women in light of divorce statistics, romantic boredom and other sexual studies that indicate men and women never evolved for monogamous commitment. We’re already seeing this in the attempt to normalize polyamorous relationships today.
The second is that open cuckoldry is the extension of a unilaterally feminine controlled Hypergamy. That is to say that as Hypergamy becomes more normalized as a social imperative that sexual strategy will extend to optimizing Hypergamy across genders. If that optimization is taken to its logical conclusion it will require men not just to accept cuckoldry as a norm, but to socially reward men for advocating it among their own sex.
Cuckoldry By Any Other Name
As I said, it wont be called ’cuckoldry’; the connotations are negative, so a redefinition will be made in order to make the practice more socially palatable. The Feminine Imperative wont recruit the very men it needs to perpetuate cuckoldry as their own sexual strategy if the term is derogatory. Thus, we’ll get euphemisms for alternative lifestyles, ’open marriages’ a “Designer Relationship“ or “polyamory”, all of which will be the advertising to promote what amounts to open cuckoldry. The following is from Salon.com, This is how we remake monogamy: More choices, better sex, better marriages:
We live in an era when everything is customizable. Relationships are no exception. Some people will continue to practice their grandparents’ form of monogamy, and others, probably the majority, will be serially exclusive and pair-bonded. Still others will explore some form of non-monogamous expression that encompasses one or more of the facets we’ve discussed or may flow in and out of being exclusive based on what the relationship requires. (We’ve done this ourselves.) Having the ability to customize a relationship means having the freedom to respond to life’s vicissitudes.
The first time I came across the concept of ’soft polygamy’ I was in a behavioral psychology class exploring the practices of modern marriage and contrasting them with the long term sexual behaviors of men and women. As you might imagine the context of the study focused entirely on the ’bad behaviors’ of men who essentially transitioned from serial monogamy to serial marriage. The idea was that in the process of moving from one long term relationship (LTR) to another men were establishing a soft form of polygamy.
In a social and financial respect, men have far more to lose from serial marriages than do women. The financial liabilities of divorce are well known to the Manosphere, but so too are the emotional and familial accountabilities. So, from a strictly male perspective, serial LTRs are a dicey proposition, but from a female perspective institutionalized Hypergamy and the soft polygamy that results from the Sandbergian sexual strategy, soft cuckoldry becomes pragmatic in optimizing Hypergamy for women.
At this point we should consider the Heartiste maxim about feminism again:
The feminist goal is removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality
Institutionalized, normalized cuckoldry is the logical means to restricting male sexuality, but we have to consider what function that restriction serves for women. From an Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks perspective the plan is simple; restrict that sexuality as women find need for a particular man’s service. The selling of polyamory to men will of course appeal to men’s want for sexual variety, but in truth single men can indulge in this without marriage. What polyamory really represents is a Hypergamous insurance plan for wives who want to breed with the ’best genes’ man and live with the ’best provider’ man.
Diamonds and Rust
While I’m reluctant to prognosticate, my guess is that future generations of men will be conditioned to accept their role in this cuckoldry as part of their socialization. Open Hypergamy and its acceptance has already made its popular debut in mainstream media and advertising, and likewise open cuckoldry is just now finding a social foothold.
It takes the Red Pill Lens to appreciate the efforts as they’re being made by a larger society. Popular commercial advertising of Open Hypergamy is intended to be funny or cute, but it belies a deeper, more poignant truth about Alpha Widows, Hypergamy and the long term sexual strategy Plan and roles women expect men to play in it.
I was made aware of a Forevermark diamonds ad being circulated from a reader on Twitter and at first thought it was a reworded joke.
She’ll forget every Fireman, Sailor and Rockstar of her dreams,…
The subcommunication being that if you buy her a Forevermark diamond she forget all the Alphas she’s been widowed by. Without the benefit of a Red Pill Lens I can see how most men would laugh it off or women might giggle sardonically about it, but the fact remains that a clever copywriter is aware of the sexual dynamics that make it funny.
I pulled the following quote from commenter Deti:
“I think what we will continue to see is growing disengagement.”
I think that what will happen is that things will continue sliding in the same direction they’re going now, until a critical mass is reached. I don’t know what that critical mass is, what will trigger it, or when it will be reached.
We live in a mostly free society with a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. We have maximum freedom and autonomy right now, with both sexes being free to pursue pretty much whatever they want, however they want to. That is the prime characteristic driving the current circumstance — that, and up to now, there’s been enough money taxed, borrowed and stolen to pay for it.
A growing number of men are not getting as much sex as they want.
A growing number of women aren’t getting commitments in the form they want — when they want or from the men they want.
So things are going to keep sliding that way. More and more men will walk away and direct what energies they have left elsewhere — into work, or beer/bros/X-Box/porn, or travel/leisure. (Oddly enough, this might make many of them more attractive to women, since they’re spending less time directing their attentions to women.) More and more men will earn just enough to support themselves, since they don’t plan on marriage, and fatherhood is out of the question. They will lack the skills to improve their lives. They will not get nearly as much sex as they want, but they will learn to live with it — mostly through porn, the occasional hookup, and the even more occasional prostitute. The price of prostitutes will skyrocket as demand increases; and a few more women will go into high-end call girl work to earn side money.
More and more women will direct their attentions into their work, travel/ leisure, and having children without men. (This will definitely make more of them less attractive to men except as on again, off again sex partners.) They will not get the commitments from men they want, but they will learn to live with it. They will complain about it with increasing volume and shrillness, but they’ll learn to live with it.
Until something happens to cause the tides to turn. Again — don’t know what, or when, or how. But something will happen to cause a hard reset. And it will be exquisitely painful for everyone. I don’t want it to happen, nor do I relish it. It’s not something to desire or look forward to because of the pain it will bring. But I do think it will happen. I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime or my kids’ lifetimes. We could easily slide like this for another 50 to 100 years.
I think one consequence of this separation of the genders will include a socially normalized institution of cuckoldry. To take hold it will need to be termed something different, but in effect the process of women conceiving with one man and then expecting another man to parentally invest himself in that child will be a casual expectation of women. With so many men effectively (if not intentionally) ’going their own way’, the idea that any man could be expected to serve as a surrogate parent will become commonplace.
As it stands today popular culture and sociologists alike always define cuckoldry from the perspective of a duplicitous wife engaging in an extramarital affair, becoming pregnant and deliberately deceiving her unaware husband that the child is not his. When we define cuckoldry in these terms, and we look at the DNA data that indicate ’rates of cuckoldry’ we get a fairly low incidence of actual cuckoldry. Any writer in the Femosphere will gleefully wave these stats around to prove that women aren’t committing birth-fraud, but when we look at the out of wedlock birth rates (41%), when we look at the extents to which we will arbitrarily assign legal fatherhood to whomever a woman says is a father, when we look at the resistance to allowing men access to DNA testing, and when we look at how the legal system will hold non-biological fathers liable for children they didn’t sire, then we see that cuckoldry deserves a much broader definition.
There are proactive and retroactive forms of cuckoldry and it’s time we start addressing these aspects as Red Pill aware men. Genders divided by feminism or feminine social primacy will need a ’customized’ form of cuckoldry that allows for the Alpha Fucks side of Hypergamy to be reconciled with the Beta Bucks side by enlisting different men for either purpose. What this amounts to is a socially engineered, socially acceptable, subversion of men’s evolved need to verify paternity.
The Pink Pill
I want to end here with an essay I read on the fallout of the new female form of Viagra, the ’pink’ pill, from Aeon.com, The Libido Crash:
In an infamous cartoon in The New Yorker in 2001, one woman confides to a friend over drinks: ’I was on hormone replacement for two years before I realized what I really needed was Steve replacement.’ Medicine has been reluctant to engage the question of just how much monogamy and longterm togetherness affect sexual function and desire, and the ’Steve’ problem remains an issue that is tacitly acknowledged and yet under-discussed. To return to Julie’s growing pile of self-help titles, the books all promise to return, revive, restore without really getting down to the brass tacks of why desire extinguished in the first place. As Julie notes, the honeymoon grinds to an end, but the issues leading there are complex. In short supply is attention to the way mind and body react to social structures such as popular media, faith and marriage.
To develop drugs to boost libido is like ’giving antibiotics to pigs because of the shit they’re standing in’
The American psychologist Christopher Ryan argues that the institution of modern marriage — meaning an exclusive couple bound by romantic love — is antithetical to long-term excitement. Ryan is best known for Sex at Dawn (2010), a book authored with his wife Cacilda Jethá, that makes the case that sexual monogamy is deeply at odds with human nature.
He is among a growing number of researchers suggesting that the rift between women’s purportedly limitless sexual potential and their dulled actuality might owe to the circumstances of intimacy. Accordingly, the conjugal bed is not only the scene of dwindling desire, but its fundamental cause. The elements that strengthen love — reciprocity, closeness, emotional security — can be the very things that smother lust. While love angles toward intimacy, desire flourishes across a distance.
The entire article is very insightful if not a bit depressing, but with the Red Pill Lens we can begin to understand the latent purpose behind the message. I’ve gone on record about the push back against clearing the pink pill for use as being a direct threat to women’s control of their own Hypergamy. The concern, ostensibly, is that a libido stimulating drug might be used to induce a woman into having sex that her otherwise sober sensibilities would prevent; effectively it could be a ’rape’ drug.
What’s finally being addressed now is what I’ve been saying since I was aware of the drug’s trials — a chemical that induces libido in women removes an element of their control in sexual selection and compromises Hypergamy. I’m not entirely sure the author here was aware of the points she was revealing in this, but she succinctly makes the case for both institutionalized cuckoldry (or certainly a ’designer’ polygamy for women) and advocates for women maintaining control of their Hypergamy unclouded by a drug that would remove that control by chemically inducing them into sex that isn’t of their own natural choosing.
The ’cure’ to women’s low libido is holistic, not biological. Women’s sexual deficiencies are presumed not to be the result of a ’broken’ biology, but rather a lack of proper motivation. I should point out that all of this validates all the points I’ve ever made about Dread being a utility for men in marriage — maintaining a condition of proper motivation (i.e. Dread), the holistic cure, is exactly what even femosphere authors are tacitly advocating for.
The elements that strengthen love — reciprocity, closeness, emotional security — can be the very things that smother lust.
Yet, even when a pharmaceutical solution to the lust problem is made available the ’cure’ is rejected. Why? Because on a root, limbic level women’s hindbrains know that Hypergamy cannot be optimized with a drug that removes Hypergamous choice. Women do not want the pink pill and a stable, but passionless, marriage. They want an open form of cuckoldry to be a socially acceptable standard.
The real solution has never changed and women are now put into a position of having to openly acknowledge that for all of the pretense of “mismatched libidos” or “sex just declines after marriage” social conventions, men’s eventual cuckoldry is the real plan for Hypergamy. When presented with a pill that will make them sexual, when given a cure to their low sex drives with the men who’ve made lifetime commitments to them, women will still refuse to take it because it’s about the guy, not her low sex drive.
Hypergamous doubt can’t be quelled with a pill.