Of Gynocentrism and Genocide

Some people wonder why I do this – and formulate all sorts of wrong-headed, misinformed opinions about the subject.  My motivations are actually fairly simple: I’m a father in the 21^st century, trying to protect and prosper for his family.  Because I’m a word nerd, I try to influence the culture around me in a way I find beneficial to that end.  That’s it.  That’s my whole secret plan: to make the world a better place for my children.  According to what I see as “better”.

Now some might see this as temerity, the arrogance of yet-another Straight White Male ™ railing against his declining social and financial importance and trying to turn back the inevitable march of Progress.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In many ways, I remain a Progressive, politically: that is, I think like a Progressive when it comes to doing the most good for the most people, when it comes to the environment and global climate change, when it comes to basic human rights for all – including the right to marry and control one’s own reproductive freedom.  I'm pro-Civil Rights.  I'm pro-Gay Rights.  I’m pro-Choice. 

But I’m also pro-Second Amendment.  And pro-First Amendment.  Pretty big fan of most of the others, to the point where I once was an active Libertarian, until I got sick of the whiny anti-tax stance of many of the other Libertarians.  Those things alone get me branded as “conservative” by some of my Progressive friends.  My “liberal” social attitudes get me dismissed by my conservative friends.  I’ve listened extensively to both Rush Limbaugh and NPR.  I’m comfortable with neither the liberal or the conservative label, and usually take shelter as an “independent” and vote on the basis of the candidate.  My politics follow my own consistent internal logic, and I rarely see fit to explain them to others.

But when it comes to this blog, and some of my other efforts, I can pinpoint precisely where my strong counter-feminism stance comes from. 

You see, I have two young, vibrant, highly intelligent boys, and a similarly brilliant and robust daughter.  I’m not worried about my daughter.  She’ll do fine in the coming century, the way that things have shaken out for girls of her generation.  But my boys . . . I’m preparing them for the struggle ahead to the best of my ability, like any good father, but it’s hard to prepare them for something like this:

“…What I do have is an ongoing intolerable experience that this life I and other women live is blighted by male oppression, and that this blight diseases the trunk of our species’ existence, not just the branches, not just the leaves. Every moment of our existence, this blight injures us. It kills our spirits, ruins our bodies, destroys our happiness, twists our children.”

Of course, half of those children are MALE, but she doesn’t dwell on that unpleasant truth.  Later on, she continues:

“As Sheila Jeffreys has put it, and I think we all agree, it has to start with this: there is something wrong with men. It is a pathology with both physical and psychological features. I personally think it is as old as our evolution as hominids. I think it’s a biological adaptation which is now rotten, dangerous, and vestigial. I think we have to force the scientific establishment to take a clear look at this colossal sick old mammoth taking up all the space in the living room, and make it stop distracting itself with sexy cosmologies and particle accelerators. I don’t quite have a name for this pathology. Let’s give it a real name together.”

The “pathology” that the author Vilet Tiptree speaks of is pretty much anything with an XY chromosome: Men, in other words.  Not Straight White Men ™, not the Patriarchy, but the “System” run by . . . men.  ALLmen.  

This one little radfem paragraph is calling for no less than the soft genocide of half of the human race.  That includes my boys.

That’s a problem for me.

Take a look at the same paragraph, slightly altered, and see how it strikes you:

As Sheila Jeffreys has put it, and I think we all agree, it has to start with this: there is something wrong with Jews. It is a pathology with both physical and psychological features. I personally think it is as old as our evolution as hominids. I think it’s a biological adaptation which is now rotten, dangerous, and vestigial. I think we have to force the scientific establishment to take a clear look at this colossal sick old mammoth taking up all the space in the living room, and make it stop distracting itself with sexy cosmologies and particle accelerators. I don’t quite have a name for this pathology. Let’s give it a real name together.

Let me be clear, the author didn’t say “Jews”, she said “Men” . . . so it’s okay.  In fact, substitute any other group in place of “Men” and what you are looking at is something more apt for a sinister eugenics program than the “ideology of equality” known as feminism – but there it is. 


Now, “mainstream” feminists argue that the radfems are extremists, theoreticians providing valuable perspective from the margins of the movement.  That they are moved by great political passion, and their outrageous positions are born of necessity, the inevitable result of centuries of institutional male oppression and female suffering.  Radfems of the 1970s and 1980s like Dworkin and McKinnon, who famously condemned all heterosexual sex as “rape”, were among the first to use their influence within the Feminist Female Social Matrix to heat up the war on masculinity. 


The attacks against male sexuality were transformed, over the years, into attacks on men in general, and eventually evolved into genocidal screeds like the above.  When you start calling into question the necessity of the existance of half of the human race and start agitating for its eventual extinction, regardless of whether you are leading your movement or are on the fringes you have tainted any other possible argument you could make.  And any movement that does not do its best to separate itself from such vileness and reproach the authors has to be called into question as well.


Sure, the radfems are a bunch of crackpots – who takes them seriously?  Well, a lot of feminists do.  This is misandry at the most fundamental level, a hatred for men that stretches the term “pathological” as inadequate.  Yet this radfem and her spiritual sisters are a respected voice within the greater feminist community, and are eagerly looking forward to participating in the upcoming gathering of feminists that has sprungas an outgrowth of the Occupy movement.  The “fringe” of feminism is going to do its best to push for an even harsher war against masculinity and men – I can’t see them softening their tone – and as we have learned, in the Female Social Matrix, controlling the conversation is tantamount to controlling the Matrix.


The only good thing about this level of pure hatred is that it keeps shooting itself in the foot over and over again, tripped up by the rules of the very Matrix it tacitly tries to control.  Radical feminism’s own ideology is also it’s biggest hobble towards effective action.  Why?  Because feminism (especially after it’s adoption of key Marxist principals – you remember Marxism, don’t you?  Founded on the latest bleeding edge scientific principals . . . of the 19^th century?)  is committed to non-heirarchical organizational structures.  Consider this strong push in the movement, the adoption of the “progressive stack” method of organization:

"We urge that the Assembly recognize the concept of stepping back: that dominant voices and identities recognize privilege and power in the room and in themselves, and 'step back' from monopolizing a conversation in the interest of hearing a diversity of voices and experiences on the topic. We are not here to reproduce the same monopolization of voice and power as the '1%', we are here to diversify spaces for radical inclusion, and to name centuries of privilege and exploitation of particular demographics of the population, including but not limited to: women, people of colour, members of the LGBTQ populations, non-status individuals, differently-abled persons, the very young and the very old...all these voices are regularly marginalised in our societies. In devising alternate modes of being and redistribution of power in the world, it is our duty and responsibility to listen and learn from prioritising these voices that are traditionally and systemically silenced in our dominant culture. Let us be accountable to our own declarations of values – let us put these principles into practice in order to devise alternate ways of being in the world."

In other words, all of those who show any shred of leadership are forced to abandon it –officially – in favor of a chorus of diverse voices.  This is the oft-observed press for “consensus” that is so valuable to the FSM -- and don't forget that consensus is the absence of leadership. Those who have naturally taken leadership positions in their movement and have gotten it to where it is are pulled down from power in favor of the participation of those on the margins.  This is the system which is being pushed on to the coming feminist confab.  Of course, the “unofficial” leaders who emerge in place of the original leaders will have the benefit of an even murkier and less-defined consensus behind them to lend to their credibility . . . within the Feminist Female Social Matrix.  Everywhere else?  Not so much.


Which is why I’m not terribly concerned about the vitriol from the Radfems doing more than moderately influencing the opinions of other feminists, an increasingly divided group, about as much as Andrew "Dice" Clay influenced the development of masculinity.  You see, in abandoning “hierarchical power structures” the radfems are essentially abandoning “power”.  By including everyone’s voice, the possibility for a truly effective consensus on a particular topic is lost in favor of a bland list of petty issues that will stand as a testament to their commitment to their ideals . . . but probably not much else.


Because ten thousand years have proven to my satisfaction that “non-hierarchical power structures” don’t accomplish anything more complicated than a quilting bee.  Oh, there have been plenty of examples of de-centralized hierarchies accomplishing things such as literacy programs, health education, and missionary conversions . . . but “non-hierarchical power structures” are almost an oxymoron.  And they damn sure don’t get anything done.  They just make more people feel better.  They’re an organized bitchfest, a cathartic therapy session that raises self-esteem and encourages empowerment . . . and erodes any real potential for powerful action.  What the feminists and the radfems don’t understand is that the “power” comes fromthe hierarchy – when individuals cede a portion of their personal power in the form of submission and obedience (“submitting to authority” implies imbuing that authority with the power of your willingness to obey it) they enrich that authority’s ability to Get Shit Done.  Whether the shit they’re doing is worthy or not is immaterial: the way to establish an effective organization is through hierarchy, not chaos.


Hierarchies work.  And over the centuries, they've been refined to be more and more efficient.  From construction crews to military unitys, hierarchical power structures accomplish things.  Non-hierarchical structures write a lot of poetry.


In fact, when you look at the great feminist-inspired movements of the past, from Abolition to Temperance to Suffrage to Woman’s Rights, it was only when large groups of women organized into male-style hierarchical structures that they accomplished any meaningful change.  That is, they could not effectively fight against the power of the hierarchy without building a corresponding hierarchy.  This modern tendancy towards inclusion and consensus and away from hierarchy and actual power to accomplish anything is doing far, far more to keep the radfems harmless genocidal, gynocentric nuts on the fringe instead of leaders of castrating legions of angry women.


So when I see bullshit like this, and the recent inclusion of certain Manosphere sites as “hate groups” by theincreasingly-irrelevent Southern Poverty Law Center, I feel like I can relax – a little – about my boys’ future.  After all, self-imposed dissarray among the self-declared enemies of your gender is a good thing.  But the fact that they have any influence at all within the greater feminist movement more than justifies my vigilence on behalf of my boys.  It also more than justifies my unwillingness to see feminism, in general, as anything less than a gynocentric, misandrous attempt to grab power (but with little conception of what power is – and what to do with it), a culture-wide Shit-Test for our collective masculinity. 


Radical Feminists freely admit that their views are not shared by the majority of feminists, much to their dismay.  But they do enjoy influence within the movement far out of proportion to their numbers, thanks to the FSM’s willingness to reward outrageous, attention-getting behavior from its members with higher Matrix position and influence.  But their presence within the movement is all the justification any male needs (or any female who has a male in their life they don't want to see sent to the castration-and-re-education camps) to quit calling himself a feminist, no matter how White Knighty he is.   Radical Feminism is proud to be an existential threat to all Men and all masculinity. 


Mainstream feminism proports to be about fairness and equality – those are the first words out of a feminist’s mouth when they explain the ideology – but if it includes bile like the above, then counter-feminism and the Manosphere have all the justification it needs to exist in defense of our gender’s right to exist.  When they start threatening my boys, I’m going to defend my family just as ardantly as I would if someone threatened my daughter.  It might be all "patriarchy-y" of me, but I can live with that.

Read more »

Dude . . . Got A Minute?

Dude.

Can I call you dude?  Do we have a 'dude relationship'?  You know, that kind of dude-at-the-next-urinal relationship where I can tell you something, one dude to another, without the bullshit?   Will you trust me -- just for the next couple of paragraphs -- to give you the straight shit?  I don't know you, you don't know me, we're just a couple of dudes, both doing our thing, and I have no vested interest in your relationship.

I'm just a dude.  Like you.  So, if you have a few minutes, let me lay some cosmic wisdom on you.  But let me distract you with an image of a tastefully sexy girl doing something refreshingly domestic to maintain your attention, first.

Did that help you focus?  I thought it might.  After all, we're both dudes.

If you are reading this, it is because your wife, girlfriend, best friend, brother-in-law, sister, or someone else close to you, who both cares for you and who has a good working knowledge of your relationship (and who may have used a dummy e-mail address), thinks that it would benefit you to read this particular blog post on this particular blog.  Why?  It could be any number of reasons, but let's assume that a good friend who doesn't want to be gauche enough to say it to your face thinks you and your relationship would benefit from the following piece of advice:

You're doing it wrong.

That is, the relationship/marriage you are in, which at casual inspection seems "perfectly fine", is suffering, and someone you know can see that.  That may come as a shock to you, or it may not.  Why is it suffering?  More than likely,the root of the problem is the fact that you aren't being All That You Can Be in the whole manhood department.

Whoa!  Don't freak out -- this is (probably) not a prelude to divorce or a relationship ultimatum.  This is a gentle reminder, a casual hint, a wink-wink-nudge-nudge dude, you need to pay attention to this! sort of thing.  The relationship that you think is so stable and mutually beneficial and strong?  Someone thinks that it could be better.  Someone thinks that you would benefit from learning something important about your relationship that, perhaps, you just weren't aware of.

You're doing it wrong -- but it's really not your fault.  I mean, how could it be?  People have been telling you how you're supposed to be doing it for years -- but they were wrong, and so now you're doing it wrong.

You see, when you got into your relationship with your current woman, she was HOT for you.  I mean, when she thought about you, her stomach flip-flopped, her eyes got all dreamy, her ladyparts got all dewy, and there was nothing -- nothing --that she thought about more than you.

But . . . well, it's been awhile, and while you're still a perfectly good dude -- don't get me wrong, in places you probably border on greatness -- there's this one area where you're just not quite getting the job done.

It's actually not one certain thing -- it's a bunch of related things, but they all come down to you needing to step-up, "man up", grow a pair, and quit acting like such a pussy when it comes to your woman.

Seriously -- it pains me to say it, but that's the fact, Jack.  You wouldn't be reading this otherwise.  When your woman does something, wants something, says something . . . you fold like a cheap card table and do your damnedest to make it happen, no matter how difficult or unreasonable.  You're whipped.  Maybe not even in an obvious way, but it's there.  Everyone knows who's in charge of your household, your relationship.  Even your woman -- and it's killing her.

No, really.  Every time she gives you an unreasonable ultimatum and you don't call her on it, her love for you dies a little.  Every time you kiss her ass so that she'll like you, despite what she says, the opposite is true.  Believe it or not, she likes it when you show some backbone.  In fact, that makes her panties wet -- and when was THAT ever a bad thing?

The truth is, YOU used to make her panties wet, just by being you.  And that was great -- really.  The infatuation, the courtship, the maelstrom of feelings that compelled you to go after this particular girl, she felt it too.  It wasn't fake.  It wasn't your imagination.  You had a real connection, some chemistry.  You were a manly man, and she found great value in that.

Only now . . . not so much.  

Oh, sure, she still likes you.  She even loves you.  But is she breathlessly checking her phone every five minutes to see if you've texted?  Is she still making mistakes at work because she's thinking about you?  Of course not.  You're past that point now, aren't you?  You're in the comfortable part of the relationship, when you can both just "be", without pretense or illusion or obfuscation.  She can "get to know the real you" and appreciate and love you just for being you.  And she is.  Only . . .

. . . well, you know that infatuation stage?  It's amazing, isn't it?  You've probably been coasting along on the strength of that for years -- if you're married, certainly since your wedding day, haven't you?  And that's cool -- you aren't a kid anymore.

But now you have to keep in mind that the woman who made you giddy with desire the moment someone mentioned her name is also remembering those times fondly, and she's wondering where the fuck they went?   I mean, things have been fine, sure . . . but things have been "fine".  Maybe even a little friction, a fight, a "discussion", something . . . but the fact is, "fine" isn't what she signed up for.  She signed up for "amazing", and she's dealing with "fine", but the first time she see's "amazing", you have to wonder . . . is she going to be happy enough with "fine" to not even consider pursuing "amazing"?  How about the second time?  The third?

Dude, not trying to scare you here, just trying to give you a clue.  Your woman, whether she knows it or not, whether she's the one who sent you here or not, your woman wants you to step up and take charge.  She wants you to lead her.  She wants to be in awe of your masculinity.  She wants to gush to her girlfriends -- not about the manly way you take out the trash or pick up her dry-cleaning, but how you dazzle her on a daily basis with your wit and charm.  She wants to feel the chemistry that attracted her to you in the first place.  But she can't say that.  It sucks, but the fact is, if she has to ask you to take charge, then you aren't really "taking charge".

She can't give you permission to take the lead.  You have to just take it, on your own initiative, or it doesn't count.  Forget for a moment whether or not she's going to get pissed off, because if you do it right, she just might be a little pissed off at first -- and that's not a bad thing.  You have to understand that, that's essential: you may have to piss her off a little to keep her engaged in the relationship.  Why?  Because, to paraphrase Feris Bueller, "you just can't respect a man who kisses your ass all the time".

And you're getting dangerously close, Dude, or you wouldn't be reading this.

Let's pause for a moment, look at another sexy, tastefully erotic picture of a pretty girl, and marshal our resources before we move on.

See how well that calms your mind and improves your focus?  Now back to the message.

It's not a lost cause -- there's still some time to turn things around before someone does or says something stupid and things get fucked up.  Nobody wants that.  All you need it step up your game a bit, take command, and start remembering who the fuck you were before you started being blinded by her puss--- ah, her femininity.

That's key: finding the masculine Dude in your soul.  The Dude who once looked across the room, sized her up, and said, "yeah, that's worth hitting", and you went for it.  That's the dude she wants to see.  The dude who struts, who thinks he's hot shit.  The dude you were before you met her.

So show a little backbone in the future.  If you aren't having sex with her at least once every five days or so (that's six times a month, for you liberal arts majors) then she's probably not really intrigued with you the way that's ideal.  If you aren't kissing her at least once or twice a day -- not a bullshit peck on the cheek, but a sudden, come-from-behind, press her against the wall, and plant a good ten-second smooch with tongue and dry humping and hard nipples, then you're doing it wrong.   If you aren't the dude all of her girlfriends want to sleep with in a moment of drunken weakness, then you're doing it wrong.  If you walk across the room naked, fresh from the shower and Mr. Happy bouncing around in front of her and she doesn't at least look up and bite her lip . . . you're doing it wrong.

Look, I know it's not all you.  You got complacent, she got complacent.  You both relaxed into a mutual comfort zone while you enjoyed the emerging fruits of your relationship, and . . . stuff just sort of slipped away.  On your side, you probably aren't getting laid as much as you like, and when you do get laid it's nothing to blog anonymously about.  Hell, you might be whacking off more now than when you met her.  She's just not responding to you the way she used to, but you've just . . . accepted that.

And that sucks.  Because both of you want essentially the same thing, you just don't know how to go about it.  You've been told for your entire life about how you need to respect women, listen to women, treat women as equals.  And that's great, as far as it goes, but when it comes to your relationship, believe it or not, your woman doesn't want you to treat her as an equal when it comes to certain aspects of your relationship.  She wants you to be strong, firm, and decisive.  She wants you to know what you want, and go after it -- even if she doesn't approve.  She wants you to be the dude every chick in the room wants to bang, but the one she's lucky enough to be going home with.

That's a tall order, I know.  I mean, how do you go from "I respect you too much to do that" to "Hell, yeah, I want a blowjob baby!" without sounding like a complete idiot?  The fact is, it isn't easy -- at first.  But either is realizing that your woman's panties don't get wet because of your decent job and neatly-trimmed yard, your willingness to watch chick flicks or buy tampons for her.  All the things you've been doing for her so she'll like you enough to fuck you, those are BETA skills, and while they're important for a long term relationship . . . well, Betas don't get much play.  Nice guys don't get wildly fucked by passionate women.

This looks like another good spot for a Pretty Girl break.  Just bear with me . . . we're almost done.

Now that's how they did it in Grandad's day!

And that's something to consider, as well: your grandfather likely had an entirely different take on how to manage his relationship than you do -- and while the rules of the game have changed dramatically since then, the players -- men and women -- still desire the same basic things.  Your grandad knew how to handle himself around women back then, and it wasn't by kissing their asses.  You don't have to completely dick out -- don't get me wrong.  But here are a few things that your granddad probably would tell you that you need to change, and right now:

Don't apologize unless you are genuinely at fault, or there is a dead animal involved.  Seriously, if she has a bad day at work, don't say "I'm sorry you had a bad day".  Say "that really sucks, baby.  Why don't you tell me the high points, and then we can take steps to help you forget about it?"

When she makes an inherently unreasonable request -- say, calling you from across the house to hand her a pair of scissors that's less than four feet away -- then refuse to do it on general principal.  I mean, if you don't value your time enough to get upset when she pulls some unreasonably flaky shit like that, then what's stopping her from doing that all the time. . . and loving you a little less for how willing you are to kiss her ass?   You have to respect yourself before she can respect you, and if you're kissing her ass all the time in the remote hope for pussy, then that demonstrates a lack of self-respect.

Sure, every woman wants a devoted man in her life, but they don't want to be in a relationship with a pussy.  Being devoted means that you bring her flowers unexpectedly, you check her oil without being asked, and you'd rather take her out on Saturday night than any other girl in town . . . not that you wait on her hand-and-foot and make her every desire manifest.

Seriously, Dude, even if you've invested heavily in the "equality" meme, then recognize that you two can't even be equals if you're deferring to her constantly.  Tell her NO when she makes an unreasonable suggestion.  No elaboration, no "I'm sorry, Honey, but . . . ", just tell her "no, that doesn't work for me."  Put yourself back into the equation of your own relationship.  She's not going to give you permission to disagree with her -- that defeats the purpose.

Here's something you need to try out: be decisive.  You know what kills your chances of nookie probably more than anything else?  The words, "I don't know, Honey, whatever you want to do is fine."  That's it.  Sure, you're trying to be deferent  and considerate, putting her needs, wants and desires before yours, out of your deep and abiding respect for the dignity of her womanhood blah, blah, blah, but the simple fact of the matter is that she wants you to take a fucking stand and tell her where you want to go -- no equivocation, no second-guessing, no picking what you think she wants.  Just.  Pick. A. Fucking. Restaurant.  Seriously.

And don't just hesitantly pick it -- when she asks you "so where do you want to eat tonight?" you tell her "I want Golden Corral tonight.  I'll meet you there at 7:30.  Order me a Coke if you get there first."  Done and done.  Don't worry about picking the "wrong" choice -- be a man and take the risk.  In fact, when it comes to your relationship it's far, far more important to be certain than it is to be right.  Really.  Trust me on this.  Take a stand and stick by it.

What if she doesn't like it?  Tell her, "well, can you make a compelling argument for that decision?" and then shut up and let her talk.  Give her an opportunity to persuade you, instead of direct you.  Put the issue in doubt, and if she feels strongly enough about it, she'll speak up.  She's not your mother, and she hates feeling like your mother.  She really wants you to be the Man, in that rugged, traditional, rugged and determined sort of way, despite what you may have heard her say to the contrary.  She wants you to be a Rock Solid Authority -- but open to her suggestions.  Hell, if you really do have no opinion on the matter, pick something at random and defend it dickishly until she does persuade you.  Make her work for it a little.  Don't over-do it, but nothing says "dry panties" like "I dunno, whatever you want is fine, I guess."

And that brings us to the subject of the sex . . . yes, you like that part!  I bet that got your attention!  Sex was like, one of the best things about your woman, back when you met her, remember?  You LOVED the sex.  So does she, at least theoretically.  But can you honestly say that your sex life now is as hot as it was when you first met?

How about another girly pic while you're considering that question:

I mean, just between us dudes . . . when was the last time you really rang her bell?  Is there a certain complacency, a certain habitual nature of how you two knock boots?  Ten minutes of foreplay, three positions, twelve and a half minutes, she cums twice, you do your thing, God that was great, snore . . .

Sound familiar?  Sound depressing?

Or does it actually sound a lot better than things actually are?

Let me tell you about something my father told me about: the Penny Jar.

When a young man marries a woman, for the first year of their marriage he should quietly put a penny in a jar on his dresser for every time he and his new bride make love.  Then, after their first anniversary, he should start taking a penny out of the jar every time they have sex.

If you  have a typical Blue Pill marriage . . . the jar never gets emptied.

("Blue Pill"?  That's a Manosphere expression that means "the idealistic and mistaken way you think things work; illusion", like in the Matrix (the good one).  "Red Pill" means "the pragmatic way things actually work."  We use this term usually in connection with relationships and over-all male-female gender relations.   And if someone sent you a link to this blog post, then someone thinks you have a typical Blue Pill marriage.  Your Penny Jar, in other words, will never get emptied.)

Why?  It's pretty simple, actually -- all that bold shit you did to attract your woman and persuade her to get humpity with her in the first place?  That went away once you and she started being "serious".  It's not entirely her fault -- the fact is, you wanted to "make her happy" and so you started doing whatever you thought she wanted you do so she would still hump you silly.  Only . . . well, all that nice stuff you did to make her feel comfortable and happy also made her . . . well, kinda bored.

God, she'd never say anything -- maybe send her dude a link via anonymous email account, at the most -- but she'd never want to hurt his feelings by telling him that he's not, y'know, the Man.  That would be awful -- even she knows that!  And maybe she's dropped a few hints you haven't picked up on, but the end result is the same . . . Dude, you really need to step it up.

And that goes for the bedroom, too.  Quit being so . . . gentle.  I mean, she's already decided to screw you -- you don't have to worry about her scampering off (unless you try to surprise her with something . . . y'know, too kinky without prior notice).  So if she's there, she's ready, she's naked, as soon as you think it's right you get on top of her and you go CONAN on her ass.  Do her like it's the night before your four-year prison sentence begins.  Do her like they're revoking your cock for thirty days.  Do her like you fucking mean it . . . because if you don't, then she thinks you don't.  And that's never a good thing.

Another babe, while you think about that:

Sweet, huh?  But not very "respectful".  But then, the idea that women value respect over admiration and desire is a relatively new phenomenon, and despite some claims to the contrary, there are plenty of women who want less respect and more passionate desire in their lives.  Even if that means accepting the fact that you are the Man, and forgetting all about equality for a while.

Consider, Dude: what's the most popular book on Amazon.com?  It's not "How to gently make love to your lady wife", it's 50 Shades of Grey -- and if you haven't been paying attention, this little trilogy of mommy porn books isn't filled with tender moments and hand-holding . . . it's filled with raw, poorly-written, highly unlikely emotionally charged Bondage & Discipline and Sado-masochistic sex between a dark and handsome billionaire (of course) and his sweetly submissive -- I mean, pathologically submissive -- beautiful college student chew toy.  The "tender moments" usually involve neckties and spanking.  There is a lot of really raunchy, poorly-written sex.  Believe me, I write erotica, and the sales of this book are not based on its literary merit.

But this thing is selling like batteries at a convent -- so the idea that your woman wants gentle, mutually-pleasurable, overly-consensual sex all the time is crap.  If current marketing trends are any indication (and when are they not?) then there is a deep, often-hidden vein of submission within the soul of the American woman that is screaming to get out.  There is a part of her that wants to feel owned, possessed, commanded -- and if you aren't the commander, someone else eventually will be.  Pay attention to what she does, not what she says, and you'll start tuning into just how much she wants you to -- occasionally -- just throw her on the bed and rip her clothes off.  Heck, get some neckties from Goodwill and go all-out.  The point is, she's fucking bored with the way you're doing it, and if she doesn't get interested soon, there's no telling

Of course there's a lot more to it than that.  If light bondage and a few extra grunts were enough to fix the problem, then it would be easy.  But it's not.  What you need to do is TAKE CONTROL of your life, and your relationship, before you find it out of control.  You can't do that with a few casual tricks.  It takes dedication, willpower, courage and devotion to the idea that you -- yes, you, Dude! -- are a masculine prize worthy of contention, a champion striding the earth, the Captain of your own destiny . . . and she is with you because of that, not because of how sharp the lawn looks this week.

Time for another picture.  Focus:

So wake up, Dude.  Someone is trying to tell you something.  You're doing it wrong, and now is the time to correct your course, before you steer into the iceberg.  You need to seriously look at your relationship and decide whether or not you are an "equal partner" in all things, or if you are the Man who takes charge, gets things done, and appeals to his woman on the basis of his masculinity, not his income potential.  Don't be the dude who finds himself listening to his wife tell him "You know, this just isn't working out.  I'm just not happy" a few years down the road.

Oh, sure, that would never happen to you and your devoted woman . . . but I could list a hundred guys off the top of my head who thought the same thing, and ended up single because of it.

There are resources out there to help you -- a collection of blogs and discussion groups known as the Manosphere, filled with your fellow dudes trying to work this shit out just like you are.  There are tons of places where you can learn how to manage your woman and your relationship in a way that will benefit you both in the long run.  You can learn how to handle her emotional outbursts, interpret what she's saying, and learn how to appeal to her sexually without resorting to expensive gifts or whining.  You should, of course, take much of what you find in the Manosphere with a grain of salt, because all of these dudes have slightly different issues than you do, so their solutions might work for them but not for you.  But on the other hand, there are lots of dudes who have tons of insight on how the female mind works.  Really works, that is, not how they want us to think it works.  That's one of the points of the Manosphere, to help you learn how to deal with the woman in your life without considering the benefits of the monastic life.  We're here to help.

But even if you don't want to jump into the deep end of the Manosphere yet, you need to realize that someone thought you were doing it wrong, and needed a "word to the wise".  So consider it given.  You might not get another.  Believe it or not, this isn't a slam -- there are plenty of dudes in your boat.  And there's still hope, and room to fix it.  Just don't ignore it.

One last picture, to kind of clean up:

I'm glad we could have this little talk, Dude.  I hope you took it how it was intended. We need to watch each other's backs, after all . . . because it's not like our woman will do that for us.

Don't forget to flush.

signed,

Ian Ironwood,

A FELLOW DUDE

Read more »

Male Birth Control: It's Here, And It's A Game Changer

Oh, my.

I stumbled across this link today, and after I read it the world wobbled the way it does when my relatively straight-forward idea of how the future is going to play out gets challenged.  Like this.

Quite simply, it is a male birth-control procedure, essentially a temporary (10 years) vasectomy that can be easily and cheaply administered and easily and cheaply removed.

And it's going to change everything.

Most people don't realize just how profound the change was when a large segment of society got access to reliable birth control the first time.  Simply put, this wonderful biochemical gift enabled female hypergamy and plenty of lusty evenings without worrying about the possibility of pregnancy.  That allowed married couples to limit the number of kids they had and devote more resources per capita, thus improving the next generation's socio-economic circumstances.  Or it allowed your wife to go sleep with that dude with the 12" pecker next door and not get knocked up.  Either way, it was an official Game Changer, like industrialization, digital technology, or liberalized divorce laws.

Of course, with the assumption that the woman you were doing was, indeed, on birth control and took it like a responsible adult has led to many unplanned pregnancies.  Indeed, it's always been the ambitious girl's fall-back plan: find some rich dude, fuck him, get pregnant, let him support her and the kid so she doesn't have to work so hard.  Sure, it sounds shallow and conniving, but I've heard plenty of women (and some die-hard feminists -- I shit you not) declare that as their plan.  And with abortion legal, it really puts the male in question in an unenviable and untenable spot.  Sure, a woman has a right to choose to become a parent -- and I'll support that to my dying breath -- but if a dude wanted to skip that part, he was pretty much at the mercy of the mother in question, and had to live with the result of her decision no matter what his opinion was. As a dude, your best cover is a condom, and they are not (as my brother discovered) 100% effective.  Especially not if the woman in question is deceitful enough to "slip one past the goalie".

But no more.

With this procedure, you could get your 15 year old testosterone-poisoned son "temporarily fixed", teach him Game, and turn him loose on the unsuspecting female public with a box of condoms and you don't have to worry about grandchildren until he's 25.  Hilarity ensues.

What happens when every dude in High School is suddenly shooting blanks?  A drop in teenage pregnancy, for certain, but a sharp rise in pump-and-dump spectaculars.  And girls won't even have the pregnancy scare to fall back on.  They're going to have to work and compete for male attention among the boys, who won't be nearly as terrified of sex anymore -- and dudes who know Game will know how to exploit that.

As soon as this clears clinical trials, I'm looking into it for my sons.  If I can get them the HPV vaccine, then this seems a no-brainer.  I want grandkids, of course, but I want them in the proper time when my kids can properly support them.  This way, I can ensure that won't be until they have decent jobs and have played their way through the Puerarchy.

But it's not the teenage girls who are going to have it the worst.  This is going to hit the 30-something-and-only-five-eggs-left women who use one-night-stands as a last-ditch effort to get pregnant.  I know two such who went that route.  In the future, no more.

The other group this will hurt, in the long run, are feminists.  If men can ensure that they are infertile until they desire to have kids, then the onus of reproduction AND relationships suddenly goes back to the male, in a startling shift of power.  You'll see wives begging their husbands to get un-fixed so that they can have a baby, and men deciding to wait until they're ready.  That's going to put some stress on some relationships, of course,  but it's also going to remove the power of women to dictate to men when, where and how they are going to have kids, and who pays for them.  And feminists (at least the current Fourth Wave crop) are going to go fucking bananas about this, when they realize that.

It should be fun to watch.

Read more »

Feminism Acknowledges The Problem Of Feminine Entitlement And Emotional Bullying . . . When It Comes To Other Women!

Just wanted to point this out, once again over at the other Sex Nerd, Emily Nagoski's blog.

The question is bullying, specifically female bullies.  She starts, astonishingly enough, with this radical observation about early female social behavior:

Boiled down to nothing, the dynamics among girls are such that it’s not okay to tell someone you’re angry with them or hurt by them, because then you’re “in a fight,” and the other girl will rope in friends to side against you, she’ll escalate your offences in order to maintain those friends’ alliance, and they’ll use that alliance to isolate and stigmatize you. 

Eventually one of you will apologize, and whoever apologizes “loses.” They capitulated.
It’s a zero-sum world where only one person is allowed to be hurt at a time, and usually that person is the one with greater social capital. 

The alpha girls (“queen bees”) of this scenario are characteristically uninterested in taking responsibility for another person’s hurt feelings, insisting that that person is “too sensitive” or has blown everything out of proportion. She feels entitled to take revenge when someone hurts her, but judges and shames anyone who attempts revenge on her or even tries to communicate with her that she hurt them. 

In other words, she is TERRIBLE at hearing that her behavior made someone feel bad, and she has the social capital to punish the other person for saying anything.

So, what can we learn from this?  Besides little girls are vicious?

Quite a lot, actually.  I mean, this isn't exactly new data, but it's nice to be acknowledged not just by a noted sex researcher, but by a noted feminist.  And while Emily goes into quite compelling detail about how this behavior affects groups of girls, she doesn't say anything about how this type of thing manifests itself in male-female relationships.

So when you are a young man in a relationship with a woman -- say, a nascent feminist girlfriend during your freshman year of college -- and your social interactions go beyond flirtation and into the beginnings of a relationship, note the type of trap that you can fall into:

YOUNG WOMAN:  I want a (Beta) male who will be sensitive, care and share his feelings with me.  So, tell me how you really feel about me and our relationship, so I can feel that you are honest and have feelings for me.

YOUNG MAN: Okay, I feel dominated and emasculated by your pushiness, disliked and unwelcomed by your friends and frankly put-off by your general sense of entitlement.  I only put up with your constant bossiness and snap judgements because you're hot and put out, but if you took the sex out of the relationship then mostly I feel like I'm your personal emotional punching bag, status symbol and errand boy, not a respected and valued person in my own right.

YOUNG WOMAN: What?!  I made you feel bad?  YOU BASTARD! What the hell is wrong with you?  Why the hell did you have to pick a fight like that?

YOUNG MAN: Huh?  But I thought you wanted to know how I felt?

YOUNG WOMAN: Of course I do!  But you're not supposed to say I make you feel bad!

YOUNG MAN: But . . . But you do make me feel bad.  I thought you wanted me to be honest about my feelings?

YOUNG WOMAN: That's not being honest -- that's you being a whiny little bitch!  God, my roommates were right about you -- you're just a tool, aren't you?  Just like every other guy.  This is just like what happened on Valentine's Day!

YOUNG MAN:  What was wrong with Valentine's Day?  I spent a fortune, we had a great time!

YOUNG WOMAN: How could you NOT know what you did wrong on Valentine's Day!?  Don't you ever listen?  Are you just stupid?  Why do I always end up with the stupid ones?

YOUNG MAN:  I . . . uh . . . please . . . um . . .

YOUNG WOMAN: You just said that to make me feel like shit -- and that fucks up my whole week.  You KNOW I have an exam next week, and now that you've made me feel like shit I'll probably flunk it.  Thanks, you asshole. Oh, just wait until Karen and Amy hear what you did!  Amy said you'd pull some bullshit like this -- she never liked you.

YOUNG MAN: I . . . um . . . what did I . . . ?

YOUNG WOMAN: Look, don't make it worse -- you already made me feel like complete shit about myself.  How dare you?  Don't you know what kind of stress I'm under?  Do you know how bad you've made me feel?  Look, just get the hell out, and don't come by for a few days.  How could you say those mean things to me?

YOUNG MAN: But . . . what about how you make me feel?  Can we talk about that?

YOUNG WOMAN: YOU ASSHOLE!  Why?  To give you another shot at emotionally ambushing me?  I can't take this kind of abuse.  Karen was right about you.  Just get the fuck out, okay?  And don't bother calling for a while.  I'm mad at you. And terribly, terribly hurt.

YOUNG MAN: But don't you . . . don't you have anything to say . . . about how. . . ?

YOUNG WOMAN: GET OUT!  What kind of whiny faggot are you, anyway?  I hurt your feelings?  WAH! How come I always get stuck with the overly sensitive emo types?  Jesus, you make me ill.  Okay, sure, maybe you take some of the shit I say the wrong way.  But that doesn't give you the right to trash me like that.  All right?  You're such an emotional fucking basket case you probably don't understand that, but let me use small words: Get. The Fuck Over. It.  Jesus, are you actually Gay?  That would explain so much . . .

YOUNG MAN: Hey!  Look!  I'm sorry, okay?  Let's just drop it.  I didn't mean it.  Everything's cool, all right?

YOUNG WOMAN (who sees an apology as victory): Oh, shut up and buy me some ice cream.  And if you ever fucking try that shit again, I will fucking bury you, understand?

YOUNG MAN: Uh, sure.  No problem.

See the issue?  When young women feel entitled to make each other feel like shit, making dudes feel like shit just comes naturally -- and we have virtually no defense against it.  Not at that age, and not under the influence of the Blue Pill.

(The above was a paraphrased summary of an actual argument I remember overhearing recently at a major university.  No, really.  I couldn't make this shit up.)

(NB: For a Red Pill Version of this dialog, I'd say it would go something like this:

YOUNG WOMAN:  I want a (Beta) male who will be sensitive, care and share his feelings with me.  So, tell me how you really feel about me and our relationship, so I can feel that you are honest and have feelings for me.

YOUNG MAN: I'll be happy to share my feelings for you properly whenever you're naked.  Hey, whatever kind of foreplay you need . . .

YOUNG WOMAN: You're a pig!  I'm serious!

YOUNG MAN: So am I.  Hey, what's the story on Amy?  Is she seeing anyone?

YOUNG WOMAN: You're not being--  Why do you want to know about Amy?

YOUNG MAN: Because if you don't stop trying to convince me I have a vagina, I'm going to need a new girlfriend. And Amy's always said that if I got tired of you, she might be interested in going out.

YOUNG WOMAN (who has been negged, dreaded and subjected to preselection with one sentence at this point):  Look, I'm sorry, forget I brought it up.  It would just be nice if you, y'know, told me how you felt sometimes.

YOUNG MAN: I think I just did.  And now I'm feeling horny.  Shall we explore our feelings?

You get the idea.)

Emily goes on to examine this behavior in a little more detail, including an analysis to determine just what can be done to prevent girls from emotionally beating up other girls (beating up on guys is apparently not a problem).  She frames it in terms of figuring out why the female bully just isn't listening and comes up with 1) because being told they're a bitch makes them feel bad, and 2) apologizing is seen as capitulation and failure to women.  Which trains every little girl in the West to see every apology she ever gets as a sign of her victory and success, even if an apology was unwarranted.   And that helps convert them into perfect little entitlement princesses.

But then she gets to a third reason.  Perhaps it will sound familiar to those who have been frequent visitors of the Manosphere:

3. For some people it genuinely does not compute, this notion that you’re NOT actually allowed to do anything you want. Especially when you’re popular. “I’m allowed to do what I want and if she doesn’t like it, she can suck on it,” is what feels fundamentally true to the alpha girl.

At last.  They admit it. Girls have an unrealistic sense of entitlement.  She's speaking of "alpha girls", of course, but the fact is that in a female social hierarchy, the entire point is for every girl to establish her place as close to the "queen bee" as possible.  Every girl there feels entitled to position, rank, and perks for no other reason than she's a special little snowflake who's been told that she can do anything and she deserves everything.  And if someone hurts her feelings, then the proper response is to demand an apology and act out until she gets one, or causes such a big problem by an emotional outburst as to shame and embarrass the offending party.

What Emily doesn't admit, or even mention (probably because she's talking about the important stuff, the relationships between girls, not the trivial stuff, how they treat boys) is that when a young woman enters in a relationship with a young man, regardless of her social standing in the female hierarchy, after the flirtation and infatuation phases, more often than not the young woman in the relationship assumes the role of "queen bee" in regards to her boyfriend and treats him as a female social subordinate in their emotional dealings.

And Blue Pill dudes just have little idea how to react to that apart from utter capitulation.  Princess asks a baited question.  Dude walks right into it, thinking he should actually believe her when she says she values honesty and wants to know how she really feels.  Princess melts down, any criticisms turned back around on him, with counter-claims of emotional distress.  Dude panics at the emotional display, seeks to appease unhappy Princess with whatever she wants.  Dude apologizes, signalling (to her) that she has social dominance over him (as opposed to masculine culture, where a well-delivered apology actually can enhance the social position of the apologizer).  Princess triumphantly offers a shit-test to reward Blue Pill Dude for his temerity to actually have hurt feelings and his weakness in apologizing with contempt.  Blue Pill Dude fails shit test, capitulates, and drives Princess to Starbucks to listen to bad live music and publicly display his submission to her.

So when your feminist girlfriend told you she wanted a sensitive dude who shared his feelings, she meant only your POSITIVE feelings about her, no negative ones.  Because in a relationship with a Queen Bee (and every girl in our culture seems to feel entitled to be the Queen Bee, so this is true regardless of the woman in question's social status -- even  a low-status late-blooming girlfriend with her first college boyfriend) any negative feelings you have about her and express are essentially the same thing as physically assaulting her and starting an argument, in Girlspeak.

So when she says she wants to know what your feeling . . . she's lying.  And she expects you to lie, too.  And goddess help you if you don't.

Emily admits she doesn't know how to counter this,

I don’t know how to do this. But if you’re a person who has believed that you’re allowed to do what you like and it’s not your fault if it hurts people, understand that there are rules about what is okay or not in a fight

And then she enumerates a few common-sense things like "no name calling" and "no ultimatums", completely ignoring the fact that girls  almost always abandon "civilized" rules of engagement when they fight.  Indeed, she points out how devious and quick to violate rules of standard, civilized behavior they are in the first paragraph.  Yet these devious, conniving young ladies who are utterly entitled and irresponsible towards each other are supposed to adhere to a strong code of conduct when "fighting" with each other?






She doesn't say.  But she does end with something powerful and important.  For the first time in my memory, a self-proclaimed feminist has agreed and essentially endorsed the entire premise behind the Red Pill:

The social rules you learned in school or from your parents are not necessarily the ones that will serve you well in life. If you cling to those old rules because they are familiar, you will be trapped in the same pattern of relationships you’ve always experienced. If you are satisfied and content with those relationships, okay.   If you would like to improve your relationships, it’s time to find some new rules to follow.

Emphasis mine.  Of course, she's discussing the need for new rules of conduct between women, she's not addressing the issues between the genders.

But if the social rules I learned in school and from my parents included a strong dose of feminism, the idea that men and women share an "equal" role in leading and guiding a relationship with the male always displaying deference to the female?  If I see feminism conspiring to trap me (or my entire generation) into a destructive and dysfunctional pattern of relationships?  If this pattern has led to a spiral of self-loathing, hypergamy, and misandry for the men in our culture, do we not all have a stake in changing this pattern?

Men, in aggregate, have seen their masculinity constantly under attack from feminism for four decades.  Consider this in light of the above observations about female social posturing and relational dynamics.  If feminism is the metaphorical "queen bee", and "she" feels "under attack" because we're complaining that they're making us feel bad, then what is the traditional, natural feminine response?

1) Feminism is uninterested in taking responsibility for what it has made us feel (that is, male views of ourselves and of women) because, like a Queen Bee girl bully, any complaints or criticisms are dismissed as our bad reaction to "losing male privilege", because as Men our expressed pain and suffering undermines the feminist contention that all men are a privileged class of oppressors and that women are their innocent victims.  In Girlspeak, if men feel bad about themselves then instead of that being an important piece of emotional communication, it's viewed as an excuse to punish us for making them feel bad that they made us feel bad.  It's our fault that we feel bad, in other words, and they want to punish us for it, not take ownership of it.  Better to call us a bunch of crybabies than to own up to their responsibilities for our current culture.  It's a classic emotion dismissing framework.

2) Feminism is telling Men that we are being "too sensitive" when we complain, usually by pointing out the millennia of suffering Women had to endure while Men walked the earth with god-like power and authority oppressing Women with their penises and their Patriarchy -- so whaddya whining about? Feminist contention that MRAs and other advocates for masculinity who voice grievances with Women, in aggregate, are merely personally bitter and scarred from their experiences and are not representative of a wider cultural problem (In other words, these angry, often divorced men are being "too sensitive" about lives ruined with hypergamy and gender-based social injustice, because it's still SO much better to be a boy than a girl in our culture) is a common tactic used when a feminist is forced into a corner and held to account.  The "too sensitive" response is doubly effective on men, too.  With women, it's basically an invocation of shaming based on a woman being too Beta.  But with men being "too sensitive" is almost always intended to shame and emasculate.

3) Feminism feels entitled to take revenge on Men for what they have done (made women feel bad about feminism's assault on masculinity, among a laundry list of other crimes).  Despite proclamations that feminism is an ideology of equality, from the beginning it has exclusively been women's rights, not equal rights, that has motivated feminists to action and feminism to an academic pursuit.  When one aspect of womanhood perceives itself under attack, the first instinct is to "gather allies" by expanding the frame of the issue to include all women, therefore making a single and distinct issue part of a large attack on femininity by "the Patriarchy".  Once mobilized, collective womanhood has no compunctions about "taking revenge" far in excess of the original issue, and gains support from non-feminist women by invoking a mutual distrust of All Men -- male-punishing custody and divorce laws, for instance, and the pro-divorce hypergamy impulse. ("That's right, honey, leave his ass and take half if you aren't happy!  He owes you!  Serves those filthy men right!").  Women who try to take a stand against a consensus of sisterhood are included in the ostracization and revenge. Just like a Queen Bee girl bully does to the spunky nerdy chick who tries to stand up for what's right.

4) Feminism judges and shames anyone it sees as having tried to "hurt" feminism by daring to have hurt feelings attributed in origin to Feminism   And any attempts to try to hold Feminism accountable for its actions (male or female) is condemned with shaming language and harsh judgements and withering criticism calling into question every aspect of the critic's life without addressing the thrust of their arguments.  If someone tries to publicly call feminist ideology to account for, say, the high number of single-parent households in America, then they are shamed for being anti-progressive sexists atavists who haven't come out of the 19th century . . . not compassionate, concerned citizens of the 21st century who observe a problem and propose that maybe -- just maybe -- the fact that half a generation grew up actively estranged from a strong paternal, masculine influence just might have something to do with the sad state of our nation's youth.  Indeed any attempt to hold femininity to account for its share in the problem is seen as an attack and grounds for harshest judgement.  Shaming and judgement are two powerful feminine tools, and under feminism they've been thoroughly weaponized.

In short . . . feminism is TERRIBLE at hearing its behavior made someone feel bad.  And since it has enormous social capital left over from the 60s and 70s, it doesn't hesitate to strike back viciously at any critics.  Feminism treats Men, in aggregate, like the usual girl bully Queen Bee does anyone she sees as a threat.

That's not Emily's point -- Emily's point is that girl bullies don't have any compelling reason to change their poor behavior, even though they should, because they're impacting the self-esteem of other girls and hurting their feelings, and hurting the feelings of girls is, of course, always wrong.  But my point is that feminism has traditionally displayed the same poor socialization in its manifestations as the very worst sort of girl-bullying, particularly in regards to men.

But I can't argue with her over-all conclusion.

Time for some new rules.

Read more »

The Red Pill Isn't Pandering, It's Power

A fun little expedition into Emily Nagoski's blog last week led to another blogger, 30soemthingandbreakingup, to post a short little cry of dismay at the idea of "changing himself" in order to get more sex.  He clearly misunderstands the Alpha-Beta dynamic, so I thought I'd set him straight.  His post went like this:

“He (Ian Ironwood) seems to be implying that in order to gain success, we all need to became an “alpha male”.
Hang on a moment, if I attempt to change to become something (the bad boy) in order to get more sex, am I not then pandering to women’s demands and falling straight into the trap that he seems to be insisting we must climb out of?”

Not exactly. Let me break it down for you, my brother:

Alpha and Beta are not in-born absolutes.  They are two sliding controls, like bass and treble, not one knob. The two sides focus on different aspects of masculinity, the ability to attract and inspire a sexual response (Alpha) and the ability to comfort and protect a mate (Beta). Both sides are equally important to the mating process, but you have to know which one is appropriate, and you (even more importantly) have to be self-aware enough to understand just how you, personally, measure up in both realms and adjust accordingly.

In our youth, we rely on our Alpha skills first and foremost to do the stupid thing that attracts some girl’s attention. Then we get into a relationship, have sex, and start settling into a Beta mode (unless we’re unhappy with our selection, in which case we stay Alpha and keep looking for fresh poon). The problem is feminism has encouraged us to downplay the Alpha totally, and accentuate the Beta until it becomes mindless deference to anything with a vagina. Sounds like a feminist dream, no?

Well, no. Instead a woman in a relationship with a Beta starts craving Alpha, and if she doesn’t start getting some she starts agitating for it with shit-tests and demands and disrespectful behavior, ultimately culminating in “I love you but I’m not in love with you” while she’s starting a relationship with a dude with a hot car and a nine-inch tool.

 That is, your subjective sex rank has fallen (she doesn’t think you’re hot any more) and she’s no longer interested. If you’re a Blue Pill dude, you keep giving her Beta in a desperate attempt to appease her, and she either doles out the sex just enough to keep you in the relationship as her willing slave or she stops all together and starts shopping for a more Alpha solution.

So no, not everyone needs to become an “alpha male”, any more than every woman needs to become some pornstar model “alpha female” in order to get laid. But without a well-developed sense of your own Alpha characteristics, and the understanding of Game that allows you to buff either Alpha or Beta at need, you’re going to repeat the Blue Pill cycle until the divorce attorneys start to pile up. If that’s your thing, enjoy.

If not . . . consider the Red Pill.

The Red Pill isn’t a path to becoming a Bull Alpha, it’s the path to balancing — and invoking — the Alpha or Beta at need, in response to her shit tests and genuine requests for assistance. Since most dudes in a relationship suffer from low Alpha and high Beta, the Red Pill usually — but not always — means learning how to demonstrate more Alpha. “Demonstrate” being the key word.

You see, it’s not about necessarily being an Alpha, it’s about triggering a subconscious Alpha response in her. You do this by making DHVs (Displays of High Value — the stuff that proves to her Body Agenda that you’re worth fucking) and taking a subtextually dominant position in your interactions. You aren’t bullshitting her at all. You are revealing your Alpha side to her.

Now, you might consider that bullshitting if you’re a true blue Beta and just can’t manage to do anything but care, share, and go antiquing every Sunday. But if you do occasionally like some poon — and most of us do — then you have the capacity within you, someplace, to access your dormant Alpha characteristics enough to incite her loins. How is that bullshitting?

You aren’t “pandering to her demands” at all. She’s a biological machine, just as you are. If she asks you for a favor while taking off her bra in front of you, regardless of what the hell she’s saying or how pissed you might be, your brain is saying “hey, free boob!” and altering your responsive thinking by pumping you full of lusty hormones. In much the same way, you putting a dominant hand on her shoulder, kissing her aggressively, and standing up to her bullshit invokes an in-born biological response in her that she has no conscious control over. It’s biology, not bullshit. Feminism is the bullshit. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

So quit your moaning and whining about how you’ll reserve your virtue for only women who can “accept you as you are”, because the cold fact of the matter is that if you were that great of a prize as you present yourself to be, you’d be accepted as you are already. 

And change?  You aren’t the person you were five years ago, and five years from now you’ll be different yet — yet you complain about the need to “change”. You’re gonna change anyway, Bub. The Red Pill just gives you some guidance about how to change in such a way as to have a fulfilling sexual relationship at some point in the future. Remember, growth is change.  You can embrace both sides of your masculinity, find the RIGHT woman, one who is a worthy match for you, and you can spend the rest of your life making her happy while she righteously fucks you, OR you can keep taking the Blue Pill, obsess about “being yourself” and “treating her as an equal” and have a string of lackluster relationships that only grow more complicated and frustrating as you repeat the same mistakes over and over again. That way leads to a long, lonely life of masturbation.

Since I work in porn, I’m cool with that. Stroke away.

But in your own best interests, you might want to consider giving the Red Pill a more thorough examination. I’d recommend you start with Athol Kay’s remarkable The Married Man Sex Life Primer 2011. It costs about the same as buying three drinks for three girls who aren’t going to be impressed enough to give you their digits, or the price of a nice dinner for a “nice girl” who isn’t going to give you any play because you respect her too much.

And for Goddess’ sake don’t whine about the “near impossible demands of the modern woman”. It’s unmanly. That’s the WHOLE FRACKING POINT: taking the Red Pill means ignoring her demands (what she says she wants) and instead giving her what you know she needs. And once they get what they need (at least three or four times a week) then it’s amazing how their “demands” become highly optional politely-worded requests.

You’ll get there. Don’t give up.

Read more »

Game As A Tool Towards Recovering A Lost Masculinity

Over at Alpha Game yesterday morning I caught a great quote byVox, as he was advising someone on whether or not to return to a woman he’d lost pre-Game for a second chance post-Game.  While that conversation was fascinating enough, the quote is what got me:

I appreciate the positivity from the non-predatory crowd. I would simply say that what I am attempting to do with Alpha Game is to apply the basic principles of Game more broadly to socio-sexuality rather than focusing solely on a particular subset of sexual relations as other Game bloggers do. My interest also tends to be more theoretical, whereas Roissy and Athol, just to give two of the more substantive examples, are both relentlessly practical in their applications of Game to pick-up and marital relations, respectively. This is not a criticism of either of them in any way, as I both appreciate and respect what both men are doing in their tangential areas of interest.

His point is well-taken, and vitally important to the evolution of the Manosphere.  Pay attention:

Right now, Men in our culture are divided into three groups.  One is the group bravely trying to build a family in hostile conditions, against all odds, in the fulfillment of the traditional quest to be a Family Man.  Call them the Old Married Guys.  We’re the ones at the far end of the spectrum, hacking our way through our individual relationships, counting our blessings, and despairing of what’s happening to other men around us and to masculinity in general.  Some of us have been divorced, some are bitter, some are hopeful.  All of us have some unique and valuable insights to share with younger dudes.  Some of us even are younger dudes, men who against all reason got married young and tried to start a family, and who have the wisdom to look to other men for advice and answers. 

I would try to call this group the “Patriarchy”, but that term has been maligned by feminists so long as to be tainted, on the one hand, and the fact is “patriarchy” means “ruled by the fathers”, and let’s face it: fathers haven’t “ruled” in this country since 1970.  So instead call them the Patriologists, “those who study fatherhood (and, by extension, masculinity)”.  While fatherhood isn’t the end-all, be-all of masculinity, it’s a pretty potent defining characteristic. 

But then again so are our dicks.  The single dudes, whether single by choice, circumstance, or by divorce decree, are the second group.  They’re the ones taking advantage of the culture of promiscuity and running Game like it’s a lotto system.  The “PUA” and the “MGTOW”, racking up notches and enjoying the tight, moist fruits of the land while spending their off-hours watching sports, playing fantasy football, and killing at HALO.  These are the “peter pans” that the feminists created but can’t stop bitching about.  The “boys” who wouldn’t grow up. 

And obviously it’s their inherently evil nature that makes them want to indiscriminatingly tap anything in a skirt, according to feminism, and not the fact that most of these dudes had absent or distant Beta fathers who were actively prevented from passing on the mature paternal wisdom that usually allows a young man to “grow up”.  Testosterone is a powerful force, after all, and left unchecked and untempered you get . . . well, you get what we got.  We lost control of masculinity, and let it be defined and regulated by feminism.  The result is not a Patriarchy – they successfully crushed that – but a “Puerarchy”, or “rule by boys”.

That’s not to say these “boys” (some in their 40s) actually “rule”.  In fact, thanks to the wholesale diminution of masculinity in the last forty years, their chances of actually getting to the “halls of power” are slight.  Despite the myth of male privilege they have largely eschewed the “successful self-made man” model – they don’t want power any more.  Money is better..  And who can blame them?  The “rewards” for most of the dudes who make that run are usually divorce court, custody hearings, and a loss of faith in all of womanhood, so why take the risk?  Internet porn, Game-driven hook-ups, and videogames make contemporary life for a single dude in the Puerarchy a kind of techno-Valhalla, if he can keep from damaging romantic entanglements. 

For a few years there’s been some acrimony between the first two camps over the definition of masculinity and the role of Game in it.  Their goals are slightly different.  The Patriologists want to see family life made less challenging for men, and re-claim some of the respect and legitimate prerogatives of mature masculinity and fatherhood, as well as improve their marital lives so that they get laid more.  The Puerarchy wants to get laid more, too, but it doesn’t see the advantage of being an OMG and often treats such men as either sell-outs or willing dupes.  Both have very definite ideas about what Masculinity is.  Unsurprisingly, both have an especial emphasis on Getting Laid, whether it’s by their wives or a succession of hot young gullible girls.  But don’t discount the bonding possibilities of sexuality – we’ll come back to that in a moment.

Then there’s the third group: the Blue Pill dudes who don’t have a clue.  There the ones who bought into the idea that Marriage is an equal partnership between you and your soon-to-be ex-wife.  They “respect” women, that is, they defer to them at every turn regardless of their own interests.  They’re the Chumps.  The vast, vast sea of Betas who are the grist for the divorce mill.  They have unrealistic expectations of marriage, not just because they’ve bought into the “Twu Wuv” one-itis meme to the point where they get blinded by pussy, but because they really believe in all of that “union of equals” crap without understanding that “equal” in that context means that their wives are always more equal than they are.  Without good fathering, they don't know any better.  There's no one left in their lives who feels comfortable passing along that kind of valuable information.  Until the Manosphere.

And for that sacrifice, for which they believe they will receive the divine feminine favors (i.e., getting laid more), they instead find that their wives don’t respect them, resent them, and eventually actively despise them for doing exactly what they’ve been told by women is what women really want.  They put their own interests and issues at the lowest priority for fear of being accused of being a chauvinist or something.  They’re far more concerned with being liked and not respected by their women.  Keeping the woman happy is their primary focus, whether it’s her request for more security, more affluence, or more “emotional support” (that is, agreeing unconditionally to every thing she says).

They are, in other words, completely divorced already . . . from their own masculinity.

Between the Puerarcy and the Patriologists lie these true Beta Lost Boys.  Despite their age and apparent maturity they will, indeed, remain “lost” to manhood in their hearts and their lives.  They might become Adults, but they won’t ever be real Men.  That’s because their self-loathing ideas about manhood and masculinity have been tainted by feminine and feminist critique for so long that they’ve abandoned all hope of controlling their lives, and have descended to merely managing their lives . . . and usually doing a piss-poor job of it.  And an almost universal element of masculinity, across culture, is the idea that a fully-formed Man is in control of his life.

Those poor Blue Pill Betas are the ones who need the Manosphere the most.  They need to be taught that it’s not just okay to be male, it can be fucking fantastic if you quit worrying about what women think and approach it from a masculine perspective -- 'cause that Blue Pill perspective just leads to misery and depression.  That’s the Red Pill message.  The Red Pill is nothing less than the attempt of Men in our culture to consciously revalorize masculinity.

“Revalorize” is an obscure word, I admit.  It was coined by Mircea Eliade, one of the great Religious Studies scholars of the 20^th century, based out of the University of Chicago.  He used it to mean taking a term, idea, or meme from the past and reconstituting the traditional with new and more useful meaning.  In this context, the Red Pill revalorization of masculinity is vital and necessary if we don’t want to see the mistakes of the past four decades promulgate into our sons’ futures.  Or our daughters: things are looking just as grim for our girls as our boys.

The current popular ideal of masculinity, ala the Blue Pill, is essentially “a person who just so happens to posses an XY chromosome and lives to serve women”.  Bereft of all the “bad” masculine qualities (which also happen to be all the Alpha qualities women get their panties wet over) – honor, bravery, aggression, anger, stubborn determination, leadership, and yes, violence – Blue Pill masculinity leaves “good provider” and “has a functioning penis” intact at the expense of all the rest, and the latter isn't even really required. 

Now there are plenty of feminists who have no problem with this definition, and don't think that seeing two generations of miserable men is too high a price for their trouble.  They don’t want a new masculinity to include, well, masculine traits.  If aggression and achievement are considered “masculine”, then they don’t feel like they can play with the boys properly.  If they re-define masculinity to include a bunch of Beta skills and get rid of all of the Alpha skills, then they have an opportunity to control the balance of gender-based power in our society.  Which is essentially what they’ve done for two generations.

The problem is, it doesn’t work.  Not for men, at least, and not for our kids.  When you allow women to define masculinity for men, you get what we have now: a generation of men largely bereft of maturity and wisdom, growing up without dads, with overbearing mothers who encouraged them to hate their own gender, and feeling shame and guilt about those natural inclinations towards traditional masculinity that inevitably arise.  Particularly around sex and violence. 

As a culture under the influence of feminism we have been taught since birth that men are all secret sexual predators one step away from brutal abduction-and-rape, and we should therefore despise all aggressive male sexuality or we’re essentially condoning rape.  We’ve also been taught that men are all power-hungry despoilers or ignorant idiots messing up the world – that is, the world women live in – by killing and exploiting everything in sight at every chance.  We’re the ones responsible for all of the wars (that we fight and die in).  The level of guilt about this has been raised to such a high degree in an attempt to remove the violent impulse from men that it has left us with a bunch of unassuming Betas who honestly feel, in the depths of their hearts, that they are bad people just because of their penis, and nothing they can do – however much they try – is ever going to make up for that.

The intriguing thing about the evolving Manosphere is that the Patriologists and the Puerarchy, while they’ve been learning various aspects of Game from each other (because our common goal, to have more sex, is truly universal) have also been revalorizing masculinity.  Most of the essential nuggets of Game theory are re-hashings of old masculine paradigms long discredited under feminist dogma, after all.  And while the two groups have been volleying Game back and forth, some of those poor Blue Pill Beta bastards have started to notice, hey, why are these guys having so much more sex than I am?  What is their secret?  Teach us, oh Wise Ones!

The desire and even yearning for the Red Pill is out there, but it isn’t just about Game.  Game is the vehicle, because Men are motivated by sex, and Game is about how to get laid.  But the things that Game teaches us go far beyond managing our sex lives.  Game informs our new definition of masculinity by returning to the essentials of our mating toolkit instead of talking about our feelings with our woman until she’s so bored she’s sleeping with the pool boy.  Beyond that, it gives us a medium through which to pay respect to each other for our masculine achievements. 

Hard-core Alphas in the Puerarchy can learn, for example, that getting married doesn’t have to mean the end of your sex life and the beginning of servitude, it can become an empowering and richly masculine experience.  Conversely, the Patriologists can learn from the Puerarchy that the apparent solid wall of feminist thought that seems to dominate the intellectual landscape is actually made up of a new generation of very, very fallible young women who are just as frustrated with the mess their mothers made of things as we are – and that in a relationship its more important that your woman be attracted to you than that she like you.

But between them both you have a sea of Betas who are staring at the single dudes getting laid with a single text message and the OMGs getting laid like tile by their wives like it’s a porn movie and running their stable households the way their grandfathers did, and they’re starting to wonder: what do those guys know that I don’t? 

And that’s the secret we need to tell them: the Manosphere means it’s not only Good To Be A Man, once you quit deferring to the women in your life, but that it doesn’t matter which end of the spectrum you prefer – both fatherhood and eternal hook-ups are two sides of the same masculine coin.  They are not mutually exclusive.  Nor is Game the end-all, be-all to masculinity, it’s just the beginning.  A man who learns Game (single or married varieties) and learns it effectively will soon find himself much-improved, spiritually, and that’s not just all the sex talking.  In a re-defined masculinity, Game is an essential tool, but it’s not your only one.  You need to talk to other men, have solid male friendships, enjoy a solid culture of masculinity by learning from the old dudes and teaching the young dudes, and accept in your mind that while men and women might be technically equal under the law, that doesn’t mean we are the same.  Our differences define us.  Men have their own interests and issues, and we have just the same rights as women to pursue them . . . just as aggressively.  We, not women, and certainly not feminists, are the ones responsible for defining what masculinity is in the 21^st century.

And the most important thing the Betas need to discover?  They don’t need any damn woman’s permission to take the plunge, swallow the Red Pill, and rediscover their own masculinity.

And heck . . . we’re willing to help.

So if there is one thing I’d like to see the Manosphere accomplish, it’s to inspire a Revolt of the Betas.  Because if a significant portion of the men in the West were to learn Game on the way towards embracing our own masculinity, then collectively we might be able to improve things for all men.  Once they are convinced to stop working against their own masculine interests, realize their own value in society, and give them the tools to recognize that, then we’re going to see a lot more Red Pills going down the hatch.  And that’s a good thing for everyone.

Read more »