A Red Refresher (guest post by deti)

Sometimes it’s helpful for the experienced man to remember how far he’s come, so he doesn’t forget the mistakes he used to make.    So, herewith a bit of red pill refresher.  File this under “A is A.”

—Looks matter.  Look your best physically.  Get in decent shape.  Dress well when you go out in public.

—Frame is everything.  Always, always, always YOUR frame.  Never her frame.

—Practice male headship.  You direct the overall course of the relationship.  If she isn’t down with that, you’ll know it soon enough.

— Your wants, needs, hopes, dreams, and desires for your relationship/marriage are important too.  It isn’t just about what she wants – what YOU want is also crucial.

—Hypergamy is real.  Women can control and master it, but it never goes away.  And it is ruthless and unforgiving.  Hypergamy’s sole function is to secure for its host woman the best man she can get at the time.  Hypergamy doesn’t care about your marriage, your children, your past contributions to your relationship, good character, other people, morality, right, wrong, good, or evil.    None of that matters if you are not the best man she can get, or that she thinks she can get.

—Most women are sexually attractive to most men.  But most men are not sexually attractive to most women.

—A woman decides in the first few minutes of meeting you how far you will EVER get with her.  If within the first 15 minutes of meeting a woman, you are not seeing clear and unmistakable signs of her attraction, bail out.  Invest absolutely NO further time or money in her.

—You get one, and only one, chance with a woman.

—Sexual attraction from a woman to a man means one and only one thing:  She wants to have sex with that man.  Be careful here, because the following things do not meet this criterion:

     Her liking you
     Her allowing you to orbit her
     Her continuing to date you
     Her continuing to accept free drinks, meals and entertainment from you
     Her having had sex with you in the past
     You wanting to have sex with her
     Her desire for marriage and/or children

—When it comes to dating and sex, don’t ever listen to what a woman says.  Watch what she does.  Or, don’t let a woman tell you who she is and what she wants.  Spend enough time with her, and she will show you who she is and what she wants.

—Never, ever take advice from any woman about dating, sex, or intersexual relationships.  This is true even of your mom and of female relationship advice columnists and bloggers.  Throw out everything your mom ever told you about intersexual relationships.  When mom pontificates on such things, smile politely and let it go in one ear and out the other.  Whatever mom says to do, do the opposite.

—Women control sexual access.

—Almost all the time, when it comes to sex a woman does what she wants to do.  Women have sex when and with whom they want, and don’t have sex when they don’t want to, regardless of their mental states, their stations, or their life circumstances.  Whatever a woman has done sexually in the past, she did those things because she WANTED to do them.  She had sex with other men because she wanted to do so.

—Even the most naïve, sheltered women know the score.  They know
what they’re getting when they go home with a PUA.  No woman gets
with a player unless she wants to.  No woman has sex in the bar
bathroom unless she wants to.  No woman has a same night lay or a
one-night stand unless she wants to.

—If she does not want to have sex with you, trust me –she won’t.

—There is one and only one reason why a woman breaks up a relationship with a man, and it is this:  She is no longer sexually attracted to him.  This is true no matter what stage of the “relationship” exists, whether the third date or 30 years of marriage.

—There is one and only one reason why a woman flakes on a man, and it is this:  She isn’t sexually attracted to him.  Corollary:  She found a bigger better deal.

—A human being is the sum total of his/her experiences.  You are what you do and everything you have done before up to this point.  You are not what you say you are, what you believe you are, or what you want to be.  You are not what you were.  You are what you do and what you have done up to this point.  This applies equally to men and women.

—You cannot change any of these rules.  God will not change any of
these rules, though He could if He wanted to.

Posted in Alpha, Foundations, Game | 13 Comments

Fear (guest post by deti)

Among many other instances of educational malpractice towards men that
North American Churchianity is guilty of, is what they teach men about
fear.    Fear is to be, well, feared.  It’s to be avoided rather than
faced head on.

Here’s what your current church probably teaches men about fear:

Fear is a normal human emotional response that cannot be mastered or overcome.  Fear can only be responded to and managed.   If you are afraid of something, it is only a sign of healthy caution, and you should use this as a guardrail to your conduct.   You should avoid and stay away from things that make you afraid.   You should not attemptto master or overcome fear, because that could lead to injury, death
or sin.

This is wrong, of course.  But too many men are told this, for many
reasons, I suppose.  The vagaries and pitfalls of modern society.
One need make only one grave mistake, and one’s career or marriage or
friendship will be destroyed.   If one avoids the “bad” stuff, it is
thought, one will gravitate to the “good” stuff.   If we’re
preoccupied about fear, that alone will send us into fear, and so the
natural and best response is to avoid it altogether.

Or, more likely, as set out above, people – and our Church – have
forgotten the nature of fear.

Most men, especially blue pillers, are driven by fear.   They simply
respond to and manage fear.  To them (and many of us), fear can’t be
overcome and done away with; it simply is a part of life that can only
be quelled and suppressed.   The reason they do, or don’t do, anything
is because they’re afraid.

They fear action and possible failure, so they don’t approach the girl
or go for the dream job.   They refuse to pursue a dream, spend the
money, buy that one thing they wanted, or go to that place they wanted
to see.    They don’t do the work, they don’t ask.    They fear
inaction, so they do what everyone else tells them to do.  They don’t
think and they don’t want to have to learn how to think because
they’re afraid of being wrong.    They simply act based on avoiding
fear and pain.    They fear life, so they do others’ bidding and
accept table scraps as their due.   They fear death, so they do all of
what others want and none of what they need, just so they can stay
alive.    They fear God, not because they love or revere Him, but
because they think He’ll punish them.   They fear God not because of
what He might do for them or expect of them; but because of what He’ll
do to them if they do this or don’t do that.

Fear must be mastered and overcome.  For fear—your fear – will never
go away, except by faith, and by love.   Faith in one’s God and the
resulting faith in oneself to crush fear, are the only healthy and
efficient responses to fear.   Because fear will always reappear in
your mind and heart.  After you overcome one set of fears, another
will appear and present itself for your address, your facing it, and
your surmounting it.   And that same fear will present itself again
and again until you have defeated it, or until it defeats you, or
until you are dead.

Running away won’t beat it.   Avoiding it won’t beat it.   Staying
away won’t beat it.   The answer isn’t on a computer screen, or in a
chemical you put into your lungs or veins.  It’s not in a bottle or in
a bank account.   And the answer certainly is not between a woman’s
legs.   The answer is in your response to God and the events He puts
into your life.   The answer – your answer – will be in how you
address Him, and, by extension, how you address your fears.

Will you do what everyone else tells you to do?  Or will you think for
yourself and reach your own conclusions?    Will you lie down and
quit, and thereby hasten your death?   Or will you put up your dukes
and fight for what’s rightfully yours?   Will you go when it’s time to
go; stop when it’s time to stop?  Or will you simply allow the random
winds of life to blow you about from place to place, mewling about how
you have no choice in the matter?    Will you say what needs to be
said when it’s time to speak?   Will you be silent when it’s time to
keep your mouth shut?    If there’s nothing left for you where you
are, will you go to find greener pastures; or will you just stay
because you’re afraid to go?   Will you use the new tools you find
here and that He gives you?   Or will you stay where it’s safe?

The choice is yours.   But choose you will, and choose you must.   For
your refusal to choose is itself choosing.    Choose faith, not fear.
Choose life, not death.  Choose yourself.    Get up.  Fight.  Do the
work that needs to be done.   Go where you need to go and some places
you want to go.  But you will have to fight for it.   You will have to
do what every man before you has done and had to do.  You will have to
get up, go, fight, and take dominion over your circumstance.   You
must fight for what you want, and take what you want.   It is only
through your decisive action that you will vanquish your fear once and
for all.   And you cannot do this through responding to and managing
fear.   You cannot do this through reaction to whatever happens to
you.    All this will be possible only through positive action,
through mastery and domination.


[Martel's Note:  I apologize for the sporadic nature of my posts lately.  No, I'm not having a breakdown.  To the contrary, I'm working quite assiduously on my book.  However, writing a book isn't easy.  Not only does it require extensive research and mental organization (like making sure I can file away that great blog post I just read so that I can find it when I need it in Chapter 9), it takes a ton of time.  I'm still working full-time, trying to keep in shape, managing all the mundane crap in my life like bills and errands, trying to talk to flesh-and-blood human beings every once in a while, and even occasionally just relaxing.  But that doesn't leave a lot of time for blogging.

Nevertheless, I love doing this blog and want to keep it up.  Fortunately, it looks like in the near future I'll be able to drop a couple of major drains on my time.  When that happens, I'll be back with regular long posts.  If I have to, instead of my typical long posts, I might do shorter ones like those at Alpha Game or something.  Either way, I won't quite disappear.

Thus far, everyone who's seen my outline and what I've let them read of it is impressed.  I'm covering a wide swath of manosphere-related topics, and nothing to my knowledge has covered what I'm covering in quite the same way.  I'm having to do it more slowly that I'd prefer, but I'm doing it.

In the meantime, much thanks to deti for providing this post.  If any of y'all have something similar in mind, let me know.]

Posted in Alpha, Family, Religion | 9 Comments

In Defense of #WomenAgainstFeminism

Billy Chubbs attacks the #womenagainstfeminism photos popping up on Twitter and elsewhere. firmly declaring himself to be among those who find #WAF to be “typical female attention-whoring.”

I’ll readily concede that aspects of #WAF may in fact be “female attention-whoring”, but he loses me at “typical”, for the “typical” modern Western woman cares only about socially acceptable “causes” that boost her standing with the “socially aware” set or that benefit her financially.  These women are actually going against what’s supposed to be popular, essentially agreeing with us instead.

Nevertheless, Chubbs gives us three reasons to discount #WomenAgainstFeminism.  I’ll deal with each of them in turn.

1.  Writing on a piece of paper doesn’t do or mean anything.

In many cases he’s right.  Like he describes, #BringBackOurGirls was worse than useless.  It demonstrated utter impotence against a ghastly and tangibly evil act, exemplifying the “pat myself on the back for ‘caring'” form of activism so prevalent on college campuses and elsewhere.

Boko Harem probably felt more emboldened in the wake of #BBOG than they would have had Michelle Obama, Emma Watson, and company just ignored them.  The hashtag showed them that we all knew what they did and disapproved, but we had nothing beyond “a piece of paper” to back it up.  When it’s guns versus hashtags, the guns win every time.  If you’re not going to bring the requisite guns, keep your hashtags at home; better to pretend you don’t care than to show you care but are powerless.

Yet the battle against feminism isn’t like opposing Boko Harem, requiring trawling through the jungle with night-vision goggles and sniper rifles (at least not so far).  Feminism is a set of pernicious ideas, and ideas are both spread and opposed with “writing on a piece of paper.”

To take but one of countless examples, Marxism began with one or two jackass putting words on paper.  Sometimes Marxism’s fought with guns, but quite often it’s fought with other words, many of which are on paper.

But although it’s partly about words, it’s about more than that.  Chubbs:

What are a bunch of random semi-cute-to-really-cute girls going to achieve with #womenagainstfeminism? Nothing. It’s a hollow gesture, intended to make the chick posting the picture feel good.

Women are social animals, they often do exactly what everybody else does just because everybody else is doing it.  Fitting in matters, hence how ostracism is one of the most potent weapons women use against each other.

In #WAF we have lots of attractive women (who other women want to be like) boldly declaring that they are not feminists.  This makes other women who have a few doubts about feminism feel just a bit more willing to feel the same way.  One of the most effective ways leftists of all stripes keep others from exploring other views is through spreading the idea that only freaks and weirdos with no friends could ever disagree with them.  #WomenAgainstFeminism neutralizes that tool, and feminists aren’t happy about it.

As to whether or not the posts are “intended to make the chick posting the picture feel good”, who gives a damn?  If she’s helping to expose the lie that “only those ugly women with long skirts who never have sex aren’t feminist”, I don’t care if she’s doing it out of religious conviction, because her friend dared her to do it, or just to impress some writer on Return of Kings.

2.  It continues to give women all the power in the discourse.

If some guy were to start #MenAgainstFeminism, it would be met with the same derision as #OilBaronsAgainstCarbonCaps or #AsiansAgainstAffirmativeAction.  Of course you hate feminism.  You’re a white guy who just wants to protect your privilege.

But when a woman does it, it has a different effect.  Feminism is supposed to be in a woman’s self-interest.  Therefore, if a woman visibly opposes it, people are more likely to take note.  Our opponents recognize this, which is why they often attack anti-feminist women with the same vehemence as black conservatives.  The more they can get us all to think woman=feminist, the better.  Only women themselves can fight that perception.

Chubbs also compares #WAF with the prominence of women in the Men’s Rights Movement, although there’s a somewhat different dynamic at work.  #WomenAgainstFeminism is quite literally closed off to men as a means of expression, whereas the MRM and manosphere are not.

There are two prospective problems here.  First, there is the possibility of women “taking over” so to speak.  Justice is an abstract that’s accessible to everybody, but we all tend to view Justice through the prism of our personal interest and experience.  Women’s interests and experience are different from men’s.  They’ll never quite “get it.”

To which I reply that what matters is the message.  If you’re helping to spread it, you’re good.  If you’re not, you’re not.  If a woman is helping out, let her.  The moment she holds us back, stop her.

Dr. Helen handled her multiple media appearance quite well and brought some of our ideas to a much broader audience than damn near any one of us.  Would it be better for a man to do it?  Yes.  Would it be worse for it not to have been done at all?  Also yes.

Some of us here in the manosphere would do a great job at spreading the word, but a few of us might be just a bit too inclined to address a TV reporter the same way we address other commenters at Heartiste (which although quite fun to hear would probably backfire).  Thus far, our female allies have done a good job at presenting our views, actually getting some favorable press.  As long as they continue, let ‘em.

Nevertheless, Chubbs does have a point in that we men are going to have to come to the fore eventually.  It’s no accident that the MRM is the most touchy-feelie female-friendly realm of the manosphere, the one most dominated by women, and the part getting the most favorable press.

But the MRM promotes but one small part of what needs to be done, and if it gets too far ahead of itself it could steer what needs to be a cultural and social movement into a purely political one.  Women will never understand many of the relatively apolitical aspects of what men need to do, i.e. attracting women, raising our sons, living fulfilled lives, etc.  If the manosphere devolves into MRM with some side comments, it would indeed be too feminized and counter-productive.  Men need to ensure this never happens.

Chubbs’ second objection is that female prominence sends the message that “men themselves are not allowed to talk about the problems society inflicts upon them. All problems concerning the sexes must be filtered through a woman’s mouth.”

Unfortunately, for reasons I’ve cited above, at present women are many of our most effective spokespeople.

But the solution for this isn’t to tear women down, it’s to build men up.  We can’t participate in #WomenAgainstFeminism hashtags, but we’re every bit as capable at deftly handling hostile questions on a talk show.  How about a few of us start acting like it?

Don’t like how many women are speaking for us?  Be better at it yourself and take their place.

3.  They are not actually against feminism.

Chubbs lists a bunch of the ways in which he suspect the women of #WAF might be more feminist than they suspect, such as favorable college admissions policies, easy liberal arts degrees, lowered work requirements and expectations, marriage 2.0, hookup culture, and family law bias, concluding with [emphasis his]:

How many of these women would actually be all for that? Because that’s what a world without enforced feminism would look like; not because of the evil patriarchy, but simply because men are better than women at most things. These chicks say they’re against feminism, but they and their proud feminist sisters are still enjoying the exact same benefits that feminism has bestowed upon them, all the while avoiding the responsibilities those benefits would entail if they happened to be men. If it came right down to it, would #womenagainstfeminism actually put her money where her mouth was? Of course she wouldn’t.

Remember the golden rule about women: Judge them only by what they do, not what they say.  Stupid signs posted on the internet included.

As much as I agree with judging a woman based on what she does, neither Chubbs nor I have any idea how most of these women actually lead their lives.

Yet I’d be far from surprised if most of them lead the anti-feminist life I’d like them to lead.  Chubbs is correct that many of them have no idea whatsoever how much of a role feminism has played in their lives, nor how much they agree with its assumptions (an argument made by feminists themselves).

Yes, feminism is a “tricky word”, one that feminists define as merely believing that men and women are both human.

But bit by bit, we’re exposing the lie of that ridiculous belief.  It’s a label, but we’re making headway against that label.  We’re beginning to turn it into something women don’t want to be.

Obviously, there’s the label for beliefs, and then there are the beliefs themselves.  They’re related but not the same.

However, once a woman declares to the world that she’s not a feminist, she’s begun to set a trap for herself.  If she insists on getting paid to lactate, I thought you said you’re not a feminist.  If she complains about some guys starting up a men-only gym, I thought you said you’re not a feminist.  If she encourages her female friends to be more aggressive, if she insists that the government pay for her tampons, if she tears down masculinity or tries to keep a father from raising his son to be a man, I thought you said you’re not a feminist.

“I’m not.”

“Then stop acting like it.”

Does this solve all of our problems?  Reform family law?  Cause women to universally respect and understand all that men go through to make their lives easier?

Hardly, but it’s a start.  The fight against feminism is multi-faceted.  It’s legal, social, sexual, cultural, religious, and economic.  It’s nothing we’re going to win in a year.

We’ll strike down labels, they’ll come up with new ones.  We’ll call ostensibly anti-feminist women on their crap, they’ll tell us it’s not really feminism.  We’ll get a law passed here, they’ll get one passed there.  Some churches will go back to traditional roles, others will discard them altogether.

But we take every victory we can get.  We tell the world that feminism is bad.  We’ve got some fairly decent women telling the world that feminism is bad.  This is a good thing.  Not perfect, not enough, but a step in the right direction.

To progress as a movement, we’ve got to be realistic, but we’ve also got to acknowledge victories when they come our way.  #WomenAgainstFeminism thrives in part because feminism has betrayed the feminine imperative, but biological female self-interest isn’t quite the same as a political movement that crushes anything that stands in a woman’s way.  Women are starting to recognize that wrecking men might not be all that good for women.

Self-serving?  Perhaps.  But it’s in our interest, too.  Should we really expect any more?

After all, they’re still women.


Posted in Arts, Culture, Family, Feminism, Politics, Rhetoric | 20 Comments

Being a Baby

I’m not dead yet!

However, I am a bit rusty (although not quite as rusty as the gentleman in the video).

I needed to stop saying stuff and just listen for a while, to stop writing so as to better read.

Nevertheless, when a blogger does that, not only do people get confused and drift away, the blogger himself forgets what the hell he’s doing.

I’ve left threads hanging, owe two fellow writers reviews, have about forty-five posts I want to write, and feel a bit overwhelmed.  The muscles that used to whip out amazing insights now feel unable to emit so much as a fart.

So I’ll take the easy way out and rip off others.

First, Instapundit resurrects this classic by Tracy Clark-Flory loaded with helpful mating advice for today’s young women.  Among Clark-Flory’s advice on how to land your ultimate man [emphasis hers]:

Become the man you want to marry — or rather, the woman the man you want to marry will want to marry.


You know that drug dealer who keeps money in his freezer and doesn’t know where to put apostrophes? Date him. Same with the guy who literally has “I’m a mistake” tattooed on his arm.


Fake so many orgasms.


That guy who seems almost perfect but still doesn’t feel right? Trust yourself, dump him and then wallow in sorrow.

And finally, after years of doing the opposite:

You know that guy friend you weren’t romantically interested in because he was just too nice and available? Suddenly, you’re grown up enough to come to your senses. Marry the fuck out of him.

I always thought that you become “grown up” through actually “com[ing] to your senses”, not by doing everything humanly possible to avoid it.  Sure, we’re supposed to learn from our mistakes.  However, intentionally making mistakes so that you can learn from them strikes me as being the opposite of learning from your mistakes.

I’m pretty sure that’s sexist somehow.  Fine, I’ll just join all the other insecure sexist assholes overseas and find a wife there.  Tracy and her followers are obviously way too good for us.

Second, Ed Driscoll promotes the ridiculous conspiracy theory that somebody’s out there trying to destroy the family or lead us all into totalitarianism or something.

Apparently Scotland is going to appoint a government official to watch over each Scottish child from birth until (only?) their eighteenth birthday.

One the one hand, bureaucrats will be observing and advising on the minutiae of Scottish family life, sending children the message that government officials know how to raise them better than their parents, and establishing what could easily become the foundation for a State “security” apparatus that could rival anything put into place during the French, Chinese, or Russian revolutions.

One the other hand, it’s for the children so we have nothing to worry about.

They’re no longer your children, they’re our children.  Get used to it, knuckle-dragger.

And finally, Captain Capitalism exemplifies a way to think about issues I’ve almost elaborated on multiple times before but haven’t (or maybe I have, after a certain number of posts you forget what you’ve written).

There are three basic reasons to support any policy, and like damn near everything else, these three reasons fit into my GIA structure (see the sidebar or search “GIA”).

The most level is to support or oppose something primarily because of how it affects you, or I.  The next level up is to form your opinions based on what you believe actually works.  It corresponds with how you believe things operate, your notion of A is A, or just A.

But the most profound form of reasoning is that based on your concept of morality, that being G.  You don’t care about how it affects you personally, you’re not sure whether or not it actually works, but you oppose or support something based on what you believe to be right or wrong.

For example, if you support reforming family law in such a way as to lessen the likelihood of divorce, it can be because of:

I:  You don’t want your own wife to be able to wreck your family for cash and prizes.

A:  You believe that strong families provide for a healthy economy, reduce the likelihood of crime, lessen the need for social welfare schemes, etc.


G:  You believe in the sanctity of Marriage, that it’s wrong for one family member to wreck another’s life and subsequently benefit.

This works for gun rights (I:  “keep your hands off my rifle”, A:  “more guns=less crime”, G:  “no man has the right to render another man powerless in the face of danger”), tax policy (I:  “it’s my money, not yours”, A: “lower taxes lead to greater investments, more incentives to work hard, etc”, G:  “I have no right to what you’ve earned”), and most everything else.

And CPT Capitalism describes the G rejection of Keynesianism, that even if it were possible for a small group of eggheads could formulate the basis for a “strong economy”, it would be immoral for them to do so.

So I recommend reading his post and formulating your own G supports for whatever issues you find most important.  Don’t just think in terms of how it affects you, nor should you think just in terms of “what works.”

For if you think through the morality beneath personal benefit and what works, not only will you understand your own points better, you might even become inspiring.

(And for my beloved secular readers who don’t believe in the God that inspires my G, CPT Capitalism doesn’t either.)

Anyhow, welcome back.


Posted in Arts, Culture, Family, Feminism, Politics, Religion, Rhetoric | 6 Comments

Hierarchical Equalism

Feminism rests on three basic assumptions.  For obvious reasons they express them simultaneously only when they think they can get away with it.

The first is that men and women are inherently equivalent.  Deep down, we’re all fundamentally the same, save the pernicious effects of patriarchal socialization.  The only reasons we don’t have as many female mechanical engineers as males is that women have been trained to either dislike engineering or have been taught to feel unworthy of even giving it a try.  The only reason there aren’t as many male daycare workers as females is that men have been trained to see “women’s work” as unmanly.  We can rectify such imbalances through society-wide re-socialization programs:  teach boys and girls to both play with trucks and dolls, have lots of kid movies with badass female protagonists (for both kids and adults), encourage young women to enter STEM fields while simultaneously training young men to get in touch with their soft side, etc.

The second is that women are uniquely superior to men.  Men have been responsible for the vast majority of economic oppression, wars, violence, and broken hearts since the beginning of time.  Despite having only one inherent advantage (physical strength, which they admit only grudgingly), the world over men have used their uniquely evil lust for power to oppress both women and each other.  Whereas women prefer sensitivity, community, cooperation, and egalitarianism, men prefer toughness, individuality, competition, and hierarchy.  To properly evolve we need to forsake the latter in favor of the former, to base promotion and hiring decisions on touchy-feely notions like “corporate culture” instead of masculine merit.  Men see only their own naked interest, but women instinctively understand what’s best for all of us.

The third is one they’ll never admit, but if we follow the Game principle of “watch what she does, not what she says”, we find that it’s also true that feminists believe that women are uniquely inferior to men.  Although women supposedly have the same basic emotional makeup as men, only women require trigger warnings to keep them on an even keel.  Although Ashton at the local Country Day school has far more opportunities to explore math and science as Billy Bob Jr. at the trailer park, only Ashton needs to have her hand held every step of the way on her way to becoming an engineer.  Without government programs encouraging women to make the right career choices, they’ll invariably choose something stupid like “housewife.”  Without government redistribution schemes, they’ll never survive the ramifications of their dumb mating choices.

Violent crime is horrific for all those who experience it, but only rape requires we re-program half our species to prevent it (when’s the last time you’ve heard a feminist fervently support any sort of “war on crime”?).  Women need extra support groups and “women in business” luncheons to have any hope of competing with the men.  Involuntarily celibate men are perfectly capable of just sucking it up, but involuntarily celibate women (usually obese) require infinite amounts of emotional support from everyone.

We often accuse the left (not only feminists) of equalism, the notion that underneath the surface we’re basically all the same.  Whether we’re speaking of race or sex, I disagree.  Indeed, the left often spouts an equalist rhetoric, there’s nothing about their underlying philosophy that supports the notion in the slightest that they actually believe in anything other than a strict system of hierarchy of value, rights, and responsibilities.

For example, take Retrenched’s description of modern entitlement:

The prevailing idea in the modern west is that women always have an absolute right to receive whatever it is they happen to want from men – sex, love, relationships, marriage, children, bullet shields etc. – but men must always earn whatever it is they want from women, whether it’s sex, love, marriage, or even the right to see their children post-divorce. Men’s worthiness must be continually proven, all the time, while women’s worthiness and perfection are just presumed by default, regardless of their character or behavior, and are never to be questioned under any circumstances.

This bias towards women’s inherent worthiness [compared to men's relative worthlessness] is so pervasive that to even suggest that women must earn things like love and marriage the way that men must earn sex is considered vicious misogyny.

How can one reconcile such sentiments with anything even remotely resembling a view that we’re fundamentally the same?

You can’t, and I don’t think we should try.  Not unlike the postmodernists who preach that all cultures are equal only so that they can later sneak in their true belief that Western Civilization is uniquely evil, feminists promote equalism only in hopes of securing special rights and privileges for women and women alone.  To promote the idea that our enemy is leftist equalism is to posit that their rhetoric somehow matches their real beliefs.  It doesn’t.

Yet we also mistakenly assume that the sense of entitlement stems only from a belief in the superiority of whatever group they’re hoping to support.  In a sense it does, for they believe that women (or gays, blacks, etc.) deserve everybody else’s stuff.  It’s more important for Chrissy to get her pills with your money than it is for you to keep what you earned.

However, coupled with the belief that Chrissy is more worthy of your money than you are is the unexpressed assumption that without you, Chrissy can’t cut it.  White males sometimes go through financial hardship, too.  On one hand, they don’t give a damn (unless it looks they might be able to get him to vote Democrat), but on the other hand they just assume that the white guy will be fine if we don’t do a damn thing to help him.

In my taxonomy of leftists, I divided the left into three basic groups.  The Anointed believe that they’re fundamentally superior to the rest of us, sufficiently enlightened to know how the rest of us should run our lives, which of us need help and who should do the helping.  In unscientific formula, this is written as I>U (pronounced I am greater than you) or I=G (I am G-d).  The Benighted feel guilty, unworthy of their lives, they’re willing to give it all away.  They’re formula is I<U, or I=A (all I am is dust in the wind).

But the feminist Entitled are a mixture, worthy of the fruits of your labor, incapable of surviving without them (most male feminists are Benighted).  The Entitled believe both I>U and I<U, that they are both gods and victims.  They’re just like men but uniquely superior, just as capable of any man but forever in need of extra help.

They don’t believe in the equalism of rights (equality before the law), nor equalism of human worth (we’re equal in value before God), nor equalism of ability, nor biological equalism.  They believe women deserve and need special rights, women are uniquely gifted and morally superior, and women can’t make in on their own without men, even though they can.

Whether equalism is great, awful, or somewhere in between, it has nothing whatsoever to do with what feminists actually believe.

Posted in Culture, Feminism, Politics, Race, Rhetoric | 17 Comments

The Solution’s Core

This post will be short, but it’s a relatively simple point that I think needs to be made more often.

In the comments yesterday, deti composed a mantra of sorts, and other commenters think it would make a great poster:

You’re not entitled to commitment

You’re not entitled to anything from any man.

You’re not entitled to a man’s money, time, resources, attention or sexual fidelity.

You’re not enttiled to protection from any man nearby simply because you want it or think you need it or are feeling afraid of something. Men are not women’s de facto personal bodguards.

You’re not entitled to a man’s help with a flat tire simply because he is a man and you are a woman.

You’re not entitled to a man’s help simply because you want or need a high item reached or a heavy item moved.

You’re not entitled to attention from a guy just because you’re a woman and he’s a man.

You’re not entitled to help with your work.

You’re not entitled to favors of any kind. You’re not entitled to rides to or from work, help moving to your apartment, or a shoulder to cry on after you caught F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer “cheating” on you with the cute bartender.

You’re not entitled to a drink from that guy.

You’re not entitled to anything from that hawt guy just because you went home with him from the bar that night. You’re not entitled to commitment from him. You’re not entitled to a relationship, a morning breakfast, a return text, or even an acknowledgment that he knew you. Why should he value you more than you value yourself?

You’re not enttiled. To anything.

Of course such a mantra would make most modern women go ballistic.

HOWEVER, as much as they want everybody to think they’re entitled to everything, they crave a man who refuses to buy into that crap in the slightest.

We here in the Manosphere all learn quite early, don’t listen to what she says, watch what she does.  Well, she says she’s a special snowflake who deserves every consideration imaginable, but she does the guy who makes her wait twenty minutes for their first date.  She says she wants to be coddled, but she craves rough men who rough her up a bit.

Of course what she wants matters or we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in; obviously at least a part of her likes to be told how special she is 450 time per day or she wouldn’t spend so much time on social media.

But we know how she really feels.  On a certain level, way deep down, she knows we’re right.  She knows that being spoiled is bad for her, otherwise she’d throw herself all over the first nice guy she meets with a fat wallet.  She knows she needs to be told and shown what’s what, otherwise fewer of her fantasies would involve such dominant men who completely control her.

Some women may have all but given up on their needs in favor of their wants, thoroughly convinced there’s nobody man enough out there to give her what she craves.  Other times, it might simply not be worth it to do what it takes to keep her in line.

Yet for those of us who know this ugly little secret, we’re at an incredible advantage.

Tell her she’s not entitled to commitment, watch her work extra hard to please you.

Show her she’s not entitled to anything from you, and she’ll either get it herself, give up, or try to get it from somebody else.  Either way, she might like the guy who eventually helps her, but she respects you.

Convince her she’s not entitled to your help, and observe how she magically becomes appreciative when you do help her.

I know it’s slightly different when it comes to politics, I know that there are layers upon layers of lies to overcome, I know that White Knights will oppose you every step of the way.

But if you somehow get stuck in a Womyn’s Studies class and hold your ground against every woman in the room and all the White Knights, who do you think she’s going to remember?

That’s right, the one she keeps screaming at.

The White Knights may never see it, the hardcore battering rams will fight you to the death.

Nevertheless, we can say it:  Girl, you’re not entitled.  To anything.

We can say it loud, and we can say it proud.

And she’ll like it.

Posted in Alpha, Culture, Feminism, Game, Politics, Rhetoric | 12 Comments

Who She Calling Entitled?

A couple of posts back, M3 left a comment I found to be nothing less than inspired.  I don’t have much time to write tonight, and I believe his comment should be read even by folks who don’t wade into my comment threads here.  Therefore, I’m making it into this post.

For the record, M3 and I have some pretty profound disagreements.  Nevertheless, he’s a man for whom I have immense respect, a guy I know I’d have a great time grabbing a beer with.  He’s been through some hell, but he does what he can to help others either avoid or overcome that hell themselves.  That’s part of what I hope to do too, so despite any disagreements, he’s an ally, and a strong one at that.

I was initially going to intersperse my own commentary or highlight certain phrases, but I decided it stands best as is.

So without further ado, M3:

Women jump at the chance to use the word ‘entitlement’ against men when it’s not even that men feel entitled, they just felt that they performed the prescribed script (as they knew it under blue pill feminine imperative conditioning) as the successful path towards relationships/romance/dating that would ultimately lead to sex. Nowhere is it implied that they feel entitled along the way – they feel like they ‘earned’ it and are rejected. If they felt ‘entitled’ well then.. they’d probably rape you to boot seeing as how they’re entitled to it no?

But even farther than that, the real reason it’s such a solipsistic thing for a woman to say to a man who’s tried in earnest and genuine intent to strike up a romantic relationship with the hope of it becoming a sexual relationship – is that by and large, women can never ever come close to experiencing the male experience of being ‘invisible’. Male and Female attraction are on 2 different spectrum’s. Where a womans attractiveness is relatively stable on the visual spectrum where all changes to enhance attraction ability lies on that slider, male attractiveness to females is the punchline of jokes and internet memes of 427 control dials/buttons and switches that must be attuned just right before it it noticed, usually ON TOP of having to have exquisite, punching above your weight good looks too.

Women are born with the privilege of being biologically desired at all times by most all men so long as they hold the look/shape of femininity. Even if their personality deviates drastically from feminine to psycho man hating bitch, the visual representation of femininity is enough to arouse attention from men. Most every woman who can control her weight will never go for a lack of attention or desire by the males of her species.

Contrast that against the men, in some cases very good looking men, men who are successful in many aspects of life, and can provide and create and be a producer to the society – still fail when it comes to women because they are incapable of triggering the lizard portion of ‘civilized western womens’ mind. And until they either discover red pill or game, they are doomed to continually fail under the provisions prescribed by the feminine imperative and feminist dogma on how to approach and engage with females for the express purpose of courtship ranging from be nice, be a gentleman, have a good job, don’t be a rapist, be a good shoulder to cry on, be there for her, respect her (even if she does nothing to warrant it), and always ask for consent before going in for a kiss (thus killing any spontaneity to spark the lizard brain tingles)

If every woman was suddenly stripped of her ‘femaleness’, her innate sexual primacy, and men were no longer biologically compelled to seek them out for mating (imagine a shot that inhibited mens desire or attraction – MGTOW in a needle) and women no longer were chased, sought, desired or ‘visible’ to men…

if the male gaze ended tomorrow, there would be a mass die off of women claiming their own lives due to depression, insecurity, feeling of abandonment. No, they need it, desire it, crave it. In order to survive they must have it at all costs. It doesn’t matter if they are aware of it or not.. all that matters is that they know men will continue to seek them out solely because they are women.

They feel entitled to it.

Posted in Alpha, Culture, Feminism, Game | 12 Comments