Tags
As I stated earlier today, there has been a very good conversation going on regarding the Feminine Imperative. I believe it stems from a few posts that SunShineMary has been writing at her blog The Woman and the Dragon. She is trying to nail down a more concrete definition of this phenomenon in an attempt to better understand it.
I think a good way to understand what the feminine imperative entails is to attempt to understand and define what the male imperative entails. In my previous post I asked for readers to define the male imperative.
Yohami had this to say:
Male imperative: to win.
While the equivalent female imperative would be to survive.
In the aim to win the male imperative comes up with the rules and grids and ladders and competition.
And the female imperative comes up with the safety nets, tribalism, resource trappings and maintenance.
and deti this:
Female directives:
Prime directive: Have sex with best man (men) available, get pregnant, have as many babies as possible.
Secondary directive: Secure provisioning for self and babies.
Tertiary directive: If she fails in directives 1 and 2, secure provisioning for self by any means necessary.
Male directive: Secure unlimited access to unlimited sexual opportunity.
The two definitions take these imperatives down to the bare nitty gritty, the basis of their beginnings. Basically, men seek domination while women seek sex with the strongest, most dominant men while simultaneously securing her and her children (commitment). If we take a closer look at the base male imperative (MI) it would be a world of intense male competition in an effort to dominate. The dominance itself is the attraction. A benefit of this is the ability to have sex with a variety of women (I’m not sold on the main reason for winning being the resultant sex. I tend to think the main reason for wanting to win is to be able to go out and dominate again). The resulting competition could be very destructive as men attempted to become the ultimate winners, as their ambition and drive took them as high as they could take themselves. Women and children would not only have much less (no?) male protection and provisioning, they would potentially also be in physical danger far more often. These men could take what they wanted when they wanted and would be exultant in the taking. While my history is not great, men like Ghengis Khan and tribes like the Huns and Goths come to mind (to help take down the Roman Empire is a tremendous victory).
Taking a closer look at the female imperative (FI) we see women seeking out a way to have sex like men. They are seeking to have sex with the most attractive men (read alphas) without shame or repercussions. Then, when they deem they are ready, they are are seeking monogamy from a man of their choosing. This gives their children the best genes while simultaneously securing their and their children’s future. But women have taken their need for security to new levels. They have sought to change the laws so that they may have this security without marriage (if they were not able to marry the alpha they wished). They are able to have child support, alimony, burden of proof on the man in a rape case, welfare from the government, men fighting for their equality in the workplace, home, etc. Women also control the narrative to protect and secure our feelings. People are not allowed to shame women for sleeping around, they’re not allowed to disagree with a woman in politics, race, sexual relations, or most any other taboo realm lest her feelings get hurt. She will use shaming language to put a stop to it and it will often work. What’s more, women do not have to reciprocate much of this as we are so used to having these things given to us, we don’t know that we actually should reciprocate. If someone should ask for a thank you or some kind of task given back in kind, she further uses her sex and need for security to attempt to put this person back in their place because in asking for reciprocation, it was pointed out to her that she is being ungrateful and it hurt her feelings. Now again, I am taking this to the Nth degree to better illustrate the point. I do not think all women embody all of these things, but I do think we all embody some, and we usually don’t even realize it. Our need for security is so great, that it will often hinder our being able to see that much of this is even happening. When I first learned of the feminine imperative, my mind railed against it. I literally had to work to force my mind to see it. It then opened for a brief second to see it for what it is and then snapped shut at the feelings it elicited. I saw what I had done in my own feminine imperative (part of it anyway, I am not sure I can ever see it in it’s entirety) and it was painful. I didn’t wish to look any more.
What I think benefits society most, and what marriage was originally designed to do, was to balance these two imperatives. A compromise of the two.
Again, deti had this to say:
…most men could have a marriage with no extramarital sex, purely monogamous. I’ve often said this was what marriage 1.0 was designed to promote: every man who wanted a wife could get one. He might get the chubby 4 or the superskinny 5 with no chest, but he could still get a wife. Men and women alike lived in an assortative mating system. 10s with 10s, 9s with 8s and 9s, and so on.
this required slut shaming and restricting women’s sexual freedom. It was clear that when you remove restrictions on women, they give up sex to the most attractive badboys and leave all the rest of the men in the cold.
It also required the top men to restrict themselves to one hottie instead of one or two hotties and 10 Plain Janes.
This had the effect of preventing the men from fighting one another over the women; and enlisting the betas in helping support the alphas. The alphas understood they were vastly outnumbered by betas. If things went badly, the betas could band together and drive out or kill the alphas. The betas could also refuse to do most of the hard work and dying in the wars. So, alphas and betas reached a truce by which the alphas agreed not to fuck all the women, and instead restrict themselves to one. They also agreed to restrict the women from fucking the best men and making them stay faithful in marriage. Any man who wanted a wife got one. This worked well for women too, who got a man to support them. The alphas planned civilization; the betas provided the support and the grunt work.
While I’m not sure I agree with the beta/alpha compromise (I tend to think the betas followed the alphas to glory and domination to help them secure their own women, but I admit I haven’t fully thought this out). The combination of the female desire for the best man and security turns into the best man she can manage given her assets and security while reciprocating with faithfulness, support and caring for her husband. The male desire for domination with the benefit of sex with a variety of women is tempered to sex with one woman, the best he can get, while reciprocating with sharing his assets and monogamy. Society benefits from this in that this tempers the worst of each imperative while still promoting the best parts of it. Men could still seek to dominate, but it would be tempered by the need to provide for and protect his family. Women could still secure good genes and be given protection and resources but would have to hamper her desire to seek a higher ranked man. She would also be called to utilize her solipsism to care for her family (including her husband) and not just for herself and her children. She would be required to support him through thick and thin to the betterment of the whole family. When she found it difficult to do this, society would require her to do it anyway.
Now, I understand that these days there are a lot of men who have little desire to try to return the balance. As a whole, women have broken our deal. Given this, some men would rather return to a time of male primacy and I can’t say that I blame them. As for our society, and what is best for it as whole, I think it will always be that balance. We will never be able to perpetually maintain it. It will always skew one way and then slide back toward the other to, for a time, rest comfortably in the middle again. How far back to the male side it slides this go around greatly depends on how much further to the female we continue to let it go.
On the Rock 
“Then, when they deem they are ready, they are are seeking monogamy from a man of their choosing.”
Serial monogamy there is. While keeping all the resources from the previous ones.
This calls into question the idea that there can be a real “feminine” imperative that doesn’t also benefit males. Women and children with no male protection means there will be no future generations. Males must produce offspring just the same as females must (those that don’t ardently seek to reproduce are eliminated from the genetic pool), so it is in their own best interests to protect and provide for us, genetically speaking.
This is why I keep trying to make a distinction between the feminine imperative (a biological drive to favor females with resources and protection which also benefits males) and the feminist imperative (which seeks to favor females but does not benefit males at all).
Each imperative benefits the other gender indirectly, and then the whole species directly. This is not a zero sum game.
Without the male imperative to fuck and to win you wouldnt have chivalry or white knights either. Nor offspring.
If the “female imperative” thesis of women mating with the intention of producing multiple offspring was true, then we’d see birth rates a lot higher than they are now. While a birth rate of 2.1 kids / woman is required to maintain a country’s population, in a number of regions the ratio is considerably lower than that as demonstrated in this document:
http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Birth_Rate_Decline_e.htm
SSM
This calls into question the idea that there can be a real “feminine” imperative that doesn’t also benefit males.
Women want sperm from men for babies, and resources from men to raise them. Now the question that ought to come to mind with regard to “benefit males” is simple:
Which males? You seem to assume that both come from the same man.
Suppose a woman gets her sperm from the biggest Alpha she can find, and her support from a cloud of beta orbiters who never get so much as a sniff of sex. How do the men supporting her benefit?
Plenty of women today have “married” the state. This fits in fine with their desire for bay-bees and resources. Alpha sperm, and the EBT paid for by millions of men. It’s the ideal situation, from the perspective of the FI, because the woman maximizes her benefit while minimizing her own risk and personal inconvenience.
AR, I would think of that as the feminist imperative. It is unsustainable. It provides no benefit to men and will not continue indefinitely. An observer makes my point for me: the feminist imperative does not even benefit women in the long run, as they self-reduce their fertility.
I’ve just posted a comment on this on my own blog, but in a nutshell, I think there is a relevant difference between the feminist and feminine imperatives. The feminine imperative is here to stay forever; the feminist imperative not so much.
It’s not ideal, they still wish they could get the commitment from the alpha seed. The state occupies the place of the beta husband: he’s providing, but he’s also taken for granted and looked upon with contempt.
The women married to the state wish they could divorce and take all of his assets in the process. And resent the alpha commit for not wanting to commit. Far from happy.
And then of course, even if they were able to make the alpha seed commit, that would only last for so long, because there’s always new alpha seed available, better stronger alpha’er. New car smell.
Marriage is work and the imperatives arent about work. They are about making profit at expenses of everything else, in this case, the other gender.
SSM
AR, I would think of that as the feminist imperative.
As Rollo has pointed out to you several times, the feminist imperative is simply a subset of the feminine imperative.
Look, the ability to re-bond with another man is part of the Feminine Imperative. It’s necessary for survival, in the conditions that were normal for most of human history; if a hunter got killed on the hunt, his woman and child(ren) need to get resources somehow, and for the woman to bond with another man, and likely bear a child for him as well, is the only way to get those resources.
Because ultimately the FI cares about sperm, resources, and the min/max of investment/payoff.
It is unsustainable.
In the long run. But hypergamy or the FI doesn’t care about the long run.
It provides no benefit to men and will not continue indefinitely.
The fact that some social construct provides no benefit to men is irrelevant, to the FI. No social construct continues forever. Nor do nations…
An observer makes my point for me: the feminist imperative does not even benefit women in the long run, as they self-reduce their fertility.
The Feminist Imperative is indeed failing. So the Feminine Imperative will have to adapt to whatever replaces it. So?
I’ve just posted a comment on this on my own blog, but in a nutshell, I think there is a relevant difference between the feminist and feminine imperatives. The feminine imperative is here to stay forever; the feminist imperative not so much.
The Feminine Imperative is therefore something that must be studied intensively, and ways must be created to control it, if civilization is to continue.
What form the decline and fall of Feminism takes remains to be seen. And what comes after it is unknown. But we can be certain the Feminine Imperative will adapt. And so, once again, it must be studied, and controlled. For the good of humanity.
I’m seeing all these bold assertions about FI, and I gotta ask – is there any empirical research to support these assertions?
(I’ve changed my handle to ANO since I just found another “An Observer” out there…)
which aspect would you like to see researched?
Deti made a nice bullet list of male and female purported “imperatives”, so that would be a start.
@ AR
I just don’t agree that the feminist imperative is a subset of the feminine imperative. They seem totally different in both form and function. Saying that one is a subset of the other is not helpful to me without a better explanation of how.
And I don’t follow you about how the feminine imperative doesn’t care about the long run. In fact, the only thing that matters at all in human sexuality is the long run. If you don’t get your genes into the next generation via your offspring, you’re toast. That’s it. The feminine imperative can only continue so long as it makes babies that live. It takes a male and a female to produce babies that live (sperm, egg, lactation, resources). We should control the feminist imperative, but I’m not sure that there is anything that can be controlled with respect to the feminine imperative.
It’s funny you say you had to convince yourself that a feminine imperative existed, I’ve never had a doubt. I immediately recognized it and owned to feeling that way, but there’s only so far we can take it while still allowing men to lead. The feminine imperative wants men to lead, no? We just want them to protect, stay monogamous, and provide while they do it. Although, I think many women appreciate the ability to set some limits on the amount of kids they have, better to stay youthful looking which will keep the men faithful. Would that be feminist imperative to not want too many children, I’m not sure.
“We will never be able to perpetually maintain it. It will always skew one way and then slide back toward the other to, for a time, rest comfortably in the middle again. How far back to the male side it slides this go around greatly depends on how much further to the female we continue to let it go.”
Does this mean you assert that the balance, the pendulum is swinging back into male’s favor?
@ Norther Observer- I also wonder about the empirical evidence to “prove”? the feminine imperative. There is, it seems, certainly no shortage of anecdotal evidence, however. I would love to hear your thoughts on a youthful deconstruction of the fem-perative if you are interested:
@ An Observer,
If the “female imperative” thesis of women mating with the intention of producing multiple offspring was true, then we’d see birth rates a lot higher than they are now.
The biological drive to have children is there as is seen by people continuing to have sex. This biological drive is being subverted by birth control. One can meet the biological drive without without the difficulty of the actual child rearing. Basically ones base needs to procreate can be met without the actual procreation.
@ SSM
I just don’t agree that the feminist imperative is a subset of the feminine imperative. They seem totally different in both form and function. Saying that one is a subset of the other is not helpful to me without a better explanation of how.
This is how I think of it. The feminine imperative and the male imperative have a midpoint on a line (I tried to make a graphic of this for the sake of this post but I couldn’t figure out how to paste it in. It kept changing whenever I did it.) There is an ideal balance going out a bit on each side of the line that is best for society as a whole. Once one goes past that ideal balance we start to get into the place where it is no longer beneficial for either party. When one goes too far into the feminine imperative, as you describe it, it turns into what you are referring to as the feminist imperative. It stems from the desires of the feminine and morphs into what we see it as today, but it’s starting point is the same. It would be the same if we were to go in the other direction to the male side.
And I don’t follow you about how the feminine imperative doesn’t care about the long run.
I think your confusion lies in that you are separating the two terms while others are not. As we see it today, the FI does not care one whit about the future as they cannot see beyond their own wants and needs for security and wanting sex from whomever they wish it. They can’t/won’t see how this affects the future or the rest of society. It is about their own protection as, in their minds, people all around them have children so how can the population be decreasing? Also, with all the hype on environmentalism, isn’t a decreased population a good thing? They don’t understand the downside of this at all. They cannot fathom it. The balance of the feminine imperative, the middle ground, will always care. It is innate. The feminist imperative is using this innate need to their own advantage and shaping their ideal society around it.
ANO,
I haven’t seen any research, but observing the laws and societal trends, the plethora of anecdotal evidence, is very telling. Most of it skews very heavily toward the female.
It’s funny you say you had to convince yourself that a feminine imperative existed
I think what I had such difficulty seeing was that it so heavily focused on women and left men very much in the dust. In my solipsism, I had difficulty breaking through the fact that, today, men have very little of their own imperative at all and why this would be a bad thing. I could see it on the surface, but not further down the rabbit hole. That took time.
Keanu,
I do assert that. All anecdotal to be sure, but I assert it on the growth of men awakening, and not a few women as well. I assert it based on the ever growing shrieking of the feminist and the growing absurdity of their claims. I assert it on the uneasiness of the middle, those who seem to go with the status quo. They are slowly awakening to the imbalance.
Before Christmas I was clicking around the manosphere and came across this article by Paul Elam at a Voice For Men. In it is a link to a video taken at the University of Toronto of a feminist protest of a man speaking there by the name of Dr. Farrell. I am not familiar with his work, but it got these people into an uproar. Their vitriol is nearly palpable. It is stunning and disgusting. People are seeing this and they want no part of it. Feminist are becoming their own worst enemy and the harder they push, the more people awaken and begin to push back.
**I believe Rollo may have linked to the same video at his site. I haven’t been on the net much until yesterday. In the words of Bob Cratchit, I was making rather merry during Christmas. 🙂
SSM: “It provides no benefit to men and will not continue indefinitely.”
Anon Reader: “The fact that some social construct provides no benefit to men is irrelevant, to the FI. No social construct continues forever. Nor do nations…”
Feminists have become aware that men aren’t benefitting and they see that men are dropping out. That’s why there has been the demand for more and more government help for women, permitting government to become the beta provider where men are refusing to fill the role. Money that would be earned by a beta and then harnessed for a wife and children is now subject to government confiscation and redistribution to women. Tax revenue distributed as welfare, food stamps, housing and medical care.
“I just don’t agree that the feminist imperative is a subset of the feminine imperative. They seem totally different in both form and function. Saying that one is a subset of the other is not helpful to me without a better explanation of how.”
The feminist imperative is in fact a subset of the feminine imperative.
The feminist imperative serves the feminine imperative.
The feminine imperative is to get the best genes for babies, provisioning for babies, and provisioning for self. Sperm first, then resources.
Marriage 1.0 served the feminine by getting her sperm (not necessarily the best, but sperm nonetheless) and resources (not necessarily the most, but some resources nonetheless). But under this compact she had to settle for adequate or good, not the best. And she had to commit. Men knew that if there were no restraints, she would have sex with the rakes, the rogues, the libertines whom she found attractive. And she wouldn’t want Fred Farmer or Bill Blacksmith or Rich Ranchhand.
What’s worse, Fred and Bill and Rich wouldn’t want a spoiled, sullied slut like her either. Meaning: She is married off to an old unattractive widower or a ne’er-do-well or a drunk or a layabout who is willing to have her; or she’s a spinster. Sluts and spinsters are burdens on society, consigned to a life of solitude, drudgery and work.
“We should control the feminist imperative, but I’m not sure that there is anything that can be controlled with respect to the feminine imperative.”
The feminine imperative WAS controlled under marriage 1.0. The entire point of feminism is that women by and large didn’t like those controls.
So the feminist imperative serves the feminine imperative by:
— Getting her the best genes: She’s free to sex up alphas — as many as she wants, as often as she wants, without judgment or consequence. She, not he, controls pregnancy through contraception. She has more economic freedom — earns her own money, lives “independently”, doesn’t have to answer to a man. She can get that alpha sperm any way she wants or deems necessary: ONSs, LTRs, cuckolding and cheating. She can’t be penalized other than through divorce; so the divorce laws were reworked so as to permit her an income stream even if she is 100% at fault for the marriage tanking. The prime benefit to her is that she doesn’t have to have sex with or marry a beta. If it’s a choice between sex with a string of alphas or marriage to one beta, she’ll take the alphas.
— Getting resources: First and foremost, educational opportunities and preferences so she can get degrees, and then get jobs in the workforce. The primary reason for this is economic freedom: She has her own money and does not have to answer to a man. If she can’t get enough resources on her own through work, she and the herd lobby government for more preferences and assistance through welfare, food stamps, EBT cards, etc. If she gets pregnant and has a bastard, liberal and draconian child support laws are the answer. If she is married and then gets divorced, liberal and draconian alimony and even more punitive child support practices are there to make sure she still gets the man’s money.
The problem is that the feminist imperative serves the feminine only up to a point. It slams up against biology when two inevitable things happen:
1. The Wall; and
2. Baby rabies.
3. Men walk off
What also happened was that feminists thought they could impose all these changes and men would still do what they had been doing: building the roads, making the new stuff, creating new drugs, making new things to make women’s lives easier, marrying the women, and supporting their children.
And if a few men were left out in the cold and couldn’t get married, or had to wait 10 years to marry a used up 31 year old slut, well……
That’s the price of “progress”. Men will just have to pay it.
Well, no.
What’s the response been?
Alphas who would have married HB 9s or 10s and had even hotter, more talented kids are content to sex a string of 6s, 7s and 8s, remaining single and never reproducing.
Betas who would have gotten jobs as engineers or lawyers or tech researchers or electricians, are content to work as junior employees somewhere, earning just enough to survive alone. (Those guys would have married the HB 6s, 7s and 8s the alphas are now fucking and ruining.) Or, if they have those jobs, they don’t marry. Or, if they marry, they often end up divorced and forever embittered against women and remarrriage.
Omegas who could have pulled themselves up to betas in a trade or assembly line work will play Call of Duty 4 in mom’s basement and work at BigBoxRetailStore.
Men everywhere are refusing to take on responsibility even for themselves, much less for anyone else.
Dating looks nothing like it used to. Men limit their time and money investment as much as possible and press for sex as early as possible. Limiting investment serves his interests because he won’t put out money, time and resources for something that won’t work out, and his provider status doesn’t distinguish him or make him attractive anyway. Pressing for sex as early as possible serves his interests because through it he gauges her interest in him: If she likes him, she’ll respond. If she isn’t all that into him, she’ll rebuff his advances.
What also happened was that feminists thought they could impose all these changes and men would still do what they had been doing: building the roads, making the new stuff, creating new drugs, making new things to make women’s lives easier, marrying the women, and supporting their children.
Right. That’s why I don’t think the feminist imperative serves the feminine imperative. It doesn’t improve a woman’s prospects for producing babies that survive. It really doesn’t. I’ve worked very closely with women who have been married to the government for a long time when I worked in a poor, urban school district. Life is not good for them even with all the government goodies. Their health and well-being, and their children’s well-being, are in the toilet. Feminism is a failure this way (in all ways, really).
In terms of men eschewing responsibility: they should. I see no reason why they should keep playing into a biased, broken system. Being a Peter Pan is a rational response.
Forgot to put quotes around the first paragraph.
SSM:
“That’s why I don’t think the feminist imperative serves the feminine imperative. It doesn’t improve a woman’s prospects for producing babies that survive.”
Right. I pointed out the feminist imperative DOES serve the feminine imperative, but only up to a point. The female biological sex drive manifests in sexing the bigger, better alpha; not in procreation. It also shows up in the woman’s exercise of more and more control over the process. She decides when sex, marriage and babies happen.
Some of mye perspective is in this comment over at Dalrocks. It is long and badly written but I think important:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/how-the-feminine-imperative-just-happens/#comment-64827
Maybe what we’re getting at is short-term versus long-term. Obviously, none of us usually thinks about making babies in the moment. I love babies, but even I’m not thinking anything other than “Oh yeah, give it to me daddy!” in the heat of the moment. So maybe the feminist imperative is serving that sort of thing in an unrestrained way; it’s not always totally at odds with the feminine imperative, in that babies sometimes are the end result. I guess I could kind of see that.
Here is Wudang’s comment in full. It is very good.
You could view it as a shit test. Women will instinctively push in the direction of gaining privilige but giving nothing in return. If there is no resistance to demands the demands will increase indefinitively until the demands are just as extreme as the demands a women will place on the most unmasculine betaized herb in a relationship. Men push back on this push from women to the extent that they perceive it is reasonable given what is needed in order for society to survive and thrive. Men perceive that society needs to give women advantages for free IF THEY ARE NEEDED in order for the society to survive and thrive. Men willingly sacrifice themselves if there is need but stop doing so when there is no need. Because society ultimately functions best when you don`t sacrifice more males than absolutely necessary men will tend to push back against female privileges as much as is beneficial. As in relationships women are programmed to just push indefinitively without INITIALLY considering the consequences at all. Consequences and direction are, in society as in relationships, the realm of men and so men are programmed to and best equiped to perceive what level of male sacrifice is necesarry. Women consider the consequences and take them to heart only after having been told by the men in a sufficiently alpha way what they are and that they are important.
That men do not push back too hard is accomplished in three ways. One is that men instinctively very easily sacrifice for women in these ways and feel glorious honor feelings by doing such sacrifice. Second is that men, as a group not necessarily individually, naturally perceive consequences for where society is heeded by doing a or b, fairly accurately and without too much hamsterization. Critically is reason three. By women pushing and pushing against the men mens doubts are tested. If the man doubts the direction his woman will perceive it when pushing against him and he will receive an unfavourable reaction. As important he will also through her pushing become aware of his own doubt and eventually give in if he has too much doubt. So if he is not absolutely certain he needs to sacrifice himself his womans testing will reveal that and he will sacrifice. If he is fully certain that he does not need to he will not sacrifice himself and his woman when pushing him to will perceive his strength of conviction, feel secure and happy and will happily go on with less female privilege and less male sacrifice because she in experiencing his strength of conviction and alpha assurance that makes her content and happy. The calm, content and happy feeling she gets from pushing up against a man and receiving alpha reassurance is natures way of communicating to her that her man has shit in order and there is no need to worry.
On a societal level this will function in the exact same way. Men are best at perceiving the needs of society as a whole and its direction. Women push for prilillige always. If the men are sure enough that special male sacrifice is not needed they push back against it with such conviction that women on a societal level feel a calm, content and happy feeling from the strength of the norms and the solidity and conviction with which men uphold them and are then happy with a more balanced deal.
Unbalanced deals between women and men are the result of crisis and as such a sign that things are not all well. Balanced deals are signs that society is so strong that it can afford to treat even the men well and so signifies that things are going very well. We are made to have better more rewarding emotions when we are living correctly and in beneficial ways and thriving than when we are not. The feelings women get from the balanced deals will be better than from unbalanced deals because of this. When deals are unbalanced women on some level feel the unfairness just as they do when they are tormenting a betaised husband with excessive demands and so start to feel a combination of arrogantly superior, bitchy, selfishly entitled, malcontent, INSECURE and contempt for men. In a more balanced deal women have to treat men better because on a societal level men make women feel masculine strength and submissiveness in relation to treating the men well and so feel some sense of submissiveness, feel more compassionate, feel more giving, feel good about themselves as opposed to arrogantly bitchy and feel secure and feel some sort of general respect for men.
Currently we are living in a society that does not need to churn out massive numbers of babies to survive and grow. We are in a consolidation society that does not need tons of babies to have a few of them to survive or tons of babies to outgrow neighbour societies. Our societites are relative to previous times stable and we are better of reting people well to get the most out of them rather than treating them shitty to squeeze the most out of them because of harsh conditions. So we don`t kill the old when they can`t work for food anymore as is actually done where food is in short supply, we don`t kill the mentally retarded and the psychologically weak or give them less food as is done in less prosperous societies but we go out of our way to treat the well. We doN\t treat minorities like shit because we can afford to etc. do so. The last step on the ladder of better treament as societies prosper is to treat the men better. It is in a sense the height of cillivastion. Things are so good that even the beasts of burden can be treated well. We are in the age where we can afford to have empathy even for men. It will disapear if need be but right now we can have it. As is natural it is men who have started to perceive the need for change and demand it and as is evidenced in the manosphere women, after some pushing and back and forth, are starting to listen and take direction from men. I will say it is evidently clear that exactly as my theory predicts the women in the sphere feel better on several layers after reprograming themselves to a more balanced set of norms than when they before entering the sphere where living with internalized norms from an unbalanced societal deal between men and women.
I’m not sure I understand the last bit though. When you say “The last step on the ladder of better treament as societies prosper is to treat the men better.” are you referring to when society is in balance or when society is is seemingly prospering as so many people believe it is today?
Roger Devlins sexual utopia in power is highly relevant to this discussion.
SSM,
Yes, I think that’s it. It serves the need for sex while having the security of knowing babies won’t come until they want them to. There is very little long term planning in the feminist imperative at all. This is a big reason why I think one stems from the other. I just tend to look at it as all the feminine imperative but we are so far out of balance that it truly serves no one (as you or I would think it should. It does serve them in that these women get what they think they want at least for a time).
SSM, Deti has explained it to you rather well.
The FI cares about sperm and resources, they do not have to come from the same man for the FI to be served.
Given the high mortality rate for men due to violence in at least some parts of prehistory, the ability of women to shift their loyalty from one man to another is a survival feature, and therefore part of the FI. Let’s be honest, variety in sex is desired by both men and women. Men want it in parallel, women want it in series.
Feminism for the last 150 years or so has been about two things:
1. Increasing women’s ability to choose sex with more, different, men.
2. Increasing the resources under women’s sole control.
Sperm and resources, in other words, the heart of the Feminine Imperative.
Since 1970 or so, feminism has simply amped up both. Sole control of conception – hormonal contraception plus the ability to abort when desired, means a woman can be married to a beta, abort any of his repugnant offspring, and still have the ability to get alpha sperm for impregnation and retain the beta resources. But for women, it gets even better – AA and EEO enables women to become their own beta by pushing past beta men into adequate paying jobs. Men’s fault divorce enables women to marry a man, bear a child or two, push him out of the house but retain access to his paycheck, and then get sexed by alphas.
Feminism, in sort, meets all sorts of aspects of the Feminine Imperative that previous generations of women did not even dream of. The fact that it is probably not sustainable isn’t important. Because the Feminine Imperative lives in the “now”, not the future and certainly not in the past.
Feminism is the FI on steroids. Feminism is the FI turned up to “11”. Feminism is, in fact, a logical manifestation of the FI, given a huge excess of resources beyond the survival level. It gives the female hindbrain whatever that hindbrain wants, for as long as it can.
The fact that feminism also leads to divorced menopausal women is irrelevant to the FI, because women beyond child bearing age are no irrelevant – even more so than men.
Feminism is obviously a subset of femininism…
“seemingly prospering as so many people believe it is today?”
This. Lack of necesseity allows for treating people better.
I’m not sure I agree with you then, but I admit that I couldn’t know the answer. It seems society treated men better when there was a balance. Yes, they had to work hard, and sometimes die hard but men were respected. Is is better to be respected and have this burden or no burden plus no respect?
Stingray, it’s not that simple. A man who has been frivorced has three choices:
1. Work harder in order to support children and ex-wife, while receiving contempt in return – from ex, from legal system, from society. If he can hold out long enough, the child support debt is paid off and he can resume something of a normal life, after a decade or more of penury.
2. Fall behind on child support payments, lose all professional licenses, lose license to drive, ultimately wind up in prison (where the child support back debt continues to accrue).
3. Go “ghost”. Drop out of sight completely, working only for cash jobs where no Social Security number is used, essentially becoming what used to be called a “hobo”, i.e. homeless man.
Your question is moot. Men get burdens, period. Men get little or no respect, period.
When I work with college students, I always ask in a roundabout way how many of them come from divorced homes. Typically the answer is between 35% and 50%, so pick 40% as the median. The young men who grew up in single-mother homes may not understand the FI in clear terms, but they know what women are, and they are not going to marry on the old terms.
Some of them are not going to marry at all. No matter how much they are shamed, or cajoled, or browbeaten, or lied to.
Again, the Feminine Imperative does not care.
Oh, I forgot, there is a 4th choice for a man who has been frivorced.
He can always just die.The probability of suicide goes up by at least a factor of 4 when a man is under the stress of the divorce industry. The probability of a fatal accident, such as a car wreck, also goes up.
Again, the FI does not care: once a male has impregnated a female to her satisfaction, he is disposable. In the animal kingdom, the behavior of the black widow spider is instructive…
AR
Ok, then I didn’t understand what Wudang was saying. This is what I was referring to in my comment above:
I don’t see men being treated better at all. From my perspective, I see men as being treated much better when they were married and the laws were more in their favor. he’s not talking about frivorced men here, but all men, right? Men as an entirety?
The feminine imperative, in many ways, seems to be the ‘baby’ imperative. It’s purpose is to promote an environment where a woman can obtain quality sperm and resources at least cost to herself. It is only concerned with the present, it does not care about consequences nor of the future, nor of any collateral damage. It cares about sperm and resources NOW. Clearly, left unchecked, the feminine imperative is destructive to society. Which is fine when there is a masculine imperative to resist / balance it. However, feminism has greatly weakened the masculine imperative which has allowed the serious destruction, first of men, then boys, and now increasingly of women and girls to take hold.
I’m getting the impression that the ‘balance’ between the masculine and feminine imperatives should not be characterised so much as a pendulum that swings (in some kind of orderly fashion) between the two over time but more in terms of a reservoir containing a body of water (female imperative) constrained by the male imperative (a dam).
When the pressure of the feminine imperative becomes too costly to maintain the male imperative gives way and huge destruction results.
Just as nature has endowed the feminine imperative with the power to subvert the male imperative, it has given the male imperative the nuclear option to deal with the female imperative.
Indifference.
When ever the feminine imperative subverts a society too far men instinctively have one reaction; walk away. It’s clearly already happening. The dam is cracking.
It’s not that complicated.
Male primary imperative
1) Have sex with lots of fertile women
That’s it.
Whereas women have two primary imperatives
1) The need for the alpha male
2) Hypergamy (including the need for the beta male)
I wrote about it here one year ago :
http://sexthreepointzero.com/2012/02/11/the-sex-2-0-genetic-imperatives/
When ever the feminine imperative subverts a society too far men instinctively have one reaction; walk away. It’s clearly already happening. The dam is cracking.
It is. And I think we are going to reach a point that women will be begging men to rebuild that dam (I like the analogy, but something is still missing. I think it’s that should a catastrophe occur, the male imperative could slam home immediately). Men will be making the decisions as to how thick and strong to make that damn and women are not going to like it very much.
check your email Dear. i’m linking this btw.
there’s a reason i’m NEVER getting married. access to sex is VERY easy. but i no longer feel the need for constant female companionship. besides…it’s too risky for me. but-
when i’m hungry…i eat. and let’s just say, i’m not having burgers, i dine at the best restaurants. *wink wink*
I will elaborate further later Stingray. I agree men are not currently being treated better than before but I believe it is comming.
Interesting to note that the female directive “have (a lot of) babies” seems to be readily overpowered, in many if not most cases, by the directives of a particular society or social group within a society.
I dont have time to dig through the comments while I’m on vacation and commenting from my phone, but I think you’re vastly overstating the ‘male imperative’ as one of chaos and destruction.
Men like to dominate, yes. But we like to have something to dominate and realize that tearing each other and systems down to reach the apex is the most inefficient, unimaginative, stupid way to do it. Very few men like or want to watch the world burn.
Rather, we like rules and steps that show ways to advance towards that dominance. Hell, we like it even more when someone is able to take innovative and imaginative actions to circumvent and achieve dominance without destroying the system (and respect the men who can do this).
In fact, I would say that the ability to do just that could be one of the indicators of an alpha mentality. I’d link a post of mine titled betas take happiness, alphas make happiness; but the phone wont do that. The post is all about the fact that there are two types of people – ones that will do whatever it takes to achieve and onea rhat use systems handed to them.
As for the alpha/beta ‘agreement’ on marriage 1.0, I think it may be problematic to think about it so simply. It wasnt an agreement or contract, but a social evolution that happened over thousands of years and was destroyed in a mere 6 decades. I’ve started viewing the whole thing as a possible extinction event where humanity has thrown itself over the precipice on a theory that these man made wings will allow us to fly if we simply was our foolish arms fast enough in an imitation of flapping. If you look at the kinds of behavioral and biological adaptations hundreds of species worldwide have gone through in order to adapt to how humans have changed the face of the world, I think you’ll get a brief, scary, ugly view of the kind of harmship society may have to go through
That or maybe I’m simply tired, jaded, and rambling from the meds, and short term lifestyle changes I’ve had to make for this damned dog bite.
I’ll think about the whole thing some more.
“Feminine imperative” is the new black. It is fighting to displace “alpha” and “game” for the preeminent Rorschach term.
You all have sex on the brain — sex in the original meaning of the word. I tried to follow back through the links to see how this frenzy started, and best I can tell it originated with one of Rollo Tomassi’s contrivances.
There are no “imperatives.” The idea comes out of the Frankfurt-School-feminist explanation of history, which reduces us to material automatons generally dictated by directives beyond volition. This kind of thinking reduces the individual to a composite of mere types and then explains how the various “imperatives” involuntarily interact in a struggle of all against all.
This is simply a non-starter. Our souls do not contain imperatives defined by class and type. We have a nature which influences our volition, which is why human behavior can never be reduced to a quantitative physical science — the great error of the positivist school of “Analytic Philosophy” in the 20th century. Leave aside genetic traits for now: history does not/cannot proceed along an evolutionary teleology. The human will is an infinite variable, a zero in the denominator.
We live and breathe this error, even though it (like feminism) has already been designated for obsolescence. That is why you let Rollo get away with jargon-heavy contrivances that sound erudite, like, “the unlearned aspect of resource exchange is evolutionarily hardwired into human beings as well as higher order primates.” Says who? A game blog? Because he thought really hard about it?
I realize there are few among this proto-gathering who want to, who are able to, and who are confident enough to call out this sloppy thinking for what it is. We’re all just talking here. We all have the same anti-feminist disposition, we don’t want early dissension or disruption to ruin us before our discoveries are allowed to grow into a powerful social force.
But you are unwittingly constructing your foundation out of shoddy materials. You are beginning with an ur-error, which will influence, weaken, and eventually collapse the project into which you so rightly pour your efforts. You are building a house on sand, not On The Rock.
The sexes have different natures — “la différence” (and vive it!) — but they each share a human nature as well. It will not do to discern the precise quantities of the parameters of these natures and then extrapolate them into social “imperatives.” The methodology has been tried and found dangerously, deceptively wanting, with feminism itself a product of that very experiment. The cries of “NAWALT!” are in our era simple evasions. But they are universally deployed because the idea contains a germ of truth: all women, in fact, are not exemplars of womanly nature.
Our natures are persuasive to the controlling will but not sovereign over it. They influence our behavior, they persist, they insist, but they do not coerce. The woman brought up like a man will still have female parts, but her nature would be so distorted and concealed that it is rendered a nullity. This is what feminism has done to the society at large. It is one grievous battle in the war of the will vs. nature, and will has won, though nature will always ultimately triumph.
In other words, while women may tend toward selfishness, they are not “solipsists” by nature, just as the concupiscence which drives hamsters and hypergamy are not exclusive to the weaker sex. We all, men and women, tend toward selfishness, and the decision to lionize female preference is an artificial project this community mistakes for an indication of eternal nature. It is a recent phenomenon, so applying it backwards to history (the Frankfurt error of anachronism) makes a hash of good analysis.
The good news is that, since the cultural primacy of female selfishness is an artifice, it can be reversed. But not if we think it is a persistent part of her “evolutionary” nature. In the rush to backfill your theories with just enough jargon to make them inscrutable, you are promoting an idea that sets us all up for failure.
Don’t argue with me about it, learn about it. And if that fails, then find recourse in the next best option: Trust me.
We agree on the surface, and broadly. But not deeply. If you cannot or will not dig down to first principles with me, you will simply have to pick a champion and place your faith in him. Right now, you are limited to choosing from among intimidatingly opaque (though often artful) rhetoric of sophists. No one among you indicates he even understands the controversy, much less is ready to engage it. But everyone has something to say about it! Hopping around energetically on the surface is a waste of time and talent. Get your mining tools and come digging for the bedrock into which we may anchor our fleeting thoughts to strong moorings, or else wait for the delvers to come back with a firmly planted foundation stone.
Until then, listen to the verified wisdom of the ancients — the democracy of the dead whose entire lives yielded the end-product of countless trials and errors, built into venerable custom. Our uppity postmodern attitude has us challenging, vivisecting, deconstructing, and reconstructing the traditions that were built gradually according to nature and which served mankind for millennia.
Your disposition must be conservative when the culture is radically deconstructionist: “If you can keep your head when all about you / Are losing theirs … you’ll be a man, my son.” Nothing about our era radically annihilated our nature. What applied 500 years ago applies today. Women are women, and men are men. These puny excursions into anthropology are nothing compared to the incessant tides of nature. It is repulsive to see modern errors applied retrospectively to eras when they got it right, especially when we gathered here devoutly desire to get it right.
Talk up the “imperatives” if you must, but do it as a pedagogical exercise, to familiarize yourself with all the moving parts of the problem. Treat those who make broad claims with skepticism — including myself — and demand clarity. And when you achieve enough clarity to make a judgment, have the humility to defer the subjects above your paygrade to those who present themselves as trustworthy.
Matt
@Matt – I’m personally new to all this, so I’m spending a lot more time “catching up” than I have time to comment, and like you I’ve been troubled by the “Authoritative Statement”s I’ve been seeing in this realm with _zero_ empirical evidence to back it up. Your comments follow a lot of what I’ve been thinking and haven’t had time to coalesce into words. Thank you for your post.
Don’t argue with me about it, learn about it.
I spent a couple hours today researching concupiscence for this very reason. Concupiscence, converting to our base desires, is what I suspect we delving into here. Since my reading into this is preliminary all I can do at this point is posit a theory, but I suspect that we are delving into a world of female and male concupiscence and it is spiraling out of control. It does have to due with out nature, though our sinful nature. I believe it different for men and women. I more to to this, but I am in the middle of making dinner and can’e comment on this more right now. I think you are missing something, but I need to reread your comment before I can say more. Check back in if you have the time.
Leap,
As a very quick reply to your comment, I was trying to take the male side to the very Nth degree in an attempt to better understand, so I do not discount what you say.
@Matt
Hah. I feel like you took the description of what I feel like we’re doing as a society ‘waving our foolish arms around in an attempt to fly’ and described the actual actions we’re doing to that affect.
Thank you. My mind is less sharp than usual
@ Matt
Also meant to clarify that I’m starting to get the feeling that there’s only so much interpretation of reasoning and motivations we can do as this growing subculture examining the actions of society at large.
I know I personally am at a place where I only care about those views and actions of the majority enough to interact with them in ways to either avoid nasty situations they may place me in. After that amount of knowledge I’ve found I stop concerning myself with them as much and would rather lead them to the truth through examples of leadership and a life that brings me satisfaction and content.
I’d be curious to know your thoughts as such
Matt,
Please bear with me here as I have been reading about concupiscence for a decent part of the day and trying to get my thoughts straight on this. Part of what I read, Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is difficult reading for me and I am still trying to figure part of it out. It is fascinating. Also, you said not to argue with you about it. How about some questions, then? I need focus and you could help a great deal with that.
Let’s start here:
It is one grievous battle in the war of the will vs. nature, and will has won, though nature will always ultimately triumph.
Will has won and I would agree with that. The will that has apparently won is the concupiscence of women. I think male concupiscence (variety of women and power/domination) and female (hypergamy) take different forms. Where I am confused is that this would also be a part of our nature. Our inner desire has won out, not our will to overcome our desire, but our very base desires. Couple this with what seems to me the concupiscence of men, those men who have the option of variety, and we spiral down further and further in chasing those desires. We need to learn will to pull ourselves out, but this is decidedly not happening.
In other words, while women may tend toward selfishness, they are not “solipsists” by nature,
If you are talking about the general manosphere term of solipsist here, I would have to disagree. Again, we are not using our force of will to see beyond our solipsism any more, but we can.
We agree on the surface, and broadly. But not deeply.
I’m working on deeply here. I am. But like I said before, I lack focus. Not in that I cannot do the research, but in that, beyond concupiscence, I don’t know where to look. I have started reading Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith by Father Robert Barron and also to watch his series of the same name and I very much think I might find some answers there. Somehow I think you have read and seen these, but if not, they are wonderful.
No one among you indicates he even understands the controversy, much less is ready to engage
Give me something to hold on to here, Matt. I am at a loss. I can’t dig without a shovel. I don’t have your education. I can get it, but not without a starting point.
have the humility to defer the subjects above your paygrade to those who present themselves as trustworthy.
I will do this gladly. Do you remember what you told me about starting this blog? Getting all of my thoughts and ideas in one place? Think on it. Your ideas are too spread out.
Pingback: Beginning my Red Pill Journey « dannyfrom504
@Anonymous Reader (Dec. 28, 12:33 PM) —
“Since 1970 or so, feminism has simply amped up both. Sole control of conception – hormonal contraception plus the ability to abort when desired, means a woman can be married to a beta, abort any of his repugnant offspring, and still have the ability to get alpha sperm for impregnation and retain the beta resources. But for women, it gets even better – AA and EEO enables women to become their own beta by pushing past beta men into adequate paying jobs. Men’s fault divorce enables women to marry a man, bear a child or two, push him out of the house but retain access to his paycheck, and then get sexed by alphas.”
Close, but not *entirely* accurate. There are several trends you describe here, each of which happens to “modern women” (as a group) but not all of which happen to *each* woman, or not in that order.
The *dream* of the modern “enlightened” woman is yes, to have hypergamous fun with alphas while being her own (monetary) beta while young, all the while flattering herself that her SMV is the same as her MMV, and that she can easily persuade one of her short-term flings to marry her. This is done just as much for status as for resources, by the way.
However, there is a distinction based on class / education level: the more SWPL group, the less likely the woman is to bear multiple children out of wedlock — how much of this is due to lingering echoes of traditional cultural morality, and how much to the social stigma of relying on the state for money, I don’t know.
Typically, then, in the SWPL world, the woman forgoes single motherhood UNTIL she nears the wall / end of fertility…at which point she tries to trap an alpha, or failing that, a beta, as a provider /legitimizer *for her children*. Depending on her own prior promiscuity, the man’s “betaness”, and so on, they may stay married or divorce: she *believes* (Eat, Pray, Love) that she will be able to get sexed by alphas, but too often she becomes either a cat lady, or rides the carousel with a much lower level of man than the ones upon whom she formed her self-assessment of SMV — and subsequently blames men for being haters and users, instead of owning up to her own role in affairs. The social pathologies unique to fatherless children are ignored, because shut up.
Interestingly, from what I have seen on places like Oprah / Dr. Phool and the like, SWPL people seem to blame men for not manning up, members of lower socioeconomic classes seem to blame the men for cheating, rather than failing to *provide* — how much of this is due to expectations because of government provisions, how much of this is due to needing more physically aggressive men as protectors, I don’t know.
At least, that is the paradigm as I have heard it described. I’ve never been a carousel rider, so I have no *personal* knowledge.
Which brings up the question — is there a counterpart of this in either the gay or lesbian subculture? Or does it not matter since (up until *very* recently) neither marriage nor children have been part of the picture in their relationships?
@Matt King (Matthew A King) Dec 29 5:00 PM
Matt, would you be agreeable to describing these issues as the social manifestations of herd instinct (peer pressure) reflecting either a surrender to untrammeled instinct, vs. peer pressure being used to enforce (more or less) Christian sexual morality ?
It need not be *absolute* as long as a large enough majority both conforms to the morality and (publicly) enjoins it upon others.
And of course the degree of adherence to the morality (either individually or corporately) need not take away from its truth value — the Christian commands to ‘treat older women like mothers, younger women like sisters’ and for the women to be chaste, and to solve sexual attraction by marriage — are enjoined because if they are consistently followed, they *work* — it is not a fair test to fulfill only half of the conditions and then complain that the results are not optimal.
Great post. I think the male/scarcity:female/ abundance dichotomy is very helpful when looking at where society will go, and where it’s been. Even from looking at deti’s list of directives, you can see that women lose a lot of hand in environments of scarcity, because the secondary and tertiary directives are no longer a done deal. It’s interesting to see how cultures that germinated in brutally scarce environments like the Sicilians and the Scots Irish still have heavily male cultures, where women really do have to scrape by by latching on. Or maybe I just watched Slingblade again after spending some time in West Texas and my opinion is skewed 😉
I agree with you on the compromise, also, and think the biggest intellectual oversight people make these days is assuming that family has always played the irrelevant role in life that it does today. There would not be a democratic negotiation between politically equal alphas and betas, ever. Period. But it is altogether possible that the first patriarchs on the first farms, the first generation after property privatization, would invent these systems to strike a fair deal for their sons. This seems quite a bit more likely to me.
grey_whiskers,
Welcome!
SWPL people seem to blame men for not manning up,
This continuously surprises me, though it shouldn’t. Both men and women know that calling out a man in regards to his masculinity can be a powerful tool. One they are simply using against men to get what they think should be.
But it is altogether possible that the first patriarchs on the first farms, the first generation after property privatization, would invent these systems to strike a fair deal for their sons. This seems quite a bit more likely to me.
Welcome, as well.
Possibly, I’m no history buff, but given the actual story of Thanksgiving it would seem that simply prosperity would have a lot to do with the equality of alphas and betas. A prosperity that would benefit most and especially families.
Matt,
If I may ask, what were the readings at your church today? My missal stated that the first reading was to be Sir 3:2-6, 12-14 and the second reading Col 3:12-21. Two readings that I thought very extremely relevant. Instead our readings were 1Sm1:20-22,24-28 and 1 Jn 3: 1-2, 21-24.
Yes, men like competition but we also have a need to identify the leader within any group of men. The man with the strongest will will be that leader. He will be the alpha of that group. Working as a group under a leader gets more done.
Leap of a Beta wrote:
Be in the world but not of it. Know thy enemy. I am familiar with the culture in all its trivial detail. But I am not of it as it is not of God. Render unto them what is theirs.
We are the “noble elements.” We pass through every environment without being changed by it.
“[L]ead them to the truth through examples of leadership.” Exactly. You don’t even have to talk to them at all. Until they are curious enough to come talk to you. Then you pounce.
“Always be ready to give an account to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope in you.”
Matt
Stingray: In a nutshell, I was trying to say: beware of sophists and charlatans. There are plenty among you, Rollo being a particularly slippery example of the species. He makes sharp observations but his attempt to converse in abstractions is a not-easily-detected failure. He is not grounded. The roots of his proffered profundities are shallow.
How exactly? I tried to give you a hint above, but it just can’t be easily explained. Until the “community’s” brain wraps around the idea, keep delving like the earnest investigator you are, and proceed with caution.
I am not discouraging your curiosity or the public conversation or the working out of your faith “with fear and trembling.” But whenever I encounter a deep-think piece that declares men are from Mars, women are from Venus, alarm bells go off.
This is where we get into big trouble, at the root of things, where we accidentally misidentify a concept and it colors every subsequent investigation.
I’m just saying, be careful.
Right. And this is why we have to get Socratic and ask the still more basic question: What is nature? At this stage, the patience of dabblers and dilettantes wears thin, and they seek a placeholder that suffices to keep them focused on the more proximate question. “Hey, ‘Feminine Imperative Grounded in Biology’ sounds good enough for me, now back to the main topic, Hypergamy.”
When someone declares “It is in a woman’s nature that …” you have to be skeptical — even when it comports with your own understanding. They are drawing conclusions from idiosyncratic experiences rather than systematic investigations of truth.
If to you that sounds like an infinitely-regressing, philosophical circle-jerk, you have a point. It can become mental masturbation. Which is why I don’t propose a book length Socratic dialogue before agreeing on the general definition of a term. Rather, I advocate suspicion and free questioning. Know when artifice and fabrication have asserted themselves as values for the variables of the equation.
The essence of philosophy is naïveté. It is about asking the childish question. It is about maintaining innocence at the very moment you think you’ve grasped something. “This is X.” How do you know this is X? “The concupiscence of women has won.” Tell us how you came to that conclusion. Ask the extra question. Dig one shovelful deeper. Be the naïve fool.
The conversation across several blogs has been about an “imperative.” The immediate instinct of smart, articulate observers is to discuss and define it. But this is an elaborate question-beg. The exercise begs the assumption that a particularly female impulse exists and, further, that it is inexorable and insuperable and sovereign over female behavior. Where is the holy fool asking, “How do you know this imperative exists?” Before you can inquire what a thing is, you must first wonder whether a thing is.
Well, this is where the modern prejudice enters the picture. Someone pipes up and says, “I know it exists because of biology. Here’s some research and stuff.” Then they continue describing the phenomenon.
I am personally suspicious that the imperative exists if only because it has taken the form of any number of flimsy ideas essential to something called “historicism” — i.e., we are all merely corks bobbing inertly on a current of historical (biological, chemical, genetic) forces. It is fatalist/determinist and necessarily destructive to the idea of free will.
“Where I am confused is that this would also be a part of our nature.” Let’s grant that it is a permanent part of our nature. Now, what does that mean? Is nature an “imperative,” directing us inexorably to certain behaviors and toward certain ends? Or is it an influence that can be overcome? Ay, there’s the rub. This is no mere quibble. It means everything to the manner in which we proceed.
We go down a dangerous path assuming women must be a certain way rather than being deeply influenced to be a certain way. It is one of the reasons why the “manosphere” is so bitter and fatalist and contemptuous of women, rather than seeking their friendship in the fight. You see it all the time at the friskier forums. An excellent observation is howled from the stage when issued from a woman, even a humble ally offering her two cents. And a challenging observation? Well, those are dismissed in a single word: “Hamster.”
As necessary as it is to reverse and eradicate certain feminist assumptions of the culture, let’s not mistake the alienation of an entire sex as a useful method for inquiry. The female nature is, for instance, less logical than the male. If nature is an imperative, that means never listen to a single woman about anything when another man is available. If nature is an influence, that means take her logic with a grain of salt, yes, but do take it.
Are we children in a sandbox? Talking about a “feminine imperative” is a complicated way of thinking girls have cooties. Only that absurdity is undetectable because it is hidden under jargon … like the word “imperative.”
Now most will reject the absurdity as I have laid it out, and they will claim the flaw resides in my exaggeration or somesuch. Of course we don’t think every man is more logical than every woman. But if that were the case, then why assume this about men and women in the abstract (who, by the way, do not exist)? The absurdity is disproved in front of our eyes, in concrete instances, and yet we allow it to taint our conversations of the masculine and feminine per se.
Woman in the particular do not necessarily follow the imperative, but women in general must? The woman we know obviously can transcend her womanly nature, but the abstract feminine cannot? The abstraction is a force of history, always seeking an outlet like chivalry or feminism or the hypergamous sexual revolution? If we tamp it down here, it must emerge there? Those are the contradictions of their use of the word “imperative.” More important, that is what the latest conversation assumes is operative without examination.
The fundamental difference is the difference between Platonic abstraction (a priori knowledge, theory of forms) and Aristotelian particularity (a posteriori knowledge, theory of the senses). Postmodernism mashed them up and took the worst from both: exclusive evidence of the senses combined with abstract system building. We are all theorists now. We are all designers of universal systems according to our limited experiences.
I am standing athwart this tendency yelling, “Stop!” We require the opposite formula — Aristotle’s metaphysical humility (proceed most firm-footedly from experience) and Plato/Socrates’s method of inquiry (dialectic). We live in a world where the invisible things are sovereign! We actually listen to dorks in labcoats who tell us that everything we see is an illusion: that wall is not solid, it is actually mostly vacuum; that woman is not beautiful, it is your genetalia commanding you to seek healthy eggs.
Pish fucking posh on that. I am calling bullshit on that passive aggressive intellectual tyranny, and any man worth a damn would do the same.
This is the depth I’m talking about, Stingray. This is the problem with the quality of intellectual exchange here among men who otherwise understand the real score. This is where women actually possess an advantage over men: we are allergic to deference because we think it is a sign of weakness. We worship assertion as truth and explain difference away as inferiority and envy. Our tendency is the cause of much glory and much slavery.
Keep fighting to understand. Hold your humility close to you like the ultimate weapon it is. It allows you to listen while others simply feel the heat of embarrassment pounding in their ears. It will get you to understanding sooner than every blowhard with a pet theory trying to assert his value through bluffs and puffery.
Matt
Stingray re today’s readings:
When in doubt, check here.
http://new.usccb.org/bible/readings/index.cfm
You can see there are a lot of choices between readings for Holy Family. We heard 1 Samuel, Psalm 128 (“Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine / in the recesses of your home”) 1 John, and Luke.
We didn’t have any visible options either. Oh yes do the church-publication pansies hate Colossians 3. Baby steps, sister. Rome wasn’t rebuilt in a day.
Matt
grey_whiskers wrote:
Without a doubt. I have long believed the hoary old saying (altered for clarity), “One man with conviction makes his majority.” One-fifth to one-third of a committed minority can nudge the obdurate fat complacent (“peer pressure”) middle in the right direction.
My inspiration is the founding colonists, only one-third of whom wanted to fight, with the middle-third sticking their fingers in the air to see who won, and one-third actively rooting for the crown. And before that were prescient leaders like my idol Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Paine, and a handful of rabble rousers dumping tea in Boston harbor.
The fat middle — upwards of 60 or 70% simply do not care, do not want to be bothered, will go along to get along, and therefore require an agreeable path laid out for them. A dedicated minority can do that.
That’s where we are today. How many suffragettes were there? How many dyed-in-the-wool feminists? They placed pressure on the herd and took over the zeitgeist. What was done can be undone. Especially because we aren’t nudging along some unnatural and incongruous agenda based on pique. We are only trying to make space for the truth to flourish. Put a mustard seed in a crack in the concrete, and God will make rubble of our “permanent” artifices.
Matt
This whole “imperative” argument actually boils down to the age-old “nature” (you’re wired that way by biology, etc.) vs “nurture” (how you’re brought up governs your behavior.
That argument has not, and probably never will be resolved. And until it is, this whole FI, et al discussion is meaningless.
@ Matt
I know Rollo probably wouldn’t describe it as I’m about to, but here is what I have always had in my head when ever I read the words, “Female Imperative.” Based on where this conversation has gone, I think and hope it will assist in fostering discussion or examination.
Feminine Imperative – Noun
The way in which Western society is structured to superficially seem to benefit females at the expense of males, for each of the sexes ‘own good.’ It does so by being structured around the majority of women’s failings in how they tend to have a selfish nature for themselves first, then offspring, and then men if any resources are left. This same structure takes advantage of men’s blind nature and failings in their to desire to assist women, even if at the man’s own expense. The system and nature, each, can be thwarted by the wills of educated and determined individuals. This simply rarely happens because the system and nature cyclically feed into each other while throwing individuals into the meat grinder in order to continually further the system. It is assisted in this from the nature of the majority of humans to avoid the truth if a lie is an especially pretty lie while the truth would require an undertaking of responsibility and effort. Thus the feminine imperative rolls on.
A long definition,somewhat incomplete but I’m trying to balance concise with informative. I also always used the definition of the word imperative connected to a command or goal – “something that demands attention or action; an unavoidable obligation or requirement; necessity: – Example: It is an imperative that we help defend friendly nations.”
I do this because it’s stupid to even try and say that all women are under the exact same nature or that actions governed by conscious decisions (or governed by a weak mind that is making unconscious decisions because it hasn’t been trained to think about them consciously) – that those actions can’t be overcome by a sufficient amount of will…. is misleading. I always know/knew that any amount of hypergamy or ‘hamsterization’ (rationalizations) can be overcome by a woman desiring sufficiently to do so. I didn’t even think this needed to be stated.
That it now seems to show itself needing to do so, seems….. Alarming, to me. Anything governed by a human decision, even if influenced by nature, can be overcome. The morality of civilization – laws, religion, etc – relies on such truths to avoid collapse. To believe that somehow humanity’s sexual nature is exempt from the ability to be overcome by will seems to ignore the fact that the basic claim of the manosphere is that the will of men and society overran male sexuality and masculinity to an unhealthy degree, while unchaining female sexuality from any imposition of will over a flawed human nature if taken to extremes. In addition, it’s ignoring the facts that historically both of these have been proven to be able to achieve a healthy balance in what is described as marriage 1.0 – a reigning in of female selfish nature by cultural standards and law, while finding a good balance between allowing a masculine leadership the freedom it needs to exist while still enacting enough laws so that it also doesn’t run rampantly out of control.
So, to summarize, the ‘female imperative’ should be viewed as a loud, deafening command spoken by society along a great deal of its structures and institutions. It is not inescapable, nor unavoidable, nor fate, nor any other fatalistic words that some apply.
Instead, the ‘female imperative’ is a flawed way of life a masculine leader of men should challenge, ignore, avoid, or simply destroy with a cold justice reserved for evil lies. Meanwhile allowing any men or women to become followers of his in such a mission of creating a beautiful, rewarding life based on truth and a pursuit of spiritually fulfilling life.
@Leap – how about calling FI a discriminatory social framework which is biased in favor of females and feminine characteristics at the expense of males and masculine characteristics?
Interesting thoughts, I’ll have to engage them next year.
Matt, thank you for these posts. You’re right that the positivist thinking in our society is as pervasive as feminism, and about as useful. The concept of ‘human nature’ has gone out the window, and willpower, or free will, are seemingly completely forgotten in the ‘biological imperative’ framework.
Everything you said about the process of thinking / theorizing in the manosphere is exactly true.
My hunch is that the problem stems from having abandoned study of the great thinkers of the past. They should be at the core of the educational system, but instead are a late elective that hardly anyone elects.
The best illustration of this problem came for me when I entered a Master’s program in Medieval Studies (at a pretty major university) and found that St. Thomas Aquinas was considered as a bit of a joke.
@Leap.
That is what I always thought the FI to be myself. You say Rollo would disagree. Why? I ask as this is what I always took him to mean when he was describing it.
@ A Northern Observer
Indeed, after giving it more thought, the word “imperative” makes the term difficult. An imperative, in it’s basic sense, is a need. Females do not need this phenomenon. Rather, they wish to be granted access to their desires without repercussions. I think, on some level, all humans want this, but know that it is impossible to live this way. Again, the way you described it is always how I have thought of it.
Matt,
All I can say is thank you. I understand. I won’t always, but I do right now and I will try to hold on to that always.
Wait, you’re Christian? Awwww. Not another…
OTC,
Yup.
All of the good ones are.
Let’s go down to the river to pray. Come on in, boys, the water is fine.
Leap of a Beta wrote:
But we already have a word for this — feminism — and a precise historical provenance of the idea. The term “imperative” is problematic because it implies inexorability and fatalism. An imperative is a directive, a commanding influence like the will to survive or the will to truth or the will to power. And through this assumption, the sophists tell us to spend our energy uncovering the influences of the imperative in history (such as, how chivalry was a female conspiracy[!]), rather than discerning ways to manage, control, and diminish such deleterious influences that create antisocial/anticivil behavior. Wrapped up in the idea is the assumption that such efforts at management are futile, and that we who advocate those efforts are therefore idealistic and naïve about “women’s” “true” “nature.”
In the last analysis, this “selfish nature” is a good thing for men, women, children, and civilization. It is not an unalloyed “good thing,” because it very quickly can lapse into monstrous evil in a culture of undiscipline. We are that very culture, a reversion to immaturity and barbarism, a self-retarding culture, which makes us focus on forcibly changing our natural imperatives (leftism), eradicating our instinct (puritanism), or redefining the terms (political correctness) rather than reinforcing the institutions to channel those impulses toward good ends.
The loudest and most profound-seeming charlatans of the “manosphere” disagree with you. They must be challenged and corrected, or else ignored. Otherwise, all the wisdom developed in incubators like these will ultimately emerge stillborn when its moment arrives. It will have mush in the center and collapse at first contact.
Matt
@ Matt
“But we already have a word for this — feminism — and a precise historical provenance of the idea. The term “imperative” is problematic because it implies inexorability and fatalism. An imperative is a directive, a commanding influence like the will to survive or the will to truth or the will to power. ”
Hmmmm…. I guess I never got or ignored the implications of inexorability and fatalism within the use of the word. Honestly I haven’t ever seen it used outside of military speeches, political speeches, or the manosphere. Which is why I always ascribed to the definition of it that I gave earlier. My immediate response is that I’m unsure whether the fatalism you’re describing is necessarily tied to the word or simply an overwhelming emotional response of the sections of the manosphere – Dalrock and Rollo mostly – to the situations they see. The reason I’m unsure if it’s the word or the sections of the ‘Sphere is because they’re honestly tied so tightly together. It’s probably why I don’t think I’ve ever used the words “Feminine Imperative” in any of my own posts. Nor really in any comments I’ve written except in direct response to someone questioning the meaning of the words – mostly to Sunshine Mary actually, though she seemed to respond to Dalrock’s definition more than mine.
None of these reasons were really thought out consciously before now though. I simply made room in my thoughts and views for the facts, and rejected the fatalism. I’ve done so since I first was reading the ‘Sphere. I think men should always do such – make room for truth, use it to forward their goals and missions, and always keep a hold of a realistic hope for change. That simple hope can keep a man going when his life is falling down around him – I know it has for me.
“In the last analysis, this “selfish nature” is a good thing for men, women, children, and civilization. It is not an unalloyed “good thing,” because it very quickly can lapse into monstrous evil in a culture of undiscipline. We are that very culture, a reversion to immaturity and barbarism, a self-retarding culture, which makes us focus on forcibly changing our natural imperatives”
Agreed on it being a good thing when under our control. If we’re going to use the words “Feminine Imperative” I wanted to be as specific as possible in that the only definition of the word that makes sense is that it is a heaping of social constructs taking advantage of men and women’s natural strengths by pushing them to such extremes as they become faults and weaknesses – the extremes of strengths become evil in their ability to harm the individuals, their families, their communities, and society as a whole.
Honestly this is the only reason I view Feminine Imperative as a useful term. Because it is able to describe and explain the social constructs in such a way as to encapsulate many behaviors, laws, and social expectations that occurred due to the rippling nature of the changes feminism implemented. Very few things that occurred after the feminist movement were due to feminisms direct influence, rather it was the changed men and women that it seduced with its lies that went and did things it never imagined changing. As such, it is sometimes harder to ascribe fault to feminism directly. This is where the term becomes useful, because it is very clear that feminism’s influences extended to majority of the nation, which then went and made their own decisions on how to forward their new values and worldview. Feminism didn’t change these directly, and I think most feminists and the movement itself are too stupid to achieve this as anything other than a fluke. But the overwhelming commands and expectations that have been set up within our society are ill described by the simple term of ‘feminism,’ which is where the term Feminine Imperative can be useful for discussion purposes – to describe the out of control evil that feminism inadvertently spawned.
“The loudest and most profound-seeming charlatans of the “manosphere” disagree with you. They must be challenged and corrected, or else ignored. Otherwise, all the wisdom developed in incubators like these will ultimately emerge stillborn when its moment arrives. It will have mush in the center and collapse at first contact.”
Yes. On top of what you’ve written as solutions, I always encourage others to take the ideas we have here out into the world and simply try them. Talk about them with others or show the world how it’s done. I do this myself, and have numerous posts on my own blog where I’ll take what I can, and show it to the people that read it. Usually it’s facebook posts – the least ideal of ways to do so, but I don’t have a head for word for word transcriptions at a later time, which make a large difference in how these discussions go. Still, I like to believe that it both strengthens my own core and demonstrate to others here that ideas need to be tested, and that truth will win through. Then take what you learned from reality, re-examine and re-align the ideas where develop here, and move forward with greater strength than you had previously.
If we make an echo chamber out of this incubator, we’re also doomed to fail.
Leap of a Beta wrote:
You are splitting hairs, which is fine as an intellectual exercise. This entire conversation is very good to have if only to help us all think about an issue that is all but forbidden by polite society.
But I am trying to alert you and others about the danger of not examining why you all collectively find it “useful” to split these particular hairs.
Inventing terms and pretending we have discovered a concept unique enough to require a new name is an intellectually seductive trap that excuses us from the hard work of probing, understanding, and interpreting the much higher quality expressions of the same concept that came before us. It is an indication of rhetorical sloppiness and lassitude.
We don’t arrive at wisdom by jerking each other off with neologisms. We have average minds, we must find the humility to seek the thoughts of better men than we could ever be. They stand their silent in ancient books, eternally waiting for our humility and approach, after which they yield their treasures. And in this day and age? Of Google and e-books, instant searching and total recall? The strivers of past generations envy our access.
We deepen our comprehension about difficult subjects by eschewing semantical satisfactions for that level of understanding that is often ineffable. You know you are at a high level of communication when you have conveyed a concept for which no word exists. This is where metaphor, poetry, music, and the visual arts are superior to prose polemics and even dialectical argument.
When a man has the basics down, he is not easily seduced by sophistry. He is a naïve questioner confident in his naïveté. Creating new terms and commandments and explanations of old phenomena is dangerous intellectual boastfulness. We learn by listening and questioning and maintaining our innocence, not by making complex declarations and taking such pride in them that we can’t stand to see them challenged.
It is becoming increasingly important to develop defenses against sophistry, as we are cohering into an identifiable social force. If we are to act in concert, and not at cross-purposes, we have to discern what is reliable and what is pretty-sounding bullshit. I find the credulity of the majority of commentary as disheartening as I find the much rarer, naïve questioners to be encouraging.
The self-proclaimed leaders of this community — the loudest among us — have to be challenged into giving us their “A” Game. And if their best isn’t good enough, which the anti-sophists will be able to determine by their own faculties, then others must be found to articulate the inexpressible longings that bring such zealous brothers and sisters together.
Matt
“It is becoming increasingly important to develop defenses against sophistry, as we are cohering into an identifiable social force.”
Without a doubt, if we want to enact any kind of change in our society, we have to have an understanding of the concepts, and an ability to convey them, that transcends a mere stringing together of neologisms.
This *is* the disease of political correctness – attributing special status to concrete words instead of paying attention to the idea and the message that is being conveyed. And the danger, often realised, is that the idea and the message become narrowed down under the force of the PC interpretation until they are identical to it.
This is effectively brainwashing, but more frighteningly it causes atrophy of the abstract thinking ability, until people can only communicate about higher level ideas using catch-all words and phrases. No true evolution of thought can occur when this is in effect.
I think some of the problems that you point out in the manosphere can be attributed to this. And if this is not improved we are likely to never get beyond stewing in our own juices.
On the other hand, our PC society is not capable of parsing free-flowing abstract thought. Can we really effectively disseminate our ideas without improving people’s comprehension of non-standard expressions first?
Phedre wrote:
You sound like a smart lady. So you’ve probably encountered the seminal essay about this idea, George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language.”
Matt
Texting = Newspeak
Thanks Matt. I had not read it and I enjoyed it very much just now.
I wonder when all of this started? His essay implies that it was then widespread, but perhaps not absolute. Now there are almost no exceptions. I’ve also read plenty of scholarship from his time which avoids that kind of language, whereas now it is the only way to write in academia (and the reason I left it once and for all).
I’m still un-teaching myself those so-called writing skills. My greatest help has been C.S. Lewis, whose writing has incredible clarity. Meaningful metaphor construction is still challenging, but the medievals are helping with that.
Do you have any suggestions for well-written recent scholarship?
Something else to add to my ever growing reading list. Thank you, Matt.
Nope. We have to clear away the detritus and rebuild from the rubble.
I am forever recommending Manliness by Harvey Mansfield and Honor: A History by James Bowman. They aren’t “scholarly” — which is a good thing — but they are profound. Warren Farrell is as good as recent “scholarship” gets.
The way forward is through the the past. The non-recent will avail us in all we need. There is nothing new under the sun. Now, ancient wisdom must be brought into the modern idiom, especially through artistic interpretations. But that can only happen when we reach a wide enough audience to include the poets and artists. Until then we must live what we know and teach by presence and example.
I have great suspicion of and contempt for the “scholarly” class. They got us into this mess. Only intellectuals can screw things up this deeply.
Matt
Please bracket my html code, editrix. How much smarter I’d look in the comboxes if only I could edit them post-post.
Pingback: Kognitiva könsskillnader « Yasers hörna
Pingback: A War of Words « stagedreality
Pingback: One Year Ago | On the Rock
She makes a mistake though about the male domination bit. In her example male competition would remove all safety from woman as they move from woman to woman and dominate many for the sake of domination alone.
Truth is the male imperative is not having as many women as possible, but to find and keep the best one we can. You get more sex with a stable partner than by prowling every night. We also have this nasty instinct that makes us happy when we make our lover happy. So in essence the partner that meets our needs the best would have tremendous negotiating power to eke out security and resources and can demand faithfulness.
This is probably why you get marriage traditions all over the world, even in the most primitive societies.. Because it’s a compromise that helps fulfill both parties needs the most. Its not something that was engineered or negotiated at large, but its a personal negotiation in each couple that repeats among many.
As our societies grew larger and more sophisticated we normalized it and wrote it into law and tradition. Its that law and tradition that is now skewed and the result is MGTOW and plummeting marriage rates here in the west. And on the flip, its causing sexual slavery and harems in ISIS controlled territory. Now we see examples of both extremes made manifest. If we continue the trend in the west, we’ll be taxing single men and forcing them into marriage.
That’s my 2 cents anyway.
Its that law and tradition that is now skewed and the result is MGTOW and plummeting marriage rates here in the west.
Agreed. My thinking in this post was, what if things were completely skewed in the other direction? Instead of towards women, making laws and and cultural perception toward them, what if it was all skewed toward men? What would men wholeheartedly pursue? Women are pursuing serial monogamy. We have made it so, when we are tired of the man we are with, we can easily try to trade up. We have also made it so, when we cannot trade up, we can still be validated for the choice to leave.
So my question with this post was, what would it look like if men could pursue the same thing from their own perspective? I do not think it would be monogamy. It would be sex with as many women as possible. Remember, there are no societal constraints.
My argument is that we both sexes need to suppress part of their own sexual imperative for civilization to not only survive but to thrive. And to truly thrive, men must have more of their imperative in place. In my personal opinion, and remember, I am a woman and it will be naturally skewed by that fact, is that the balance must be slightly more in man's direction. Too much and monogamy falls short again.
Instead of towards women, making laws and and cultural perception toward them, what if it was all skewed toward men? What would men wholeheartedly pursue?
I have to wonder if that’s not the case for some men already. By telling women they can be “just like men” and jump from bed to bed, they’ve taken to doing so with guys that’ll be more than happy to service to them, but never commit. So for those guys, feminism is one non-stop feast of serial hook-ups, while for the not-so-desirable guys, the well’s pretty well dry.
If “the rules” were skewed more towards men, I’m not sure what would be different, except maybe women would be more careful who they hook up with because the cost of hitching her wagon to the wrong guy would be quite high.
Kind of what it’s like for men these days, don’t you think?
. And to truly thrive, men must have more of their imperative in place.
If the obligations that come with those responsibilities is firmly in place, and their women respected them, then I think men would eagerly rise to the challenge.
I have to wonder if that’s not the case for some men already.
That’s a good point. Those men don’t much care what the laws or social mores are either way.
Kind of what it’s like for men these days, don’t you think?
Yup, only I was incomplete in my comment. I was thinking that the women, in my hypothetical, would be treated like men are today. With their sexuality repressed and women being downgraded in general.
If the obligations that come with those responsibilities is firmly in place, and their women respected them, then I think men would eagerly rise to the challenge.
I completely agree. I think men tend toward civilization more than women do, on a certain level because men thrive in it. Women crave the comfort and security of civilization, but then want to take advantage of it, in ways that destroy it. Whereas men want to tame the wild, which is more conducive to civilization. This is all off the top of my head, so I’m sure I am missing quite a bit, but there’s something to it.
Pingback: Weiblicher Auftrag (Female Imperative), Männlicher Auftrag und Ehe 1.0 – MGTOW Deutsch
Pingback: Femmephobia: Why Your Problem is Not That I Wear Makeup, It’s That You Hate Women - Fembot Magazine
Hmm it appears like your site ate my first comment (it was super long)
so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I submitted and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.
I too am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to everything.
Do you have any recommendations for beginner blog writers?
I’d genuinely appreciate it.
“While I’m not sure I agree with the beta/alpha compromise (I tend to think the betas followed the alphas to glory and domination to help them secure their own women, but I admit I haven’t fully thought this out).”
Well – i dont know how much further you got until today – has been a few years for you to think about it – but i can tell by my experience, that in general this compromise exists in exactly the way deti says. and of course there are betas, doing it for a little bit of sunshine instead always staying behind in the shadows of the alphas. but in general it is exactly this compromise and this way it goes. just imagine, what this world would be without this compromise. and what most proves it, is that betas mostly dont really want to support the alphas – they do it for the sake of the family, the women, the children – the higher goal.
Pingback: 9 Types of Red Pill Models | Σ Frame
Pingback: 9 Types of Red Pill Models | Σ Frame