Red Pill 101 The Hard Truths That Your Father Should Have Taught You By: The Red Pill Scholar Copyright © 2021 by The Red Pill Scholar. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form without permission from the author, except as permitted by U.S. copyright law. For permissions contact: [email protected]. Please send any corrections, typos, or comments to the e-mail address above. Table of Contents Chapter 1: You Are Not Alone How You Got Here How to Use this Book Chapter 2: How We Got Here as a Species The Myth of Equality Evolutionary Biology Basics Female Solipsism Hypergamy Sexual Marketplace Value (SMV) Chapter 3: How We Got Here as a Culture The Patriarchy Feminist Theory The History of Feminism Modern Feminism Female Collectivism The Failure of Fathers Chapter 4: Dangers in the Workplace The Mike Pence Rule Diversity and Inclusion Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Chapter 5: Dangers in Relationships #MeToo Online Dating The 80/20 Rule Marriage Risks Foreign Brides Shit Tests Briffault’s Law Chapter 6: Common Myths The Gender Pay Gap 1 in 4 Women will be Raped While at College Women Want Sex as Much as Men Chapter 7: Going Your Own Way Categories within the Manosphere The Enemies of Men My Red Pill Influences Rules of Thumb Chapter 8: Closing Thoughts Regarding Data and “The Truth” Regarding Hating Women Regarding the Future Regarding Dating Advice Contact Information References Chapter 1: You Are Not Alone How You Got Here I was lucky enough to grow up for the first decade or so of my life in a happy and healthy traditional nuclear family. Like all young boys, I admired by father by default and desired to be like him. In fact, I have a strong memory of my answer to the cliché question, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” being simply, “A Man.” I don’t know why, but the word and concept itself had an aura of power to me. I would not have been able to explain exactly what being a man even meant at the time, but without a doubt I knew it had something to do with the way I perceived my father: strong, rugged, individualistic, broadly capable, a leader, a fighter, a protector, and a provider. Somehow, intuitively, I knew that these were important traits; and I wanted them for my own. In middle school, somewhere around the age of 12, my happy family imploded. My parents got themselves into a couple of bad business deals that ruined their marriage, and along with it, my relationship with my father. There I was, at the cusp of puberty, and my father- who was even at the best of times gone often for work, leaving me and my sister to be raised by our stay at home mothersimply faded into the background, never to return as a significant figure in my life. He was still alive and even lived nearby at times, but his influence on me has been negligible ever since. I had no grandfathers, uncles, brothers, or male cousins in the picture who were willing or able to take his place, so from that point on I felt truly alone when it came to having masculine guidance in my life. I therefore grew into manhood under the influence of my mother, sister, grandmother, and mostly female teachers at school. My father taught me well how to be a boy. I was involved in several sports (though nothing too dangerous, my mother wouldn’t allow it), went shooting, studied martial arts, listened intently to war stories, learned about tools and how to be handy with them, and developed a love of being outdoors. But he left me completely clueless as to how to be a man. I won’t put all the blame at his feet, because I think in many cases he truly did not know what to do himself. We are living in a world where the rate of cultural change is too fast for anyone to keep up with, and I have since come to believe that he was just as confused as I grew to be. Just look back at entertainment from only 10 or 20 years ago, and you’ll see movie and TV show lines replete with now culturally unacceptable views and language. Historical norms that previously were relatively steady over many decades or even centuries have been completely upended in a matter of a few years. Because of how quickly our cultural landscape is changing, we should have some sympathy for the father figures in our lives and forgive them for not understanding what the hell is going on either. But that’s no excuse for you to be ignorant as well. That is my purpose for writing this book. Some of you grew up without fathers, with fathers who were physically present but not functionally there, or fathers who stuck around but did not pass on the knowledge that they should have out of simple ignorance. This book is meant to compensate for that loss. It is a compilation of lessons, life experiences, and thorough research that I have gathered over the years to fill that same void in myself, and I see it as my duty to pass this information along to others. If I can help just one young man to live a better life, then I will consider my time to have been well spent. Between boyhood and manhood, I made all the smart choices that I was told to make. I studied hard in school and went to a good college, ultimately graduating with a STEM degree. I only ever had long-term girlfriends, one of which I married in my mid-20s after several years together. I thought that everything was going great and that I was achieving the happy life that I was promised, until one day she tearfully confessed to cheating on me. Not once, but multiple times. As clear as it seems to me now in hindsight, at the time I was caught completely off guard. It was like walking down the street and being hit with an unseen cinderblock that someone dropped from an overpass. I had only ever been a good, kind, faithful, and loving partner to her. I supported her through school, through more than a year of unemployment afterward, and even bought a house for us to live and hopefully raise a family in. For the first time in my life, I sat down with a bottle of liquor and just drank in silence until I passed out. Although devastated, I still tried to work things out with her; only to find that she had no interest in staying with me. I can still remember tearfully begging her to come home, to which she coldly responded that if she did come back, it would not be to me. These events, and the ones that followed over the next several years, led me to the darkest period of my life. I eventually got through it with the help of some good therapy. That experience fundamentally changed me and I started to look at the world differently. I began to suspect that things didn’t work the way that mom and Disney movies told me they did. I decided to move to a new city and start over, looking for something that I could not put a name to. All I knew was that I wasn’t getting where I wanted in life and needed a change. So I quit my job, sold the house that I bought for myself and my wife, filled up my car with some clothes and basic belongings, and drove until the road ran into the ocean. It was there, in a new city and on the other side of the country, that I finally woke up. For the first time in my life, I was free of all my boyhood influences of friends and family and of their expectations of me. I was free to chart my own path in life and listen to the voice inside of me, not someone else telling me what I should do. By chance, I met a likeminded man who himself was coming out of a divorce. We quickly became best friends, and over the next few years we embarked on a mission to figure out life together; in doing so, we refined much of what is in this book. I wouldn’t be where I am today without this man who became a brother to me. Finally, the world started to make sense. My friend and I shared our stories of marriage and dating with each other, and found to our amazement that although the minor details were slightly different, the plot was identical. At the same time, the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement was just starting to make its way onto YouTube, internet forums, and sites like Reddit. We were both amazed at what we found in those forums and videos: it wasn’t just the two of us, but millions of other men had the same experiences. Not sort of the same, not kinda similar, but exactly the same experiences. This is the most important message of the book and I’m sharing it with you right up front: you are not alone. Whatever you are going through currently or have gone through, know that you are not alone. You are not broken or screwed up in some special way. This is the biggest sin that our fathers and their generation committed upon their sons. They did not pass down the knowledge that fathers, grandfathers, uncles, and brothers have been passing on to their male descendants since time immemorial. This knowledge is the power to make sense of the world, to understand where men fit into it, and how to have successful relationships with the opposite sex. Because of this failure, so many of us grew up clueless as to the true nature of the world. Born into a gynocentric (female-centered) society, raised exclusively by women, and taught that to be feminine was right and to be masculine was wrong. We had this ingrained in us from birth and accepted it as fact; but when we put what we were taught into practice, nothing seemed to work as planned. The truth is that you were lied to. I know this because I was lied to. It wasn’t your fault that you were raised like this, and no matter how far along you are in your life’s journey, all is not lost. You can take responsibility and change your life this very moment. This book is not about making you feel bitter or hopeless, but instead to make you feel hopeful. To feel strong. Knowledge is power, and by the time that you finish this book, you will be much better equipped to understand the world around you and to succeed in it. In short, you’ll wake up just like I did. The metaphor used for this is “taking the red pill”, a reference which comes from the movie The Matrix [1]. And like in the movie, you’ll learn that the real world is a lot uglier, darker, and more dangerous than you had ever imagined. But at least you will know the truth, and accepting a hard truth is always preferable to living a lie. How to Use this Book First, this book is unapologetically written by a man for other men. Women are free to gain value from this book and perhaps some insight into their own behavior, but I am addressing a male audience. The main topics revolve around dealing with women and exposing the seedy underbelly of our current female-correct society. I will explain what to watch out for when it comes to interacting with women and the traps that society has laid for you. It is my hope that this newfound knowledge will assist you in living a richer and more content life. Second, this book is meant to be an overview of the topics discussed. Use it as a guide to orient yourself in the right direction and then research for yourself any topics that you find particularly interesting, confusing, or simply would like to delve into further. In the final chapters, I will point you toward some of my own influences, most of which can be found on YouTube for free. There are many thousands of hours of content on all of the subjects that I will discuss for the curious mind to consume. Lastly, throughout this book, I will continuously generalize. I will provide statistics and sources when possible to validate my claims (all listed in the References section at the end of this book), but there are two important concepts to keep in mind: 1) Our current culture emphasizes relativism in all things. The common wisdom of the day is that there are no absolute truths, only opinions. All different viewpoints have equal weight. Everyone is special no matter their tangible difference in contribution to a group. Understand that this is a feminine way to look at the world. Women prioritize emotion over logic and reason, and have a difficult time looking past their individual experiences to find a greater objective truth. But opinions, followed closely by anecdotes, are the weakest foundation for an argument. If you believe that an opinion or personal anecdote has equal weight to a peer reviewed scientific paper, or even to logically sound reasoning, then there is no point in debating anything because your lived experience is the ultimate trump card in any discussion. Don’t fall into this trap of relativism. There are demonstrably better and worse solutions for almost any problem, as judged against some desired end goal. My intent with this book is to reveal these greater truths to you and show you the evidence to prove it. 2) When dealing with large populations, there is no useful way to look at data except by generalizing and examining statistics. If I make some claim about all women as a whole, that encompasses approximately 3.5 billion people across the world. There is no single statement I could make where someone couldn’t find me an exception to that rule, even if that exception is literally 1 out of that 3.5 billion. The rallying cry of “not all!” is ubiquitous in female circles, but this is a diversion. It is a common tactic for someone who is losing an argument on merits and has no logical rebuttal. Down to the lowest, most basic laws of physics, we see uncertainty built into the universe. The integrated chip, for example, which is a fundamental building block of any electronic device, requires a thorough understanding of quantum effects to build. Part of that understanding is that an electron cannot be fully assured to be in any one position, but instead can only be described by a probability function that shows the likelihood of being in a given place at a given time. Yet we trust our lives, and the continuation of the human race, to such uncertainty on a daily basis. So the “not all” argument is a misdirection from the start. Do not fall into this trap either, because there is always an exception to any rule; however, that does not prove the rule itself invalid or useless to explain a phenomenon. I will also caution you to never judge an individual by a group dynamic without prior knowledge of them, but understanding general trends can help us to both predict and explain observed behavior. Much like a roulette wheel, no one can tell you on a single play what color will come up; but we know with unerring certainty the overall odds given enough games. Finally, most women, when asked, will say they are not like all other women. This is a lie. Just as you are like all other men. Similar to. Having the same general tendencies. It does not mean you have the same existence or have no free will, but it means that you are comparable and the basic elements that drive you are the same. Key Takeaways: 1. You are not alone. 2. Don’t get caught up in relativism. You can, and must, generalize about large populations to understand overall trends in behavior exhibited by individual members of that population. 3. Those who have taken the red pill and have banded together are commonly referred to as the “red pill community”, or sometimes as the “manosphere.” I will use those terms interchangeably in the following chapters. Chapter 2: How We Got Here as a Species The Myth of Equality Much of the relationship and societal ills of today stem from the idea that an equal outcome for everyone is both realistic and desirable. In reality, it is neither. Of course, we should all have a common respect for our fellow human beings and believe in equal treatment under the law, for example, or believe that we are all equally worthy of respect as human beings. But it is important to draw the distinction between this basic level of respect for your fellow man and a belief that there should be no difference between you and your fellow man. Nothing in this world in its natural state is exactly equal. We all know this instinctively from birth, and it takes a heavy dose of social conditioning and cognitive dissonance to argue the opposite. We are all born with our own natural talents, desires, and physical and mental capabilities; then we mix that with our unique upbringing, families, friends, culture, and life experiences in a way that guarantees none of us is exactly equal to another. When it comes to the two genders, these differences are obvious to anyone with eyes and a functioning brain, but somehow one of the more ridiculous ideas perpetuated today is that men and women are equal. That gender is just a social construct. That the only reason boys like to play with trucks instead of dresses is because their parents forced that choice upon them at a young age. Never mind that our physical differences alone are an observable biological cue that we evolved to perform different roles in society. Never mind that modern science has allowed us to conduct brain scans, which show that men and women have functionally different neural pathways [2]. Never mind that a mountain of academic evidence has shown a reliable and statistically significant difference between us, across cultures and time, including but not limited to the following areas: Assessment of negative emotions Anti-social behaviors Cognitive abilities Personality traits Motor activities Physical traits Sexual attitudes and behaviors Numerous other characteristics such as interest in infants and occupations [3]. But, you know, aside from that we’re pretty much the same. Men and women have never been equal and we will never be equal. Our thoughts, emotions, motivations, and desires are fundamentally different from one another. We evolved over the ages to be opposing and complementary, but never the same. So when today’s boys are raised to be like girls, and taught to repress their natural masculine tendencies, this attempt at undoing millions of years of evolution and millennia of civilization does great harm not only to these individual boys themselves but to society as a whole. One interesting and heavily researched phenomenon is the Gender Equality Paradox. In short, it has been overwhelmingly proven across dozens of countries and tens of thousands of study participants that as countries become more egalitarian when it comes to gender, sex differences (which are measured in variables such as career choices and personality trait tests) become larger, not smaller [4]. So, for example, the Nordic countries of Finland and Norway, which highly prioritize gender quality and enforce it via strict laws and societal norms, produce approximately ½ the amount of female STEM graduates than do the countries of Tunisia and Algeria. This is despite the former being rated as the most gender equal countries in the world and the latter being rated as the least gender equal countries in the world using a measure called the Global Gender Gap Index [5]. This was a totally unexpected result when it first started turning up in scientific literature, but has been replicated time and again. What this implies is that when we remove societal restrictions and allow men and women to behave as they desire, they naturally diverge in their interests and personalities. Regarding relationships, one common mistake is to project the traits you desire in a woman on to how you should act as a man. For example, being vulnerable, emotional, and meek; these are all feminine qualities and are typically demonstrated in the “nice guy” archetype. It turns out that women despise this behavior, and acting more like a woman is pretty much the worst thing you can do to attract one. Women, of course, have a version of projecting the masculine traits that they desire onto themselves, which leads to behavior such as promiscuity, being highly career-minded, and aggressiveness. This topic is incredibly important to understand and truly internalize because it is the exact opposite of what you probably learned growing up. The lie must be unlearned if you ever hope to have a positive relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Keep that in mind as you read the following chapters and resist the impulse to think that your feelings and thoughts are, or should be, the same as a woman’s. Evolutionary Biology Basics A full treatment of evolutionary biology has been undertaken elsewhere and I leave it to the reader to pursue this subject in depth on his own, but I will present the relevant highlights here. It is necessary to understand the basic concepts of evolutionary biology because we are all, at our core, merely highly functioning animals. Furthermore, the uniquely evolved human part of our brain that has allowed us to dominate the world, understand the secrets of the universe down to the atomic level, and explore the far reaches of space, is only the latest addition to our mental firmware. The more ancient parts of our brain, which regulate our instincts and unconscious drives, are in control most of the time like a computer’s operating system running in the background. If you disbelieve this, consider all of the bodily functions that keep you alive in this very moment; from the beating of your heart, digestion of food, healing of injuries, or breathing. None of those functions are within your conscious control, in general. Consider further all of your emotions and the multitude of hormones that guide them and the amount of control you have over those. Consider your base impulses, what you are attracted to and repelled by on a primal level. You are the product of billions of years of evolution, from the first single celled organisms that ever existed until now, and that history lives on inside of you. In the context of this discussion, we will examine how men and women evolved differently from each other and the significance of that divergence. Human beings are an example of a sexually dimorphic species. This means that males and females, in addition to having different reproductive organs, also have additional significant biological differences that are typically discernable upon cursory inspection. For example, on average, men have larger frames, deeper voices, and more body hair than women do. This is primarily the result of the hormone testosterone, which develops these male sex traits. On average, males have around 20 times more the amount of testosterone than a woman does. Dimorphism is not a given in nature, so it must have some purpose in the context of our species. Some organisms have little to no differences between the sexes, and others are dimorphic but the roles are reversed; for example, in many insect and fish species females are typically much larger than males. Female hyenas are also larger than male hyenas and their pack is matriarchal (i.e. led by women). Several species of bats, mice, seals, and mongooses follow this trend as well. The fact that humans are dimorphic is a clue that men and women evolved to have different roles in human life. From a biological perspective, much of these differences are a result of the fact that men have always been the disposable gender. One man can impregnate an essentially unlimited number of women starting from puberty until near death. A woman, however, is limited to one pregnancy at a time, with a long gestation period of 9 months, between her teenage years and the onset of menopause at approximately age 50; and long before menopause, her chances of having healthy children are drastically reduced. In addition to this relatively short reproductive window, pregnancy is an enormous investment for women in terms of both the physical toll it takes and the time commitment necessary to gestate and then raise a child for many years until he or she is self-sufficient. In fact, the act of sex for all but modern history was a risky proposition for women and carried with it existential danger. This is not true for men, so historically women tended to be cautious when choosing whom they mated with. For these reasons above, we say that women, not men, are the limiting factor in human reproduction. This basic, underlying fact that women are the limiting factor in reproduction means that their reproductive cost is higher; a truism for more than 95% of all mammals, not just humans. In every case in nature where this is true, the sex that has the lower reproductive cost competes among itself for access to the sex with a higher reproductive cost. For human beings, therefore, males compete with each other both physically and by acquiring resources, in order to make themselves more attractive to females who then select among the best of them to reproduce with. Historically, many or even the majority of men did not reproduce for this reason; as opposed to the few high status men who would reproduce multiple times with multiple women and assure that their progeny survived disproportionally to carry on the lineage. All of this is well established and well understood in the field of evolutionary biology [6]. From a practical point of view, let’s also consider a hypothetical tribe early in human history. Provided that there was enough food to go around, more children are better for this tribe. The larger the group gets, the more it can dominate its surroundings for the purposes of foraging, defense from nature and other local tribes, and ultimately progress to a point where some members of the group can stop working on the day to day tasks that simply ensure survival. These individuals can then focus on other efforts such as art and music, engineering, scientific research, and governmental administration; these fields are superfluous to short term survival, but over time result in cultural and technological advancements. This basic progression is the origin of modern society. A good treatment of this subject is given in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel written by Jared Diamond. On an even larger scale, when the survivability of the entire species is a concern such as during an extinction event, certainly more children are better as well. This means that when an asteroid hits and only 10% of the population survives, that 10% will be numerous enough to carry on. So now that we’ve established that more children are better for the purpose of survival, what is the best way to accomplish this? Let’s say one tribe, Tribe A, is 100 people in size and the gender split is 50 women and 50 men of reproductive age. Therefore, in any roughly one-year period, 50 women can get pregnant, and every year 50 new children will be born (infant mortality aside). After 5 years, you’ll have 50*5 = 250 new tribespeople that can continue the bloodline. But is this the optimal gender composition? Consider Tribe B, which is composed of 75 women and only 25 men. These 25 men can easily impregnate the 75 women, and now after 5 years Tribe B has 75*5 = 375 new tribespeople to continue the bloodline. If survival is on the line, and more children are better, then the choice is clear: it is much more important to have women in your tribe than men. This unique ability to bear children is a superpower for women. It is the source of their elevated status as a gender. Men’s participation is no doubt required as well, but the male’s role when it comes to pure reproduction is of secondary importance to the woman’s role. In our example above, we concluded that Tribe B would be more successful in the game of evolution with a skewed population in favor of women. The caveat to this example of course is that the role of men, which is to protect and provide for their women, is necessary in order to ensure that those women and children are safe and thus can continue procreating. In the long run, Tribe B wins the race and passes on its genes and culture, but not if Tribe A with twice as many men decides to invade in the first year. They will have a massive military advantage, likely kill the men and children, and bring back the women to become part of their tribe. Because of women’s ability to give birth and assure the future, the loss of one woman could be devastating to a small tribe. The loss of one man on a hunting mission or during a raid though? No problem at all. Thus, it makes sense why the gender who could not bear children evolved to be physically larger, have stronger bones and muscles, and have behavioral predispositions toward aggressiveness, risk taking, and self-sacrifice. When something hard or dangerous had to be done, whether that was exploring over the mountains to find new land for hunting and foraging or engaging in warfare, which gender would you send? This is the root of male disposability. It has always been this way since the beginning of our species and to this day remains unchanged. Think of all the common tropes associated with male disposability: Ship sinking? Women and children first, obviously. Hope you can tread water for a few hours in 30-degree temperatures. Bump in the middle of the night? Better have my boyfriend go check it out. I’ll stay here under the covers with the phone. Scream twice if you need me to call someone to come help you. There’s a leak in the roof and someone needs to go fix it? Seems dangerous, roofs are slippery and might cause a deadly fall! That’ll go on the husband’s honeydo-list for this weekend. Our nation is in conflict with another and there will be a war. We know that many of you will not be coming home. Time to call up every able bodied adult from 1835 (women exempted). Daycare is too expensive, so one parent has to stay home and take care of the kids. Daddy had better sacrifice his health working overtime, because everyone knows mothers are better caregivers. Disposable. Not only do women think of you this way, but society sees you this way. This inherent female value coupled with male disposability is where the phrase “Women are human beings, and men are human doings” comes from. Women are valued for their mere existence, whereas men are only valued for the things that they do and for what they can provide to others. So, if you ever feel that you are invisible to society and no one cares about you for who you are except for your mom or your best friend- you’re right! That sort of cold indifference, and the concept of being valued only when you do something that provides a benefit to others, is a notion that is foreign to most women. And if you think about it, you can’t blame them: their only frame of reference is their own life experience. They have been showered with love, affection, and attention from men for their entire lives; or surely once they hit puberty in their teenage years, through their 20s, into their 30s, and for some lucky women into their 40s. During this timeframe of a female’s life, the world is her oyster because she has something that every man in the world wants. But take a minute to look at older women, especially those postmenopausal women who have lost their looks and ability to create a child. Think of the older lady at your work in her 50s or 60s, and consider how she is treated. If you observe that she too is invisible, you’ve just confirmed for yourself what I’ve presented above. Here is the harsh feminine analogy to male disposability: a woman is valuable to society, and desired by men, for her youth, beauty, and fertility. Ultimately, the first two are signals for the third, so if you really want to distill it down to the core, every bit of a woman’s power comes from the ability to construct little humans inside of her. Once that is gone, she holds much less value to the world. Without a family and friend group to love and care for her in old age, a woman fades into the same obscurity that a man is born into. So if women are needed by men for their fertility, what are men needed by women for? Provision and protection. Similar to above, the former is a signal for the latter. If women are the more vulnerable sex (especially during pregnancy), then the male of the species has the job of taking care of these women and by extension their own progeny. As a man, if you can provide for and protect a woman, then you are useful. If you cannot or will not do either of those things, then you will be seen as useless. This is the cruel side of nature: evolution does not care about any individual’s happiness or fulfilment. Evolution has no morals or a sense of right or wrong. Evolution is a cold, unfeeling process that selects for traits and behaviors which lead to successful reproduction, survival, and continuation of the species in a purely utilitarian way. There is only what works and what does not work. However, what works in terms of evolution and natural selection is specific to a time and environment. Change the environmental pressures that a species goes through and you’ll change which adaptations are optimal for survival. The reason I’m bringing this up is to point out that the environment that our species evolved in for hundreds of thousands of years- and our closest biological ancestors for hundreds of millions of years before that- is so wildly different from today’s world as to be completely unrecognizable. This should help you understand why your drives and instincts might seem both disadvantageous to a single human being such as yourself, and why they might also seem disadvantageous to males in general in today’s world. How could it be both? Because our bodies and low-level brain functions are still attuned to simple tribal life in caves, tents on plains, or at best, simple mud huts. Attuned to living in bands of a few dozen or at most a few hundred, and never interacting with many more people than that in your entire life. The point of this information is not for you to lament the current state of affairs, but to do your best to understand why we as humans do the things that we do and how to use that information to your personal advantage. Female Solipsism While we are talking about our base natures, this is a good time to bring up the concept of female solipsism. Solipsism, as an idea, has been around since the time of the ancient Greeks, and in strict terms, it is a philosophical model whose main tenant is that it is impossible to truly know whether anything outside of your own mind exists. Another way to say this is that you can only be sure that you and your thoughts are real, and everything else is in question. As applied to women, the term female solipsism comes to mean that a woman’s world is centered on herself, and everything outside of that might as well not exist. She is the center of her own universe, and you are just a guest in it if she decides to invite you in. Everyone and everything in her world is self-referential, like a series of signposts along a road which all point in the same direction no matter what path you take; this is in stark contrast to men, who tend to be more interested in the rest of the world as opposed to themselves. Therefore, solipsism is a typically feminine characteristic. Using this definition, solipsism may seem to you like a complicated stand in for words such as narcissism or selfishness. Although solipsism can present itself in narcissistic and selfish behaviors, I will caution you against these moral judgements. Understand this very important lesson: no inherently female trait is necessarily good or bad. They just are. If it helps, remember that every one of these evolved traits I’m discussing in this section are quite literally the reason that we are all alive today. Nature selected these traits for women because they preferentially resulted in the continuation of our species. In this case, being self-referential at all times logically would increase your chances of survival so that you can contribute to the gene pool. Let us consider again a tribal example to understand why. A woman and a man from Tribe A form a pact to mutually help each other survive and carry on the bloodline. The man’s role is simple: provide food, shelter, and protection for the woman and their potential child, and the woman’s role is equally simple in that she bears and rears the child while the man is accomplishing those duties. Sounds like a good deal for both partners, and as a team they can accomplish together what neither could do alone. Then one day without warning, a rival tribe attacks their village. In the midst of the sudden chaos and carnage, the woman catches sight of her man, surrounded by a group of warriors and sure to die without assistance. What we as men wish would happen is that the woman would pick up a weapon and fight alongside her partner, and if necessary, die in the process. How romantic that would be to our masculine sensibilities! But from a purely analytical point of view- remember that nature has no emotions- it would be much better if the woman (who has little ability to affect the outcome of the fight anyway) either abandoned her man and escaped into the nearby hills or, even better, just waited the battle out and sided with the victors. Remember, men are both easily replaceable when it comes to procreation and are a martial threat, so it makes good sense to just kill them all in this situation rather than deal with any would-be problems in the future. This is the reason that the losing tribe’s men will all be executed during or after the battle, along with any male children who might grow up big and strong to avenge dad. The women, however, are valuable and will be brought back as slaves and new wives. There is a name for a woman in this situation: a war bride. War brides are created when one band defeats another band in battle, inevitably killing off most of the men in the process. The womenfolk, now without their husbands and fathers of their children to protect them, have a simple choice to make: comply or die. Long ago, there probably were women who resisted and went down in a blaze of glory alongside their men. Or perhaps women who did not actively fight, but were emotionally devastated by the loss of their one true love, and pathetically lived the rest of their lives alone, forsaking all others. These women of course all died off and became a genetic dead end, selecting for the solipsistic women who were able to quickly move on emotionally from losing their husbands and shack up instead with the new conquerors. You may think that I am speaking of times long past, but there has been ample documentation of this phenomenon in modern wars, notably during World War II in France. Once the Nazis steamrolled the country, killing or subduing all the menfolk who resisted, their wives did the only honorable thing they could think of: immediately begin collaborating with the enemy (read: sleeping with, outright marrying, or providing direct aid against their country). We know this because once Germany lost the war, the French men were not so pleased with their women’s eager betrayal and willingness to swiftly throw their lot in with who they perceived as the inevitable victors. Of course this required punishment, but of what sort? Would there be beatings, public trials and jail time, or even the firing squad for the worst offenders? After all, treason is typically a capital offense. No, a far more terrible reckoning awaited these women: they had their hair shaved off [7]. The horrific implications of a bad haircut weighed heavily on these brave women for weeks, or perhaps up to a few months afterward (assuming no suitable hat could be found to hide this mark of shame). If you can stand such an atrocity, a quick google search will turn up these images. The same dynamic on a lesser scale is also readily observable in modern relationships, where women are much quicker to get over a breakup than a man is. This explains why for example when you’re in your room ugly-crying and listening to Coldplay on a loop, she’s already on social media making weekend plans with the next guy. And as heartless as we men find this attitude and behavior, remember again that this is simply an evolved female personality trait. The real lesson is not that women are heartless and that your girlfriend was lying about her feelings when she accepted your promise ring with a single sad, cloudy diamond in it, but to add to the myriad of other gender differences, men and women simply love differently too. An interesting dichotomy regarding female solipsism is that while simultaneously feeling that she is the center of the universe, most women are notoriously unwilling or unable to self-reflect; especially when it comes to acknowledging the consequences of prior actions. To understand this, you have to realize that for a woman, other people in the world exist as characters in a movie about them. She holds herself blameless for the problems that occur during this movie, because they are just plot points happening to her, not occurring as a direct result of her own free choices. For you gamers out there, most people in the world are NPCs to women (NonPlayable Characters like shopkeepers, quest givers, or farmers) who further the plot, but have no real agency or importance of their own. Or to put it yet another way, to a woman, you are similar to a clothing accessory such as a purse. You exist to compliment her, to help her stand out, and to provide her with some utility, but your wants and needs are not significant on their own merits; they are only important to consider as a means to obtain something she wants. The one exception to this rule is that women have an intense bond with their children and will certainly fight and die to protect them, even in a hopeless situation. This is the momma bear dynamic that we see frequently in nature as well. But a mother’s love for her children is fundamentally different than the love she has for anyone else in the world, including her mate. Never expect that sort of love in a relationship. A woman’s love for her children stems from the fact that they are born of her flesh, a reflection of her, to say nothing of her mental firmware that demands she protect her offspring. There’s a true saying that if you date a woman who has, for example, a couple kids, at best you’ll be 4th in the hierarchy: after herself and the two kids. If she has a cat, you just got knocked down to 5th place. As men, we grow up with our mother as a stand-in for all women, and one of the greatest mistakes we make is believing that this same sort of maternal, unconditional love can be found in a girlfriend or wife. This is a fallacy. If you want unconditional love, go get a dogbut never expect it from the woman you choose. Hypergamy If you gain nothing else from this book, let it be an understanding of hypergamy and its effect on women’s behavior. A prerequisite truth to understand before discussing hypergamy is that, as the weaker gender, women were at the mercy of both men and nature for all of human history except for the last few generations. The base level problem that all women needed to solve was ensuring their own survival and prosperity (meaning first to survive, then to live as comfortably as possible), as well as the same for their children. A man is incidental, a means to this end. Hypergamy is the practical method or mating strategy through which to ensure this protection and provision. It is the principal influence on women’s behavior in relationships, the output of their deepest primal compulsions, and a less than flattering aspect of female nature that society dares not speak of. Hypergamy, in short, is the strategy of mating (or marrying) upward. “Upward” being the operative word; for women it is a combination of better genes, higher social standing, and better provisioning as compared to their current state. This is why you will hardly ever see a woman “marrying down”; she is always looking for someone of higher value than she herself is. It is also why when a woman rises in value herself, her standards will naturally rise along with her, and a man who used to be an adequate match according to her own judgement will suddenly not be good enough anymore. Many a divorce has been brought about due to this dynamic. Now much like the mystery of the Holy Trinity, understanding this concept requires an acknowledgement that there are different aspects of hypergamy which are part of a greater whole. Let us examine each aspect on its own. The desire to obtain better genes. Better genes means tall, dark, and handsome. A man has good genes if he is attractive physically (a biological signal for health and vitality), imposing, and capable of violence. Think of the square-jawed Superman/Captain America stereotype, often colloquially called an “Alpha” or “Chad”. What constitutes good looks may vary through culture and time, but height is one constant. Ever wonder why most women demand a man to be at least 6ft tall, no matter her own height? This is why. There is also a concept called hybristophilia, which is a desire unique to women characterized by physical attraction to violent men and sometimes simply the act of violence itself. The reason that women love the bad boys in part is because they are dangerous and capable of doing violence on their behalf if required. A woman’s own personal bodyguard and enforcer of her will. This side of hypergamy ensures that a woman’s offspring are healthy and successful, and also that the family will be protected in times of conflict by a strong man. The desire for a man of high social status is the reason why women are attracted to men who exhibit confidence, who are leaders, and men in obvious positions of power. It is not the same as being wealthy. This is the lead singer of the band, a politician, or a C level actor from some primetime network show. Again, satisfying this aspect of hypergamy is an attempt to optimize a woman and her offspring’s changes of surviving, then thriving. A chief of a tribe would have this kind of power, even if he wasn’t the strongest warrior or the most prosperous farmer. High social status signals power, and power at its root is the ability to make other people do things for you. As a side benefit, high social standing also typically means lots of positive attention, something else that women instinctually crave; think of how excited the average woman would be to show up as a famous actor’s arm candy at an awards show. Through the association with this high status man, a woman inherits some of his status as well. The desire for wealth. Finally, and perhaps most visibly, wealth is a direct means for provision; but secondarily it can buy social standing and protection as well. In olden times, it was not a foregone conclusion that the person with the most fertile farmland or biggest stash of food would also be of high social status or a good protector, but in today’s world anything can be bought with enough money. There is a reason that a rich man will never lack the company of an endless stream of young, attractive women, no matter how disgusting he is. This point is so obvious that it does not require an example, because everyone reading this book can think of 10 such cases off the top of their head. Due to this aspect of hypergamy, all women are gold diggers to an extent. Lest you think this is anecdotal information, a plethora of studies back up these claims. One study set up two situations using the same advertisement scene that had sexual overtones: one featured a cheap product, and in the other, the product was clearly expensive. When viewing the two situations, where everything was identical except for the product being featured, women reported that they felt upset and even angry at the cheap product and had more positive attitudes toward the expensive one. By the way, men were also given the same test, and they did not have any different feelings between the two scenes [8]. This shows a direct linkage in the female brain between sexual arousal and money; that is, items deemed expensive are by their nature associated with positive sexual feelings for women. A similar study posed both a male and female model separately in two different cars: a Ford Fiesta and a Bentley Continental GT. Male study participants were asked to rate the female in both cars, and female participants asked to rate the male. To the shock and surprise of absolutely no one including the researchers (the authors of which also referenced a multitude of studies that corroborate their findings), males didn’t give a single shit what car the woman was in and rated her as similarly attractive in both scenes. Women on the other hand rated the male as significantly more attractive when sitting in the Bentley than when sitting in the Ford. Same man, same pose, same facial expression, but the mere act of stepping inside of a more expensive car made him more sexually attractive to women [9]. It has also been shown empirically that 97% of women claim it is desirable or required for a man to have a steady income before they will even consider seriously dating him. Furthermore, polls conducted across China, Europe, and the United States asked both men and women questions regarding their salary requirements for mates. The results showed that when compared to men, women across these varied cultures were approximately 1,000 times more sensitive to their mate’s salary [10]. For a woman, the ultimate dream would be to satisfy each element of her hypergamy simultaneously. This would be embodied in a physically imposing, handsome, and dangerous man, who is also widely acknowledged as socially dominant or in a position of power, and also happens to be fabulously independently wealthy. In short, a man who certainly exists but is likely a 1 in 100 million find. Very rarely do all of these qualities reside in the same man; and if they do, they are the man that absolutely every woman in the world from your little sister to your grandmother wants to be with. I commonly reference Chris Hemsworth as “the best we’ve got as men”, because he seemingly embodies all of these qualities. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is another colloquial example. But even these men are not at the very top of the list in any one of these quantities; they simply have an exceptionally high average score. Because of the inability to find all of these qualities in one man, women often pursue a two-pronged method to satisfy their hypergamy. This has been termed the “Alpha fucks, Beta bucks” dynamic. This means that a woman is prone to have sex and reproduce with the stereotypical Alpha: the physical specimen, the popular bad boy, the one who will give her strong and healthy children which can then go on to dominate their surroundings just like dad. Then, having obtained her strong children, she will often leave this man to pursue the Beta that she is not attracted to physically and does not necessarily want to further reproduce with, but who will provide for her and her bastard children long term. I’ll also add here a supplemental concern of women as it relates to implementing their hypergamous reproductive strategy. Not only do they need a man who has everything that they want, but they also require him to give those things to her. It does a woman no good if our Chris Hemsworth ideal man has the good genes, power, and money, but does not willingly give these things to a woman and cannot be forced to do so. Typically described as parental investment, it is true that this is also a concern of women on some level and is sometimes listed in addition to protection and provision as part of the essential package that a woman seeks to gain from a man. The reason that I have not included it as a core mate requirement is because modern women don’t seem to weigh this factor very heavily. This is a direct result of the social safety nets that we’ve constructed (at least in the Western World) to make sure that even if a deadbeat dad doesn’t stick around, mom and the kids will never go hungry or be thrown out in the street. In fact, she probably won’t even have to work. Sure, it still helps to have a dad around to physically raise children, but again, this is not the hard requirement that it once was due to government intervention. This is the root cause of today’s epidemic of single motherhood. Women are very happy to have sex with the tall, hot guy at the club who got kicked out for fighting with the bouncers. He is likely to give her strong children. But he is also likely not a good long term partner and because of those very same traits that make him attractive to her, is more prone to end up in an alley getting shanked over some disagreement, or in jail, or shanked while in jail. Now while this is better than nothing from a woman’s point of view- certainly better than reproducing with a Beta male who will give her weak children and who physically repulses her- this is where part 2 of the modern woman’s plan kicks into gear. After obtaining those optimal, sexy genes, the woman now sets out to find the stable, timid, reliable guy who got his Master’s degree in Chemical Engineering from UCLA. His name is probably Gene, Eugene, or maybe Bill. Eugene doesn’t rock the boat much and has always made the “right” choices in life. He has worked his way up to middle management at a white-collar corporate job, has good healthcare with a dental plan, and makes six figures before taxes. The fact that he is a stereotypical “nice guy” makes her nether regions drier than the Sahara, but those same qualities that repulse her sexually also make him a good (read: controllable, selfsacrificing) husband and father. Eugene has never been good with the ladies and so he thinks that he’s hit the lottery when a woman who has historically been out of his league suddenly takes an interest in him. He thinks that all his hard work and sacrifices have finally paid off, just like mom and Oprah said it would. It is easy work for this single mother to dangle a little sexuality and attention in front of him, lock him down with a legally binding marriage contract, and then live out the rest of her days in luxury, having fully satisfied her reproductive strategy. For his part, Eugene gets to not only terminate his own genetic line but also raise a child that is not his, provide for a wife that is not attracted to him, and once a year on his birthday he receives an unenthusiastic blowjob. Lastly, although the dynamics above are in play for women throughout their lives, the face of hypergamy most influential on their behavior shifts depending on age and situation in life. This is why young women in their teens and 20s go through their party years (or often self-described these days as the “hoe phase”) where they refuse to settle down and treat dating like eating at a Chinese buffet, endlessly sampling little bits of different food but never settling on any one. They are subconsciously looking for the socially dominant, good looking, cocky, well-muscled, stereotypical jock type to have fun and mate with. This is their inner drive to secure good genetic stock showing its face. As a woman gets into their late 20s and 30s, suddenly it’s time to settle down. The dominant face of hypergamy has shifted and now her drive is to seek long-term provision. She’s had her fun, dated the bad boys, and now she wants to get serious. How many times have you seen that sentiment stated on dating apps or heard it from female friends? Whether she has kids or not, she realizes that she is getting older and now wants to find that secure mate who will provide for her materially and keep her comfortable later in life. Enter the “nice guy” who she completely passed over in her prior years but now suddenly is everything she is looking for. What a coincidence that this happens when her looks fade and she can no longer obtain the men she previously courted, because there is a new crop of hot 22 year olds who are starting the same cycle and against whom she cannot hope to compete. This is a top level explanation of a complex issue, but again, it is vital for you as a man to understand hypergamy and its implications. Read this section over if you need to. Almost all female relationship behavior, in general, can be explained by hypergamy. Sexual Marketplace Value (SMV) This concept could feasibly fall into the later chapter on relationships, but the core behind the concept of Sexual Marketplace Value (SMV) is biological so I’ll insert it here. SMV is a measure of your personal reproductive worth to the opposite sex. Most people are familiar with the 1-10 hotness scale; SMV is a similar concept, but it has a broader scope aside from just physical attractiveness. It includes an overall value assessment of the person in question. Women are said to be born rich because what men want from them is primarily their youth, fertility, and beauty. These things women are given at birth and do precisely 0 work to attain, and keeping it requires only that they stay in reasonable physical shape. A woman starts getting male attention in her mid-teenage years after puberty, and indeed for most of human history women mated and reproduced in these early years. Today it is a social taboo to talk about a woman’s sexuality under the age of 18, but from a strictly biological point of view, a young female has value to males of the species as soon as she has her first period and can also safely bear children. After the age of 18, a woman is considered an adult and is fair game for any adult male to consider as a viable sexual entity to pursue. An attractive, young adult woman has an enormous amount of unearned power; with her sexuality alone, she can hold the attention and affection of the richest and most powerful men in the world, and receive part of that power and money in return for her favor. The rise of sites like OnlyFans and sugar baby sites have brought into light this ability to commodify female sexuality and the potentially enormous financial benefit that a woman can receive from men anywhere around the globe. Tales abound of Instagram models and social media “influencers” flying out to the Middle East on private jets for sex parties with rich sheiks and Saudi princes, for which they are compensated tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per occasion. So a woman is born rich because her youth, fertility, and sexuality are provided free of charge from nature. Even an average looking woman can capitalize on this because most men find most women attractive. A woman’s SMV peak is in her early to mid 20s, and a large study of online dating data has shown that men of every age (essentially until death) find women in this age range to be the most attractive, whereas the age of man that a woman finds most attractive tends to rise as she herself ages [11]. This early 20s timeframe of course coincides with the party years of a woman, where she happily capitalizes on this value to obtain attention, trips to far off lands, gifts, and even straight monetary compensation for her time and ultimately for sexual access to her body. Thus, when a woman in this age range says she is trying to “find herself” and “explore her sexuality” this is merely code for selling her sexuality to the highest bidder, while always keeping one eye open for a better option. Sadly, the ride does not last forever. The concept of The Wall is that these God-given riches start to fade quickly in the late 20s and early 30s. Women “hit the wall” at this age and their SMV begins to quickly decline along with her looks. This is a very confusing time for women and causes a lot of emotional and psychological angst. All they have known their whole lives are tidal waves of positive male attention, and because of this, they often develop a massive sense of entitlement for simply existing. But post wall, suddenly men start to pay less attention to an aging woman, the DMs and Facebook messages lessen, and when she looks in the mirror she begins to see wrinkles, gray hair, and sagging skin. Again, this is the exact time that she starts to look for that one lucky guy to finally settle down with: the Beta in waiting. Of course, from an evolutionary perspective, this decline in beauty is a visual signal for a decline in fertility. Being that fertility is a prime concern of men (the majority of which still desire families of their own, and are instinctually driven to procreate), this is another problem for modern women. We know that a woman is most fertile in her 20s, and at age 25, the odds of conceiving after 3 months of trying are on average around 20%. Fertility declines into the 30s and takes a nosedive around 35. Just 10 years after prime fertility and now at age 35, that 20% chance of conceiving is almost halved to about 12%. There is also a corresponding rise in risk of health issues with both the mother and child that is not accounted for in this percentage. At age 40, that same chance of conceiving in 3 months is around 7% [12]. This is an unforgiving biological reality: women are naturally meant to be having their families in their 20s or at the latest in their early 30s. Yet today women like to pretend that they have all the time in the world to first go to college, lazily take the rest of their 20s to experiment, party, and “find themselves” (by the way, finding themselves typically requires a large number of casual sex for some reason), finally get their career started in their 30s, and not even try to look for a marriageable man until their mid to late 30s to have a family with. At which point nature has other ideas. In an incredibly callous move, feminists, mothers, and modern society as a whole do everything that they can to tell women that they have a practically infinite amount of time to settle down, get married, and have a family. Fertility procedures and egg freezing options, as well as anecdotal stories about someone’s aunt’s cousin’s dog groomer who got naturally pregnant in her mid-40s and has a healthy child are touted as “evidence” that young girls can and should take their time to settle down. The lie reveals itself too late to these women, who are naturally inclined to want to be mothers, and most of whom ultimately want a family and children of their own just as men do. To deprive them of the joy associated with the classic nuclear family in order to further an ideological power grab is nothing short of evil. It’s worth noting that women are forced by nature into the position of accepting the attention of what they themselves consider to be lesser men as they age. They are dragged kicking and screaming out of their SMV peak position of power, and if they could stay in the “fun zone” of their 20s forever, they would. But once the options start dwindling, akin to a shrinking crowd of viable options as a bar closes at 2am, a woman is forced to choose someone, anyone, who will take her home before the lights come on and she’s left standing alone on a sticky dance floor. If you pay attention around single women at the age of hitting the wall, the desperation in the air to find a man is overwhelming. A woman’s SMV quickly falls starting around the age of 30, and bottoms out somewhere in her 40s or around 50. This is the reason that a single woman in middle age, or past that, is relatively invisible to society. She has pissed away all of her riches on short-term flings with men who didn’t care about her and trips to Tahiti for the purpose of posting a few filtered pictures on Instagram, and now is left having to prove herself by providing tangible benefit to those around her as the only way of gaining respect and attention. Welcome to life as a man, sister! We’ve been here literally the entire time in these same shoes. Men, on the other hand, are born poor but grow rich as they age. Men start life with 0 SMV. They cannot provide for or protect anyone, so they are essentially worthless to society except as cannon fodder or hard labor. Young men in their teens and early 20s might get attention for their good looks and be pursued for one-night stands, but in general, women are not interested in these men for anything serious. The typical prospects a young man will attract in this age range are older women who are post-wall and simultaneously can’t get a man their own age, but still crave male attention and validation. Enter the cougar who hooks up with younger men to convince herself that she is still pretty and wanted. Now it is true that a man of this age might be able to lock down a woman similar to his age for a while; that is until she opens her eyes and realizes that she can get a better deal from older men. This is the demise of most high school or college romances. Once a man starts to build his career and wealth, and by his accomplishments gains confidence in himself, his SMV correspondingly increases. Therefore, a man’s SMV peaks in his mid to late 30s and flows well into his 40s. At these ages, he can provide the protection and provision that women desire, and still retains some of his youthful attractiveness as long as he stays in reasonable shape. But even a man beyond those ages can have great worth in the sexual marketplace, provided that he continues to build his finances and/or take on roles in work and life of greater status and authority. This mismatch in SMV should explain a lot to you. This is why almost all young women date older men, starting in high school. This is why they are fundamentally uninterested in settling down with men of their age, when in their teens and 20s. This also explains why men of every age tend to date younger women, and are less interested in older women within their own age range. This concept is very easy to understand visually. If you search for “SMV Graph” you’ll find tons of figures that look something like this: The exact values are not to be taken as gospel but instead to give a general idea of what’s happening at certain ages, and especially to show the peak SMV difference. Understanding the SMV curves explains that an older man/younger woman is the biologically preferred coupling. And just in case you think this is a modern phenomenon, consider these words of Aristotle: “Women should marry when they are about eighteen years of age, and men at seven and thirty; then they are in the prime of life, and the decline in the powers of both will coincide. Further, the children, if their birth takes place soon, as may reasonably be expected, will succeed in the beginning of their prime, when the fathers are already in the decline of life, and have nearly reached their term of three-score years and ten.” [13] The concept of SMV and the difference in SMV peak between genders was well known in the 4th century BC, approximately two and a half millennia ago. A man in his 30s and 40s is approximately in his physical and financial prime, but that corresponding SMV value matches with a young woman in her early 20s (or according to Aristotle, eighteen). This again is very frustrating to women, who will shame men by telling them to “find someone their own age to date” and that they have “Peter Pan syndrome”. Older men are labeled “creepy” for wanting to date and have sex with younger women, when it turns out that the desire is 100% biologically driven and has been that way for the whole of our species’ existence. Of course this shaming is nothing but self-serving bullshit anyway; these are the same hypocritical women who, in their peak SMV years, stiff armed the young men their age and dated older men. Now that these women are in their 30s and 40s and ready to settle down, it’s too late to find the match they want. You can locate these women by listening for the faint cry of “Where have all the good men gone?” and following the trail of empty boxed wine containers. They don’t care to hear the truth, which is that men their age are now happily dating versions of their younger selves, of which there is an infinitely replenishing supply. Don’t fall for any of these shaming tactics. If you are one of the few lucky men who locked down his high school sweetheart and both of you stayed together through the years, monogamously and happily, then I salute you. That sort of relationship, once common in days past, is so rare as to be mythical today. If you are instead like most men, you struggled dating in your teens and 20s and were shut down, rejected, and callously used at various times by the women you loved. Perhaps you even married like I did during this timeframe and are now divorced, having been bent over for a second reaming by the State for good measure, in the form of alimony, mandatory 50% asset split, or inflated child support payments. I am here to tell you right now that the problem wasn’t you. What you were offering was good and right and what you were told to offer. But it wasn’t a fair fight, and the women your age were seeking a better deal than you could reasonably provide. This is not women’s fault either, as they too are just following their biological instincts as well as listening to the blaring air horn of society constantly telling them not to settle down until they are good and ready, consequences be damned. The only crime here is that no one told you, or her for that matter, the hard truth which was common knowledge a minimum of two thousand goddamn years ago. I also suggest that you keep in mind those times of struggle when you do finally hit your stride in life. You don’t owe the women your age who rejected you back then anything. You don’t owe it to society, or anyone in it, to humbly sacrifice yourself and your future to be the “good guy” in waiting after women have had their fun with other men and are ready to settle down now. You don’t owe it to the single moms- who had unprotected sex with that hot drummer and popped out a kid or two, just to find out that whoops, turns out that narcissists, felons, nightclub bouncers, and drug dealers don’t necessarily make good husbands and fathers- to take on the burden of their bad choices and to take on the burden of another man’s child. Society will tell you to “man up” and take on this weight. I’m telling you to stop listening to what other people want and figure out what’s best for yourself. When you do get your power, use it as you see fit instead. And also feel free to reflect back on your own personal dating experiences and ask yourself, what did the women who are now after me do when they had their equivalent shot? Did they “do the right thing”, settle down with a good average guy who would love and take care of them until the end of their days, and build a family together? Or before coming to you, did they use up all of their resources and then some for their own personal advantage, desperately wringing out every drop, until there was nothing left? These same women are betting on you to be waiting around for them with flowers in hand, a full bank account, and a lifetime of good decisions behind you so that they can comfortably step from the flaming wreckage of their life into yours without missing a beat. Personally, I choose not to reward bad behavior. I choose not to be the figurative pot of gold waiting for these particular used up skanks at the end of the cock rainbow. If men collectively took this tact and stopped saving these sort of women, like some medic risking his own life to stem the arterial bleeding from a sucking chest wound in the middle of battle, then maybe the next generation would learn that we are no one’s slaves. We are no one’s workhorses. We will not be the ones pathetically standing in the rain with a soaked box of chocolates, waiting for a woman who doesn’t respect us to come home. And precisely because this is not how we are treated by every single woman, we only give our time, money, energy, and affection to those who truly deserve and appreciate it. Key Takeaways: 1. Men and women are not equal, and never were. 2. Women are the more valuable sex due to their unique reproductive ability. 3. As a male, you are disposable not only to women but to society. Whereas women have inherent value from birth, you are only valuable because of the utility that you provide to others. 4. Women are self-referential and the center of their own universe. Unconditional romantic love does not exist, so stop looking for it. 5. Hypergamy is the dominant driving force behind female motives, desires, and relationship behavior. It is the single most important topic to understand in this book. 6. Understand how SMV changes with time for both genders and bide your time until you hit your peak. Chapter 3: How We Got Here as a Culture From the previous chapter you should now understand that women have always had more inherent value than men have, and that men are only valued for what they can accomplish and provide to the world. Given this dynamic, it should surprise no one when society structures itself around women. This concept is called gynocentrism. Gynocentrism implies that females as a group are placed in an exalted and privileged position relative to men, and in practice takes a step further to declare all feminine emotions, ways of thinking, and mating strategies to be the “right way” to do things. In terms of laws and social norms, any action that explicitly benefits women is the morally correct action to take. So although women as individuals have always been cherished, respected, and protected simply for existing, in modern Western society we have taken that extra step of imbuing female nature itself with a sacred quality. Children are raised and conditioned to believe that everything feminine is good and pure and worthy of pursuing; whereas everything masculine is base, toxic, and outdated. How did this come to be? The Patriarchy Up until the last hundred years or so ago, men were clearly essential for the survival of the human race. It is understood that the species could not propagate without the vital contribution of women; but without men as well, these women would not live long enough so that they could birth and raise the next generation. Protecting and providing for your wife and family was, and still is, a huge responsibility. It can be a matter of life and death, and many men over the years have either sacrificed their lives directly to protect their family in some sort of conflict or tirelessly worked their entire lives in demanding and difficult jobs to do the same. Until very recently in human history, there were few “easy” jobs, and women were physically and emotionally incapable of performing most of what needed to be done for society to function. Because of this enormous responsibility- having your entire family’s lives and continued lineage in your hands- men were given an equivalent amount of authority. Men were the unquestioned head of the household and made all of the difficult decisions, typically handled finances, and expected absolute obedience from children and to a lesser extent their wives. It made sense that in order to be responsible for the family, the man needed authority over the family. We called this type of relationship structure a Patriarchy. Patriarchy is a four-letter word these days, but the truth is that it is a balanced system that was advantageous to survival for many thousands of years. Now contrary to what popular culture will tell you, evil men did not devise patriarchy as a way to oppress women. It was a naturally evolved system that was bred out of this single concept: authority must match responsibility. This is an obvious idea if you think about it. If the world expects a man to sacrifice his life and his body over the long term by providing useful labor in exchange for money and ultimately food and comfort, as well as sacrifice himself at a moment’s notice if a direct threat arrives, then he also needs the ability to take control of his surroundings as required to perform these functions. Otherwise, it would be like making the passenger in a car ultimately responsible for arriving at a destination. Without the power to steer the vehicle, how can I get us to where we need to go? Aside from being a logical and naturally arising order, I mentioned that patriarchy was also a balanced system. This is because men and women were never designed to be equal, but we were meant to be complementary. Without women, there are no children, and the entire species dies within a generation. Men are functionally unable to perform this task. In a more subtle way, women are also natural caretakers for both children and adults. They are natural communicators and empathetic, providing the soft counterbalance to sometimes harsh and blunt masculinity. These qualities are good for society and necessary for raising a family. Men on the other hand tend to be more rational than emotional and are innovative problem solvers. We are also naturally bred for hard work and capable of doing violence if required. Expressing these traits, more so than any others, has always been our primary role. It’s often lamented that humans are helpless without tools against animals in nature, but if you think about it, this is only true in relation to other apex predators. Sure, a man would lose a naked one-onone fistfight against a bear, tiger, or great white shark; but human males are relatively large, aggressive, and strong primates compared to most animal species in this world. We are also one of the best long distance runners in the entire animal kingdom, and can literally run most animals to death. We aren’t the fastest in a short sprint, but our endurance is legendary and we never stop coming over the hill, like some sort of hairy T-1000. Now consider even a Stone Age era band of men with rudimentary weapons, making use of our uniquely evolved brains, language, and social structure, and no other animal has the slightest ability to challenge our rightful position at the top of the planetary food chain. The point I’m making is that humans are highly evolved predators in our own right and dominant over most of the animal kingdom physically, without even taking into account our mental capacities. The male of the species in particular is designed for combat, which is a pursuit that we still indulge in and continuously adapt to this day. Through these natural and learned skills, men are able to protect and provide for the female of the species, with the understanding that any task which is difficult, dangerous, or requiring sacrifice is the purview of men. By combining the intrinsic ability to raise and rear children with the intrinsic ability to provide and protect for the family unit, we see how men and women are natural counterparts. Neither was oppressing or taking advantage of the other by participating in this cooperative agreement, but both worked together to do what their mate could not. This agreement worked well for the entirety of human existence and brought us all here today. Feminist Theory Enter feminism. Feminism was born out of the idea that women are currently, and historically have always been, an oppressed class. According to feminists, society was built by men, for men, with the express intent of exerting and enforcing dominance over women. They believe that men have made slaves of women since prehistoric times and that any good, just, and evolved society would force an equality of outcome between the sexes. Indeed, when we think of times past, we think of men going out into the world, making all of the money, taking most of the top positions in social hierarchies, being educated while women were not, being referred to as the master of the house, and so on. Women on the other hand were locked away at home, uneducated, without access to financial opportunities, and at the mercy of the men in her life both in practice day to day and formally under the law. Like all great lies, there are enough shadows of truth to this way of looking at the world to convince uninformed and unthinking people. Yes, it is true that most of the great people of recorded history were men, as were the richest and most educated. Men were indeed given ultimate authority over their families, in exchange for the ultimate responsibility that they were expected to shoulder as well; not just by their family and the women directly in their lives, but by society as a whole. Meaning that the problems of the world were the collective burden of all men, whether it be fighting a war, saving an unknown damsel in distress in a dark alley at night, or trekking into the Amazon in order to find some plant that will cure the latest plague. But marveling at the successes of the male gender is only looking at half of the story. Men always were, and continue to be, the overwhelming victims of violence. They were and still are nearly 100% of combat deaths. Yes, men were the great explorers and inventors that we read about in books; they were also the ones who sailed away from home one day and never came back, dead in some foreign jungle from an unknown illness or in the belly of a hungry jaguar. Men, not women, died alone, afraid, and in pain on some battlefield that they had never seen prior to that morning, in order to protect their families at home. Men dug out coal from the earth within pitch-black mines for decades and ruined their backs, knees, and lungs so that their children would not have to do the same and so that their wives could wear pretty dresses to church on Sunday. Men studied and contracted hideous diseases so that others may live, they spent months at a time on the dangerous open sea to find new trade routes, and freely exchanged their bodies and health in order to provide for their loved ones. The truth is that the blood of men has always greased the wheels of society. This is the unspoken and ignored part of the male experience. Even in prehistoric times, for every example of a woman sitting in a cave or a hut with the children being “oppressed”, I will trade you a man who ventured out on their behalf into the freezing cold to hunt an animal that could kill him, and never returned. For every woman who was carried away as a slave of war and forced to live with a new husband against her will, I’ll point to the mutilated body of her husband who can’t be enslaved because he’s been hacked to death by a dull blade. The woman remained alive to complain about their oppression, but the dead cannot speak. So focusing on the bad experiences of women throughout historyof which I certainly there are many- is intentionally ignoring the equally bad or worse experiences had by men. A much more honest interpretation of the past would be that both genders had it hard in different ways, because life used to be much more difficult for everyone. By the way, women often claim to have been literal slaves of men throughout time. But slaves (the majority of which were men historically, because they were more useful for hard labor) are defined by the following dynamic: the one enslaved has the fruits of his work forcibly taken from him by the enslaver, without recompense except for the basic needs of survival which will ensure continued servitude. Yet throughout time, women and by extension their children, have been the receivers of the fruits of male labor. They have been the receivers of a more comfortable, safer life while their men ventured into danger to bring these fruits to them; this is in fact the polar opposite of slavery. Even today, women control between 70-80% of all household spending despite being only half of the population. Perhaps this is due to the fact that an incredible 94% of women between the ages of 15-35 spend over an hour per day shopping online [14]. That’s a lot of power and privilege for an oppressed group. The History of Feminism It is no coincidence that feminism did not exist in any culture in any part of the world until very recently in history. Surely there have been many historic examples of strong, successful, intelligent women, as well as women in leadership positions. But there was no centralized movement to insist that women were the victims of subjugation by men, and that these women needed to rise up against this unnatural order to reclaim their basic human rights. This is because it was not advantageous for women to do so until modern conveniences (which were overwhelmingly invented by men) solved most of their naturally occurring problems for them. It served womankind’s interest to preserve the natural state of patriarchy and let the men do the hard work, make the sacrifices, and invent the technology used by the world today until such a time as they made themselves relatively obsolete. Whenever I consider this incredible duplicity and lack of appreciation from feminists, I think of Jack Nicholson from the movie A Few Good Men [15]. Jack’s character is portrayed as a villain, and all anyone remembers from the movie is the classic, “You can’t handle the truth!” line. But to me, his full speech following that quote brilliantly speaks to a greater truth about the male experience. Here is the speech in its entirety: “Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way; otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.” The concept of sleeping under the blanket of freedom provided by men and then questioning the manner in which it is provided, or more typically outright cursing the men providing it, is feminism’s favorite pastime. But it is a hypocritical and morally bankrupt act to both expect and demand this blanket of freedom, and then spit in the face of the supposed villains who are defending you, caring for you, and enabling your pampered existence. When we consider the modern era- let’s say starting around the early 1900s- advances in technology suddenly allowed for a much easier life than ever before. Though certainly still difficult, especially by today’s Western standards, working in a factory on an assembly line beat trying to grow crops during a famine. A guaranteed weekly paycheck from some company or the government, easily spent at the corner grocery store, surely beat a nomadic existence of following herds of buffalo around the Great Plains so that your children did not starve. Doctors and medicine became available to effortlessly treat ailments that were fatal just years prior. Wars and day-to-day violence became less frequent occurrences. And more importantly, the government grew in power and influence. With the rise of powerful centralized governments and democratic representation, voting became a method to wield power. The right to vote, beginning in ancient times, was typically tied to citizenship and land ownership; neither of which were a certainty even for men. Women were typically not allowed to enjoy either. But again, instead of looking at this through the lens of oppression, understand that citizens and landowners also had certain responsibilities to the government and its people. They were typically expected to purchase their own armor and weapons and to fight in wars when the state called upon them. They had to pay taxes, give a portion of their food away to the state, or both. In this way, a citizen voter had skin in the political game. If he was voting for war, he would have to fight and perhaps die in that war. If he was voting for higher taxes, he would be paying the higher taxes. Once again, note that authority was paired with equivalent responsibility. Those rules demanding skin in the game began to change when women fought for and eventually won the right to vote. The women’s suffrage movement started in the mid-19th century in the United States and the Territory of Wyoming was the first place in the US to allow women to vote in 1869. Interestingly enough, there was a sizable contingent of women who opposed suffrage. Their reasoning was multifaceted and included: having no interest in politics, believing women had enough duties domestically and didn’t need any more (i.e. not wanting the responsibility that voting entailed), and most interestingly the feeling that it would undermine the privileged status of being a woman. Essentially, the idea is that women were seen as apolitical entities and thus actually had more power to influence matters by remaining behind the scenes. That desire to remain privileged (contrary to modern feminist theory) reared its head again in terms of legislation in the 1970s where many women protested the Equality Act. The Equality Act would take civil rights and equal pay laws one step further and essentially ban any sort of gender recognition in legislation. Meaning there could be no laws that specified one rule for women and another rule for men. This sounded right up the feminist alley, until ladies started to realize that this meant that they would have to sign up for things like the draft. It meant that they could no longer have special protections under the law based on their gender, and would eliminate benefits like funding for women’s only social programs, education programs, and sports programs. Out of fear for losing these privileges, the bill has remained unpassed and in limbo for approximately five decades. The consequence of women gaining the right to vote is that for the rest of time as long as we continue to have a democratic process where simple majority predicts a legislative outcome, society will be gynocentric. This is a foreseeable numerical outcome. Because of women’s innate collectivism, they tend to vote strongly as a block. In terms of choosing a political party, women vote Democrat approximately 80% of the time. This is because the Democrat party panders to women on topics such as unfettered right to abortions, increases in welfare spending that preferentially benefit women and single mothers over men, and increases in social programs and educational grants that are granted solely to women. On those matters individually, the female vote is nearly unanimous. If women vote as a block, then you have approximately 50% of the population voting the same way on any given topic; that way predictably being whatever is in the interest of womankind as a whole. Women are always greater than 50% of the population anyway because men still, on average, have more dangerous lives and therefore have a shorter life expectancy by about 4 or 5 years. Then you add in men who are sympathetic to the female cause, or are themselves pandering to women on an individual basis (read: trying to score with feminists) or collective basis (read: gaining personal political power), and you are now at a much higher than 50% majority for every single female-centric issue. Men, on the other hand, tend to be individualistic and do not vote single-mindedly on issues. Even if they did, laws that preferentially benefit men are nonexistent and therefore are not even available to vote on anyway. This is the proximal cause of modern gynocentrism and feminism, and men have no one to blame but themselves. We have constantly ceded power to females, and feminine-minded males, and therefore our society predictably continues to spiral further into femininity. Modern Feminism Modern feminism is described as Third Wave feminism (though some are proposing a Fourth Wave). A top-level overview of the waves of feminism are as follows [16] [17]: First Wave feminism: A movement started in the late 1800s and early 1900s mostly centered around voting and property rights for women. The culmination of this was the 19th Amendment passed in 1919, which guaranteed women the right to vote. Second Wave feminism: A movement started in the 1960s and lasting until the 1990s. The main issues became sexual liberation and reproductive rights, a rebellion against male oppression and the Patriarchy, and rejection of traditional female roles. The birth control pill was invented and came into wide use during this time. This is also the time when feminists picked up Marxist rhetoric. Men were demonized, women were elevated, and victimhood culture was fully embraced. Third Wave feminism: A movement started in the 1990s, and variously claimed to be still continuing or feeding into Fourth Wave feminism (having itself started within the last decade or so). The main concerns of these feminists were to amplify and continue with what they saw as unfinished work from Second Wave feminism, as well as remind those who thought that gender equality had been achieved that the fight was still ongoing. This fight includes things like continuing to redefine what femininity is, continuing to claim victimization at the hands of men, and bringing in themes of race, class, ethnicity, and religion into the conversation of female rights and equality. Think of phases such as “destabilizing power structures”, “gender is a social construct”, and “my lived experience” as being part of Third Wave feminism. An interesting analysis of the sexual revolution brought about by Second Wave feminism and continuing into current times is to consider sexuality in economic terms. In economic lingo, men are the buyers (demand) and women are the sellers (supply) of sex. In exchange for sex, men have historically provided resources to women; whether it’s a direct cash transaction with a prostitute, or a more indirect but no less real transaction of free access to a man’s labor and tangible wealth, gifts, and provision for children in long term relationships or marriages. The difference between these two exchanges by the way- prostitution and formal relationships- is simply the difference between a cash transaction and barter. In this economic paradigm, it is beneficial for women to restrict the supply of goods (i.e. restrict access to sex) in order to demand a higher price for it. The sexual revolution did the exact opposite by flooding the market with supply and thereby massively devaluing the product. Although it is widely acknowledged in modern times that women have more resources to give to men than just their sexuality, it is still the prime asset that men desire and therefore this devaluation has the effect of overall weakening a woman’s bargaining position when it comes to securing a relationship. For this reason, it is consistently reported that the sexual revolution was at best a mixed blessing and that women regard it more negatively overall than men do [18]. Now so far we have implied that all feminists are women, but this is not the case. Here is a good place to explain the origin of the “simp”. A “simp” is a man who is subservient to a woman, and ultimately to feminism and feminist causes. In short, he is a useful idiot to womankind. All self-identified male feminists are simps, as are most men who grew up in the last few generations of this gynocentric society. We call the latter men blue pilled, because they are still actively participating in the matrix. In both cases, their modus operandi is to support laws, causes, and cultural movements that blatantly favor females and female reproductive strategies as a way to get laid. That is truly all it comes down to. Of course, they will nobly hide behind the mantle of honest belief in feminine causes and cite moral reasons, but this is a sham; these are universally weak men who believe that their best shot at getting some action is to identify with women, at the explicit cost of hurting male causes and male reproductive strategies. In the case of most blue pilled men, this is an attitude ingrained in them from birth, so they get a little more slack than do active male feminists. This is one of the great victories of feminism: anyone born after the Second Wave of feminism is, at least in part, indoctrinated into the current gynocentric reality of Western culture and brainwashed with its beliefs. You can identify male feminists and blue pilled men by some of the phrases they use, which include but are not limited to: “The future is female.” [When asked to make a decision and referring to his wife] “I’ll have to talk to the boss about that one and get back to you.” “It’s never OK to hit a woman, under any circumstances.” “Come on, we all know men are dogs.” “A woman can do anything that a man can do, usually better!” Unironically using the term “toxic masculinity” in any situation. Wearing any piece of clothing or presenting a sign that includes the phrases “I’m with her” or “This is what a feminist looks like.” Through cultural indoctrination, gynocentrism tries its best to stamp out any traces of masculinity, both within the family unit and through government institutions like public schools. As an example, we have all been taught from a young age that violence is bad. But why is violence bad? Why is the capacity to physically enforce your will over someone else a bad thing, by its nature alone? Ultimately, the government is just a tool for maintaining a monopoly on violence and yet most nonviolence advocates are not anarchists. We still celebrate the military, which is nothing but the government’s primary method of enforcing its political will using lethal means. Up until very recently, we similarly respected the police, another tool explicitly used for state violence, with an understanding that there are bad people in the world that had to be stopped by any means necessary. In the right hands, violence is a necessary shield against those who would exploit and abuse the weak and the innocent. Yet violence, as a general concept, we are taught is fundamentally wrong. Why? Because the capacity and predilection toward violence is an inherently masculine trait. In a larger sense, the government has slowly replaced both of the two primary traditional masculine roles: protector and provider. Protection by creating the police and military, and through laws that disarm the populace and otherwise dissuade the use of force by anyone who is not a government official. Provision through social welfare programs, the recipients of which are heavily skewed towards women and their children. With those two basic needs met, it is easy to throw stones at men who have now been neutered by society. We see the rise of the concept of “Toxic Masculinity”. How can the essential nature of an entire gender be toxic? If we accept this premise, why then is there also no “Toxic Femininity”? Apparently toxic behavior only goes one way. We’ve made up terms like “manspreading” and “mansplaining” to denigrate males solely on the basis of their sex. We are constantly told to “man up” and “do better” as a gender by our mothers, teachers, the entertainment industry, and the government. There was a very famous commercial featuring Gillette razors in 2020 titled We Believe: The Best Men Can Be that epitomized the concept of toxic masculinity and patronizingly begged men, as a group, to please just be better human beings. It sweepingly demonized the entire male gender; the same gender which, confusingly, is their main customer base. But the ideas put forth are so well accepted and culturally ingrained that an advertising company came up with the concept, a film crew shot it, and a media team released it on behalf of a multi-billion dollar company. Then, a multitude of managers and executives throughout Gillette all saw the video and proclaimed, “Yes, nothing at all wrong here, run it immediately!” These sorts of examples demonstrate that we are living in a gynocentric society, where anything feminine is The Right Way, and anything masculine is The Wrong Way. The problem is not that there are not ugly parts of masculinity that need to be controlled. We all understand that violence can be bad, when aimed at innocent or defenseless people, so we have laws to prevent this. We all understand that our masculine instinct to dominate can be bad, when used to unjustly oppress others, and so we discourage the irresponsible wielding of power and instead encourage the virtues of humility, temperance, restraint, and charity. We understand that impregnating as many women as possible (i.e. the male reproductive drive and our primary reproductive strategy) is not beneficial to society if left unchecked and therefore we encourage monogamy and shame deadbeat dads who walk out on their families. Although encouraging monogamy is now increasingly unpopular with the rise of modern feminism, because by nature it discourages women from constantly trading up to find a better man. The point is that absolutely no one is unaware of the dangers of unchecked natural male impulses, and we maintain societal and legal guards against them. Conversely, the dangers of unchecked primal female impulses are not mitigated, and instead are even encouraged to excess. There is not even a recognition that there could possibly be an ugly side of female nature. Women are all sugar and spice and everything nice, we are told. But unchecked hypergamy leads to many societal ills as well. Single motherhood is one direct outcome of unchecked hypergamy, as women will breed with their perceived genetic superior only to then either leave him for a better perceived match down the line, or to have no intention of staying with him from the start aside from securing his good genes. As stated previously, the government can provide both protection and provision, so there are no serious consequences to leaving a man at any time. Unfettered legal abortion is another pro-female stance, because it safeguards against a bad reproductive decision. Had sex with a guy who turns out to be a loser? Find out that your baby daddy already has a family and four kids by four other mothers? The hot DJ never called you back after a drunken one night stand? No problem at all, you can erase that mistake for several months after conception, and in some locations almost until birth itself. The Supreme Court has made sure of that, and any objections to this stance are dismissed as pure misogyny with no other possible rational basis. By the way, the common defense for abortion- cases of rape and incest- are statistically rare occurrences and are the reason for less than 1% and less than 0.5% of all abortions, respectively [19]. This means that essentially all abortions are simply correcting a regretful reproductive decision that a woman made. The potential father of course has no say in the situation; he must simply wait with baited breath to find out if he owes 18 years of child support or not. We already talked about female solipsism leading to behavioral traits such as narcissism, selfishness, and entitlement. The values of loyalty, respect, and self-sacrifice are masculine values which are conspicuously absent from many modern solipsistic women who are always looking for the best deal for themselves, no matter the cost to anyone else- including their own family. The fact that women initiate the majority of divorces is an example of this. Destroying the traditional family unit, which is statistically the most guaranteed way to provide a successful life for children, because you have some personal gripe with your husband, is a selfish act that flies in the face of the accepted view of mothers as compassionate caregivers who will do anything for their children. If this means jumping in front of a moving train, we believe this trope; if it means living up to her marriage vows of “til death do us part” and cohabitating in a somewhat uncomfortable situation with a man you no longer have the tingles for until the kids go off to college, suddenly that’s a bridge too far. It should be clear now that feminism, if it was ever a movement concerned with equality, abandoned that cause long ago. Since at least the Second Wave, feminism has been a female supremacy movement and continues to be to this day. Female Collectivism Ultimately, feminism originates from the predilection of women to be collectivists as opposed to individualists. That is to say, they band together in what has been named by the red pill community “The Sisterhood” and inherently feel a kinship and shared experience with all other women. Women tend to instinctively support what is best for womankind as a whole and will almost always side with other women in any sort of cultural or intersex conflict. This is not only a practical way to gain more rewards such as social welfare or beneficial legal rulings for themselves individually, but is also simply a default setting in the female brain. Can you guess why women are like this? If you answered, “Because it has been evolutionarily beneficial for them to act in this way”, then come forward to collect your prize. Being the weaker sex, women traditionally had to band together for the sake of mutual survival. One dynamic where this would have been beneficial was the collective raising of children. If anything happened to one woman, whether that be a minor incapacitation or something more serious, it would have been a comfort to know that others would look after their vulnerable progeny. We have already discussed the War Bride dynamic, which is a situation where women are taken as slaves and new brides after a tribal conflict. In this situation, foreign women would need to be accepted into the existing female group; when that new woman inevitably became pregnant, her children would then also be born into the tribe and comingle with the extant children. In situations like this, women needed to band together because of the understanding that this new bride could be any one of them at another time, and because groups are always stronger than individuals. So women evolved to be collectivists, and specifically to prefer any rules, laws, or policies that directly benefit their gender. Contrast that to men, who are by nature individualistic and value freedom and self-reliance as a default. This is a consequence of the fact that throughout time, men have had the burden of succeeding or dying. Membership in a group or tribe notwithstanding, men have always been ultimately on their own and know deep down that no one is coming to save them. Secondarily, women sexually select for these individualistic traits in men; they tend to be resourceful, good protectors, and good providers during difficult stretches. Therefore, over time, more of these men reproduced and passed down such genes throughout history. Because of this innate collectivism, any society dominated by women will inevitably move further toward socialist, communist, and overall left-leaning policies and forms of government. Social programs will grow, handouts will increase, taxes will increase, and governments will become more authoritarian in order to compel compliance with these policies and forcibly extract the resources necessary to fund them. It has been said before that freedom and guaranteed security are inversely related; and women are much more concerned with being safe than being free. The Failure of Fathers I’m going to end this chapter with some introspection when it comes to the failures of men, and in particular, fathers. If we accept that patriarchy is the natural state of gender relations- and has been since the dawn of the human race until the last hundred years or so- and we’re looking for the origins of our modern gender dilemmas, it makes sense to first examine the group who have been collectively at the helm. The ugly truth that modern women don’t want to admit is that any power that they currently possess has been willingly granted to them by men. At a time when women could not vote, men alone voted for women’s suffrage. A Congress composed of 96% men voted for and passed laws mandating gender pay equality and criminalized gender discrimination in 1963. Men invented almost all of the technology that you see before you, including medicines such as the birth control pill, and voted to legalize abortion and uphold pro-choice rulings, which combined give women ultimate control over human reproduction. Men passed child welfare laws, which almost exclusively benefit single mothers, and ensure that no woman or child ever goes hungry. Men comprise the vast majority of law enforcement officers, emergency responders, and military personnel that ensure women’s collective safety around the clock. Without men, quite literally none of these things would exist. And those are just a few examples from a societal level showing how men continue to protect, care for, and indulge womankind. On a personal level, where almost any man can physically dominate almost every woman he encounters in his day-to-day life, the point becomes even more clear. Men allow themselves to be bossed around, nagged, abused, degraded, and insulted by those that they could physically dominate at any time. This is actually the great joke of feminism: if women truly believed that men were the evil, vile, heartless oppressors that they claim, then they wouldn’t dare open their mouths for fear of the repercussions. Any time you see a 110lb, 5’2” girlfriend standing on her tiptoes to scream in her boyfriend’s face at the bar, or even worse physically assaulting him while he stands there like a garden gnome, the veracity of my claim is revealed. No reasonable person or even any animal would act that way toward something with the power of life and death over them, unless they were supremely confident that this power would not be used against them. Think about that implication for a second. Feminists, and women as a whole, actually understand on some level that men in general are truly benevolent, doting, and endlessly patient with the gender that they are purported to systemically mistreat. I bring this up to point out that if some women have acted poorly and done harm to society, then there is blame to be put upon men for enabling and allowing this behavior. Simps as a group are an easy target, but the place where this all starts is in the family with the husband and father. Over the past few generations as women have become increasingly radicalized and bought into feminist propaganda, fathers have allowed themselves to be slowly pushed out the door into obsolescence. When this happens, it is the children who suffer most. Many of us have a chip on our shoulder when it comes to our fathers for this reason. They abandoned us to be raised by women because they too weak to stand up for themselves, to stand up for their family, and most pathetically too weak to fight for their children. This was dereliction of duty. This was abandoning their post during a time of conflict. In today’s world, you can’t prevent a woman from divorcing you, but you still have a responsibility to your children; maintaining a masculine influence in their lives is something that you signed up for when you decided not to pull out. Men that abandon their children to single motherhood are setting them up for failure, plain and simple. I look back on my childhood now and see how thoroughly I was indoctrinated into feminized thinking, and a feminine-correct worldview. No father around to explain to mom that boys need to run and fight and take risks. No father around to explain female nature to his son, and that men and women are fundamentally different from one other. No father around to explain a man’s burden of performance, and its practical consequences in relationships. How much future pain and how many hard lessons could be avoided by a few one on one chats during a fishing trip, or simply having the reference of a positive male role model to observe in the home? It’s hard to blame a single mother for viewing life from a femalecentric point of view; what else is she supposed to know? Generations of women believe they are fulfilling their maternal duty by raising boys as malfunctioning girls, and consciously or not doing everything in their power to emasculate the young men whom they have control over. Again, this is typically not done out of malice, but instead out of ignorance and a genuine belief that they are doing the right thing; yet the results are the same as if the intent were to harm. It does not just stop in the home, either. Elementary school teachers are 89% female, which has been a roughly constant figure from 1999-2018 with no reason to believe that ratio will change in the future. High school is a bit better, though women still account for 64% of all teachers as of 2018 [20]. These figures mean that many of us were raised almost exclusively by mothers, sisters, and grandmothers at home; only to be sent off to school to be taught by women; all within the framework of a society that actively advocates for female supremacy. To quote Tyler Durden in the movie Fight Club: “We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.” [21]. Because generations of fathers fail their sons, we are caught in a never-ending cycle of female supremacy and decaying masculinity. Weak men leave their boys to be raised by dominant women and an increasingly gynocentric society, who are taught that they are flawed from birth because masculinity itself is innately flawed. To be born male is to inherit that original sin, which can only be expunged by becoming a champion for womankind. Before they even understand their actions, boys are instructed to elevate feminine causes and amplify female voices ahead of their own. They grow up internalizing this animosity for core aspects of their personality, which they did not ask for and have no control over. Now fully brainwashed as adults, these soy boys happily submit to women in their relationships; women who ironically cannot help but hate their partners for not being manly enough. Wives leave their husbands in search of something better, but not before taking half of his assets, and every month making sure to cash that alimony and child support check which ruins him financially in addition to the emotional devastation of losing his family. And so the former husband, now defeated and utterly emasculated, slowly retreats out of the familial picture in an effort to save himself further pain. As easy as that, another crop of young boys raised by strong independent women who “need a man like a fish needs a bicycle” is fed into the meat grinder. Everyone is miserable, another cycle begins, rinse and repeat. To everyone reading this now, my challenge to you is this: be the one to break the cycle. Key Takeaways: 1. Modern feminism is a female supremacy movement. 2. Women are inherently collectivist and will side with The Sisterhood as well as favor policies that directly benefit women over any sort of actual equality. 3. Don’t mess up like your dad did. You have the power to break the cycle. Chapter 4: Dangers in the Workplace My first job as a manager with direct supervisory duties was at a white-collar company, doing work for the government. Although my profession as a whole is male dominated, the specific group that I was assigned to happened to do more administrative work and was composed of more than 50% women. Things were going well for the first week as I met the team and started to get my feet wet. One night a young woman who now reported to me, approximately my age, texted me on my personal phone. She had that number from when we were coworkers on a prior project, but I didn’t mind being accessible to my employees and didn’t think much of it. The conversation started professional but quickly turned personal, and she mentioned how weird it was that we used to be coworkers and now I was her boss. I was suspicious of the tone and direction that the conversation was going, so I feigned having some work to do and told her we’d talk in the morning. When I found her the next morning, she was immediately icy and borderline rude to me. When I asked her if we could talk, her annoyed response in front of other team members was, “Is this work related? Because I can only talk about work related issues with you.” I informed her that her attitude toward me was work related, so yes. I directed her outside where we could be alone and we took a lap around the building. As we walked, I reflected that I had only ever had positive, professional, and frankly tangential interactions with this woman. I was, therefore, caught by surprise when she blurted out of nowhere, and without context, “I just want you to know that I have a boyfriend and we’re in love.” It was only then that I realized the danger I was in. I asked her if she thought I had stepped over some line, and she told me no, but reiterated how happy she was to be in love with her boyfriend. Confused at what exactly had triggered her, but understanding that I needed to tread carefully, I adopted her same cold tone and told her that we only had a professional relationship and that I would be sure to always treat her the same way that I would treat anyone else on the team. With that, I parted ways with her and we both returned to our desks. That small interaction was a wakeup call for me. Previously, I had assumed that I would be the young, fun boss who was friends with all his workers; now I understood that type of relationship would be foolish and only opened myself up to attack. From that day on, I never forgot how precarious of a situation I was in and acted accordingly. I was never again alone with that particular woman, and I paid close attention to anything that I ever said or did during the workday or at work functions. You see, it didn’t matter that I had done absolutely nothing wrong or improper; what I realized is that the perception that a woman has, or how she feels about you, is more important than the truth. For some reason this delusional individual had an idea that our relationship was crossing into some problematic territory, and all it would’ve taken was one call to HR to compromise my career and end my future managerial aspirations. By the way, a little tip for you younger gentlemen: treat work functions such as happy hours or team building lunches the exact same as you would an official meeting in the office. Your bosses and coworkers don’t magically forget the things you do or say after you’ve had a few beers at Pam’s going away party. In fact, it’s best if you can keep your work and private life totally separate for this reason. The Mike Pence Rule The workplace is an increasingly tricky place for men to navigate. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to understand what would be perceived improper behavior from one woman to the next or one situation to the next. So, what’s a guy to do when the rules of proper etiquette are not clearly defined and any interaction with a woman, with the point of her finger and a baseless claim, can be the end of your career? Enter the Mike Pence Rule. Mike Pence was the Vice President of the United States from 2016-2020. He gained notoriety, and to many infamy, when reports surfaced that he refuses to eat dinner with any woman alone except for his wife, and will not attend any event featuring alcohol without her by his side. This rule has been extended in the workplace to include never being alone with a woman in a closed door meeting and never touching a woman you don’t know, even in a friendly way or for a picture (see: celebrities using the hover hand in photos). Apparently, the rule originates in a strict religious context and is known by other names, such as the Billy Graham rule, but who coined this idea is not important. Upon the Washington Post releasing an article with this information, Mr. Pence became the subject of ridicule- particularly among women. He has been castigated variously as a religious zealot, as insecure, or as a ravenous beast unable to control his own cravings. Why else would someone need such a rule, except to cover up some mental or moral deficiency? The truth is that the Mike Pence Rule is simply a rational reaction to the world we live in. The risk of being friendly with a woman in the modern workplace (the argument can be made socially as well) is too high for little to no reward. Companies and their HR departments salivate at the chance to punish men for perceived bad behavior, as not only a way to virtue signal, but also as a way to clear themselves of wrongdoing should a lawsuit come about. Consider adopting at least the intent of the Mike Pence Rule in both your personal and professional life. Feel free to take calculated risks when it comes to being alone with women, but understand that not adhering to the Mike Pence Rule inherently puts you in danger. I recommend, at a minimum, only ever having closed door meetings at work when privacy (such as performance reviews or HR issues) is a concern; and even then, have a coworker there with you, if possible. Do not touch women at work for any reason; for example, a light touch on the shoulder to make a point or get someone’s attention is even out of bounds. Certainly do not make crude, borderline inappropriate, political, or gender-related jokes, no matter how hilarious they may be. And, last but not least, do not date women at work. I realize that this moratorium on dating coworkers is a tall order for many men, as our social options and dating circle shrink as we age. You may ask, “If meeting women at work is not an option, then where am I supposed to find someone to date?” To which I would answer, “Literally anywhere else”. The problems with dating women at work are myriad, but to name a few: 1) You need a break from someone you’re dating. If you see them both outside and inside of work, you never get any time alone. This is suffocating and will ruin the relationship. 2) People will eventually find out, no matter how hard you try to hide it. You never know what kind of problems this will cause. Perhaps your boss had a crush on her and now all of the sudden you receive the worst assignments. If you are in any way her superior, there are often rules against fraternizing with lower ranked employees and you could be subject to disciplinary action. You’ll be the source of endless gossip and coworkers may not take you as seriously as they should. 3) When you break up- which is practically a certainty- this will taint the place where you are forced to spend at least 40 hours of every week. In the best of situations, it’s just awkward if you two have to work together in close proximity again. In the worst of situations, the woman could attack your livelihood as a way of getting retribution. 4) People who tend to date coworkers tend to date many coworkers. You are not the first, nor will you be the last. It’s best to avoid being just another name on the list, and your reputation will forever be associated with not only the girl you dated but the rest of the guys who got a chance as well. Remember what I said above: whatever you do at work functions will follow you around in your day-to-day tasking. The same is true when you bring anything from your personal life into the workplace. It is far more likely to be used against you than to help you. Keep your relationships with coworkers, especially those who you don’t have an outside of work friendship with, cordial and civil. Be bland. Let them think you’re boring and have vanilla interests. Let work be your work, and then feel free to let your hair down and wave your freak flag the minute you’re off the clock. While we’re on the subject, don’t date anyone that frequents your favorite places in general. This includes the hottie at the gym who you think is eyeballing you (she isn’t), the waitress at your favorite local bar or restaurant (she’s paid to be nice to you), or the cute girl down the hall in your apartment building (she can’t escape running into you). This is a guaranteed way to ruin your sanctuaries. The only exception here is when you’re in college; the logic still applies, but there’s just no way around it. Diversity and Inclusion I remember another time earlier in my career having a conversation with a secretary at work. Through her position, she had access to everyone’s pay information. She was in her late 40s at the time, but had not taken good care of herself and looked a decade older. She was a chain smoker with a voice like loose gravel rolling around in a cement truck, had a fully-grown unemployed daughter still living at home, openly boasted about several serious run-ins with the law, and regularly indulged in recreational drugs despite working in a drug-tested field. I was part of a group of young professionals right out of college in our early to mid-20s, and at that point we were already making approximately 1.5-2x her salary. This woman made it known that she was extremely jealous of us and didn’t understand why we made so much more than her. She would take opportunities to downgrade our travel accommodations or restrict the amount of per diem money we could spend in a strange attempt to teach us a lesson or punish us for being successful. Luckily for us, she had no say in our actual compensation, but she did do her best to make our lives more difficult in any way that she could. One day, after hearing her rant about why she didn’t understand how we deserved to get paid so much, I remarked that I had good news for her. I would tell her the secret to guaranteeing my exact same job and salary, although she may have to deviate slightly from the plan due to her advanced stage in life. Here were the instructions I gave: 1) It all starts in high school where you need to actually go to class, study hard, and do all your homework to the best of your ability. Avoid blowing off classes in order to smoke a blunt under the football field bleachers with your stoner friends. 2) Take a few months out of your junior year, right after getting your driver’s license, to pile on extra studying on top of your normal course load and score in the top 10% or 20% of the country in the math portion of the SAT. Verbal score must be at above average as well. Several attempts may be required, and you may miss out on the big spring break trip to Cabo. 3) Apply to several colleges and, upon acceptance, take on student loans to pay for your education; this will likely cost you close to six figures without family assistance. 4) Pick the hardest STEM major that you can find, and bust your ass for at least 4 years within that major to earn a Bachelor’s degree (better if you can tough out 6 years and get a Master’s degree). Unfortunately, this will require you to forego much of the typical fun college experience, because that bridge’s stress analysis isn’t going to run itself in the computer lab at midnight. 5) By the end of your senior year, you’ve put in a solid 8-10 years of dedicated and focused work to this singular end. Your reward awaits you: upon graduating, immediately enter the workforce as an entry-level cog within a cold, empty, uncaring corporate machine. Prepare to do all the worst tasking that no one else can figure out, work mandatory and uncompensated overtime, and take on all the undesirable assignments. And presto, just like that, you too would have my exact job. My point was that she only saw the result of that decade of continuous hard work and sacrifice, and did not care to consider all that led up to it. Instead, she felt entitled to our same rewards without doing any of the hard work required to gain them. After all, it’s much easier to assume that someone who has more than you didn’t arrive at their position by noble means; acknowledging that would require looking in the mirror and accepting that you are exactly where you deserve to be in life. At a later time, after getting a new job in the same field, it came up in casual conversation with a female family member that my new boss was a woman. My relative genuinely wondered if it was difficult for her to get into that position due to her gender. I informed her that no, in fact, it was much easier for a woman in my industry to gain promotions and their corresponding higher salaries. It is an open secret that if you are even a halfway competent female, you will be preferentially advanced past your male peers for the sake of nebulous diversity and inclusion goals. Being a male, I had no choice but to earn my way into the positions that I occupied, whereas women are given both a head start out of the gate and shown continual shortcuts to the finish line. That blew her mind, and to this day I know she doesn’t believe me. It conflicts with her feminist-inspired worldview to suggest that women are not the oppressed class that society claims them to be, and are, in fact, the beneficiaries of privileges that men do not enjoy. Like anyone invested in this particular victim culture, it fits her narrative much more nicely to presume that my success or the success of others like me is due solely to some shadowy cabal of patriarchs that orchestrates our rise to power via some kind of mysterious dick magic. No one can prove it exists, or how it might work, but they are absolutely positive that it’s there. But far from that and far from being the meritocracy that anyone invested in true fairness and equality would desire, modern workplaces are rife with both internal and government mandated pushes for gender diversity which have the explicit goal of repressing men and uplifting women. For example, California has a law on the books which dictates that all companies headquartered in the state have at least two women (or more, depending on the size of the company) on their board of directors by 2021 [22]. Not because they are the best candidates, not because they are recognized experts in the field, but because of what’s between their legs. The text of the bill calls this blatant discrimination a way to “advance equitable gender representation”. I would bet my life savings that more states will follow suit in the future. Another example is a law in Paris, France from 2013 which mandated that senior civil service jobs must be composed of no more than 60% one gender. The law was passed in order to ensure that females would have accurate representation in these senior roles and to forcibly establish gender parity. When it was discovered that the city council of Paris was composed of 69% women, a clear violation of this law, the city was fined by the French government. The mayor of Paris at the time, Anne Hidalgo of the Socialist Party, claimed that she would proudly pay this fine (with taxpayer money, of course) and had no plans to change the composition of the board. Her direct quotes on the matter were that, “The management of the city hall has, all of a sudden, become far too feminist” and in regards to the punishment itself that, “This fine is obviously absurd, unfair, irresponsible and dangerous.” The law was rolled back one year later, the penalties removed, and the composition of the board was not forced to change [23]. And that my friends is called hypocrisy. You see, the law was good when it forced women to be equally represented in the workplace; then when this end was achieved, and the balance of power actually reversed so that men should be defined as oppressed by the very same logic, now women deserved their advantage as restitution for perceived historic power imbalances. Once again, we see that all of this empowerment talk is actually a cover for dominance and supremacy, not equality. All around the world we see similar attempts to socially and legally enforce gender diversity in the workplace. Instead of picking the best person for the job, we have diversity for the sake of it shoved down our throats. The result of such actions is predictably that people rise to positions that they are not qualified for, which ultimately is detrimental to a company’s performance and to the bottom line. The people that were passed over for earned positions eventually have to take up the slack and end up working more to cover for their less competent coworkers and bosses. This naturally breeds an environment filled with resentment and hostility, which is negatively correlated with good financial performance. Consider the case of Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of a company called Theranos. She was the inventor of a revolutionary medical device that, with only a drop of blood, would run dozens or more complicated medical tests cheaper, quicker, and more efficiently than ever before. Her competition, multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer or Johnson and Johnson, were stumped at how she could perform such an incredible feat. Her startup generated billions in funding before shipping a single product or even demonstrating a working prototype. She was hailed as a genius and celebrated as a visionary, a true model for young women and a proud inspiration for all womankind. The problem? She was completely full of shit. Her product never worked, and experts in the medical device field publicly stated from the beginning that its mere premise was laughably beyond the limits of all known technology. After successfully scamming investors and the public for years, she was eventually outed as a fraud and quietly faded into obscurity. Though there is word of charging her for her blatantly illegal actions, as of the date of this writing, she has faced no legal consequences. The unspoken truth is that if her name was Larry and she sported a bad comb over instead of a tight black turtleneck, she never would’ve seen a single dollar of funding. But being a woman CEO in the tech industry, the bar was set so low that her mere existence was enough to justify billions of investment dollars. As an experiment, take a look at the executive boards of your favorite large companies. You will often find that the CEO is female, or that the board of directors is composed of roughly half women. Then take a look at the roles they occupy. Roles such as Director of Communications, Director of Public Affairs, and Director of Human Resources are typically held by women. Roles such as Chief Technology Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Director of Operations, and Director of Engineering are typically occupied by men. Funny how the roles that actually require a strong level of technical expertise and execute the company’s daily work and mission are often held by men, whereas the more ill-defined people-centric jobs that don’t have hard standards of performance are held by women. This exposes the unabashed duplicity of the corporate gender diversity movement. It is almost as if companies are willing to put up the façade of diversity, but they understand that at the end of the day results are all that matter. As a man, you just have to understand that it will be more difficult for you to advance in the modern corporate environment than an evenly skilled, or often even less skilled woman. You will be expected to do more work, and harder work, than your female coworkers for less recognition. In fact, women don’t even have to do work in order to advance their careers. There are both federal and state laws in place that allow a woman to take off the majority of a year for each pregnancy, be paid the majority or entirety of the time, and then come back and receive the same compensation and advancement as if she had never stopped working a day. Put another way, your full time work of a year is legally obligated to be weighed the same as a woman who decided to get pregnant, got paid to stay home, and only worked a month or two out of the year. That sounds like equality, right? The benefits given to women in the workplace continue. The US government preferentially reserves 5% of all its federal contracts for woman-owned businesses; a number which may seem low, until you understand that women-owned business can also compete for the other 95% of contracts as well. So they have an equal shot at every federal contract, in addition to 5% of hundreds of billions of dollars set aside just for them [24]. This leads to little games where enterprising men will install a woman as their company figurehead, give her 51% control of the company nominally, and use her privileged status to gain contracts. Typically, in these cases the woman does little to no work except sign papers and show up for events, kind of like the Queen of England. Physical standards in some fields, such as the military and police, are consistently lowered so that woman can participate even when it exposes their coworkers to unnecessary danger. In these cases, the feel-good notion of diversity is quite literally costing lives. This is the corporate landscape for the foreseeable future, and it will most likely only get worse. All men can do is understand and expect this so that it doesn’t turn them bitter and angry when they are exposed to it. One option is to get out of the corporate world altogether. If you work as a consultant, freelancer, or own your own business, these rules for the most part won’t apply to you. Another is to use the system to your advantage, such as with the federal contracting example above. But for most of us, we don’t have any option except to suck it up and keep moving forward- like men always do. Sexual Harassment in the Workplace A final word about the workplace concerns sexual harassment. Every year, most of us 9-5 chumps have to sit through hideously boring corporate training on sexual harassment. I always thought it was pretty unfair, by the way, that I have to sit through this mandatory training every year, having no history of sexual harassment of any kind. What if we conducted all other training this way? Mandatory nuclear material handling and disposal training, just in case. Never mind that this is a Bed, Bath, and Beyond store and we do not stock Uranium-235. Mandatory forklift operator certification at a dentist office. Never know when that could come in handy during an exceptionally difficult teeth-whitening procedure. The implication is that sexual harassment is an epidemic, which is so ubiquitous that we need to give everyone yearly reminders of what is and is not appropriate in the workplace. Of course, we understand the reality is that companies are paying lip service to the issue so that they can claim absolution if and when an event occurs. It’s purely a CYA (cover your ass) move for businesses and their insurance companies. If you can manage to stay awake through your next training, take note that what constitutes sexual harassment is left quite open to interpretation. This, of course, is intentional. By leaving the answer to the fair question of, “what exactly constitutes sexual harassment, so I can be sure not to do it?” deliberately vague, why then anything and everything can be sexual harassment! How convenient. And who benefits from claims of sexual harassment? Hint: it’s not dudes. There is an old comedy skit that you can find various versions of on the internet that goes something like this: in an office setting, a woman is at her computer diligently working to get some TPS reports out before the end of the day. A handsome, well-built man comes around the corner and says something blatantly over the line like: “Whoa Suzy, looking very sexy today! I can see you’ve been putting time in at the gym. Why don’t you come over to my studio apartment later for dinner, and we can talk about that promotion? Be sure to wear that low cut shirt that I like, it really shows off your great rack.” [Double finger guns, exit stage left] The woman blushes and calls her friend to tell her about the upcoming date. Next, an overweight, balding man wearing an ill-fitting sweater vest waddles around the corner and says something innocuous like: “Good morning Suzy, nice to see you today! I look forward to chatting with you at the company lunch later.” At which point she immediately calls HR and reports him for harassment. This joke highlights the truism that sexual harassment is fluidly defined as whatever a woman wants it to be. It’s purely a feelingsbased accusation in most cases; she feels that she was harassed, so it must be so. This is the same way that a “creep” is defined. One of the first things that a woman will call a man from whom she is receiving unwanted attention is a creep. The definition of a creep, typically, is just someone who she isn’t attracted to, and who should know that he is below her attention. What is creepy behavior, much like sexual harassment, is purely dependent on how the woman feels at the time regarding the man and the attention being given to her. The exact same comment or innocent touch or text message that one man sends her- which she is receptive to- would be harassment from someone whom she is not receptive to. This begs the question: how do you tell whether a woman is receptive to your advances or not? Answer: In the workplace, don’t even try. Outside of the workplace, it’s still a sticky situation, but all you can do is rely on social cues to navigate through the quagmire. Confusingly, women still demand that men approach them lest they be seen as too timid and unmanly; at the same time, women constantly complain about daily harassment from unwanted male approaches. But how are you supposed to know which camp you fall into? When can you be sure that your approach is desired? According to women, you need to just know if your attention is wanted or not. Good luck with that. As a final cautionary tale, I recall one time that I was having a good-natured exchange with a younger female coworker. We had recently taken a picture at a work function where everyone looked awful in various ways. She remarked that she herself looked bloated and pregnant, I was making an awkward facial expression that made me look as though I kidnapped children out of a primered van, and another coworker looked high as a kite. This was good-natured ribbing and deemed humorous to everyone involved. As she went back to her desk, she jokingly told me to stay away from kids, and I shot back by asking her when the baby was due. Again, funny to everyone involved. When I returned to my desk, I found waiting for me a stern email from another, older female coworker letting me know in no uncertain terms that my comment was unacceptable and that I could be reported to HR. No mention of me being called a pedophile of course (which she also heard), but jokingly asking a woman when her nonexistent baby was due was clearly over the line. I later learned that this particular coworker, with whom I actually had a good working relationship, had pregnancy issues. Never mind that I had no way of knowing this, or that her personal problems were not my concern; I had committed the grave sin of upsetting a female by saying something she didn’t like. I managed to extricate myself in that case by immediately agreeing with her assessment and accepting responsibility for my unintentionally careless comment. However, the true lesson I learned is not only that there is a double standard for what is unacceptable in the workplace depending on what gender is performing the action, but also that everyone is listening and watching all the time. Even if you think you’re just joking with a work friend and know that she would never report you, it doesn’t mean that someone else standing in the hallway won’t. Another reason to keep work completely professional and be coolly casual with everyone, but not overly friendly to anyone. Key Takeaways: 1. The modern workplace is dangerous for men. Treat it as such and protect yourself at all times, even when you think you’re among friends. 2. Women are given preferential treatment in the workplace, even as they cry continued discrimination. Understand and expect this. 3. Sexual harassment is often whatever action a woman doesn’t like at the moment and has little to no bearing on what the actual action precipitating the claim was. Rather than try to figure out which advances are acceptable and which are not, the only way to win this game is to not play. Chapter 5: Dangers in Relationships At our core, most people want to be in a happy, healthy, and monogamous relationship. Both biological and traditional cultural pressures push us to form a stable union and produce children. Unfortunately, the reality of today’s dating market requires at least a strong dose of caution before entering into any such union, which flies in the face of these natural impulses. The sad truth is that modern relationships are incredibly hazardous for men in particular, and anyone who tries to convince you otherwise either is a fool or has something to gain from the deception. This chapter explores these dangers. #MeToo The #MeToo movement started out with a simple principal: abuse victims (female only, of course) should band together in solidarity and speak out against their abusers. It was an appeal to the idea that there is power in numbers, with the hope that one person’s revelation would give strength to another. On social media, the proliferation of this hashtag led to emotional posts from women recounting their traumatic stories and often times pointing a digital finger at the supposed criminals. It was a rallying cry with links to #BelieveWomen, a movement which stated that any woman who accused someone of sexual misconduct should be unconditionally believed in their claims, lack of proof notwithstanding. Now I have to explain that to a female brain, attention is as good as money. The need to be noticed and seen by others, especially men, is a feminine desire that has been weaponized and exaggerated by social media. Whether it’s sexy bikini shots on Instagram, twerking videos on TikTok, or claims of assault on Twitter, most women thrive in the spotlight and desire to be the center of attention. Women also tend to be strong believers in the axiom “no news is bad news”, meaning that they are happy to receive attention even for seemingly negative reasons. In case you ever wondered why victimhood culture is on the rise these days, this is the answer: being a victim makes you the center of attention. It causes others to listen to you, pity you, and give you special attention and favors, which is a form of power. It’s also a twisted, lazy form of an accomplishment: when you have nothing else important or interesting about yourself, being a victim can be an identity. So if someone ever questions why any woman would lie about a sexual assault, for example, now you know: victimhood confers attention and power. #MeToo was a golden opportunity for women to collectively embrace their victimhood status, and they did not disappoint. Every vagina got their 10 minutes of fame to recount a personal horror story spanning everything from true crimes like violent sexual assault and rape all the way down to what amounted to bad dates or unwanted male attention such as catcalling. As a fun exercise, feel free to ask any woman in your life to recount a time when she has been sexually assaulted and every single one of them will have at least one story for you. Mind you, almost none of them will rise to the standard of actual criminality provable in a court of law, but they will all be convinced that they are assault survivors in some way. One would not want to be left out of the club. More importantly, an accusation, combined with the #BelieveWomen mentality, led to the mere allegation of impropriety being enough to unleash an online mob set on destroying a man’s career and life. Gone was the necessary burden in criminal court of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Gone was the lesser civil court burden of a preponderance of evidence. The simple claim alone, without responsibility to prove guilt, became the threshold of proof needed to try and convict a man in the court of public opinion. And while no rational person would argue that criminals don’t deserve to be prosecuted for their crimes, we all are supposed to enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise by indisputable facts and evidence in an unbiased court of law. Many people look at the cases of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein- both ultimately convicted of criminal sexual conduct with multiple women and both exposed as part of this movement- and are quick to claim victory. But what about these cases below, where a man was falsely accused of wrongdoing by a woman whose only proof was her word against his: 1) The Duke Lacrosse case is an infamous example. A stripper who was invited to the college lacrosse team’s party alleged gang rape, causing tremendous damage to the reputation of the school, to the lacrosse program in particular, and to all of the individual members of the team who were publicly outed by name. The season was canceled, scholarships were revoked, the young men put on criminal trial and their names drug through the mud by a salivating media; in the end, the claims turned out to be 100% fabricated. No attack occurred, no consensual sex even, nothing at all. Just a lie for no reason except that the woman was mentally ill. Incidentally, the woman later murdered a man and is currently serving a sentence for that crime. She was never prosecuted for the false accusations and the damage caused by her inexplicable lies. 2) The Mattress Girl case. A young college student claimed that a friend raped her, publicly outed him, and proceeded to carry around a full sized mattress strapped to her back for the rest of the school year as performative art in order to bring attention to her case. She also became an advocate for, and the face of, sexual assault survivors. The problem? Her story was also a straight up lie. In this case, the two did have consensual sex, but graphic text message evidence later came out that proved the girl was the aggressor in the situation and pursued her friend, not the other way around. She had essentially hounded this man and coerced him into having sex with her, then charged him with rape following their consensual liaison. The school and local law enforcement both investigated the case and concluded that the girl had lied; after the man was expelled of course, and his name and picture posted online for everyone to see. This ultimately caused him to leave school and flee the country, and even today, he suffers the allegation’s negative effects. You see, people remember the sensational coverage of the accusation, but not the page 10 retraction years later after the truth comes out. This is the exact opposite of how our justice system is supposed to work. 3) The many “allies” of the #MeToo movement who have been accused of sexual assault or misconduct. This category tickles my funny bone because it shows that allying yourself to a female cause will not save you, and it’s only a matter of time before the weapon turns on those wielding it. a. Aziz Ansari- who let’s be honest couldn’t get a date to save his life if he wasn’t a wealthy celebrity- was publicly accused of sexual assault by a woman whom he went on a date with. She voluntarily agreed to go back to his apartment alone with him after dinner. She then had several drinks with him. They began to get physical, and she voluntarily performed oral sex on him several times (by her own admission). Unfortunately, she wasn’t pleased with his bedroom skills and his apparently inept dirty talk. When she asked to leave, he immediately stopped his advances and politely saw her out. To many, this would just be a funny story about a bad date. To feminists who celebrate victim culture, this was a form of rape, and she wasted no time in publicly accusing him of sexual misconduct for what she herself admitted were consensual actions. b. Neil Degrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and nerd superhero, was publically shamed as well after inviting a young female admirer of his up to his apartment for a chat. He then served her some delicious appetizers, including finely aged cheese. He was by all accounts a gracious host as they conversed and enjoyed various finger foods. He never touched her or made an inappropriate remark, but still he “made her feel uncomfortable” by some unspecified means. This was enough for a public #MeToo claim, and an attempted cancellation. All I can say is thank god we have a forum these days to expose this level of bestial male behavior. c. Louis C.K.’s crime was to ask women that he knewincluding other feminist allies such as Sarah Silvermanif he could masturbate in front of them. If the woman said yes, he did. If she said no, he did not. End of story. There was never any alleged contact of any kind, criminal or not, or even an allegation that he continued cranking one out if they said no. Does this make him a weirdo? For sure. But a sexual predator? That seems like a far leap. His comedy career was canceled for a time, though now he has returned to performing after a heartfelt apology and an appropriate cooling off period. I hope he’s learned his lesson that no means no, but yes also means no if a woman feels like she can get some attention from spreading an embarrassing story. 4) Johnny Depp was famously accused not of sexual assault, but of being a wife beater. Amber Heard, his wife at the time, publicly accused him of assaulting her on multiple occasions. As a direct result of the accusations alone, Depp lost his role in two major film franchises (Pirates of the Caribbean and Fantastic Beasts) which cost him a minimum of tens of millions of dollars. After months of silence and being convicted in the court of public opinion, Depp produced an audio recording where Heard admits to beating him without provocation. Depp has also given proof that she assaulted him at other times and nearly severed his finger on one occasion during a knife attack. It turns out that she was the abuser, not the other way around. At the time of this writing, Depp remains fired from his two film franchise roles, while Heard has retained her role in the successful Aquaman franchise. 5) Brad Pitt, who was formerly married to Jennifer Aniston and allegedly cheated on her with Angelina Jolie (whom he eventually married) while on the set of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, was accused in court documents of physically abusing their children. This turned out to be a total fabrication by Ms. Jolie, who was simply using the accusation as leverage in their inevitable divorce case. This one I actually have to put on Brad a little bit. He decided to marry a chick who is known to make out with her brother in public, wear a vial of someone else’s blood around her neck as a romantic gesture, and willingly had sex with walking skeleton of note Billy Bob Thornton. Probably should’ve seen that crazy train coming down the tracks long before it hit him. I could go on for longer, but I’m trying to keep this book under a thousand pages. There are countless cases of false accusations being made by women that ruined men’s lives, most of which were posted on social media and most of which were not accompanied by any sort of official criminal complaint. Some of those men lost their children, some of them lost their home and life savings, some lost their freedom, and some took their own lives. The point is that we remain in a society where an accusation from a woman is given immediate credence not only by the online mob but also by the criminal justice system, without any sort of accompanying proof. It is also worth noting that in the Aziz Ansari case, the “victim” claimed that although she had not protested to any of the actions taken (and as a reminder, had voluntarily performed oral sex on Ansari multiple times that night), she did however give off “nonverbal cues”. No one has any idea what that means. I would suggest that willingly blowing a guy is a pretty good nonverbal cue that he’s good to go, but apparently not. So now we have a public precedent that even performing sex acts of one’s own free well is not considered consent for those very acts. If that doesn’t scare you enough, it’s not just the court of public opinion that will get you. In every state, except North Carolina (and this ruling is in dispute), even during undeniably consensual sex a woman can withdraw her consent at any time and any action after that precise second is now legally rape [25]. This is understandable in an extreme hypothetical case where out of the nowhere during mid-coitus a man begins to savagely beat his girlfriend, and she withdraws consent. I would argue that’s already a crime on the books- and indeed, that is North Carolina’s stance- but alright, I would believe that could in theory happen. I would also propose that’s an incredibly unlikely situation, because consensual sex is pretty much the top interest of men in life. Once achieved, it takes a real psychopath to not only ruin that particular encounter, not only ruin any chance of future encounters, but also to risk jail time for no discernable reason. On the other hand, it’s easy to imagine an analogue to the Aziz Ansari case, where a man gained verbal consent from a woman, was in the middle of enthusiastic sex with both sides equally participating, and after about 10 minutes the woman silently withdraws her consent via enigmatic nonverbal cues. In this situation, that man is now a rapist for not reading her mind in that exact moment. This is to say nothing of the equally atrocious cases of “regret rape”, whereby a woman will have consensual sex with a man but at some later date come to regret her decision, change her mind about what happened, and accuse the man of rape. This often happens when a girl has a boyfriend and cheats on him, or has a few drinks at a party and makes a decision that she feels guilty about later down the road. In this situation, by every legal definition both parties agreed to have sex at the time and all throughout the act. Nevertheless, a crime is alleged as the female’s consent is withdrawn post encounter- sometimes weeks, months, or even years later. An example of this occurred when a woman willingly participated in a drunken orgy with three men she met at a casino and later regretted it. Fearing the backlash if word got out of what happened, she had them arrested for rape [26]. Another example occurred when a young woman dated a man in college, and as the relationship was ending, had sex with him one last time for the road. She regretted it the day afterward and accused him of rape, ultimately causing him to drop out of college and endure a severalyear long trial process before being acquitted [27]. How about when another college student was happily double-teamed by members of the school’s football team, then regretted it after fearing that the filthy details would get out and that it would damage her reputation on campus. Although ultimately exonerated, both players were kicked off the team and their lives turned upside down for the length of their legal battle, which did in fact go all the way to a criminal jury trial [28]. Again, these are but a few of the examples available to cite. Unfortunately, we only know about the cases where the woman was found out to be lying, but what should really be alarming is knowing that there must be cases out there where an innocent man was locked up based on a woman’s feelings changing after the fact. We don’t know who these men are, but they remain rotting in jail all the same. Imaging having what you thought was a fun night on the town, and taking a girl back to your place for some adult entertainment that you both eagerly participate in. You get her number to meet up again, but the only call you receive is a week later when the cops ask you to come down to the station for some questions. No warning, no hints that anything was wrong. You can’t prove that it was consensual sex and word quickly spreads around town about the charges. Your name and picture appear in the local paper and your parents are harassed for raising a rapist, all while you sit in jail waiting for trial- which in turn causes you to lose your job, then your apartment, and then your last dime on legal defense. The best situation you can hope for now is that you are found not guilty and avoid prison time, but the damage has been done. In the worst situation, you lose your freedom and are forevermore branded a sex offender for a crime that you did not commit. Fully guarding against this type of situation is essentially impossible. It doesn’t matter how famous, handsome, or rich you are (see the actors listed above who were victimized). It doesn’t matter if you are a nobody who just slept with the wrong girl, looked at her in a way she didn’t like, or in some cases truly did nothing at all. You are immediately presumed guilty, and the consequences are swift and long lasting. There is no clear answer here on a personal level. This is a societal problem where we’ve collectively decided to cede to women the power to destroy a man based on her feelings alone, which may or may not be rooted in reality. Arguments against #MeToo or #BelieveWomen are conflated with excusing cases of true criminal rape, a position that literally no one holds. This is one reason why some men have stopped interacting with women romantically or even limiting their contact in any situation whatsoever, and why the pickup artist (PUA) movement died. The risks vastly outweigh the reward. Blue pilled men, and women especially, will call you crazy and attempt to shame you for being concerned about false accusations. This is a version of the, “if you didn’t do anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about” fallacy. Don’t fall for this tactic. Of course, women don’t have to worry about these sorts of accusations being levied against them, and they downplay the risks for men because it suits their agenda to preserve this awesome power. Blue pilled men and simps are going to predictably back up their female allies; you can’t trust them either. The facts are what they are, that this is a real danger, and aside from the examples I’ve mentioned previously, anyone with a stable WiFi signal and a few minutes to kill before dinner can easily find proof of hundreds of other cases just like them. Whoever tells you that there is a sure-proof method of avoiding being #MeToo’d is lying. So, I don’t have a solution for you on this one except to arm you with the knowledge that this is possible and point to the many concrete examples of false accusations. I’m am also not necessarily advocating for avoiding women altogether romantically, because most of us want and need romantic interaction in our lives. However, extreme caution is required when engaging in sexual activity; at the least, do your best to vet the woman first before getting physical. Save and back up text messages that confirm consent. I like to start a text conversation the day afterward that induces her to confirm she had a positive experience and would like to see me again. That’s not foolproof, but it’s far better than nothing. Men have been saved from incarceration by such data. Others go so far as to make audio or video recordings, but those could get you into legal trouble for other reasons. Pursuing one-night stands with strangers flat out increases your risk for false accusations. I cannot tell you the specific odds, and honestly they are probably low as long as you exercise good judgment; but they are certainly not zero, and the penalties for making a mistake are devastating. Finally, as the old adage goes, “never stick your dick in crazy”. I know the sex is better, but trust me it isn’t worth the gamble. Online Dating Online dating technology has turned out to be the most damaging invention of all time when it comes to gender relations. The reason is that it has allowed female hypergamy- already spurred on and encouraged at every turn by modern society- to run absolutely unchecked, to the detriment of both men and women alike. Hypergamy, as a reminder, is the primary method for achieving the female reproductive strategy. The method itself evolved when humans lived in small groups of dozens of people at most and the world was an extremely dangerous place; in this environment, it made sense for women to be compelled to find the highest status man of the group and reproduce with him. This was a very reasonable way to ensure, to the best of that woman’s ability, that she and her offspring would live on to propagate their genetic legacy. One side effect of hypergamy is that women would rather share a high status male than be saddled monogamously with a low status male. You see this even today. A rich or famous man not only has his pick of the litter when it comes to women he’d like to have sex with or date, but these women are willing to accept being just one in a harem as long as she gets her piece of the pie. In olden times, this meant that not all men were able to mate and pass along their genes, which again ensured that only the most fit genes were passed on and that the lesser genes were weeded out of the reproductive pool. This was ultimately good for the health of the species as a whole. We see this in the animal kingdom frequently, where one dominant male has the mating rights to many females. Inevitably, as that male gets older and less capable, another strong male will usurp his rule and the cycle begins again. Think of any professional sports player whose wife is ostensibly shocked when TMZ reports that her man, along with half of the offensive line, ran a train on some hotel ho; yet she stays with him in the end. Why would that be? After all, men don’t normally put up with cheating, because it goes against our nature to stay with a disloyal woman who might cuckold us and trick us into raising a child that is not ours. Most women, on the other hand, will put up with their man cheating, so long as the price is right. Earlier in our history, if it was not possible to join the harem of the chieftain, then a woman simply went down the line to the next best man. In this way, the scarcity of available options allowed more “average” men to marry and mate with a woman. This allowed for more than just the very top percentage of men to have a shot at passing along their genes. In addition, an individual woman’s hypergamy would still be satisfied in that relationship, knowing that it was the best she could do given her circumstances. This dynamic worked even as small cities and towns came into being: there were still only so many men, and so many women, and especially in cultures that exerted social pressure to enforce monogamy, it was likely that everyone would ultimately pair up with someone else. Most people grew up, lived, and died in the same small geographic area and options to travel far away in search of mates would be extremely limited and, frankly, too dangerous to attempt. The sexual marketplace was therefore limited and localized. This left the couple relatively happy with each other and stable, because they chose the best of their limited options and then were socially obligated to stick with that choice. Likely, this is the situation you think of when you harken back to the days of your grandparents and great-grandparents. But what happens when the local sexual marketplace becomes a global sexual marketplace? Suddenly women, who have an incredibly strong innate drive to find the best mate available both for reproduction and long term provisioning (not necessarily in the same man!) are in a difficult spot. John over here is 6’4” and has a sixpack, so that’s a no-brainer for casual sex. Jordan over there is only 5’11” and not as in shape, but he earns over six figures, so he’s a better choice for a long term relationship even if he doesn’t get her as hot and bothered. Who to choose? Wait a second, a new friend request on Facebook just popped up; Andre from back in high school has really kept it together, and she had a crush on him from when he was the captain of the football team! Let’s start a conversation and see what he’s up to. Now multiply this access to the highest status men worldwide and you have literally endless options. It is not farfetched for a hot Instagram model to catch the attention of a rich businessman in Tokyo, or an NBA player from a city 3000 miles away, or a lead singer on tour with his band. Sorry to say that the local boys in Sheboygan, Wisconsin just can’t compete with an entire world’s worth of high status men. In fact, no man can. The popular dating site OkCupid collected the granddaddy of all datasets to prove this point. In an extraordinarily revealing set of blog posts that have since been deleted due to their unattractive revelations regarding female nature, the data scientists at OkCupid reported some shocking statistics. The most depressing of which is the fact that, according to women, fully 80% of men on the site were rated as less than average looking. That’s right, according to women, an incredible 80 fucking percent of the male population are below their physical attraction standards. Of course, the same data were collected the other way around, and men rated approximately 50% of women as above average and 50% as below average, which is to say exactly the distribution expected from a fair rating and realistic worldview. In other words, men see women as having an equal chance of being attractive as unattractive, and view the majority of women as about average looking. Like I said before, these posts have been deleted, but luckily the internet never forgets anything and archives of the posts can be found easily (just do a search for “archived OkCupid blog data”). The message is clear: for any guy chosen at random from the millions of available men looking to date online, there’s an 80% chance that the woman he is trying to message thinks he’s objectively ugly or at least below her attraction standards. Popular mobile apps such as Tinder are no better. Now Tinder did not make the same mistake that OkCupid did and has not revealed any of its user statistics. The answer as to why not is understandable: if you truly knew your chances of success as a man on these apps, you would not use their product. Luckily, a plethora of data is available online from users who have run their own experiments to determine the odds of getting a Tinder match. One experiment showed that the average male user has a chance of getting “liked” 1 out of 115 times, which is to say that women are swiping right less than 1% of the time on average [29]. Another informal study found that the ratio of a guy getting “liked” was a similar 1 out of 167 [30]. The author’s conclusion, as well as the title of the article is, “Guys, unless you are really hot you are probably better off not wasting your time on Tinder.” I would call that an accurate and easily digestible summation of the state of affairs. By the way, you can also easily search for and find cases of men making fake accounts on Tinder just to see what we’re up against. These accounts feature a male model’s pictures, but the bio and conversations that follow make it clear that this fake person is a monster of a human being; for example, being a convicted child rapist, an admitted wife abuser, and currently wearing an ankle monitor under house arrest. The least graphic first interactions are something along the line of, “I want you to sit on my face right now.” The amount of female matches and offers to meet up, even after these conversations, is overwhelming. The lesson here is that online dating is a woman’s game and one big validation machine for them. Many times a woman on these apps is not even looking to date in any sense of the word; she just wants to get a hit of dopamine from guys virtually pursuing her. If she is interested in dating, it facilitates a woman’s preferred courtship strategy of sitting back and letting hordes of men approach her, and then at the time of her choosing selecting the highest value among them and discarding the rest. Furthermore, this paradigm has inflated women’s egos and expectations to such an extent that they honestly believe only 20% of the male population is physically up to their standards. Even more insidious is engendering in women the idea that not only are these top 20% of men in infinite supply, but that every woman deserves one of these men regardless of her own appearance (I should mention that approximately 70% of women in the US are either clinically overweight or obese) or what she has to offer. That is the true root problem, and leaves the vast majority of men shut out of the dating game altogether. This is why you’ll often see the typical narcissistic female dating profile, which goes something like this: Tiffany, Age 37, Sales Associate at PetSmart Mother of 4, my children are my world and come first ALWAYS. Their baby daddies are in their lives so if you aren’t OK with that, swipe left. Conservatives and Jesus-lovers, swipe left. I’m done with all the a**holes and f*ckboys, ready to settle down with someone serious. Boss babe with 4 side hustle$, so you better have your s*hit together too and be on my level! If you drive a Honda Accord and don’t own your own house, swipe left. I need a traditional man and expect you to spoil me like the princess I am. Must be 6ft or taller, sorry no shorties ☹ . I’m 5’1, 195lbs and love my body, so if you aren’t man enough to handle a curvy girl, swipe left. Or: Janelle, Age 24, Sociology Student IDK why I’m on this app my friend made it for me, lol, will probably delete soon. I consider myself a very spiritual person. Gemini and act like it. Have 7 piercings, only 3 are visible in a bikini. Tattoos are hot. Guys with motorcycles go to the front of the line. Looking for my partner in crime and travel buddy! Been to 290 countries and counting. Take me out to a fancy dinner, NO COFFEE DATES. If you just message me “hi”, I’m not going to respond. I get like 600 messages a day. Put some effort in, guys! I’m not on here much, so follow me on Insta, Snap, or Venmo @thot_lyfe. Think of online dating as the world’s biggest nightclub, except there are endless amounts of men, each of whom can approach an endless amount of women simultaneously. The women there- even the average or below average looking ones- are continually flooded by requests for their attention and all of them are picking from the same top percentage of high value men, and cycling through them one by one. Now this is a fantastic opportunity if you are, in fact, one of these top 10 or 20% of men. If not, you’re pretty much hosed. And even if you are a top percentage man, good luck wading through the sea of jaded, piped out Tinderella hoes if you’re looking for anything resembling a quality long term partner. Finally, if simple online dating sites were not enough of a dumpster fire, sites like OnlyFans are also rapidly growing in popularity. For those unaware, OnlyFans is essentially a porn site where “content creators” (whores) can interact directly with their “fans” (simps). The model is both subscription based- i.e. pay this much per month and you get access to all my sexy videos and pictures- and fee based, where you can pay a certain amount for private messages, private interactions, and send tips, for example. Although not technically restricted to women, predictably, the creators are almost all women and the users are almost all men. The interesting development here is that this paradigm opens up sex work to the everyday woman. Previously, to be involved in sex work you had to walk the streets in a skimpy outfit and frequent seedy motels, requiring the performance of sexual acts on the less desirable members of society and being constantly worried about getting your throat cut by a john or being beat up by your pimp. If not that, you needed to at least get involved with an adult film company and be forever labeled as a porn star whose sexual exploits lived in digital perpetuity. OnlyFans came along and changed the game: as long as you have a webcam and solid internet connection, you can profit off your body and sexuality from the comfort and safety of your own home and pretend that you aren’t functionally equivalent to a prostitute. Obviously, this is a crock of shit. If you are getting naked on camera and/or performing sexual acts in exchange for money, you are a sex worker. Full stop, no qualifiers. And let me be clear that I support this industry and I support the right for an adult to make whatever choices he or she sees fit to in life. But I also support the right of potential future dating partners, spouses, and men in general to consider these choices and decide that they are not romantically interested in a woman who participates in these activities. Just as it’s your right to live your life as you see fit as a free woman, it’s my right to decide that I don’t want the human equivalent of a trashcan raising my children. Fair is fair, ladies. Now I know what some of you are thinking. OnlyFans girls are a fringe phenomenon and I am making too big of a deal about this. Well, prepare to feel like an idiot, because it’s been reported that OnlyFans has more than one million content creators as of December 2020 and is growing by 7,000-8,000 creators per day. That means that it is now a reasonable question to ask a girl on a first date as part of your screening if she has ever, or currently does, operate an OnlyFans account. Put more bluntly, it’s now a reasonable expectation to assume that your date might at one time have been a sex worker. The great gift that OnlyFans (not to mention sugarbaby sites or other similar avenues) has given us is to reveal an aspect of female nature that women have long attempted to hide: when given the option and under no duress, women are more than willing to sell their sexuality to the highest bidder. And for what great amount of riches are these women willing to do this, you may ask? The average OnlyFans creator in 2020 cleared a whopping $180/month [31]. Moreover, that number is skewed higher by a small number of content makers who earn millions per year. With a sample size of more than a million, the average modern woman thinks that her sexuality is worth $180/month, and for that price is willing to share it with an unlimited amount of strangers via the internet. Yet to gain exclusive access to this exact same commodity, men are required to sign away their entire lives in a marriage contract. Talk about buying the cow when the slutty milk is free. Now admittedly, shaking your titties and spreading your butthole open on a webcam is not the exact same as the physical act of sex with all the risks and chemically induced feelings involved. Nevertheless, the fact remains that for a man, whose primary interest in a woman is her sexuality and the assurance of future loyalty and paternity, this makes the already objectively bad deal that is present-day dating even worse. The old red pill adage of, “she’s not yours, it’s only your turn” has never been more true. This is me exposing online dating for what it truly is. If you think you’re going to find the cute girl next door on these sites, who’s only had two boyfriends in her life and wants to settle down to have kids with a normal guy living an average suburban existence, you’ve really got to recalibrate your expectations. That girl does not exist anymore, and if she does somewhere out there in the universe, she damn sure isn’t on Tinder. In fact, we’re all looking for that same girl and recognize her when we see her, so she’s probably been locked down since the age of 18 by a guy counting his lucky stars. If you expect to have anything more than a 1 in 100 success rate with matching on these apps, you’ve also got to recalibrate. I understand that we don’t have many choices today and that most men will use online dating as a way to meet women. I even endorse it if you are thinking of casting a wide dating net and seeing what turns up when you reel it in. Just be realistic about what you’re doing, what your chances are, and what kind of woman you are likely to get out of the process. The 80/20 Rule This conundrum segues nicely into a discussion of the 80/20 rule. It is a derivation of the Pareto Principle, and it states that the top 20% of men are responsible for 80% of the dating (read dating also as: desire from women and sexual access). In other words, women only seem truly interested in dating the top 20% of men; an assertion that we’ve already shown is true in the previous section. With more and more dating options available worldwide, and advancements in communication and travel making connections feasible between any two people across the globe, the truth is that the percentage of “top men” reduces even further. I estimate today that it’s more likely to be the top 5% or 10% at most. Combine female solipsism and entitlement with hypergamy and a gynocentric, feminist, girl-power culture, and you get a potent cocktail whereby every woman desires, believes she can attain, and furthermore believes she outright deserves the top few percent of men. These are the richest, most handsome, most famous, and most successful men in the entire world. The problem here should be immediately clear. Mathematically, there are only but so many of these studs to go around. So we have an ever smaller percentage of men getting all of the female attention, and the bottom 90% of men are generally invisible to women. This is the legacy of social media and dating apps, and I said it before but it bears repeating: it is quite literally destroying society. Women are also refusing to stick with just one man long term, because their hypergamy is screaming at them that they are settling and should be able to land a better catch. Everything in their social media world is telling them that there are thousands of better options out there, just one DM away. And if they do settle down, they have a constant nagging doubt that their man isn’t as good as he could be, and certainly not as good as David Beckham, who has the looks, fame, AND fortune. Why can’t you just be more like David Beckham? Now these lucky few men are more than happy to have sex with all of the women that are constantly tripping over themselves to be with them. Think of any famous band member, actor, or notable professional athlete; they could reasonably have sex with a different woman every hour of the day for their entire lives. And so many of them valiantly try, because men’s primary reproductive drive is to have sex with as many different women as possible. Whether it’s the good, the bad, or the ugly, it doesn’t matter to most men when it comes to a quickie in the alley after a drunken night at the bar or a one night stand Tinder hookup. Sadly again for the fate of the world, these types of casual interactions just further reinforce to women that they deserve these men. After all, she had sex with him, so he must really want to be with her! We men find this conclusion particularly exasperating since we understand that there is a huge difference between who a man will have sex with, and who he will date long term. Most women cannot grasp the fact that having sex with them in no way correlates to wanting to keep them. And why can they not grasp this? Because women only want to have sex with high profile men, so they assume the same logic applies the other way around. Another sadistic way that feminism has played the very gender that it espouses to help is to indoctrinate girls from young ages to desire their career, education, and monetary success more than a man. One way this is showing up is that the number of women earning Bachelor degrees in college has risen to an historic level and continues to rise. The latest available data from 2018 shows that women now outnumber men in the number of Bachelor degrees achieved 57% to 43% [32], meaning that most women are now more educated than most men. The tragedy is that women are required by their biology to seek men who are higher status than they are. By advocating for a system that preferentially educates women to a higher level than men, we are dooming an ever-increasing population of women to see an evergreater percentage of men as unfit and below their standards. Of course there are other factors in status, but higher education is an easy discriminating factor and also typically implies greater lifetime earnings when compared to someone with a lower level of education. Plus, no woman wants to tell all her sorority sisters from UC-Berkeley that she is dating a plumber who only graduated high school, even if he does make twice what she does. Ultimately, this leaves two choices for women: unhappily settle down with one of these “substandard” men, or die alone in a sad apartment surrounded by their fur babies, which themselves are a pathetic stand in for the actual family that they denied themselves. Marriage Risks If dating is a minefield, then what does that make marriage? First, let’s quickly examine the reasons that a couple would marry. Essentially, marriage between two people (not involving the motivations of the government) is a compromise of forced monogamy. The compromise part comes from the fact that both the man and woman have to sacrifice part of their innate reproductive strategy in order to gain something greater together. A woman is sacrificing the ability to find the most genetically advantageous pairing possible (i.e. the highest status man) and settling for someone lesser. However, in return she gains the promise of a long-term mate and parental investment plus the typical protection and provision that she would not otherwise receive from that highest status man. Men are sacrificing their ability to mate with as many and as varied women as possible, possibly without sticking around for the parental investment part at all. However, in return for this sacrifice, he is assured of his paternity and that whatever resources he invests in his family are for the sake of ensuring his own legacy. This was historically seen as a fair compromise, and ultimately, it also benefits society as a whole. This is to say nothing of the fact that pairing the natural complementary roles and temperaments of men and women together to raise children is also a benefit to the family and thus to the world, as these children grow up to be a healthy and contributing citizens. I will refer to that state of affairs as “The Old Deal”. It’s the deal that your grandparents made with each other. It was during a time when men were unapologetically men, women were unapologetically women, no one called anyone else toxic because of their innate qualities which were honed over millennia by the awesome force of evolution, and we all lived in relative harmony. Happy and healthy family structures were the norm. Of course, at this point in the book you should realize that this deal has long since expired. Let’s say that despite the odds stacked against you, you found what you consider to be the perfect girl and decide to settle down. Maybe pop out a few kids while you’re at it. The first problem that you’re going to run into is that there’s a very good chance that your new wife secretly thinks she deserves better than you. Both physically as we know from the OkCupid data, but also just generally someone who has more overall value. There’s a good chance that she thinks this because one time, or likely many times in the past, she did, in fact, have better than you; either as a one night stand or a relationship, it doesn’t matter. One day she met David Copperfield after a show, he offered to have sex with her back in his hotel room at the Bellagio, and forevermore that is her new bar to measure all men against (this is a true example by the way). Sadly, you are not now and never will be David Copperfield. As the years pass by and no high profile illusionists want to settle down with her, or famous bass players, or rich hedge fund managers, she starts to get desperate and evaluates her remaining options. And there you are, the clueless Beta male, just waiting around for her to pick you last like the fat kid in a dodgeball game. She decides to lower her standards so that she can at least have some security, someone to provide for her, and someone to help raise her kids. In short, she is settling for you once all of her better options have dissolved into nothingness. Unfortunately, you know none of this. The reason that you don’t know this is because you made that classic mistake of assuming her thought process is the same as yours. You see, women are the gatekeepers of sex, but men are the gatekeepers of relationships. Because of that, men tend to be relatively picky when it comes to long term relationships and especially marriage. A man typically would not marry a woman that he was not “all in” on. That is to say, a woman that he could truly love and would be happy to live the rest of his life with and share a family with. So the same must be true for her, right? Not just wrong, but hysterically wrong. You’re just the best she can do for now. If ever a higher caliber option comes along, she will certainly feel- though not necessarily act on- the desire to trade up. And again, with the global sexual marketplace always beckoning in the background, it is quite easy for her to find that perceived better match. I say perceived because the perception of higher status, and the perception of interest toward her, is all that is necessary to awaken this desire to move on. As before, it should be noted that the combination of this innate drive with societal pressures can multiply the potency of this situation. We raise women from the time they are children to never settle, to follow their hearts always, and to find their one true love (even if they are currently indisposed in a pesky marriage). We tell them that they are, furthermore, entitled to find that Prince Charming who must be out there just waiting for her, completely disregarding her age or past decisions or current BMI. In addition to those soft pressures, the full weight of the government and, in particular, the judicial system has her back. Alimony is almost exclusively received by women; although the numbers are hard to come by, records from the 2010 US Census show that 97% of spousal support is paid by men to women [33]. Child support and child custody are overwhelmingly granted to women; the latest data available again from the US Census, in 2017, shows that although men are slowly gaining ground on this front, the split is still 80% to 20% in favor of women [34]. A woman is, by default, the victim in any domestic violence situation and, as shown previously, the mere accusation of such is enough to send a man to jail. So we have these three factors working in concert: 1) Women’s hypergamy is always looking for a better deal when it comes to sex and relationships; with access to the entire world’s population of men, this better deal will inevitably be found. 2) Society encourages women to selfishly “follow their heart”, whatever the cost to others, and applauds them for doing so at every turn. 3) If a woman decides to exit a marriage, she can do so and be financially rewarded for decades or potentially the rest of her life. Put all those factors together, and what are your chances of a happy marriage? The latest data shows that about 45% of all marriages end in divorce; this is taking into account an historic 50 year low in divorce rates, also accompanied by an historic drop in marriage rates because people just aren’t interested in marrying anymore [35]. Traditionally that number has been around 50%, so for ease of calculation we’ll say 50% of all marriages are likely to end in divorce. By the way, women file approximately 70% of all divorces, and that percentage is higher if the woman is college educated [36]. So that’s a 50/50 shot at pain and suffering right off the bat. But let’s say that you manage to be in that 50% that avoids divorce. Your princess would never do that to you, she’s not like all those other women. Perhaps a happy ending is in store? Although it’s hard to nail down an exact number for obvious reasons, studies have shown that the rate of cheating within marriages is somewhere around 20-40% [37] [38]. I would suggest that this is probably a low estimate because people typically don’t admit to scumbaggery, but let’s take the simple average at 30%. Mind you, that’s 30% of still married couples. Now we’re down to a 3.5 in 10 chance of not getting divorced and, furthermore, not getting cheated on while remaining married. Speaking of cheating, paternity fraud is also an issue to be concerned with. With the ease of DNA testing, many men are finding out that their children aren’t actually theirs. Maury Povich built an entire career out of this sad fact. Here’s a pro tip: if you are in a sexless marriage and right after your angel gets back from a girl’s weekend at Palm Springs, she suddenly has an insatiable desire to have unprotected sex with you, you’re about to get played. Some ripped Middle Eastern dude that she met at the pool got all up in her guts and she is just praying that she can blame the baby’s olive skin tone on her grandfather’s Sicilian ancestry. Studies range wildly in estimates so it’s hard to get a handle on just how many men are not the biological father of their children, but any percentage that is north of 0% is too high for my liking. But let’s say that you manage to avoid divorce, you aren’t in that large remaining group of men who are cheated on, and you successfully dodged the cuckolding. Good news, you are now likely to have survived long enough to be in a faithful but also sexless and loveless marriage. The statistics say that about 75% of married couples have sex less than once a week, many less than once a month [39]. That is the future you have to look forward to. Let’s take a small leap and assume that the last two statistics are independent of each other, meaning that the cheating factor does not have a bearing on the amount of sex in a marriage, on average. Here’s how the calculations play out: You have a 50% shot (5/10 = 0.5) of being divorced straightaway. Of those still married, roughly 30% will be cheated on, so now your chances of being in a happy marriage are down to 35% (0.5 * 0.7 not being cheated on = 0.35). Of that 35%, you have only a 25% chance of having sex at least once a week. Therefore, picking an average marriage at random, you have an 8.75% chance (0.35 * 0.25 = 0.0875) of being in a marriage that survives divorce, cheating, and a dead bedroom. Congratulations, I guess? My goal here is not to shame you for wanting marriage or even to suggest that wanting marriage is not a worthwhile goal. Despite the risks, most men will eventually pursue the cliché white picket fence, 2.5 children, suburban family dream; and statistically, 91.25% of those men will wind up either divorced or stuck in a functionally failed marriage. It is imperative to understand the risks involved and what the hard numbers tell us, no matter how ugly they may be. Anecdotally, think of all your friends and family members who are married. Exclude anyone (such as grandparents) who hooked up before the 1960s, i.e. prior to Second Wave feminism. Of these couples, what percentage have been divorced? Of those not divorced, how many would you say are happy in their marriage (think particularly of the men)? Of those who are not visibly depressed, do you actually envy their relationship, or is there some nuance keeping them together? Perhaps a culture that does not approve of divorce, or they’re waiting for the kids to turn 18 before going their separate ways, or maybe both of them are extremely unattractive and overweight and they know that no one else wants to fuck them. What percentage of happy, successful, enviable marriages does that leave you with? For many people that number may in fact be zero, and for the majority of men I’d bet the number is somewhere around 10% at most. That’s pretty close to the number we calculated above. Now transfer that level of risk to any other high stakes situation in life. Would you make a large financial wager (which marriage is anyway) that only had a 10% chance of succeeding, and the rest of the time will bankrupt you? Would you walk down a street where you only had a 10% chance of not being assaulted, or walk through a minefield where only 10% of the paths through were safe? This is what we are asking of men today. To willingly enter into a lifelong, legally binding financial contract with a woman, where the chance of it working out well- as defined simply by the low bar of not getting divorced, not being cheated on, and having sex at least once a week on average- is roughly 10%, and likely lower. Furthermore, women are much more apt to bail on a marriage than a man is; and no matter who files for divorce, she is overwhelmingly likely to be granted alimony, child support, and primary custody of any children. If those risks don’t dissuade you, then I applaud your optimism. If, however, you see those statistics and think that the odds are obscenely stacked against you, then you aren’t alone. If you do decide to get married, your best bet is to be as pragmatic as possible; after all, I can guarantee your wife is! Treat it like a business deal and analyze the costs and benefits, and then determine if the risk is reasonable to you. Protect yourself as much as possible both financially and emotionally, preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. The absolute worst mistake you can make is actually believing “in richer and in poorer, in sickness and in health, ‘til death do us part”. Foreign Brides I have a good friend who told me about his buddy’s wife, Suki. This friend of my friend was in the military and was stationed overseas; and when he returned back home, like many military men, he brought with him a foreign bride. Legend has it that Suki adored her husband and attended to his every whim, including an odd insistence on bathing him. It got so bad that the husband would try to sneak a shower alone every now and then just for some privacy. But with what seemed to be superhuman hearing, or some sort of aquatic sixth sense, the second that the water started to run, so did Suki. She would sprint from wherever she was in the house and immediately jump into the shower so that she could wash him head to toe. It didn’t matter if she had just done her makeup, if she had just gotten out of the shower herself, or if she was in the middle of cooking a meal. She refused to allow her husband to bathe himself; such was the level of her devotion to this man. Some of you may have heard of similar mythical tales of women from far off lands who still want “The Old Deal”. They are feminine, sweet, kind, caring, loving, faithful, and genuinely want to marry a strong traditional male provider. They clean the house, cook all your meals, take care of the kids, keep themselves in good shape, and will never turn you down for sex. Perhaps you have heard that this woman exists in Japan or Thailand, maybe Poland or the Ukraine, in Ecuador or Costa Rica. Let me burst your bubble: this is, depressingly, not true. Like most urban legends, there’s often a kernel of truth to the story; and in this case, there are two kernels to be had. The first is that yes, women residing in what we now euphemistically call “developing countries” were some of the last holdouts for traditional gender roles and relationships. Many of you will personally know family members or friends who emigrated from these countries and maintained their traditional ways. The modern feminists of the world look upon this sort of arrangement with scorn and pity of course, but we ignore those hateful twats as a rule. The second kernel is that even today, when traveling from a rich country to a poorer country, even a man with a modest income appears wealthy to the locals. This activates the local women’s hypergamous drive and they will indeed shower him with gifts, attention, and sex, because in Sri Lanka your $2000/month disability check lets you live like a king (I don’t actually know anything about Sri Lanka, but this situation seems plausible). But sadly, due to the internet, global travel, and the aforementioned social media, Western Feminism has infected the entire world. I will repeat: there is not one corner of the world left untainted by it. Women now understand what could be, and see all the men they could have, and all the rights and privileges that they could have elsewhere, and suddenly the life that they formerly lived is not good enough. Because hypergamy is relative to its situation, what is “best” is dependent on what options are at hand. If the “best” man in a village lives in a 10’x10’ wooden shack and is the most successful fisherman, the fact that he has only 2 teeth in his mouth and a gut that hangs well over his faded jean shorts does not diminish the fact that he is still the top option. He therefore will attract the most women if they know no better. Now show those same villagers Aquaman on Blu-Ray, and one look at Jason Momoa will have them on the first bus out of that village to find their own sexy merman. This is a good time to drive home the point that yes, all women are like that. This is in contrast to men who claim they have a “NAWALT” (Not All Women Are Like That), a.k.a. a Unicorn. Delusional men will often claim that they have locked down a NAWALT/Unicorn, a divine woman who somehow does not follow the same rules as the other mere mortals of their gender. These guys will try to convince you that, “Yes, of course, women in general are like that, but not my girl dude, trust me, she’s different.” No, she is not. This is proven wrong 100% of the time. All women are “like” each other. All men are “like” each other. What makes us each different are the choices we make and how we live our lives, but we all come from the same mold. Once you recognize this, you must realize that the mythical foreign bride archetype can only be a lie. Women are the same everywhere; the only difference is that some women (e.g. in poorer countries) have less options and capability to express their innate biological imperatives. A tragedy occurs when a gullible man goes to Thailand, finds his perfect foreign bride, and thinks he’s hit the jackpot. As soon as he brings her back home and marries her, she starts to look around and sees that what she thought was her best deal was actually not the best she could do. She sees more attractive and more successful men than her husband. She sees bigger houses and better standards of living. And without fail, she turns into the exact same Americanized woman that this man thought he had avoided. Do not fall for this trap. A foreign bride is not the answer. Shit Tests Whether you are married or not, you’re going to have to deal with shit tests. Shit tests are the name given to the little challenges and tests that women put men through constantly. It can seem like a woman needling you without cause, insulting you out of nowhere, forcing you to prove your loyalty without having good reason to question it, and in the worst cases an overt attempt at domination. Let’s roleplay a scenario to illustrate. An example of a shit test might take place during a nice dinner with your special lady. After the waitress takes your order, the following situation unfolds: Her: “….So what the fuck was that all about?” You (genuinely confused): “Huh? What are you talking about?” Her: “Don’t give me that shit. You know what you did.” You (in fact not knowing what you did): “No, I do not know what I did. Please explain it to me.” Her (poorly imitating your voice): “Can I substitute home fries for the broccoli? I guess that was nothing, right?” You: “I don’t like broccoli and home fries fit my macros.” Her: “Don’t get snappy with me! I guess you’re just going to flirt with other girls right in front of my face now? If you want to fuck her so bad, I’ll take an Uber back to the apartment right now and leave you two alone!” RED ALERT: a shit test has occurred, also known as picking a fight for no goddamn reason. Or, equally confusingly, the opposite could occur: You: “Hey babe, I thought this weekend we could go check out that new bar down the street. It’s one of those hipster places where you can play shitty 80s arcade games while you get hammered on local IPAs that taste like burnt tires. It’ll be a blast.” Her: “Oh, I wish you had told me earlier. I just made plans.” You: “Oh, ok, usually Saturday is our date night so I figured we’d spend it together, but no problem. What are you up to?” Her: “An old friend of mine is coming into town and asked me to dinner, so I’m going to go downtown with them.” You (immediately suspicious): “Oh, sounds great. Who is… them?” Her (casually, not looking up from her phone): “You don’t know him. His name his Chad Thundercock, we know each other from college.” You (controlling your tone): “Chad Thundercock, interesting, interesting. Very cool. Well, that should be fun.” [Several minutes of uncomfortable silence later] You: “…It’s just that you’ve never mentioned him before even though we’ve been dating for 4 and a half years. He’s just some friend from college, huh?” Her (knowing exactly what the fuck she’s doing): “Well, I mean we hooked up a few times, but that was a long time ago, it’s not a big deal. Don’t be so jealous, babe!” The basis of a shit test is a woman testing you to determine your worthiness as a mate. The twisted girl logic is that if you will fight with her, you will fight for her. She is literally testing your fitness. Now guys are known to rib each other and bust balls as a way to build comradery and friendship, but this is not that situation; with guys it is always in good fun and with the intent of building a close relationship, like two brothers would do to each other. The logic there is that if a guy can take some lighthearted ribbing and give it right back, he’s a worthy ally and you can count on him in a tough spot to not lose his cool. Ribbing without that sort of closeness attached between men is otherwise known as intentionally starting a fight, and can feasibly end with hands being thrown. Shit tests often occur, counterintuitively, in stable relationships when everything seems to be going great. The cause is just that: things are going too well and there is no drama or excitement to be found. Women are masters at self-sabotage because they are inherently neurotic and always looking for a threat, whether it exists or not. The bad news is that in any relationship, shit tests never end. The only thing you can do is handle them in the proper fashion. Now first of all, if your girlfriend is shit testing you frequently and/or severely (like going on what is clearly a date with an exboyfriend while you are in a committed relationship), it’s simply time to exit that situation. She either does not respect you or honestly thinks this is acceptable behavior, and in either case, the relationship is therefore damaged beyond repair. But some mild, fairly infrequent amount of shit testing is sadly inevitable in even the healthiest of relationships. The commonly referenced “does this dress make me look fat” question is a milder version of a shit test. The key to passing any shit test is first of all not to acknowledge it as such, but second of all to remember what the goal is: to demonstrate your strength and stay cool in the face of adversity. In the waitress example above: Her: “You’re flirting with her right in front of me!” You (calmly): “I’m not. You read into that interaction something that wasn’t there. I’d like for us to have a nice dinner, but if you’re going to act like this for no reason, then we’ll leave instead.” No arguing or screaming, that shows instability and weakness. You fail the test. Just the cool assurance that you will not allow her to be irrational and that you can handle the situation. Another example: Her: “Do I look fat in this dress?” You: “No, you don’t look fat at all, but it’s a little tight on you in the back.” Her: “Great, I’m a disgusting pig then, thanks.” You: “I didn’t say that, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth. You know that you’re sexy to me. I was giving you my honest opinion, and if you don’t want that, then don’t ask next time.” [Immediately return to playing Xbox] No apologizing or whimpering; that shows weakness. You fail the test. It was never about the dress, or how she looks in that dress; she was picking a fight for no reason. Don’t be drawn in to her stupid girl games. The moral of the story: if a shit test is too severe and crosses into disrespect, then the only way to pass (and the only way to maintain your dignity) is to swiftly end the relationship. And that will have been her choice, not yours. It is your decision where to draw a line in the sand, but once it’s crossed, there can be no second chances. For minor shit test, the only way to pass is to ignore them as tests and respond in a way that demonstrates calm strength and superiority. Do not be drawn into an argument, do not raise your voice, do not fight, do not indulge her, and for god’s sake never apologize when you did nothing wrong. Briffault’s Law Briffault’s Law is an oft-referenced concept within the manosphere, popularized by a man named Robert Briffault who lived in the late 19th and early 20th century. He was a surgeon by trade, but like many people prior to modern times, you could apparently just become a leading expert in a field on a whim with no formal education or practice in it. Nothing like reading about some dude from the Middle Ages who was reported to be a master woodsman, blacksmith, renowned painter, civil engineer, PhD physicist, ballroom dancer, and astronaut, all before he reached age 35, to make you feel like a waste of life. Shady credentials aside, Briffault’s Law is very important. It states: “The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” [40] This is a statement regarding the natural order of gynocentrism, and it holds as true today as it did all throughout human history. The first sentence is a declaration regarding power structure within relationships, but the second is more important in my eyes. In short, it explains the “what have you done for me lately” concept. Women have goldfish-like memories when it comes to the favors, gifts, sacrifices, and good deeds of the past. Those were all necessary at the time to keep her happy, but they carry no weight into the future. That simple sentence explains why a woman will be very happy to date you and treat you well while you are putting her through college, paying her rent, or taking care of her child from another man; but when, and if, you stop providing those benefits to her, she will suddenly no longer be interested in continuing the relationship. Perhaps you can recall from personal experience an example where a man will support a woman emotionally and financially for years, perhaps decades, and then unexpectedly lose his job, or get injured, or be forced to take a pay cut due to a tough economy. Briffault’s Law kicks in, her hypergamy kicks in, and the woman will suddenly “fall out of love” with that man and go find a better provider. She cannot help it, or even explain it; all she knows is that the happy feelings are gone and her favorite Rom-Com said true love should not be like that. Again, the masculine virtues of respect, loyalty, and appreciation aside, I want to stress that these feelings are not her fault. It’s simply in her DNA. This is why men have what we call the Burden of Performance. Think of Atlas, the Titan from Greek mythology, who had to hold up the sky on his shoulders for all eternity. No rest, no respite, just endless struggle. We know that women are loved for simply existing, and that men are loved only for what they do and what they can provide; now we add the detail that what they have provided in the past is of no concern. This expectation never stops for as long as you live. Key Takeaways: 1. Women have all the power in the modern dating market, unless you are a top 10-20% guy. This doesn’t mean that the situation is hopeless, because what a woman wants changes over time and there are different ways to become that top 10-20% in a relative dating ecosystem. But understand the odds and risks of modern dating, which include a woman’s power to ruin you with a baseless accusation. 2. Similarly, understand the risks of modern marriage. You have, on average, a less than 10% chance of enjoying what most people would term a happy and successful marriage. If you do decide to get married, protect yourself to the best of your ability. 3. You have not found a NAWALT. Your girl is not a special and unique butterfly. The same rules that apply to all women also apply to her. 4. Shit tests never end even in a healthy relationship, and as soon as you stop providing, most women are out the door regardless of your past deeds and sacrifices. Your burden of performance is perpetual. Chapter 6: Common Myths Now we turn to a few common myths that you have most likely heard before, and may even still believe. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but by now you understand that you’ve been lied to your whole life about gender issues and it’s important to point out some of the most egregious cases of these lies. The Gender Pay Gap This has been one of the main talking points of feminists when asked to present proof of actual discrimination against women. You’ve heard it from everyone including sitting US Presidents down to the unoriginal blogger at your local coffee shop [41]. As usual, if you were to ask any woman in your life if she has experienced this sort of discrimination, you can expect an enthusiastic “yes” in reply. This will inevitably be followed by an anecdotal tale from 20 years ago when she was a teenager and her asshole manager Keith totally paid her 50 cents less per hour than the other pizza delivery drivers just because he had it out for women. The claim is that woman make roughly 70 cents on the dollar when compared to men (this figure is specific to the United States, but the principle is assumed to be valid worldwide). So, whatever a man’s salary is for a given position, a woman makes 70% of that; and by the way, don’t you know that the statistic is even worse for minority women! For what reason are women paid less for the same work you may ask? Well, because we live in a patriarchal society that systematically oppresses women, of course. A quick pass at debunking this myth could be accomplished in two ways. First, federal law has prohibited discrimination in pay based on gender since 1963 via the Equal Pay Act. This means that as an employer, violating this law will land you in federal prison; in addition to paying a $10,000 fine per instance, as well as having to pay back wages and legal fees for every offense. Risking these severe penalties just to stick it to some broads would be an impressive dedication to misogyny. In order to make claims easy to file, there is an entire administrative infrastructure and governmentrun website dedicated to advocating for victims of pay discrimination. It would be monumentally stupid for an employer to pay a female employee, with the same skillset, position, and years of experience as a male counterpart, any less money given these circumstances. Yet for such a purported epidemic of gender inequality in pay, the courts are surprisingly not overrun with such cases. In fact, a little bit of research will show you that in Fiscal Year 2020, the US Equal Opportunity Commission (who records and adjudicates Equal Pay Act complaints) received only 980 claims for the whole year, in a country of 331 million people. That is a rate of roughly 1 in 3 million people who claimed discrimination under this law. Furthermore, of those 980 cases, only 51 were found to have reasonable cause [42]. That is less than 6% of the reported claims found to have merit, which were already at a rate of 1 in 3 million. So what this means is that easily obtainable recompense awaits anyone who can prove pay discrimination, but despite the rampant and supposedly obvious gender pay gap, only 51 people in the entire country actually had a valid case. Oh and it should be noted that since the statistics are not separated by gender, some portion of these 51 plaintiffs are likely men. Second, consider that a corporation is an entity whose sole purpose of existence is to make money. Board members have fiduciary responsibilities to generate profits for shareholders. If you could replace a male workforce with equally competent women and pay them 70% of what you would pay men, any company in the world would take that deal. Gaining that sort of competitive advantage in the marketplace is the stuff of wet dreams for every CEO. To believe that companies could do this, but choose not to, would imply that there is a massive conspiracy within every single corporation in the country (including those run by women!) to keep women down again purely for the sake of misogyny; and in doing so foregoing an easy 30% increase in profits. Those are simple logical arguments that immediately cast doubt on the claim, but what happens when you look into the actual data regarding gender pay differences? Well, it turns out that the claim comes from the simple fact that if you take every man’s salary, average them, then likewise average every woman’s salary, and divide the women’s salary number by the men’s salary number, you get roughly 70%. That is in fact true, or was at the time that the claim was first made years ago. However, it is also a very simplistic and ultimately useless way of looking at the data. By that same logic, there is a height gap between men and women that no one is taking seriously. It’s oppressive that men, on average, are ~10% taller than women, and thus don’t require help to reach the top of the pantry. Or let’s reverse it: why is no one talking about the gender gap in sanitation workers, of which only 20% are women? We must free these poor girls from the shackles of not being trashwomen and sewer line workers! I’ll start organizing the march, you start making the signs. Or could it be that there are factors other than oppression causing these differences? This is what happens when you boil down complicated issues to simplistic terms. So what is the truth? The truth is that the entirety of the pay gap is accounted for by personal choice [43]. That is to say, women choose jobs that are lower paying, but that they find more personally rewarding, often in less technical fields. Women choose to work less regular hours and less overtime than men. Women choose less dangerous jobs, which typically pay less than more dangerous jobs. Women prefer jobs with flexible schedules that are not as demanding on their personal lives. Women often take breaks from their careers to have children and raise them. When you account for these factors, there is no pay gap. To think that women should be paid the same as men who work more hours, in objectively harder, more dangerous, and more skilled jobs, is to believe that a part time Burger King fry cook should earn the same wage as a neurosurgeon with 30 years of experience. By the way, this information is readily available to anyone who wants to take five minutes to learn about the subject, and for that reason this myth’s continued existence is a pet peeve of mine [44], [45], [46]. At this point, anyone still espousing this propaganda is assuming that her audience is unaware of Google.com. This mythology is not confined entirely to the US either. In 2017, the Australian government instituted a plan whereby resumes were stripped of all gender and ethnic information in an attempt to correct the gender imbalance of (typically white) males occupying the majority of public service positions; this resulted in a comparison of resumes based solely on merit. You see, to the author of the study, one Professor Michael Hiscox, the imbalance of women in the workforce was a clear-cut case of sexism and he devised this scheme to root it out. Imagine the egg on his face when, after hundreds of cases of this “blind” hiring were conducted, the effect was, in fact, the opposite of what he expected! In his own words: “We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist.” So comparing women against men purely on merit resulted in less women being selected for interviews, not more. Furthermore, adding back in gender specific information and giving candidates a male name actually made them approximately 3% less likely to be selected, and giving candidates a female name gave them approximately a 3% advantage in being selected for any given position [47]. But if you don’t want to take the word of the peer reviewed academic studies that disprove the gender pay gap, perhaps you could conduct your own empirical investigation at one of the world’s large corporations with, say, more than 100,000 employees. Surely, in a practical example with such a large sample size, we could finally uncover this devilish behavior. Luckily, we don’t have to guess at such an investigation’s results, because that is exactly what noted social justice warrior company Google did in 2018, and hilariously found that they were paying women more than men for the same position, skillset, and years of experience. Whoops, that was the wrong answer! This internal study was conducted concurrently with a lawsuit filed by female employees of the company alleging systemic underpayment when compared to their male counterparts. I’m sure that Google desperately hoped to prove that conclusion true in some sick masochistic way, but sadly the facts were the polar opposite and the company was forced to increase the salary of 8,000 male software engineers to level the playing field and avoid further lawsuits, this time from the men [48]. To put the final nail in this coffin of horseshit, it turns out that single, unmarried women earn on average 108% of the salary of their male counterparts in 147 of 150 large US cities. In many cases, that 108% is lowballing it: in the cities of New York, Atlanta, Memphis, Los Angeles, and San Diego, single unmarried women make between 115–120% of their male counterparts’ salaries [49]. The article that I cite for this, by the way, is titled “Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top”. I can’t help but notice that the tone of that article is celebratory, rather than something closer to “In Many Large Cities, Victimized Men only Earn 80-85 cents for Every Dollar a Woman Earns”. Funny how that works when the tables are turned. So it turns out that the gender pay gap may not be nonsense at all; but when it exists, it’s actually men getting paid less. 1 in 4 Women will be Raped While at College Another seriously disturbing myth that would have you believe we live in a terrible world filled with sexist, oppressive monsters who want nothing more than to hurt women for the sake of it, is that approximately 1 in 4 women will be raped while attending college. Another myth that, if you ask any woman, she will swear it is true because she knows so-and-so from undergrad who was assaulted and we all know that women cannot even walk alone at night without fear of being attacked. Using the same tactic as before, let’s first start with the logic test. Does it make sense that 1 out of every 4 women who go to college will be raped? If so, why do we keep sending our daughters, wives, and sisters to these hellholes? If mothers and fathers truly believed this statistic, who would ever willingly subject their child to such violence with potentially lifelong catastrophic effects to their psyche? Your B.A. in Sociology just isn’t worth the risk, Kirsten. Does it make sense that Ivy League college campuses are more violent than downtown Baghdad or Mexico City at night? Why would any woman be comfortable enough to stumble home drunk through the quad at 2am if this was the case? As a quick comparison, the country with the world’s highest rate of rape per capita at the time of this writing is South Africa with a rate of 132.4/100,000 [50]. Percentage-wise, that is a 0.13% chance per person, per year; a far cry from anything close to 25%. One of the primary sources for this 1 in 4 statistic seems to be a 2015 study from the Association of American Universities (AAU) and was since reported on by multiple online and print media. The first problem with this study is that it was a voluntary survey with an approximately 19% response rate; this suggests that there may be a selection bias whereby those who felt strongly about the survey questions were more likely to answer. But a much more glaring problem is that the study lumps together sexual assault and “sexual misconduct” in the same statistic; therefore, only a fraction of that 25% rate would be actually legally considered to be a crime such as rape. Per the study’s own admission, most of the incidents would simply be “violations of student codes of conduct”. Also, according to the study’s authors in the summary of results at the beginning of the report, at least 50% of the incidents recorded in the studies were not reported by the victims because the victims themselves deemed them not serious enough to report [51]. So, immediately we have those glaring problems with the study methodology: 1) Selection bias towards reporting sexual misconduct. 2) A mixing of actual crimes and simple violations of the student code of conduct in the same statistic. 3) The fact that the majority of events were unreported because, by the victim’s own admission, they were not serious enough to report to anyone. That alone is enough to call into question the final statistic reported, which through a game of telephone morphed into the claim that 1 in 4 women will be raped while attending college. By the way, the study results also included males, respondents who did not state a gender, and transgender individuals, not just women. Those identifying as transgender reported even higher rates of abuse than women. We can also do a quick sanity check on the actual numbers reported in addition to questioning the overall validity and methods of the study. According to the FBI in their 2018 crime statistics published in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program database, the total number of reported rapes from all ages and genders was 127,945 in the United States. That gives a rate of 44.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. On a percentage basis, counting every man, woman, and child in the country, that means in the year 2018, approximately 0.044% of the population is reported by law enforcement as having been raped or sexually assaulted [52]. Assuming an equal number of rapes per year and a four-year college lifetime, then the 25% of women raped while attending college statistic implies that 6.25% of the population of college-aged women are raped per year, on average (25% / 4 years = 6.25% / year). Remember that the actual number of yearly reported rapes per person for the entire country including all ages and genders is 0.044%, which means that in the very best case this number is embellished by a factor of roughly 142 times; and that would also be if every single rape in the country was committed solely against college-aged women. Of course, since college-aged women are a very small segment of the overall population, this factor is off by many times more. But we have a starting point for exactly how much this myth is inflating the numbers by. Now I can already hear the objection of, “Yeah, but not every rape is reported!” This is a lazy and intentionally unprovable argument. First, it’s trying to prove a negative; i.e., “Prove to me that there are not more crimes than what’s been reported to police!” I can’t do that, and no one can do that. I can only examine the statistics made available by the federal government, which is the best source of truth available. Second, if we took this tact with all statistical data, then no one could prove anything. If you see a flaw in the data collection and can substantiate it, then let’s talk. If you’re just making baseless emotional claims without proof because my answer doesn’t feel right to you, then I’m forced to discard your flimsy arguments. But to be charitable to this crowd, I did try to do some research on the percentage of rapes which go unreported. Again, an impossible statistic to truly nail down, but the National Crime Victimization Survey has reported that only 20% of sexual assaults (not just rapes) are reported on college campuses; this includes cases where the victim deemed the assault to not be serious enough to report to authorities [53]. So, even if we generously accept this number and apply it wholly to the much more serious crime of rape, the reported numbers should only be off by a factor of 5x, not at greater than 150x. For more damning proof, the latest dataset provided by the UCR relating specifically to colleges was collected in 2016. The number of rapes for all colleges, with a total population of 8,525,007 individuals, was 1,494. This is a rate of 17.5 per 100,000 people. Thus, as a population, college students (both men and women combined) are 2.5 times safer than the US population as a whole when it comes to sexual crimes [54]. Again, this is referenced against the true countrywide number of 44.4 cases of rape per 100,000, not the falsely claimed rate that works out to 6,250 per 100,000 for any given year. In summation, this claim is clickbait no matter how you slice it and once again easily provable to be so. By conflating one of the most serious crimes we have as a society with administrative violations of student conduct and incidents of sexual contact not even serious enough to report at any level, the purveyors of this claim are immediately disingenuous. Furthermore, when studying the actual reported rates of crimes on campuses, we find that colleges are statistically much safer than their surrounding communities. Women Want Sex as Much as Men The first thing to mention here is that men and women have different sexual strategies. Men have a “spray and pray” mentality, which has been previously explained: impregnate as many women as possible. Women on the other hand prefer more of a sniper mentality: one shot, one kill. This is not to say that women aren’t prone to promiscuity, but not nearly to the point that men inherently are; women do sleep around, but for different reasons. Because of hypergamy, women prefer to seek out the single best man that they can find and reproduce with him, rather than play the field. This fact alone gives men the biological predisposition to desire sex more than woman do. Second, the driving hormone for sexual desire in both men and women is testosterone. Think back to your start of puberty when that first rush of testosterone hit and a crisp autumn breeze on your pelvic region would give you a hard-on. You had erections randomly in English class, erections when you saw a busty mannequin in the department store, and even erections when you were asleep. The sexual desire of young men is legendary due to the effects of testosterone. Women who take anabolic steroids for example, which are all synthetic versions of testosterone, report a highly increased libido (as do men who use steroids). So what is the difference in the amount of circulating testosterone in the body between men and women? Men have somewhere between 20 and 30 times more, on average. Now there is not a direct correlation such that men are therefore 30 times hornier than women are, but the point remains that simply based on a hormonal analysis, men should want sex much more often than women. In fact, a meta-analysis of dozens of studies on the differences in sexual desire between the genders summed the situation up so perfectly that I will just quote it directly: “By all measures, men have a stronger sex drive than women. Men think about sex more often, experience more frequent sexual arousal, have more frequent and varied fantasies, desire sex more often, desire more partners, masturbate more, want sex sooner, are less able or willing to live without sexual gratification, initiate more and refuse less sex, expend more resources and make more sacrifices for sex, desire and enjoy a broader variety of sexual practices, have more favorable and permissive attitudes toward most sexual activities, have fewer complaints about low sex drive in themselves (but more about their partners), and rate their sex drives as stronger than women. There were no measures that showed women having stronger drives than men.” [55] Yes, you read that right: men have a stronger sex drive than women in every metric studied. By the way, this paper’s citation page includes 156 corroborating academic references. Mic drop, end of argument. The corollary to this myth is that women get more sexual as they get older. Older women are described as cougars on the prowl, and as knowing what both you and she will want based on her extensive experience (as if men consider lots of dick-related experience a good thing). The implication is that a “real woman” in her late 30s and 40s will be somehow able to rock your world better than the hot young 21 year old in her first semester at college. Honestly, as I type this out, it’s hard for me to fathom why anyone would ever believe this nonsense in the first place, but it’s a statement you’ve likely heard many times. The claim that women grow more sexual as they age has been feminist propaganda from the jump. It’s a lie whose intent is to trick men into believing that women past their sexual marketplace peakwhich we know biologically is somewhere in their early to mid-20sand whose looks have faded can somehow make up for those deficiencies because they are now hornier than ever and ready to get down with you, if you’re lucky. Putting aside the fact that women are never as horny as men even in their prime, there is no coherent explanation as to why women would want more sex post hitting the wall. Realistically, this claim is just another last ditch attempt to get a sucker to buy expired goods and pretend that older women are still relevant in the sexual marketplace. They aren’t. Key Takeaways: 1. All of these myths are easily disproven with a few minutes of basic research, and we should publicly shame anyone who still believes them. Chapter 7: Going Your Own Way This book would not be complete without a list of some of the notable groups and individuals within the manosphere. As you continue to study red pill topics, you will no doubt run into those below, and it is helpful to understand how each is distinct from the other. Categories within the Manosphere 1) MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way). MGTOW was my introduction to the discussion of female nature and understanding gender dynamics. I would also say it is the broadest group in terms of beliefs. MGTOW philosophy, at its core, simply espouses that modern men need to do what is best for themselves and not be concerned with the needs of the women or society who have both abandoned them. That is all. While variously castigated as hate-filled misogynists, incels, losers, betas, or monks (those who forsake any romantic relationships with women), the truth is that none or all of those descriptors can be true depending on who we are talking about. That’s the beauty of the movement, it’s highly individualistic. MGTOW adhere to a loose set of beliefs which embrace the red pill philosophy of understanding true human nature- especially female nature- and advise men to act in a rational way given the data that we have. These decisions can be inclusive of dating and even marriage. I consider myself a MGTOW under those broad terms. 2) Black/Doom Pilled men. In the movie The Matrix, the leader of the human resistance, Morpheus, offers the hero Neo a physical choice of taking either a red or a blue pill. The choice is meant to be symbolic of Neo’s acceptance or rejection of the truth that Morpheus reveals. The blue pill allows Neo to go back to sleep and continue with the life he has been living, willfully ignorant or at least uncaring as to the true nature of the world. The red pill on the other hand allows Neo to reject the fantasy he has been living and journey to reality. The real world is dirty, messy, dangerous, and not at all romantic; but at least it is real. Just like in the movie, in our own reality most of the world continues to take the comforting blue pill, which symbolizes embracing the feminist propaganda and gynocentric worldview that has been shoved down our throats for the last few generations. These people believe that men are to blame for all the ills of the world, and that if you can’t find a quality woman to settle down with, then that must be your fault because women are always the innocent party. They trust the women in their lives when they tell them that they are good little boys for being a slave to feminine desires and one day will be rewarded for their sacrifices with the woman of their dreams, who is pure as the driven snow and waiting patiently for her knight in shining armor. The knowledge that I’ve been relating instead is the red pill, and taking the red pill symbolizes the willingness to embrace reality as it objectively is, without tying emotion or the concept of moral right and wrong to it. We leave behind preconceived notions of what we think the world should be like, and instead use data, logic, and reason to examine what it truly is like. We understand that a person is always better off accepting reality on its own terms than wishing the world were different than it is. The black pill or doom pill group within the manosphere understands and accepts all of the ugly sides of female nature and our gynocentric society. They understand the basics of gender differences and evolutionary biology. With this information though, they conclude that the game is hopelessly rigged against them, that there is no hope of ever being happy, and thus turn to anger and hate. They often choose to withdraw from society altogether. The key difference between those who take the black pill and MGTOWs is the emotion that they have wrapped up in these truths. As I said before, hating a woman for her innate nature is like hating any other animal’s nature. It’s not good or evil, it just is what it is. Do not make the mistake of following the path of the black piller- you will end up hateful and unhappy. 3) Purple Pilled men. The color purple is the combination of red and blue. Therefore, a purple pilled man is someone who has red pill exposure but tries to use that knowledge to live a blue pilled life, or still retains blue pill ideals. I consider this a natural transition from blue to red pill. A purple pilled man has grown up with all the standard blue pill ideas about women and relationships, but believes that upon discovering the forbidden red pill knowledge, can now fix all his mistakes and finally achieve his blue pill fantasies. A lot of purple pilled guys are in relationships or married and think that they can game their girlfriends with the tricks that they’ve learned from the red pill community. The problem is that this way of thinking is missing an essential red pill concept: once you take the red pill, you can never go back to your old way of life. They are mutually exclusive. Part of truly internalizing the red pill is understanding that the blue pill way of life is a lie, a fantasy, and ultimately a tool of your own enslavement. There is no way to be “sort of” red pilled. Because of this, a purple pilled man is still essentially blue pilled and will never achieve either his red or blue pill goals, because he’s a man trying to live in both worlds. Eventually, you need to make a decision and pick the kind of man you will be. 4) PUAs (Pick Up Artists). These guys were a pretty interesting phenomenon around the early 2000s, personified by characters such as Mystery with his stupid top hat, elevator boots, painted nails, and 30 pieces of flair. PUAs used their knowledge of female nature as a tool to get laid all the time. They dressed really weirdly so that they would stand out and have personality (called peacocking), popularized strategies like “neg hits” (basically mildly insulting a woman so that she sees you as a challenge or above her in status), acting loud and obnoxiously in public to show social dominance, using “kino” (physical touching to initiate desire), and more. You can still find some videos of them on YouTube demonstrating their shtick. The genius of their methods was that they used simple evolutionary psychology, combined with an awareness of modern culture and how that shapes the female brain, to reach their goals. In short, they played women like fiddles, which predictably led them to be demonized. Their most important contributions were to prove that we are all just animals responding to our innate and cultural programming (which can be exploited if one knows the rules of the game), and to expose each gender’s true nature. And although my tone above is a bit snarky, I actually do have respect for the first PUAs. The truth is that we all owe PUAs a debt of gratitude, because without them, we probably wouldn’t have a lot of red pill theory. Yes, PUAs used their powers for their own decadent and indulgent purposes, but the amazing thing is that their little tricks demonstrably and reliably worked. Whether they knew it or not, they were like douchey mad scientists performing countless experiments in the real world and leaving behind troves of data for more intellectually minded men to sift through later. I read a copy of the book Magic Bullets [56] by Nick Savoy early on in my red pill awareness phase; it’s still worth a read, but take all the practical advice with a few grains of salt. Although the base level concepts are still solid, the tactics are woefully out of date and could get you in a lot of trouble in today’s #MeToo world. Still, if you are able to adapt the lessons from the PUAs to modern times, you will most likely have more romantic success with women. It should be noted that PUAs are a bit of a joke these days so you don’t really want to be associated with that group even if they did have some good ideas. 5) MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists). MRAs were some of the earliest figures in the manosphere. Led by guys like Warren Farrell, author of The Boy Crisis [57] (and former card carrying male feminist) and Paul Elam known for his An Ear for Men podcast and appearance in Cassie Jay’s The Red Pill documentary [58]. MRAs tried to be the male analogy of feminism: a movement aimed at uplifting men and abolishing discrimination against them in the court of law as well as exerting pro-masculine cultural pressure. So, for example, an MRA might legally challenge alimony laws because they are blatantly biased against men. Unfortunately, MRAs have faded mostly into obscurity due to their stunning lack of success on any front. What they found out is that society simply does not care about men’s suffering; not only in absolute terms, but especially when juxtaposed to feminine needs. 6) Incels (“Involuntary Celibates”). I almost didn’t want to include them as their own group, but I decided to because “incel” is a common term and insult that you’ll hear thrown around by feminists and blue pilled guys to disparage anyone that they disagree with. The actual term is self-explanatory: it is someone who just can’t get laid despite their best efforts. There’s a lot of crossover between Incel and Black Pill, and both groups tend to be heavily invested in their anger towards women and modern society as a whole. The number of actual incels is a matter of debate, and I personally believe it to be effectively zero. Feminists would have you believe that this is a huge number of men that are bitter at the world for their lack of success with women, but as some in the red pill community have pointed out, no one with a couple hundred bucks in their pocket can possibly be involuntarily celibate. Prostitutes and escorts are readily available all over the world, legality aside, so even someone working a minimum wage job doesn’t have to be involuntarily celibate for long. The term has become overused and wielded as an insult to anyone who does not have success with women. It’s also a shaming tactic that feminists use to obscure the logical arguments of red pilled men who challenge gynocentrism. Anytime you present evidence that is critical of a woman’s behavior, or female nature, be ready for the quick clap back of, “You’re just saying that because no one wants to fuck you.” Certainly the number of men who are virgins later in life has increased in recent years as women’s hypergamy has inflated their collective egos to never before seen heights, causing them to deem an ever increasing percentage of the male population as unsuitable for dating or sex. Predictably, the number of socially awkward guys with no game has increased correspondingly. But again, these are not true incels; they’re just guys with little experience with women and bad future relationship prospects. By the way, no self-respecting man should ever self-identify as an incel. This is not an exhaustive list of all the groups within the manosphere, but it is a good start of the major subcategories. The interesting thing to note is that all of these men see the same problems, and even see them correctly. They would all agree that modern society is gynocentric and biased against men. They would all agree that this is an unsustainable cultural model and could point out the same exact problems directly caused by modern feminism. What they disagree on and what separates them from each other is their solution to the problem. MGTOW have decided to just not care at all about what women as a group want or need and focus on themselves and loved ones. It is an indifferent rejection of gynocentrism and an emphasis on the individual. Some MGTOW go full monk mode while others are in relationships or married. They use their red pill knowledge to better themselves, to successfully deal with the women in their lives, and to optimize gender relations- whatever their personal goals may be. MGTOW are not judgmental of other men’s personal choices as long as they enact such choices of their own free will and with their eyes open to the risks and rewards of dealing with women. PUAs have decided that winning in life equals sleeping with as many women as possible. Part of what turns me off to PUA philosophy is that their worldview is still heavily focused on women, even though they are getting what they want out of the deal. It should be clear too that being a PUA is mostly a young man’s game, which most men grow out of by their 30s and 40s. From my point of view, aside from the distaste that I have for centering my life around women, it just seems like way too much work for too little reward. To say nothing of the fact that in today’s litigious, victim-celebrating, gynocentric society, being a PUA is outright dangerous. MRAs think that they can change the world using the same tactics that feminists use, but aside from learning the hard way that no one cares about men’s issues, they also made the mistake of believing that anyone is interested in fairness or true equality. From a practical point of view, as stated before, women as a whole will always outnumber men; and when you add in blue pilled men, simps, and white knights, it should be obvious that relying on change through any sort of democratic process is a fool’s errand. I congratulate them for their bravery and for fighting the good fight, much in the way that I would admire someone wrestling a bear; ultimately, a stupid and pointless effort, but I respect the attempt. Purple pilled men, as I’ve explained, are trying to straddle both worlds, and will fail in both. They see and understand the truths of the red pill, but refuse to fully accept the logical conclusion of those truths. This means that your girlfriend is not a NAWALT. This means that your wife of 20 years and mother of your children will absolutely leave you under the right circumstances, and you should be willing to leave her as well if she deserves it. This means that the special woman in your life will never, ever, love you the way that you love her because she is fundamentally incapable of doing so. I have sympathy for purple pilled men because their hearts are in the right place and they are almost to the finish line, but they haven’t taken that final step. Black Pillers and Incels are like the kid who isn’t picked for the pickup game, so he grabs his ball and loudly storms off, making sure everyone knows he’s leaving. The characteristic attribute of these two groups is that they desperately want to play and win the game, but don’t know how to. The amount of emotion that they have tied up in their circumstances is the problem here. They are also whiners, and no one likes whiners. While opting out of the rat race could be a MGTOW strategy as well, the primary distinguisher between MGTOW and these guys is that they are pissed off about the situation and need everyone agree with them. Again, this is a waste of time, because no one cares about your personal problems. They totally dismiss that there is any hope for improving themselves or finding a way to succeed in their goals despite unfair conditions. The Enemies of Men Despite our differences, all red pill aware men should have at least a grudging respect for one another. We all have woken up to the truth at least, and then we can fight it out about what solutions we need and how to accomplish them. But there are opposing groups which are enemies of all red pilled men. These include: 1) Feminists. This should be a given. It bears repeating that feminism is a female supremacy movement. This is immediately apparent because you will never see a feminist fighting for any sort of equality unless it explicitly benefits women. True equality would mean women take half of the most dangerous jobs and half of the lowest paying jobs as well as half of the highest paying. They would take the garbage out half of the time, clean half of the gutters, and investigate every other strange bump in the middle of the night. Married partners would be equally responsible for the finances and paying for half of the dates, meals, and vacations. 50/50 child custody agreements would be mandatory, and alimony would be illegal. There would be no compulsion for a man to make more money than his wife, even if she’s a barista at Starbucks or part time clerk at Macy’s. Stay at home moms would be equally as prevalent as stay at home dads. And when a man fully embraced his feminine side and acted accordingly, a woman couldn’t lose respect for him and want to leave him for a traditional alpha Chad who makes her tummy tingle. Have you ever seen a feminist fight for this sort of equality? One study to analyze this phenomenon focused on why society is so concerned with advancing women and closing the gender gap in STEM fields, but not at all concerned with the even greater gap for males in healthcare, early education, and domestic (HEED) jobs. This despite the fact that women are 31% of employees in science and engineering fields, but men are only 10% of employees in nursing and only 14% in early education. Why has the National Science Foundation allocated $270 million to advance women in STEM, but no such initiative exists in HEED fields? The study’s conclusion: it turns out- and this is a very simple answer here that I’m surprised no one thought of before- no one cares when men are underrepresented in a demographic! Or, in academic terms, there was a “significant imbalance in concern” depending on which gender was underrepresented. In addition, survey respondents assumed that male disinterest was the reason for their underrepresentation in certain fields, where that same level of underrepresentation for females in other fields was assumed to be due to societal pressures and “prohibitive norms” [59]. So in short, it’s men’s fault for being underrepresented in certain fields while simultaneously also being men’s fault for being overrepresented in other fields. It’s like a twisted game of Family Feud where no matter the question, every answer on the board is “It’s Men’s Fault”. Actually, I think I’ve just succinctly described modern feminist theory. As an aside: male feminists fall into this same group of adversary. These men have dialed up blue pilled living and simping to 11, and are extremely proud of it. Male feminists are especially despicable for two reasons. The first is that they are actively engaging in activity that not only hurts themselves but other men as well; they are gender traitors. The second is that they are two-faced goddamn liars. They identify and ally themselves with feminist women not out of true moral conviction but instead as a sexual strategy, because they cannot compete with other men on an even playing field. What they don’t understand is that even if women toss them some intermittent pity sex, deep down, no women respect these men. Because they deserve no respect, from anyone. Male feminists are pathetic weasels and all red pilled men should unite in their specific hatred of these losers. 2) Simps and White Knights. The difference between a simp or white night and a male feminist is mostly a matter of degree. All of them take blue pill ideas and weaponize them against other men. All are eager to betray other men and support feminine causes for their own personal gain. Of the two, simps/white knights are more passive, and male feminists are more dangerous. A simp will just take out a 2nd mortgage on his house to order everything on his favorite OnlyFans girl’s Amazon wishlist, and a white knight will spend the evening explaining to his best friend that it truly doesn’t bother him that his wife is dating her personal trainer. She deserves to explore her sexuality and he needs to support that. But a male feminist will show up at a women’s rally ready to hurl a Molotov cocktail at counter-protesters. Luckily, it’s extremely unlikely that they’ve ever thrown a ball or participated in any sport, so the aim will probably be off target; but the intent is still there. Male feminists, as a rule, are only physically dangerous in large groups, much like a pack of hyenas attacking a lone lion. Simps/white knights are opportunistic, snake in the grass types. Whereas you can identify a male feminist by their noodle arms, pencil necks, collection of pink pussy hats, and closet full of protest signs, simps and white knights can look like everyone else. You might not know who they are until they stab you in the back. Only careful observation over time will reveal these filthy tricksters, so it’s prudent to assume that every guy you meet may be in this camp until proven otherwise. 3) Chameleons. These are women who purport to be red pilled and on the side of men’s issues. They present themselves as female avatars of the red pill community, ready to bravely fight alongside of us as allies against the feminist hordes. Chameleons come in two flavors: attractive younger women usually found on some conservative news outlet or hosting their own YouTube channel, or older, possibly former feminist grandmother types who have lived through the beginnings of modern feminism, see the dumpster fire it has become, and believe it’s gone too far. The problem with chameleons is that they don’t really believe, or even fully understand, what they’re saying. They are reading the room and playing a part. They throw around some red pill buzzwords like “hypergamy” or “gynocentrism” and rail against modern women, often while dolled up with makeup and showing plenty of cleavage in order to get male attention. But the entire act is just an opportunity for them to make money and get attention from the more simpleminded of us in the red pill community. They are the equivalent of Twitch thots in the gaming community. A lot of guys new to the red pill will find these women and tell all his friends, “See, some women get it! She’s one of the good ones! Where can I find one like her?” You may recognize this as a NAWALT argument, which we know is bogus. A great example of a chameleon is Tomi Lahren. Tomi was a Fox News personality who made waves by being a reasonably attractive face who knew all the right talking points to rile up conservative men. She played up her sexuality to gain attention and fool gullible males into believing that she was one of them. But her mask slipped when, after being dumped by her pro athlete fiancé, she released a bitchy, rambling, and massively entitled video online whose entire focus was that- and this is a direct quote- “Men are trash.” This woman had an entire binder with sources, talking points, and a freaking checklist so that she could make sure that she got absolutely everything off her chest. Clearly, this rant released years of pent up rage that she had been suppressing, and if she didn’t get it all out she might explode. Her evidence that all men are trash was that she wasn’t getting the attention from the kind of men that she wanted, and all of her self-described super hot and high value female friends had the same experience all around the country. Therefore, her conclusion is that men as a gender need to up their game and serve them better because clearly she deserves only the best. Kudos to her fiancé for dodging that bullet. It can be hard to identify a chameleon, until you realize that essentially all women are feminists when their backs are against the wall. That is to say, it’s easy to take shots at other women and female dating strategies until it personally affects them. Therefore, although there are probably a few rare and unique women who truly do sympathize with the red pill cause and can be trusted to mean what they say, it’s a much better strategy to not lionize these women as the heroes we need but don’t deserve. If some female YouTuber makes a video that accurately represents a red pill concept, leave it at that without extrapolating to some conclusion about her personality and role in the manosphere. In this way, you won’t be surprised and emotionally invested when the inevitable truth comes out. Assume that no woman is truly red pilled and you will never be disappointed. 4) TradCons (Traditional Conservatists). Both men and women may be TradCons (chameleons can be found in this group as well). Many TradCons are also religious, though this is not a necessity. Think of the Southern Gentleman stereotype. TradCons initially seem like they could be red pill allies, as they believe in the benefits of having strong, masculine men and feminine women as complements to each other in marriage and that the typical nuclear family is the bedrock of society. They are so named because they believe in traditionalism- which can be summed up in a thought by imagining gender relations in the 1950s- and are always reminiscing about the good old days of yore. The problem with TradCons is that they are just the opposite side of the same coin as feminism. They believe in male disposability and male sacrifice just like feminists do, but they attach some mystical meaning and pride to serving the needs of womankind. For all their tough talk, they too believe in female supremacy and worship women, and are part of the “man up” shaming crowd. All the evils of society exist because men are too weak, according to them. They believe that if men were just better, then women would be better, too. This excuses all sorts of bad behavior from women and puts the blame and responsibility for that behavior back on men. It’s actually an insulting and patronizing way to treat women, because the underlying assumption is that they are not responsible for their own actions and the adults in the room (men) need to be responsible for everything. To women, TradCon men are also useful idiots, similar to male feminists; if less revolting because they at least still retain some vestiges of masculinity. My Red Pill Influences Admittedly, this is a biased list, and not everyone mentioned below may be your cup of tea. But these are all legends of the red pill community as far as I’m concerned, and each have had an influence on myself and my philosophy. I owe each of these men a debt of gratitude. Their work can be found on YouTube by searching the names below. In no real order: 1) Rollo Tomassi- Rollo has a rightful claim to the title of Godfather of the Manosphere. He’s been in the game for almost two decades and has put more thought into red pill concepts than possibly anyone else in the field. His first book The Rational Male [60] is an absolute must read. If I had to recommend one single resource to young men, it would be that book. He has subsequently published three more books, all of which can be found on Amazon. He also has a great blog with tons of free info (therationalmale.com). My only beef with him is that he’s pretty hostile towards MGTOW, and assumes all MGTOW are black pillers. From my point of view this is a bad read of what MGTOW are, but everyone is entitled to his own opinion. 2) HuMAN- HuMAN is a bit more cerebral and philosophical than some others on my list, and his videos tend to leave you thinking. His delivery style is calm and even soothing, and his videos make you feel as if you’re sitting with a friend at a bar just shooting the breeze. HuMAN was one of my bigger early influences, and I make sure to listen to every video that he puts out. 3) Barbarossa (channel titled “bar bar”)- Another OG of the manosphere, like Rollo. Barbarosa was MGTOW, and talking about red pill concepts, before anyone knew what either were. I believe he was even in college at the time that he started making videos, which is even more impressive. All of his red pill content is older and he does not make new videos, but every single one is gold. His seemingly natural insight and analyses are second to none. 4) Stardusk- Another original red pill influencer who has been around for more than a decade, but still produces content on YouTube. Stardusk is another calm, cerebral figure who discusses the philosophical and theoretical aspects of life from a male point of view. He is also a MGTOW monk. 5) Coltaine- Sadly, Coltaine very rarely produces content these days, but I perk up every time I see a new upload. Over the years he has produced many in depth and intelligent videos, and out of everyone on this list, I would consider him the most entertaining. Honorable Mention: Cassie Jaye- Cassie Jaye gets an honorable mention for creating the relatively popular documentary The Red Pill in 2017. As of the time of this writing, it has roughly 2300 reviews on Amazon with a 4.5 star average rating. The basis of the movie is that Cassie Jaye is a self-described feminist who has heard that the MRAs are a misogynist hate group that need to be silenced for the good of society. She is initially sympathetic to this viewpoint. However, after speaking with several MRAs and doing some research on male issues, she begins to understand their side of the argument. Absolutely worth a watch, and a good mainstream introduction to some basic red pill ideas. She might very well be a chameleon or just interested in making money off men’s rights issues, but she produced a mainstream documentary that is to my knowledge one of the only of its kind. For spreading that awareness to a mainstream audience, she gets my respect. Rules of Thumb Below are some quick rules of thumb to keep in mind. This is a list of quick tips that didn’t fit neatly into the rest of the book or that consolidate multiple concepts from disparate chapters and I felt bore repeating. Don’t date single mothers. At best you will be third in line when it comes to importance, behind any children and the mother herself. You’ll never have authority over the child, but it will be your responsibility to financially and emotionally support him; even though you can be booted to the curb at any time. The woman almost surely sees you as a beta male who exists to take care of her and her brood, now that she secured the alpha genes. Baby daddy issues are likely. Finally, raising another man’s child is against men’s innate biological programming, and we should not allow ourselves to be shamed into ignoring that. Always be willing to walk away from any relationship. Yes, this includes marriage. The minute that a woman knows she completely has you, no matter what she does or how badly she acts, then it’s just a matter of time before she abuses that power. Being ready and willing to walk away means that you have the power to enforce consequences for bad actions. Counterintuitively, this will make your relationship less likely to fail. She also needs to see you as superior to her and as having other romantic options; remember, women don’t want to marry their equal, they want to marry their better. You can’t turn a whore into a housewife. A girl with a large number of sexual partners in her past is a huge red flag, and she most likely has destroyed her ability to pair bond with any single man long term. She will be receptive to, and used to receiving, male attention; and used to peddling her sexuality to get what she wants in life. This will not stop once she gets into a relationship with you. She likely is still friends with many men that she has slept with previously, and she will keep them around just in case she ever needs them again. This woman controls men with her body and feels validated by their sexual interest. A woman having a high number of sexual partners directly correlates to higher rates of divorce and lower levels of relationship happiness. All women are feminists. No, not all women are the purple haired, obese, excessively pierced and tatted up, pussy-hat wearing, obnoxious, “I need a man like a fish needs a bicycle”-type raving mad feminist. But all women ultimately hold their own interests and collective female interests first. It is part of their biological programming. Male interests are a secondary concern, and they will ally themselves with male causes only to the extent that it benefits them. Trust your gut and never allow yourself to be shamed into behavior that is against your best interest. Gut feelings aren’t magic or some 6th sense; they occur when your subconscious mind is picking up on cues that your conscious mind isn’t catching. It usually means that something is going against your instincts. If a situation doesn’t feel right, then there’s likely a reason for it. For example, society will tell you that “Real Men” will marry a single mother and raise another man’s children. A “Real Man” doesn’t care about his partners’ sexual past or get jealous about all her beta male orbiters that she intentionally strings along for attention and favors. A “Real Man” lets a woman take charge in a relationship, because a powerful woman does not intimidate him. These are examples of shaming tactics fostered by women and blue pilled men to force you to ignore your natural survival instincts, which have been honed over millennia in order to find an ideal mate. Never show weakness to a woman. They will hate you for it. Forget the talk about being vulnerable and showing your emotions; those are feminine qualities. The world hates a weak man, and weakness repulses women in particular on their most base level because mating with such is antithetical to their survival. Do not turn yourself into your girlfriend’s girlfriend by baring your heart and sharing your deepest emotional issues with her over a bottle of wine and some chocolate. If you need emotional support, go to your guy friends, family, or a counselor. Always put yourself first in a relationship. By this, I mean when it comes to the direction of your relationship. You are the conductor of your train traveling through life. A woman gets on your train, not the other way around. She wants you to be a leader, so give that to her. Similarly, do not date a woman who desires to be in charge; not only will she treat you like a subordinate, but she will never be happy in this role. Show, don’t tell. Do not give ultimatums or have a huge list of rules that you constantly wax poetic on. Let your boundaries be known and enforce them, but let them be known primarily through your actions. When one of your established lines in the sand is crossed, that’s it, the relationship is done. No compromises or second chances, just leave. Don’t give second chances. Once a relationship is over, do not try to resurrect it. A woman will never trust you if you did something wrong, and you should never trust her if she was at fault for the relationship ending either. There are plenty of fish in the sea, so go find another. A corollary to this rule is: once you lose a woman’s respect, there’s no regaining it. You are always better moving on. Don’t talk about fight club. Don’t try to explain the red pill to women. Just live your life by red pill tenants and let her figure out who and what you are. A woman wants you to be inherently masculine without having to try at it, not hear that you had to learn how to be a man from some book or video. This is retarded logic from the gender that forced the male role models who might have taught us how to be men out of our lives and actively lies to us about what they are attracted to and need, but trust me that it will be held against you. Hide your copy of this book, of The Rational Male, or anything else that suggests you don’t naturally “just get it” when it comes to dealing with women or fulfilling your manly expectations. A man is judged on the caliber of woman that he can attract; a woman is judged on the caliber of man that she can keep. Women often mistakenly misconstrue a man’s desire to sleep with them as the desire to date them. Similarly, men often misconstrue a woman’s interest in dating them with sexual interest. Remember that women control access to sex, whereas men control access to relationships. This is why a guy who can sleep with a lot of women is impressive: it’s typically a very difficult task and this social proof of female validation raises his value. A woman who sleeps with many men is not similarly respected because finding casual sex for a woman is as easy as breathing, and doing so lowers her value to other men. This is not a double standard because men and women are not the same. Women value high status men who have a proven track record of attracting high value women; men are not, and should not, be interested in making a communal fleshlight their wife. Never take dating advice from a woman. Yes, this includes your mother, friends, and relatives who have your best interest at heart. First of all, most women are completely unaware of their own nature and why they do what they do. So even well intentioned advice giving is the equivalent of asking a blind man to describe color to you. Second, asking a woman how to date is like asking a fish how to catch itself: you’re never going to get the truth, because it’s not in women’s best interest to reveal this information. As I said previously, women want men that inherently know what to do and how to treat them because that is an authentically masculine man, not some faker who turns out to be a loser at the end of the day. Finally, if you do get true advice, you’re getting advice on how to be the Beta Bucks, not the Alpha Fucks. Of all the things women are clueless about regarding their own nature, what gets them hot and bothered is at the top of the list. Believe actions, not words. This is just good advice for people in general, but especially true when dealing with women. Because women are not in touch with their inner drives and nature, they do not understand why they act as they do. So they will tell you what they think they want, or what they are told they should want, but their actions reveal their true intents and motives. Or, of course, they could also be intentionally using you for personal gain. Never date a woman who sees you as a beta male. You’ll know this if she already has kids and is looking for someone to play daddy, if she treats you as only a walking ATM machine, if she berates and nags you either in public or in private, or if she acts like the leader in the relationship. A woman who sees you this way will never respect you. She will never be attracted to you in the way that you want. Do not be the sucker that picks up the tab for her poor life decisions and who willingly picks up the leavings of other men whom she sees as your superior. “Who hurt you?” is not a genuine question requiring a response. This is the laziest, most disingenuous, and least original comeback you’ll hear from women whenever you deviate from the standard gynocentric playbook. There must be some newsletter that all women subscribe to, and every week there’s the same front page article explaining that when all hope is lost and an argument cannot be won on factual or logic-based evidence, whip out this zinger to really take a guy down a few notches. Women act like “Who hurt you?” is some kind of ultimate trump card that immediately shuts down debate in their favor. Understand that it’s not a real question and requires no actual answer. It’s a passive aggressive insult and way to embarrass you and put you on the defensive for the crime of standing up for yourself and not bowing down to the feminist hive mind. The truth is that we’ve all been hurt; that’s not the point, and the pain is not ruling your life. You’ve just decided, quite reasonably I might add, to not return to the plantation after becoming free. Take responsibility for every aspect of your life. What happened to you and what led you to this point in your life may or may not be your “fault”. That is not important, and no one cares. Failures worry about whose fault things are; people who succeed just take responsibility for making it right. Take responsibility for your life right now, whatever situation you are in. For every negative aspect of your life or thing you want to change, realize that you are the only one responsible for turning things around. This is a message of hope and power. Key Takeaways: 1. You now have the basic knowledge to understand female nature, gender relations, and men’s place in society. Use this for knowledge to better yourself and live a happier, more fulfilling life. Chapter 8: Closing Thoughts Hopefully, this book has taught you some important lessons which will assist you in navigating today’s world as a man. Here are a few closing remarks that I want to leave you with. Regarding Data and “The Truth” I have attempted to back up all of my major claims with relevant empirical data, which you can find sources for in the References section; but I suggest that you do your own research on these matters, if for no other reason than data can change over time. More important than anything you’ve read here is to remember to think for yourself. Don’t do what I say, or what anyone else says, just because they seem like an authority. One of the main problems with living in the information age is figuring out what the objective truth of any situation is. You might be swayed by one argument backed with data, only to then discover that other data supports the opposite point of view. When trying to uncover the truth about any subject, you should be open to all inputs. Listen to what people have to say, weigh their merits, and then ultimately decide for yourself what the right answer is. It is vitally important when making this decision to compare your hypotheses to observable reality. Desperately wanting something to be true does not make it so. Never try to fit the world into a preconceived narrative. Regarding Hating Women Don’t hate women. If you’ve come away from this book with the perception that my intent is to turn you away from women or demonize the entire gender, then you haven’t been paying attention. Don’t take my critique of legal institutions, cultural and political movements, or examples of bad behavior to equate to demonizing three and a half billion people. It is imperative to avoid the black pill at all costs. You will descend into a life of anger and self-pity. Being pissed off for being lied to by everyone in your life, and by our gynocentric society, is natural when you first begin to uncover red pill concepts. Let that anger be a brief stop on your way to enlightenment and happiness in the life that you define as worthwhile and fulfilling. Never convince yourself, or let anyone convince you, that you are a victim; doing so cedes control of your life to some external force which you have no control over. Ultimately, the red pill is a message of hope and empowerment, because now you can make choices based on reality instead of a fairy tale. There’s an old joke, notably told in the movie Natural Born Killers [61], about a woman who was out picking firewood and sees a dying snake, freezing to death in the snow. She takes the animal home, warms it up, and slowly nurses it back to health. One day out of nowhere, it bites her, fatally poisoning her. As she lies dying, she turns and asks the snake why he did this after she saved him, to which he replies: “Look bitch, you knew I was a snake when you met me.” Is the point of this story that the snake is evil? Of course not, no more evil than the coyote who snatches your Dachshund from the backyard or the grizzly bear which mauls a hiker who accidentally got too close to her cubs. This does not excuse grown women from being responsible for their actions, but to ascribe a “right or wrong” designation to female nature itself is missing the point and furthermore a waste of time. Female nature evolved as a benefit to reproduction and continuation of our species, and for no other reason. There is no grand conspiracy behind that and no one to be angry with. The entire point of this book is to understand women so that you don’t hate them when they fail to live up to your unrealistic expectations. Then you are not surprised when they fundamentally love differently than you do, and have different biological imperatives. Stop expecting more than they can give and assume that they should think and feel like men do. Throughout all the prior ages, children had a better understanding of the fundamental inequality and differences between men and women than modern adults do. Times have changed as have traditional roles, and that is not necessarily a bad thing; but human nature remains static. We need to remember what we all once knew. Regarding the Future What does the future hold for relations between the sexes? Will society eventually revert back to the “golden age” of the 1950s, where patriarchy was the norm and men and women lived alongside each other in harmonious balance? NO. The romanticized Good Old Days were a brief moment in time; a few decades that we look backwards on fondly as the pinnacle of gender relations in comparison to the contemporary cesspool we find ourselves in. This is most likely a naïve mischaracterization of the time itself anyway, but even if not, there are no brakes on this crazy train. Recall the Gender Equality Paradox discussed near the beginning of this book. Just as traditional gender roles aren’t going away but rather are being exaggerated, core gender traits are becoming more exposed as well. Data empirically shows that even in the most gender-equal country in the world, Norway, hypergamy still demands women find partners above their socio-economic station. Furthermore, this trend is showing no signs of decline, and there is a resultant effect that lower status men have an ever increasing chance of never marrying while high status men have an ever increasing chance of marrying multiple times [62]. So as women and men become more equal in terms of rights, education, social status, career status, and earnings- a future women have fought and continue to fight tooth and nail for- they still demand a mate higher on the social food chain than they are. If this seems like an obvious problem, you bet your ass it is. This is a tragedy for both genders. It leaves women continually dissatisfied that the only men they can lock down are perceived to be of lower value than they themselves are, and thus creates a constant yearning for and infighting over an ever-decreasing percentage of high status men. At the same time, a greater and greater population of men are unable to date at all; and historically, when a large population of young men become angry and disillusioned, society tends to suffer as a result. This is the world that feminists and their male allies have created and that your children and grandchildren will be born into. Society is evolving quicker than our biology can keep up with, and the behaviors and drives that enabled our survival for hundreds of millennia are no longer valid, or, in some cases, are actively detrimental to our health and happiness. We must recognize this fact and move to meet these challenges head on, rather than trying to wind the clock back to some arbitrary time when things were “better” or “more balanced”. Focus instead on making your little portion of the world a better place, and have the courage to make the best of your current situation instead of daydreaming about some mythical alternate reality where things are different. Regarding Dating Advice For the concluding section of this book, I figured most men reading this would want some dating advice. Again, despite all the warnings I’ve given throughout the preceding chapters, I’m not here to dissuade you against having a relationship. Make your own decisions using all of the knowledge you have learned and using your own life experience as a guide. In fact, I would say that being red pill aware is required in order to have a successful modern relationship; for that reason, you owe it to yourself and potential future family to internalize and apply these concepts. For a by-the-numbers calculation of the costs and benefits of pursuing women, I recommend Aaron Clarey’s The Book of Numbers [63]. Aaron is an economist by trade and provides a thoroughly entertaining and illuminating examination of the return on investment associated with dating and marriage. I won’t ruin the book except to say: the prognosis is not good, but neither is it completely hopeless. As a man, the dating odds are stacked against you. You were unfortunately born into a time where misandry is the rule, not the exception. The poison that is modern feminism has so thoroughly infected society and cultures across the world that there’s effectively no place left to hide. Unfortunately, we are still able to look back a few generations ago, prior to Second Wave feminism when relationships seemed to work out just fine. Having that information available and still in our social consciousness is a cruel tease, dangling slightly out of our reach a life that we desire but statistically many of us will never achieve. So that’s the bad news: dating today is a shit sandwich and for anyone who has an interest in long term relationships, marriage, or children, be prepared to take a big juicy bite. It’s understandable that an increasing number of men decide to simply opt out of the sexual marketplace altogether. That is a sensible solution to the problem, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise or shame you into playing a lopsided game (especially women, who generally have no idea about the struggles that men face and furthermore don’t care even if they do know). If that’s you, then by all means, go out and invent a method for cold nuclear fusion or travel the world or get a black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu or adopt a lonely stretch of highway and spend your weekends picking up cans. Whatever feels worthwhile and takes some effort to achieve. The only thing I would recommend against is living a life without any sort of challenge at all. You are a free man who can choose to stumble through life drunk every night, or getting high constantly while playing Call of Duty well into your 50s, or eating yourself into an early grave. No one will stop you, but we have known for millennia now that a decadent and selfish life is ultimately unfulfilling. I urge you instead to take the road less traveled. Do the things that are difficult simply because they are difficult. Try to be useful to even just a few people in your life, because after all, that’s what we’re made for as men. We are the doers, the builders, and the ones that sacrifice. The key is that you get to choose who to do things for, what wonders to create, and who or what to sacrifice for. Trust me, you’ll end up feeling better at the end of each day if you can point to a difficult obstacle overcome and say to yourself, “See, I did that.” If, on the other hand, you do decide to date, as most of us will do for at least part of our lives, here are a few tips to help you navigate the hazards and increase your chances of success: 1) Remember that as a man, your value is first and foremost tied to your social and financial worth. For most men, this peaks in your late 30s and 40s. Don’t even try to date seriously before your late 20s at the very earliest. Before then, it’s not worth your time and effort, and you’ll always be beaten out by older men. Just enjoy casual relationships until the time is right. That being said, increase your chances of being socially dominant by picking a good degree in college. This is usually in a STEM field, but not necessarily. For god’s sake don’t pick a Liberal Arts major or get a degree in something useless like Business. I know the girls are much hotter and easier on those sides of campus, but resist the temptation; your future self will thank you. Find a degree that has a tangible, high paying job waiting at the end of it, and at the least get a BS. An MS is even better these days, but weigh the cost and benefit of spending that extra time and money. If college is not the right path for you, pick a lucrative skilled trade instead and the process is the same. Now get in your career and bust your ass for a decade or so. If you can build your own business, even better, but a highranking corporate job will work just fine as long as you can handle the drudgery. It turns out that climbing the corporate ladder doesn’t take much more than showing up consistently, having a positive attitude and not being a flaming asshole to your coworkers (though these types do seem to congregate in upper management), and getting your work done adequately and on time. No heroics needed; the bar is shockingly low. Max out your 401k as soon as you can, continue to do so every year, and start an investment portfolio if you can manage. By the time you’ve hit your stride, you’ll have set yourself up not only to have a good life in financial terms, but in doing so you’ll have put yourself in that top tier of earners that women value so much. This is essential to have any hope of keeping even an average woman these days. By the way, the number one waste of time and money early in your life will be pursuing women and dating. Invest as little in them as you can bear prior to your prime value years. 2) I say that your peak is in your 30s and 40s (corresponding to a woman’s early to mid-20s) even though you will hopefully continue to accrue wealth and power for decades after that. So why is that your SMV peak? Because looks do, in fact, matter to women; they are just secondary to wealth, status and power. So during a man’s peak years, he’s still able to be in his prime physically while also attaining a high social status. My second piece of advice therefore is to actually be in your physical prime at that moment. This means that you need to have a serious dedication to fitness in your teens and 20s. Make sure that you don’t become a gym rat to the exclusion of working on your career, but you’ll be happier and healthier throughout your entire life if you’re in good physical shape. You will also be more attractive for casual fun at all ages, but especially as a younger man when you are not dating seriously anyway. It also means you will have more energy and vitality available to you later in life if you decide to settle down and have children, and that you will live longer in general. It’s an all-around win. 3) For god’s sake, vet the women you do date. Understand that realistically, if you’re looking for a quality woman in today’s world, you’ll be sifting through thousands of potential options; going on hundreds of dates; and having probably tens or dozens of relationships of varying lengths just to find that one woman at the end of the shit-stained journey who isn’t completely awful as a long term partner. The statistics bear out that somewhere on the order of 1% or less of modern woman are worthy of any sort of lasting commitment. Look out for the red flags that I’ve mentioned previously. Judge her past. Do not second-guess your instincts. Do not fall for “one-itis” or the soul mate myth. Never date a feminist, hardcore leftist, or “woke” woman; one day you will inevitably become the enemy. A good concept to remember is, “It’s OK to love a woman, but don’t fall in love with a woman.” What this means is that you should love the woman that you decide to date long term. But being in love suggests a vulnerability and fragility that frankly you can’t afford these days. What I mean is this: if your wife ever left you, you should cry, call your friends and meet up at the bar to talk about what a bitch she is and get drunk together, and mope around for a little while. It would suck and you would be genuinely sad and hurt. That wouldn’t mean you are weak, it would mean you are a human being. And then in short order you should get your shit together and move on- to another woman or not, that doesn’t matter- but the point is that she didn’t break you. She can’t break you because you didn’t give her every fiber of your being. Too many men in the past have done that, and when they lost their perfect princess, the love of their life who would never betray them, they wanted to kill themselves. Some did. Or they became an empty husk of a man for the rest of their days, which is functionally the same thing. Never let someone else have the power of life or death over you. For damn sure not someone who would leave you because she suddenly decided that her feelings changed, or because Jerry in the shipping department has been giving her extra attention at work and he looks pretty good driving a forklift. Women are the ultimate pragmatists in relationships, and that is one attitude of theirs worth copying. 4) Putting yourself first always means that your frame of reference for all decisions starts and ends with yourself. This is not abdicating responsibility, it is embracing it. Take other peoples’ advice, especially when you are younger and are not wise to the ways of the world yet, but ultimately decide what is best for you and then forget what everyone else thinks about it. Women want a leader. They want someone that they can look up to. If you put her on a pedestal, then she is by definition looking down on you. Being a weak man is a guaranteed way to make a woman hate you. Living in this way is a never-ending task, but you must present yourself as a strong man and then live up to that standard. It is crucial that you actually be the man that you project yourself to be. It must be second nature to you to be masculine, to be in control, to take charge, and to demand femininity and other desirable qualities from the woman that you date. Anything else will be rooted out eventually, and once again, you will be hated for it. A woman can get on your page and join your life if you deem her worthy, but you must never join hers. Internalize that you are the prize, not her. Because our social conditioning has led us to treat women as equals at best or more likely superiors, this is often difficult but is crucial for a healthy relationship. I’ll say it again: women don’t want their equal, they want their better. Their biology demands it. Be that better man and give them what they want. 5) Lastly, realize that no matter what you do, this is all going to be a metric fuckton of work. There is no easy way, so don’t bother looking for it. Everything I mentioned above is objectively difficult: getting a worthwhile degree and going through 4-6 years of college or learning a trade in the equivalent time, busting your ass at work for a decade and climbing the career ladder, earning financial success, keeping physically fit for as long as you live, creating and maintaining a worthwhile existence that someone else would want to join, and dating and vetting dozens of women in order to find that special someone. Sorry bro, but them’s the breaks. You were born with a dick between your legs instead of a vagina and that’s the baggage that comes along with it. Being born a woman, as long as you are at least average in looks and stay in reasonable shape, gives you the option to play life on easy mode. Being born as a man means that life is default set to hard mode, and it always has been. Understand that, expect it, and take pride in your accomplishments. Now take a deep breath and then let any lingering negativity about what you have read here go, because holding on to negative emotions is a poison that will slowly kill you if you let it. Change those aspects of your life that you would like to improve upon, and truly let go of the things that you cannot change. Ultimately, you’ve got one shot in this world and your only task is to figure out what success is, and then go spend your life chasing after it. Nothing else matters. Go and be happy, whatever that looks like for you. Key Takeaways: 1. Stop looking back at an idealized past and move forward into the future with strength and conviction. 2. To have a successful modern relationship, you must be red pilled and actively apply the concepts you have learned here. 3. The red pill is a message of hope and empowerment. Find your own path in life and be free. I truly wish everyone reading this only the best, and I hope to have made a small difference in your life. Contact Information I can be contacted at [email protected] with any questions, comments, concerns, or business inquiries. References [1] T. W. Brothers, Director, The Matrix. [Film]. 1999. [2] BBC, "Men and women's brains are 'wired differently'," 3 December 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-25198063. [3] D. P. Schmitt, "The Evolution of Culturally-Variable Sex Differences: Men and Women Are Not Always Different, but When They Are…It Appears Not to Result from Patriarchy or Sex Role Socialization," in The Evolution of Sexuality, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 221-256. [4] D. P. Schmitt, M. Voracek, A. Realo and J. Allik, "Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 168-182, 2008. [5] O. Khazan, "The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM," 18 February 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewerwomen-in-stem/553592/. [6] D. C. Geary, J. Vigil and J. Byrd-Craven, "Evolution of Human Mate Choice," The Journal of Sex Research, pp. 27-42, 2004. [7] Rare Historical Photos, "French female collaborator punished by having her head shaved to publicly mark her, 1944," 8 March 2014. [Online]. Available: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/french-femalecollaborator-punished-head-shaved-publicly-mark-1944/. [8] K. Vohs, D. Dahl and J. Sengupta, "The Price Had Better Be Right: Women's Reactions to Sexual Stimuli Vary With," Psychological Science, pp. 278-273, 2013. [9] M. J. Dunn and R. Searle, "Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership," British Journal of Psychology, p. 69–80, 2010. [10] D. M. Buss and D. Schmitt, "Mate Preferences and Their Behavioral Manifestations," Annual Review of Psychology, p. 23.1–23.34, 2019. [11] P. Engel, "CHARTS: Guys Like Women In Their Early 20s Regardless Of How Old They Get," 20 October 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.businessinsider.com/dataclysm-shows-men-areattracted-to-women-in-their-20s-2014-10. [12] S. Watson, "What's the Best Age to Get Pregnant?," 19 September 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/best-age-to-get-pregnant. [13] Classical Wisdom, "Politics by Aristotle – Book VII," [Online]. Available: https://classicalwisdom.com/greek_books/politics-by-aristotle-book-vii/7/. [14] K. M. Davis, "20 Facts And Figures To Know When Marketing To Women," 13 May 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescontentmarketing/2019/05/13/20-facts-and-figures-toknow-when-marketing-to-women/?sh=3e1db5c41297. [15] R. Reiner, Director, A Few Good Men. [Film]. 1992. [16] M. Rampton, "Four Waves of Feminism," 25 October 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.pacificu.edu/magazine/four-waves-feminism. [17] S. A. Drucker, "Betty Friedan: The Three Waves of Feminism," 27 April 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.ohiohumanities.org/betty-friedan-the-three-waves-of-feminism/. [18] R. F. Baumeister and K. D. Vohs, "Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange Personality and Social Psychology Review, p. 339–363, 2004. [19] A. E. Dastagir, "USA Today," 24 May 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-sowhy-all-attention/1211175001/. [20] National Center for Education Statistics, "The Condition of Education," May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clr.asp. [21] D. Finscher, Director, Fight Club. [Film]. 1999. [22] California Secretary of State, "Women on Boards," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sos.ca.gov/business-programs/women-boards. [23] CBS News, "Paris city hall fined for hiring too many women under law aimed at fixing gender balance," 16 December 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-city-hallmayor-anne-hidalgo-fined-hiring-too-many-women-law-aimed-at-gender-balance/. [24] U.S. Small Business Administration, "Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contracting Program," 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-assistanceprograms/women-owned-small-business-federal-contracting-program. [25] A. Willingham, "NC only state with law saying once a sexual act begins, you can't withdraw consent," 2 June 2019. [Online]. Available: https://wlos.com/news/local/nc-only-state-with-law-saying-once-asexual-act-begins-you-cant-withdraw-consent. [26] N. Sears, "Woman who falsely claimed she was raped by three men because she regretted having sex with them jailed for two years," 17 September 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204712/Woman-falsely-claimed-raped-men-regrettedhaving-sex-jailed-years.html. [27] R. Lanigan, "A girl falsely accused me of rape and it almost ruined my life," 2015. [Online]. Available: https://thetab.com/2015/11/20/a-girl-falsely-accused-me-of-rape-and-it-ruined-my-life-62568. [28] Eldridge & Blakney, Attorneys at Law, "Regret Isn’t Rape," 8 April 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.eblaw.us/blog/2019/april/regret-isn-t-rape/. [29] Worst-Online-Dater, "Tinder Experiments II: Guys, unless you are really hot you are probably better o not wasting your time on Tinder — a quantitative socio-economic study," 24 March 2015. [Online]. Available: https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-reallyhot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a. [30] M. Graff, "Improving Your Chances on Tinder," 22 November 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-digitally/201711/improving-your-chances-tinder. [31] Influencer MarketingHub, "OnlyFans Statistics – Users, Revenue and Usage Stats," 29 January 2021 [Online]. Available: https://influencermarketinghub.com/onlyfans-stats/. [32] NCES, "Bachelor's degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex of student: Selected years, 1976-77 through 2018-19," [Online]. Available: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_322.20.asp. [33] G. Williams, "More men get alimony from their ex-wives," 24 December 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-divorce-alimony-men/more-men-get-alimony-from-their-ex-wivesidUSBRE9BN0AW20131224. [34] T. Grall, "Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2017," May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-269.pdf. [35] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "FastStats- Marriage and Divorce," 5 May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage-divorce.htm. [36] American Sociological Association, "Women More Likely Than Men to Initiate Divorces, But Not NonMarital Breakups," 22 August 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.asanet.org/press-center/pressreleases/women-more-likely-men-initiate-divorces-not-non-marital-breakups. [37] American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, "Infidelity," July 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.aamft.org/Consumer_Updates/Infidelity.aspx. [38] R. A. C. A. &. A. D. C. Marín, "Infidelity and behavioral couple therapy: Relationship outcomes over 5 years following therapy," Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, pp. 1-12, 2014. [39] H. Montgomery, "How Often Do ‘Normal’ Couples Have Sex?," 11 June 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.healthline.com/health/baby/how-often-do-normal-couples-have-sex. [40] D. Hartley, "Briffault's Law: Women Rule," 31 October 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/machiavellians-gulling-the-rubes/201610/briffaults-lawwomen-rule. [41] "Understand the Basics," [Online]. Available: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/equal-pay [42] US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , "Equal Pay Act Charges (Charges filed with EEOC (includes concurrent charges with Title VII, ADEA, ADA, and GINA) FY 1997 - FY 2020," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.eeoc.gov/statistics/equal-pay-act-charges-charges-filed-eeocincludes-concurrent-charges-title-vii-adea-ada. [43] J. Phelan, "Harvard Study: "Gender Wage Gap" Explained Entirely by Work Choices of Men and Women," 10 December 2018. [Online]. Available: https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study-gender-paygap-explained-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/. [44] C. H. Sommers, "6 Feminist Myths That Will Not Die," 17 June 2016. [Online]. Available: https://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/. [45] M. Orr, "The Wage Gap isn’t a Myth. It’s just Meaningless.," 1 September 2019. [Online]. Available: https://medium.com/@MarissaOrr/the-wage-gap-isnt-a-myth-it-s-just-meaningless-ee994814c9c6. [46] K. A. Lips, "Don't Buy Into The Gender Pay Gap Myth," April 12 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/? sh=7c64ca282596. [47] H. Belot, "Blind recruitment trial to boost gender equality making things worse, study reveals," 29 Jun 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improvegender-equality-failing-study/8664888. [48] M. S. Schwartz, "Google Pay Study Finds It Underpaid Men For Some Jobs," 5 March 2019. [Online] Available: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-menfor-some-jobs. [49] B. Luscombe, "Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top," 1 Sept 2010. [Online]. Available: http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html. [50] NationMaster, "Countries Compared by Crime > Rape Rate," 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Rape-rate. [51] Association of American Universities, "AAU Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduc (2015)," 3 September 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/aau-climate-surveysexual-assault-and-sexual-misconduct-2015. [52] The Federal Bureau of Investigation, "2018 Crime in the United States- Rape," 2018. [Online]. Available: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/rape. [53] PBS, "Justice Department: Majority of campus sexual assault goes unreported to police," 11 December 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/four-five-acts-campussexual-assault-go-unreported-police? pepperjam=&publisherId=96525&clickId=3532553655&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=affiliat [54] The Federal Bureau of Investigation, "2016 Crime in the United States," 2016. [Online]. Available: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables. [55] R. F. Baumeister, K. R. Catanese and K. D. Vohs, "Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence," Personality and Social Psychology Review, p. 242–273, 2001. [56] N. Savoy, Magic Bullets: 2nd Edition, Classic Books Publishing, 2009. [57] W. Farrell, The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It, BenBella Books, 2019. [58] C. Jaye, Director, The Red Pill. [Film]. 2017. [59] K. Block, A. Croft, L. D. Souza and T. Schmader, "Do people care if men don't care about caring? The asymmetry in support for changing gender roles," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 112 131, 2019. [60] R. Tomassi, The Rational Male, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013. [61] O. Stone, Director, National Born Killers. [Film]. 1994. [62] I. Almås, A. Kotsadam ⇑ , E. R. Moen and K. R ø ed, "The Economics of Hypergamy," The Journal O Human Resources, pp. 1-37, 2020. [63] A. Clarey, The Book of Numbers: Analyzing the ROI on the Pursuit of Women, Independently Published, 2020.