The Red Pill Scholar - Red Pill 101 The Hard Truths That Your Father Should Have Taught You

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.