The Three Alphas

Over the holidays the Red Pill came up more than once, in a lot of different contexts.  One intriguing discussion revolved around my definition of a “Wolf Alpha”.

For those of you just joining us, my own variation on Vox Day’s brilliant Socio-Sexual Hierarchy involves dividing clear masculine “Alphas” into different sub-categories, based upon their focus.  Each one is clearly an “Alpha Male”, but they present differently, have different values and concerns, and they express their Alpha nature very differently.

The one commonly known in the PUA community is the “Bull Alpha”.  This is the traditional playboy, the over-sexed harem-developing dude who can commit to a hairstyle more easily than committing to a woman.  Often driven professionally, successful, and extremely self-confident, the Bull Alpha might love women, plural, but settling on one woman is against his nature.

The Bull Alpha is the natural PUA.  He's got Game as an innate talent.  Pussy is a sport for him, perhaps a passion, but he's into variety, not consistency.

Then there are the Bear Alphas.  I won’t get into them much here, considering the discussion I make of them in the book (still waiting on word).  Basically, Bear Alphas are the kind of men who other men admire and who are often so committed to an ideal that their family, wife, and personal lives are secondary to that ideal or passion.  Sometimes Bear Alphas are, indeed, openly gay, but more often they are studiously non-sexual, seeing any devotion of energy to such things as detracting from their commitment.   But Bear Alphas are their own unique kind of Alpha Male.

But then there are the Wolf Alphas.  Wolf Alphas, unlike Bull Alphas, are more interested in finding an excellent wife and devoting themselves utterly to their family.  Wolves are highly social creatures, just like humans, and the social hierarchy of the pack is an important survival function for the species.  A Wolf Alpha is a man who has essentially made the survival and prosperity of his family, and the members thereof, his personal responsibility. 

Bull Alphas make their personal vision or ego their personal responsibility, and see the fulfillment of that vision as proof of their success.  That success is validated by the mad poon they can pull as their confidence and success makes them irresistible to a lot of women.

Bear Alphas have made the ideals and vision of the non-familial group their personal responsibility, and see the continued prosperity and success of that group as a reflection of their personal success.  Their success is validated through social respect and the praise and acknowledgement of their professional peers. 

Wolf Alphas have made their family their focus.  Their dedication and devotion is to their personal social and genetic clan, in which they assume a leadership role.  This often means gently dominating the family to ensure proper security, health, and guidance for everyone, as well as undertaking to provide as many resources as possible for the family.  A Wolf Alpha’s dedication to his family (including his wife) is not a betrayal of his Alpha status – it’s an expression of it. 

Bull Alphas make great lovers and poor husbands.  Bear Alphas make (often) mediocre and awkward lovers and distant if competent husbands.  Wolf Alphas make good lovers and great husbands, if they have done a proper job of wife selection (and most Wolf Alphas make a point of that).

Why is this important?  Because in chasing down Alpha, women often catch a whiff and don’t recognize the specific aroma.  A woman can find a Bull Alpha ridiculously sexy and entertaining, but trying to build a life with him is going to be a full-time job, as you fight off both predatory women and his own urge to stray.  A woman can invest great hope in a relationship with a Bear Alpha, because of his great passion for a cause or an ideal – particularly if she shares that ideal or holds that cause dear. 

But a woman who marries a Bear Alpha is in for a long and frustrating relationship . . . and more than one Bear Alpha has been secretly bisexual, as his charisma and passion attract same-sex attention.  Marrying a Bear Alpha might give a woman great social prestige, but its unlikely for her to find the relationship deeply fulfilling unless she, too, places the common ideal above the needs of her relationship and family.

Wolf Alphas are different – they are actively seeking to breed with a long-term, committed partner.  And they frequently masquerade as high Betas or even Gammas, as they seek out that perfect Mrs. Wolf to build a family with.  They may even masquerade as a Bull Alpha or (more rarely) a Bear Alpha in their quest, in order to ferret out a prospective wife’s character and values.

Wolf Alphas have very high standards, but they are also ridiculously loyal and protective once they have committed.  Their success is based almost entirely on their functioning family, and they will make nearly any sacrifice to that end – including forgoing promotions and employment opportunities a Bull Alpha would find irresistible, and a Bear Alpha would feel duty-bound to accept.  A Wolf Alpha’s success is proven in raising his children to maturity and preparing them for adult life, with the active participation of an equally-passionate mate. 

How do you spot young Wolf Alphas on the hunt?  They’ll often hang back and observe before plunging into a social situation.  They work well in groups, and will sometimes have 2-3 other dudes around them for cover, protection, and support.  They will frequently feign goofiness or make outrageous statements on early acquaintance in order to gauge a woman’s reaction.  When discussing the future, they almost always have a plan, even if they are willing to change it to suit their circumstances.  They often know what they want to do when they grow up, and they have no qualms about stating their desire for children and a wife – ONE wife.

That doesn’t mean that it’s easy to get them to commit – indeed, one of the telling differences between a hard Beta and a stealthy Wolf Alpha is how easy it is to get the former to commit, and how difficult it is to win that prize from the latter.  A Wolf might screw you rotten and make you make the pig noise, but he isn’t going to introduce you to Mom or agree to go to your sister’s wedding until you prove yourself worthy.

Wolf Alphas have very little tolerance for infidelity.  Or any kind of disloyalty, but infidelity is particularly insidious to the Wolf Alpha.  It’s not just a crime against the relationship, it’s a crime against the mutual dedication to the family that a Wolf Alpha expects – and demands – in his life.  If a male Wolf Alpha does have an affair, he is often deeply wracked with guilt about it and considers it a catastrophic mistake. 

When folks in the Manosphere are throwing around the Alpha term, sometimes it’s helpful to stop and give some thought to the variations.  Just as there are different kinds of “Beta” (High Beta, Low Beta, Gamma, Delta, etc.) dudes, the different kinds of Alpha men who have mastered the art of manliness enough to impose their will upon the world are variations on the same robust theme.  

A Brief Red Pill Election Analysis

I don't like to get political any more than I like to get religious on this blog, due to the fact that I'm in the minority in the Manosphere on both counts, but of course the more I try to stay away from those subjects, the more they seem to come up.  But as masculinity and men have both religious and political context in our culture, it becomes unavoidable.  Below is my as-objective-as-possible assessment of the election, minus any gloating, hand-wringing, or other overtly political crap.  I'll also note that I've written political blogs (progressive and libertarian) before under other names, so I'd like to think I know my ass from a hole in the ground, but that's not why I'm posting.

Considering the US Presidential election in purely Red Pill terms, the Ironwood Observation holds true: in an electorate in which women are the majority, the male candidate with the highest subjective and objective Sex Rank wins.  This has held true at least since the Nixon-Kennedy election.  In every single presidential election, the dude who came across more Alpha and caused more wet panties won.

In this case, you had exotic Barack Obama up against wholesome Mitt Romney.  Both candidates were handsome men on the surface, with slightly exaggerated features and strong charisma.  Objectively, both were strong Alphas in the 7-9 range.  Add preselection points for being happily married, positive beta assessments for being visibly active fathers who put family first, and its easy to see why the polls showed a virtual dead heat going into the race.

But the devil is in the details, and when it came down to it, Obama just had better Game than Romney when it came to courting the female voter.  Not only is he a proponent of what are traditionally seen as "women's issues", he presents more strongly than Romney.  That is, when a woman's subconscious "tries on" the idea of sleeping with a choice of Romney or Obama, there's a huge appeal to the latter and not much enthusiasm from the former.  Here's why.

First, let's handle the issue of race, because it's the most obvious and blatant factor.  While many women fantasize about affairs with rich, powerful, handsome men -- and Romney certainly fits the bill in all three departments -- Mitt is the kind of dude you'd hook up with at a golf course groundskeeping supplies sales convention, drunk-and-on-the-road, a decent screw but hardly anything to jill off to later.

Barack, on the other hand, has the exotic-sounding name ("Mitt" is just too country club) and the chocolate skin.  That has automatic appeal to black female voters, of course, and plenty of Latina, Asian, and white female voters.  There is of course what some have cynically called the "Mandingo Effect", which some Republican commenters blamed on Obama's first victory in swing-states North Carolina and Virginia, that is, the much-ballyhooed secret desire amongst white women to have affairs with (presumably) more-alpha, sexually superior black men.  Obama's poise, oratorical skills, and high social status permit the "Mandingo Effect" even in the subconscious of the most conservative women, it is argued.

Liberal women?  He had them at "hello".

Couple that with his deep, sonorous voice, and suddenly he's the tall, hot black dude with the doctorate you meet on vacation in Martinique and bravely bring home to your parents, ala "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?".  Or he's the hawt black dude who helped you get your groove back.  Either way, I contend that Obama had the race sewn up the moment he sang a few bars onstage at the Apollo with that voice.  It was the gush heard round the world.  A fantasy experience with exotic Barack would come complete with illicit cigarette smoke (which is enough "bad boy" for a family man of his age to make him daring), intellectually stimulating conversations about the philosophical underpinnings of Western Civilization in light of modern industrialization and liberalization of social mores, slow, sensual dancing and soft, cool jazz in the background to augment the taste of your mojito.

But lets move on to the preselection issue: both candidates are happily married.  Mitt has a good Mormon wife who has bore him a huge litter of strong, handsome young boys doomed to follow in their father's footsteps.  Mrs. Romney is the picture of the great Mormon mom: wholesome, outspoken, deferent, devoted, and openly respectful to her husband.  She's an adept political wife, perhaps not on the par of Hilary Clinton, but certainly better than Laura Bush.  Preselection is based in part on the Sex Rank of the partner, but also on her position.  And when you put Anne Romney up against the First Lady, Michelle comes out ahead on the Female Social Matrix.

First, she's already First Lady, which gives her automatic, nearly unassailable AFOG status.  After all, she sleeps with the POTUS, who is already reigning AMOG.  But her personal charisma, unusual beauty, height, and undeniable intelligence make her a personally powerful woman.  While arguably less-feminine in presentation than Romney, thanks to her size and style of dress, Michelle's charisma and warmth soften the amazonian image significantly, and she does have quite an engaging smile.  In comparison, Ann Romney just doesn't have that same Alpha appeal to men, and therefore her devotion to Mitt, while laudable, just doesn't have the same level of passion that a union of strong Michelle and strong Barack has.

Both get points for motherhood, and in this Romney has an edge by sheer volume and wholesome maternal devotion.  Subjectively speaking, this raises her SR amongst the country folk and westerners who see her as embodying the American maternal ideal of devoted wife and loving mother.  Mitt gets points for his pure virility (that's a mess o' Romneys) and his fidelity, which are a reflection of Ann's devotion.  Further points for their mutual religious devotion -- it's easy to see why women in the Heartland were less seduced by Obama.  They were partially put-off by Michelle's more in-your-face relationship style, even if they were somewhat envious of her apparent passion for her man.

Michelle gets higher subjective SR from moms in suburban and urban zones, as well as massive points for her proto-feminist, be-all-you-can-be style.  Her devotion to Barack is nearly palpable on stage, and her utter lack of personal political ambitions makes her appear a genuinely supportive partner, not a scheming colleague (lookin' at you, Hill).  There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Barack and Michelle love each other and -- more importantly -- are in love with each other.  There's observable passion, there.  Indeed, some folks get pissed off at the regularity of their PDAs.  But that kind of observable devotion (and presumed willful submission) of a strong woman to a strong man gives Obama CRAZY preselection points.

(In the Gore/Bush race of 2000, I was genuinely fearful of a Bush victory . . . until Tipper and Al made out on stage at the convention.  That brief, passionate display humanized The Tin Man more than anything else, and gave me a little hope that he could overcome the willful machismo of C-student GWB.)

If Ann had been more Alpha in her presentation, and had treated Mitt more like a seething tiger of raw animal lust she could barely restrain herself from attacking at every public appearance, then it would have raised her profile and therefore his numbers.  Treating him like the perfect husband and father is great, politically speaking, but she failed to communicate the subtext that he's hung like a circus pony and does her at every available opportunity.  It's clear that they're devoted to each other . . . but you don't hear news stories about Mitt skipping majorly important events in order to quietly celebrate an anniversary with his wife.  When you think about them as a potential first couple, you think "Weekly, lights out, missionary position, was it good for you too, dear?", not "Give me that manhammer harder this time, Stud, I'm going to squirt!"  

As attractive as Ann is (and she gets extra MILF points with that lightly-padded, devoted PTA soccer mom style) she just doesn't have Michelle's charisma, despite her wholesome charm.  She's just not an alpha-enough psychological rival for a woman to contend with -- therefore her mate isn't as high value.  If Mitt was caught in an affair, there would be horrible scandal and prayers and Ann would be the dutiful but indignant wife, conducting herself as Caesar's wife as she very publicly and tearfully forgave her husband and then very publicly began marital counseling.  "The other woman" would not even be referred to in her speech.

On the other hand, if Barack was ever caught in an affair, there's no doubt in anyone's mind that Michelle Obama would be perfectly capable of cutting a bitch.  Unrepentantly.  She's a visible lioness in her physical presentation, her power and devotion and willingness to mate-guard a tangible symbol of her quality . . . and therefore Barack's worthiness.  She's a well-respected woman who lavishes respect and praise on her man.  She shows her passion for him and for their relationship with undisguised enthusiasm.  And it's not difficult to imagine that she's making sure he's getting laid like linoleum to keep the Lewinski's from hiding in the closet.  You know she's rocking his world not out of wifely duty, but because she's doing the POTUS and more importantly she's doing the POTUS that every other woman in the country wants, and so Barack has a titanic preselection bonus to her.  She's doing the dude that every other girl wants to do.  That puts Barack's preselection bonus in the highest tier.

In the final analysis, Mitt just wasn't as tasty jillfodder for the mass of femininity as Barack was.  He made a good run at it, but when it comes to selling a brand to women you have to know what they respond to, and the Romney brand was just too . . . bland.  Obama's was still exciting and exotic, and let's face it: that gray in his hair only makes him look hotter.  With Mitt . . . not so much.


But there's one last point I want to make about the Red Pill and politics, and this is to the Liberals and Progressives out there who might stumble over this blog.  One reason that Mitt did as well as he did is that the Democratic Party made huge strides in wooing the vote of women, but toward men they appealed only to them by ethnicity or sexual orientation.  If you were a dude and you voted for Obama you did so either as a Liberal, a Latino, an Asian-American, a Union man or as a gay man.

Male issues and masculine interests were ignored or disparaged by the Democrats in favor of seeking the all-important women's vote, and they continue to do so at their peril.  A lot of men voted for Romney who would have been happy to vote for Obama, had they been reached out to and persuaded.  When you focus a party platform so overwhelmingly on female interests and issues, you leave men little room to join you, and the opposition, no matter how fruit-cakey, is the only place for them to go.  I give Obama's people credit for not actively antagonizing the electorate on some prominent male issues such as gun control and the like, but there is little allure to the Democratic agenda in purely masculine terms.  A few pro-male initiatives, some genuine outreach and discussion with men as men, and some visible support for masculine endeavors and the Democrats could woo a decisive section of the all-important independent moderate swing voter. As it is, they are too enslaved to the ideologies of feminism to make the attempt without risking their coalition.  By virtue of ignoring the subject entirely, the Democratic party might not be actively anti-male, but there isn't much pro-male to suggest them.

Hell, if Obama had re-legalized internet gambling, it could have gotten him another 50,000 male votes nationwide.

Similarly, if the Republicans would tone down the religious rhetoric, stop the rampant homophobia that is alienating wealthy gay male Republicans, admit that science is a real thing now, and appeal to black and Latino male voters as men, and not by their ethnicities, then it's possible that the results in Virginia and Florida would have been much different, and possibly in Ohio, too.  There's a difference in being a place for rejected men to go when the other party disappoints and the place made enticing because men are valued and celebrated as men, pursuing male issues above issues of race or class.  But thanks to their anti-gay, anti-science, and anti-intellectual stance, the GOP tends to alienate that same moderate independent male voter.

While the GOP tends to pick up some male issues like gun control and national defense, their patented cowboy rhetoric stopped being an effective tool after Reagan -- you can blame GWB for that.  Because while Bill Clinton's bull alpha persona won him huge Bad Boy panty-dampening status for daring to get a hummer from a chubby intern in the Oval Office, W. suffered from being a wolf alpha who was not the AMOG, thanks to Cheney and Rove's overt manipulations during the Iraq and Afgan wars.  That emasculating kingmaking made W. appear as a macho tool, a useful idiot for shrewder minds to control, which undermined his AMOG status significantly.  There's a reason that GWB wasn't mentioned hardly at all during the race.  He's like a bad relationship everyone wants to forget about.

But that's my assessment.  What do y'all think?

In Praise Of The Puerarchy

As the Sexual Revolution and Dating/Marriage 2.0 social memes have begun to solidify into custom, one of the “loose ends” concerning both the feminists and the Manosphere is the issue of the Puerarchy.  You know. 

The Guys.

The Puerarchy, for those who are new to the term, is a Manosphere term-of-art used to describe the phenomenon most recently called out as “ExtendedAdolescence” (as this harsh assessment of the group by the Guardian Angels, of all people, points out): the tendency for young men to spend a decade or so getting drunk, high, laid, and wiped out from video game exhaustion and porn marathons instead of applying nose to grindstone, getting a college education that will allow them to support their future ex-wives.  It’s perplexing for feminists because it means the pool of “acceptable” men for marriage and procreation (and productive tax-paying to support the welfare state) is drying up.  It’s perplexing for conservatives in the Manosphere because the Puerarchy seems to be thumbing its nose as traditional Conservative values of hard work and ambition, and succumbing to the pleasures of the flesh and the decadence of the West they shun.

No one seems to like these guys – the Left condemns them as slacking losers who won’t grow up, and the Right condemns them as dope-smoking losers who won’t grow up.

At last, consensus!

But both sides are not giving the Puerarchy a fair shake, understanding neither their motivations nor their incentives for living the life they lead.  Neither side appreciates the valuable service that the Puerarchy provides for the rest of us men.  Indeed, “Extended Adolescence” may be just what the doctor ordered for life in the 21^st century SMP.  Too old to be a boy, to young to be a man, what’s left between 19 and 29 is to be a beer-swilling, dope-smoking, videogame playing, pump-and-dump-if-you-can-get-away-with-it Guys.

The Puerarchy is usually divided into “cads and losers”, with the majority of eligible women all competing for the relatively small pool of natural alphas – “cads” who are dipping their wick like it’s on sale at half price.  The rest of the pool – the Beta and Gamma “losers” who are running lame Game and getting laid only by chance or circumstance, are blindly competing for the 85% of women who can't manage to end up in an Alpha harem.  Those are the Puerarchy, the subversive chorus of socially-antagonistic "extended adolescents", the Lost Boys who can't or won't go fully into a mature Manhood.  The guys who made Vince Diesel and Grand Theft Auto household words.  They're the dudes who are still hitting the clubs looking to get laid when they're in their mid to late 20s, or older.  Some Guys never quite leave the Puerarchy.  They just keep going back to the clubs and running their Game on the next generation of young women.

And if they strike out . . . well, they have their buds, their bud, their Bud, and their porn to fall back on.  And for a decade or so, that’s not a bad life at all.

The Puerarchy In Context of the SMP:

If you consider how male and female SMV accrues under Dating/Marriage 2.0, then you can understand the Puerarcy a little more.  Imagine both boys and girls get “paid” in Sexual Market Currency, which they can “spend” by attracting and keeping a quality mate. 

Women get the bulk of their money in their early 20s, and then start getting cut back after age 25 or so, as their peak reproductive years wane.  By age 30, if they haven’t invested in a quality partner whom they’ve convinced to commit to them long-term, their likelihood of attracting a quality partner goes way, way down.  They have less and less capital to expend every year . . . and most young women spend their capital on the carousel like they’ve won the sexual lottery.

Men, on the other hand, start out getting paid minimum wage . . . but they get a raise every year.  When you’re an 18 year old male the only thing you usually have to offer society is your energy, physical strength, and willingness to do stupid, dangerous shit (thank you, testosterone!).  An 18 year old male without any skills or job experience is going to keep getting “minimum wage”, plus whatever small bonus he can get for his youthful energy and “cuteness”, and he’s going to have very slim pickings in his local “market”.  Women his own age are more interested in better-paid dudes a few years older, and girls younger than his age are jailbait. 

These days, if a young man does luck into a girlfriend, it’s almost always a short-term affair before he’s “traded up”.  Other than that, it’s a series of one night stands and masturbation, all the sexual access he can “afford” on his “salary”.  More than likely his actual job is also low-paying, menial, often service-oriented . . . or in this economy, non-existent.  He can parlay his paltry SMV into a kind of “masculine savings account” by joining the Army or other armed forces, or try to compete at the high-end of the professional world and enjoy being a minor functionary for a decade, but there’s little difference in the end result.  By age 29, most “extended adolescents” – Puerarchs – are little better-off, financially, than they were when they were 19.

That disgusts both feminists and conservatives because they see it as a waste – the feminists believe the young man should spend this time bettering his understanding of women and how to support them in all of his future endeavors, ideally beginning each day by bowing to his wife and chanting thrice “Sisterhood is Beautiful!”.  And the Conservatives think that the dude needs to “man up” and apply his nose to the grindstone so that he can be a productive member of society, in a conservative sort of way. 

Funny that neither side has really asked the Puerarchs what they think about all of this.

The fact is, a young man can live a pretty comfortable life for himself as a bachelor on a relatively small amount of money.  I’ve been helping a local 19 year-old get established, and it’s been illuminating learning about his start-up options and expenses.

For the bargain-basement bare-minimum housing and transportation costs, today’s 19 year old in my neck of the woods is facing monthly expenses like this:

Housing: $350

Food: $500

Transportation costs: $250

Entertainment: $50+

That’s low-end, even for this low-cost burg.  But it demonstrates that a young man can survive here on an actual wage of just under $1500 a month.  Cheaper, if he’s Spartan about it, or finds a no-cost place to stay like a girlfriend’s house or his parent’s place. 

While his SMV is stalled in Twentysomething land, he can afford to coast for a decade.  No high-quality woman is beating the bushes for a guy without “potential”, anyway, and the results of long-term relationships at this tender stage of life are pretty well known.  So he gets a laptop, a crappy car, a room to call his own and a menial job with little future in it . . . and he relaxes and enjoys himself. 

And that bugs the shit out of every woman in his life.

The difference is, this Puerarch’s best reproductive years are ahead of him, while his female equivalent, studiously taking the corporate world by storm and eschewing family and relationship in exchange for “success”, is squandering her best reproductive years away.  At 29 he will just be ready to begin his actual maturity into post-extended adolescent manhood. 

She’ll be suddenly aware of all the babies she’s not having, and hearing from her older spinster sisters how “there just aren’t any good men out there!”  By the time she’s “ready” for motherhood, she’s far past her prime reproductively, and in terms of attractiveness to her target cohort . . . she just can’t compete.

The “Man up and marry the sluts!” cry from the Christian church and other conservative voices just has no effect on the Puerarch.  The prospect of marriage sounds awful to him, colored by a tradition of divorce and neglect and the constant scorn of feminist voices.  The string of rejections he suffers through in the early years hardens him from taking anything a woman says seriously, unless she’s his boss at work.  The Puerarch’s happy fun time is a kind of post-industrial Valhalla, where a reasonably cushy day job allows him just enough resources to indulge in whatever cheap electronic form of entertainment he likes, and easy access to casual sex through Craigslist, Plenty of Fish, or other venues for desperate women give him all the milk he needs. 

And there’s always porn.

The Role Of The Puerarch

But far from shaking my head in dismay about the Puerarchs, I embrace them.  They play a vital role in the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, and if the Manosphere is smart, we’ll do our best to keep them coming back.  You see, the reason the Puerarchs are valuable is the same reason the Spartans valued the agoge.

The Spartan agoge was the essential feature in the renowned warriors’ development in the ancient world.  Designed as a means to build a perfect army of perfect warriors, the agoge was the brutal period of training and ordeals a young Spartan man undertook in order to be admitted to the glorious Spartan army.  It began before puberty, at age 7, when the boy was roughly pulled from his family and tossed into the company of his fellows in the cold, barren wilderness of Lacedamon. 

This wasn’t mere cruelty – under the belief that the raw energy and powerful hormones associated with puberty made it dangerous for the youths to be inflicted on Spartan civil society, the agoge was designed to hone and temper that youthful adventurism with a host of values akin to the Scout Oath: loyalty, bravery, trustworthiness, discipline.  And they didn’t do it with soothing words and rationally convincing arguments – they put those boys through one rigorous test of their capabilities after another, and plenty of them didn’t make it.  But the ones who did were extraordinary.  Just watch that ode to testosterone, 300, if you want to see what the result was.

While the modern Puerarchs bear only a passing resemblance to the agoge, the fact is that they are here and they have no real reason to want to change and mature.  There is little incentive to rush their happy fun time, and plenty of disincentive if they do.  And, I argue, we should not insist that they do so.  In fact, men of the 21^st century would be best served by recognizing the power of the Puerarchy and seek to use it as leverage in their own mating strategies.  Because the Puerarchy, despite all of its faults and flaws, has one extremely potent power at its disposal:

It scares the hell out of feminists.

Truly.  Just as feminists hate the Puerarchy, they also fear it.  Fear it for the potential of sexual violence it represents (then again, pretty much any group of straight men seems to evoke that fear), fear it for the prospects of “quality men” it leaves for their daughters and sisters, fear it for the creeping sensation that the feminist ideology went horribly wrong somewhere, and created this monster as a result. 

In this the feminists get it right.  In many ways the Puerarchy is the result of feminism, divorce, and single-mother families.  If a dude’s parents stayed married, then he tends to lean towards marriage eventually.  If a dude was raised by a single mom and an absent or distant dad, then he enters Extended Adolescence and stays there until he matures out of it or he is transformed into a real adult man.  He becomes a Guy, and may never, ever transform into the Wolf Alpha or Ambitious Beta that the rank-and-file of femininity seems to favor, after it gets over the Bad Boy phase.

And that’s fucking great.  Especially once you add a well-developed Game into the mixture.

Imagine, Gentlemen, an entire nation of Guys who put down the bongs and the porn just long enough to learn Game.  They don’t even have to learn it well – imperfect Game works even better for our purposes.  Because if every feminist has to contend with a sea of vacant-eyed Betas playing the Numbers Game every night, and use known feminists as Practice Approaches, then the bright-eyed corporate warrior and her vagina are only going to see one scheming “loser” after another.  They will have an even harder time finding their Dream Alpha and becoming part of his harem, and the chances they can coerce a Bull Alpha into becoming her alimony-and-support paying ex-husband decline dramatically.

The Puerarchy is valuable because it represents all of the things that feminists (and women in general) fear most: crude, unambitious boys who just want to get in your panties, pump and dump you, and then ignore your calls and pleas for equality in favor of a 30 hour WoW marathon.  Lost Boys who never want to grow up and do what a woman tells him too ever again.  Cagey players with nothing but notches on their minds and no compunctions about treating women with apalling disrespect.  With halfway decent Game the Guys can obscure the playing field, keep the distinction between clear Alphas and cagey Betas foggy, and present the worst of male alternatives in the SMP.  The more they leer and catcall, the more they make bad pick-up attempts and run weak Game, the more collective womankind shrinks away from that possibility . . . making them even more susceptible to decent Game.  The Puerarchy lowers the bar on masculinity, in the dating realm. 

So why did I draw the comparison to the Puerarchs and the agoge?  Because the ancient Spartans were a pragmatic people.  They used the ill-behaved, violent, aggressive and belligerent boys undergoing the agoge to keep their helots (state-owned slaves) in line.  When there were stirrings of trouble amongst the servants, then the Spartan elders would permit the agoge to run wild and focus the bulk of their violently energetic inclinations upon them.  Two birds.

I’m not encouraging young guys to be purposefully crude or violent, of course.  There’s no need to.  Just “be yourselves” in that particularly nasty, adolescent way that makes your mother cringe.  Delight in the rude and course, and be resistant to obvious feminine manipulations.  Understand the rules of Single Game mechanics and then work them like a half-price rental car.  You don't have to go purposefully over-the top -- there’s no need to do anything but hit on women with wild and gleeful abandon.  Nuke some hamsters, boys.  Sow your oats.  Game their pretty panties off of them however you can.  Feed them whatever line works, and then don’t call them afterward.  Don’t even give them your real name.  Just let your wild, natural urges guide you, and let the games begin.

The Puerarchy can do a valuable service to the rest of us by helping to weed out the blatantly unsuitable potential wives.  If you want to have kids, and you're a budding Wolf Alpha, then your crew can help sort the, uh, Sexually Liberated Uninhibited Tarts from the potential Mrs. Wolf like a magnet.  The Puerarchy tests a woman and demonstrates her character through the sharp, relentless grinding of hook-up culture.  If a girl rides the Puerarchy carousel long enough, it becomes pretty clear just what kind of quality wife she’s going to be.  And what kind of ex-wife.

That’s the world of the feminist utopia, the world of sexual “equality”, Combat Dating.  Women are encouraged to behave sexually like men by feminism -- an oft-touted refrain from the lips of young sexually-active feminists is "I want to be able to make the same mistakes a dude would".  But it seems to have escaped the notice of the feminists that, unlike the nasty ol' Patriarchy, men are also free to skip the commitment element of sex with little or no consequence -- that's what the Puerarchy is based upon.  Nor is it reserved for the young, dumb, and full-of-cum -- an older man may re-enter the glorious adolescence after a divorce, for instance, or during a bachelor party.  (And it's amazing what kind of credibility an older dude in your crew can generate.)  Or he may just decided, at some point, that he was a permanent bachelor.  That a stream of casual sex and high-stakes video poker is a better deal than the prospect of wife, kids, ex-wife, repeat.

Ultimately, that's what the Puerarchy represents: the freedom of a man to drop out, to take his ball(s) and go home because he doesn't like how the girls are playing.  MGTOW blogs such as Freedom 25 have advanced the idea that a young dude doesn't have any real incentive to cooperate with the gauntlet of social expectations in the West.  Tucker Max has made a career out of it.  They've expounded on the idea that "living up to his potential" is mere code for "working like a bitch for the benefit of others".  That being happy and poor is better than being stressed and rich . . . and it gives you time to work on your golf game.  MGTOW is an existential threat to feminism.  A boy who picks up his ball and goes home is Useless to a woman.  And once they get reliable temporary vasectomies, MGTOW essentially institutionalizes the Puerarchy.  A whole subculture of stubbornly single, cocky and maddeningly alluring Lost Boys, who have little or no interest in a woman beyond her vagina.  Even if they stay celibate porn whackers, the very idea of guys sitting around, playing videogames and drinking beer and not contributing to the welfare of some woman drives some feminists insane.

(And not just feminists -- I think all women are somewhat subject to it.  Here's an experiment: find a young man who doesn't have a girlfriend or wife, and examine his lifestyle.  Then mention him to nearly any woman you know, emphasizing how unaccountable and free he is, and watch her reaction.  Women in general (YMMV) have an almost pathological response to the idea of any man, particularly a young man, enjoying himself and relaxing instead of Doing Something Useful With His Life.  Which means, Doing Something For Some Woman, be it mother, wife, girlfriend, or maiden aunt.  A man who goes his own way is a permanent threat to feminine power, because he represents a man to whom she cannot reach and influence through the Matrix.  Therefore it is their first instinct to make him accessible by hooking him up to a "good woman", and then watching her take away all of that pesky freedom and unaccountability from him and replace it with a good work ethic . . . and a vagina through whom she can thereupon count to act as a surrogate for her influence.  But I digress...)

That's the beauty of the Puerarchy: it represents a viable, and quite alluring alternative to the grinding wheel of American corporate achievement.  It gives the bewildered young Betas a place to run to and hide, a safe zone where they can objectify women with impunity and indulge in madcap shennanigans without fear of judgement or shame.  The Puerarchy is the magical island of Guys, where Porky's plays 24-7 and the three Cs are Comics, Consoles and Cooze, not Communication, Commitment, and Cunnilingus.  Its a refuge for juvenile behavior.  And as a social screening-and-filtering mechanism, it's adept at discovering which girls are worth a second look, and which are just worth a ride home in the morning.

That's because the Puerarchy is where even "good guys" hang out these days.  When the alternatives are as dire as they are, a picky dude who wants to have kids someday can lurk around the edges of the Puerarchy and discover the hidden gems among the Jersey Shore rejects.  They can scope out good potential wives while their own Sexual Capital accrues, and start the vetting process in plenty of time to find an alternate, if necessary.

 Thanks to the Puerarchy: the "good men", the strong, dedicated future family men hiding among the beer bottles and bong resin and douchey drinking buddies are virtually indistinguishable  from each other . . . and when they do finally make their selection and head for the checkout, more often than not they've passed on feminists in favor of more quality fare.  And it doesn't matter how much money a girl makes or how high she is in the organization, in the world of Combat Dating, when it comes to Happily Ever After the real deal is Alpha Prince Charming NOT going with the Strong and Independent Woman in her 30s, at the crest of their career.  They're either staying in the Puerarchy and waiting for better pickings in the company of cougars, or they're finding younger or more traditionally-minded girls to eventually marry.  From the safety of Extended Adolescence, the future Mr. Right is rewarding feminists with a pass for the Brass Ring.

As a reproductive strategy, feminism is failing.

The Great Hamster is spinning on that one already, of course, insisting that freezing their eggs is going to postpone the inevitable.  Meanwhile they're encouraging their younger peers to apply their made-up noses to the grindstone and forget about dudes, without mentioning the conflict-of-interest implicit in that advice.  But then they have a much higher opinion of themselves, often, than what the market will bear.  Making the mistake that men (should) find career achievement just as enchanting and desirable as they do, they over-estimate their SMV badly and pass on what could be good opportunities -- using every manner of rationalization why "John is a good guy but . . . y'know, I just don't think he's The One."  The reward for their intransigence and short-sightedness?  Spinsterhood.

Meanwhile, it's raining soup for young girls in the Third World.  The number of American men who marry foreign brides has skyrocketed in the age of global internet dating, and men in Western Europe are likewise searching the third world.  Being a strong breadwinner just isn't cutting it in the SMP for career women these days.  Women who have been pushing for “success” since girlhood are getting it, but they aren't getting the same level of masculine respect their male peers get from their other male peers – and they never will.  And unless they make a dramatic change in lifestyle and perspective, chances are they won't get any more dates from their male peers than they'll get personal respect.  

Don’t misunderstand: I’m not arguing that women should hang up their jobs and go home to raise the kids ala the 1850s.  That’s ludicrous.  But now that feminism has “won” the right for women to “succeed” the same way as men – economically and socially – then it is clearly in the best interests of American masculinity to treat the result as they have been presented: corporate drones who happen to have vaginas.  Competitors for the same job.  Colleagues by day and combat dating veterans by night.  You can respect a woman for the work she does and still look at her promiscuous ways and Blue Pill attitudes with open disdain in the Puerarchy.   Just watch a couple of episodes of Workaholics, and consider how "unhappy" those guys look. They might be insipid, stoned, and unambitious, but apart from their ballbuster female boss and the obsequious chubby office woman -- neither one of whom are sex interests -- there's a lack of serious female influence in their lives.  And they don't mind so much.  Fiction, true, but I know literally dozens of dudes who are still there, happily pursuing their own goals while their female peers can't find any 'good men'.  

The harder and nastier the Puerarchy acts, the better and better the “quality” men look.  A strong and vibrant Puerarchy raises a good Alpha's or strong Beta's SMV considerably by comparison.  Guys who are actually ambitious, and who devote their 20s to improving that “SMV Bonus” implicit in financial or social success, will hopefully begin to understand their true worth and value to women, and begin acting accordingly in their mating selections.  By dropping the standards of acceptable behavior, the Puerarchs elevate those who actually maintain decent social standards far above their relative station and makes them that much more attractive to the relatively small pool (about 25-30%) of women actually worth considering a LTR with.

The Puerarchy should run up the price of quality SMV dudes, and we OMGs have a reciprocal duty to cultivate and mentor those quality dudes who might make good future elders and fathers.  We should protect them and their antics – from Girls Gone Wild to I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell – as much as possible in recognition of the service they provide us.  We should teach them all Game and get them temporary vasectomies and release them on the wild, unprotected herds of women.  We should endeavor to turn every Gamma loser jerk and AFC Beta into Alpha stand-ins, able to affect Alpha behavior enough to lure the opportunistic and deceitful women into view and expose them for who they are.

There really isn’t a downside.  Feminists already hate them and their disrespectful-to-women ways.  They already resent them for treating the female body like a free amusement park.  The Conservatives won’t be happy with them until they’re in Bible camp, which is unlikely.  Being more aggressive (and more successful) assholes in the dating realm isn’t going to make them hated and feared less by anyone.  Let them do their worst.  That's what they're good at, and we should not let that kind of subversive talent go to waste.  Treating women’s feelings with the same callous disregard that they use for an old game controller is second nature for these guys.  And if it leads to a reaction among their female peers that encourages them to take a good, long, post-40 look in the mirror, then that's good news for everyone.  

It’s time for men to recognize this stage of development, this evolution of a separate social-sexual class, and give it the respect and power it is due.  We need to ensure that the Puerarchy presents the most ghastly, unpalatable alternative to the sea of bumbling Betas at the mercy of hypergamous feminism available.  We need to sic shit-talking, irrationally self-confident dick-wads and asshats on collective femininity . . . and then be ready with the “boys will be boys” shrug when the feminists come screaming at us about their behavior.

If they wanted the boys under control, they shouldn’t have gotten rid of the fathers.  And yes, there's a little schadenfreude in what I write.  Reap what you sow, Ladies.  You might want your daughter to marry a sweet and caring gentleman . . . but thanks to the Puerarchy, the first 99 dudes she’ll encounter will treat her like shit as she searches for the elusive Prince Charming.  No matter how hardcore a feminist a woman is, when it comes to her love life she always wants "a gentleman" who will be her Happily Ever After -- whether she deserves it or not.  The Puerarchy helps ensure she doesn't get the gentleman she doesn't deserve.  Because you can’t just “become” a gentleman, or take your mother’s lectures about respect for women seriously when she’s clearly batshit insane on so many other topics and be a gentleman . . . no, you have to be taught how and why to be a gentleman by another gentleman by another man.

And if you don’t know why . . . then you don’t properly understand the term “gentleman”.  Women can encourage a man to be a gentleman…they can’t make him into a gentleman.  That kind of masculine transformation requires a mature male – we use the term “father”.  And there are damn few of us left, thanks to feminism.

Feminism’s ultimate goal is, of course, to “tame” these Lost Boys with just that kind of matronly lecture about respecting women.  If they shame them enough, the theory goes, and turn as many men against the poor behavior as possible, then they can get these wild Guys under control and back in trade school where they belong, ready to pick out their first ex-wives.  But that plan includes “recruiting” men of “good conscience” (Blue Pill White Knights) who the Guys are supposed to listen to when they say “Hey, that sexism ain’t cool, Bro!”. 

Thing is . . . the Puerarchy knows sexism is cool.  They know getting laid by beautiful women is cool.  They know that being obnoxious, sexists jerks might get them laid, and it might not, but those aren't bad odds and the fun just never stops.  And they're not about to respect what a gender-betraying mangina has to say about the matter, because men only listen to the opinions of men they respect . . . and it's hard to respect a knee-jerk White Knight about anything.  The Puerarchy doesn't mind shame.  They're used to it.  They're immune, thanks to getting healthy doses of it growing up.  They ignore it for the rejection it is, and they have another beer.  

Far from condemning these lads, we should be praising them for their rambunctious ways and encourage their understanding of Single Game until every sophomore Guy at a State university can talk any ball-busting future corporate drone out of her panties . . . and then screw her best friend without even calling her.  Neg every pretty Alpha-hunting woman in sight and use your obnoxious exuberance to embarrass them to the point of tears.   Nuke hamsters left and right with callous disregard of feminine emotions.  Reward feminine behavior with your respect, and non-feminine behavior with your scorn and ridicule.  When a woman tells you proudly she’s a feminist, laugh loudly, shake your head, and go talk to another girl without another word.  And if you do end up with a feminist . . . fuck her good, leave her to the walk of shame, and ignore her afterwards.

Cruel?  Sure.  But no more cruel than the feminist attack on our fathers a generation ago.  Thanks to the anti-masculinism of feminism in the 1970s and 1980s, we got a whole generation of timid, weak-willed, distant or missing dads, men who ended up shells of their masculine potential.  Now, thanks to the Puerarchy that resulted, we might have a generation of sexually frustrated, jaded and angry feminist daughters whose chances of marriage and reproduction are, frankly, as good as the chance I had in High School to ask the Homecoming Queen to prom.  We’ll have a generation of corporate drones with vaginas and baby-rabies who have been sold the horrible bill of goods that men are things to be used and traded up, that their looks will last forever (and shouldn’t matter to boys anyway), and that their financial and corporate success should make them more attractive mates (quite the contrary).

And while the Puerarchs are doing awful, awful Tucker Max impersonations and screaming “show us your tits!” at feminist consciousness-raising seminars, we OMGs just need to shake our heads, put our hands in our pockets, and observe with undisguised pleasure the subversive antics of the Puerarchy.  We didn’t make this happen – feminism did.  We aren’t responsible for the Puerarchy, they are.  And there’s no need for us to feel guilty or responsible for the poor behavior of the Puerarchs toward women . . . we should feel a kind of perverse pride.  Because half of those dudes will pull it out by the time their 30 and become decent family men and gentlemen. 

The other half . . . they’re our agoge, our Lost Boys, our wild youths who keep the women scared, insecure, and ready to seek the protection of real Men.  We are silent partners with them in this emerging world of marriage and dating, and by supporting each other tacitly and working in tandem against the other side, we can help influence the SMP far more than we could merely learning Game individually, after the time which it would have done us the most good is long past. 

If the Puerarchy is the alternative to the Patriarchy, then don’t shy away from our younger brothers and sons who are enjoying their youth and freedom, Gentlemen, support them. 

Give the feminists the Puerarchy they created with their ideology . . . good and hard.

The Great Hamster Manifesto: "It's A Trap!"

I'm taking a quick break from the Masculine Powers series -- don't worry, the next installment is in the pipe. But I wanted to take an intermission.

I never tire of Jezebel’s take on dating and sex – it’s quaint and entertaining.  Today there was quite the rant from regular contributor Lindy West, presented as a “dating manifesto”. 

Allow me, on behalf of the Manosphere, to respectfully rebut.

Ms. West is saying, basically, “Girls, quit torturing yourself to make yourself pretty because all men want to do is fuck you, and if you capitulate to their stupid whims about being fuckable then you’ll miss out on the chance to find a “real” guy (as opposed to all of the manufactured copies, apparently) who likes you for you and doesn’t want to fuck you unless you want him to fuck you first.  Oh, and he’ll spend all of his money on you and let you get fat and not mind one bit.”

Anyone see the error in logic in this idea?  Let’s break it down, shall we?

First, let’s look at her basic premise, from the article:

“No matter what or who we (hetero) women are, we are always too something for men. Isn't that just fucked? Because to be "too" something implies that there's a something else out there to aim for.”

Well, yeah.  When your gender is part of a polarized dyad requiring social interaction as a prelude to reproduction, then your ability to mate (“have an emotionally fulfilling long-term relationship” in feminist-speak) is by definition dependent upon the desires of the other gender, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter.  If it wasn't  then all of those overweight male Omegas in their mom’s basements would be getting laid as much as the studly Alphas, on the strength of their great personalities alone.  

But the cruel fact is that women’s desires don’t run to the miserable and unsuccessful tub of lard, sadly.  So it should be fairly obvious that yes, men have a say in just what they find attractive in (hetero) women.  And if women are frustrated with the idea that they are always “too something” for men, then let’s examine just why that might be.

When feminism stormed the barricades in the 1960s and helped push through liberalized divorce laws, it was reacting in part to the fact that since WWII women have been able to support themselves without dependence on men.  Thanks to industrialization and urbanization there was no need for the old Agricultural Age division of labor anymore.  Women could make their own money, thank you, and they didn’t need to marry to sustain themselves.  In addition, they got almost complete control over their reproductive systems, allowing them to indulge in sex without the consequence of accidental pregnancy.  Those two factors were empowering enough in the minds of feminists to re-write the traditional marriage contract – upon which dating and courtship behavior were based.

Fair enough.  You ladies can marry whom you chose, divorce them when you get tired of them, and don’t have to worry about whether or not he can support you, because you can support yourselves.  You’ve struck a blow for feminine liberty and independence, allowing you to pursue happiness and a bulging 401k just like any man.  You can push aside the cold calculations about how much a prospective mate might earn or how successful he is in favor of finding that perfect emotional connection that blossoms into pure, blissful romance, complete with True Love and Happily Ever After (neither of which, if I recall correctly, are mentioned in many feminists manifestos).  Good for you.

However, by forging ahead with this revolutionary plan feminism failed to take a few important factors into account.  Firstly, it missed the fact that men have brains and feelings and emotions and desires and drives too, and that those are FAR DIFFERENT from the drives, emotions and desires of women, at least in terms of priority and intensity.  Feminism indulged in classic psychological projection when it inferred to two generations of Americans that if women would just do what they wanted to, men would just naturally accept it, regardless of how it affected them or whether or not it was in their best interest, and then fall meekly behind women by being  supportive and loving, until it was time for their wives to divorce them and trade up.

Indeed, West even points out that

“Fundamentally, men are attracted to the exact same thing in women as women are in men: Confidence. Self-assuredness. Agency. Knowing who you are.”

And that’s true as far as it goes – but it doesn’t go very far.  West projects what women like in men on what men like in women, and she gets it maybe 30% correct.  Because men do like confidence and self-assuredness . . . but they like femininity more.  Sexualized femininity.  We always have, and we always will.  

Further, as so many 30-something spinsters are starting to discover, much to their terror, men are not turned on or attracted to your resume, your earning potential, your romance novel addiction, your devotion to Glee, or the cute names you gave your cats.  All of those things that West says a woman should cultivate instead of beauty and attractiveness, those things that make her a “real” woman?  Here’s a newsflash: they aren’t inherently attractive.

Now for some women who really could care less if they ever have a boyfriend for longer than two months, that’s no big deal.  They have developed themselves into fully realized people, with no more need for a man than a fish for a bicycle.  They have self-selected out of the mating pool, the dating pool, and the gene pool, and for all practical social considerations they are no more or less the equivalent of gender-light drones with a predilection for non-fat yogurt (because they like the taste).  

These lucky women have eschewed the evil patriarchy’s plans to sexually subvert feminism by wisely keeping their legs closed, their cats well-fed, and their dreams of love safely buried.  I have the utmost respect for these women – they are taking West’s advice and are bagging True Love and Happily Ever After for a slow, secure, lonely decline into dotage.  These are the women who have truly arrived in the Feminist Utopia, the women who, as West advises, “have to quit defining ourselves solely in relation to dudes.”  Congrats, ladies: you’ve arrived!

But for a few other women, who can’t quite seem to get rid of the idea that an intimate relationship with a man might be a good thing, y’all are screwed.  Because if you keep following advice like West’s, then you’ll become the lady described above by default.

Let’s keep reviewing where she’s going with this:

“Any man who is a person wants to be with a woman who is a person.”

While I can’t help but feel a little thrill that West is willing to concede that men can actually be persons, as opposed to, y’know, just MEN, this is an utterly simplistic and singularly unhelpful piece of advice.  Yes, men do want to connect with women on an intimate, emotional level (which we also understand is a Big Deal to women, in aggregate).  But before we feel comfortable doing that, we want to know if they’re going to be able to fulfill our sexual desires, because just as a deep emotional connection is a primary Big Deal to women, an entertaining sexual connection is a Big Deal to men.

What?  You didn’t realize that?

Really, ladies, sex is a major priority for a dude, and if there’s no chance of sex or sexual attraction, it doesn’t matter what you name your cats or who you think is going to get knocked out of Dancing With The Stars next week, you've already missed the cut.  Does that sound harsh?  Oppressive?  Sexist?  Chauvinistic?  So sorry.  Now you know what if feels like when a dude hears “so what do you do for a living?” knowing that if he doesn’t wave his metaphorical tits around and they aren’t big enough, he’s missed the cut.  Women, as feminists who look at romance, sex and love often tell us, have standards.  Standards that shouldn’t be lowered, out of respect for themselves and their self-esteem.

But y’all really don’t like it when you find out that Men have standards, too, and that some of y’all really just don’t measure up to them.  Oh, some of you do – at first – and a very few of you are doing outstandingly, but the rank-and-file office drones who felt a career was more important than babies, y’all are working at a severe handicap to begin with.  You have placed yourselves in the “strong, independent woman” category and then wonder why no one emails you back on Match.com.  Because feminism told you that men liked strong, independent women, and if a man didn’t, then he wasn’t worth loving.

Only it didn’t work out like that, did it?

This is the brutal fact of feminism, ladies: it lied to you.  It has become the Great Rationalization Hamster, handing you darn good reasons for why you are so miserable, and guess what?  Feminism says it isn’t your fault!  That's what West's piece says.  It's not your fault.  It's teh Mens.

Sure, men will lie to you about how hot we think you are, how interested we are in what goes on at work, and whether or not we’d ever leave you if you got fat and bitchy, but we rarely lie to you about anything important.  We’re quite clear about what we like – it’s no mystery.  But feminism lied to you about what we would do when you went and altered the balance of power in the dating realm.  Feminism thought it had a lock on what men really wanted without, apparently, consulting any actual Men about the issue.

Look at what kind of man West says is going to find you:

“Attraction isn't intellectual, it's involuntary—and if men really only wanted to squirt their penises inside of silent supermodels, then regular people would be extinct. But look to your left. Look to your right. Regular people in the house!”

That is, “there are gullible Beta dudes all over the place willing to lower their standards for a chance to sleep with you and fake the Happily Ever After thing!”  Only West can’t quite bring herself to say that, because then she would have to acknowledge the reality of the situation, that the “regular people” who just happened to be male who these “regular people” who just happened to be female want to mate with are fed the fuck up with what the regular female people have put them through for the last few decades.  I mean, if men were happy with the way the feminist male-female paradigm was working, then there wouldn't be a need for the Manosphere.  

Yet here we are.

And West can’t resist taking yet more misguided potshots at teh Mens – after calling us liars, she decides to soothe our hurt feelings by emasculating us if we don’t capitulate to feminist whims about who we should want to fuck.

“…because confidence is also the opposite of helplessness, and a lot of men (insecure men) need women to be helpless, because helpless people aren't in charge. And people in charge want to stay in charge. And the people in charge are men. (To be clear, I'm talking in broad, sloppy, systemic generalities here—not saying your dad is secretly trafficking lady-slaves from Belarus or something. You know what I mean.)”

Gosh, that’s noble of you, Ms. West.  So teh Mens are insecure and need women to be helpless, right?  Because we want to re-establish the patriarchy and get y’all barefoot and pregnant again?  Because we can’t handle strong, independent women and we’re afraid of them?

In reality . . . not so much.  

The real fact is, Ladies, that women’s sexuality in aggregate (and I hate to use broad, sloppy, systemic generalities here, but…) is designed by Nature or evolution or God or whatever to be reactive or responsive in nature.  Women tend to have responsive desire, most of the time.  Men have spontaneous desire most of the time.  No, really.  This feminist sexologist says so.  And while she qualifies her theories by making all of her statements gender-neutral (“some people have responsive desire, some people have spontaneous desire”) the plain fact of the matter is that most women have a responsive desire as the basis of their sexuality, while men have spontaneous desire.

And the problem with that is that it challenges the whole ideological basis of feminist theory when it comes to sex and gender relations.  Women, feminism says, are naturally sexual creatures who have every right to enjoy their sexuality to the fullest extant possible, and rightly so.  But it also assumes that male and female sexual desires are (pardon the expression) equal in composition and expression, and that’s very much pre-WWII scientific thinking.  Feminism has assumed that men want the same things out of our sexual and romantic lives as women, and anything beyond that is blatant, oppressive Patriarchy, not the healthy exercise of (whisper it)  masculine sexuality.  Feminism says that men and women should approach each other sexually on a level, equal playing ground.  The problem is, that equal playing ground is a myth, it doesn’t exist, and it can never exist while we remain slaves to our own biology.

It wouldn’t be the first time a powerful 20^th century ideology fell when its fundamentals were challenged by the reality of the world, or else we’d be living in a Marxist Worker’s Paradise by now, Comrade.  Feminism wants to cling to the beautiful humanistic ideal of all people being equal, which is great when it comes to the law and civic responsibility and such, but when feminism further says that women’s issues are more important and of greater weight than men’s (and there is no place where this is more pronounced than on the subject of dating, sex and romance) then it has lost any intellectual credibility it may have had.  When feminism uses its ideology to validate the idea of the eternal feminine victim and the eternal masculine oppressor without acknowledging the underlying differences in male and female sexuality which may underpin these memes, then feminism goes from being a noble attempt at humanistic equality to a gynocentric ideology dedicated to promoting the exclusive interests of women, regardless of the consequences.

If West’s bitter cry against teh Mens and their nasty penises seems filled with irony, that’s because it is.  The current perspectives of men in the dating world were informed first and foremost by feminism.  It’s the environment in which we grew up, the standard by which our entire lives were judged.  If it’s painful that men in aggregate are now recoiling in horror from everything associated with feminism, then you can assume it’s because we feel deeply wounded by it.  After all, feminism has done very, very little for the lives of men (outside of hypergamous divorce and bitter custody battles, the systematic denigration of masculinity and fatherhood, and the overt war on men and male sexuality...but the easy pussy is nice).  But it has affected us, in a very negative way, and y’all are just going to have to take that into account in your Happily Ever After calculations.

West continues,

“because attraction is involuntary, admitting genuine attraction to the people we're really attracted to relinquishes a huge amount of power. It's terrifying. And when the people you're so terrifyingly attracted to don't even give a shit about you? QUICK, TELL THEM THEIR CALVES ARE TOO HEAVY.”

Of course that goes for dudes, too – if an Omega or a brave Beta screws up the courage to ask an attractive woman out and gets scorned, it really is terrifying.  Soul-crushing, even.   Suicides and lone-gunman tragedies have sprung from the font of such rejection.  So the perfectly normal, natural, and appropriate response for men in that situation is to distance themselves from the source of the wound and objectify the person who wounded them so badly.  

Sorry if that makes us seem “insecure” in your eyes, but as West pointed out attraction is involuntary.   We dudes like hot women, pretty much universally.  When we get rejected by them, then pointing out their physical flaws is the moral equivalent of a woman telling a girlfriend “he looks like an axe murderer, anyway” after being snubbed by a dude.  

And which would you prefer to be referred to as, “thick calves” or “axe murderer”?

Since West can’t realistically argue in favor of women lowering their personal standards, she goes the other direction and discredits the idea that physical attraction really matters to dudes:

“All the faux-evolutionary excuses people give for modern beauty ideals (gigantic boobs means more milk for cave-babies! A tiny waist means a bigger uterus!) are garbage.”

That’s it.  Garbage.  Evolutionary biology, the incredible amount of work that has been done by biological anthropologists and sociologists, anatomists and sexual psychologists, all that grant money and books and  brilliant ideas about how men and women got to be men and women . . . garbage.  The evidence she cites?

Third-wave feminist Naomi Wolf’s book The Beauty Myth, the premise of which is “that "beauty" as a normative value is entirely socially constructed, and that the patriarchy determines the content of that construction with the goal of reproducing its own hegemony.”

See?  That evil ol’ patriarchy, at it again.  Teh Mens. 

The problem with this theory is that ignores something fundamental to the “beauty myth”: the role of the Female Social Matrix in the construction of this “myth” that dudes are attracted to attractive women.  Even those lucky ladies who have checked out of the dating game still dress up and wear make-up and do all of those other things that they complain are supposed to attract men even though they aren’t trying to attract men.  They do it out of a sense of social pressure, not from their male colleagues but from the intense pressure of the Female Social Matrix. 

The Third Wave feminist argument is that the only reason women have to do that is because they are, indeed, still fighting the patriarchy’s powerful hegemony.  But the cold, obvious, and plainly observable fact is that after forty years of heavy female involvement in the workforce, including their ascension into management roles in business and power politics, if women wanted to change the dominant female culture away from catering to the Female Social Matrix, they would have already.  Just like if trickle-down, supply-side, low-government involvement policies made everyone rich and prosperous, then the Bush II years should have been the greatest economic expansion in American history.  

Only . . . not so much.

Feminism doesn’t want to acknowledge the power of the Female Social Matrix because then they would have to take responsibility for it, and that betrays the essential foundation of feminism: “It’s not our fault!” and they can’t have that.  Instead they rationalize the powerful pressure that women put on each other as a result of the evil patriarchy, and that excuses pretty much anything without all of that pesky accountability. Go Great Hamster, Go!

This is where Game comes in.  Those who have taken the Red Pill recognize immediately Ms. Wolf’s hamhanded attempt to summarize natural female attraction to men:

“Here is what I will cop to in terms of our primordial human standards of beauty. To bag an early-man, you probably needed:

1.       Most of your limbs.
2.      Minimal open sores.
3.      A baseline level of health and robustness to be able to care for a child and/or defend it from lions.”

Talk about high standards . . . basically she’s saying “if you’re alive and have a functional vagina, you’re gonna be a catch to the primitive mens!”  All ideas of beauty and attractiveness follow from that basic premise, apparently. And if that’s the basic assumption that feminists are using in trying to date, I suppose that it’s no wonder that they’re railing against the unfairness of it all.  Aren’t dudes supposed to think you’re hawt just because you got ladyparts?  Regardless of whatever else they're attached to?  What the fuck is THEIR problem? 

And then West goes here:

“We, as women, go our whole lives believing this lie that all we have to do is to stop being too fat and too flat-chested and too bitchy and too uptight, and then the perfect dude will finally love us forever.”

Well, at least she gets that part right.  That IS the lie.  Because the Perfect Dude’s standards are going to be much higher than “skinny, boobs, laid-back and polite” (although that isn’t a bad place to start).  As any serious student of Game will tell you, the actual standards the Perfect Dude uses to decide if you made the cut for the “love me forever (until I get bored and divorce his ass)" category are far, far higher than women, particularly feminist women with delusions of allure, ever want to admit.   (Hint: they rarely include "feminist activist" in the criteria--ever known a feminist to celebrate twenty-five happy years of marriage?)  And this is where West finally decides to at least mention the Female Social Matrix that is the real evil she’s railing against:

“But chasing that stupid phantom doesn't make us necessary—it makes us disposable. It makes us powerless. Because we're not people anymore, we're holes. Miserable, back-stabbing holes.”

That’s right, ladies.  That’s the Ugly Secret.  That's the gift of the feminist utopia: once feminism and industrialization gave you a means to support yourself independently - thus removing the requirement of a husband for procreation and support while simultaneously turning potential suitors into mere professional business competitors - once your willingness to make “a permanent commitment” turned into serial monogamy fueled by hypergamous divorce, once you had total control over your reproductive freedom, while empowering you to become centers of power and influence in society in general, feminism placed you in a position where your only real value to men anymore as a woman was your sexuality.   

You want the Happily Ever After and the True Love, and boo-hoo when you can't find it on your doorstep, but the sad fact of the matter is y’all killed that, not us.  When you made yourselves independent worker drones competing for the same income as we, with no desire to form a lasting, working interpersonal partnership, you pretty much made your vaginas the only reason to engage you in any conversation beyond office gossip. 

 West’s suggestion – that you give up on the idea of love and a commitment with a quality man in favor of self-indulgence and a fear of “settling” – is a noble one.  Of course your feminist sisters want you to do that, because within the frame (and according to the rules) of the Female Social Matrix, if they can convince you to do that, they have therefore decreased competition for the few decent males out there... and all in the name of Sisterhood.

Red Pill folks know exactly what’s going on here, of course: it’s the same female-sabotage used so often within the Female Social Matrix, like when a girlfriend helpfully suggests that cutting all of your hair off will make you “cute”, or that you should dump your boyfriend because he isn’t good enough for you (but two months later he’s suddenly good enough for her).  It is the Female Social Matrix, not the evil patriarchy, that makes them “disposable”, “powerless”, “miserable, back-stabbing holes.” 

West quickly compounds her misdirection with this:

“There's this dumb, deathless stereotype that women only chase men who don't need them—but, um, that's because everyone wants someone who doesn't need them.”

Again, Ladies, recognize the Great Rationalization Hamster in your feminist sisters.  She’s trying to get you to rationalize away your desire for the Perfect Dude by telling you that if you pursue the Perfect Dude, you’re just hurting yourself and all womankind.  She’s trying to tell you that you and your peers aren’t really trying to get the hunky billionaire with the kinky BDSM silver tie fetish, you just want a nice Beta dude who will dote on you and not mind how fat you get. 

Only it’s not a “dumb, deathless stereotype”, it’s an easily observable fact that we’ve all seen over and over again.  It's been a staple of the human condition going back into prehistory, from what our myths indicate.  But she's not quite right: it's mostly women who want someone who doesn't need them.  Men need to be needed.  It enhances their masculinity.  If you don't need a man . . . you probably won't get one.

THAT'S what West is not telling you (because she either doesn’t know, doesn’t want to believe it, or doesn’t want her readers to know): most men really do want a woman who needs them, without being needy.  

Important distinction.

Men don’t want “helpless”, despite West’s hyperbole.  Helpless sucks.  Helpless equals "high maintenance".  Helpless might be attractive for its vulnerability (to which we are, indeed, attracted) but if that "helplessness" is sustained over time then we know we're going to spend our relationship wiping your ass for you, and we certainly don't want that.  "Helpless" means "flaky", and to the 21st Century man, Ladies, "flaky" is the new "fat".

There is a whole continuum between helpless and hyper-competent, and as men we both expect and understand that you probably fall somewhere between those two extremes.  We don't want you "helpless" so that we can rule your every thought and action -- and West does a disservice to you by putting it in those terms.  We want you to need us, or we don't see much point in a relationship.  That's different from wanting you helpless.  Feminism has always done that, encouraging you to develop the skills you need so you don't need a man.  Competence brings independence, and the more competent you are, the more independence you enjoy.  

But if you’re so damn competent and independent, why the hell do you need a man?  Entertainment?  “Emotional support?”  Combat dating fodder?  To use the status of having a relationship to improve your position in the Matrix?  Sex?  Just to get your mother off your back? Be honest, now.

Because that’s what all those guys who have been rejecting you have been thinking, and frankly those reasons are all in all an insufficient basis upon which to base a lasting partnership (although we're still interested in the sex, if it's decent).  Feminism tells you that men are (or should be) attracted to competent, independent women, and that by demonstrating your competence and your independence you are demonstrating your value as a mate to that man.  

However, once again feminism has failed to take teh Mens into account.  

Because we don’t see a sharp resume, owning your own condo, and making partner by 35 as droolworthy or even particularly attractive.  On the contrary, when we’re thinking “who do I want to spend the rest of my life with?” our highest priorities are not financial security – that’s y’all’s bugaboo, not ours.  Nor is it your pleasing personality and agreeable disposition, although that is a factor.  West mistakes a male desire for an agreeable, exciting and respectful woman who genuinely needs him for a desire for “helplessness” – and the plain fact of the matter is that MOST men cannot STAND a helpless woman. 

But if you don’t need us, that's a problem because . . . well, men need to be needed.  We're not in a relationship to be an accessory or a side-kick.  If you’re that independent we know that you’ll make a great co-worker, but a lousy girlfriend or wife -- we know that up front, thanks to forty years of observational data.  That’s the current conventional male wisdom.  You might even be a decent lay, but if we try to make it permanent, what compelling reason outside of children and our ability to entertain you is there for us to marry you?  Or make any commitment, really?  

Men are not accessories, Ladies, and after forty years of treating us as such, we’ve figured out that the less you need us, the more likely we are to find ourselves on the wrong end of a divorce suit.    We’d rather just keep hooking up with random desperate chicks for casual sex than risk that, thankyouverymuch.  

I’m guessing West doesn’t explore this idea too carefully because it would derail the Great Hamster of feminism.  If she admits that teh Mens have a role in this equation that feminism cannot control, then she has to start examining why, and then the whole house of cards that is the intellectual underpinnings for feminist ideology would have to be examined.   If the Creationists have taught us anything it's that when ideology collides with Reality, Reality is rarely the damaged party.  

So West just ignores the fact that maybe men should get a say in the whole thing, and snorts in disgust at both teh Mens’ awful insistence on having their own standards and her fellow feminist sisters’ willingness to sacrifice their personhood for the chance of not dying alone, childless, and unloved. 

What West is doing in the post is no less than advocating a perpetual Betahood among both men and women, one in which actual sexual competition disappears under the bland promise of the contentment serial monogamy is supposed to grant.  And while she disguises it as a rallying cry around a “dating manifesto”, it’s really not all that hard to see what she’s doing from a Red Pill perspective.

She wants her fellow women to essentially "let themselves go" and quit trying so hard, because if they do just relax and “be themselves”, then Mr. Perfect Dude will see the “real” woman under the make-up and stylish-but-affordable fashions and fall madly in love with her despite her lack of . . . well, anything that actually makes her attractive to him. 

Here's what feminism tells these poor ladies:  

Feminism says that he’ll love her just for HER, just like in the romance novels; that all of her flakiness and idle whims and shit tests and unreasonable demands will be considered adorable little idiosyncrasies by this mythical Perfect Dude, not the male-repellent they actually are.  

Feminism says that he’ll love her and want to marry her and he’ll be happy to clean house and do laundry and heck, he’d even have the babies for her, if he could.  He’ll love her AS A PERSON first, and as a woman second, and as long as he does the former it won’t really matter that the latter is highly dependent on a number of factors.  

He won't want to have sex with her unless she wants to have sex first and has her ass properly kissed to her heart's content.  Feminism says he will stay faithful to her (despite the fact that it has never been easier for a man to cheat or have more compelling reasons to do so) purely out of respect for her as a person, and that if she cheats then it was probably his fault, too.  

Feminism says that because he’s a (Beta) PEOPLE that he should and will love her because she’s a PEOPLE.  And PEOPLE, you see, just naturally love each other without any conditions, preconceptions, logic or reason, says feminism with no rational basis for drawing that conclusion.  

Feminism says that men will love you when you boss them around, get fat, and systematically emasculate them.   That makes sense, doesn't it?  

Suspicious yet?

And this is the kicker: Why should you ignore the reality of the Sexual Market Place, ladies, and wait for Mr. Perfect Dude to fall in your increasingly shrinking lap?  Here’s what Ms. West suggests:

“Do what you want and you'll get what you want. Giving up on other people's expectations isn't settling—it's demanding what you fucking deserve.”

That's why, ladies.  Because you deserve it.  You are entitled to Mr. Perfect Dude.  Prince Charming.  Billionaire Vampire BDSM Necktie Fetishist.  Not because you have meticulously worked on your presentation and actually given a fucking thought to the fact that teh Mens, despite our evil natures, cruelty and lack of intelligence (according to feminists) are the ones who decide who gets married or committed in a long-term relationship.  You just deserve it because, by Goddess, you have a vagina and you ALL women deserve Prince Charming on that basis alone.  You can just let yourself go, phone it in, and the dudes will be panting at your door for the merest glimpse of your alluring mediocrity.  All you have to do is Follow Your Heart.

Thus sayeth feminism.  

And if Mr. Perfect Dude doesn’t land in your lap because you’re doing what you want, instead of what will attract a decent man, then it’s not your fault!  It’s his fault!  It’s the Patriarchy’s fault!  It’s society’s fault!  ANYBODY but you!

Spin, Great Hamster, spin.  Responsibility and accountability are something teh evil Mens thought up, after all.  They don't apply to empowered feminist women.

Ms. West’s appeal to inherent female entitlement is a ruse, at best, Ladies.  It would be like someone coming along and telling a fat Omega dude who lives in his mother’s basement that if he just keeps “being himself” then eventually some hot pornstar is going to throw herself at him.  Or the lead girl in the pack telling you that you shouldn’t try so hard because you do deserve the Prince Charming you’re attracted to . . . and then poaches the very dude you were interested in (partially because you liked him first).   

Oh.  I'm sure that sort of thing has never happened to you, has it?

Feminism publicly loathes the idea of sexual competition among women and usually casts it as mere catering to the whims of teh Mens evil patriarchy.  It has promoted the ideal of sexual freedom to break the old hidebound traditions of marriage, dating, and sex to fit the new economic reality, yet has rarely had the metaphorical balls to examine the consequences of the revolutionary ideas in the lives of the women it purports to liberate.  It puts all problematic issues of sex and love and dating firmly at the feet of men, because it doesn't want to acknowledge the power of the Female Social Matrix it is trying to hide, or its fundamental role in human social interaction and mating.  Nor does it want to acknowledge the role that men play in pursuit, courtship, and mating.

When confronted with the reality of the new paradigm, where independent workers who just happen to have boy or girl parts spin around in a cycle of hypergamy and serial monogamy, what does feminism have to offer for the sexual reality it has itself created?  It casts the brutal reality of the current Sexual Market Place as a male plot to enslave women, and encourages desperate women to raise their mating standards and blob out because they will have True Love and Happily Ever After just because they deserve it. 

  Feminism, as it has evolved, has become in part the means by which the dominant figures within the greater Female Social Matrix can persuade and bullyrag their competition out of the market.  It pretends instead that all women are created equal when it comes to how men are equally attracted to them, in an attempt to influence the standards of the Matrix within the SMP, and then viciously uses the ideals of dignity and independence to talk the more gullible nodes of the Matrix (that would be you, young, idealistic fourth-wave feminists) out of the competition or into an indignant inaction which freezes their power within it. 

See, if single women can be convinced, in the name of sisterhood and solidarity, to raise their standards and lower their presentations, then the theory goes – mistakenly – that the combined action of many women in concert will somehow affect the entire SMP, wholesale.  That is, if men only have women with low appearance and high standards to choose from, then they will have to forget about things like boob size and hotness and how quickly they think they will be able to get you in bed and they will have to get to know the real you before you permit them access to your heart and your ladyparts.  That’s the plan.  

The leaders of the Female Social Matrix know that controlling access to sex by setting the sexual standards is the cornerstone of their power within the Matrix.  Women control access to sex.

In the past, that’s been a big deal.  During the Agricultural Age, when you had only a few dozen girls in the village to compete with for the best possible fathers for your children, holding control of the sexual standards allowed those at the top of the Female Social Matrix to control who married whom, ensuring their dominance and perpetuating their power within the Matrix and within the greater society.  If they were particularly adept at such social manipulations, they controlled not just the women in the village, but the men as well, all through maintaining discipline about sexual standards.  Only one “loose woman” providing an alternative sexual outlet in the village could destroy their power, so slut-shaming and adultery laws helped enforce that power.  

The Matrix has always tried to control the SMP.  Its leaders would use any means, from the classiest idea of “proper society” to blatant social ostracization to the threat of disease to the judgement of religion, as social leverage to keep the rest of the Matrix in line.  And they would not hesitate to use their influence over the men in their lives to enforce the sexual standard, even if it meant destroying one of their sister nodes in the Matrix, if it meant enforcing sexual discipline.  Just ask Hester Prynn about sisterhood.  

The Sexual Revolution emphasized women’s control of sex – with birth control and liberal marriage laws, the hypergamous impulse could run wild and generally free of lasting consequence (miserable broken-hearted men and the children of divorce don't count).  Women control access to sex, and throughout the 1970s and 1980s men pretty much just dealt with that fact, kept his mouth shut, did the best he could and hoped their next wife would work out better than their last one.  The Matrix was in control in a big way.

But then porn came along in a big way and threatened the Matrix’s control of sex.  So feminism was able to get behind anti-porn voices like Dworkin and McKinnon, even if it meant allying with Falwell and the Religious Right.  And it almost worked, back in the Reagan/Bush I Years.  

But just when they thought they had sex under control again, internet porn was suddenly everywhere, Bill Clinton was getting blowjobs from chubby interns in the Oval Office, and dudes just weren't paying attention to them anymore.  Just when they started realizing that maybe dudes really did like watching Girls Gone Wild more than thoughtful, sensitive rom-coms, the other internet shoe dropped.  

Dating sites.  

Craig’s List.  

Internet Escorts.

Doom.

You see, the real reason why West and her spiritual siblings are freaking the fuck out right now is that the Matrix is losing control of sex again . .  only this time it’s likely to be permanent.  When the SMP is limited to the dudes and dames in your town, and you have only a few dozen realistic competitors, a woman has a decent opportunity to compete within the limited confines of the Matrix for a chance at a decent mate.  But when the competition pool includes every single woman on the planet who can get an email account, and the number who will do anything in the name of competition is embarrassingly high, the Female Social Matrix is in trouble. 

Think about it.  There’s a reason that the median age for marriage is going up, and why a growing number of men have elected to either eschew marriage and commitment all-together, or have decided to pursue a bride from another culture instead of “settling” on what the American SMP has to offer.  Entitled American feminist career women with both an active disdain of and an undeniable attraction to raw masculinity?  MMMM!  Gimme more of that? 

Sorry, Ladies.  They're just too much work.  All of that “play hard-to-get” advice you’re getting?  What the FSM doesn’t want you to realize is that when presented with a mating situation dudes will take the path of least resistance nine times out of ten.  And that tenth case usually means the chick in question is extraordinary in some way that appeals to that particular dude.  That is not going to change.  The feminists in the FSM know this.  In case you hadn't clued in to this yet, “playing hard-to-get” is what the popular chicks tell the Beta chicks to do to keep them in line and under control.

Whether you view Ms. West as a cynical leader of the Female Social Matrix who is using an appeal to feminism and solidarity as leverage against her competitors in the dating market, or if she earnestly believes that women will be happier if they raise their standards, let themselves go, and give up on love in the name of female empowerment, either way is a Blue Pill perspective on the universe.  Swallow that thing, if you must, if you dare, if you think it will make you feel better over the next several decades of lonely nights.  It’s your choice to do so – and feminism has fought for you to have that right.

Or you can shatter your illusions and hold up the ideals feminism wishes you to believe in against the reality of the Sexual Market Place and see which one promises a clearer road to happiness.  That’s the Red Pill perspective.  Just as Ms. West is warning you (and rightly so) that teh Mens lie, understand that – whether she realizes it or not – feminism is lying to you, too.  Feminism is trying to rationalize you out of competing for high-quality men.  It’s trying to distract you from the fact that, while Women control Sex, teh Mens control Commitment. 

You can decide whether or not you want to have sex with us, but only we get to decide whether or not to keep you in our lives longer than a weekend.  You get to determine whether or not we get access to your ladyparts, and I utterly respect your right to do so.  But we decide whether or not to invest in a ring for your finger, your big party, your dream house together, wedded bliss, a kid, a dog, or other symbol of commitment, and frankly we’re starting to realize we need to raise our standards after what we've seen.

And here's the fun part that's driving West and her sisterhood nuts: we can – the competition for decent dudes is steep, and the competition for The Perfect Dude is staggering.  And we know it.  We've seen what happens when a handsome, single, affluent man gets tossed into an environment full of single women with "baby rabies" -- it could be a hardcore feminist rally with fifty percent of the women being lesbians, and you'd still see them fall all over themselves for his attention and approval.  Y'all know it too -- but feminism's only expectation is that it's the patriarchy's fault, and you should just ignore it and let things happen naturally (which is feminist subtext for "back the fuck off, sister, he's MINE!").  

Only it’s just not every girl in the office you're competing with, anymore, it’s every girl (and maybe a couple of dudes, you never know) on the freakin’ Internet, thanks to feminism.   

That includes women in countries where marrying an American man, any American man, say Bob, that schlub from IT you thought about because he was nice but maybe he was a little too nice, and you can always come back to him if things don’t work out with Dave—yeah, THAT dude can be married to a 20 year old Asian girl who is willing to endure just about anything for a shot at the American Dream (and if that includes fucking a pasty-fleshed Beta IT guy rotten and keeping his nice house clean while raising his kids in suburbia, gosh, that might not be too much of a sacrifice for her).  And Bob can arrange that within two months, if he has the cash and the willingness to do so.  In two months, you might decide to hit him up again on Facebook after Dave stops returning your calls and you recover from the ice cream binge -- and discover Bob is on his honeymoon in Maui with Ling Su and don't they just look so happy together?

Or perhaps there’s a poor Central American girl who is tired of working her ass off at a dark and dangerous sweat-shop twelve hours a day making stylish-yet-affordable fashions for norteamericanas to brag about getting on sale, failing to dodge non-consensual sex with her managers, and enduring a bleak future of abject poverty who might just decide that having a family with a decently-employed American man who respects her traditional values might be better than one more week of industrial-powered feminist empowerment?  And all she has to do is put out, work part-time and keep house in the most advanced technical culture on the planet?  

Nah, it would never happen.  Not your Latina sisters.

(Oh God, what if she’s really HOT, too?)

And that’s not even counting your younger, and somewhat-wiser contemporaries who are hearing their bosses and big sisters FREAK THE FUCK OUT about their biological clocks and the conspicuous lack of decent dudes , and therefore have more realistic and achievable aspirations than their more mature single peers.  

The 23-to-25 year old women out there are starting to  realize that their best chances to reproduce with the best-possible quality male mean postponing careers and focusing on finding their own Prince Charming or Perfect Dude – in direct competition with the thirty-somethings who are now suddenly trying to do the same thing.  And when you add in the competition from the thrice-divorced MILFs who are only out to get laid, things start to look grim.

That’s what you are competing with now, Ladies.  You can accept it, take the Red Pill and recognize what your situation really is and handle it, or you can continue to ignore it because it hurts your feelings and lowers your self-esteem.  Allow yourself to by mystified into complacency and inaction in the SMP by your feminist sisters, and consign yourself to a long life of lonely solitude and romance novels while your reproductive and romantic future slips through your fingers with every passing period. 

Because what feminism didn't tell you was that women don’t control commitment in our society, they merely control sex, and sex is now available everywhere. 

Commitment . . . not so much. In fact, feminism has successfully made it endangered. Hell, it's near extinction.

Want us to “like you for you” and not force you to learn about all of those stupid things that we like?  Tough.  That kind of intimacy is now reserved for the women we find worthy, and now that the Beta males out there who you're used to stepping on to boost your self-esteem are starting to wise up, learn Game and appreciate their own value, things are only going to get harder for you.  

You’re going to start seeing a whole lot more men asking “so what do you bring to the table?” (and here’s a hint: your resume doesn’t count) before they even consider sex with you, much less a relationship.  You’re going to see more men not call you back when you flake-out or shit-test them, when you play hard to get or let a perceived slight give you a reason not to call him back.  You're going to find discussions of your "number" coming up earlier and earlier in the courtship process, and an indignant "that's none of your business!" is going to get you dropped. 

You’re going to hear a lot more sympathetic girlfriends urge you to cut your hair short and wait for “the right one” to come along, while they secretly scheme and plot to keep you around in your pitiful state to make them look so much better by comparison.  And its going to leave you emotionally bruised and personally battered, disillusioned and hollow because while feminism may have prepared you for life in the workforce, climbing the corporate ladder and empowering yourselves to live without teh Mens, feminism is not a productive mating strategy anymore.

And if mating is on your agenda . . . you should consider that.  While a perky pair of pumpkins or a well-developed feminine allure or a public demonstration of respect towards a man might seem shallow things upon which to base a potential relationship from a feminist perspective, the fact is that those things are what attract us to you first and you cannot rationalize that stupid fact away without demonizing us.  Not how nice a person you are (if you are), not how much money you make (we don’t care), not how much success you have (we don’t want to feel like we’re competing with our lovers -- sorry, that's just how we are), and not how much “fun” you are when you're spending our money or where you went to school or what your 401k looks like or how many friends you have on Facebook. 

It damn sure isn’t dependent upon your independence.  The “strong, capable woman” might be a feminist ideal, but she repels men like a paternity suit.  If you like men, and want them to like you, being strong and capable isn’t going to get you shit.  Being feminine, respectful of our masculinity and admiring of our character, will.  

If you find that's beneath your dignity as a woman, well, good luck to you.  That young chick over there looks feminine and admiring and respectful of me being a man, and she doesn’t look pissed off all the time.  Best of luck to you and Mr. Snuggles at the cat show.

You see, Ms. West has told you ladies that you can demand Prince Charming and get him, just because you deserve him (and note that somehow she gets to decide what women deserve from men, not men).  

The Red Pill fact of the matter is that feminism only knows how to demand, and teh Mens, in aggregate, are sick to death of it.  We've heard feminist demands our entire lives until they fall out of our ears on arrival now, and we've stopped paying attention to them because they are never satisfied, and honestly we have better things to do with our time.  Feminism has always been about demands . . . never about dialog.  It has always been solipsistically  focused on what Women could demand, what they deserved (without any explanation of just why they deserved it apart from having vaginas), but never a dialog about what would be in our mutual best interest.  Feminists will scream at us, make demands of us, treat us like children, treat us like idiots, treat us like monsters, try to shame us, emasculate us, attack us and our masculinity, but they wont try to fucking talk to us Mens.  

And until they do, and y'all can re-negotiate the greater sexual contract in a manner that satisfies both genders, then we're going to keep not calling you, not committing to you, not proposing to you, and we're going to keep playing video games, whacking off to porn, making jokes about you behind your back, and marrying sexy un-feminist women for whom family, and not career, are the highest priorities.  

And y'all can't do jack shit about it, save rationalizing away our disinterest and growing animosity as us just being evil patriarchs to soothe your own bruised feelings and make it our fault.

'Cause feminism's Great Hamster says that it can never be your fault, and you should take some comfort in that.  

I mean, really, for some of you that's about all you have left.