The Feminine Imperative

[Lexington]

This is a pretty interesting concept. Rollo has a lot of interesting writings about it, including his latest post:

http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/the-mother-of-reinvention/

If traditional femininity better served the feminine imperative (as it has in past generations) we would see a return to that social paradigm.

We think of the FI and feminism as being the same thing but Rollo makes a distinction between the two. It makes you wonder, has the FI existed for a long time or is it a recent invention?

One could argue that the feminine imperative has been present since prehistoric times. In fact, one could argue that it even extends to other species of primates and many mammal species.

Is there an evolutionary drive behind the FI?

Sperm is relatively cheap. An egg is extremely expensive, evolutionarily speaking. If 50% of all men were eliminated, a society could still continue its population growth almost unabated. On the other hand, if 50% of women died, that culture would have some major problems on its hands.

 

[BeDJ]

The importance of female well-being have made men disposable. Our society strictly enforces the dynamic that men must put women and children first. Men must sacrifice himself for female self-interest, exploited into giving women everything they want and need.

Feminist win.

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Lex,
"Originally Posted by Rollo
If traditional femininity better served the feminine imperative (as it has in past generations) we would see a return to that social paradigm.".....Surely their are simpler ways of expressing this idea!...I had the greatest of Difficulty understanding Rollos latest contribution,shudder to think what the average Joe would make of it!

 

[backbreaker]

This is a pretty interesting concept. Rollo has a lot of interesting writings about it, including his latest post:

http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/the-mother-of-reinvention/


We think of the FI and feminism as being the same thing but Rollo makes a distinction between the two. It makes you wonder, has the FI existed for a long time or is it a recent invention?

One could argue that the feminine imperative has been present since prehistoric times. In fact, one could argue that it even extends to other species of primates and many mammal species.

Is there an evolutionary drive behind the FI?

Sperm is relatively cheap. An egg is extremely expensive, evolutionarily speaking. If 50% of all men were eliminated, a society could still continue its population growth almost unabated. On the other hand, if 50% of women died, that culture would have some major problems on its hands.

men are, have been and always will be more disposable than women. I look at it like horse racing breeding, there are 35,000 race horess, actually closer to 25,000 born in the US every year. of those 25,000, about half of them are going to be mares (girls). Of those 12,500 mares, 80 to 90% of them will breed. the ****ty ones, the crooked ones, the ones that have ****ty pedigrees, the ones with one eye.. lol **** a kentucky derby winner was actually born from a mare with one freaking eye I want to say it was Swain, anyway my point being all these mares are going to breed.


i can show you right now how many of these 12,500 horses/colts that are going to breed. here's the list of the new horses that get to breed this year

http://www.bloodhorse.com/stallion-...s?ReferenceNumber=0&Page=0&FirstCropYear=2014


this is the entire list of horses out of 12,500 give or take that get to **** mares lol. 188. that's barley 1%. male horses who aren't either extremely well bred or extremely talented there is no use for them when they are done racing. that's a different topic but the point is they are expendable.

i think you start to mince words when you say expendable and important. male horses are very expendable but we could not go on without males. there are things that women just can't do that we can so they need us. they just don't need ALL of us. this is the same with just about every successful species on the planet. if you aren't the alpha male of a lion pride guess what? GTFO lol. if you aren't the top elephant in the herd? GFTO there is no need for 10 males and 10 females that's food that can be split for the rest of us to ensure survival.



i'm with scarmouche on this IMHO it's really mental masterbation at it's finest. knowing that women want what they want doesn't get you any closer to making them want YOU and at the end of the day that's the only thing that really matters

 

[Burroughs]

In nature, the male is the reproductive servant of the female.

Perhaps it can be said that what you’re calling the “feminine imperative” is basically Briffault’s Law applied to humanity

– in other words, the idea that men exist to serve women’s needs and to facilitate their goals and ambitions, and are therefore judged by their willingness and ability to serve women’s needs and meet their demands, whatever they happen to be (sperm, resources, protection from harm and hardship, etc).

But in nature, the female is physically dependent on the male:

when there is no welfare state or police a strong husband is the only thing that stands between the women and the rape gangs

women would be wise to remember this.

 

[origin138]

But in nature, the female is physically dependent on the male:

when there is no welfare state or police a strong husband is the only thing that stands between the women and the rape gangs

women would be wise to remember this.

The fems would argue that with the disappearance of men, rape would be a non-issue. Some of them even talk about reducing the male population to as low as 5%, or whatever the bare minimum is to keep mankind afloat. Essentially, any man beyond what is biologically necessary to facilitate the growth of the population is deemed useless and wasteful and should therefore be done away with. That's at the extreme end, but some of the other thinking ain't too far off.

 

[origin138]

knowing that women want what they want doesn't get you any closer to making them want YOU and at the end of the day that's the only thing that really matters

This is a really good fvcking statement.

 

[Burroughs]

The fems would argue that with the disappearance of men, rape would be a non-issue. Some of them even talk about reducing the male population to as low as 5%, or whatever the bare minimum is to keep mankind afloat. Essentially, any man beyond what is biologically necessary to facilitate the growth of the population is deemed useless and wasteful and should therefore be done away with. That's at the extreme end, but some of the other thinking ain't too far off.

Yes

And the ironic thing is that 99% of men THINK they are in the 5% catagory :crackup:

its only when Bill Gate's men show up at his house with the death vaccine will he realize he has been slated for execution...whoops

Man's arrogance is what brought them to this place...through their arrogance and conceit they allowed the *elite* to brainwash them that they are equal to them when in reality they are slaves....every man with an iphone and a fitted jacket from j-crew thinks he is *hot sh!t* when he is just a wage slave.

 

[goodfoot]

I'm starting to get scared now :nervous:

 

[Colossus]

Backbreaker had a good take. Men have been and always will be disposable to some extent. Part of this is rooted in the intrinsic reproductive value of the sexes, and part of it is cultural.

In civilized nations men aren't "needed" the way they are in less developed countries, or in nature. Women can be largely self-sufficient (AKA being an adult), and the state picks up the slack when they cant make ends meet.

Traditionally, women NEEDED men in order to serve their reproductive functions: They needed men to work, to provide, to protect, and of course to reproduce.

Now women can become impregnated and serve most child-rearing functions sans a man, all while being glorified by society for their empowered bravery.

The thing is though, if you are an observant individual, is that you can see women NEED a man to feel complete as people. It doesn't matter what they say. Just watch them. Almost no woman can abide a prolonged period of singlehood, and certainly not by choice. Again, it doesn't freaking matter what they say; they will give lip service to all sorts of empowered feminist dogma, but at the end of the day, most women walk around feeling half-full without a man.


Now that's not to say men are completely independent of them, but in general it takes less to meet our needs. Some regular sex and tolerable (preferably positive) female company is enough for most of us. Men derive more satisfaction through work and achievement.

 

[Burroughs]

d bravery.

The thing is though, if you are an observant individual, is that you can see women NEED a man to feel complete as people. It doesn't matter what they say. Just watch them. Almost no woman can abide a prolonged period of singlehood, and certainly not by choice.

What women NEED is the RESOURCES THAT MEN PROVIDE EITHER SPERM OR SECURITY

In womans' mind a man is there for his LOOKS OR PROVISIONING

Women do not see men for their human-ness ...they never have

women see men as providers...either providers of looks and strength for progeny and protection or material goods, resources and food.

men have to face up to the fact that we serve as material objects to women
nothing more,

but burroughs, men will argue what about the lust, lingerie, desperation that women show? surely that means they have 'feelings' for us as men..

hahahahha no

that is *advertising*

womens' sexuality is NOT A MEANS TO ITSELF AS MEN VIEW SEX....BUT A MEANS TO GET RESOURCES OR GENES

This mercenary aspect of ALL women is something men cannot fathom mentally, and likely 99% never will

 

[PlayHer Man]

there are things that women just can't do that we can so they need us. they just don't need ALL of us. this is the same with just about every successful species on the planet. if you aren't the alpha male of a lion pride guess what? GTFO lol. if you aren't the top elephant in the herd? GFTO there is no need for 10 males and 10 females that's food that can be split for the rest of us to ensure survival.

Yup that's right. This is what wars, prisons and ghettos are for. They exist to house all the access males that are just "taking up space". They are civilizations way of saying GTFO. Poor and other low status males are sent off to wars to get killed or sent to jail over petty BS or economically marginalized so they are stuck in the ghetto (which is basically another war zone) to get killed and kill other "access males".

This system is designed so that only the smartest, richest and best connected males really have a chance at a "good life" in civilization. All the rest are treated like worthless animals. I believe wars have always existed as a way for the elite to get rid of access males who just "take up space and resources".

This is why men MUST work and rise in the world to be considered valuable.. while women have instant values simply by existing.

 

[ive]

yep it sucks- the reality has changed but the instincts and needs stay the same - for men and for women...evolution is too slow ...god damnit

 

[twentee]

no, men have NOT always been more disposable than women. In primitive cultures, at times and places where life is hard, it's most often the FEMALE babies who are killed or abandoned (to die) because that is the quickest, most certain way to limit the growth of the tribe. In China, where only 1 live birth is allowed per family, they have amniocentesis done, and if the fetus is female, it is more often aborted than if it is male. That is PROBABLY a mostly male thing, since men run things with a heavy hand there.

u mean EXCESS males, as ini "extra", more than needed". Access means that you can get to something, it is available to you.