The Hypergamy Synthesis

[Burroughs]

Until positive masculinity is restored in society, these problems will not only persist, but they will get worse.

Burroughs, you start your post by saying that it is foolish to even consider a woman's point of view but what do you think is left when you remove masculinity from society? You have a sexual vacuum that is replaced by what remains, femininity. Femininity is the fire that fuels a woman's point of view.

How can there be fire if there isn't any wood?

Men are the wood.

And once the fire is gone, women will need more wood....but there will be no men to give it to them.

But I see what you are saying, men are literally adrift in a society they built but has now forsaken them.

Positive masculinity is needed but I would go beyond this. Men live for a challenge for thousands of years the natural world was that challenge...men needed to keep women severely restricted socially, economically..and own them as porperty.

why?

because Men can't fight a challenge in the outside world and then come home to drama in your cave or teepee by the campfire because your biatch wants a new deerskin dress and she's gonna divorce you and take your teepee....$hit would never get done. who would hunt mammoth to feed the tribes? :crackup:

Thats why I say, our present abundance will not last...Europe is shaking on its fiat banking foundation. The elites are busy concocting their plans as the citizenry realize what a fraud their money has become..times of change are coming, difficult times...men will need to step up.

 

[ebracer05]

How can there be fire if there isn't any wood?

Men are the wood.

And once the fire is gone, women will need more wood....but there will be no men to give it to them.

But I see what you are saying, men are literally adrift in a society they built but has now forsaken them.

Positive masculinity is needed but I would go beyond this. Men live for a challenge for thousands of years the natural world was that challenge...men needed to keep women severely restricted socially, economically..and own them as porperty.

why?

because Men can't fight a challenge in the outside world and then come home to drama in your cave or teepee by the campfire because your biatch wants a new deerskin dress and she's gonna divorce you and take your teepee....$hit would never get done. who would hunt mammoth to feed the tribes? :crackup:

Thats why I say, our present abundance will not last...Europe is shaking on its fiat banking foundation. The elites are busy concocting their plans as the citizenry realize what a fraud their money has become..times of change are coming, difficult times...men will need to step up.

I totally agree that the benefits we have in our "American" society are fleeting. I would say worldwide actually. We've had the luxury of an abundance that perhaps no other generation could appreciate... but the global and domestic economic model we're under is not sustainable. I totally agree that we're headed for trouble.

However.

I don't think all men will be able to step in. I don't think most men will be able to step up. One of the things that has interested me over the years is technical skills... learning how to do things the way people did them before massive industrialization. How did people make furniture before they could buy it at iKea, or even before the advent of electrical/pneumatic tools? How did people forge metal, make wheels, build steam engines, grow food, generate electricity?

No one knows how to do those things.

I really don't think it's ever going to get bad enough for people to have to figure out how to build a windmill in their backyard to grind flower or how to engineer a steam engine from scratch. But look man, I'm 25 years old and a lot of people my age feel like they have some sort of social entitlement that makes them above a job at McDonalds. All right? The guys even 10 years younger than me are more than 10 times worse. The EPA and cheap international labor are not the only reasons why manufacturing jobs and industrialization have largely left the US. Who is going to do the work? I don't think it's necessary an issue of knowledge, we have smart people. We just don't like blue collar work anymore in this country.

I mean, we're complaining about being in the midst of an alleged economic crisis and seriously, as long as the parking lot at the Outback Steakhouse is full on Friday and Saturday and they have a 45 minute wait, and people can still go around with their smart phones and Cadillac data plans... we are not in any f*cking economic crisis. What happened is that people and businesses, primarily businesses, made horribly sh*tty business decisions on credit they should have never had, and they ran out of money to pay Paul back with. I mean, how can you grant a 350k mortgage to people who make 30k per year? Where is the money going to come from???

But even the fact that people in an income bracket like that felt they would (of all things) hypergamously "upgrade" themselves to a 350k house says a lot about the mentality of people living in this country. The crisis was more of a crisis for people who were already rich and some of them lost their @sses as a result of their own mistakes. Some got off easier. The taxpaying members of this country helped some of the businesses when our government decided some businesses were "too important" to fail.

What the average person has experienced is a downgrade in their discretionary income and they don't know how to handle it. Pandora's box got opened up with all of these modern technological marvels that did nothing more than distract men from the business of being men... and they all got addicted. Rather than get by on less, they claim a crisis and either demand to live off of the subsistence of a real man, someone who is actually productive and making a living or continue to accumulate debt!

It is going to take a massive problem to correct this behavior. I'm not talking about taking away people's credit cards, I'm talking about breaking the machines that read them! When we finally do reach a problem of the proportions required to wake the men of this world up from their walking daze, what will they do? Have you ever read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand? The phrase "Who is John Galt?" sums everything up perfectly.

BTW, you can have fire without wood. Acetylene torches are popular in arch welders and generate a much hotter flame than you would ever get from burning wood. In chemistry, all reactions have an ideal temperature at which they proceed. If the temperature is too low, the reaction may take place slowly or it may just not even happen. If it is too hot, the reaction will start but it will also be accompanied by things like explosions and the destruction of the original reagents. Men are the wood, and they burn at the proper temperature to catalyze the reaction of life.

Women are acetylene and burn way too hot. They will generate fire, but they'll burn everything down or destroy it in the process. This creates a false dichotomy because women and feminized men think everything is fine because there is still fire. They just don't realize how much of a difference there is because they haven't had their hand caught in the flame.

If men are wood, the wood as been rained on and soaked. You can still get it to burn, but it takes a significantly greater amount of energy, time, and work. And once you get it burning, it may go out a few times before the fire is really where it needs to be.

That is the problem I see coming. The wood may be there, but how will we light it without matches when it's wet?

 

[Burroughs]

It is going to take a massive problem to correct this behavior. I'm not talking about taking away people's credit cards, I'm talking about breaking the machines that read them! When we finally do reach a problem of the proportions required to wake the men of this world up from their walking daze, what will they do?

that massive problem is coming...there is a huge global debt bubble...europe is already feeling it Greece...violent riots in Spain that the US media is steadfastly refusing to cover.

but your larger point is true...99% of 'men' are really boys who will never grew up...I am a year older than you and our generation is pretty pathetic as a group..we are porn/gaming addicted entitled azzholes who expect the world to be handed to us on minimum effort...and the dudes 5 years younger are even worse...as to what a large change in our standard of living will do to us...only time will tell

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

This is why Rollo says hypergamy does not care. Hypergamy cannot care, it is not a sentient being, it is an undirected process. To say hypergamy cares what investment a man has made in a woman would be analogous to saying evolution cares how much a species wants to stay in existence.

One of the main issues I see for both genders coming to terms with the reality of Hypergamy is this want for applying humanistic / moral variables into the resolution of hypergamic problems.

If I were to repost EBRACER's OP on my blog there would be a contingent of moral absolutists (Matt King for example) who would declare that it's men, by virtue of their great moral self-awareness and thus responsibility, who need to enforce controls over the socially destructive nature of hypergamy. Ironically this moral impetus is yet one more control itself to ensure hypergamy works to the benefit of those who subscribe to their moral absolutism.

In other words, hypergamy doesn't care about your moral imperatives – it exists with equal efficiency both within and without a moral context.

Hypergamy has been a very uncomfortable truth of human existence since long before we had a formal name for the dynamic. Every inter-gender social convention in human history has been an attempt to either marginalize its influence, or in the case of women, misdirect men from the truth of how their hypergamy compels their most intimate decisions. So pervasive is hypergamy that it had to be evolutionarily sublimated into our subconscious/preconscious minds. The conceptual awareness of hypergamy was so disturbing to the human condition that, in our evolved past, humanity literally selected-for people with the ability to psychically repress the awareness of it.

Our concepts of romance, tenets of religion, even our innate understanding of gender differences, are all manifestations that reflect the human want to anthropomorphize hypergamy. We want to believe our 'higher' selves can rise above the physical demands of hypergamy only to have those moral idealizations reflect hypergamy within that idealized context.

 

[ebracer05]

Rollo,

I know you like to divorce humanistic and moralistic variables as much as possible from your blog and I understand why. I would like you to explain this point:

there would be a contingent of moral absolutists (Matt King for example) who would declare that it's men, by virtue of their great moral self-awareness and thus responsibility, who need to enforce controls over the socially destructive nature of hypergamy. Ironically this moral impetus is yet one more control itself to ensure hypergamy works to the benefit of those who subscribe to their moral absolutism.

I understand you say that hypergamy doesn't care about moral imperatives but how would the attempt of men to enforce controls over it (which I'm not sure is entirely possible) backfire on those men?

I see a contradiction when you say on one hand that positive masculinity is lacking in society; that men are the natural leaders of society and to a large extent have abdicated their position of leadership; and it should just be obvious anyways (though I don't think you have said this) that it is better to be alpha than beta; but on the other hand you say that men should not attempt to enforce controls (ie, deal with) the more negative points of hypergamy.

That argument is a non sequitor because there are other analogous process that humans have been able to harness and "deal with" for their own gain, like evolution. We became so good at managing evolution scientists had to develop a name for human directed evolution called artificial selection.

It is impossible to be both a leader and to be passive. Men are either leaders or they are not. There are only two sexes and so this is an instances where the premise is entirely mutually exclusive. Male leaders manipulated their economies, politics, government, administrative bodies, and all other factors of their lives to their advantage. But for some reason it will backfire if they attempt to manipulate their sexuality to their advantage? I don't see that it works that way.

I make no contention that hypergamy exists and that its identification is uncomfortable. I also make no contention that it is a non directed force, ie, it doesn't give a sh*t about anything, including how you feel or what you think. However, I also believe emphatically that one of the principle reasons why men have such a hard time managing women today, seemingly so much more so than in the past - it may have something to do with the relatively drastic pace of female emancipation economically, socially, sexually, and politically - but those are all threads in a much bigger tapestry.

If I refuse to do good work and a real requisite for getting a job is doing good work, then I will never get a job as long as that standard is applied.

One of the most commonly said maxims on this website is:

Never be afraid to walk away.

People do not have to keep repeating things that are commonly practiced or understood unless they are funny, and I don't see the punchline in that statement. The repetition inherent in its discussion indicates that it is not being applied.

And why should this be? Why should a man never be afraid to walk away?

That maxim indirectly proves the requirement that men not only should exert a standard of acceptable behavior over women, but if the maxim is a true command, it implies they must.

Go back to my job example. Hypergamy may drive a woman towards all sorts of socially destructive behavior, but if men were to in large numbers exert a standard against women that such socially destructive behavior was unacceptable, and would therefore deny these women not only relationships but also their sexuality and attention, women would have no choice but to accept the standard of man. What else would they do? If hypergamy is a result of evolutionary forces, it would have to change because no matter how much a woman's brain thinks she wants attention, it thinks she wants to survive and replicate infinitely more.

As I think about it, the entire PUA movement could be construed as a reaction to the standard women are currently exerting against men. Mystery and the rest of the guys who invented it were not reformers, they were Pickup Artists, and they just wanted to get laid. So they didn't try and change the system, they just looked for a competitive advantage within the preexisting system.

Does it sound like they're reacting against a female standard of expectation when they develop strategies to combat b*tch shields and manage LMR? Neg hits, freeze outs, canned lines, and especially peacocking... they are reactions.

Do you really think that in our evolutionary past, any alpha would go around in a magician's hat, leather pants, platform shoes, with ridiculous earrings and other jewelry? Does that f*cking sound like a man to you??? If someone out there doesn't know what mystery and some of these PUA guys look like, look them up!

Between the removal of positive masculinity from society due to feminism and the progressive inundation of society with distraction devices like the X-box, men have largely abdicated their role in society as leaders and have concurrently stopped exerting a standard of expectation over women. Quite honestly, if real masculinity were restored to society, I think the standard of expectation problem would take care of itself because in my view, one of the reasons women are acting so socially destructive is because it is what hypergamy would dictate they do absent plentiful levels of masculinity.

If the PUA's were right about anything, they were right about the fact that these female standards of expectation are screening mechanisms used to weed out betas. That's essentially what the good genes theory asserts - how can a female be certain that her prospective suitor is being honest with her? She has to develop methods to check. These screening methods would still exist to some point if masculinity suddenly flooded society, but they would change, according to hypergamy; it would not become a question of whether or not a man was a man, but more a question of how much more of a man is he than this other guy. Perhaps they would ultimately manifest themselves the same way, I don't know.

But anyways, that isn't the point. But I should have made my point sufficiently by now. And it's time to get back to work.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I understand you say that hypergamy doesn't care about moral imperatives but how would the attempt of men to enforce controls over it (which I'm not sure is entirely possible) backfire on those men?

What I'm saying is that, in the context of hypergamy, moral absolutism, religiosity, appeals to 'higher self' ideals, hell, even white knightery, are all founded in a desire to control hypergamy to better fit their subscriber's perceived strengths and weaknesses in coping with hypergamy.

I've written in several blog posts about how the feminine imperative would ideally strive for a set of environmental conditions that favor's women's capacity to optimally satisfy their hypergamic natures. As impossible as this is, the feminine will exhaustively construct social dynamics it thinks change the 'rules' to favor hypergamy – lowering the basket to better play the game, etc.

Men given to moral absolute ideals do something similar in their own mindset, and just like the feminine imperative, find themselves equally disappointed when the Rules don't change to meet their capacity to play the game. They'll disqualify women from their definition of 'quality' in the same fashion women will disqualify men as 'misogynists' when either refuse, deliberately or indifferently, to comply with what their ideal conditions predispose their beliefs for.

Hypergamy isn't going to change, so if I a moralist or a feminist wants to maximize hypergamy to their benefit, social and psychological schemas need to develop around what serves either the best. This is exactly why white knight beta chumps seek to define what the essence of Alpha should be in terms that best describes themselves. They seek to control hypergamy by redefining hypergamy's ideal to fit their own description.

Likewise, necessitous women seek to redefine what men 'should' want in an ideal partner by defining female desirability as it pertains to themselves. Thus we get fat acceptance and a refocusing of women's intrinsic qualities as what men should prefer rather than the hypergamic impulse of men to be aroused by women's physical appeal.

Now, all of that isn't an indictment of millennia of human social progress, but rather it's to reveal the base motivator of that progress.

 

[guru1000]

This is why the Country is such a mess. People have no interest in getting involved or fixing the problems. Even if it affects them. . . .

I wonder if this is really what it was like back during Rome. People just partying it up while everything burned around them, even ridiculing others for trying to fix things. . . .

Why not also improve your environment? Both make your life better.

Similarly, there are myriad, ubiquitous problems in business and tax laws that rob businesses of their net income, which with lost cumulative investment and interest to fuel future growth, ultimately cost the entrepreneur 95 percent of his or her net worth. Although I am a businessman cognizant of this fact, I still recognize the 99.5% probability that you, I, and SS, collectively, will not alter case law to effect change in these unconscionable laws; neither are we prominent politicians that could effect repeals in legislation.

Far better strategy to understand the rules, play by and propitiously utilize them to further our own value; as opposed to expending countless hours in fruitless attempts to alter laws that are intransigent and thus likely immutable.

I'm not deriding your efforts to inform young men of unfair laws; I applaud you for it. But, antithetically, an overindulgence or preoccupation with voicing the unconscionability of the law that will not likely change strips the individual of valuable time to optimize available resources and augment value.

The wise select their battles judiciously, and not to their detriment.

 

[Burroughs]

Although I am a businessman cognizant of this fact, I still recognize the 99.5% probability that you, I, and SS, collectively, will not alter case law to effect change in these unconscionable laws; neither are we prominent politicians that could effect repeals in legislation.

.

unjust laws are always worth fighting, if not for us then for our children

 

[guru1000]

unjust laws are always worth fighting, if not for us then for our children

Without citing the laws, as there are too many . . . be my guest; let me know how it works out.

 

[Burroughs]

. . . be my guest; let me know how it works out.

I wasn't asking your permission lol

 

[ebracer05]

Likewise, necessitous women seek to redefine what men 'should' want in an ideal partner by defining female desirability as it pertains to themselves. Thus we get fat acceptance and a refocusing of women's intrinsic qualities as what men should prefer rather than the hypergamic impulse of men to be aroused by women's physical appeal.

And my point was the corollary to all of this: If women can play the game, so can men. That should be what hypgeramy compels them to do anyways. But instead, men have become placated in to apathy as a result of their general emasculation and distraction with their X-boxes and other fancy toys (I would say the X-box problem is secondary to the emasculation problem).

Women could not redefine anything for men if they were really men. You know what an apple is because you are familiar with its intrinsic identity, and given your current state and longevity of familiarity with the identity of an apple, it would take some pretty f*cking good brainwashing to get you to believe the apple was an orange, or some other fruit. Similarly, if men do you know what masculinity is and/or how to apply it and more importantly, live it in their lives, they do not have a preexisting schema to inform them of what masculinity is like you do an apple. When there are no or very few examples of positive masculinity in society for males to model, when there are large numbers of fathers who are absent physically, emotionally, or who not masculine, what source do men have from which to derive their definition of masculinity?

But we already know this. Men aren't men anymore, yea yea yea.

But what if they were? I don't think women could do this.

Fat and ugly women would say to a real man "You should desire me because of my personality rather than my looks" and the real man would laugh.

Disrespectful women would disrespect, shame, and insult the real man, and he would leave her.

Sl*tty women would say to a real man "I'm a born again virgin!" or "None of the others matter because I chose to be with you", or some other line female BS and the real man says "I will f*ck you, but that is all".

Flaky women would deliver rationalizations for why they stood the real man up, perhaps appealing to how hectic their life was or very popularly "something just came up"; the real man gives a pass when necessary but also understands that a no-call/no-show is not excusable without ample documentation and refuses to see her again.

The attention wh*res would spend all day blowing up the real man's phone with no intentions of becoming intimate with him while the real man does not receive her messages until much later. When he finally does look at his phone he is perplexed at how the attention wh*re had the time to send so many messages. She is disqualified because real man cannot stand manipulation and subversion. They also like women who consist of more than an empty shell.

The cheating women say to the real man that "I just got caught up in the moment" or "it didn't mean anything, I love you", or other rationalizations while the real man is not even listening because he left her before she had time to attempt to justify unfaithfulness.

This is the standard I am advocating that men exert over women. I'm not talking about some white knight beta BS, I'm talking about a return to dignity, self respect, and masculinity. If men did this in general, what would the women do? Hypergamy is an evolutionary derived process that is supposed to maximize our reproductive advantage. If men started to play a new game, the game would play would have to adjust in kind or they would be summarily ejected from the gene pool (provided the guys didn't break under pressure and change their rules).

Of course, you can't hardly unify people on anything in this day and age even when the issue is important. Think about every issue you think is "important" right now and the degree of disparity there is between the people who agree with you and the people who don't, and the gradient of opinions between the two bipoles. So outside of some strong impetus, like maybe a global economic crisis that underscores whatever we've believed to be a crisis in the past, I don't think anything is going to change. If it were going to change though, this is how I think it should.

 

[Down Low]

Women are too stupid, self-absorbed, and malleable to each individually reinvent hypergamy. This is especially true in cities and developed countries where pregnant women and girls eat more meat, go through puberty abnormally early, and stop mentally developing prematurely. It's impossible to believe that each individual girl magically recreates hypergamy on her own -- while at the same time, it's extremely uniform across the whole sex. Men created hypergamy as a social system, in which individual women are steeped.

It's much easier to grasp the issue when the political name is used: feminism. Feminism is the liberal form of sexism (institutionalized, ideologized, enforced discrimination in favor of one sex and against the other). The problem does not originate internally within each female, but rather, invades the self through interaction with others. A 13-year-old girl is really quite sweet and loving toward all men. A 33-year-old slvt with two decades on the c0ck carousel is merchandise damaged beyond all repair.

Liberal capitalism exists to provide benefit to the capitalists. They want everyone to be their all-round slaves in every sense of the word. When liberal capitalism convinced women to stop being housewives, it doubled the workforce, doubled the competition for jobs, and halved real wages. Along with many other strategies, promoting women's rights helped reduce and delay the problem of increasing organic composition (that Marx outlined long ago). It's way beyond the scope of this thread to describe why both the capitalists and the workers are deaf, dumb, blind, and without a cane as to understanding the mechanism of exploitation. Suffice to say that we all understand full well that money buys pvssy.

Some DJs think they should castrate themselves: literally with contraception, or figuratively by playing the impotent boy-man or homosexual clown. Others believe it's their place in society to gracefully bow out when a rich[er] d1ck makes a pass at their women. And it all makes perfect sense. Women are "genetically" fickle, 60% of men are doomed to impotency anyway, so give up the fight against sociopolitical injustice and instead fight each other for crumbs.

I certainly agree that we men are reduced to fighting each other for crumbs. That's not going to change even if we did what the slaves did during Ancient Rome, and killed the rich and took over the whole Italian peninsula. The existing breeding stock of women will still be filthy, lying, slvtty wh0res until they die. These cvnts still have to be gamed, pumped 'n dumped, and nexted in favor of younger plates. It will take generations of burning witches, stoning prostitutes, murdering adulterers, and not slaughtering cattle for everyday consumption (not squandering resources on women's tastes) -- that is, masculinism -- to eradicate the effects of liberal capitalism.

Revolution is a young man's game. An old fart like me is too busy faking being rich so I can impregnate every b1tch stupid enough to spread for me.

 

[backbreaker]

Similarly, there are myriad, ubiquitous problems in business and tax laws that rob businesses of their net income, which with lost cumulative investment and interest to fuel future growth, ultimately cost the entrepreneur 95 percent of his or her net worth. Although I am a businessman cognizant of this fact, I still recognize the 99.5% probability that you, I, and SS, collectively, will not alter case law to effect change in these unconscionable laws; neither are we prominent politicians that could effect repeals in legislation.

Far better strategy to understand the rules, play by and propitiously utilize them to further our own value; as opposed to expending countless hours in fruitless attempts to alter laws that are intransigent and thus likely immutable.

I'm not deriding your efforts to inform young men of unfair laws; I applaud you for it. But, antithetically, an overindulgence or preoccupation with voicing the unconscionability of the law that will not likely change strips the individual of valuable time to optimize available resources and augment value.

The wise select their battles judiciously, and not to their detriment.

Law 38 ​

Think as you like but Behave like others ​

If you make a show of going against the times, flaunting your unconventional ideas and unorthodox ways, people will think that you only want attention and that you look down upon them. They will find a way to punish you for making them feel inferior. It is far safer to blend in and nurture the common touch. Share your originality only with tolerant friends and those who are sure to appreciate your uniqueness.

Law 45 ​

Preach the Need for Change, but Never Reform too much at Once ​

Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract, but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit. Too much innovation is traumatic, and will lead to revolt. If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.

:box:

 

[backbreaker]

And my point was the corollary to all of this: If women can play the game, so can men. That should be what hypgeramy compels them to do anyways. But instead, men have become placated in to apathy as a result of their general emasculation and distraction with their X-boxes and other fancy toys (I would say the X-box problem is secondary to the emasculation problem).

Women could not redefine anything for men if they were really men. You know what an apple is because you are familiar with its intrinsic identity, and given your current state and longevity of familiarity with the identity of an apple, it would take some pretty f*cking good brainwashing to get you to believe the apple was an orange, or some other fruit. Similarly, if men do you know what masculinity is and/or how to apply it and more importantly, live it in their lives, they do not have a preexisting schema to inform them of what masculinity is like you do an apple. When there are no or very few examples of positive masculinity in society for males to model, when there are large numbers of fathers who are absent physically, emotionally, or who not masculine, what source do men have from which to derive their definition of masculinity?

But we already know this. Men aren't men anymore, yea yea yea.

But what if they were? I don't think women could do this.

Fat and ugly women would say to a real man "You should desire me because of my personality rather than my looks" and the real man would laugh.

Disrespectful women would disrespect, shame, and insult the real man, and he would leave her.

Sl*tty women would say to a real man "I'm a born again virgin!" or "None of the others matter because I chose to be with you", or some other line female BS and the real man says "I will f*ck you, but that is all".

Flaky women would deliver rationalizations for why they stood the real man up, perhaps appealing to how hectic their life was or very popularly "something just came up"; the real man gives a pass when necessary but also understands that a no-call/no-show is not excusable without ample documentation and refuses to see her again.

The attention wh*res would spend all day blowing up the real man's phone with no intentions of becoming intimate with him while the real man does not receive her messages until much later. When he finally does look at his phone he is perplexed at how the attention wh*re had the time to send so many messages. She is disqualified because real man cannot stand manipulation and subversion. They also like women who consist of more than an empty shell.

The cheating women say to the real man that "I just got caught up in the moment" or "it didn't mean anything, I love you", or other rationalizations while the real man is not even listening because he left her before she had time to attempt to justify unfaithfulness.

This is the standard I am advocating that men exert over women. I'm not talking about some white knight beta BS, I'm talking about a return to dignity, self respect, and masculinity. If men did this in general, what would the women do? Hypergamy is an evolutionary derived process that is supposed to maximize our reproductive advantage. If men started to play a new game, the game would play would have to adjust in kind or they would be summarily ejected from the gene pool (provided the guys didn't break under pressure and change their rules).

Of course, you can't hardly unify people on anything in this day and age even when the issue is important. Think about every issue you think is "important" right now and the degree of disparity there is between the people who agree with you and the people who don't, and the gradient of opinions between the two bipoles. So outside of some strong impetus, like maybe a global economic crisis that underscores whatever we've believed to be a crisis in the past, I don't think anything is going to change. If it were going to change though, this is how I think it should.

i think men get in trouble when they try to put a defination on what a man is. or what you think people should precieeve you to be or even worse, what you think women want you to be.

to me a man is whatever the fvck i think a man is. as long as I am doing what I think i should be doing i feel pretty mainlyl.

I mean i do some pretty stereotypical mainly stuff. I lift just about every day, i work my ass off when i am working. i do some thing that get shuned on; I love.. well not love but i play video games and have zero qualms about it. playing dead space right now actually. i eat more applesauce then my son does. i snack on gerber bananas baby food (seriously the **** is good lol. guess i never got winged off of it, cheap too 33. cents a bottle). i refuse to eat salads. i don't put a leash on my wife i don't have to know nor care to know honestly every last thing she does. she can get up in the morning and come home at 9pm and seriously i could care less. i trust the woman.

I am exactly who I want to be, no more no less. caring what women think is mainly or not is in itself an unmanly trait to have.

 

[Lynx nkaf]

Most people have at least one alpha in their life who at least partially gives some direction to what they do. It may be a work authority, law enforcement officer, or leader of a social circle. All people have one alpha in common however, and that is the media. The media has undergone sweeping changes in the last decade, but despite the naysayers, it is still a massively powerful alpha in society. It's through television, the internet, and other forms of media that help people form their viewpoints and impressions of several different things, from acceptable forms of behavior to their social norms and mores.


The television is not required to live a certain length of time, recombine and pass on its genes, and repeat this for multiple generations in order to evolve - it can evolve in the course of a series' season. None of us have any doubt that feminism has rooted itself deeply in society and has a grip that seems only to get stronger. Women are already naturally programmed to pursue behavior deleterious to males and modern conventions of morality - glamorizing the more extreme examples of hypergamy on television for an increasingly younger viewing audience of females and males has not done anything to resolve the problem.

Instead, as a result of the feminist philosophy that has pervaded society and the media, any portrayal or description of positive masculinity is presented in such a way as to activate the prehistoric programs in the brains of males and females that helped keep us from being expelled from a band (and by extension, die). Feminine behavior, at least the most deleterious forms of female behavior, are lauded and presented as normal in the same mediums. As a result, human behavior is changing such that the worst qualities of females are exaggerated and the best qualities of men are suppressed. In many cases, masculinity has become completely suppressed in favor of androgyny or negative femininity. What is worse is that this view has not only become the fundamental portrayal of "real life" in the media, but humans have by and large accepted it as a real premise and life accordingly.

In the midst of this social change, the state did not sit idly by and continued to do what it does best - seize power. The rational self interest of humans regarding their sexuality is to maximize their potential to have intercourse; in governments, the rational self interest is to seek and consolidate power. As the feminist movement began to gain substantial social ground, the government began enacting statutory law that became essentially "state sponsored hypergamy" according to Danger. However, I feel this description is inaccurate because it presumes the state simply codified a description of the competitive nature of the SMP.

This is not what happened. As State governments and the Federal government enacted laws that changed the legal landscape of male/female relationships and State and Federal courts decided case law in areas ranging from family law to tort law, an inequality emerged. Historically, women have not enjoyed equal legal standing with men and this inequality was one of the foundational platform planks of the earliest feminists they sought to redress. Legal gender equality is not a bad thing, but that is not what the government created. The government created a system that in essence excuses females from deleterious sexual behavior and forces men to deal with and pay for their consequences. To quote Danger:



This is not state sponsored hypgeramy, it is state sponsored misandry.

All classical liberal economists assert that in order for a market to operate according to "rational self interest" and to be "free", the market must actually be free. That sounds like an obvious statement, but its application to the SMP is not always so obvious to men. In classical liberalism, equality in opportunity is guaranteed, but equality in outcome is not.

In a society living under state sponsored misandry, we do not have equality in opportunity as men. The "deck" is stacked against us from the start and throws off our senses of rational self interest before we're able to make an initial evaluation. Just like in economics, the rules of a truly free market do not apply exactly the same way as they do in a mixed economy; the extent the principles apply depends on the extent the economy is "mixed". In the SMP, men must therefore understand that they are not competing on a level playing field and thus, not dealing with pure hypgergamy. The competitive forces in the SMP are not the only forces at work in a man's life in today's society.

It is not enough for a man to be successful, to have accomplished great things. Enough "men" have been placated in to a form of beta-complacency through the influence of the feminine media that it gives the illusion of eroding real masculinity whenever it is displayed in public. Women are drawn to it per their ancient brain programs, but as Rollo has noted, this is the big threat. A man who recognizes his value as a man and something less (a beta) in society is the biggest threat to a woman's sexuality. And how do women respond to threats?

Robert Greene asserts in The Art of Seduction that danger is an aphrodisiac to women. Maybe this is a result of their evolutionarily programmed interest in men capable of great danger. But there are also good evolutionary reasons for women to flee from danger because of what it could represent to them in their state of pregnancy or because it could cause them to become pregnant with a less than ideal genetic match in possibly less than ideal circumstances.

There are some women who do not require a "real man" anymore because the media has created so many feminized, beta men who will constantly supplicate and provide for the woman (we call these orbiters). When the real man challenges the women on her deleterious behavior, what loss is it of hers if she reacts ambivalently or even disrespectfully? Who cares? For that one man she has 10+ beta orbiters who will continue to give her attention and meet many of her needs without so much as a single complaint.

I'm getting tired and am not going to write anymore right now.

In short, we don't live under pure hypergamy, we live under feministic hypergamy. Legally, we live under a sort of state sponsored misandry. There are several confounding problems that fallow all of the points I've made and if there is sufficient interest, I can address them.

What you have to ask yourselves though as men is this: Why doesn't it p*ss me off to no end when a man can go to jail for years, be required to pay money, become disqualified from several jobs, all for something he did not do, only on the word of a woman?

Why aren't men getting upset about the lack of positive masculinity in society and its demonization in all forms of media? Why doesn't it evoke a sense of rage in men that social mores and values are changing such that the essence of a man is something that goes against society's values?

And women's deleterious sexual behavior... I didn't address this, but would it be in a woman's rational self interest to continue to act the way most do if men exerted a higher standard over them? It would be impossible because they would not have the opportunity to mate and pair bond (as if many women are capable of actually pair bonding anyways).

This isn't the sort of essay that is necessarily going to help you get laid. But ti's the sort of essay that should make you think and make you mad. Society isn't going to change because a group of guys on a message board on the internet got p*ssed off about something.

So what are you going to do?

bump*