Category: The Red Pill

Late Friday the political world was shaken when MAGA influencer Ashley St. Clair revealed that last year she gave birth to Elon Musk’s 13th offspring. Quickly, I sought out Rollo Tomassi’s take on this development, which was of course highly amusing.

Foreshadowing? https://t.co/akaILUGv3j

— Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale) February 15, 2025

Hits kinda different tonight doesn’t it? https://t.co/qcTv7bCinZ

— Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale) February 15, 2025

Rollo (a pseudonym) has long pointed out that “Red Pill” is not ideology, but praxeology (“the study of human action and behavior”). It’s not about dictating what you should do, but rather about understanding what you actually do. And when you consider what Ashley St. Clair actually did — clawing her way to prominence in MAGA world, in order to get herself inseminated by The Richest Man in the World — you’ve got to tip the cap to Rollo, who has lectured endlessly about hypergamy as the motive force of female behavior. It doesn’t get more Red Pill than this.

Recall that in 2019, I traveled to Orlando to cover a Red Pill conference where Rollo was the featured speaker:

While most of these guys are Trump supporters, the “red pill” is not about politics in the usual sense. The phrase, borrowed from the 1999 film The Matrix, refers to seeing through socially accepted illusions to understand the brutal truths of human nature. A major popularizer of this concept as applied to male-female relationships is Rollo Tomassi, author of the 2013 book The Rational Male and its sequels. Tomassi was introduced at the 21 Convention as the “godfather” of the red-pill community. “A lot of men are finding the red pill because they’re looking for answers,” Tomassi said during an on-stage discussion with popular Tulsa radio talk-show host Pat Campbell. Often the experience of divorce or the break-up of a romantic relationship leads men to discovering the online community known as the “manosphere,” where Tomassi’s books about “intersexual dynamics” are widely read. Campbell says he’s heard from men who say their lives were quite literally saved by reading The Rational Male. “They were ready to end it all, zero out,” Campbell told me, describing men — typically in their 40s — who were devastated by divorce. Tomassi has become a regular weekly guest on Campbell’s morning program on Tulsa’s KFAQ-AM.
“The feminization of culture” has developed a woman-centered “gynocratic ideal” in Western societies, Tomassi explained to an audience of about 100 men attending the conference. This creates a concept in which fathers are regarded as superfluous in their children’s lives, an effect compounded by the fact that 77% of teachers are women, so that children are raised under female authority, with little effective male influence in their lives. “The systematic disempowerment of men” in modern culture, Tomassi said, is a major cause of what he called “the ‘Lost Boy’ generation” of young men lacking the ability to live productive, independent lives and form successful relationships with women. .. .

You can read the rest to remind yourself. What does Rollo mean by “the feminization of culture”? Among other things, it means that boys learn to be “simps,” forever trying to please girls who, in turn, learn to be cruel ice queens, always expecting servile abjection from men.

There are unrealistic expectations on both sides of this dynamic, fed by popular culture. For example, young men generally do not seem to realize how rare beautiful women are. Even at the peak age of youthful attractiveness — late teens, early 20s — only a single-digit percentage of women are truly beautiful. Stroll around a college campus and keep a running total in your mind. Maybe 25% or 30% of college girls could be categorized as “reasonably attractive” by a discerning observer, and the real beauties are seldom more than 1-in-20. Why is it, then, that so many barely-average young men let themselves be deluded into thinking that there is some adorable cutie out there just dying to meet them? Feminists have identified the “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” trope in movies as encouraging such beliefs, but they overlook how movies and TV shows similarly foster unrealistic expectations in young women. Not long ago, Instapundit noted that women have fetishized tall men to such an extent as to exclude the vast majority of men from their potential choices. Only 16% of men are six feet tall or more, so if a woman sets her dating app preferences to make six feet the minimum height — and this is apparently quite common — then she never even sees 84% of men on the app.

One sees a lot of young women bragging online about having “high standards” for men — the imperious Ice Queen posture — but on closer examination, this boast is usually just an excuse, a rationalization for why they don’t have a boyfriend. Oh, they’re too good for the available men, and can’t lower their standards by dating any man who might actually be interested in them. This is the mirror-reverse of male “incel” types like Elliot Rodger, who styled himself “The Supreme Gentleman” and harbored a deadly grudge toward all the pretty girls he couldn’t get.

Well, I’ve followed that digression far enough. My point is that Rollo Tomassi’s Red Pill praxeology is about getting men to see the patterns of female behavior in a realistic way, rather than to let themselves be deluded by a bogus Hollywood-manufactured romantic idealism — an appealing fantasy of what women “should” be, as opposed to the reality of what women actually are. Think about all the earnest MAGA guys who might once have had a foolish crush on Ashley St. Clair, but now she’s living in a $15,000-a-month apartment and raising the baby of the World’s Richest Man. If only they’d listened to Rollo . . .

If you wonder what all the "Red Pill" noise is about, isn't it time to finally read the book that started it all?https://t.co/xLDAC3c9rZ

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) February 15, 2025

 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

 

Given the recent riots, you may have forgotten Amy Cooper, who got fired from her job after an encounter in New York’s Central Park where she called 911 after a black man told her to put her dog on a leash. Now we learn that she has a history of inciting drama:

A former co-worker of Amy Cooper — the woman filmed calling 911 to report an African-American bird watcher for ‘threatening her life’ when he asked her to leash her dog in Central Park — has said he wasn’t surprised by the former banking exec’s erratic conduct, claiming he’s ‘seen that type of false hysteria before’.
Martin Priest, who first met Cooper while working at investment banking firm Lehman Brothers in 2003, told DailyMail.com how the now 41-year-old allegedly attempted to destroy his life with a series of ‘baseless’ allegations in a 2015 lawsuit.
Priest said he had been friends with Cooper for a number of years before the suit but says he began to distance himself from her sometime in 2012 when she confessed to having romantic feelings for him that weren’t reciprocated.
In the months that followed, Priest says he was routinely ‘harassed’ and ‘stalked’ by Cooper. He claims she would often leave him threatening texts and voicemails, in which she menaced that she would hurt him, his family members and even herself if he continued to ignore her.
The purported onslaught culminated in Priest contacting police in Ridgewood, New Jersey, in February 2013 to report her for harassment.
‘She became increasingly abusive and unstable,’ Priest told DailyMail.com. ‘I tried to get away from her as she became more outrageous and threatening with her demands.’
Priest said his attempts to oust Cooper from his life were made in vain. Just over a year later, on June 8, 2014, he would once again contact police, but this time in Long Island City, dialing 911 to accuse Cooper of attempting to break into his house.
‘I caught her in the act,’ Priest claimed. ‘She lied to my doorman pretending to be my sister and said she needed to get inside.
‘I was at home at the time — ignoring her calls — and she knocked on the door, then opened it and tried to walk inside. I got up, slammed the door shut and called the police.’
Priest said that by the time officers arrived, Cooper had fled the scene. ‘She texted a lot of crazy stuff afterwards,’ Priest recalled. . . .
Priest said he later received a call from Cooper, who, angered that he had called the cops on her, apparently told him she ‘wasn’t going to stop until she’d put him in the gutter’. . . .
The following year, Cooper filed a lawsuit against Priest — which has since been dismissed — claiming that she had been involved in a romantic relationship with the Wall Street trader from 2008 to 2012, while he was still with his first wife.
In the suit, she claimed she broke up with him when she learned of his marriage, but reconvened with him in October 2013 when that relationship ended. . . .
‘Those allegations were deeply hurtful to my family. I never had a romantic relationship with her,’ Priest told DailyMail.com. ‘It was all fabricated in retaliation of our falling out. It was an explicit attempt to damage me and my reputation. She told me on the phone she wasn’t going to stop until she put me in the gutter.’
The case was later dismissed when both Cooper and Priest failed to show up for court conferences in January and March 2018, DailyMail.com has confirmed.
‘She put all that damaging and false information out there and then just disappeared — derailing my career, hurting my family and reputation,’ Priest said.
‘It’s taken me years to rebuild my life after that,’ he continued. ‘I was unfairly maligned based upon the allegations that she made — the baseless allegations.
‘And so from that point, you know, obviously people would refuse to employ me … because of the voracity [sic] of the allegations.’

A bit of calculation will show that Cooper was about 33 when she met Priest. She had already “hit the wall,” as they say. She was past her peak SMV, and was at an age when the ticking of her biological clock could no longer be ignored. Whether or not she and Priest actually ever had any romantic involvement — I’m not sure I believe his denials — it would not be surprising that such a woman would become obsessed with a married man. Not surprising, that is, if you’ve read Rollo Tomassi’s book The Rational Male. It was Rollo who tipped me to this story.

The issue, you see, is not whether Amy Cooper is a “racist” (whatever that word means in 2020), but whether she is crazy.

Crazy People Are Dangerous.

 

“Equality as a moral or political imperative, pursued as an end in itself — Equality, with the capital ‘E’ — is the antonym of every legitimate conservative principle.”
— M.E. Bradford, 1976

Readers know that I’ve recommended Rollo Tomassi’s book The Rational Male as the basic text of a “Red Pill” understanding of male-female differences, and I make that recommendation knowing that many will find some aspects of Rollo’s worldview offensive. Of course, it’s impossible to find anyone who ever agrees with me 100% — no two people ever have exactly the same opinions — but Rollo deserves credit for his willingness to criticize directly the errors of egalitarianism. As I’ve been saying for more than a decade, insofar as men and women are different, they are not equal, because equality implies fungibility, i.e., that one can be substituted for the other without loss of value.

Why is this obvious truth so difficult for some people to accept? In this video, you’ll find Rollo discussing with Rich Cooper how our culture is influenced by what he calls “blank-slate equalism.”

 

If you’ll watch the video, you’ll see that Rollo recommends Steven Pinker’s 2002 bestseller The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Here is an excerpt from that book:

Our theory of human nature is the wellspring of much in our lives. We consult it when we want to persuade or threaten, inform or deceive. It advises us on how to nurture our marriages, bring up our children, and control our own behavior. Its assumptions about learning drive our educational policy; its assumptions about motivation drive our policies on economics, law, and crime. And because it delineates what people can achieve easily, what they can achieve only with sacrifice or pain, and what they cannot achieve at all, it affects our values: what we believe we can reasonably strive for as individuals and as a society. Rival theories of human nature are entwined in different ways of life and different political systems, and have been a source of much conflict over the course of history. . . .
Bertrand Russell wrote, “Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.” For intellectuals today, many of those convictions are about psychology and social relations. I will refer to those convictions as the Blank Slate: the idea that the human mind has no inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or ourselves.
That theory of human nature — namely, that it barely exists — is the topic of this book. Just as religions contain a theory of human nature, so theories of human nature take on some of the functions of religion, and the Blank Slate has become the secular religion of modern intellectual life. It is seen as a source of values, so the fact that it is based on a miracle — a complex mind arising out of nothing — is not held against it. Challenges to the doctrine from skeptics and scientists have plunged some believers into a crisis of faith and have led others to mount the kinds of bitter attacks ordinarily aimed at heretics and infidels.

As a description of egalitarianism’s influence in our culture, “the secular religion of modern intellectual life” is dead on-target, and I’ve been among the “heretics and infidels” for more than 20 years.

The dogma of egalitarianism, its denial of human nature, has the effect of devaluing the actual differences between us, as if we all are (and should be) identical cookie-cutter replicas of each other. This is absurd and insulting, but if you try to argue against this “secular religion,” you’ll find yourself accused of hate. Instead of denying such an accusation — trying to convince your liberal accuser how much you agree with his egalitarian worldview — you might wish to try asking, “Why?” To say that a Norwegian is different than a Nigerian does not imply hatred of either, nor are you guilty of hate (“misogyny”) for saying that men and women are different. The amazing thing, of course, is that the typical Nigerian is more likely to agree with me than to agree with the liberal because, like me, the Nigerian is typically more traditional than modern.

Liberalism is the political shadow of modernism, and the conservative must acknowledge that his belief system involves loyalty to ancient values that existed long before the Industrial Revolution.

 

Returning to a theme that provoked some interesting comments yesterday (“Trouble in ‘Red Pill’ Land”), I notice that Adam Piggott has up a post entitled, “Do ugly men get laid?” And the answer, obviously, is yes they do. What Piggott points out is that many “incel” types blame their looks for their lack of success with women when, in fact, this is just a rationalization for their shortage of audacity. Success with women requires a certain insouciant boldness which the “incel” lacks. Such men are often described as being “on the spectrum” of austism, but rather than play armchair neurologist, I would observe that the loser tends to be an introvert by nature. Rather than seeing this as a personal problem to be overcome by self-improvement — learning how to introduce himself and make small talk — the introverted “incel” often resorts to a sort of sour-grapes rationalization about his unpopularity with women. The problem is not that he is a loser, but rather that women are cold-hearted, selfish sluts. This is the mentality that results in Elliott Rodger declaring himself “The Supreme Gentleman” before going on his revenge rampage.

 

Self-pity and envy are the worst of human emotions, as they reflect an abnegation of personal responsibility. It’s like Hillary Clinton claiming that “Russian collusion” cheated her out of the presidency, rather than admitting that she had every advantage in the 2016 election and lost because of her own clumsy blundering. Or it’s like those purple-haired SJW feminists who insist they are victims of patriarchal oppression, when the truth is they are just lazy, rude and stupid. Finding a scapegoat to blame for your problems may be emotionally satisfying, but it won’t solve your problem if the real problem is you.

What’s wrong with these guys?

A rising percentage of young American men report they are unable to find sexual partners, according to data from the General Social Survey (GSS) at the University of Chicago. The percentage of U.S. men 22-29 “reporting no sex in the past year” has increased more than 50% since 2009, from less than 10% to more than 15% of respondents in 2018, according to GSS data compiled by University of Virginia Professor W. Bradford Wilcox. The declining sexual activity of Millennial generation males has reversed normal behavioral patterns. Until 2010, young females in the GSS were more likely than males to report no sexual contact in the past year; now, the “no sex” number is significantly higher for under-30 men than women in the same age cohort.

The plural of “anecdote” is data, as they say, and there is evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of cluelessness. My hunch is that a lot of these guys, like Elliot Rodger, have unrealistic expectations about the quality of female companionship they deserve. “Beggars can’t be choosers,” as the old saying goes. If the number of notches on your belt is zero, what does this say about your rank in the hierarchy? “Generation Incel” seems to imagine they should be scoring with blonde sorority girls, when they can’t even work up the nerve to ask the chubby checkout girl at the grocery store for a date. Fear of failure seems to paralyze these losers, and they become passive spectators in the sexual marketplace.

“There’s a fixation with their physical appearance and shame they have so little experience with women,” Boston University professor Emily Rothman said of her perusal of online “incel” forums. “There isn’t a middle ground of ‘what can I do to acquire the skills that I need to connect with women?’ There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of how dating and attraction work and that it isn’t solely about appearance.” If you consider yourself doomed, this will tend to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and this is why Professor Rothman notes the lack of a “middle ground” on the incel forums.

These guys have made failure the basis of their identity.

Meanwhile, other guys are ruining their lives by dating Miley Cyrus:

Miley Cyrus appears to have taken a subtle swipe at her ex-husband Liam Hemsworth — and, actually, most other men — while praising her new boyfriend Cody Simpson as ‘good people’.
The Wrecking Ball singer hopped on her Instagram live on Sunday evening to share some dating advice for her 100 million Instagram followers while drawing on her own experience.
With Cody, 22, sharing her live screen, Miley explained how she thought she ‘had to be gay’ due to the assumption that all men were ‘evil’.
Explaining why it took her so long to start dating Cody despite knowing each other for years, Miley said: ‘I was being a little too hardcore for him and his vibes and not allowing anyone in but now I am.’
Appearing to take a swipe at her estranged husband Liam Hemsworth, the popstar continued: ‘There are good people out there that just happen to have d**ks. I’ve only ever met one, and he’s on this live.’
Addressing her sexuality, Miley continued: ‘There are good men out there guys, don’t give up.
‘You don’t have to be gay, there are good people with d**ks out there, you’ve just got to find them.’

As I explained when Miley dumped Liam: Never trust a bisexual.

Having humiliated her ex-husband by publicly cheating on him with Kaitlynn Carter, now Miley’s claiming that she has suddenly found the one man in the world who’s good enough for her — and how long do you think this will last? Six weeks? Six months, maybe? Sooner or later, Miley will discard Cody Simpson, and what does that say about him?

Anyone with two eyes and a brain can see she’s bad news, and yet some guys are still foolish enough to fall into her vast chasm of craziness. These fools deserve whatever humiliation she inflicts on them.

 

Rollo Tomassi speaking in 2018.

This past spring, I traveled to Florida for the 21 Convention, a gathering of the “Red Pill” community (a/k/a, “The Manosphere”). What especially drew me to Orlando was a desire to see first-hand the men whose movement represents hope of turning back the tide of Third Wave feminism. There is only so much you can learn about people online, and the opportunity to meet these guys in person was important.

Scarcely had that event ended, however, than a schism of sorts emerged in the manosphere. There was a falling-out between the 21 Convention’s Anthony Johnson and Rational Male author Rollo Tomassi. While I don’t know the details of this quarrel, and am averse to being forced to choose sides in such a dispute where all participants are potential allies in the Culture Wars, I perceive that envy of Tomassi’s influence may be at the root of this schism. At any rate, several of Tomassi’s critics have formed a sort of alliance against him, and one of these critics, Jared Trueheart, sent me a copy of his new book The Red Pill Ideology: The Love Child of Pick-Up Artists and Feminists. Trueheart’s argument is essentially that the Red Pill movement peaked circa 2016 and is now passé, that changes in social and economic circumstances have rendered Tomassi’s insights on “intersexual dynamics” irrelevant. Well, I don’t think so.

Far be it from me to endorse every argument Rollo Tomassi has ever made, but the proof is in the pudding. That is to say, there are men who have read The Rational Male and assert that it literally saved their lives. By explaining female behavior, he helps readers understand their own romantic failures and find hope of future success. Consider one of Rollo’s controversial bits of advice (and one that Trueheart criticizes), that of “spinning plates.” The smart young bachelor, Rollo advises, should develop his options with multiple women, rather than succumbing to the temptation of “one-itis” (investing all his energy and resources in an idealized Dream Girl). This is just good common sense, especially when you consider how men are perceived from a woman’s perspective.

Two time-proven adages — “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” and “Familiarity breeds contempt” — express the problem of the guy who clings too closely to a girlfriend (or potential girlfriend) in such a way that he seems helpless and desperate. What this looks like, from the girl’s perspective, is that this guy has no other options. No other woman wants him, and therefore his value is diminished in her eyes.

What the guy with a “one-itis” problem has done is to forfeit his power.

Despite everything that has changed in the sexual marketplace in recent decades, the fact remains that a young man who is going places in life — the guy with obvious future potential — is viewed as a highly desirable companion by young women. The labels “Alpha male” and “Beta male,” as used in the manosphere, may fail to capture this dynamic. Young women can be quite foolish in their choices, and feminism’s influence tends to rationalize and encourage female folly, but the wise young woman (the one who aspires to be “wife material”) assesses men according to their suitability as future husbands. Well, the high-quality young man is a commodity much in demand, his companionship is valuable, and such a man ought not to act like a desperate loser.

When Rollo tells guys to think in terms of “spinning plates,” he’s encouraging them to avoid a mentality that makes a guy seem like a loser. Your behavior when interacting with a woman you find attractive will tend to convey desperation if you feel you have no other options, that you must “close this sale” or be doomed to loneliness. Whereas, by contrast, if you’ve got in your speed-dial the numbers of a half-dozen girls you sometimes date, and who would be glad to drop in for “Netflix and chill,” your behavior with a new female acquaintance will tend to be more confident and casual — The Attitude:

Damone: All right… where did you see her?
Ratner: She’s in my biology class.
Damone: Did you get her number?
Ratner: No.
Damone: Did you get her name?
Ratner: No. It’s too soon.
Damone: It’s never too soon! Girls decide how far to let you go in the first five minutes.
Ratner: Well, what do you want me to do? Go up to this strange girl in my biology class and say, ‘Hello! I’d like you to take your clothes off and jump on me?’
Damone: I would. Yeah.
Ratner: Really?
Damone: I can see it all now. This is going to be just like the girl you fell in love with at Fotomat this summer. You bought forty bucks of f–kin’ film and you never even talked to her. You don’t even own a camera.
Ratner: You tell me, Mike. What do I do? . . .
Damone: This is what you do — start from the minute you walk into biology. I mean, don’t just walk in. You move across the room. And you don’t talk to her. You use your face. You use your body. You use everything. That’s what I do. I mean I just send out this vibe and I have personally found that women do respond. I mean, something happens.
Ratner: Well, naturally something happens. I mean, you put the vibe out to 30 million chicks, something is gonna happen.
Damone: That’s the idea, Rat. That’s the attitude.
Ratner: The attitude?
Damone: Yeah! The attitude dictates that you don’t care whether she comes, stays, lays, or prays. I mean whatever happens, your toes are still tappin’. Now when you got that, then you have the attitude.

That scene from Fast Times at Ridgemont High ought to be mandatory viewing for young losers who don’t understand why they’re losing.

Having the appropriate mindset is as essential to winning at romance as it is to winning at sports. The problem with many young men nowadays is that they don’t have a positive male influence in their lives — Dads, older brothers, etc. — who can help them figure this stuff out. Too much of what young men think they “know” about women is either picked up from their (equally clueless) peers, or else a regurgitation of some feminist-friendly formula popularized by the media. What Rollo Tomassi is trying to do, it seems to me, is to provide his readers with the kind of knowledge that will be genuinely helpful to them. Oh, and by the way — this seems obvious to me, but perhaps it needs to be pointed out — the one thing a Red Pill guy should never do, when dealing with women, is to act as if he’s following some kind of script or using tactics.

One of the problems with the Red Pill community, which as Trueheart says grew out of pickup-artist (PUA) forums, is that once Neil Strauss’s 2005 book The Game became a bestseller, every would-be PUA in the country was operating according to the same script. And once all the little tricks of the PUA craft were published online, women could learn to spot a player’s game the minute he made his approach. The tactic of “negging,” for example, won’t work if the target knows it’s a tactic.

Back in the day — I speak of the late 1970s and early ’80s — it was just assumed that every guy in the disco was trying to score. There wasn’t much subtlety about that scene, and the only question was who would pair up with whom, and which guys would leave the disco alone. A lot has changed since then, but one of the constant factors is this: Male demand for sex, collectively, always exceeds the available female supply.

What this means is that men are always in competition against other men, and unless a guy is a natural winner — the true Alpha, who is irresistible to women — he will automatically lose out in this competition, unless he can otherwise develop some advantage.

This is basically an eternal problem for young men, but what has made the competition more ruthless in recent decades is the influence of feminism which teaches young women that the sexual competition is not men versus other men, but rather male versus female. According to the zero-sum-game mentality of feminism, male success is always harmful to women — he is her enemy, rather than her potential partner — and the goal of women should be not to find a desirable male companion, but rather to be completely independent of males. Feminism encourages young women to develop a hostile anti-male attitude, and young men are baffled in their attempts to understand and cope with this hostility.

What the Washington Post has called “the Great American Sex Drought” is the best evidence of feminism’s destructive “success.” Men and women are having less sex, and this is exactly the goal feminism seeks: Men are bad, and it is wrong for women to have sex with men.

Jared Trueheart suggests, and I think he may be onto something, that we can expect more men to return to religious morality in the near future. (He cites PUA legend Daryush “Roosh V” Valizadeh’s recent conversion to orthodox Christianity as portending such a trend.) However that may be, I don’t think it invalidates the Red Pill insights that Rollo Tomassi shares with his readers. Insofar as Tomassi is accurately describing patterns of female behavior, it does not matter whether one approves or disapproves of this at a moral level. The facts are still the facts, and while a genuinely Christian woman would not act like a party girl on the club scene, the temptation to sin is never really far away.

Jesus told his disciples: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” In other words, the Christian must necessarily be wise to the ways of the world, even as he seeks to avoid sinful temptation. The kind of secular wisdom conveyed by The Rational Male and its sequels has been applauded by Rollo Tomassi’s readers as life-saving knowledge, and we therefore ought not to disparage his work, simply because he doesn’t preach against fornication. If you want a sermon against sin, go to church. But if you want to understand women’s behavior — as it actually is, rather than what we might ideally hope it would be — I think you can learn a lot from Rollo Tomassi. And so I hope that somehow the schism in the manosphere can be mended, because it ill behooves men to be divided against each other, when feminists seek to unite all women against us.

 

 

Rollo Tomassi has a post about how our culture increasingly encourages female promiscuity; women’s irresponsible behavior is called “empowerment,” and and men are expected to accept the consequences. In a feminine-primary social order, as Rollo calls it, male preferences are considered irrelevant at best, harmful at worst, but quite generally wrong in every case. Whatever a woman wants is inherently right, and men are judged failures if they fail to perform according to her preferences. Women’s behavior is immune to criticism (so long as she doesn’t vote Republican) whereas men’s behavior is endlessly criticized; you could fill an entire library with feminist books devoted to condemning men.

What is remarkable, in reading Rollo’s work, is how he calls attention to things which should be obvious — the evidence in support of his argument is everywhere, once we start looking for it — but which is seemingly invisible to most people. Third Wave feminists have been shouting louder and louder in recent years about how oppressed they are, but the reality is almost exactly the mirror-reverse. Why are young feminists so angry? In part, it’s because a basic goal of feminism is to make women angry, to inspire them with revolutionary rage. In terms of their own lives, however, women are angry because feminism inspires expectations about the rewards of “empowerment” that are unrealistic.

Never at any time in human history have women had so many opportunities, but never have so many women spent so much time complaining about how miserable they are. The explanation of this seemingly inexplicable phenomenon is obvious, once you start looking at it from a Red Pill perspective. To quote the late Stan Lee: “With great power there must also come — great responsibility!”

What happens when society devotes so much energy to the “empowerment” of women, teaching girls an utterly one-sided worldview, and sending them off into adult life with swollen egos and unrealistic expectations? She is taught to disregard male opinons, to consider male companionship worthless, and to reject male judgment as “sexist.” To fulfill her mission of “empowerment,” the feminist must be entirely independent of men, to view them only as useful for hedonistic pleasure or as providers of resources. (“Alpha f–ks, Beta bucks,” as the saying goes.) The “empowered” young woman has been taught to reject the possibility that a man — any man — might actually possess greater knowledge or skill than she does. The feminist believes herself omniscient and omnipotent, endowed with infinite ability, and any failure in her life is explained as a result of patriarchal oppression. In other words, the “empowered” woman is never truly responsible. If she is unhappy or unsuccessful, men are always to blame.

This is a surefire formula for insanity, and when I hear young men complain about how many crazy women they encounter, I believe them.

Men's innate drive for paternity must be demonized and disenfranchised in an era where women's control over their sexual strategy is the defining factor in our social agendas. Women maintain unilateral control over human reproduction, men must capitulate by surrendering paternity https://t.co/kVOtdOfj61

— Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale) June 30, 2019

Well, there have been new developments in the Mackenzie Lueck story, so I must cut short this philosophical discussion, but I just wanted to urge readers to consult Rollo Tomassi’s work. He’s onto something, and more people should be paying attention to his insights.

UPDATE: “Friends Decry the Slut-Shaming of Mackenzie Lueck: ‘It’s Just Not Fair!’”