After my Conversion to Patriarchy to become more Powerful and Important in Women’s Lives so that Women would Love Me

In response to my previous post “Why I am not a Men’s Rights ActivistBody Crimes made the observation:

“You leave out the rest of the story – how did you[r] relationships with women change after you embraced patriarchy? Did you get married soon after?”

Yes, Body Crimes, I left out the “what then?” second half of the drama. Inquiring minds want to know. Here is “Part 2” of the story.

Immediately after my conversion to patriarchy around 1995 I became aware that feminists, meaning the culture at large and almost all women in general, would resist my effort to recreate the 1950s ideal of family life for myself as an individual. This filled me with a great rage against feminists. The feminists were bent on destroying me completely; first they messed up my parents so that they would be selfishly oriented and not focused on my developmental needs as a child and as a future man. This is why I was particularly weak in my social skills and why I didn’t see what my positive purpose in relation to women was. Then the feminist culture in general tried to suppress my strength as a man telling me I was an “oppressor” if I showed strength in relation to women. So my particular weakness due to my parents neglecting my social needs combined with the globally imposed feminist culture telling me I should be weak as a man and I was obligated to make myself weak as a man in order to avoid “oppressing” women led to my strength level being so low that it was pretty much impossible for me to get women to be romantically interested in me. This was entirely feminism’s fault because feminism is what led my parents to be selfishly oriented and to neglect my needs as a child and a future man and feminism was responsible for the general cultural message that men were the oppressors of women and so men should weaken themselves in order to avoid oppressing women.

Finally as a young adult I figured out a way to escape from the universal rejection by women feminism imposed upon me; that being 1950s style male breadwinner patriarchy. The problem however was that me embracing 1950s style patriarchy I knew would lead to hostility and push back and that the whole culture and legal system was designed to make traditional family life fail and be unworkable for the purpose of promoting and elevating the feminist version of family life; the feminist version of family life and its associated cultural messages being what plunged me into my failure with women in the first place. So before my conversion to patriarchy I was too weak for women to be interested in me; after my conversion to patriarchy my goal was to be stronger than what the feminists wanted me to be with all sorts of roadblocks and danger and discrimination against me as a man being set up by the feminists for the purpose of weakening me and undermining me because the feminists deemed me to be “too strong” and therefore an oppressor of women with me not going along with their “gender equality” script; “gender equality” being simply female supremacy in practice.

So immediately after my conversion to patriarchy a great rage in me developed against feminists because I could see feminists were bent on destroying me as a newly emerging patriarchal man just like they had already dedicated themselves to destroying me as a child and a young adult by making me too weak to appeal to women before hand. There was no escape from feminist tyranny and feminism’s goal was to destroy my capacity to form relationships with women no matter what I did. So the first 2 years after my conversion to patriarchy I focused my energies on figuring out all the different ways feminism messed up society and developing a general plan in my mind about how patriarchy could be reintroduced and how feminism could be eventually destroyed and overcome.

One might ask themselves; after seeing that patriarchy would get a lot of resistance from the culture and that it might prove unworkable and impractical for myself as an individual why didn’t I try to pursue the middle level of strength feminists and the women around me wanted from me and that would produce a reasonable level of success with women consistent with the average level of success with women among men in general? Why did I start out being too weak as a man and then go to the opposite extreme of being “too strong” trying to be like a man from the 1950s and then refuse to “go to the middle” like the society and the women around me wanted me to do?

The answer to this question is that once I saw that patriarchy would work as a way of attracting women and would be good for children I saw the 1950s man as being a good man, a morally good man, and that the 1990s man others wanted me to become was a bad man by comparison because he did not care for women like the 1950s man did and he did not provide to his children a mother to look after their needs full time like the 1950s man did. The 1950s man was objectively better than the 1990s man so of course I was going to choose to be like the 1950s man regardless of the fact that the culture around me and the women around me wanted me to be a 1990s man rather than a 1950s man at that time. Since the 1950s man was objectively superior to the 1990s man if the women around me wanted me to be a 1990s man that meant the women around me were bad, that they wanted me to be a bad man because they were bad themselves. If the culture around me wanted me to be a 1990s man and not a 1950s man that meant the culture around me was bad. Of course it was already clearly established that the culture around me was bad because the culture is what made my parents what they were and the culture is what told me to weaken myself as a man so that no woman would ever want me.

Once I saw that feminism itself was bad, that feminism wanted me to be a bad man undesirable to women, I could not then become what the feminists wanted me to become just because it might serve some kind of utilitarian purpose or make my life easier. Looking at the cultural statistics; the out-of-wedlock birth ratio in particular; I could see that feminism was degenerative, that every generation was worse off than their parents in terms of their competency at forming and maintaining families. This meant if I was to simply blend in with the culture around me I would be a part of the process of self-destruction rather than my life representing anything positive. Once I learned that feminism was bad I couldn’t unlearn this. I saw what I saw and I couldn’t pretend that I didn’t see what I just saw. So me conforming to the culture to avoid conflict with feminism was out of the question for me; the fight against feminism was something I had to take on whether I wanted the battle or not, whether it served my personal interests or not, whether it served my relationships with women or not.

Back to the narrative of what happened after my conversion to patriarchy. The first 2 years after my conversion to patriarchy was spent figuring out how feminism worked and all the different harms to society feminism caused and a general process by which feminism would be destroyed and replaced by patriarchy. Then I returned to an effort to integrate with society and to build my attractiveness to women in hopes of a future relationship with a woman. I went to college with the idea that college would increase my earning power so that I could be a better breadwinner for my future family. My strategy was to cooperate with society in the areas where society worked and to fight against society in the areas where society didn’t work. In this way I could pursue family life and politics at the same time; I could try to have a good family life personally and also work on the culture overall to make the culture overall more family friendly. I want to point out though my thinking was that focus on family would come first during the time society was still functioning reasonably well and that focus on conflict and politics would come later in my life as society deteriorated and it became more and more impossible to function as an ordinary person in daily life.

My thinking was that I would divide society into two parts; the part that worked and the part that didn’t work and I would cooperatively participate in the part of society that worked and I would avoid or attack the part of society that didn’t work. I predicted that as time moved forward the part of society that worked would shrink and that the part of society that didn’t work would expand; in this way my focus on cooperative behaviors would slowly shrink over time and my emphasis on conflict and politics would slowly grow over time. I figured the first part of my adult life would then be mostly cooperative and the later part of my adult life would be more political and conflict oriented. In this way as a young man I would focus on my family life and then as an old man I would focus on politically fighting feminism. This way over the course of my life I could contribute both by way of my family and by way of politics but that my family contribution would come first and then my political contribution would come later hopefully after my children were grown.

After I graduated from college however and it was time for me to face the “real world” my model of how I could pursue a good life inside of the feminist culture broke down. I got derailed by the abortion issue, the Roe vs. Wade issue, the law regarding abortion being “a woman’s right to choose.” The problem was that if it was my wife’s decision alone whether or not to have an abortion and more generally how many children to have or even whether to have children or not that would necessitate withdrawing my investment in my wife and my family because if children were just arbitrarily the wife’s decision then I would have no guarantees or reassurance that my investment in my family life would actually serve the purpose I intended my role as a husband and a father to be. This reproductive power being in the woman’s hands then meant the woman was intrinsically dangerous and untrustworthy and by necessity of self-protection I then could not invest in her to the extent I should as her husband. This was a very big problem because it meant that I could not be a good husband, I could not play the role I should as a husband. That my family life would necessarily be morally corrupted and morally tainted and something degenerative that would shortchange my children for the purpose of giving to my wife power that she shouldn’t have. This was disastrous because it meant I could not serve society through the means of directly participating in family life without political conflict against feminism being combined with family life and my thinking earlier was that political conflict would come at a later stage of the deterioration of society but that I could dedicate myself to family life right away as soon as I was able.

So I was presented with having to figure out a way to engage in political conflict constructively and effectively against feminism, something I had no idea how to do at the time and something that it took me years to figure out how to do. My earlier hopes that I could delay political confrontation for a long time, for decades even, were dashed. I had to engage in political confrontation immediately before pursuing family life because family life by itself was futile and intrinsically morally corrupted by the abortion issue. So instead of having the luxury of decades of peace and tranquility before politics reared its ugly head when I was nice and old politics instead was something that had to be dealt with first before family life could be pursued. In practice this meant my potential family life being pushed out of the way to make sure my political identity was working and functioning first.

This leads me up to about 5 years ago when I started to post things on the Internet as my expression of anti-feminist anti-MRA pro-patriarchy activism. It was only a little less than a year ago however that I actually discovered like minded people who were secular and in favor of patriarchy like myself in the form of the TWRAs or Traditional Women’s Rights Activists whom I joined on January 27, 2013. I later quit the TWRAs and started my own political affiliation I am calling the TFAs or Traditional Family Activists on October 30, 2013.

I am rather well developed in terms of my political identity and my political power but even up until today my family and personal relationship situation with women is weak and underdeveloped. Battling against feminism politically has been my top priority since my effort to integrate into society got derailed by the abortion issue; the battle against feminism and related pathologies has been the number one issue in my mind ever since I first converted to support for patriarchy almost 20 years ago now. There was a period during the time I was going to college where I hoped to be able to pursue family life and function normally in society thinking I could separate the good in society from the bad and delay political confrontation until some time far off into the future but shortly after graduating from college I realized such a strategy wouldn’t work due to the abortion issue necessarily invading and corrupting my future family life thereby making it impossible to separate the good from the bad in how society worked therefore necessitating that I had to combine conflict against the bad with cooperation with the good meaning a focus on political confrontation had to be established first in my life before I could pursue cooperative family behaviors. Sadly due to the abortion issue forcing political confrontation upon me immediately developing an actual family life never happened for me.

My conversion to patriarchy started out as a means to gain women’s approval romantically but it quickly turned into a holy crusade mostly political and social activist in nature with actual relationships with actual women becoming a secondary priority. The system overall had to be fixed before healthy good functional relationships with women would become possible or safe to pursue. Ideally it would be best to pursue family life and pro-patriarchy activism at the same time but I have not been able to combine the two together and instead have focused on the political side allowing the family side to slip away from me. Such is my fate; I did the best I could with the resources and options available to me.

So as I see things now my job is to serve women collectively as a class and potentially to serve the individual women who may wish to join me and support me in a political sense. I am to help people in the development and promotion of their family lives; to teach men how to be good men and to teach women how to be good women and for men and women to form relationships together that put the needs of children first. Patriarchy is the means to this end; patriarchy is the family model and the relationship model that works.

For the young men out there reading this I want to give you some good news; the cultural environment in the United States is much more friendly to people wanting to pursue traditional gender relationships than it was 20 years ago. There has been a huge amount of progress in building alternative social communities and patriarchy friendly sub-cultures that you can join; these alternative social environments being available mostly through the complementarian and patriarchy Christian churches. I recommend looking into the Acts 29 church network for a church teaching a complementarian man as servant leader model near you; there are 391 churches in the Acts 29 Network nationwide in the United States right now. Also a Taken in Hand relationship is something you can look into; the idea of the Taken in Hand relationship being that the man takes the woman in hand. Even the secular world is starting to become aware that patriarchy works best as shown by the emergence of the TWRAs which got started on July 16, 2012 and me starting this website here Secular Patriarchy. I was very isolated as an atheist newly converted to patriarchy in the mid-1990s but today an atheist in favor of patriarchy is not so isolated anymore and might even consider joining one of the complementarian churches that are springing up all over the place throughout the nation. For a Christian definitely they can join one of the complementarian churches popping up. I would urge any young man out there who has newly discovered that feminism is a raw deal and in no way serves his interests or the interests of women to have the confidence that patriarchy is best and to stick to trying to enter into a traditional relationship oneself.

For any young men out there who have gotten sucked into the MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) world; I urge you to reconsider what you’re doing, you have started down the wrong path in life. Women are not your enemies and you are not to be in combat against them struggling for supremacy. As a man you are meant to rule over women and to take care of women and to sacrifice yourself on behalf of women; a relationship with a woman is a higher calling, an idealistic pursuit, it is something you do to be a part of the woman’s service to others, to share in the woman’s higher idealistic purpose as a woman as your higher idealistic purpose as a man. Yes male dominance is good but it is only good when directed towards service to others, not when it is used as a means to benefit oneself. The MRAs are selfishly oriented just like the feminists are; you need to find a better way to view and interact with women than what the MRAs teach and promote. Understand who you are as a man and what your purpose is as a man, then you will understand why the MRA view of women is wrong.

I guess the last thing I will say here; women have always been good for me. Women have not always been good to me but women have always been good for me. As a man I was created to rule over and serve women. My purpose in promoting patriarchy is to take away from women power in the masculine realm and to give to women power in the feminine realm. This is the opposite of what feminism has done which is to take away from women power in the feminine realm and to give to women power in the masculine realm. It is harmful to women and to society overall when women’s power invades the masculine sphere as it destroys men’s masculinity and women’s femininity both, it destroys men’s ability to function as men and women’s ability to function as women. Women have told me very clearly by their behavior towards me that patriarchy is what they want from me, that patriarchy is what they need from me, that patriarchy is what I owe to them.

 
Companion Piece: Why I am not a Men’s Rights Activist

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Gender Politics Analysis, Personal History and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to After my Conversion to Patriarchy to become more Powerful and Important in Women’s Lives so that Women would Love Me

  1. Pingback: Why I am not a Men’s Rights Activist | Secular Patriarchy

  2. bodycrimes says:

    While I applaud your romantic streak, this seems an incredibly sad essay to me. You remind me of me and my friends when we first went to university and realised how unequal things were and we got ANGRY. That was me, the classic ranty feminist who was anti-men and anti-family. But eventually, that stuff gets in the way of real relationships – AND real politics. Unless you’re planning on violent revolution, change happens by a process of negotiation, whether at the highest political levels or in your workplace. Learning to listen to other people, to see diverse points of view, to compromise, and to learn how to craft the message and convince people to sign on is what moves your agenda forward. If you can’t build relationships in both the public and private sphere, your whole enterprise is doomed, especially now, in our hyper-social age.

    In any case, all that stuff about abortion not letting you trust women is just fear and avoidance talking.If you can’t trust the woman you want to spend your life with, then no point in the relationship at all.

    Building relationships is actually much easier than the Manosphere would have it – you just have to like and acknowledge other people. If you can do that, you’re made.

    • Melissa says:

      “If you can’t build relationships in both the public and private sphere, your whole enterprise is doomed…”

      What??? Because he hasn’t met the right woman yet??? Yes, let’s all tear down the person who shares his personal life as part of his aim to offer a good and noble thing to others.

  3. mamaziller says:

    I hope you find someone soon.. maybe jojo.. 😛 You never know.. I met my guy online..

  4. Responding to Body Crimes;

    Yes, it is a sad essay, it is a sad history; feminism is a very sad thing. Tragedy does create opportunities for heroism however, it being heroic to fight against and undo that which is tragic. The fight for patriarchy is heroic; it is heroic precisely because feminism is so tragic.

    I remind you of yourself and your feminist friends in college but on the reverse end of things you say, railing against “the patriarchy”? I would say that there are many injustices against women today but these are injustices based on men’s abandonment of women caused by feminism itself. You can’t attack a man and then think the man is not going to try to protect himself from your attack against him. Worse yet he may actually attack you rather than just trying to defend himself in response to your attack against him. A man may not always attack back in response to being attacked but he will always seek to limit the damage done to him by the attack and the man simply seeking to protect himself from the aggression of the woman is itself harmful to women and then indirectly harmful to children as well.

    Feminism is women protecting themselves from men and attacking men simultaneously. The part of women protecting themselves is legitimate but the part of them attacking the man is illegitimate. Feminism mixes the morality of protecting women and the immorality of attacking men together. Patriarchy separates protecting women from attacking men so that women can be protected without having to attack men in the process. This is what makes patriarchy better than feminism.

    As far as too much anger getting in the way of relationships and effective politics; definitely you are right about that. I do go out of my way to keep my writing civilized and intelligent and directed towards a moral purpose. The OP here is a description of the narrative of my life since my conversion to patriarchy as it relates to my relationships with women and the political side of my relationship to women expressed in abstract form through my public advocacy of patriarchy. I’m not saying my history reflects the ideal of how things should be done; it is simply a description of how things actually happened regarding my particular life.

    In terms of my politics, you seem to be making the assumption that I am supposed to work with what currently exists culturally and politically around me. That is totally not how I am viewing things. My purpose is to persuade and educate and to model how one should view themselves and their relationship and duties to the opposite sex. Additionally I hope to build a supportive community of like minded men and women geared towards being a resource for those not attached to organized religion. My purpose it to change the culture and take over the culture through exponential growth; my purpose is to take over through replication. I am not operating under the assumption of making the best of the current situation; the point is to change the situation in my favor. Patriarchy is more powerful than feminism, patriarchy out competes feminism. Feminism gaining power is an anomaly and a pathology; patriarchy is the norm and society will revert back to the norm.

  5. bodycrimes says:

    Well, you’re very honest and upfront, which is always admirable. Even if your purpose is not.

    If I understand you correctly, you personally found women difficult to approach and have decided the solution is to strip rights from half the population. To force women to accept men they’re not attracted to. Is that what you mean by changing things in your favour?

    It’s a good thing you’re not being political about this, because you’d find that some of your most formidable opponents would be men themselves, who don’t want to see such a system visited on their daughters.

  6. So, Body Crimes, I see you’re getting a little more confrontational with me here. I always love a good fight.

    If I understand you correctly, you personally found women difficult to approach and have decided the solution is to strip rights from half the population.

    Back in my early days before my conversion to patriarchy women didn’t like me romantically; not just individual women here and there but women in general. My Sexual Market Value (SMV) as the manosphere would put it was very low. I blame my particular weaknesses on the shortcoming of my parents not providing to me what they should have but my parents themselves were raised in a feminist environment with feminist related family breakdown and so the sins of my parents originate in feminism so feminism is to blame both for the sins of my parents and the general cultural messages I received as a man that told me to weaken myself as a man. So the issue was not me finding women “difficult to approach”, the issue was my very low SMV that made relationships with women out of my reach.

    If I was taught and encouraged to assert myself as a man and if the overall culture and law was supportive of my authority as a man then I could have strived to make myself the best man I could be and in that way raise my SMV thereby allowing me to form positive relationships with women. If the culture I was in was patriarchal I would have been given encouragement and support in this way. Since however in reality the culture I was in was feminist I was instead actively discouraged from increasing my power as a man and in that way was prevented from raising my SMV thereby locking me out of the ability to form relationships with women.

    The solution to the system wide effort organized and perpetuated by feminists to weaken men which then leads to men not investing in women like they should and in more extreme circumstances men being locked out of relationships with women completely (as was the case with me) is to completely scrap the idea that undermining male authority is a good idea and to teach and promote male authority instead.

    It has to be kept in mind that when you refer to “stripping rights from half the population” you are referring to feminist style “women’s rights” that feminism has corruptly given to women. I am not in favor of feminist defined “women’s rights”, I am in favor of Traditional Women’s Rights instead. Feminist “women’s rights” are centered around women’s supposed rights to abuse and steal from others, feminist “women’s rights” have a predatory orientation and so are not legitimate in the first place. Traditional Women’s Rights however are good and legitimate because they are centered around promoting and enabling women to give to others using their feminine strengths.

    To force women to accept men they’re not attracted to. Is that what you mean by changing things in your favour?

    When I referred to “changing things in my favor” I was talking about changing the overall culture and legal environment “in my favor” meaning more to my liking and closer to what I believe in and support; making things more pro-patriarchy in other words.

    I am totally in favor of women having the right to romantically reject any man they want to reject for any reason. I am also totally in favor of women having the right to never marry if that is what they prefer. I am not saying women should be forced to accept men they are not attracted to, I am saying that the culture overall should not discourage or punish men who seek to make themselves more attractive to women. Feminism told me to not seek power as a man and seeking power as a man is exactly what I needed to do to make myself more attractive to women. Feminism was very wrong and very bad when it deliberately sought to disempower me as a man and ironically enough women punished me severely for doing what the feminists told me to do. Women were right to punish me for obeying the feminists as I should have never obeyed the feminists in the first place I will add.

    It’s a good thing you’re not being political about this, because you’d find that some of your most formidable opponents would be men themselves, who don’t want to see such a system visited on their daughters.

    It is a very sick minded thing for a father to not want their daughters to grow up in a patriarchal culture where men love women and where men protect women and where men support women. Patriarchy is in service to women, it is very wrong for a father to want their daughters to be hated by men and abused by men and neglected by men in the way feminist men view and treat women. Yes I am completely aware that most men are feminist men; I was a feminist man myself originally being born and raised in a feminist environment that taught me and showed me nothing but feminism, my escape from feminism was really just a matter of chance and luck due to the specific circumstances I found myself in. It needs to be remembered however that a man is motivated to support feminism because of his own fear of women and his own selfish orientation to not invest in women and give to women as he should, as he is obligated to do. A pro-patriarchy man is better than a feminist man, he is a man who cares about women more and sacrifices himself on behalf of women more. For this reason I am proud to identify myself as a pro-patriarchy man. Yes the battle to bring back patriarchy will be long and hard but the struggle is heroic and the struggle is worth it and good will prevail over evil in the end.

  7. Jack LaBear says:

    I understand your views on MRA. I enjoy relationships with women too much to go MGTOW myself.

    You wrote:
    “The system overall had to be fixed before healthy good functional relationships with women would become possible or safe to pursue.”

    Man, you can’t change society, but you can change yourself.

    “If I was taught and encouraged to assert myself as a man and if the overall culture and law was supportive of my authority as a man then I could have strived to make myself the best man I could be and in that way raise my SMV thereby allowing me to form positive relationships with women.”

    Well, shit happens. You can’t change the past. But you can change your self in the future. Seize the bull by the horns and make your self the best man you can be going forward instead of wallowing in self pity about the past. I was raised in my adolescence by a single mom in a feminist culture and managed to pull myself out of it at the age of 53 after a failed marriage and a couple subsequent painful relationships. The manosphere has been a gift. Partake of it and become a man.

    You figured out the part about women want a man to provision them – to be a provider. But women’s hypergamous nature is also (and in the current easy economic environment especially) attracted to the strong, confident, assertive male. There is a term for that dual attraction mechanism – Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks.
    You understand the Beta Bucks part, now you need to work on the Alpha. Go to the gym and build some muscle. Get your body fat percentage down to a masculine level. Learn boxing or martial arts. Get testosterone replacement therapy if you need it. Read therationalmale.com therationalmale.com/tag/beta-bucks therationalmale.com/2013/04/26/fear-and-freedom http://www.justfourguys.com/is-alpha-fux-beta-bux-real‏/
    Read some Dalrock “Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world.”
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/this-wont-end-well/ Follow links; he and Rollo Tomassi are wise men.

    If you don’t do those things, then even if you do get into a relationship, she will lose respect and attraction for you or cuckold you. And she might even if you do. But it won’t matter because there will be others where she came from. Abundance mentality, my friend.

    If you need to, get yourself some rational emotive psychotherapy. Instead of dwelling on the past, it works with your current strengths. You might want to get yourself a masculine sounding nickname.
    Lastly, it would help if you would express yourself more concisely and confidently, instead of rambling on and on repetitively like a woman.

  8. Responding to your comments here.

    One man can’t change society but one man can do his part to change society. It is important to me that I be part of the solution rather than part of the problem so my orientation is to combine politics and family together; the political part being directed towards society overall and the family part being directed to making good and functional my immediate sphere of influence.

    I am totally in favor of men striving to be the best men they can be but the manosphere is contrary to this ideal. The “manosphere” is sort of a broad and amorphous concept but to me it includes Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), Christian MRAs, and Pick Up Artists (PUAs). The connecting theme of the manosphere is “men first” it seems to me and I am opposed to the whole “men first” mentality. To “become a man” in my estimation means to enable oneself to serve others, particularly women and by extension children. The manosphere doesn’t promote the idea of men serving women as a general philosophical goal or virtue and that is why I don’t subscribe to it or embrace it.

    I don’t see how there is a conflict between women wanting a provider and women wanting a so called “alpha male.” An alpha male is likely to be a particularly good provider after all. In a truly functional society all men are alpha males at least compared to the particular women they marry. As far as “hypergamy” among women is concerned, of course a woman will want a man who is stronger in masculine traits than they are, men on average are stronger in masculine traits than women are after all.

    As far as my romantic strategy is concerned, the goal is to be the best man I can be period. There is no division between being a provider and being alpha, being a provider is part of being alpha.

    As far as the “abundance mentality” is concerned, my goal is lifetime monogamy, not a maximum number of sexual partners. People can really get themselves messed up with promiscuity where they seem to lose the ability to bond and fall in love or stay in love.

  9. jacklabear says:

    “I am totally in favor of men striving to be the best men they can be but the manosphere is contrary to this ideal.”
    Actually, the more enlightened “dating coaches” emphasize inner game, self improvement, confidence based on actual performance and direction in life.

    “The “manosphere” is sort of a broad and amorphous concept but to me it includes Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), Christian MRAs, and Pick Up Artists (PUAs). The connecting theme of the manosphere is “men first” it seems to me…”
    Rollo Tomassi and Dalrock are different in that they are long term married with children. In studying and teaching how feminine psychology really works, they are in fact serving their wives by giving them what they want: the gift of attraction and guidance.

    ” To “become a man” in my estimation means to enable oneself to serve others, particularly women and by extension children.”
    The truth here is that along with authority there is responsibility: http://manhood101.com/ebook.html

    “I don’t see how there is a conflict between women wanting a provider and women wanting a so called “alpha male.””
    The conflict is that the alpha mainly wants to serve himself, spread his seeds far and wide, and not stick around. The beta provider, on the other hand, doesn’t satisfy the woman’s ‘gina tingle’ needs for masculine dominance. It is rare to find both traits in one man, the dominant masculine man who will commit long term as provider. That’s why such a man is the leading character in women’s romance novel fantasies.

    “An alpha male is likely to be a particularly good provider after all.”
    How do you account for serial killers getting love letters and marriage proposals in prison?
    Women repeatedly going for loser bad boys who can barely take care of their own selves?

    “…men on average are stronger in masculine traits than women are after all.”
    Not in this feminist culture! Also, since life is easy economically for most women now, hypergamy leans more heavily towards AlphaFux for most of a woman’s life: http://therationalmale.com/2014/03/16/preventative-medicine-part-i/ http://therationalmale.com/2014/03/26/preventative-medicine-part-ii/ http://therationalmale.com/2014/04/08/preventative-medicine-part-iii/

    “As far as the “abundance mentality” is concerned, my goal is lifetime monogamy, not a maximum number of sexual partners.”
    It’s debatable whether humans are hardwired for decades of monogamy or not, but I myself prefer long term relationships with women I like and am comfortable with. If you are going to have children, you owe it to them to provide a stable family till they grow up.
    The point of abundance mentality is not necessarily to be promiscuous, but rather to know that you can replace your woman should she make that necessary. The idea is that it gives you confidence
    and keeps you from acting needy, supplicating and neurotic towards her. So ironically, knowing that you will be ok without her, gives her the gift of attraction and will tend to make the relationship last: http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/27/dread-games/ also follow related links in the article.

    “People can really get themselves messed up with promiscuity where they seem to lose the ability to bond and fall in love or stay in love.”
    Agreed. Indeed, both the notch count PUAs and the women who go for them tend to have feelings of low self worth and personality disorders: http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-1/
    Parts 2-4 gets into the men’s issues.

  10. The conflict is that the alpha mainly wants to serve himself, spread his seeds far and wide, and not stick around. The beta provider, on the other hand, doesn’t satisfy the woman’s ‘gina tingle’ needs for masculine dominance. It is rare to find both traits in one man, the dominant masculine man who will commit long term as provider. That’s why such a man is the leading character in women’s romance novel fantasies.

    In modern culture I would agree that those who self-style themselves as “alpha” are indeed out to “serve themselves” and that is exactly the problem. To be selfishly oriented just looking to “score” is a choice, there is no reason why a man especially attractive to women has to take on such an attitude however. Such a high value man can instead seek a particularly high value woman to marry and in that way use his strengths as a man to best benefit himself psychologically and contribute to society overall in a positive way.

    Also, all men should be dominant in relation to the women they are with; that is just basic gender relations 101. A “beta provider” should definitely be dominant in relation to his wife. In traditional culture all married men are dominant and providers at the same time, that is what the standard model of gender relations should be.

    As far as lifetime monogamy is concerned, I would definitely say humans are “wired that way” to some extent. People definitely form long term romantic bonds so that for instance a wife as she becomes old within marriage will not appear “old” to her husband who fell in love with her and married her at a young age. This “fixing” of romantic attachment definitely helps a couple stay married for life. Regardless of whether lifetime monogamy is “natural” however it is definitely socially desirable and so should be encouraged as a societal expectation and moral norm.

    As far as “abundance mentality” giving men confidence and helping their “game” that is fine as long as a long-term relationship is the goal I would say. You don’t want to send “loser” vibes to a woman. At some point however an actual commitment will start to be made and that is when it is time to drop the “abundance mentality” and instead focus on trying to make the relationship you are in work.

  11. Pingback: My Escape from the Prison of Feminism | Secular Patriarchy

  12. zena says:

    Get help!

    This shit is hysterical since my last celebrity crush was a self identified nerd who lives in deference for women and is very against rape culture and very very soft and beta. He was nerdy and aware of himself. It worked.
    Y’all need help and to actually talk to women about what they want, where they aim, what turns them on. None of this METATHEORY/EASY SOLUTION/ONE SOLUTION FOR ALL BS!
    I’d more likely date a soft beta who doesn’t take himself seriously and listens to me when I speak over some crazy alpha bossy boots who rules the world and is scary.

    Get help!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s