Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Defeating the Female Imperative

More and more of the Game theorists are moving on from individual Game to its societal implications. Rollo has some suggestions for how men can break the chains that the Sisterhood attempts to impose upon men's groups in defense of the Female Imperative:
What then is to be done about this conditioning? For all the efforts to destroy or regulate male tribalism, the Feminine Imperative still runs up against men’s evolved predispositions to interact with the outside world instead of fixating on the inside world of women. Below I’ve pieced together some actionable ideas that might help men come to a better, unitary way of fostering the male tribalism the Feminine Imperative would see destroyed or used as a tool of soci0-sexual control:
  • While it is vitally important to maintain a male-specific mental point of origin, together men need a center point of action. Women talk, men do. Men need a common purpose in which the tribe can focus its efforts on. Men need to build, coordinate, win, compete and problem solve amongst themselves. The ‘purpose’ of a tribe can’t simply be one of getting together as like-minded men; in fact, groups with such a declared purpose are often designed to be the most conciliatory and accommodating of the Feminine Imperative. Men require a common, passionate purpose to unite for.
  • Understand and accept that men will naturally form male hierarchies in virtually every context if that tribe is truly male-exclusive. There will be a reflexive resistance to this, but understand that the discomfort in acknowledging male hierarchies stems from the Feminine Imperative’s want to make any male authority a toxic form of masculinity. Contrary to feminine conditioning male hierarchies are not necessarily based on Dark Triad manipulations. That is the ‘fem-think’ – any male created hierarchy of authority is by definition evil Patriarchy.
  • Recognize existing male sub-tribes for what they are, but do so without labeling them as such. Don’t talk about Fight Club, do Fight Club. As with most other aspects of Red Pill aware Game, it is always better to demonstrate rather than explicate. There will always be an observer effect in place when you call a male group a “male group”. That tribe must exist for a passionate reason other than the express idea that it exists to be about men meeting up. Every sub-tribe I belong to, every collective interest I share with other men, even the instantly forming ones that arise from an immediate common need or function, all exist apart from “being” about men coming together.Worldwide “tribe” day failed much for the same reasons an organization like the Good Men Project fails – they are publicized as a gathering of men just “being” men.
  • Push back on the invasion of male space by being uncompromising in what you do and organize with passion. Make no concessions for women in any all-male space you create or join. There will always be a want to accommodate women and/or the fears of not being accommodating of feminine-primary mindsets within that all-male purview. Often this will come in subtle forms of anonymous White Knighting or reservations about a particular passion due to other men’s Blue Pill conditioning to always consider the feminine before considerations of themselves or the tribe. It is vitally important to the tribe to quash those sympathies and compromising attitudes as these are exactly the designs of the Feminine Imperative to destroy a tribe from within.Make no concessions for competency of women within the tribe if you find yourself in a unisex tribal situation. Even the U.S. military is guilty of reducing combat service requirements for women as recently as this month. If you are a father or you find yourself in a role of mentoring boys or young men it is imperative that you instill this no-compromise attitude in them and the organizations that they create themselves.
I'll add one more suggestion. Expel from the group any man who attempts to argue for including women in it. This is usually a Gamma or low Delta who is only hoping to improve his chance to meet women, or worse, is submissively doing the bidding of a woman seeking entry into the group. In doing so, he reveals that his priority is his own thirst, not the well-being of the group, and thereby demonstrates his unworthiness to be a part of it.

There is nothing wrong with groups that include women; I don't limit female participation in Brainstorm or in DevGame in any way. But those groups exist for specific purposes and there is no way for sexual politics to interfere with their activities.


Anonymous said...

Two more suggestions:

Be willing to criticize female behavior and support other males who appropriately criticize female behavior. Avoid the temptation to white knight or stay quiet, particularly if the target is attractive.

Show solidarity with other male friends: support them (in the quiet male way) in their relationships with females, using game on the female on behalf of the male (point out the alpha things he does, frame him as a leader, etc.)

Game is a value-free tool. It can be used to rebuild civilization or burn it to the ground. The head rules the belly through the chest.

Jed Mask said...

Great work. I'd say most of this behaviour is just "compromising men" wanting to cater to the interests of the women, so he can "be in good with them" for sex and female attraction. Really silly in the end. Amen.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

This is largely why you'll see lots of nerds playing board games together. Most women don't really care for these games and lots of guys thoroughly enjoy them. So you could go to a shop or rec center and see them playing together and very few women hanging around.

The few who do show up tend to not try and change things because they genuinely love the game and aren't there to attract anyone.

Ron said...

who is only hoping to improve his chance to meet women

A big problem in Western society is that we have no social rituals regarding mating. For that matter we have no social rituals regarding rights of passage for men.

This creates a dual problem. On the one hand, it leads to a desperate take-no-prisoners hookup culture. There are no rules, and so any ad-hoc rules created are usually badly thought out at best, and in many cases, flat out insane.

On the other hand, without actual rights of passage for men, there is simply no way for women or society at large to determine whether a man is actually a worthy mate. This leaves the responsibility for making that determination completely on their shoulders. Which results in them relying on their feelings, which is to same to say as relying on either their basest instincts or whatever crap the herd spits at them at any given moment on them. And that crap is usually produced by unscrupulous marketers who are playing a take-no-prisoners game of their own, tl:dr they say whatever shit women want to hear to calm down their fears.

The practical take from what I'm saying is that yes, we need to push back, we need to understand the underlying mechanisms of human reproductive behavior so as to create order. But once we retake power, we need to create underlying social systems for people to work with.

Many of these gammas are confused and lost people. They must be stopped from their destructive behavior. But after we stop them, we need to set the means in place to train the young men so they can function without having to resort to "sneaky fucker" behavior.

We must keep in mind that different families of humanity have different needs and must be honestly addressed. Some groups may need to require a return to the most brutally enforced monogamy, others may need to adopt a semi-polygamous mode. These are not lightly taken issues, each has serious costs and consequences. Those consequences must addressed and taken seriously if we are going to prevent this nightmare from repeating itself in future generations of our descendants.

Also prayer. Lots of prayer.

Ron said...


Game is a value-free tool. It can be used to rebuild civilization or burn it to the ground. The head rules the belly through the chest.


frenchy said...


"On the other hand, without actual rights of passage for men, there is simply no way for women or society at large to determine whether a man is actually a worthy mate."

Gotta disagree. There is a mechanism, and it's called a woman's father. If no father, then a Pastor, and if no Pastor, then a reliable and mature male friend. One problem is that dating has replaced courtship--family is not as involved as it used to be.

liberranter said...

Gotta disagree. There is a mechanism, and it's called a woman's father. If no father, then a Pastor, and if no Pastor, then a reliable and mature male friend. One problem is that dating has replaced courtship--family is not as involved as it used to be.

Without male rights of passage, in whatever form they might take, how do fathers, pastors, and other male authority figures attain the masculine wisdom and experience they need to function in those roles?

That there is so much shortcoming/failure in these roles today speaks to the fact that the absence of such rituals/customs/practices has had a negative impact on male headship and leadership in general.

frenchy said...


"Without male rights of passage, in whatever form they might take, how do fathers, pastors, and other male authority figures attain the masculine wisdom and experience they need to function in those roles?"

Scripture. I cannot speak as to what the world does, but Christians have the Word of God to turn to. And perhaps the failures in the church are not a result of not having a right of passage, but a failure to follow Godly principles. It takes one Godly man to raise another. Iron sharpens iron. It boils down to passing down what a man knows to his son it whatever shape that may be. So I agree with you. There definitely needs to be something. Scripture is where I would start, and what rings out to me is this, "family traditions". A father can at least create something for his son(s).

Ron said...


but a failure to follow Godly principles

"principles" is the key word here. Culture is what is created around those principles.

Timmy3 said...

Notice how men leave women groups. Women will leave men groups too. Don't compromise how men speak. If women ask you not to do something, just do it. Double down. Exclude the women in communications and her allies. Take your ball and move to another playground.

Artisanal Toad said...

Two points.

First, on creating male spaces and the desire of women to invade. From a legal perspective the answer is simple and that's under the auspices of religious free exercise. Generally courts decide things under the rubric of "rational basis" and all the state shows is a rational basis for doing what they're doing. They win. Get it over into an issue of fundamental rights and suddenly you're under strict scrutiny and instead of the rational basis test the issue is decided under "compelling interest" and the state must show why they are *forced* to take the action they want to take. To make a long story short, under rational basis you lose every time. Under compelling interest you have a very good chance of winning.

So, the mans' space has to be organized as a religious group but you want it to be inclusive of all men while excluding women, such that even pagan men are included while excluding the most Godly of women. How? Dig out that part of the Bible that pre-existed everything that deals with worship and thus includes all men and women.

The first command God gave was "be fruitful and multiply..." The first Law God gave was Genesis 2:24, the Law of Marriage. Pay close attention to what it says and even more attention to what it doesn't say. In a nutshell the Law says it's a grant of authority from God to marry, given to the man, listing the three steps that occur with marriage. What it doesn't say (c.f. Matthew 19) is there is NO authority to terminate a marriage, only to initiate marriage. Realizing that, we also notice the authorization to initiate marriage was not restricted, which authorizes a man to have more than one wife concurrently. That's marriage and according to Genesis 2:24, men and women are not equal. Not only separate, but not equal.

Right after that it got really interesting.

You see, Eve was the super hoochie-mamma, the epitome of all women. The perfect woman, wife and mother. Created by God, naked and unashamed, she lived in paradise and she and Adam walked with God in the cool of the evening. She had no worries, no children to chase, no job to deal with, no distractions and there was no sin in the world. Got all that? As far as women go, she was it and conditions were perfect. The best representative of women, ever, at the top of her game.


So God held a proceeding, and what does one do with someone who, under perfect conditions and at the top of their game, cannot handle obeying one simple rule? I'm very serious about that. What does one do when under *perfect* conditions and there is only one rule and they can't follow it? They can't follow it to literally save their life?

You appoint a guardian for them because they're incompetent.

So, God commanded "your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you."

Create the space.

Never apologize because it's not your opinion, it's the Law and Command of God. It's a heavy responsibility for men to be a guardian of women, something they need to talk about among other men without any of the wards around. You'll find that concept well-settled in law within any of the English-speaking countries. Besides, there's that part about subduing things and taking dominion. Men don't want the wards around for that either and between subduing and taking dominion that can define every single guy subject there is. After all, God said so.

Ron said...

@Artisinal Toad

You appoint a guardian for them because they're incompetent.

I would say you appoint a guardian for them because that isn't their job. Look at Vox, his wife is happy to serve him. Why? Because she's unique? NO! It's because he is a man. I'm not saying he's a good man, personally, I think he's a bit of an asshole. But he is a man. She wants to serve because all women want to serve. He picked her because she was the best woman, but at the end of the day, he is absolutely a woman.

Notice how the average lesbian is a bitter and hate filled lunatic. Why are they bitter? They have their paradise don't they? Actually they don't, they don't have anything. Every woman wants, deeply wants, to be filled by a man. And I don't just mean that in a crude physical sense. But in every sense. Physical, emotional and yes, spiritual.

A woman is like the land. We all know this. The land is seeded and tamed by the farmer, but the land itself affects the man. If the land is scrabble, the man becomes hard and tough. If the land is lush, the man becomes emotional and wild. But the land loves the man as much as the man love the land.

I admit that on a personal level my experience with women is limited. I'm obligated to admit that when I speak about these things. It could be I'm completely wrong. I don't want to pretend that I am an expert. But I base my insights on my observation, my limited experience, and also on the wisdom I've been given by men who have shown me they know what they are talking about. One of whom is Vox. But not limited to him.

Artisanal Toad said...

Ron, if you only knew.

God gave women a desire to be ruled. Desire is only used in two other places; once as a desire to conquer and the other as sexual desire. Theologians argued about which it should be forever. Well, now that we know what hypergamy is, we know it's both. Women desire a fit man to rule them so first they test him to see if they can conquer him. We call those shit tests or fitness tests. If he fails, they have no attraction. However, if he blows through their shit tests and demonstrates his fitness then the desire to conquer turns into sexual desire.

You make a HUGE mistake in thinking a woman has a desire to serve just because he's a man. That's total blue-pill rationalization because she must be attracted to him. If the man is initially fit and they marry she still tests him. She won't ever stop because she has to know he's still fit to rule her. When he is, she's happy. If he fails, she is unhappy, unattracted and looking for a way out.

So when you see a happy wife who is attracted to her husband, it means she has determined for herself that he's fit to rule her and that's what she wants. His fitness to rule her is attractive. That can be part physical (in shape, masculinity), it can be mental (game- learned charisma) and it can be social (power, prestige, money, etc). What she really wants is a man who garners and holds the respect and honor of other men. That, Ron, is a ruler, and that is the man she cheerfully submits to.

The problem is men never paid any attention to that passage, because by implication it's also a command to men to be fit to rule. To be a ruler rather than a whiny, pedestalizing, supplicating gamma. Game says you need to be dominant, outcome independent and ZFG confident. That sounds like a ruler to me. The right frame for a husband is that of a ruler. A ruler can be kind and even gentle, but he must never forget he is her ruler and act accordingly.

From your comments I see you're spiritualizing this. That's almost as bad as trying to argue philosophy with a woman. In both cases, don't do it. You cite lesbians, but do you realize that what Romans 1:26 mentioned had nothing to do with the so-called forbidden sex that Paul didn't mention? Seriously. Romans 4:15 and 5:13 essentially say where there's no law there's no violation and with no violation there is no sin imputed. So, where's the law against female-female sex? Don't look at Leviticus 18, because we had men with men, men with animals and women with animals. The next thing you'd *expect* is women with women, but that's not there. And it's not because God forgot or overlooked it. In fact, the incest statutes of Leviticus 18 specific to polygyny (verses 17-18) were written with the presumption that wives would have sexual contact within a polygynous marriage. What does uncover the nakedness mean in every other case, and how is the man committing incest?

Your analogy with the land is an Easter Bunny argument. A good agronomist can make the necessary inputs, achieve the right balance and reap a nice harvest. Every time, no matter who does it. Not so women. Some women are easy and have a low attraction trigger, most call them sluts. Others are in the middle and have to be tended. Some have a high attraction trigger that is seldom if ever tripped. Unlike land, no matter what kind of woman she is, when the right guy simply shows up the woman changes with no input. Hard scrabble becomes lush. The exterior of ice thaws and she becomes a raging volcano. With the right guy she's attracted because he's fit to rule her. Because God made her that way.

This is the kind of stuff men need to explain to men. Don't be a peasant because peasants struggle and work to get the land to yield a crop. Don't be a knight, they worship women but women aren't attracted to them. Be one who is fit to rule.

Anonymous said...

@Artisanal Toad

The early Christians never practiced either lesbianism or polygyny. Trying to apply the "if it's not forbidden, it's allowed" rule to the Bible leads to absurdity, as you've just demonstrated.

SirHamster said...

@VFM #7634

There were probably a few early Christians that had multiple wives, or there wouldn't be any letters instructing churches to pick leaders who only had one.

As for AT, this is his monomania.

Jed Mask said...

"Manhood is something learned not just something that happens biologically."

^THIS @dvdivx. Only go by the PRICIPLES OF GOD'S WORD. It's worked quite well for me thus far. Amen!

Great words from @Frenchy, @Artisinal Toad, @Ron, @Timmy3 and all the wise, learned and experienced aged men here. Good stuff to pass on. Amen.

Anonymous said...


I must admit it is a compelling monomania, but it falls apart when you look at 1 Timothy 3:2. A man who has his house in order has no need of another wife.

Ron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron said...

@Artisanal Toad

I've been thinking a lot of what you wrote, realizing I don't really know anything. Vox isn't the ass, I am. Where do I get off making such pompous judgements, I have no idea what I'm talking about.


What I wrote was wrong. You've been a big benefit to me and a lot of other men, there is too little that I know, and I had no right to say what I did. I apologize for it.

Artisanal Toad said...

@VFM #7634

The early Christians never practiced either lesbianism or polygyny. Trying to apply the "if it's not forbidden, it's allowed" rule to the Bible leads to absurdity, as you've just demonstrated.

That was a really nice deflection based on two strawmen. Strawman one- the only mention of lesbians (which has nothing to do with sex) is descriptive of God pouring out His wrath on them for unbelief, so they obviously weren't in the church. Strawman two is equally deceiving because there is no such thing as a polygyny, there is only marriage, as I explain to Hamster below. The New Testament is mostly a collection of letters pointing to all the *problems* in the early church in an attempt to *correct* all their problems. Yet the thrust of your deflection is the early church is something to be desired emulated today, which is a joke. Yet, you lied well while making no false statements so you're hitting about right for a half-assed Jesuit. Let's see how well the Easter Bunny trained you.

You (not me) claimed "if it's not forbidden it's allowed" which demonstrates both your ignorance of Scripture and your desire to be led by others. Romans 4:15 and 5:13 state that if God didn't specifically make the prohibition or requirement, there is no sin imputed to *everyone* for violating that prohibition or requirement. But Christians also have to deal with things like Romans 14 and James 4:17. Those are personal issues of conscience.

You craftily overlook the fact "God is the same, yesterday, today and forever" and "I am the Lord, I changeth not." The foundational things occurred in the very beginning and still apply, because He said so, no matter what the Easter Bunny believes. Genesis 2:24 and 3:16 are the context with which to take every piece of doctrine about marriage and family in the rest of Scripture. Even with the issue of divorce notice that for Christians, in 1st Cor. 7:10-11 Christ changed the marriage standard back to what it was in the beginning at Genesis 2:24.

Your boils down to Easter Bunny crap about his "teachings and traditions" being equal and even superior to Scripture because the Easter Bunny claims to be infallible... so pay attention to tradition, not the Bible. Well, that's the real absurdity.


You lost that debate back when I thought there was such a thing as polygyny and thought it was merely allowed, because I hadn't studied Gen. 2:24. What I realize now is there is no such thing as "monogamy" or "polygyny" but rather there is only marriage, because the standard for marriage set by Genesis 2:24 is a commitment by the husband that is permanent and non-exclusive. No matter how many wives he might have, for whatever reason, the standard is always the same. Which is why the Bible only mentions "marriage" and not "monogamy" or "polygyny".

Your claim about the standards for Elders and Deacons is that passage disallows men *because* they are morally compliant with God's standard for marriage. Really? According to Jeremiah 31:31-32, God had two wives because He said so. In your Easter Bunny world God doesn't qualify as an elder of the church and neither do the patriarch's Abraham, Jacob and Moses (more than one wife); and both Jesus and the Apostle Paul (they didn't marry). To claim the Apostle Paul meant God, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Jesus and even himself would not qualify as elders of the Church is a special flavor of hamstering so breathtaking that even you (claiming to be a knight among hamsters) surpass your high level of rationalization in making it. You seem to forget that Paul was both an elder and a bishop of the church. And God had two wives.

Anonymous said...

The most deadly sins do not leap upon us, they creep up on us.

Austin Ballast said...

AT has to justify his chosen lifestyle. What is written is irrelevant, he must believe lesbianism is fine or his "marriage" to multiple women would not quite work.

Artisanal Toad said...

@Austin Ballast

And true colors come out. Your Easter Bunny traditions are so important you claim God's Word is irrelevant, which means you're a liar and a modern-day Pharisee. Did you go all apostate because you're feeling guilty about a lesbian porn addiction? Is that it? Or maybe it's the woman you live with didn't give you her virginity, which means the "wedding" with her was fraudulent because she was already married to another man. Ouch. But if that's the case you've got a lot of company because about 9 out of 10 churchian couples are living in adultery. The Bible provides a couple of ways out of that mess but, you know, that's the book you just said was irrelevant. You don't even realize it's people like you Christ was speaking of when He said:

"In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."

SirHamster said...


I can smell the butthurt. Does that have anything to do with what I said, or the topic of this blogpost?

That you speak of "winning" and "losing" shows you have already lost. There is only submission to God's perfection and Christ's mission on earth.

Your monomania is unbefitting a follower of Christ, and your hamster is running furiously to shut up the truth from God's Word. Speak less and submit more.

Artisanal Toad said...

Hamsters, like SJW's, always project

Fatty said...

@ jiffybarracks

" but it falls apart when you look at 1 Timothy 3:2. "

No it doesn't...The first order of priority is to get ones house in order, to do that may require taking on another wife say an older widow with god track record of having been submissive letting her teach the younger one, then over time mission accomplished the Lord taking her home reconsider your position as elder.....

Chris said...

Repeal the 19th Amendment.

Chris said...

"A man who has his house in order has no need of another wife." - Christian marriage is not about meeting your own needs, but rather meeting the needs of another, and there may be another woman that is in need of a husband.

Chris said...

"The early Christians never practiced either lesbianism or polygyny." - Actually the early Christians were Jews and the Jews did not give up on polygyny until Rabbi Gershom banned it in 1000 AD to help the Jews conform to Western Civilization. Monogamy as it is now practiced in Western Civilization is a combination of the Jedeo-Christian idea of sex only with a partner from marriage with the Greco/Roman idea of having only one legitimate wife. Neither the Greeks or the Jews thought a man should only have one sexual partner. The Jews thought a man could have as many wives as he could afford and the Greeks thought a man should only have one wife and other women on the side as needed. What we ended up with in Western Civilization is sort of a wierd amalgamate of the two ideas.

Post a Comment