What Are We Doing Here?

That’s the question I’ve been asking myself. This blog had ceased to justify it’s own existence, but I still believed that it could. The reason is because I believe other people know better than I do; especially those who have shown themselves to be of sound judgment and good character; people like Dalrock, GKChesterton, Empathological, Elspeth, and several others. Many others? No, not many. I think there would very few mourners at this blog’s funeral. Regardless, it’s going to live on.

But I still didn’t really have an answer to what I should be writing because I was still having trouble understanding what in the world everyone else is talking about. I see the problems, and I understand enough of what others are describing to recognize that I can draw an outline of that description; enough to understand that we’re seeing the same phenomenon.

Then they start adding detail to their descriptions, and it’s just…not what I’m seeing. What begins as an artistic description of the universe changes form. It becomes philosophy, and they start talking about how matter is arranged the way it is because while we can sense four dimensions there are at least seven more.

And I say, “Wait a minute! You’re not describing what you see anymore, but what makes sense to you as a cause of what you see.” At best it’s like blind people trying to see by learning about photons. Much more often it’s a whole lot worse: It’s the theory of speciation by natural selection (less data spontaneously becoming more  [and new!] data. Huh?), or the postulation of infinite universes (among which must be a universe that is a singular universe. Poof!).

Let me give you some Manosphere examples:

  • The Feminine Imperative (and the now-comorbid Masculine Imperative)
  • Evolutionary Psychology
  • The Red Pill
  • Rabbitholes
  • Game

Tonight I’m going to write about the first one. From Dalrock’s blog*, he discusses what a man’s version of a story about “natural insemination”, i.e., arranged hookups for the sake of causing pregnancy. The framing and language of the article is certainly from a female perspective–what is called the Feminine Imperative–and so it follows (according to this paradigm of thought) that this is a calculated move by women to further enhance an already female-centric society.

If you protest that it’s too big and ill-considered to be calculated, they continue right on that it’s not calculated (as if they hadn’t just said it was a plan) that it’s just the Feminine Imperative at work. It’s the spontaneous combustion and re-combination of swirling fem-zymes and radical iso-tropes into what is obviously a new super-predator that feeds on men!

Really? Is it anyone’s experience that women desire (by volition) or need (naturally-occurring) more impediments to a one night stand with the male of their choosing? Because that’s what this is. “Natural insemination” is the addition of bureaucracy to the hook-up culture. That doesn’t strike me as female-centric at all. It strikes me as downright idiotic. If there’s one sort of positive, hooray-for-freedom thing we could say about the hookup culture it’s that it is free from oversight or obligation…that’s the appeal of it.

It’s also the problem with it, and up until this point it’s been one of very few defining and uniting criminal charges the Neo-Reactionaries bring against our feminized culture. This very lack of obligation in the hookup culture is blamed on women’s choices, or capitulation to them: no-fault divorce; abortion-on-demand; the Pill; delayed marriage… And I agree with the list. That’s what makes the decision to link natural insemination to the Feminine Imperative such nonsense. Even further: It (again) shows that the idea of the Feminine Imperative itself is nonsense. That means formalized natural insemination services are not a product of imperatives, but of insanity; of dis-order. It’s the result of widespread mental illness. We’ll come back to this, but is it not stated over and over that regulation, responsibility, organization–the traits of civilization–are the MALE domain? I wouldn’t be surprised to find out this is a ploy by men to create a stage upon which they can control the socio-sexual environment. If you’re a smart male 6, it’s a great idea to stock an inventory of “available” 3’s, 4’s, and 5’s to be compared against. Appeal is relative, remember?

So, what is this Feminine Imperative?

Novaseeker said:

“Rollo’s idea (he was the first to use the phrase [ed: Feminine Imperative], I think) is that it isn’t the genetic-based component of people’s individual motivations, but rather the construction of social, cultural, societal, legal, etc. norms, mores and rules concerning the interactions between the sexes, around the interests of one or the other sex to one degree or other.”

As far as I know it was Rollo, and indeed it was based in genetics/biological determinism. He predicated a good deal of it on the notion that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap; combined with the social customs, climate, cues, etc. of the last couple centuries, and spiced with notorious acts of feminine vandalism against creation from throughout history. He further stated that there was in fact a biological basis for women’s natural cooperation. Specifically, that women are biologically hard-wired to work together to include or ostracize those who do or do not fit the group’s specifications. I would link to some place where he lays this out explicitly, but as far as I know there is no one place.

Since then the definition of the Feminine Imperative has morphed so that it means whatever behavior women do, or have done. Look at Novaseeker’s definition above: What in Hell does that mean? It could mean anything; even preference for men’s preferences. It truly would be just as helpful to say what our grandfather’s did: “Women’s Ways”. Except inventing new terms really appeals to exactly the STEM/DnD/nerd sort of guy who finds the Manosphere and looks to it for answers. This exasperates me because there are answers to be found here…but there’s so much bullshit, too. The answers aren’t in the definitions, but because they keep piling them on, you must first become an etymologist before you can learn to become manly. Being a man (the broadest and most benign definition forwarded for Game) is an art; not a science. There’s way too much time spent on critique, and not enough actually drawing circles. Consequently, the Mansophere is churning out art critics, and very few artists.

Art critics brings us back to the widespread mental illness because art critics are so often posers who couldn’t find enough appreciation among others for their own art. You know who likes to pose? Narcissists. Do you know what sort of people like to compartmentalize everyone and everything else? Narcissists. They’ll protest it’s some sort of science, of codification to enhance learning…but read what they have to contribute. It’s not the possible science they’re interested in so much as accessorizing their image of themselves. It’s life as set design and casting call.

Some of you want to say something like, “Well, Cane, actually the narcissist is the one who likes to boss others around. He likes to tell everyone what to do, and he thinks he’s the best.” No, not really. A narcissist is someone who can only really appreciate their own view. In their minds, only their existence and experience really matters.

  • You’re my funny friend.
  • You’re the strong friend.
  • You’re the slut friend.
  • He’s a beta
  • He’s an omega
  • He’s an alpha

You know the girl who self-identifies as the quiet one, and takes pains to let you know she’s not judging your behavior? Yeah, she’s a narcissist. What’s important to her is that everyone else (i.e., her audience) recognizes that she is “The Quiet One”, and that you know her manner is “Not Judging”. That narcissism enables the “lack of judgment” (i.e., lack of meaningful concern for others) about others because no one else matters to her but her. Since they don’t matter and yet they persist the narcissist copes by making them a prop; by directing them where to stand in the narcissists mind.

Here’s another example: A woman will rarely describe herself as a slut unless she actually calls herself a slut. “Well, duh!”, you say. No, hold on. Sluts are defined by their behavior. If it’s a woman, and she puts out to others for pleasure without obligation (marriage)–by definition she’s being a slut, right? Steph, a narcissistic woman looks at her friend Jenny, who goes from boyfriend to boyfriend, and interspersed that (just a couple times) with drunken one night stands (“learning experiences/mistakes”). Steph admits that Jenny is…sort of a slut. She puts Jenny in the slut box.

What Steph’s friends know is that Steph–though recently married in a beautiful and moving celebration of romance and flowers and dresses and Steph–went through the exact same “empowering journey of self-discovery” as Jenny! But, see, Jenny is already in the slut box, so there’s no room for Steph in there because Steph requires her own space. Anyway, in Steph’s mind it’s Steph’s show and Steph doesn’t want to be in the slut box. So she’s not. Steph and Jenny’s friends accept this because they’re ALL narcissists, and in each of their minds it is Jenny in the slut box, but Steph is not. It’s entirely likely that Jenny accepts this herself, and revels in being the slut friend. That’s how this group of women got to be friends: They each had their own box. There was no competition for space; leaving them all able to be the star of their own internal show.

If Jenny repents of her ways, they’ll have to kick Jenny out of the group (slowly, and with lots lying, flaking, and backbiting) because Jenny will screw up the program by getting out of her box. That will raise the question: “NOW who’s going to be the slut?” Because it sure as Hell isn’t going to be the other friends. Often times, whole groups will disintegrate once the integrity of the boxes has been compromised by change in one person’s life.

That’s what the Feminine Imperative is. It’s a Manosphere variant of the “slut box” concept. It’s one of many ill-defined but infinitely useful coping mechanisms in the Manospherian narcissist’s arsenal to deal with the narcissism of women. That arsenal is called Game. I’ll write about that later. For now, aside from online discussions about socio-sexual relations, reflect on how people identify themselves in other discussions; by the movies they merely watch; the type of music they merely listen to; the type of games they play. It’s about what they consume. It used to be about who was your father. That’s hard to do when the fathers aren’t around, or aren’t fathering. Narcissism is the secret sauce in corporate marketing, so they promote doofus fathers and empowered mothers to make sure there is always a new crop of loyal consumers. Those marketing reps may not even know this is how it works. In all likelihood, their own narcissism blinds them to the process. They are the stars of their own marketing shows, and they know that there are several dimensions of the human universe we can’t even detect. Besides: You’re in the idiot box; not them.

What’s more: A lack of meaningful concern for anyone else is incompatible with an over-arching imperative. Imperatives–even those oriented outward–make it very difficult for a narcissist to maintain a personal space where they are the star of their own show.

You might say: “Ok then, smart guy: What is this phenomenon of women gathering around each other for protection?” Well people–and especially women–are sheep. When sheep are frightened they head for the safety of the middle of the flock. So what appears to be huddling around each other is actually sheep hoping the threat is sated by those on the fringe of the group. It’s the swarming of individual selfishness. Will they admit that? Of course not. No selfish-unto-narcissistic person will confess she is willing to sacrifice others for her own safety. Those folks are in the selfish box, and she’s clearly in the caring-star box. We should know she’s caring, she’d say, because why else would everyone be orbiting her?

In closing: Historically men are more likely to be narcissists, and women are more likely to be borderline. As we continue on in this grand experiment of personal freedom, lack of accountability, and gender neutrality I think it will only be natural to see more role-reversal trends. Individually, I would expect to see younger men more narcissistic, and older men crumble into borderline. Meanwhile, young women as borderline until they get to be about 30; at which point they molt into narcissists. This would explain why a 35 years old megastar rapper with his choice of women would stoop to impregnate a twice-divorced 32 years old celebrity (most known for making a sex tape with another man) while she’s still married to another man.

*To be fair to Dalrock, he is as ecumenical as they come. This post is not meant to disparage him in any way. The point of his post is not that the Masculine Imperative or Feminine Imperative are real things that should be defined exactly as others have defined him, but that–using the MI and FI as signposts–to point out the obvious and omnipresent feminine frame of reference of all discussion in the media, and society-at-large.

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “What Are We Doing Here?

  1. So what appears to be huddling around each other is actually sheep hoping the threat is sated by those on the fringe of the group. It’s the swarming of individual selfishness.

    That’s pure gold.

  2. *To be fair to Dalrock, he is as ecumenical as they come. This post is not meant to disparage him in any way. The point of his post is not that the Masculine Imperative or Feminine Imperative are real things that should be defined exactly as others have defined him, but that–using the MI and FI as signposts–to point out the obvious and omnipresent feminine frame of reference of all discussion in the media, and society-at-large.

    You accurately capture the way I’m using the term. I’m probably muddying the waters in how I use the term, so I suspect that the frustration with the morphing of the term is my fault and not Rollo or Novaseeker’s. As you point out I’m not that interested in the why of the phenomenon, but more of the what. I can’t find a good creative commons or public domain photograph of iron shavings around a magnet, but I assume everyone has seen this. What interests me is the pattern of the shavings, not the theory as to why the pattern looks the way it does. This isn’t to say that the why isn’t important, but if we were talking about magnetic fields would we have to definitively explain exactly how they work before any discussion is allowed? I am in Rollo’s debt for the concept, as he made it easier to discuss/consider something I had separately been hammering at for several years. If I were to coin the term, I would call it a Morality Distortion Field (borrowing from the Reality Distortion Field around Steve Jobs).

    But a Morality Distortion Field is probably only a subset of what Rollo has in mind, although I believe we are generally close. Moreover, I’m inclined to give Rollo credit where credit is due.

  3. “The Fall”? “Depravity”? I agree that showing general patterns of behavior is good, it helps everyone but I also agree about the boxes. Social Pathologist’s post on the same I think also helped poke the right sort of holes into Rollo’s claim.

  4. As usual. I’ll have to give this another read later under the influence of coffee, but I’m glad we got to hear from you.

  5. Okay, now that I have had the time available to actually read this, I am surprised this didn’t generate more reaction. Couple of things:

    Not sure I completely agree that women become friends because they each consent to play a role. I agree that certain people are drawn to each other because of the perception that they compliment each other well, but the absolutism in your assertion bugs me. Just sayin’.
    Of course, I’ve never had more than one close female friend at any given time in my life so maybe I just don’t get it.

    I completely agree that the idea of a FI leaves a lot to be desired. The women huddling around each other has never been a thing I have seen displayed with a predicable certainty. In as much as one woman can relate to the threat against another, then yes they will run to the defense of each other.

    As usual you do an excellent job of deconstructing the nonsense on both sides and calling BS for what is. Most importantly you stand for the Truth, something sorely lacking in these discussions.

    If you asked me (and I know you didn’t) I’d say that’s what you are doing here. Saying what needs to be said, and stepping on the toes of the smart ones who have analyzed themselves stupid.

  6. I am surprised this didn’t generate more reaction.

    I’ve been holding off on some of my own thoughts while I considered it further and in case Cane had more to offer in response to my first comment.

    I think it is pretty well known that I very much value Cane’s contribution, and different views are critical if we are going to avoid having blind spots (although Cane and I are very often in agreement). What I have been looking for with regard to the FI is to understand the objections, to either better inform my own take on the issue or to at least understand where we actually disagree. Unfortunately for me this post doesn’t help. My rough take on the criticism of the FI is some combination of agreeing with the observation but disagreeing with the name and the underlying explanation. Past this in my opinion the counterarguments tend to boil down to different variations of stating (and restating) a dislike for the concept.

    I generally try not to get involved in defending someone else’s argument, so I’ve focused on how I use the term. However, I would still like to understand exactly what is the counterargument to Rollo and Novaseeker’s explanations. My own explanation would be simpler than theirs, and what I call above the Morality Distortion Field is adequately explained by a combination of solipsism, the rationalization hamster, and “team woman”. However, I don’t see Novaseeker’s or Rollo’s explanations as really in contradiction to this.

    Really? Is it anyone’s experience that women desire (by volition) or need (naturally-occurring) more impediments to a one night stand with the male of their choosing? Because that’s what this is. “Natural insemination” is the addition of bureaucracy to the hook-up culture. That doesn’t strike me as female-centric at all. It strikes me as downright idiotic.

    This isn’t the assertion at all. Artificial insemination isn’t being asserted as a primary strategy for women. I don’t think there is much argument that the primary feral female strategy would be to have sex with the most attractive man available and extract investment from him, remaining with him until she either loses the tingle or believes she has a better option (behold, serial monogamy). Artificial insemination is only entertained as a deep backup plan, to be dusted off if slutting her way to marriage and motherhood as a strong independent woman somehow doesn’t pan out. So the question is, if she finds herself running out of time and feeling her best option is to become pregnant by a man she isn’t attracted enough to to slut around with, what is the “moral” way this should be done? Since sex with the man in question is by definition not something she desires, her hamster effortlessly explains that the only moral way for a man to participate in this is without any sexual contact with her. That the moral edicts from this process are at times erratic and often self contradictory is actually a hallmark of the phenomenon. This is morality rationalized on the spot, based on what she believes is to her benefit personally or “team woman” in general.

  7. More later. Caught in important-client-time-suck. That’s why I posted when I did; to force myself to get something out there before another week passed because I knew this vortex was flying upon me.

  8. @AR10308

    Sure. He fits an important part of the puzzle, and extrapolates on what I’ve seen. However; he doesn’t seem to understand that these issues are fundamentally spiritual in nature…but I’m getting ahead of myself.

    @Zippy

    Thanks. I’ve been keeping that for several months; trying to find the right spot. This post was an alloy of several other incomplete drafts. For every post I make there are 3 drafts trashed.

    @Dalrock

    “What interests me is the pattern of the shavings, not the theory as to why the pattern looks the way it does. This isn’t to say that the why isn’t important, but if we were talking about magnetic fields would we have to definitively explain exactly how they work before any discussion is allowed? I am in Rollo’s debt for the concept, as he made it easier to discuss/consider something I had separately been hammering at for several years. If I were to coin the term, I would call it a Morality Distortion Field (borrowing from the Reality Distortion Field around Steve Jobs).”

    I had to look up Job’s Reality Distortion Field.

    Concerning the bolded part: Allowed? No. Of course anyone can talk about whatever as much as they like. Should we blame mental/spiritual sickness on intrinsic womanhood? No, but that’s what the idea of the Feminine Imperative does. It’s the equivalent of blaming war on manhood.

    To use the iron shavings analogy: the idea of the FI blames the patterns not on magnetic fields, but instead takes the concept of affinity too earnestly. It personifies the magnet; gives it reason, and an agenda. How is that helpful? Based on the comments, it certainly seems harmful.

    Past this in my opinion the counterarguments tend to boil down to different variations of stating (and restating) a dislike for the concept.

    …I would still like to understand exactly what is the counterargument to Rollo and Novaseeker’s explanations. My own explanation would be simpler than theirs, and what I call above the Morality Distortion Field is adequately explained by a combination of solipsism, the rationalization hamster, and “team woman”. However, I don’t see Novaseeker’s or Rollo’s explanations as really in contradiction to this.

    Perhaps when I’m done you’ll still think the same way, but all I can say is that I have a lot to write. The magnets are at full power. For now: the main difference is that Rollo/Novaseeker’s explanation is rather hopeless. What’s the solution to the FI, when the FI is bound up in a woman’s biological and “normal” makeup? My assertion–mental/spiritual illness has hope behind it. People can heal. What’s the solution to the Feminine Imperative? manly chicks? No thanks. These explanations are worlds apart, to me.

    @Elspeth

    Not sure I completely agree that women become friends because they each consent to play a role.

    I said narcissists; not women in general, and not just women. Also: consent is the wrong word. They “align” is more likely.

    The women huddling around each other has never been a thing I have seen displayed with a predicable certainty. In as much as one woman can relate to the threat against another, then yes they will run to the defense of each other.

    We hardly see this, unless the woman “in trouble” has appealed or demonstrated that she is just like one of the women. For example: If a woman says, “You know, I really loved him and I thought he would marry me, and I just really wanted to have children with him.” Other women will say, “Awww, that’s so true! I felt just like that. You mean judgmental people leave her alone!” Because the woman has thrown herself into the common-woman frame. She pushes the other women into the path of the mean people; in effect saying, “Attack all these other sheep who are just like me!”

    If a woman said, “You know, he just turned me on, and I decided: Fuck it! Just drill me into bliss, and we’ll worry about pregnancy later!”

    The same sort of women who responded protectively to the first woman are going to say to the second: “You made your bed, now lie in it.” Why? Because the second woman didn’t jump into the middle of the herd and make all women sound like sluts–which is what the first woman actually did. It’s deceptive, because the first woman doesn’t talk about being slutty–she just frames the every-woman as herself…which anyone can see is slutty. But the second woman differentiates herself from the herd, and so they let her get torn to shreds because–as far as they are concerned–she didn’t have the good sense to not be on the outside.

    They’re sheep.

  9. We let the second woman get torn to bits because she didn’t have the good sense to be careful in her hedonism, therefore threatening the whole system.

    The number one rule of slut club…there is no slut club.

  10. What Mort said. But also, because women really do believe that thing we tell ourselves, that it’s all about looking for true and lasting love.

    It’s more “honorable” to fornicate based on emotional connection than it is to fornicate based on physical lust. Well, on just physical lust alone.

    Sheesh Cane. Don’t you get it yet?

  11. @Morticia

    “We let the second woman get torn to bits because she didn’t have the good sense to be careful in her hedonism, therefore threatening the whole system.”

    I’m not sure exactly how sarcastic you’re being here. Regardless, it’s misleading because the decision to “protect” a woman is not made by the group, but by the woman. The slut narcissist individually maneuvers herself into a position of cover by putting other women between her and the threat. The threat in this case is consequences for slutty behavior.

    The solution is for women to stop being sheep and say, “No, you don’t belong here. Get out.” That puts today’s women in quite a pickle, since most of them have committed the transgressions that cause one to not belong.

    “The number one rule of slut club…there is no slut club.”

    Adapted from a story about a guy going crazy. While mulitple personality disorder is a ruse, it is a ruse connected/concocted to folks who suffer being bipolar/borderline. The character in the movie is early-to-mid-thirties: Kanye’s age.

    @Elspeth

    “[W]omen really do believe that thing we tell ourselves, that it’s all about looking for true and lasting love.”

    Women really believe they desire true love. Women hope that this guy will be the one to provide it; hoping unto delusion most times.

    “It’s more “honorable” to fornicate based on emotional connection than it is to fornicate based on physical lust. Well, on just physical lust alone.”

    Yes. But I disagree that the emotional connection is separate from the lust. More on that later, too. While I haven’t been writing, I have been thinking.

  12. When an animal refuses to exist perfectly within the herd and takes liberties outside what the herd allows then that animal has lost the herd protection. When they get ate by a lion nobody weeps too bitterly.

    I don’t know how sarcastic I was being..or that I was leading anywhere. That is just what popped in my head.

    Interesting insight about people in their 30’s. Being the picture of sanity I no little of which you speak. Narcissism? Bipolar? Who are these weirdos?

    Women want true love but not exclusively. We also want power. We want the safety of a protective spouse, but the empowerment of being desired by someone with “options”. Depending on which the woman seems to have more of will influence what direction her mental-illness takes. Caring beta provider? She becomes a narcissist. Used up cum dumpster? She goes BPD.

  13. I also disagree that emotional connection is separate from lust. Whether the lust is for a body or for the heart…in either scenario it is taking what does not belong to you.

  14. @Cane Caldo

    Should we blame mental/spiritual sickness on intrinsic womanhood? No, but that’s what the idea of the Feminine Imperative does. It’s the equivalent of blaming war on manhood.

    I don’t think “blame” is an accurate word to describe Rollo’s view. This is actually an area where I disagree with him. Rollo is very careful to avoid value judgments, especially when he is describing the actions of women. Beyond this, your argument resembles the feminist denial of nature in the nature vs nurture debate. Are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood (in general). Or are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood which when unchecked can produce bad (or even catastrophic) results?

    To use the iron shavings analogy: the idea of the FI blames the patterns not on magnetic fields, but instead takes the concept of affinity too earnestly. It personifies the magnet; gives it reason, and an agenda. How is that helpful? Based on the comments, it certainly seems harmful.

    I don’t think Rollo is arguing the FI actually has a mind of its own; I think he is arguing that the end result of a multitude of very similar moral rationalizations creates a macro force on our culture which can be considered that way conceptually.

    Perhaps when I’m done you’ll still think the same way, but all I can say is that I have a lot to write.

    Excellent. I’m looking forward to it.

    The magnets are at full power. For now: the main difference is that Rollo/Novaseeker’s explanation is rather hopeless.

    No more hopeless than original sin.

    What’s the solution to the FI, when the FI is bound up in a woman’s biological and “normal” makeup? My assertion–mental/spiritual illness has hope behind it. People can heal. What’s the solution to the Feminine Imperative? manly chicks? No thanks. These explanations are worlds apart, to me.

    Just as you could agree with Rollo’s description of the phenomenon without agreeing on the mechanism, you could agree on the mechanism without agreeing on the solution. What I see is a tendency to throw the whole concept out over specific disagreements which don’t justify tossing the entire concept. There are pretty obvious biblical solutions to the problems we are facing.

  15. Firstly, I agree with Cane and Paige that the emotional connection and the lust are connected. I wasn’t stating my view, but the prevailing cultural view.

    Second:

    Are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood (in general). Or are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood which when unchecked can produce bad (or even catastrophic) results?

    I didn’t get this at all from Cane’s comments. Just the opposite in fact. I think his point is that most of what women do isn’t as insidious and calculated as it is often portrayed in the sphere. It’s mainly stupid women being led around by their feelings without regard for how it will affect those in their path.

  16. So far (and this seems entirely plausible to me), I view the FI as an emergent effect. It’s silly to posit both solipsism and a long-running conspiracy; rather, the FI might be said to be the sum total of a billion solipsistic interactions on society’s collective frame.

    It’s very hard to maintain one’s frame against one’s surroundings, so as a society we are all somewhat in this together. As such, your own “private” interactions change your personal frame, which changes the frame of those you meet, etc.

    Since changes propagate, small-scale interactions suddenly have global meaning, even if infinitesimal.*

    I suspect that womens’ frames are generally weakly held and easily changed—trendiness, fad diets, even horoscopes, etc., are usually taken up in greater numbers by women than men.

    However, women’s frames seem to be more insistentas well. It seems that one benefit of running on emotion is that you’re hard to discourage, because you’re not the one in control.

    So what you have is a billion small interactions constantly happening, each with large-scale (though low-magnitude) effects, and an evergreen pressure to push it further.

    That said, take a woman out of the self-reinforcing Matrix(of which each woman and gamma is a node), and things can change very quickly on a local level(manifested both in pathological cases like Patty Hearst/Elizabeth Smart, but also good cases like Petruchio/Kate.

    I say all this as a STEM/D&D/nerd man, and I have certainly been accused of overanalysis, but the idea seems to explain a lot of phenomena.

    *It’s impossible, therefore, to exist in society without affecting it—leaven, salt, in the world and not of it, etc.

  17. Is it possible that the FI (feminine imperative) isn’t solely biological/natural and social but also (at the same time) something spiritual/supernatural/transcendent? Like all of them at the same time? Because the FI is kind of freaky. It exists, but sometimes it’s a bit difficult in getting the right words to describe it.

  18. Dalrock:

    What I see is a tendency to throw the whole concept out over specific disagreements which don’t justify tossing the entire concept. There are pretty obvious biblical solutions to the problems we are facing.

    Yes, that is what happened to me. There were parts of Rollo’s argument with which I really disagreed, and when I couldn’t get a satisfactory answer, I just eventually decided the whole concept was crap. And then Susan Walsh came along and demonstrated the FI to me in such a way that it was nearly irrefutable…

    I don’t think Rollo is arguing the FI actually has a mind of its own

    Actually, he does appear to argue that in virtually every post he writes, and it was the major stumbling block I had in being able to accept the concept of the FI. It makes a serious and accurate idea seem like hokey pop pschobabble, which is unfortunate because it detracts from the meat of the concept a lot.

    Cane:

    it’s going to live on.

    Clicking over to your site and finally seeing a new post from you gave me that feeling one gets on Christmas morning just before walking into the living room to see what Santa left.

  19. OK, now I have read the essay twice. Here is where I got lost:

    That’s what the Feminine Imperative is. It’s a Manosphere variant of the “slut box” concept.

    I understand the slut box concept, and I have seen groups of women dissolve in the way you described. I don’t see how the FI is like that, though, if we use Dalrock’s definition:

    I would describe the Feminine Imperative as the tendency for women to define social rules and morality to meet strictly female needs. This probably could be considered a more nuanced and developed version of Team Woman. For example, the female preferred mating strategy is serial monogamy, and while they don’t want to commit themselves they want something holding the man on the hook. Behold, the new rules of sexual morality state that sex is moral only if there is consent, within the bounds of monogamy (but “you don’t own me!”) and only when “in love”. So long as the woman remains in love she wants to retain the relationship, so this isn’t actually a restriction on her.

    Another less subtle manifestation of the feminine imperative is the assumed moral force beyond Women And Children First. Note how easily women contemplate the proper way men should die so that women can live (or even just have extra legroom in the lifeboat), without ever considering how unbelievably crass this is.

    Part of what he describes is that this is automatic and relentless. It isn’t something women do consciously, they just tend to band together to rewrite the rules to favor the needs of women while presenting it as what is objectively moral.

    Your box idea doesn’t fit with this so far as I can see. Perhaps you can elaborate when you have time.

  20. Sorry to be late to the party, and you will see that I cajoled you by email to resume writing….while this was sitting here waiting to be read.
    There is a lot here and like some others I will circle back. But two bigs.

    he answers aren’t in the definitions, but because they keep piling them on, you must first become an etymologist before you can learn to become manly. Being a man (the broadest and most benign definition forwarded for Game) is an art; not a science. There’s way too much time spent on critique, and not enough actually drawing circles. Consequently, the Mansophere is churning out art critics, and very few artists.

    This is what I have spent lost of combox time on over the years. Especially when the topic is game, but this tendency manifests on anything that can be made parenthetical, and the parenthesis start getting expanded….by everyone. I disagree that its a STEM tendency, i do agree STEMers come looking for analytical answers and can be sucked in to pseudo scientific defining and theorizing. But its more the philosophers who really get going as what you call the critics.

    For now, aside from online discussions about socio-sexual relations, reflect on how people identify themselves in other discussions; by the movies they merely watch; the type of music they merely listen to; the type of games they play. It’s about what they consume. It used to be about who was your father

    Another sweet spot. You can always tell when someone shares a piece of music, a movie or book recommendation, whether its shared as in sharing the joy of listening, or if its shared as to create their caricature or persona and tons of thought goes into that. It fits usually with those who are 3rd way above the fray about any and all issues. Is it narcissistic that I call that narcissism? Maybe. But it is fallout of a fatherless culture

    It seems to me that a lot of the philosophical pseudo scholarly derivations is a bit of a syndrome that runs parallel to Stockholm. These who philosophize endlessly (defining, refining) about created labels and trends, more than actually even USING the labels or trends (validity of same in for this point not relevant) are preemptively capitulating to type of thinking that initially and in some cases still guides those they decry.

    “If we reduce our conscience to rubble before the bad men get here they will have nothing to destroy”

    That’s what we need to avoid and navel gazing doesn’t move the bar in either direction.

  21. The dust was already settled when i showed up, so I cant start with that.

    I had this question, what are we doing here, in the back of my mind yesterday, all day. A couple of things happened.

    One: I went to Walmart. No, thats not all…..At the door was a table with a solicitor. There were rough hewn wooden crosses and wooden plaques adorned with squiggly mettle shapes and word, scriptures, little catchy motivational phrases, and as it was raining lightly, a dark haired woman, either side of 30, standing there with that aura of those who really do do some trench work. You know the sort, they kind of put their efforts where their mouth is and more/less live the charity, and personally live low as a living sacrifice for same, maybe having been a benefactor of said charity. If not for the presense of the crosses and the sign declaring “Ministry” my money would have been on some very left wing activism thing. Well, my mind may still be there because thistable was one of those thats represents the intersection of left wing altruism and Christian social justice and all over bolt ons that fit.
    It was “The Womens Ministry”, simply.

    So I approached the table and inquired. It was for battered and abused women, and troubled teen girls. I handed her some money and held back my urge to say something stupid about battered men and troubled boys.

    Separately, later I peeked in at Chrostian forums. No idea why. I found a thread there where the members were debating if it was OK to offer advice to someone that favored that someone filing a divorce. The thread goes on for pages and it is a perfect PERFECT illustration of what we (or at least I) are (am) animated by…the dug in fortified attack from within the church.

    Somehow these two things, not congruent things, framed my thinking about the question Cane asked here. He is rightly critiquing the muttering and mewling we seem to enjoy, and I had seen someone standing in the rain for something she believed in, and compared that to how deeply invested ideologically the church is into things I do not believe in.

    Someone help me make a coherant point here. Please.

  22. @ Empath

    I peeked in at Chrostian forums. No idea why. I found a thread there where the members were debating if it was OK to offer advice to someone that favored that someone filing a divorce. The thread goes on for pages and it is a perfect PERFECT illustration of what we (or at least I) are (am) animated by…the dug in fortified attack from within the church.

    I saw that you had left that Christian Forums link on my site this week, so I went and had a little look-see. Dear God. I didn’t even bother commenting, though, because I just would have gotten banned immediately, and I have already been banned from Elizabeth Esther’s site this week. I try to limit myself to getting banned from no more than one ostensibly Christian site per week. But reading that conversation was so disheartening; to think that this is what we are up against. It seems hopeless.

    Somehow these two things, not congruent things, framed my thinking about the question Cane asked here. He is rightly critiquing the muttering and mewling we seem to enjoy, and I had seen someone standing in the rain for something she believed in, and compared that to how deeply invested ideologically the church is into things I do not believe in.

    Yeah, personally the muttering I do on my blog is mostly to keep from crying when I truly take a good look at the state of the church, and I guess it’s probably the same for others. Being able to write about it keeps me from despair sometimes, especially when my pastor decides to preach on the joys of mutual submission or to explain exactly why mothers are so much better than fathers, like he did today in his pre-Mother’s Day sermon. It makes it hard even to attend church. My husband says we go, so we go, but I sit there gritting my teeth and feeling like I just want to stand up and start screaming the truth to counteract the lies sometimes. My blog is where I do my screaming, and I suspect that is how it is for many of us.

  23. Agreed, catharsis by blog is a reality, and however unproductive it seems, well, its fun.

    Not sure why i thought to mention this here, yesterday in an electronics purveyor, I put as many laptops and tablets as I could manage on the home pages of various blogs from our rolls and just left them there. Id so like to know if anyone’s head exploded later. Nuthin on the news about it

  24. @ Mary:

    It makes it hard even to attend church. My husband says we go, so we go..

    We are fortunate that there isn’t a lot of fem-centric preaching at our church. The one thing I do hate is that the reality of the effects of divorce (and single motherhood in particular) aren’t addressed or dealt with.

    Of course, that isn’t really the purpose of the gathering of the saints and compared to a lot of teaching I’ve heard from other pastors, ours is a cut above the rest. Our feelings are not given a place of pre-eminence and we are constantly reminded that our salvation isn’t for the purpose of earthly comfort and ease.

    BUT…Mother’s Day is the one day of the year when a woman is scheduled to preach the sermon. There is a “women’s conference” that is scheduled every year for Mother’s Day weekend.

    It’s been at least a few years since we’ve attended church on Mother’s Day.

  25. @Cane,

    Yes. But I disagree that the emotional connection is separate from the lust. More on that later, too. While I haven’t been writing, I have been thinking.

    Oh absolutely. Lust can be a disordered desire for emotional attachment.

    @Dalrock,

    Are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood (in general). Or are you arguing that there is nothing intrinsic to womanhood which when unchecked can produce bad (or even catastrophic) results?

    I agree with Elsbeth that I don’t think he is saying this. However, the ‘sphere, especially the Game portion thereof, tends to be materialist. There is no spiritual deficiency being discussed. For us on the Christian end that’s a kind of surrender.

    @SSM,

    [banned]

    I recently got banned by an anti-feminist (who still has feminist leanings) I know on facebook…who had spent the whole last two years complaining about getting banned from feminist sites. The irony totally escaped her. We’d known each other for years.

  26. Pingback: What is the manosphere? | Dalrock

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