Feminism is a religion, with its myths of creation, sin and salvation

“I often joke with people that feminism has been like a born-again religion for me—that once I found it and let it into my life, my entire perspective shifted in such a way that suddenly, everything made sense—and that I feel compelled to spread that gospel,” writes Melissa Fabello in Everyday Feminism

Fabello says she is joking—but is she? In creed and conduct, belief and behaviour, isn’t feminism actually a secular religion?

Religion is a belief system that explains the origin and purpose of life, posits a spiritual or supernatural dimension to human existence, involves faith in what cannot be definitively known, and results in the radically changed understanding and behaviour of the believer.

Feminists do not usually define feminism as a religion but as a social science. Feminism postulates that most societies, and certainly all western societies, have been structured to reflect male perspectives and experiences while marginalizing female perspectives and experiences. Feminism thus presents itself as an evidence-based analysis of society and relationships.

But feminist methodology does not stop at the well-defined boundaries of social science. It ventures beyond these parameters and enters the realm of religion in its adherence to myths and unverifiable theories. Professor Mary Daly at Boston College, even seeks to go “beyond God the Father” (the title of her most influential book). Furthermore, feminists often describe their identity and understanding of the world in quasi-religious terms.

The feminist Garden of Eden, is protected not by a male god, but by a reigning spirit, the divine feminine. 

As religions do, feminism offers an origin story—the patriarchy, an unjust and hierarchical social order in which elite white men dominate and oppress all other groups. Some feminist theories also posit an ancient matriarchy, a nurturing, collectivist, egalitarian, and non-exploitative state predating patriarchy, in which human beings lived in harmony with one another and with nature.

This is a feminist version of the Garden of Eden, protected not by a male deity but by a reigning spirit, the divine feminine. Here women held power and exercised it benevolently for the good of all. Some indigenous cultures are of particular interest to feminists because of their claims to offer proof of such matriarchal social structures in which women had or continue to have significant political and spiritual authority.

At some point in all feminist origin stories, humankind fell from grace because of male sin, i.e. the male lust for power. Men invented and imposed patriarchy, a structure of social relations that severed women from their natural harmony with the earth and with other women. Men introduced other forms of hierarchical control based on race, sexual identity, physical ability, and so on.

Specific feminist theories go even further and address the related, “intersectional” forms of oppression. But all feminisms, regardless of their particular emphases and approaches, believe that patriarchy is man-made rather than natural. It is an unjust social arrangement that denies the life possibilities of women (and other “marginalized” groups) and must be overturned.

According to the feminist origin story, patriarchy imposed artificial gender roles, prohibiting women from their once respected roles as warriors, healers, and inventors. Patriarchy restricted women to the domestic realm, forcing women to serve the sexual, emotional and material needs of men. Patriarchy limited the personal development of women to nurturing children and activities associated with it. Patriarchy enforced the economic, social, and psychological inferiority of women.

The religion of feminism then moves along its narrative arc from the archetypal myths of creation and fall towards the possibility of salvation and redemption from the patriarchy.

Just as some feminists posit a utopian matriarchal society from which women “fell” into their present servitude, so it imagines an idyllic condition of liberation towards which women can and should strive. It also offers at least partial redemption for men through strenuous disavowal of and restitution for their masculine sinfulness. It thus provides a purpose for all feminist activists: the bringing into being of a just world. In this eschatological future, patriarchal bondage and hierarchy will be vanquished, and all women regardless of background or condition will love and value one another and nature and the feminist kingdom of heaven will come down to earth.

In keeping with its purpose of creating a better world, a distinctive spirituality or mysticism is evident in many feminist accounts, including even the most pragmatic and materialist. Almost unvaryingly, feminist theories associate spiritual power with feminine activities, modes of being, or individual women.

This power may take the form of a liberating energy, a sexual purity, a deeper insight or caring, a greater empathy (sometimes as a result of oppression), a greater capacity for collective living, or a revolutionary ethos. The invariable assumption is that simply by virtue of being a woman—whatever that might mean to the theorist (the category of “woman” is hotly debated)—one brings gifts to the world that men do not possess.

  • Feminist theologian Mary Daly argues that women’s interactions demonstrate new modes of non-hierarchical relationship in “cosmic covenant” 
  • Radical feminist Andrea Dworkin claims that only women, because of their lived experience of one another’s pain, can imagine “the real practice of equality” 
  • American psychologist Carol Gilligan argues that women develop a different, and superior, form of interpersonal morality 
  • French feminist theorist Helene Cixous celebrates the special capacity of womanly creativity as joyful, non-linear, and intimately associated with the fecund powers of the female body 
  • Avant-garde lesbian novelist Monique Wittig pictures women-loving women as uniquely sexually powerful 
  • Many  popular notions stress women’s capacity for empathyproblem-solvingnon-violence, and egalitarianism.

In contrast, masculine habits of thought and actions are consistently linked with violence, predation, and dehumanization, as revealed by the widespread use of the term “toxic masculinity.”

The assumption is that simply by virtue of being a woman one brings gifts to the world that men do not possess.

While most feminists deny that feminism promotes female superiority, nonetheless many contemporary feminist campaigns and social movements, whether of the ‘Women never lie about rape’ variety, the insistence on saving women from the draft, the determination to keep women out of prison or to change laws to provide special protections for them—all manifest a basic underlying assumption that women are more moral than men, deserving of special concern and protections not warranted for men.

Arguments to increase the number of women in politics and in the boardroom often rest on the (explicit or implicit) assumption that women bring special powers for good—caring about children, social sensitivity, cooperation—that men do not possess. Arguments to raise the number of men in certain occupations or sectors of society—for example, in primary-school teaching—almost never rest on similar assumptions about masculine virtues.

The blatant contradiction between two opposed ideas—that femininity is entirely a social construct of patriarchy, based on nothing biological; and that women possess distinctive capacities for good that should be generally recognised and promoted—is an example of the incoherent magical thinking that characterises much feminism and that highlights its faith-based foundation.

Of course, religious elements might similarly be found in many totalising worldviews (such as Marxism, for example) that judge the present as unjust and embrace a utopian vision for the future. But feminism’s umbilical cord with religion becomes more striking in relation to the manner in which a “sinner” or “seeker” comes to accept feminist claims, and their subsequent effects on believers’ attitudes and behaviours.

Most fundamentally, feminism requires a fervent belief in a central tenet or proposition for which no indisputable evidence exists, whether it be patriarchy, male sexism, the social construction of gender, or women’s sexualised oppression

Although feminism claims to rest on scientific observation, and although feminists of all stripes tend to cite irrefutable-seeming statistics about the wage gapviolence against womensexual harassment, and the glass ceiling, etc., all of these not only fail to stand up to objective scrutiny but are effectively nullified by other statistics showing female advantage and male suffering, including numbers regarding male suicideworkplace fatalitieshealth outcomes and longevityreal wages and job statusrates of incarceration and sentencing, and post-secondary participation.

If it were a matter of evidence, feminism would have lost its legitimacy as an explanatory framework long ago. But no matter how many times feminist assertions are shown to be false—including inflammatory sexual assault statistics and the truism that women are paid less than men for the same work—such myths continue to be cited with respect by punditspoliticians, and policy-makers.

Here is where the element of faith shows itself most clearly. No matter how many times feminist statistics are undermined and no matter how many times countervailing evidence is revealed—feminists continue to cling to their beliefs, often simply by repeating the original mantras  with increased fervour and conviction.

If evidence for the biological basis of sex is brought forward, a feminist will simply claim in response that all science is sexist. When StatsCan data shows that men report levels of domestic violence comparable with women, feminists continue to proclaim “violence against women” as the pressing reality. Nearly any fantastical belief—about rape culture, repressed memories of childhood abuse, or gender bias in STEM—comes to seem real through devotional reiteration, not dissimilar to the repetition of a religious creed.

The matter of belief leads to what is perhaps the most salient feature of feminism as religion: its marked effect on the believer’s attitudes and behaviour. Becoming a feminist is akin to a religious conversion in that there is a marked transformation in the believer’s orientation to the world, a sense of “rebirth” or “awakening” that changes all one’s personal coordinates. Melissa Fabello speaks for many when she explains how “Feminism has coloured every single thought and action that passes through me in a day. Feminism has changed how I see myself and others. [It] has rebooted my entire being.”

If it were a matter of evidence, feminism would have lost its legitimacy as an explanatory framework long ago.

What may once have seemed a heterogeneous mix of experiences is now organised by a single dazzling insight into the reality of structural inequality, the “casual and ingrained sexism” of even “the best men (and women).” Nothing escapes the explanatory power of the intersectional feminist thesis. Previously innocuous behaviours by men are now placed on the continuum of expressions of male privilege. All interactions between persons, no matter how trivial or seemingly amicable, are understood as negotiations of social power in which the oppressed person, usually a woman, is at a perilous disadvantage. This changed perception is not only applied to the world ‘out there,’ but to the most personal dimensions of the believer’s life.

As a result, a profound sense of grievance and passionate desire to fight for collective justice well up in the believer, along with a fervent longing for feminism’s promised land—the end of all inequality under the sign of the divine feminine. All of the feminist believer’s former experiences are now re-evaluated in light of the feminist insistence on women’s experience of sexualised violence. In cases where the conversion is truly radical, a sweeping hatred of feminism’s ‘other’—the white heterosexual man—may develop. Women who do not share the believer’s new understanding are classed as unenlightened, deluded by patriarchal “original sin” (which according to Mary Daly was, for women, internalized guilt and self-blame).

A young woman can write about her horror at discovering that she is pregnant with a male child; a feminist leader can pen an article proposing that boys’ failures in school are the result of their ‘privilege’ in the world—and that we should stop helping them succeed in life; these are seen as reasonable expressions of elite opinion. The satirical question “Would you rather your child had cancer or feminism?” refers to an immediately recognisable reality for many parents, friends, or lovers, who have had family members alienated irreparably because of feminist-inspired paranoia and resentment.

There are evident parallels to the fanatical religious believer who becomes alienated from former friends and family members. The difference, however, is that the major religions of the western tradition, including Catholicism, Protestantism, and Judaism, stress the believer’s continued responsibilities to family (especially in the commandment to “honour your father and mother”) and to the wider human community. The God of these religions is a loving Father who cares for His creatures whether they know Him or not. Such is not the case with feminism, whose goddess-spirit cannot dwell in the masculine.

Feminism differs from most orthodox religions in making its ‘Promised Land’ a place that must be built in the here and now, not in an afterlife, with the result that a deep urgency attends all efforts to renew present society. The effort by necessity includes the harsh punishment or exile of feminism’s enemies (think of feminist efforts to destroy those who argue with them online), for the feminist utopia cannot be created while the unregenerate pollute the land.

Feminism contains no injunction to “Love your enemies” (or even your neighbour) and it demands immediate and ongoing reparations for the perceived injustices of the past. Thus it may be said to encourage all the negative aspects of fervent religious beliefs—irrational passions, a rigid worldview that refuses other perspectives, the demonisation of non-believers—and none of the benevolence and self-sacrificing love that characterise true religions at their best. In its supremacism and justification of violence against non-believers (and ‘dhimmi’ status for male feminists), it perhaps most closely resembles fundamentalist Islam.

The impact of a religion on an individual or on a whole society is not necessarily bad, of course—it all depends on the content of the religion and the cultural forms it takes. We should be clear that feminism is closer to a religion than a social science, concerned less with truth than belief, often impervious to reason, and highly intolerant of competing viewpoints. It may be allowed a carefully circumscribed place in the public sphere, but it should not be allowed to operate as an unofficial state sanctioned religion.

Differences in Ways of Getting What You Want

This is an excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to Their Sons: Understanding the World of Boys. The book is good for dad’s too!

The sexes are different in their strategies to get what they want. This difference starts early. Boys tend to be more physical and direct, demanding or playfully pushing another boy in order to obtain what he wants. Girls don’t seem to like this sort of method. Girls are more likely to use words or relational means to get what they want. Boys tend not to respond to this. Neither sex seems to be too keen on the other’s modes.

To get a better idea of how boys and girls differ in this way, lets look briefly at the anthropological research of Ritch Savin Williams observing an adolescent summer camp.17 Groups of boys and girls aged eleven to fourteen were housed in their own cabins. Let’s look at the boys’ cabins first.

Very soon after arrival, the boys started challenging each other, sometimes telling each other what to do, sometimes putting the other boys down. Each of these were maneuvers to try to attain higher dominance in the hierarchy of boys. Pushing and shoving was not unusual nor was making fun of weakness. In fact if weakness was exposed, the other boys would sometimes join in to mark their own dominance. Some boys barked orders and others followed, while some put up a challenge. The boys’ pecking order, their hierarchy, was being made clear to all and it happened fairly quickly.

Savin Williams found that both boys and girls used ridicule and name-calling as a means to create higher dominance. But there were some strategies used by the girls that were very different. Unlike the boys, Savin Williams says that the girls maintained a sweet and agreeable attitude for the first week, making friends and being nice. But after the first week was up the girls started their own ploys to gain dominance. Their modes were more relational and less direct. Girls would ignore someone, or appear to “not hear” another girl in order to maintain dominance. Other tactics included gossip, social alienation, misinformation and withholding eye contact.

The boys’ strategy seems to be overt and out in the open. They seem to lack concern for the feeling reactions of their friends and are more likely to throw their weight around with bravado in order to be higher on the hierarchy. They just don’t seem to care as much if someone gets hurt in the process. The important thing is to be on top. We can see this sort of thing when boys are together with their friends and they will openly put each other down. Moms get upset with this but it needs to be understood as being their way to navigate the hierarchy. This does not mean that we shouldn’t help boys find kindness towards their friends; it does however mean that we need to understand these behaviors in their context.

The girls’ strategy seems more passive and clandestine. Savant Williams tells us that the girls, unlike the boys, seem to want to be perceived as “nice” and maintain that image whenever possible thus they take a week to build alliances prior to starting to use dominance tactics. Their dominance strategies are designed to be stealthy. Their strategies are often easily denied as not being “on purpose” or by claiming they had no motive to hurt. All the while the hurtful behaviors flow via social alienation, gossip, exclusion and other means.

Both boys’ and girls’ strategies leave some chaos in their aftermath, the boys’ more overt and the girls’ more covert. Both strategies are designed to create and maintain dominance over their peers. It is easy to see how these very different strategies don’t mix very well. This may play into what we will look at next, the very different ways that boys and girls choose to play.

Pg 22-24 Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons: Understanding the World of Boys

If you are interested in learning more about relationships from a Red Pill Perspective you might want to check out Paul and Tom’s Patreon site on Red Pill Relationships

Why men can’t say no. A historical perspective

A note to readers: These are opinion pieces. While there may be empirical support for elements of what I am saying, it won’t be presented here. It’s not an academic paper, just a take it or leave it bit of my opinion. PE

Men are only as mentally and emotionally healthy as their ability to say no to a woman. Actually, that bears repeating. Men are only as mentally and emotionally healthy as their ability to say no to a woman.

Obviously, this does not apply in some areas. Mental health problems won’t be solved by simply finding a woman and uttering the word “no.” Gay men may have a somewhat different perspective about this but they are raised with the same life expectations as straight men so there is no real pass for them either. Quite the contrary.

Still, I will hold to this proposition and do my best to explain it. I can tell a great deal about a man, his boundaries, his values and ultimately his integrity and character with a simple measurement of his obsequiousness with and deference to women.


To understand all this requires a bit of a history lesson, dating back to the twelfth century and the cultural movement driven by Romantic Chivalry.

At precisely that moment in history the warrior code was harnessed to the emerging culture of courtly love, an aristocratic invention that saw the military principles of honor, gallantry and service placed in the service of a new Commanders in Chief – courtly ladies.

As historian Jennifer G. Wollock summarizes, “The idea that love is ennobling and necessary for the education of a knight comes out of the lyrics of this period but also in the romances of knighthood. Here the truest lovers are now the best knights.”[1]

While there is arguable evidence that protection of women and children is a basic male instinct, tied to reproductive access, this is likely the first known time in history where that mandate was codified.

Over a period of a few hundred years, Romantic Chivalry spread to all the principle courts of Europe and found its way more broadly to lives of everyday men and women who coveted the lifestyle of the upper class. It also fostered a great deal of female privilege and the inescapable neoteny that came with it.

So went the first known institutionalization of pressuring men into a tradition of male servitude – or obsequiousness – toward women that continues unchecked today.  Yet it was only the first of three foundational events that would become the prevailing model of gender relations; one that negatively impacts men’s lives and mental health.

Industrial Factory Depression

The next developmental watershed in men’s deference to women was the Industrial Revolution. While thrusting humanity into modern civilization, it was the next giant step toward normalizing a standard of mental illness in men where it concerned their relationships with women.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, men largely worked in or near their homes. They worked as artisans, farmers, producers of livestock, tradesman or some other profession that they passed down to their sons through apprenticeship and mentoring. While still driven by the force of Romantic Chivalry, they were as involved in the raising of children as mothers were. Those mothers, by the way, also had laborious duties that were a regular part of their role in the family. With the combined work of both parents and participation of the children, families operated more like business concerns than what you most commonly see today.

Both discipline and nurturing from both parents were immediately present; both male and female influence in the lives of children.

The Industrial Revolution, combined with Romantic Chivalry, accelerated the problem. The mass migration to cities began. Fathers were removed from the home (and the daily lives of their children) to go into factories and work. And of course one of the first products of that revolution was advanced technology in the home, making the lives of women much safer and less arduous. It also created a lot more free time for women, arguably time for them to become fixated on their emotional needs.

The impact of that on family dynamics hit like a tsunami. Women were left to the increasingly softening work of home and children alone, and left in want of adult company. Husbands returning from long, grueling days of labor returned home to be fed and to rest, without the luxury of making up time they had missed with their families.

In this familial void, women quickly turned to their children, particularly male children, to fill their emotional needs. And fathers, consumed by work and duty, largely just enforced the wishes of the mother on the children. This triggered the second wave of privilege and psychological neoteny in western women and where men, due to resentment over their absence, began to be demonized.

All of this greatly increased the likelihood that mothers would form inappropriate bonds with their male children in order to fill the holes in their lives. In other words, we took a step toward a society of emotional incest.

This is difficult to overstate. What I am defining here is a culture of emotionally incestuous bonding between mothers and sons. The implications of that are tremendous, and in fact they seem to have been verified by the following 150 years of technological advancement and cultural malaise.

Perhaps it is not coincidental that the onset of the industrial revolution also saw the first formations of what were known to be “Henpecked Husbands” clubs; groups of men who gathered to use peer pressure to induce each other into tolerating more demands and abuse from their wives.


The Industrial Revolution gave birth to a new age in civilization. It also ultimately resulted in the breakdown of the family unit as it was once known. The late nineteenth century rang in the Tender Years Doctrine, and with it the first legal presumption that younger children were better off in the care of mothers than fathers. The steamroller did not stop from there, it accelerated. The same glut of time and resources that spawned women to create an emotionally incestuous culture also produced gender feminism, the last and final of a monumentally powerful triad of events that left the majority of men in seemingly helpless servitude to women.

Barely one and a half centuries from the first American factory being built and our culture is all but dominated by a woman-first mentality. So rote and mindless have men become that they allow single mothers to effortlessly continue the spread of emotional incest and other forms of child abuse.

Our boys enter an education system completely dominated by female teachers, all of whom are a product of the same forces that created the new paradigm.

Society, especially the female dominated realms of home and early education, produces males that are highly, often terminally dependent on female approval. By the time boys get more substantial exposure to males, the pattern is set. Not to mention the fact that the males they are exposed to are as dependent on female approval as those who might otherwise provide mentoring. They too, as beta enforcers, put pressure on boys to participate in the incestuous bond as expressed in the schools.

This puts us squarely in an age of crippled masculine identity and the consequential impotence. We have legions of men who have stood by silently while their families have been destroyed in corrupt courts, where our young men are being driven out of education and into fields of combat and where men are more likely to support and enable these travesties than to object to them.

Their silence is the mental health issue of our time and you can see it reflected most clearly in men’s interpersonal relationships with women.

When I co wrote “Say Goodbye to Crazy,” a book aimed at women who were dealing with the devastation wrought in their relationships by mentally unstable and abusive ex-wives, a substantial part of the focus was directed at husbands who lacked the ability to stand up to their former partners.

That problem is not contained to the second marriages of a handful of men. It is a sweeping societal problem that affects all men.

Perseus (1)

If you read my last article about male space, you will know that when I gave men in a treatment setting the task of focusing on themselves vs focusing on the women in that community, the immediate reaction was fear. That fear was proven justified when the men and women, both staff and clients of that facility, reacted in anger to the men putting themselves first for a single weekend.

What was also proven was the dire need for men to overcome overwhelming programming and pressure.

With a catastrophic gender suicide gap and a plethora of other problems affecting men, at the root of it is men’s programming to sacrifice their interests, well-being and their boundaries in order to take care of and please women.

They have lost the ability to say no. Indeed they have never had it. They are terrified of the loss implied by the very thought of it. The fact that we have done away with all of our rituals to transition boys into manhood does not help but that will be a topic for a future essay.

Correcting this, reversing the trend, is easier said than done. In fact, it is damned hard work for most, and simply undoable for the many who lack the strength to face and walk through fear on such a primal level. It can, however, be accomplished in stages for the dedicated.

The first stage is Simple Awareness and is by far the easiest. It is just education and can be had as easily as grasping the contents of this writing. When men understand the forces that compel them to please women at any cost, they create the opportunity and motivation to imagine it can be corrected. With that, they can rewrite their future, largely by rewriting their history. More to come on that as well.

The second stage is brutal. There is no other way to put it. It requires men to face the fear of ripping the emotionally incestuous bond; the foundational fear of all men, the fear that most resembles the fear of death. It means putting themselves in the jaws of the beast from which they have to scratch and claw their way out.

Once they have emerged they reach the final and unending stage of walking in the footsteps that were determined by a newly shaped history, sans the Romantic Chivalry, sans the emotional incest and sans the gynocentrism.

I realize that the definitions of these stages are cursory and incomplete. There is much more to them. A more thorough examination is next in this series of essays intended to help men free themselves and their sons from the clutches of a path that was chosen for them in favor of a path that they carve out for themselves.

[1] Jennifer G. Wollock, Rethinking Chivalry and Courtly Love, (Published by Praeger, 2011)

The Future of Male-Female Equality

One of the strengths of the men’s movement has been its ability to demonstrate that despite a declared commitment to “gender equality,” feminism is (and probably always has been) a movement for female supremacism. Especially in the past 40 years, feminism has involved the demand by women (with male support) for an equal, or more than equal, share in what the other sex has produced and created while advocating for legal or workplace exemptions and privileges for the female sex.

The men’s movement, on the other hand, genuinely advocates for equal treatment of the sexes under law, in the workplace, and in society generally. 

Lately I’ve been having conversations with a tough-minded friend who isn’t willing to let the matter rest there. Men and women are fundamentally different, he argues, and it is foolish to pretend it isn’t so, or to imagine that a viable future can be built on the fantasy of social equality. 

Male society is based on equality of opportunity. Men compete, produce, and achieve to establish their positions in social hierarchies. Female society is based on equality of outcome. Women take what men produce or achieve and distribute it to their children, family members, and associates.

The fundamental inequality of this arrangement–its basis in relations of dependence and obligation–is obvious to any honest observer.

It is impossible to name a contribution made by women in the areas of science, technology, medicine, the arts, or philosophy without which the world would be significantly the poorer.  Men have created the entire infrastructure of the modern world. And now women are demanding, in the name of equality, that men step aside and allow women to take it over.

The two main contributions of women to society–supporting their men and guaranteeing the survival of children–are the two contributions that modern feminists, with the general agreement of western women, have vehemently denied and rejected.

It’s impossible to create a realistic model of social equality when the contributions of men and women to society are so obviously unequal. The more men produce, the more women demand it be given to them, with no reciprocal responsibilities or even gratitude owed on women’s part.

We’ve heard a great deal over the past 40 years about what men owe to women and to society. Most men are more than willing to make their contribution. Surely it is now time to demand of women: what do YOU owe to men and to society? What contribution to men’s well being are you willing and able to make? Until women start answering that question responsibly, they cannot claim to care about “gender equality.” 

Why Romantic Love is a Farce

A lot of the material I present here is geared toward a values-centered approach with women. In other words, instead of letting your dick or your heart make any decisions about women, slow down and let your values speak, particularly your self-respect. And let that self-respect have the final word.

And by self-respect I mean self-respect on a level that you would, without batting an eye, let Penelope Cruz hit the road before you would tolerate an ounce of her bullshit.

The point here is that between your values, your heart, and your dick, your values are the only thing that will cover your ass. Strangely enough, your values, especially self-respect, happens to be the biggest obstacle to getting approval and acceptance from most modern women.

I reckon that makes it worth some conversation.

I’ve seen a lot of good commentary and feedback on that very subject. Some of it provides material that is perfect for penning my own responses. I got one such comment recently on the YouTube channel. This particular gent had the following to say about sticking to your values with women:

The message is simple. Stay away from long term relationships with women unless you want to jump through hoops and walk on eggshells every single day and for what?

If you follow Paul’s advice and be assertive she’ll dump you and find someone who’ll grovel and submit, and there is plenty of emasculated idiots out there who’ll do everything that you won’t do for her.

MGTOW is the only way you don’t lose.

Fair enough. Every man is entitled to his opinion. I know guys personally who think this way. And it makes sense for them.

I know a lot more guys who hell or high water will seek long-term relationships. This includes men who identify as red pill. Like me, they won’t get married, and they won’t do anything else that puts them at risk of state control and abuse when it comes to a relationship, but they still seek to pair bond.

So, with all respect to the cocoon that some men can tolerate where it concerns females, I am going to interpret the comment with the much larger, pair-bonding population in mind. Let’s start at the beginning.

“The message is simple,” he says, “Stay away from long-term relationships…”

So far so good. I agree, he is putting things simply. No LTRs means avoiding the complications that come with them. I wouldn’t argue with that at all.

My message is also simple, doing the bitch-ditch as soon as you see serious red flags it is another valid approach, even when seeking a long term relationship. After all, red pill men are not stupid. They are more on top of things like female privilege, entitlement whores and personality disorders than the average hombre.

While the commenter and I are not in lockstep there is not really a significant difference between us, so far. Well, maybe there is. Let’s finish that last sentence.

Stay away from long term relationships with women unless you want to jump through hoops and walk on eggshells every single day and for what?

What…the…ever…loving…? Now just hold on a minute here. Bear with me, because I think that line reveals more than the writer intended.

So, men in long-term relationships have to jump through hoops? They must walk on eggshells? What? They don’t have a choice? Their free will is gone?

What I see in this statement is clear. He is reflecting the often unspoken beliefs of most blue pill men. That is, you have to jump through hoops and walk on eggshells if you are afraid she will leave you.

And he confirms that in the very next statement.

If you follow Paul’s advice and be assertive she’ll dump you and find someone who’ll grovel and submit, and there is plenty of emasculated idiots out there who’ll do everything that you won’t do for her.

So, what we have here is not a guy making a MGTOW argument against the legal and social dangers of marriage, or even long term relationships.

What we have is just a man who has raised a white flag and accepted that his values don’t stand a chance around a woman. He is saying that he isn’t emotionally equipped to let go of a woman who doesn’t respect him.

Now, I’m well aware of the fact that there are enough women who expect you to jump through hoops to elect Hillary Clinton ten times over. Entitled, arrogant women are the gold standard for the western world, and exceptions are just that, exceptions. But remember, these are not legal issues. We are not even talking about marriage, common law or otherwise. We are not talking about legal vulnerabilities.  The comment I am responding to is about emotional vulnerability and nothing else.

But remember, these are not legal issues. We are not even talking about marriage, common law or otherwise. We are not talking about legal vulnerabilities.  The comment I am responding to is about emotional vulnerability and nothing else.

With all respect to the commenter I have to say that in the realm of emotions men have choices. Building a wall around yourself is perfectly acceptable one if that is what a man wants to do, but I don’t advise projecting that fear-based decision as sound advice for every man around you.

“Oh my God, she’ll leave you if you don’t kiss her ass,” doesn’t exactly reek of a confident man.

For pity’s sake, let her leave. It may cause some grief, but unless you have a ton of serious issues, it won’t destroy you. There are many men who can enjoy relationships, even long term ones, and survive the emotional fallout if the woman turns out to be a loser deep into the game. There is no reason you can’t be one of them.

For any man who chooses, who is leading with his values, hoops and eggshells can be the deal breakers that show up early on. They can be instant rule outs for the conscious, non-gynocentric man. And they can be an opportunity to determine if she is teachable.

No doubt that good values will send a lot of women packing. If your self-respect is genuine, that is a lot more like letting yourself flick a booger out of the car window than being torn apart by loss.

Seriously speaking, what is it that men are afraid of losing? A hypergamy-addled, manipulative and controlling bitch? Getting rid of that is losing? How did so many men get to the totally insane and powerless point that eighty-sixing a loser with a vagina is anyone’s loss but hers?

I don’t have a red pill handbook but if I wrote one that scenario would be in the chapter on how you win. Getting a loserectomy whenever it’s indicated is only a loss when you have an attachment to losers or an attachment to women that is so bloody gynocentric that it will have you gobbling a shit sandwich and asking for some chips to go with it.

You can do better than that.

When I wheel my trash to the curb for pickup I don’t take Kleenex with me to wipe tears away. When something in my house breaks and I replace it, I feel good about the replacement. I don’t have a sense of nostalgia or grief about the defective part. It just goes in the can with the rest of the trash.

There is only one force on earth that can make someone see cutting a female tumor out as that big of a loss. Gynocentrism. Not just gynocentrism but the equally anti-male institution of romantic love.

We have covered this before in Chasing the Dragon, what I consider to be the most important article on this website. It gives you the lowdown.

Romantic love isn’t even a basic human instinct. It is a social construct put together by a couple of high falutin’ women in the aristocracy 900 years ago. It spread like herpes in a whorehouse because men are so easily manipulated by attractive damsels.

Well, most men. That is what created the need for the red pill. But just my opinion, part of the red pill is disabusing you of the notion that you are at the mercy of any of this. You do have free will, and you have choices to make about what you won’t put up with. You also have the responsibility for making those choices.

One of those choices that may be better for most men than life as a monk is to refuse to follow the psychotic path of infatuation and to refuse to confuse it with anything that might be called love.

That is a big deal. Men sometimes kill themselves over relationship losses. They submerge in booze and drugs and other forms of slow death and destructive behavior, too. Their depression in the midst of loss can be crippling.

A lot of that is because they invest the wrong things emotionally and psychologically in women and because they lack a counter-narrative to the romantic model – one that gets them through loss and lessens its intensity.

The message here is that the path to surviving loss is simple, and admittedly difficult, but doable.

Lead with your values. Finish with them too. Realize that infatuation is insanity. Seek to cure it, not follow it. Romantic love and chivalry destroy your honor, your values and leave you vulnerable to great pain and abuse. There is one place that has every answer you ever needed to remain whole and healthy with women and with anyone else.

It is called a mirror. Use it often and with courage.

Share this:

What Women Don’t Know About Men — Part two Emotions

In part one we discussed the lethal game that is played by our culture that pretends that women’s ways of emoting are the default and that men are somehow deficient and less human because they don’t emote like women.  If  you haven’t read part one you can do so here.

​We discussed the first two reasons that women are wrong about men and emotions.  The first was that a man’s pain is taboo.  No one wants to hear it, see it or be with it.  Men know this and therefore move to a more solitary or active process to deal with things.

​The second reason was hierarchy. Scientists have now “discovered” that men live in a hierarchy and are regularly tested on whether they are a man or not.  Men are aware of this and avoid public emoting due to the rapid free fall in their hierarchical standing that often follows public.

The third reason is that men are denied any form of dependency.  Think about it.  Men will usually prefer to do it themselves and will avoid asking for help.  Women make fun of this or they try to shame the man for his preference for independence.  Men are geared to work towards independence.  Why?  Because independence is what is ​valued by women. Women tend to prefer men who are independent and will avoid those who are dependent.  Men know this and are also aware that the culture at large prefers independent men.  Emoting is a sure sign of dependency. This moves men to be as independent as possible.  Here’s a quote that captures this in a profound manner.  It’s from an article by a man named Peter Marin about homelessness: 

To put it simply: men are neither supposed nor allowed to be dependent. They are expected to take care of others and themselves. And when they cannot or will not do it, then the assumption at the heart of the culture is that they are somehow less than men and therefore unworthy of help. An irony asserts itself: by being in need of help, men forfeit the right to it. (Peter Marin Abandoning Men: Jill Gets Welfare, Jack Becomes Homeless)

Men know that if they appear dependent they, as Marin so aptly put it, will forfeit the right to being helped.  Is it any wonder that men will avoid dependency?  Women tend to not understand this.

The fourth reason is that men continue to be locked into their sex roles including the provide and protect role.  While women’s roles have become more loosened, men continue to be stuck in their traditional rigid roles.  Think about you and  your spouse waking up in the middle of the night after hearing a loud BOOM.  Who goes to check?  If she goes she gets all sorts of accolades for bravery etc etc.  It she doesn’t go she is still okay.  That’s her role flexibility. Either way and she is okay.  But what about the man.  If he goes, all is well.  But if he says, “Honey, I’m scared, how bout you go this time?”  You would never hear the end of it.  He would get every label and name in the book, from pussy to wimp and on and on.  Men are locked into this role and the role demands that you keep your cool, feel the fear, and do it anyway.  It also demands NO EMOTING.  Imagine a cop goes to an accident and breaks down in tears because he is so upset.  No.  He does his job first.  Everything else comes later.  Men have this in their bio-computer.  They get the job done.  I don’t think women understand this.

I’ve gone on enough.  We can save the last one for the next time.  The fifth reason is a man’s biology and how it impacts his emoting.  Don’t miss this one.  It’s important and you won’t hear this in the media.  Never. 

Men Are Good.

Male space is an inside job

Spanning throughout the network of modern men’s media you will find a substantial amount of perspective on the concept of “male space.”  You’ll see a lot of harsh commentary from men who feel male space has been encroached upon by gender ideologues who believe that male occupied space is inherently dangerous to women.

This certainly would appear to be the case when you consider many traditionally male institutions that have been forced through legal channels or bad publicity to relent and include women in whatever they are doing. This even includes what some might consider privacy violations, such as female reporters being allowed into the locker rooms of professional athletes while they are in various stages of undress.

Some men point, and rightfully so, to the hypocrisy of this happening in a society which has had an explosion in women’s organizations that routinely exclude men. Needless to say, male reporters won’t be finding their way into the dressing rooms of female athletes unless they want to be arrested.

Sadly, this is usually where the conversation stops. There is little explanation to be found of what male space actually is, or why it is so important. With all respect to those writing on this subject, it too often falls short and lends itself to victim mentality. It’s understandable. The hypocrisy is real, as is the dearth of male space. Still, I want to attempt to take a deeper look at what is happening. As always, you will stand as judge and jury on this particular take.

In the mid-1990s I worked at a residential treatment facility for men, women and young adults with alcohol and substance abuse problems. The campus was nestled in a locally iconic pre-midcentury residential area surrounded by sprawling oaks that were planted when the homes were built.

In addition to a nursing station and an administration building there were three homes, two for men and women respectively and one for young adults.

The men’s home had a covered back porch with ample seating. During good weather (and sometimes bad) the men occupied that area, working on written assignments, reading or just talking with each other.

It was probably no coincidence that they chose this particular area to congregate. Just outside the porch railing was an outside stairway that led up to where the women were quartered, on the second story of the house next door. Every woman coming or going from there had to pass by within just a few feet of the men’s porch. That often resulted in the women stopping to chat with the men. Sometimes briefly, sometimes longer.

I spent time observing their interactions. When women were not present, the men remained focused on what they were doing. They were generally loose and comfortable. Most importantly, they appeared comfortable in each other’s company.

When female clients came by, particular the attractive ones, everything changed. Reading and writing ceased. The men’s posture immediately improved. Occasionally chests puffed out, and some men stood upright, as if to take a more visible position among their peers.

What was really remarkable is that in most cases the men who were sitting and talking with each other disengaged and put their focus on the woman in their proximity. In more fundamental terms, when the women showed up, the men stopped whatever they were doing and focused their attention on them.

The competition was evident.

The more sexually attractive the woman was, the more the impact on the group of men; the more competition. Those occasions were sometimes marked by conflict and arguing among the men.

This was not an invasion of male space. The men were, instinctively perhaps, competing with each other, even undermining each other and betraying friendships in order to take the lead in drawing those women into that space.

It happened over and over again.

I decided to use this as an opportunity for an experiential exercise for the men, starting in the weekly men’s group I facilitated. In that group I recited some of my observations to the men about what I saw.  The anxiety level in the room immediately went up. Clients fidgeted, shifted their weight around in their chairs and stared at the floor.

We were already in uncharted territory for most in the group.

I gave them an assignment to carry out until the following week’s group. I told them that when on the porch the objective was to remain focused on whatever they were doing and not interact with the women who came by; to be polite but explain to the women that they were busy at the moment and did not have time to socialize, and then to go back with whatever they were doing.

The anxiety level in the group spiked again.

I inquired about that and the responses I got were mostly an acknowledgment that the men feared their actions would be interpreted as rude and the women would be angry. I interpreted this, and still do, as meaning what the men actually feared was being rejected; that it was not about offending the women so much as losing their attention and approval. That fear is a topic for another article, by the way, in due course.

I sent the men off, some of them looking sheepish, to tackle this assignment. I was not convinced that they could or would go through with it.

I came to work the following Monday and the first thing I was greeted with was another staff member telling me that the women were complaining that the men had been rude to them over the weekend. I regarded that with some suspicion. That suspicion was later confirmed by talking to the men in the community. To a man they maintained that everyone had been polite but had followed through with the assignment.

They also confirmed that the women had become angry. In fact, a couple of them had tested the limits by dressing suggestively and lingering near the men’s porch. Interestingly, and to my surprise, the men reacted to this by firming their resolve. Eventually they moved back into the house, where the women were not allowed.

The exercise yielded some interesting results. One, I did not anticipate the women’s anger, though in hindsight I probably should have. The other is that not only did the men follow the instructions, they became determined not to be defeated. They grew closer to each other and for at least that weekend the arguments and conflict that typically happen between men in those settings dropped to near zero. They had congealed as a group and were working together, arguably on the problems that brought them to treatment to begin with.

Young man focusing on playing snooker

Instead of surrendering their space, they created it, and built a fence around it as brothers.

Another interesting effect was the one this experiment had on the clinical and administrative staff. Some of the women who worked there were offended. They thought that the exercise I gave the men had nothing to do with their treatment for addiction and that it was hurtful to female clients. As I recall the word “abusive” even came up. Some of the male staff felt the same way, though male and female staff alike were unable to articulate any form of reasoning about it that made sense.

Their inability to do that was understandable. They were trying to express emotionally driven objections; an irrational rationale. The attitude was the same brand of obtuse that we find in people who think it was women’s oppression that kept female reporters out of men’s locker rooms and that men banding together, focusing on their own needs and the needs of their male peers was harmful to women.

Frankly, at that point, the staff was lagging behind the male clients on emotional health and insight alike. The men, with few exceptions, gained from it. Several of them described the experience as “empowering,” an interesting word from the mouths of men.

I could see it in their demeanor as well. I found it intriguing that it expressed itself in some of the same ways that I saw in the men when they were posturing to draw feminine attention. Their posture was better. They walked more upright with an air of confidence atypical to men in that setting. They exchanged knowing glances and smiles with me for quite some time.

They felt better about themselves, something pretty important for people who have wrecked their self-respect with alcohol and drugs. They learned about themselves and about men.

Men change when you bring a woman into the picture. They change in very drastic ways. You can have a group of happily married, committed men in a group; men with no intention at all of infidelity, and when you introduce an attractive woman in the picture they change. They lose focus on whatever they are doing. They compete. It is instinctive, it is nature. And it affects all men. At least one of the men in that particular group was gay and he reported the same benefit as the others, plus he felt more included as a fellow man than he had before.

Is this a suggestion that men should avoid women? Hardly. Human beings pair bond. It is not nearly always for life but they still overwhelmingly tend not to fly solo in life. Their healthy, normal needs include intimate connection.

For men, just as it does for women, it also means a time and place for space of their own.

We may not be able to control whether women are allowed entrance to a men’s country club, or into men’s locker rooms or any number of other places. Each man and each group of men can, however, take the space they need to connect to themselves and to each other. Those who are offended by that are just those who want irrational, exploitive control.

That is what the majority of staff at a treatment facility found offensive. Men turning inward and doing the very work they were there to do; connecting to each other supportively in the process. They were concerned that men doing this was an affront to women. For them, the men’s actions on that porch was a problem to be fixed rather than what it was, men in trouble supporting each other and restoring some of their dignity. They were isolated, disaffected men finding connection and a sense of community.

Men’s challenge is not to defend male space, but to create it. Male space, the kind that matters, is not on golf courses or locker rooms. It is within the sanctity of their own minds and hearts. It is in the ability to tend to their own needs rather than blindly surrender to reproductive instinct, laying waste to their dignity and leaving their brothers under the bus along the way.

It cannot be taken. It cannot be encroached upon. It can only be surrendered.

Bemoaning the lack of male space is not an act of dissent. It is not activism. It is simply an acknowledgment of personal and collective failure.

When men value themselves and brotherhood more than an approving smile from a pretty face, they will have all the space they need.

Share this: