So it was a fairly interesting week. It started off with my usual status updates on WhatsApp, which posts are known to cause quite the stir with my more feminist inclined contacts, or at least I’d like to assume. For putting up such matter I often get called out for my ostensibly misogynistic inclinations. While I won’t deny that my posts are a tad, nay a whole lot unflattering to women, the move to moralize them by applying the “misogynistic” definition is often merely a shaming tactic employed with the intent to discredit those often unflattering truths. Of course in our current social order, any person, especially a male that dare write or pronounce anything even remotely critical of women’s nature is immediately assumed to be hurt, bitter and misogynistic. But that’s an essay for another day.
I’ve been facing quite the bit of pressure to take my writings to a more formal and organized space, or at least more organized than a WhatsApp status update. As with all things that force us to change, I’ve greatly resisted this move. Change isn’t easy! Let no one tell you otherwise. But eventually I’ve decided that a more blog-like setting permits me to write a little better. I’m no longer faced with the burden to limit my posts to the 700 character limit of a WhatsApp status update which by extension permits me to explore these dynamics better. So I intend to spoil myself while at it.
The main reason I’ve written this particular post is to attempt to breakdown and respond to my brother, colleague and friends essay Sabiti Edwin. The essay is titled “Esawa Yonna Omukazi Akyuka: The inevitable fate of your relationship” and you can find it on his blog sabitiedwin.wordpress.com. I’ll admit it’s a very nihilistic title followed by a nihilistic essay, presumably written out of anger at a recent experience with a woman. Reading it, it’s easy to see and envision the anger that led to its writing. This however is not in any way a negation of the truths he, in his disillusionment, points out. What I’ll be doing in this essay is delving into the more nuts and bolts breakdown of these and ill most likely give a more grounded analysis of what he intended to point out. I’ll be quoting his words.
“The phrase innately carries an evolution of man’s knowledge about the changing character of women characterized by ridiculous and implausible experiences of remarkable complexity denoting betrayal. That your current perfect girlfriend will change and switch up on you is guaranteed. However before that escapable fate, you could do a thing or two to mitigate the magnitude of your victimhood…….but what exactly do we know about women? Two things. It’s never enough and that she will ultimately change. Being a woman entails having a mastery in liehood and betrayal. A special skill in playing victimhood in the aftermath of committing transgression earns you the ‘queen’ title…”
A couple of things to unpack here. First, is it, presumably the relationship, ever enough for a woman? Second, will she and why will she change? Thirdly, why will a woman always attempt to play victim in an almost innate aversion for responsibility? Let’s start with the first question; whether it’s ever enough for a woman. To answer this I’ll borrow a little from evolution theory but only to the extent that it permits me draw my conclusions. That means that I’ll not be attempting to explain evolution psychology here but rather merely borrowing from it to draw some conclusions. Evolutionists argue that women evolved to be driven by a pluralistic mating strategy. On one hand, the woman is attracted to the guy that that would best confer genetic benefits to her offspring while at the same time attracted to the guy that best offers the potential for provisioning and parental investment in that offspring. It’s not uncommon to hear women categorize men into the “guys they’d bang, and the guys they’d marry”. Indeed I’d argue that this is them articulating, albeit subconsciously, this dual sexual strategy. It’s also for this reason that it’s not uncommon to hear of the woman that marries the unattractive wealthy man and keeps her hot sexy lover. This is basically an attempt to optimize and meet both sides of her sexual strategy. The ideal situation is that the woman can meet a man that embodies the dualistic needs this sexual strategy engenders in her, however, these qualities rarely manifest in the same man for the simple reason that the things that make him the hot lover she has such feral and sexual urgency for are the very qualities that would impede his ability to meet her provisioning needs or even commit to mutual parenting. Put more colloquially, date and have fun with the bad boy but marry the good guy. However, what happens when a woman finds herself with a good guy? Her hind mind, hardwired through thousands of years of evolution still wants to get with the bad boy. To meet this need, she may pursue several strategies. First would be to simply have an affair with that guy( the hot guy that turns her on and drives her crazy) but maintain the good guy that offers her what the bad boy will not; commitment, provisioning, parental and emotional investment. Paternity fraud is rooted in this dynamic and so is the recent wave of attempts(by feminists specifically and women generally) to shame and coerce men into entering monogamous relationships with single mothers. The second attempt is a little more futile; attempt to change the good guy into a bad boy while ensuring that he still remains a good guy. In essence, this guy should be a bad boy when she needs the thrill and excitement and vaginal tingles, but he must also be the sweet, dependable and reliable guy when her circumstances dictate he be. Needless to say it’s a delusion. Having established this basic framework, we ask again, is it ever enough for a woman? Owing to the nature of the sexual strategy elucidated above, women are predisposed to a constant subconscious uncertainty about whether by being with a particular guy, she has duly optimized her sexual strategy. This then predisposes her to continuously test a guy, give him shit and very many things in between all geared towards answering a question deep in her subconscious; “Is he the best I can do?” The instant her subconscious receives confirmation that this guy is indeed not the best she can do, depending on circumstances, she’s done with him. She moves to what her hind mind perceives to be a better option. Why is this so? In our evolutionary past, the consequences of a woman mating with a man that was a – for lack of a better word – loser were severe. Because women were the weaker sex and it was literally a man’s world i.e. strength was of fundamental importance in the survival equation, women’s survival was largely contingent on the quality of the mate she chose. It stands to reason that women evolved an innate predisposition not just to seek out a mate that had the ability and skill set to ensure her own and her offspring survival but also to constantly test him to make sure he remained so. Whenever she got with a guy that couldn’t do so, it literally meant death. Even today, a woman getting with a guy that does not –to her hind mind – offer the best potential for the optimization of this sexual strategy, fires off her hind mind with that evolved “you are going to die” warnings. My critiques will argue that circumstances have greatly changed since our evolutionary past to which ill respond that our evolved mental processes have not. Women in our evolutionary past were attracted to strength, dominance, provisioning potential etc. all of which served to perpetuate their survival given it was directly dependent on the quality of their mate. Our contemporary world has since changed. There isn’t a tiger lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce on her and have her for dinner and women are way safer than they would have been in that world and yet they’ll still fawn over the guy with the biceps and the abs. Women, including the most empowered of them aren’t actively seeking men in lower income brackets unless of course their necessity forces them to. Of course they mask that as having standards. Women still crave and actively seek male dominance. Look for the statistics about the largest consumers of literature and film that convey that, books like 50 shades of Grey and movies like 365 days. The circumstances have changed but the evolved mental firmware hasn’t. All this is important because it answers two of the questions I asked – or rather that I derived from Edwin’s angry essay. Is it ever enough? Will she and why will she change. It is enough if her relationship with this man calms that subconscious doubt at the back of her mind and she will change when that part of her mind confirms to her that the guy she’s with isn’t the best she can do. As to whether she’ll leave after that is contingent on a plethora of variables inclusive of, but not limited to, ease with which she can walk away. Patriarchal societies were constructed around the prevention of the manifestations of this doubt in women’s actions. So while it was possible for a woman to get – for the matter of analysis – discontented with her relationship with a man, the social structure actively prevented her leaving him. Today, these structures – completely owing to an apparently progressive society – are no longer existent. To understand just how pervasive this innate doubt in women’s subconscious is, one need only look at the divorce statistics. A significant majority (well over 70%, 80% according to other sources) of all divorces globally are initiated by women. Women are more likely to “fall out of love” with their partner whether in the short run as may be the case of dating, or in the long run as may be the case when they get married. Of course the obvious female rebuttal to this will be something to the effect of, “well if men could just be what we wanted, all this wouldn’t be a challenge.” This I’ll argue is what my brother Edwin calls, ”A special skill in playing victimhood in the aftermath of committing transgression…”
“From the broken and disappointed hearts in the grave, we have learnt that it’s never enough for women. This trait is born out of two intertwined concepts of particular concern. First is that women are inherently selfish. Analytically, the selfishness is premised on the stinking sense of entitlement. Women think they deserve and therefore entitled to the good things. This selfishness manifests in many ways. A good example to demonstrate this postulation is a girl that pressures her boyfriend holding a Techno Cammon to buy for her an iPhone 11. And this is just an obvious manifestation of the selfishness. Many a time, the selfishness manifests in subtle forms such as the conventional goal of a relationship to keep the girl happy.”
So at this point I’ll part with Edwin’s conjecture. While I don’t deny the truth of his message, I deny the causal link he attempts to establish.
“First is that women are inherently selfish. Analytically, the selfishness is premised on the stinking sense of entitlement. Women think they deserve and therefore entitled to the good things.”
I won’t deny that women today are extremely entitled. One only need listen to the dating profiles of the average fairly beautiful girl( or even those that are objectively 3/10 at best) to understand this entitlement. Women feel entitled to a certain type of man that will sweep them off their feet and commit to them on their terms as and when their circumstances permit. They feel they should date the bad boy, have the good guy keep around to offer them the emotional support and commitment the bad boy, by his very nature, will not offer. They feel they are entitled to the perfect guy – a myth of course – irrespective of their circumstances. They feel entitled to gifts, validation and male attention with virtually no reciprocation of their intimacy. One only need go to Twitter and see women’s posts to observe this dynamic. You see it in their ostensibly benign appeals for a guy that will offer them everything without asking for sex in return, you see it in their appeals for what is popularly called platonic love – which I think is a whole load of bullshit. Even when they innocently claim, “Why do guys stop talking to you after you reject them?” you still see this entitlement. They honestly believe a man owes them attention and validation irrespective of whether he gets what he seeks out of the interaction with her. However I don’t think what he call women’s inherently selfish nature is caused by this entitlement. I can however see why he’d think that. This critique however only begs the question: What is the cause of this inherently selfish nature?
I’ll digress a little and not refer to it as inherent selfishness but rather, as RM has labelled, innate solipsism. I’ll borrow from his work to construct an epistemology – or rather paraphrase his work – for what exactly this innate solipsism is but will offer no references. So what is this innate solipsism and how does it manifest? What causes or caused it? Many a man is often shocked by women’s almost instinctual proclivity to view things beginning from the ‘me, myself and I’ lens. At some level everything seems to be about them. They are almost incapable of appreciating things outside of their immediate existential needs and individual experiences.
“Indeed a woman will leave you and the justification is that she didn’t feel she loved you anymore. So it’s about how she felt. Poor girl, she was in an unromantic relationship!!!”
Let’s first do some background work. What leads women to this almost self-absorbed nature? Our evolutionary past was rough. It was literally a man’s world. In order to facilitate their survival in that world, it was a necessity for women to develop a world viewpoint that started with her as the primary. What best ensured her survival and that of her offspring? What best ensured the optimization of their interests? From her mating choices to her life decisions, this was women’s mental point of origin. The outside world and all her experiences had to be viewed through the I lens. In this analysis, morality lost its hold. What was moral was not important nor did it factor in into the decision making equation. The only interest was what course of action best ensured the optimization of her interests and those of her offspring. This evolved predisposition of women – to put themselves as the primary in their mental processes – has for years caused men to grind their teeth in anger at what they see as women’s fickle and duplicitous nature especially when they find themselves on the negative side of this nature. I’ll reiterate, our circumstances have changed, but those mental processes haven’t. When Hillary Clinton remarks, “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat….” with zero or no regard that the men that die on the battlefield may be the primary victims of conflict, we see this feminine-primary viewpoint manifest. When a woman rejects a man but expects him to keep around to offer her his attention, we see this solipsism manifest. When a woman rejects a man because he doesn’t meet her absurd standards and after this guy going away to improve himself, she expects to saunter back into his life and have him accept her, this again stems from her innate mental process that predisposes her to assume her interests as the primary. We see this too in the sentiments raised by feminists which are often to the effect that men are a superfluous species that they (women) would do very well without. Forget the hubris of this statement, it is the height of self-absorption and solipsism to assume one gender so self-fulfilling and capable of existence without the other. It’s of course informed by an extension of their innate solipsism that leads them to think themselves so self-sufficient and unwanting of anything outside of themselves. Men may be accused of being misogynists, but you don’t hear men make such remarks. Only women are capable of such hubris, solipsism and – I dare say – stupidity. I’d even go so far as to argue that this solipsism is extremely pervasive in feminism. I’ve always wondered how feminists could argue that a woman staying home to take care of children while her husband worked to provide for that family made the woman entitled to – upon dissolution of that union – a payment by the man to her for her sacrifices. How can an entire social movement fail to notice that by going to work every day this man equally forgoes time and the emotional bonding with his children that these women feel entitled to payment for?! That while its true that she sacrifices her career – assuming she does. This rule even applies to women that had no career – this man equally sacrifices time with her and his family to facilitate her reality. If equality were the premise, then while we rule that the woman be paid for some career income she presumably missed – I say presumably because it is at best a conjecture and there’s no way of knowing how her life would have played out in that alternative reality as there’s a plethora of variables that could have affected it – the man must equally be compensated for the emotional bonding he forewent – at least we are sure about this and aren’t ruling based on conjectures. When however you view this dynamic through women’s innate predisposition to view the world with themselves and their interests as the primary and their general inability to appreciate variables outside of their own immediate existential needs, then you begin to see why this dynamic exists.
“A good example to demonstrate this postulation is a girl that pressures her boyfriend holding a Techno Cammon to buy for her an iPhone 11. And this is just an obvious manifestation of the selfishness. Many a time, the selfishness manifests in subtle forms such as the conventional goal of a relationship to keep the girl happy.”
While I’ll argue that the first dynamic is simply a woman being materialistic and opportunistic – as is consistent with, albeit an extreme case of their opportunistic concept of love – the keep the girl happy conventional goal of relationships is not just instigated and sustained by women, but it equally feeds into the innate solipsism that leads them to view their interests and themselves as the primary in the context of that relationship.
“What is of pertinent consideration about the behavioral change of women is how they don’t feel morally obliged to not change? For women, switching from one man to another implies their growth and maturity. It’s not a question of integrity, it’s a span of life. To them you are just a necessary victim for the process. Men naturally are gullible creatures always extending a benefit of doubt to whoever looks or claims to be innocent. This opens them to eminent danger. It reduces them to specimen for the life span of women. Notably, it is not a question of the duration you have stayed with one. Some women may take longer in switching upon on you because they maybe laboring under such retarded growth that delays their changing interval. But trust me you, when she finally hits that time, she will switch up on you. I earlier hinted on the lack of integrity. It is not a question of the promises you have shared. She will forget those in a second. Women have a self-conferred obligation to change. This is not only a manifestation of their ingratitude. It is akin to a profanity not to change. So definitely the changing of women is well grounded in their nature and like everything else herein, she will change when the time comes.”
This is the sentiment of a man having the reality of what he thought about intersexual relations and how they should be (conforming to his idealistic concept of love) being irrevocably proven false. Disabusing oneself from the myth that women are capable of the idealistic love men so deeply crave is arguably one of the most disillusioning things a man can face in his lifetime. After years of conditioning that have led him to believe that women are capable of loving him unconditionally for who he is, such occurrences, that are such a stark contradiction to the belief system he has internalized, come as a shock to his sensibilities. To paraphrase RM, Women are fundamentally incapable of loving a man in the way a man thinks is possible or in the way that he wants to be loved. Men love idealistically. Women love opportunistically. Many will be tempted to moralize this, taking it as some affirmation and confirmation of women’s innately evil, duplicitous and fickle nature. However, I think that this dynamic is best observed independent of any moralization. Women’s opportunistic concept of love is rooted in an evolved adaptation to suit her survival. Because of the nature of our evolutionary past, women evolved to select mates on opportunistic metrics and the extent to which those metrics permitted for the optimization of her own interests. Men value love. Women love value. Men primarily love the specimen woman. Women primarily love the value the specimen man can create and how that value benefits them and their offspring. Men don’t look at a woman and think, “She has a nice car, a nice apartment…OMG her perfume…did you see her suit?” When man does look at a woman, it’s often, “Damn she’s hot. Check out her ass…” these – to the rational male mind – clearly superficial qualities are women’s subconscious minds attempting to get an accurate measure of the value this man has. This does not deny that women may be attracted to a physically arousing male on metrics such as height and muscularity, it’s to say firstly that those qualities in themselves would not suffice and that even their consideration is still based on the opportunistic consideration that that male would offer her offspring certain genetic benefits. It’s important to point out that most, if not all, of these occur in the subconscious mind and are hardly things women consciously think about. They simply become apparent to her rational mind but they don’t originate from it. Coming to terms with the bitter pill that a woman doesn’t see the man, but rather the value of that man to her is a bitter pill to swallow. Accepting it however permits us to understand clearly why we see women make the choices they do but more importantly, it allows men to begin to disabuse themselves from their internalized ideas of how the ideal Disney like love should be like and begin to leverage themselves to thrive in the sexual market place.
“For women, switching from one man to another implies their growth and maturity. It’s not a question of integrity, it’s a span of life…. Notably, it is not a question of the duration you have stayed with one. Some women may take longer in switching upon on you because they maybe laboring under such retarded growth that delays their changing interval. But trust me you, when she finally hits that time, she will switch up on you. I earlier hinted on the lack of integrity. It is not a question of the promises you have shared. She will forget those in a second. Women have a self-conferred obligation to change. This is not only a manifestation of their ingratitude. It is akin to a profanity not to change. So definitely the changing of women is well grounded in their nature and like everything else herein, she will change when the time comes.”
Couple of things to unpack here. First, what is this nature to switch up on a guy and what is this self-conferred obligation to change? Second, what is this nature of women to forget all those in a second regardless of all the promises you have shared? First it bears to point out two things. (1) Women rarely want to date men that they perceive to below them. (2) Women rarely want to downgrade i.e. they will rarely leave unless their mental process believes she’s leaving for a better prospect male. This is not to say these things may not occur, it’s to say that it’s not their ideal. Women always want up. They always prefer better. Recall that women have a subconscious routine running at the back of their minds, “Is he the best I can do?” Depending on the ease with which she can pullout and invest in that better option, a woman may or may not leave a guy to pursue that end. As I pointed out earlier, patriarchal societies were constructed around preventing them from doing that. If women had no agency then they couldn’t seek the optimization of their sexual strategy freely and men would be spared from the pain that pursuit has the ability to inflict on them. With the proliferation of feminism, women have gained the agency to pursue their sexual strategy unfettered and as is expected men – like Edwin here – have found themselves on the negative side of that pursuit. I feel its worthy to point out that from an evolutionary standpoint, this pursuit is amoral. It’s a question of pragmatic survival rooted deep in this subconscious processes women evolved and developed when we were still hunter-gatherer societies living in the savannah. If this male was no longer the best she could do (lost value) and a better prospect male came around, move on to that male. There were no moral idealisms, it was a question of what or rather who ensured survival at any given time. The circumstances of our world have since changed, but this subconscious process hasn’t. When a man loses his livelihood, his ambition and generally his value and the woman ups and leaves, men generally view that as their innate evil nature. I argue that it’s that subconscious evolved process at work. When the bad boy with the leather jacket and bad boy look comes around, and all the girls shift their attention to him, the good nice guys are filled with rage. How can they?! I can see the subconscious process that leads to that. A better male has come around, the nice guy is no longer the best she can do, move on to that better prospect.
In conclusion I’ll address two things. First, don’t all those promises and your investment in her count for something? Second, how are they able to move up without the moral part of their minds firing up?
The former is what is known as the fallacy of relational equity. It’s an erroneous belief that a certain amount of investment and promises with a woman will insulate against her deciding that a particular guy isn’t the best she can do and switching up. Needless to say, this belief system is false. No amount of investment can ever insulate you against being a causality of her pursuit to optimize her sexual strategy. It doesn’t matter that you called her every day, it doesn’t matter that you were such a great dad, it doesn’t matter that you never forgot her birthday, it doesn’t matter that you put her first and she was the center of your world, once you are not the best she can do and circumstances permit her upgrade, she’s gone. This seems a very nihilistic perspective but understand that it’s possible to insulate against this sexual strategy by embracing your male burden of performance and remaining dedicated to your self-improvement and indeed being the best she can do. This is not some silver bullet that will prevent you from getting dumped, but it will significantly insulate against that subconscious doubt.
So how do women move away so easily? How can she love you today and not want anything to do with you tomorrow? This is a source of confusion to men around the world. Now my critiques will argue that men do that too to which I’ll say that’s not true. A man has the potential to deceive a woman into believing he is really interested in her up until the point he has sex with her then pulling out. A woman has the potential to totally be into you this month and walk away next month like it was nothing. How?! To understand this propensity for almost spontaneous emotional detachment, we need to observe our evolutionary past. Women were victims of constant vicissitudes of a very unstable social climate. At any time, she could lose her son or her lover to a conflict and be sold off as a wife to a rival tribe. This social climate selected for women that were very quickly able to detach from past emotional attachments and develop new ones. As women were also highly dependent on the male for survival, nature selected for women that were quickly able to detach from a male that no longer offered that value that ensured her and her offspring’s survival. The man is badly wounded in conflict or by a wild beast and no longer able to ensure protection and provisioning, move on to the next male that has that potential. Again, this decision was amoral and simply a question of pragmatic survival. Staying with that male and losing not just her life but that of her offspring wasn’t a very smart option. The circumstances and challenges we face have since changed but this subconscious mental process still manifests. The woman that couldn’t keep her hands off you last month after you lose your job and ambition ups and leaves or in the very least her attraction for you diminishes. She’s most likely not going to die if she remains with you, but her evolved subconscious processes confirm to her that you’re no longer a viable option. Even when a higher value male comes around, still that evolved mental firmware tells her that he is a better option. Now if you’re still hard on your purpose and life direction, maintain a masculine frame in the relationship and all, she may have a hard time leaving you for him or at least will have minimal incentive to do so. If however his coming coincides with the point where you’ve lost your focus and your direction of the relationship and you’re no longer the masculine alpha leader that she want to submit to; you’re no longer the best she can do….well, how about you ask Edwin how that plays out.
The men are fighting back! Okay, that was simply a dramatic opening, but you get the picture. In a world in which women have become increasingly more entitled to the provisioning of men and their resources, an association such as the Stingy Men’s Association is an affront to the security promised by the new gynocentricContinue reading “The Rise of the Stingy Man”
I have been putting off writing this blog post for some time now. That is partly because several writable ideas keep spontaneously popping up in my mind. Part of my new technique is to keep a small notebook on the table to immediately run to and note these ideas. Thus far, it seems to beContinue reading “Gosh! He Wants Some.”
The feminist movement, at the time some still considered it an intelligible doctrine (some lunatics still do), made a lot of headway peddling the argument of female objectification, apparently by men. The logic employed by the feminists then was that of female victimhood beholden to the male gaze. It is men that were staring atContinue reading “Female Power”