The Rational Male - Positive Masculinity PDF

[]{#index_split_000.html} []{#index_split_000.html#p1}Image 1 []{#index_split_000.html#p2}**The Rational Male** **Positive Masculinity** []{#index_split_000.html#p3}**The Rational Male Volume III -- Positive Masculinity**, first edition copyright © 2017 Rollo Tomassi. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior permission of the publisher and author. *The Rational Male* is a registered trademark. ISBN-13: 978-1548921811 ISBN-10: 1548921815 Published by Counterflow Media LLC, Reno, Nevada Design and layout by Rollo Tomassi. []{#index_split_000.html#p4}**Contents** [The Rational Male Positive Masculinity](#index_split_000.html#p2) [Contents](#index_split_000.html#p4) [Forward](#index_split_000.html#p6) [Introduction](#index_split_000.html#p11) [The Red Pill Parent](#index_split_000.html#p28) [An Introduction to Red Pill Parenting](#index_split_000.html#p29) [The Red Pill Parent](#index_split_000.html#p35) [The Red Pill Father](#index_split_000.html#p50) [Practical Red Pill Parenting](#index_split_000.html#p65) [Promise Keepers](#index_split_001.html#p89) [Raising Daughters](#index_split_001.html#p104) [Relationship Game - A Primer](#index_split_001.html#p112) [The Feminine Nature](#index_split_001.html#p119) [Feminine Solipsism](#index_split_001.html#p120) [Empathy](#index_split_001.html#p132) [Appeals to Reason](#index_split_001.html#p136) [Estrus](#index_split_001.html#p141) [The Epiphany Phase Revisited](#index_split_001.html#p152) [Plan B](#index_split_001.html#p158) [Social Imperatives](#index_split_001.html#p167) [Adaptations](#index_split_001.html#p168) [Male Space](#index_split_002.html#p184) [Fempowerment](#index_split_002.html#p190) [The Political is Personal](#index_split_002.html#p198) [Open Cuckoldry](#index_split_002.html#p204) [Positive Masculinity](#index_split_002.html#p211) [Tribes](#index_split_002.html#p212) [Rites of Passage](#index_split_002.html#p223) [The Second Set of Books](#index_split_002.html#p234) [The Red Pill Balance](#index_split_002.html#p240) [Complementarity](#index_split_002.html#p253) [The Red Pill Lens](#index_split_002.html#p261) [Myth of the 'Good' Guy](#index_split_002.html#p266) [The Perfect Man](#index_split_003.html#p278) []{#index_split_000.html#p5}[Alpha Tells](#index_split_003.html#p285) [Beta Tells](#index_split_003.html#p292) [The Reconstruction](#index_split_003.html#p299) [The Power of NEXT](#index_split_003.html#p322) [The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies](#index_split_003.html#p327) [SMV Ratios and Attachment](#index_split_003.html#p335) [Humanism, Behaviorism and the Amorality of Game](#index_split_003.html#p342) [The Plan](#index_split_003.html#p347) [Afterword](#index_split_003.html#p353) [Acknowledgments](#index_split_003.html#p358) []{#index_split_000.html#p6}**Forward** It was the first week of August, 2013, when I first listened to the actual voice of Andrew Hansen. I'd known Andrew as an online personality for some time before this, but I'd never really listened to the guy's voice. Andrew was a fellow blogger in what's popularly known as the Manosphere today -- an online community of men that spans the globe and seeks to develop a better understanding of conventional masculinity, the nature of women and how best to develop oneself with this collective knowledge. Andrew was The Private Man and was the proprietor of a blog of the same name. Private Man was his handle on Twitter as well as many other online forums. That name was going to stick with him, and likely will be the one he's remembered by the most. Before this particular podcast I'd had some inspired debates with Private Man. He was always a good guy to hash out ideas with because he'd had such a wealth of experience with regards to intersexual relations, divorce and dating as a 'mature man' after his divorce. I'll say right now, there were some issues I'd had strong disagreements with him about. More than once I had to take issue with his take on things from a watered down, Purple Pill perspective. That was always the concern, the want to temper one's Red Pill message to be more palatable to a larger audience (usually for the want of not offending women) at the expense of broader truths. But with Private Man, there was always a willingness to listen to the uglier side of things, the more objective, less palatable truths and to embrace them in spite of what his experience was. He'd have a penchant for writing an article critical of some fluff piece he'd come across, try to measure his response and I'd be there to push him to see the real latent message in it and why it was really bothering him enough to write about it. Andrew's Manosphere niche was his appeal to older gentlemen. That may seem like an easy fit for a guy who really came into the sphere already in his late 50s, but you have to consider that the men who he was connecting with were largely guys like himself coming into a very rude awakening of their Blue Pill conditioning well past middle age. This is a hard demographic to reach. When a guy's been plugged in since the early 1970s and has based his intersexual existence on a set of rules that he discovers no one has really been playing by for as long as he's been around, it's very easy to fall into the 'bitter' and 'burned' []{#index_split_000.html#p7}category of men. Private Man could've easily been one of the same guys he was trying to reach, but his own unplugging, late as it was in his life, was something different, something positive, for him. In a way I think his positive Red Pill awareness was something unavoidable for him. This hopeful, though educated, attitude is something he brought to his writing. When I wrote the last book, *Preventive Medicine*, I did so in an attempt to address a common question men had been asking me for as long as I've been writing: *"Where was all of this knowledge when I was younger? Why didn't someone* *make me aware of all this before I got married, got divorced, had a messed up* *relationship with my kids, etc.?"* This question is usually a casual joke amongst older men in the Manosphere, one that usually stems from a need to reconcile regret for not having realized the truths of the Red Pill sooner. But with Private Man, I never really got the same sense of regret from him. It was as if his unplugging were something he accepted without much regret for the experiences and decisions he'd made for his life up to then. He acknowledged and accepted his role in his own plugging-in without much pause for the nihilism that comes with it. We often talk about the several phases a man usually progresses through when he's processing the new awareness the Red Pill presents to him. One of these is a phase of nihilism, where a man must reconcile that his past decisions were uninformed (or deliberately misled) and from there on it's up to him to remake himself. This nihilism comes from a sense of lost investment, lost value, and the prospect of having to rebuild himself after being cut away from Blue Pill idealism. Private Man never really seemed to go through this phase -- or if he did he did a good job of hiding it. In fact, if there was one thing that defined Andrew's character it was his positive attitude about damn near everything. That may seem like the 'right' thing to say about a guy in retrospect, but for Andrew it was true. I'd encourage my readers to peruse his blog and decide for themselves. So, there I was on an August day, hobbling my way back to my car, iPhone and earplugs listening to Private Man on a podcast called, I think, Manosphere Radio or something. I say hobbling because I'd suffered a dancer's fracture on my foot a week earlier and I usually had a slow, mostly painful, walk to my car in a parking lot at a casino I was doing contract work for at the time. I downloaded the audio and listened to it while I walked and drove home that day. This may seem kind of insignificant, but it's the memory I'll always associate with []{#index_split_000.html#p8}Andrew because here was one of a few men from my online life who was putting himself out there. Sure, there was Roosh and a few others, but Private Man was a guy I already had a connection with. You have to remember this was about 3 months before I'd published The Rational Male. It was at a time when I didn't know how it would be received, and while I had confidence in what I was doing, it was still something new for me. There were a lot of 'what ifs' I had to consider then. Hearing Andrew go into what he always did, I knew then that he'd be a guy I could share a beer with. A guy that was accessible. I think that's important, accessibility. It's very easy to get wound up in the idea that the text we read on our monitors are just cold expressions of ideas. It's easy to forget there's a human behind those ideas. Sometimes that human might be someone you'll click with immediately, sometimes it's a person you're glad to get away from. Their ideas may be genius, but who they are is very much subjective. Hearing Andrew's delivery, much of it dead pan, you just knew he was a good dude. I wish I could say I know more than I do about him. He was a very open guy and I honestly wondered what woman would ever have a reason to divorce the guy. It certainly wasn't his lack of approachability. It makes you wonder why he chose the moniker Private Man. He was anything but private. Between 2013 and Andrew's passing this year, 2017, I'd talked with him personally on several occasion. It was actually Andrew who'd hit me up for my cell number. He lived alone with a dog and I'm fairly sure he just wanted to talk with someone outside his immediate circle the first time we connected. He'd hit some tough times financially, asked me to help him with a cell phone bill, but moreover it was about the time he knew he'd be losing an eye to cancer. It's interesting to see pictures of him now without the eye patch since it quickly became the look that made him most recognizable. Cancer is a shit disease. It's alters you in many ways even if you beat it. Talking to Andrew on this occasion, I knew there was likely something more he was holding back, but even in a time he was obviously hurting and sorting things out for himself he still pressed on with the same upbeat determination I'd always known. Then came the announcement that his cancer had become aggressive enough that he knew and accepted that he'd be taking the last train home. Mortality is something very personal. If I'm honest, it's not something I like to contemplate too often or too deeply. I'm not too good with death. It's easy for men to come []{#index_split_000.html#p9}up with heroic speeches about the importance of living life well and facing death strength and honor, but after all of that, dead is dead and gone is gone. I'll be addressing this in more detail in the chapters of this book, but suffice to say that precious few men leave a sizable dent in the universe during their time in this life. Private Man may not have been up there with Steve Jobs, but he did leave a dent in the Manosphere. As with everything else he did, Andrew accepted his fate and still pressed on, with little words of regret. Just as he'd accepted his Red Pill awareness with grace and positivity, so too did he accept his imminent end. In fact, he had a 'going away' party for himself not but a few weeks before his passing. You can see the video of this party on his blog (saved for posterity). Once he'd announced his life was coming to an end I immediately asked him if he'd do me the honor of writing the forward of the book you now hold in your hands. I had wanted nothing more than for Andrew to be memorialized with this book. The Rational Male has become a cornerstone of Red Pill awareness and dare I say the most influential work on intersexual dynamics in the Manosphere. It was my hope that this installment might serve as a tribute to Private Man, written by his own hand here. Alas, it was not to be, so thus I write his eulogy here in his place. I renamed this volume *Positive Masculinity* in tribute to what Private Man brought to our collective consciousness. As you read through this book keep this theme in mind. Far too much is made by critics of the Red Pill -- the true Red Pill founded in brutal, but enlightening truths of intersexual dynamics -- that its readers, its proponents, its awakened men are simply a collection of angry, bitter, nihilistic guys railing at their social ineptitudes. It's all too easy to believe there is nothing positive to masculinity in an age where boys and men are taught to hate anything looking like the conventional definition of it. But there is more to the Red Pill aware man than this, and it's my hope that this book will serve as a counterbalance to that, often deliberate, misconception. The Private Man was a good example of this positivity, so it's in his name I dedicate the following text. God willing, this will serve as his memorial. *-- Rollo Tomassi* *April 13, 2017* []{#index_split_000.html#p10} []{#index_split_000.html#p11}**Introduction** *"Good decisions come from experience, and experience often comes from bad* *decisions."* One of the major hurdles I had to really come to terms with when I decided to start getting involved with the new male paradigm -- the Red Pill -- was why I was so passionate about it in the first place. Ever since I began contributing on the SoSuave forum and the manosphere in general, I've always tried to make a point of not emphasizing my past sexual and personal experiences to base more global ideas upon. Women's default position is often just this; personalize the instance then come to a universalized conclusion. Not only is it the height of solipsism to think your experience should define the frame for everyone else, but it myopically ignores that exceptions usually prove a rule. That was my basis for not wanting to relate too much of my own experiences. People can draw too easy a conclusion from the conditions that molded your point of view. This is actually one of the easiest ways to *read* a woman because their experiences and sense of self-importance tends to define their reality. I wanted a more pragmatic approach, and all this came at a time for me when I decided to explore behavioral psychology. *Game*, or what would become a form of practical intersexual awareness, influenced this decision for me. Back in my earliest writing, as far as Red Pill awareness went, I wanted to know how the television worked instead of that it just worked when I turned on the power. I wanted to be able to take it apart and put it back together again. All that said, I was still left with the question, 'why the hell do you even care whether guys unplug?' I 'unplugged' largely without the support of a global Internet community of men comparing their experiences, so why even bother? At the time of this writing I have had what most men would consider a very good marriage for over 20 years now. I have a whip-smart and pretty, grown daughter, I make good money, I'm successful at what I do, I'm well traveled, why is it so damn important to make my voice heard? My detractors will say it's all about ego appeasement. There's always some truth []{#index_split_000.html#p12}to that I suppose; every writer has some ego-investment in their work or they'd never do it. However, it's when I'm forced to answer questions like this that I have no choice but to apply my own personal experiences to the equation. I'm loath to do so because it's far too easy for critics to mold them into some intent and purpose that serves their perspective -- he's bitter, he got burned, this is his catharsis, he's vindictive, etc. However, it's necessary to present these experiences as observations for a better understanding. I wont pretend to be unbiased, no one is, but I do take the pains to be as self-analytical as I can in what I offer. So you want to know what my problem is? My problem is living in a world teeming with young men who've become so conditioned to believing that anything remotely masculine is to be ridiculed, vilified or subdued until they have no concept of what conventional masculinity truly entails much less pass off even the possibility that it could be something positive and attractive. My problem is when a personal, Beta friend swallows a bullet because he, literally, "can't live without" the girlfriend who left him. My problem is watching a pastor's pretty wife leave him and 4 children so she can pursue her Hypergamous instincts after 18 years of marriage because he pedestalized her and deprecated himself (and men) every day of their marriage. My problem is when a 65 year old man, steeped in his Blue Pill conditioning for his long life, cries in my lap about how he's been consistently blackmailed with his wife's intimacy for the past 20 years of their marriage and won't risk offending her for fear of losing her. My problem is talking a close friend out of killing both the wife he married too young and the man she just cheated on him with in the parking lot of the motel he's spent all night tracking her down to with their three children crying in the backseat of their minivan at 4am. My problem is civilly sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner with a hyper-religious woman and the new millionaire husband she married just 8 months after her former Beta husband of 20 years hung himself from a tree when she decided "he wasn't the ONE" for her. My problem is staring at the brand new tits and Porsche she bought herself with the money from the home he built for her, []{#index_split_000.html#p13}that he busted his ass for, just 3 months after he was in the ground. My problem is emphatically teaching a nephew how not to be the Beta his father was, while tactfully pointing out the Hypergamy of his obliviously opportunistic mother. My problem is watching my father, though decaying from Alzheimer's, still playing out a *Savior Schema* in an effort to get laid that he's thought should work for his entire life at 68 years old. My problem is watching him feebly default to a behavior that had obsessively motivated him to succeed until he was forced into early retirement at 53 and his second wife promptly left him after that. My problem is consoling a good friend who fathered three daughters with two wives and is being emotionally manipulated by his third (another single mother), who's become so despondent that he dreads going home from work to deal with his personal situation and waits with anticipation for the weekends to be over. My problem is counseling a guy who thought the best way to separate himself from "other guys" was to be 'chivalrous' and date a single mommy, also with three children from two different fathers, only to knock her up for a fourth kid and marry her because "*it was the right thing to do*." My problem is dealing with a 17 year old girl who witnessed her new boyfriend being stabbed 30 times by her ex-boyfriend because he believed "she was his soul-mate" and "would rather live in jail without her than see her with that guy." My problem is trying to explain to 'Modern Women' that -- after 20 years of marriage, my wife could still model swim-wear and confidently respects my judgment and decisions as a man -- and that I didn't achieve this by being a domineering, 1950's caveman-chauvinist who's crushed her spirit, but that it is an understanding and adherence to living a positively masculine, Red Pill aware role in the marriage. And my biggest problem is seeing 14 year old Beta boys all ready to sacrifice themselves wholesale to this pitiful, mass-media fueled, pop-culture endorsed, idealized and feminized notion of romantic/soul-mate mythology -- all because some other Betas trapped in the same quicksand are affirming and co-enabling each other to further their own sinking and spread this disease to other young men. It's infectious, and complacency, like misery, loves company. If I have a fear it is that I'm only one man, and I can't possibly be enough to kick these guys in the ass like their fathers were unable or unwilling to do. []{#index_split_000.html#p14}This is why I bother. It really is a matter of life or death sometimes. Understanding Game, for lack of a better term, and how and why it functions, is literally a survival skill. Think about the importance of the decisions we make based on uninquisitive, flimsy and misdirected presumptions we have been conditioned to believe about love, gender, sex, relationships, etc. Think about the life impact that these decisions have not only on ourselves, but our families, the children that result from them, and every other domino that falls as a repercussion. We rarely stop to think about how our immediate decisions impact people we may not even know at the time we make them. What we do in life, literally, echoes or ripples into eternity. That's not to go all fortune cookie on you, but it is my reasoning behind my desire to educate, to study, to tear down and build back up what most would ask, "why bother?" **Do we really need** **another book?** In September of 2015 I dared to make my first public appearance in Las Vegas at the *Man in Demand Conference* hosted by my good friend Christian McQueen. He, myself and bloggers Goldmund and Tanner Guzy came together for a Saturday we wanted to bill as a TED talk for the manosphere. Sort of a meeting of the minds for the Red Pill aware. As it worked out it was a very well balanced collection of men's experience. At this conference I was privileged to meet many different men from all walks of life who'd made great efforts to attend. I was introduced to men in their early 20s all the way up to their late 60s. I met some 9 to 5 office workers, some college students, a private investigator, a cop, and some men who'd flown in from an Air Force base in South Korea. I was honored to have one of them personally hand me an Air Force coin for my work. I met men in the military and a guy who'd ridden a bus from across the country in order to meet with me. I met fathers with kids who they told me would be handing them my first book as soon as they were old enough to understand it. I also met men who'd brought their own fathers with them to hear my first in-person talk. Needless to say it was an unqualified honor and easily one of the most humbling experiences of my life to meet men wanting to thank me and my writing for improving or saving their lives -- literally and figuratively. At the conference I had a fellow ask me, "What are you going to write about once you've covered everything from a Red Pill perspective?" I kind of paused at this; it'd never occurred to me that I might ever run out of dots to connect with []{#index_split_000.html#p15}respect to intersexual dynamics. If anything, the very fact that so many men from such diverse backgrounds and experiences had come together in Vegas to hear us speak and to get some one-on-one live time with myself and my fellow bloggers was a testament to how Red Pill awareness applied in so many contexts. There's a running joke going on with myself and my Twitter followers that says there is a *Rational Male* post for every circumstance, issue or difference between men and women today. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, but I do understand the sentiment -- I have quite a bit of material collected over the fourteen years I've been writing. It's become a habit of mine to simply link past articles as answer to some seemingly new intersexual contention or story readers will ask for my take on. Needless to say I don't do 140 characters very well. So have I tapped everything out? Have I written all there is to be written? At the time of this writing I'm beginning to get people unfamiliar with 'Rollo Tomassi' sending me links to my own quotes as a response to something I may talk about on a Red Pill forum. My work, it seems, precedes me as an author. This is a very strange place to be I assure you; to have your message overshadow you as a writer as it becomes endemic to the large Red Pill narrative. All that said, I don't for a moment believe I've tapped out everything there is to say about intersexual dynamics and Red Pill awareness. Intersexual dynamics, the differences between men and women's sexual -- and really life -- strategies is very broad. In the three and a half years since my first book published there have been countless other writers starting blogs to focus specifically on various aspects of how Red Pill awareness affects particular social sets, ethnicities, married men, men going their own way (MGTOW), religious and political considerations. The Red Pill -- in it's original definition of being about the psychological, sociological and interpersonal dynamism between and women -- isn't something I've ever thought I would need to categorize. I'm happy that my work is the foundation for so many offshoots of Red Pill specialization, but my first, most important role in this sphere is to stay as attuned as I can to the broad questions and the foundational truths. My purpose in writing what I do for as long as I have has always been to benefit other men, to hopefully unplug the guys who are on their last nerve, but have a desire to really understand the *whats* and the *whys* that have led them to the point []{#index_split_000.html#p16}in their lives where they are ready to dissolve the barriers that have prevented them from becoming Red Pill aware. **Praxeology** The Red Pill, from the respect that I interpret it, is a praxeology. Simply put, it's the deductive study of human action, based on the notion that humans engage in purposeful behavior, as opposed to reflexive behavior like sneezing and inanimate behavior. With the action axiom as the starting point, it is possible to draw conclusions about human behavior that are both objective and universal. For example, the notion that humans engage in acts of choice implies that they have preferences, and this must be true for anyone who exhibits intentional behavior. This is primarily why I continue to use the phrase ' *Red Pill awareness*' throughout what I write. Once a man truly unplugs and reorders his life according to what it presents to him, this developed awareness extends to many other aspects of his life than just his intersexual relations. This awareness makes men sensitive to others around him who, like he was, are caught in the same Blue Pill conditioned way of interpreting his personal and social existence. With a *Red Pill Lens* he begins to see the sales pitches, the ego-investment defenses, and the predictable responses of men and women whose lives have been colored by a feminine-primary social conditioning that has defined their lives for so long they are unaware of it, but would cease to exist without it. In this volume I would ask that you keep the idea of the Red Pill as a praxeology in mind. It is a loose science at best, but as a science it is always open to new data, new input from the larger whole of men's experiences. And as such it is always open to reinterpretations, more experimentation and new assessments. The Red Pill is still evolving. It is very much a 'living study', so to speak. **Positive Masculinity** When I began writing, compiling and rewriting this book I had an initial working title -- *The Rational Male, The Red Pill* -- however, as I progressed I shifted this to *Positive Masculinity*. There came a point in my compiling and editing where I'd taken a different path in the purpose of the book. Where I had wanted to explain and/or defend the initial, intersexual, definition of what the term 'Red Pill' has increasingly been distorted away from, I found myself leaning more []{#index_split_000.html#p17}into expressing ways in which this Red Pill awareness could benefit men's lives in many ways, both in and apart from intersexual dynamics. I'd hit on this in my Red Pill Parenting series from a couple years ago and I knew I wanted to revisit and make that series a prominent part of this book. As it sits now, it accounts for a full quarter of the book's content, but as I moved into my writing more I decided that the best way to really define 'The Red Pill" as I know it was to go into the various ways men might benefit from redefining masculinity for themselves in a conventional, Red Pill aware sense. When I finished the parenting section I realized that I was really laying out general, if not prescriptive, ideas for ways men might better raise their sons and daughters in a feminine-primary social order that's determined to raise and condition them. My purpose with both the series and section was to equip fathers with Red Pill aware considerations in making their sons and daughters Red Pill aware themselves in order to challenge a world that increasingly wants to convince us that fathers' influence is superfluous or dangerous. It was from this point that I'd made a connection; what I was doing was laying out a much-needed reckoning of sorts with regard to what conventional, positive masculinity might mean to future generations of Red Pill aware men. Since my time on the SoSuave forums and the inception of my blog I've used the term ***Positive Masculinity***. I've even had a category for it on my side bar since I began too. From the time I began writing I've always felt a need to vindicate positive, conventional masculinity (as well as evolved conventional gender roles for men and women) and separate it from the deliberately distorted "toxic" masculinity that the *Village* of the Feminine Imperative would have us believe is endemic today. I've always seen a need to correct this intentionally distorted perception of masculinity with true, evolved, biologically and psychologically inherited aspects of conventional masculinity. As you may guess this isn't an easy an task when a Red Pill man must fight against many different varieties of this masculine distortion. We live in an age where any expression of conventional masculinity is conflated with 'bullying' or 'hyper-masculinity'. Blue Pill conditioning teaches us that inherent strength ought not to be considered "masculine". If a boy acts in a conventionally masculine way he's to be sedated and boys as young as four, it's accepted, can []{#index_split_000.html#p18}decide their gender to the extent that doctors are chemically altering their physiologies to block hormones and transition them into (binary) girls. To the Blue Pill *Village*, a definition of masculinity is either something very obscure, subjective and arbitrary or it's something extraordinarily dangerous, ridiculous and toxic. As I said, even the most marginal displays of anything conventionally masculine are exaggerated as some barbaric hazing ritual or smacks of hyper, over the top displays of machismo. With so much spite arrayed against masculinity, and with such an arbitrary lack of guidance in whatever might pass for a form of masculinity that feminine-primary society might ever find acceptable, is there anything positive about the masculine at all? There is only one conclusion we can come to after so much writing on the wall -- there is a war on conventional masculinity that's been going on in 'progressive' western societies for generations now. I found it very hard to describe what exactly a *Positive Masculinity* might mean to Red Pill aware men. One of the more insidious ways that Blue Pill conditioning effectively neuters masculinity is in the recruiting of men to effect their own emasculation. Usually these men themselves have had no real guidance in, or embrace of, conventional masculinity precisely because this Blue Pill conditioning has robbed them of maturing into an understanding of it. Blue Pill fathers raise Blue Pill sons and the process repeats, but in that process is the insurance that Blue Pill sons are denied an education in what it means to be a man. This book is a loose attempt at giving men actionable ideas in how to apply Red Pill awareness in their lives. This book is not intended to magically convert you into an 'Alpha Male', nor is it a step-by-step program about how to "change your mindset" in order to make your life better. If you make that transition, great, but I don't have a cure for you or any other man and I would caution against taking to heart the formula or program of any other Life or Dating Coach who wants to sell it to you. The Red Pill is not one-size-fits-all. Individual men will have individual solutions for their own particular circumstance, advantages and disadvantages. What I do have for you is a series of ideas, concepts and observations that will help you fashion your own solutions to the most common problems that vex most men in this era. I offer you tools to build a life based on a new awareness []{#index_split_000.html#p19}which hopefully frees you of the consequences of making uninformed choices that will affect your own life, and the lives of those you choose to include in it. Different men have differing needs from Red Pill awareness, this book's intent is to give you some ideas as to how best to implement it whether you're married, single, dating non-exclusively, divorced, a parent or planning to be one someday. As I mentioned in the beginning of this introduction, there are many faces and demographics of the Red Pill and while I cannot cater a plan for every man, my hope is to give you a firm grasp of how this awareness can affect you and be utilized by you at various stages of your life. In the second book in the *Rational Male* series, *Preventive Medicine*, I outlined what men could likely expect of women at various phases of their maturity and station in life. In this book I will venture to outline what a man might expect from themselves in a feminine-primary social order, from women, kids, academia, and to interpret this within the context of Red Pill awareness. Furthermore, it's my hope to give you a few 'ah-ha' moments that not only shake you from a Blue Pill illusionment, but to also spark an idea about how you might put that information to best use in your own life. One of the more satisfying aspects of the reader feedback I've received from the past two books has been listening to the 'moment of revelation' stories men have told me they had in reading a particular passage that directly spoke to them. I expect there will be similar epiphanies in this book, but when you come to one it's my hope that you begin to think of ways in which you might apply it to your life in the most immediate sense. **Guidelines, not rules** As most of my reader know, I don't deal in prescriptions. I've never believed in cookie-cutter, bullet point lists meant to teach men the 12 habits of highly effective Alpha men. In fact, my mission statement isn't really even about improving or correcting mens' lives per se. My purpose is exploring ideas and dispelling misconceptions (often deliberate) about intersexual dynamics. In all of my books I make a point of reiterating that I'm not in the business of making better men, I'm in the business of men making themselves better men. My hope is that this book will help you make better choices based on a broader understanding of the intersexual dynamics, but also a better understand of how []{#index_split_000.html#p20}those dynamics affect the other aspects of your life. That may be reflected in your workplace, your family, or perhaps it motivates you to become active in a social respect; maybe it redirects your education, career or how you (will) approach parenting your sons and daughters. Maybe this information helps you reconstruct yourself, or your marriage, however, it may also destroy the more unhealthy relationships you've been as yet unable to assess your part in. The Red Pill has a very discomforting way of exposing the long-term results of a life that's been founded on Blue Pill illusions and a lack of wanting to confront them. For all of that, remember that, as a praxeology the Red Pill is about suggestions, not hard and fast laws. Since the advent of what's become the Manosphere there has been a laboring effort to force fit this otherwise amoral, loose science, into various doctrines, codes of ethics and ideologies that distort the objectivity of the Red Pill. There is a definite want to justify whatever a man's pet ideology is by aligning it with the term "Red Pill". It's a hot moniker to call whatever you happen to believe in "Red Pill" in 2017. After all, it's just an abstraction for 'truth', right? I would very much warn against anyone using the term Red Pill to foster an agenda. This is why I believe in guidelines, suggestions and objective truths that are open to future interpretations rather than rules that straitjacket the Red Pill to accommodate ideology, or justify Blue Pill idealism that's too uncomfortable to disabuse oneself of. The Red Pill should always be 'open source' and any grab at ownership or any need for specificity should always be suspect of another motive. **How to read this book** When I wrote the first *Rational Male* book I had no plans to write even a second or third book, however, as the popularity of the first book still continues to spread I've come to see the *Rational Male* as a core source book of sorts. *The* *Rational Male* represents a foundation upon which supplemental volumes might follow. After I'd published *The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine* it dawned on me that any 'sequels' ought not to be sequels, but rather supplements to the first book. When I was writing and compiling *The Rational Male* my instinct was to put as much into the book as possible since I figured it would be my only work. Unfortunately, this also meant I was cramming as much into the book as possible without a thought to interpretation or what might follow after it. It became apparent to me that *The Rational Male* would be a kind of source book []{#index_split_000.html#p21}for Red Pill intersexual dynamics after publication. Thus, *Preventive Medicine* followed it using the same resources set forth in the first book. As such, I would advise readers to read *The Rational Male* before delving into this volume. Much of what I'll outline in this book presumes a familiarity with the material in *The* *Rational Male*. You can still get a lot out of this book 'as is', but there are established Red Pill principles, acronyms and idioms that only make sense with an understanding of the ideas in the first book. So, for as much as this will sound like a marketing pitch, please, read *The Rational Male* first. After that, read, *The* *Rational Male, Preventive Medicine* if you like. Certain ideas, like Mental Point of Origin, are discussed in that volume. However, *Preventive Medicine* is one more supplement; not an absolute necessity, but it will further your understanding in Red Pill awareness. I should also add that reading this volume before *Preventive Medicine* won't necessarily throw off some prescribed reading order or linear understanding. Lastly, I'm going to make an appeal to you to read this (and really all my writing) as free from distractions as possible. That's tough to do these days, I know. I'm asking you this because it's my belief that introspection is a necessary part of understanding Red Pill awareness. You have to give yourself the opportunity to digest this material and see how it's applicable to your own life. Today we live in what I call the TL;DR generation. That stands for Too Long ; Didn't Read in case you weren't aware. TL;DR is a summation meant to give a reader only the most basic information about a particular forum post or blog entry. I can understand why this info bite is popular in an online world where our attention spans are constantly distracted from one stimulus to the next. It seems like pragmatism to just run off a few salient bullet points about what you just spent the better part of an hour to compose, but with regard to understanding Red Pill intersexual dynamics it actually puts a reader at a disadvantage. I'll explain. In so many forums, in so much media TL;DR pervades our thought process. We want to get to the important parts to see if we agree or disagree and rarely invest our online time in sussing out all of the particulars that led to those TL;DR points. This corrupts our method of really learning something, and in the case of changing one's life with a full understanding of Red Pill awareness it's simply impractical to hope to get the ideas without putting in the effort. And that's the point, education takes effort. []{#index_split_000.html#p22}I've had many requests from my readers on the Red Pill Reddit forum to just distill down ideas I've put a lot of time and insight into developing. Speak more simplistically, give us a TL;DR summation and we'll take it from there. The problem with this line of thinking is that in the Red Pill praxeology, the process in coming to foundational ideas and principles is equally important as describing the dynamics themselves. I find it ironic that the same critics who endlessly request several peer reviewed long-form experimental studies in order to give my ideas any credence are often the least likely to actually read them due exactly to this TL;DR phenomenon. On the few occasions I've made an honest attempt to strip down a post for easy digestibility the process goes like this: I make a TL;DR summation of the points I think best exemplify what my ideas are about and an under-informed reader turns into a critic of those points. They say, "Yes Rollo, that's all fine and well, but Aha! I got you because you didn't think of reasons X, Y and Z and I don't believe you." These reason I did, in fact, factor in to my ideation process of coming to those points, but because I've just catered my process to the 8th grade attention span and reading comprehension of readers who want the TL;DR convenience I've bypassed the process of how I came to my conclusions. What happens next is I then go into a more detailed explanation of reasons X, Y and Z and reexplain what would've been made clear had a reader simply invested some time in enriching themselves with both the process and the conclusions. So, you see, TL;DR is actually the less pragmatic approach in that it takes more time to grasp a concept with the back and forth need for explanations. In other arenas, in other subject matter, this may be a convenience, but with the sensitive nature of Red Pill awareness, and the veritable certainty that the ideas will challenge a person's deeply ego-invested Blue Pill beliefs, making a commitment to devoting the time needed to understand the material is key. So, that said, I would humbly request that you ensure that you're distraction-free when reading any of my books. *The Rational Male* is weighty stuff. Not a week goes by that I don't get an email or a Tweet from a man praising my work, but moreover, they tell me how they keep returning to reread key parts of the book as their lives' circumstances change. This is a good thing. It's actually how I intended the books to be read -- with a highlighter pen to pick out the parts that jump out at a man and with a pencil to scribble in liner notes in the margins. []{#index_split_000.html#p23}As I mention in all of my books' introductions, *The Rational Male* is meant to be a kind of living text that a man can keep coming back to. I want men to discuss it with other men (and women if warranted). The knowledge and insight is something that needs to be constantly debated and developed. I always imagine just the title, *The Rational Male*, on the cover being enough to get sideways glances or scoffs from women and feminized men, but this was intentional. It's triggering to be sure, but it's also meant to prompt discussion. I'd never want *The Rational Male* to be some banner or icon of some 'new masculinity' movement to be waved in the faces of feminists and social justice warriors. With some men I get the impression that *The Rational Male* could turn into some kind of Bible to thump in the presence of 'plugged-in' men and women. That's not the sentiment that I wrote this and my other volumes in. **Personal Development** Always remember, the material herein is meant for conversation. I understand the eagerness of men who've had their lives changed for the better to want to 'share the gospel' so to speak, and I'm glad for that, but I also know that changing the minds of others only comes from open discourse and conversation. I'm fond of saying that I only hold up a mirror, you've got to want to look into it. This is the approach I take when it comes to 'unplugging' men; they have to come to it and I can only be ready to discuss ideas when they are. Hopefully this, and my other works, will help facilitate that discussion when the time comes for you as well. I'm prefacing this here because in this book the emphasis is more focused on men's personal development. I'm kind of reluctant to classify this book as "personal development" because, to me, that smacks of the Power of Positive Thinking schtick of positive mindset gurus selling old, formulaic optimism in whatever book or seminar program they're selling. I've never been interested in telling men how they can go about becoming better men or Real Men®. I am interested in giving men the tools with which they can create better lives, individually, by applying Red Pill awareness to their individual states. I have always been wary of 'coaches' who claim to have a step-by-step plan to make men better at life, career and love, so I'll state here that this book's motive isn't to improve your life. I sincerely hope that your own betterment is a byproduct of this, but the intent is to inform and educate you. []{#index_split_000.html#p24}I've separated this book into four main sections: Red Pill Parenting, The Feminine Nature, Social Imperatives and Positive Masculinity. Red Pill Parenting is primarily aimed at the men who've asked me to go into some depth about how to go about raising their sons and daughters in a Red Pill aware context. Of the sections in this book I feel this will be the most potentially controversial. I say this not because Red Pill men will have any problem with what I outline in it, nor is it due to the ideas and suggestions I offer, but because it is a direct affront to how mainstream society hopes to socialize the coming generations of both genders. I'll let the material do the talking, but I expect a lot of flack for it from a feminine-primary social order to which this parenting advice is a threat. Much of it undermines most pop-psychology pablum about parenting today. The Feminine Nature is a collection of essays I've rewritten and curated from my blog that specifically address the most predictable aspects of female psychology. In the sense that it outlines and explores the evolutionary and socialized reasons for women's most common behavior this section reads the most similar to my first book. In that book I touched a lot of what I believe constitutes the female mind (and expanding it to become the Feminine Imperative), but in this section I explore some more specific aspects of the female psyche. In Social Imperatives I detail how the female psyche extrapolates into western(izing) cultural narratives, social dictates and legal and political legislation. This is the Feminine Imperative writ large and in it I'll explore how feminism, women's sexual strategy and primary life goals have molded our society into what we take for granted today. The 'women's empowerment' narrative, and the rise of a blank-slate egalitarian equalism, masks a form of female supremacy that has fundamentally altered western culture. These essays directly address and illustrate this phenomenon in an organized reading flow. Finally, Positive Masculinity is comprised of essays I've reformed and expanded on that will give you a better idea of how to define masculinity in a conventional and rational perspective for yourself. I saved this section to be the last in the book because everything that leads up to it is descriptive and written to increase your 'Red Pill' awareness about the true personal and social environment in which you live. Positive Masculinity (and really this book in whole) are ideas from which I expect you'll want to apply in your own life at some point. In my []{#index_split_000.html#p25}second book, *Preventive Medicine*, the idea was to help men to know what they might expect from women, and what prompts them to it at various phases of their maturity. I wrote it in response to the common refrain "I wish I'd known all of this stuff before I got married, got divorced, I was dating (or not) in my 20s, etc." In Positive Masculinity I make an effort to give men some food for thought about what they might expect from themselves at certain stages of their own maturity. While I'm not suggesting a codified return to 'traditional masculinity' or to lay out some rule book for "real men", I am going to suggest an outline of what I believe might constitute a retaking of a conventional masculinity for men. In what we call the Manosphere there have been various efforts to define real masculinity. Most of these are really just rewriting of what old school, old social contract, traditional masculinity was about before the sexual revolution and before mass social feminization. What I'll suggest in this section is a reclaiming of conventional, evolved, biologically prompted masculine nature by men. Furthermore, I believe this masculinity, founded in Red Pill awareness, can be a net positive for men, the women they involve in their lives, their families and society on whole. It's my hope that we can push away tropes like "toxic" or "hyper" masculinity that our feminine-primary social order would have us characterize masculinity as. To be a man today is to be poisoned by testosterone. Masculinity is a bad word for men, while women make it something they dallyingly believe makes them greater. For men, this social order would have us believe that masculinity is something to be avoided or something that can be defined in feminized ambiguity. Even just suggesting you know what it is to "be a man" or you've embraced your masculine nature makes you a suspected criminal -- or a ridiculous child with fantasies of manhood. My hope is this book can change that perception; if not for larger society then for the sake of the individual and his family. Masculinity can be a positive, even (especially) including the aspects that feminized society finds so scary. The aggressive, sometimes hostile, aspects of masculinity have a place in the whole of it, but I believe we have to accept the entirety of conventional masculinity. When we only take the parts of it that we're comfortable with we're left with an inauthentic, unoffensive watered down masculinity that only serves the feminine reinterpretation. []{#index_split_000.html#p26}Western culture has never had a greater need for risk takers and emboldened men who instinctively understand their masculine nature. After having read this volume I would ask that you take stock of both yourself and the social environment going on around you. In this book you'll read about what I call the *Red Pill Lens*. My hope is that you'll apply this new way of seeing things to a constructive effort of your own in understanding that raw, conventional masculinity can be a positive for your life. As always, please pass on this book to a man you think needs it. I make the least amount of royalties from the printed version of my books, but these are what I encourage the purchase of the most because they inspire men to share this knowledge. You can't really do that with a digital or audio copy, but share this with other men. Discuss the contents, even the parts you strongly disagree with. There will again be parts you'll have an 'Aha!' moment reading, and there'll be parts that might make you angry. Thats good, that's what sparks insight, and that insight is what helps change us. *-- Rollo Tomassi June, 2017* []{#index_split_000.html#p27} *Why do my eyes hurt? You've never used them before.* []{#index_split_000.html#p28}**The Red Pill Parent** []{#index_split_000.html#p29}**An Introduction to Red Pill Parenting** The importance of fathers is something of a love-hate relationship in our feminine-primary social order. In our inner-cities the narrative is one of lamenting the lack of fathers' involvement in their kids' lives -- especially boys' lives. This is the go-to narrative whenever some kid commits a criminal act. If only men would be more involved fathers this kind of thing wouldn't happen. The call is always for more responsibility on the part of men who, according to narrative, are little more than irresponsible boys themselves. We're told their only imperative is to have indiscriminate sex and leave the consequences of an "unplanned" pregnancy to the poor girl he must've deceived in order to get laid. This is one impression of modern "fatherhood", the deadbeat Dad, the 'Baby Daddy', the guy who needs to 'Man Up' and do the right thing after his girl ' *accidentally*' got pregnant. And these fathers are, of course, the products of deadbeat Dads themselves, with no thought of seeing the larger forest for all the trees with regards to the social climate that's inspires this fatherly archetype. When we watch the most consistent portrayals of fathers in popular media, sitcoms, movies, etc. we see another archetype of fatherhood; the buffoon, the bumbling Dad so thoroughly out of touch with the mainstream he requires his wife's uniquely female problem solving to set him straight -- usually saving him from himself. This is the father who is essentially a dependent child himself and an archetype women believe they contend with in real life because it confirms their superiority in the *Strong Independent Woman®* identity -- the same media has sold them for generations now. This fatherhood archetype is reserved for Beta male fathers who are only too happy to play along with it because it neatly fits into their preconceptions of an egalitarian equalism between the sexes. However, this is only to the point where his humorous self-deprecation of his maleness coincides with his own impressions of fatherhood. Then all notions of equalism fall away in favor of his ridiculous maleness as a father. The third archetype is the asshole, abusive father preconception. This Dad is []{#index_split_000.html#p30}easy to feel good about hating. Around Father's Day this is the father who gets the hate cards that explain to him (as well as salve the egos of his kids and wife) how unnecessary he really was after all. His wife, the mother of his kids, was always more than enough of a 'man' herself to make his influence superfluous if not detrimental to his kids' lives. In *Promise Keepers* I'll outline how this fatherhood archetype is responsible for predisposing young men to a Beta mindset in the hopes of avoiding becoming the father he hated. I'm not sure if most guy's really understand the irony of celebrating motherhood and fatherhood in some organized fashion, but it serves as a poignant highlight to the feminine-centric society in which we live. The contrast between Mother's Day and Father's Day is now perhaps one of the most easily recognizable evidences of the code in the feminine Matrix. As per the dictates of feminine social primacy, Mom is celebrated, loved and respected by default if only by virtue of her femaleness. Dad, if not outright vilified or publicly excoriated, is constantly reminded that he should always be living up to the servitude that defines his disposable gender. Father's Day is his reminder that he's still not living up to his feminine-primary expectations. For children who blame their social indiscretions and psychological hangups on their mother, there is a certain degree of forgiveness. It's difficult to blame a mother since the impression is that mothering is a supreme effort and sacrifice -- particularly when the popular idea is that she must go it alone due to uncooperative fathers and *not* by her own designs or personal choices. If she fails to some degree it's excusable. For a man to blame his life's ills on Mom smacks of latent misogyny, and even then it's suspected she's a bad mother *because* of a bad father. However, when you lay the blame at Dad's feet, the whole world wails along in tune with you. A mother failing in her charge is negligent, but often forgivable; a man failing as a father is always perceived as selfish and evil. When the next Father's Day rolls around make a mental note to visit the *Post* *Secret* blog. There you'll find that week's batch of anonymously sent, and handcrafted, postcards revealing the inner workings of the feminine-primary mind of both men and women. The usual fare for Father's Day is a hearty "Fuck You Dad!" or "You're the reason I'm so fucked up!" interspersed with a couple 'good dad' or 'at least you tried' sentiments so as not to entirely degrade the []{#index_split_000.html#p31}feminized ideal of fatherhood -- wouldn't want to discourage men's perpetual 'living up' to the qualifications set by the Feminine Imperative. There has to be a little cheese in the maze or else the rat won't perform as desired. I always see a marked difference in attitude between Mother's Day and Father's Day, especially now that I've been one for more than 18 years. Father's Day is a slap in the face for me now -- not because my wife and daughter don't appreciate me as a father, but because it's become a big "fuck you" or "try harder". It's now a reminder that masculinity, even in as positive a light as the Blue Pill world might muster, is devalued and debased, and we ought to just take it like a man and get over it. The more I hear how feckless fathers' perceptions are today only makes me want to be that much better a father to my daughter (even as she's an adult now), and I can't wait until I've got a grandson to help raise as well. That is until the reality sets in. The reality is that the only reason I feel the need to outperform other men in the fatherhood department is because a feminized social convention briefly convinced me that it's my responsibility to compete with other men in a game where the rules are fixed to make better slaves of disposable men. Of course the bar is set so low, and men are so debased now, that even the most mediocre of dads can play along and still get the feeling that they're marginally qualifying. The social convention plays into the same "not-like-other-guys" identification game most chumps subscribe to in their single years. The same desire-for-uniqueness groundwork is already installed. After realizing this, I stopped worrying about "being a good dad". I'm already well beyond the fathering quality non-efforts of my own father, but that's not the point. A good father goes about the business of being a father without concern for accolades. For Men, like anything else, it's not about awards on the wall, but the overall body of work that makes for real accomplishment. A Father is a good father because he can weather an entire world that constantly tells him he's a worthless shit by virtue of being a Man with a child. He just 'does', in spite of a world that will never appreciate his sacrifice and only regard his disposability as being expected. And even in death he'll still be expected to be a good dad. I outlined these father archetypes (there are a few more) to illustrate the various ways in which, as with all men, fathers are again caught in the same *Masculine* *Catch 22* I outlined in my first book. *One of the primary ways Honor is used against men is in the feminized* *perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it's convenient, while* []{#index_split_000.html#p32} *simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it's convenient.* *For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social* *convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the* *responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating* *anything asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up).* *What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man's* *masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is* *labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.* *Essentially, this convention keeps Beta males in a perpetual state of chasing* *their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they're conditioned to believe that* *they're cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to 'Man Up'* *when it suits a feminine imperative. So it's therefore unsurprising to see that half* *the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male* *powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering* *Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch* *22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist,* *patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it's convenient to meet the needs of* *a female imperative.* Fathers (and male mentors) in this social order walk a very fine line. As you'll read in the next section, fathers are viewed with contempt and suspiciousness when they assume an active role in parental investment and their influence in a child's life. Yet, fathers, and particularly the masculinity they represent, are also blamed for every social ill when they are absent from a child's life. Fathers are simultaneously a vital ingredient in a kid's life, yet still superfluous to a kid being raised by a *Strong Independent®* mother. The Feminine Imperative is all too happy to assume authorship of a child's successes, and if not through its mother herself, then through the feminine-primary 'Village' that we're told is necessary to raise a child. A father or men's influence is only valued insofar as it coincides and agrees with the feminine-primary plan for that child's upbringing. Anything else is just teaching what the narrative deems to be an institutionalized misogyny or ' *toxic*' masculinity. *The National Center for Fatherlessness* estimates about a third of American children live absent their biological father. The statistics are even worse for []{#index_split_000.html#p33}African-American families. Estimates vary, but everyone agrees that somewhere between half and three quarters of black children grow up without their dads. The epidemic of fatherlessness is so pervasive we tend to forget about it. It stays in the background when we consider other social ills. Even so, fatherlessness lies near the bottom of our increasingly dire cultural problems. The conscious awareness of fatherlessness only arises when some tragedy occurs that requires Dad as a convenient foil for it. Watch any video clip of rioting and social unrest. What you'll see is young men behaving in a heinous and disgusting manner. Look deeper, and you'll see boys who grew up without fathers or, alternatively, fathers who did little but tutor them in criminality. But this is only one example of the consequences of absent fathers. When you look at the boys and girls of what I call the "Participation Trophy" generation you see disempowered, disenfranchised, gender-loathing boys who all too eagerly wish they could become girls. And due to the priorities our culture places on *Fempowerment* and feminine-correctness in our education methods we have a generation of girls growing up to be male-entitled in their self estimations. In my own estimate, Beta fathers basing their parenting on this same Blue Pill feminization posing as egalitarianism ideologies are every bit as damaging to the next generation's upbringing as uninvolved or absent fathers. Perhaps even more so. Fatherlessness can exist with a father present in the home. The denial of the effects of fatherlessness also supports the larger cultural narrative about the irrelevancy of men. The idea that fathers are not really necessary for children is everywhere. When we laud women who choose to have a child on their own, while we infer that fathers don't matter -- nice to have around if he's useful, but entirely unnecessary. These days, a pet is typically considered a more crucial part of a complete family than a man. That's the way some people have wanted it for a long time. The entire feminist project has been devoted to unseating the father from his role in the family. Now that they have achieved their objective we see the results. We see this even within the modern church; men's family authority is only a liability for them and, along with that a father's "headship", has lost all meaning. []{#index_split_000.html#p34}Despite what all the propaganda claims, fathers are necessary for a stable family. Authority and order in social relationships start with him. Without him, things fall apart as we are now seeing. The patriarchy has been smashed, and along with it the patriarch. And, contrary to feminist promises, once the patriarchy has been smashed, what emerges is not a peaceful world of equality and rainbow-draped unicorns. Rather it's the burned out hell-scape we'll see on display on the streets of the next riot, and on the faces of boys and girls wherever the father is missing. And we'll nod together and ask, "Where are these kids' fathers?" []{#index_split_000.html#p35}**The Red Pill Parent** In September of 2015 I spoke at the *Man In Demand* conference in Las Vegas. One thing I found encouraging to see was fathers and sons attending together. I honestly wasn't expecting this. It was a humbling experience to see fathers and sons coming to a Red Pill awareness together. I hadn't anticipated that more mature men would've been 'unplugged' by their sons, but I met with quite a few men who told me their sons had either turned them on to my books or that *The* *Rational Male* would be required reading for their sons before they got out of their teens. One of the greatest benefits of the conference was the inspiration and material I got from the men attending. A particular aspect of this was addressing how men might educate and help others to unplug, and in that lay a wealth of observations about how these men's upbringings had brought them to both their Blue Pill idealisms and ultimately their Red Pill awareness. I feel I have to start this chapter with some of these observations, but as I mentioned in the introduction, I'll be breaking protocol and be a bit more prescriptive here with regard to what I think may be beneficial ways to be a Red Pill parent. In *The Rational Male -- Preventive Medicine* I included a chapter which outlined how men are primarily conditioned for lives and ego-investments in a Blue Pill idealism that ultimately prepares them for better serving the Feminine Imperative when their usefulness is necessary to fulfill women's sexual (and really lifetime) strategies. If you own the book it might be helpful to review it after you read this section. **For the Kids' Sake** One of my regular blog readers (and conference attendee) *Jeremy* had an excellent observation for me about men's prioritization in the hierarchies of contemporary families: *There's a certain book that my friend's wife read, which told her to place her* *husband above her children. Children come first for a mother, and they should* *for the father too. I'm not advocating to neglect her husband, but he needs to* []{#index_split_000.html#p36} *accept some biological facts and not be hurt because of it.* What's happening here is actually the first steps of a hostage crisis. That is a textbook first-wave-feminism boilerplate response. This is the first redirection in a misdirection perpetuated by women in order to sink any notion that men should have some authority on matters in their marriages or relationships. *Think of the children*. It's been repeated for so long, it's a cliché. This is typical crab-in-a-basket behavior. Women seek power over their lives and somehow instinctively believe that the only way to achieve power is to take someone else's power away. So they attack male authority by placing children above men. This then becomes a stick with which to beat male authority into submission, as only the woman is allowed to speak for the needs of the children. This default feminine-correct authority is also intimately associated with women's *mystique* giving them insight to mothering no man would ever be considered to have a capacity for. This is literally textbook subversion. When the children's needs become the "*throne*" of the household, and only the wife is allowed to speak for the children's needs, then the authority of the household becomes a rather grotesque combination of immediate child(rens) needs and female manipulation. A father's only contribution to these mother-determined needs is his support and acquiescence to what she's decided they are. Worse still, the children are now effectively captives of the wife because, at any time, she can accuse that father of anything the law is forced to throw him in handcuffs for and take away the kids. While that may never be the first recourse it is always the unspoken 'nuclear option'. This is the first step in that hostage situation. Equalists will try to convince you of the logic that children come first, that children are the future, it takes a *Village*, and that all of that which makes them better is more important than anything else. This is bullshit. Our paleolithic ancestors didn't sit around in caves all day playing and socially interacting with their babies. They didn't have some kind of fresh-gazelle-delivery service that allowed him to interact with the children directly. Mothers were not under exactly the same survival conditions, needing to forage for carrots, potatoes, berries, etc, while the men hunted and built structures. If you []{#index_split_000.html#p37}think the children came first in any other epoch of humanity you are very sadly mistaken. Children were more than capable of getting everything they need to know about how to live simply by watching their parents live a happy life together. This is how humans did things for eons, changing that order and putting the children first should be seen as the equalist social convention it is and the beginning of the destruction of the family. Children are more than information sponges, they are relatively blank minds that often want desperately to be adult. Children want to understand everything that everyone around them understands, which is why a parent telling a child that you're 'disappointed' in them is sometimes more effective than a paddling. If you focus on children, you are frankly spoiling them with attention that they will never receive in the real world. If instead you focus on yourself and your spouse, you will raise children that see you putting yourself as your *Mental Point* *of Origin*, and your marriage/partnership as an important part of what you do each day. Don't put the children first. That sounds selfish because we've been acculturated in a feminine-primary social order that seeks to disempower men by making children the leverage with which to do it. This is not to say men ought to be uninvolved or disinterested in the raising of their kids, quite the opposite, but rather I'm stressing the need to be aware of the dynamic of disempowering men, fathers and husbands by women and mothers' essentially pedestalizing their children above yourself and your relationship with the mother. I'll expound upon this later, but as most of my readers know, I am a proponent of what's called *Enlightened Self-Interest* -- I cannot help anyone until I help myself. I doubt that most of the men of the previous, *Old Books*, generations would associating their parenting style with such a term, but this is exactly how they used to approach raising children. They came first, and wife and child followed in his *headship* and decisions. Your Mental Point of Origin should never waver from yourself, whether you're single, monogamous, married, childless or a father. **American Parenting is Killing American Marriage** []{#index_split_000.html#p38}During the time of my writing this I came across a fantastic article on Quartz. com titled, *American Parenting is Killing American Marriage*. The money quote follows here, but I thought it was a good explanation of how well we parent in western culture is measured by how well it serves the Feminine Imperative: *Of course, (Ayelet Waldman's) blasphemy was not admitting that her kids were* *less than completely wonderful, only that she loved her husband more than them.* *This falls into the category of thou-shalt-have-no-othergods-before-me. As with* *many religious crimes, judgment is not applied evenly across the sexes. Mothers* *must devote themselves to their children above anyone or anything else, but* *many wives would be offended if their husbands said, "You're pretty great, but* *my love for you will never hold a candle to the love I have for John Junior."* *Mothers are also holy in a way that fathers are not expected to be. Mothers live* *in a clean, cheerful world filled with primary colors and children's songs, and* *they don't think about sex. A father could admit to desiring his wife without* *seeming like a distracted parent, but society is not as willing to cut Ms. Waldman* *that same slack. It is unseemly for a mother to enjoy pleasures that don't involve* *her children.* *There are doubtless benefits that come from elevating parenthood to the status of* *a religion, but there are obvious pitfalls as well. Parents who do not feel free to* *express their feelings honestly are less likely to resolve problems at home.* *Children who are raised to believe that they are the center of the universe have a* *tough time when their special status erodes as they approach adulthood. Most* *troubling of all, couples who live entirely child-centric lives can lose touch with* *one another to the point where they have nothing left to say to one another when* *the kids leave home.* I think these quotes outline the dynamic rather well; a method of control women can use to distract and defer away from Beta husbands is a simple appeal to their children's interests as being tantamount to their own or conflating them with their husband's interests. If the child sits at the top of that love hierarchy ( *see* *Preventive Medicine*) and that child's wellbeing and best interests can be defined by the mother, the father/husband is then relegated to subservience or superfluousness to both the child and the mother. This gets us back to the myth of women's supernatural gift for *Empathy*; Women, by virtue of just being a woman, are imbued with some instinctual, []{#index_split_000.html#p39}empathetic insight about how best to place that child above all else. That child becomes a failsafe and a *Buffer* against having to entertain a real, intersexual relationship and connection with the father/husband and really consider his position in her Hypergamous estimate of him. If that man isn't what her Hypergamous instincts estimates him being as optimal (he's the unfortunate Beta), then she's defaults to tolerating his presence for the kids' sake and you have marriages that have only one common interest. The first case here was about an incident where a woman was being encouraged to put her husband before her kids in a conventional love hierarchy priority. The fact that this would appear so unnatural for a woman -- to the point that it would need to be something necessary to train a woman to consciously consider -- speaks volumes about the ease with which women presume that their priority ought to be for her kids. It's never a consideration that a husband's concern, importance or appreciation would supersede that of a child's. In fact, just the suggestion of it reduces a man to being equally as needy as any child, thus infantilizing him. Most men buy into this prioritization as well. It seems deductively logical that a woman would necessarily need to put her child's attention priorities well above her husband's. What's counterintuitive to both parents is that it's the health of their relationship (or lack of it) that defines and exemplifies a complementary gender understanding for the child. Women default to using their children as cat's paws to assume primary authority of the family, and men are already Blue Pill preconditioned by a feminine-centric upbringing to accept this as the normative frame for the family. As with all your relations with women, establishing a strong relational *Frame* is essential. The problem for men, even with the strongest initial *Frame* with their wives, is that they cede their relational *Frame* to their kids. Most men want the very best for their children; or there may be a *Promise Keepers* dynamic that a guy is dealing with where he makes every effort to outdo, and make up for, the sins of his father by sacrificing everything. But in so doing he loses sight of creating and maintaining a dominant *Frame* for not just his wife, but the state of his family. Most men, being conditioned Betas, feel uncomfortable assuming any kind of []{#index_split_000.html#p40}authority, thus, weak *Frame* is a handicap for them even before their first child is born. This creates a (sometimes impossible) challenge for them once they have a kid, become Red Pill aware, and then seek to assert or reassert a needed *Frame*. It's important to bear in mind that when you set the *Frame* of your relationship, whether it's a first night lay or a marriage prospect, women must enter *your* reality and *your* frame. The same needs to apply to any children within that relationship -- they also must exist in your *Frame*. Far too many fathers are afraid to embody this strong authority for fear of being seen as a "typical man" and expect their wives (and children) to recognize what should be his primary place in the family on their own accord. The preconditioned fear is that by assuming this authority they might become the typical asshole father they hoped to avoid for most of their formative years. Even for men with strong masculine role models in their lives, the hesitation comes from a culture that ridicules fathers, or presumes they're potentially violent towards children. Men internalize this acknowledgment of ridiculousness or asshole-ishness and thus, the abdication of fatherly authority, even in as positive a sense as possible, is surrendered before that child is even born. **Comfort in Frame** One of the most basic Red Pill principles I've stressed since I began writing is the importance of *Frame*. This was the first *Iron Rule of Tomassi* for a reason: ***Iron Rule of Tomassi \#1*** *Frame is everything. Always be aware of the subconscious balance of whose* *frame in which you are operating. Always control the Frame, but resist giving* *the impression that you are.* The dynamic of *Frame* stretches into many aspects of a man's life, but in a strictly intergender sense this applies to men establishing a positive dominance in their relationships with women. In a dating context of non-exclusivity ( *plate* *spinning*) this means, as a man, you have a solid reality into which that woman wants to be included in. Holding *Frame* is not about force, or coercion, it's about attraction and desire []{#index_split_000.html#p41}and a genuine want on the part of a woman to be considered for inclusion into that man's reality. Being allowed into a man's dominant, confident *Frame* should be a compliment to that woman's self-perception. Being part of a high-value man's life should be a prize she seeks. This is a pretty basic principle when you think about it. The main reason women overwhelmingly prefer men older than themselves (statistically 5-7 years difference) is because of the psychological impression that men older than a woman's age *should* be more established in his understanding of the world, his career, his direction in life and his mastery over himself and his conditions. From the Alpha Fucks perspective of Hypergamy, the air of a man's mastery of his world makes an older man preferable, while a Beta older man represents the prospect of dependable, if somewhat unexciting, provisioning. In our contemporary sexual marketplace I think this perception -- which used to hold true in a social climate based on the old set of books -- is an increasing source of disappointment for women as they move from their post-college *Party* *Years* into the more stressful *Epiphany Phase* where they find themselves increasingly less able to compete intrasexually. And, once again, we also see evidence of yet another conflict between egalitarianism vs. complementarity. Because, in an egalitarian utopia, all things should be equalized; equalism espouses that this age preference should make no difference in attraction, yet the influence of this natural complementary attraction becomes a source of internal conflict for women who buy into equalism. Women's self-perception of personal worth becomes wrapped up in a tight egotistical package. It's an interesting paradox. On one hand she's expects a Hypergamously better-than-equitable pairing with a self-made man who will magically appreciate her for her self-perceptions of her own personal worth, but also to be, as *Sheryl* *Sandberg* puts it, "someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home." In other words, an exceptional, high value man, with a self-earned world and *Frame* she wants to partake of; but also one who will be so smitten by her []{#index_split_000.html#p42}intrinsic qualities (the qualities she hopes will compensate for her physical and personal deficits) that he will compromise the very *Frame* that made him worthy of her intimacy, and then reduce himself to an equality that lessens him to her. **The Red Pill Father and Frame** The reason I'm going into this is because of a basic tenet of *Frame*: **The *Frame*** **you set in the beginning of your relationship will establish the** **tone for the future of that relationship.** That isn't to say men don't devolve from a strong Alpha frame to a passive Beta one, but the *Frame* you enter into a relationship with will be the mental impression that woman retains as it develops. This impression also becomes the basis from which you will develop your persona as a father. Your establishment and maintenance of a strong control of psychological and ambient *Frame* is not just imperative to a healthy relationship and interaction with a woman, but it's also vital to the health of any family environment and the upbringing of any children that result from it. I've been asked on occasion about my thoughts on the influence family plays in conditioning boys/men to accept a Beta role in life. In specific, the question was about how a mother's dominant *Frame* influences her children's upbringing and how an unconventional shift in intersexual hierarchies can predisposes her to imprinting her Hypergamous insecurities onto her children. It gave me a lot to think about. A common thread I've occasionally found with newly Red Pill aware men is the debilitating influence their domineering mothers and Beta supplicating fathers played in forming their distorted perceptions of masculinity. I made an attempt to address this influence in the *Intersexual Hierarchies* section of the last book, however, I intended those essays to provide an outline of particular hierarchical models, not really to cover the individual health or malaise of any of them. From *Frame, The Rational Male*: *The default pedestalization of women that men are prone to is a direct result of* *accepting that a woman's frame is the **only** frame. It's kind of hard for most* []{#index_split_000.html#p43} *'plugged in' men to grasp that they can and should exert frame control in order* *to establish a healthy future relationship. This is hardly a surprise considering* *that every facet of their social understanding about gender frame has always* *defaulted to the feminine for the better part of their lifetimes. Whether that was* *conditioned into them by popular media or seeing it played out by their beta* *fathers, for most men in western culture the feminine reality IS the normalized* *frame work. In order to establish a healthy male-frame, the first step is to rid* *themselves of the preconception that women control frame by default. They don't,* *and honestly, they don't want to.* ***Post LTR Frame*** *In most contemporary marriages and long-term relationship arrangements,* *women tend to be the de facto authority. Men seek their wives's "permission" to* *attempt even the most mundane activities they would do without an afterthought* *while single. I have married friends tell me how 'fortunate' they are to be* *married to such an understanding wife that she'd "allow" him to watch hockey* *on their guest bedroom TV,...occasionally.* *These are just a couple of gratuitous examples of men who entered into marriage* *with the Frame firmly in control of their wives. They live in her reality, because* *anything can become normal. What these men failed to realize is that frame, like* *power, abhors a vacuum. In the absence of the Frame security a woman* *naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide* *that security for herself. Thus we have the commonness of cuckold and* *submissive men in westernized culture, while women do the bills, earn the* *money, make the decisions, authorize their husband's actions and deliver* *punishments. The woman is seeking the security that the man she pair-bonded* *with cannot or will not provide.* *It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of* *their living together **before** any formal commitment is recognized.* The primary problem men encounter with regard to their marriages is that the dominant, positively masculine *Frame* they should have established while single (and benefiting from competition anxiety) decays (or reverts) to a Beta mindset and the man abdicates authority and deference to his wife's feminine primary *Frame*. This is presuming that dominant *Frame* ever existed while he was dating his wife. Most men experience this decay in three ways: []{#index_split_000.html#p44}A gradual decline to accepting his wife's *Frame* via his relinquishing an authority he's not comfortable embracing. An initial belief in a misguided egalitarian ideal redefines masculinity and conditions him to surrender *Frame*. He was so pre-whipped by a lifetime of Blue Pill Beta conditioning he already expects to live within a woman's *Frame* before marriage. Of these, the last is the most direct result of an upbringing within a feminine-primary *Frame*. I think one of the most vital realizations a Red Pill man has to consider is how Red Pill truths and his awareness of them influences the larger dynamic of raising and instructing subsequent generations. Hypergamy is both pragmatic and rooted in a survival-level doubt about women's optimizing it. When a woman's insecurity about her life-determining Hypergamous decisions are answered by a positive conventionally masculine Man, who is both her pair-bonded husband and the father of her children, that doubt is quieted and a gender-complementary environment for raising children progresses from that security. In a positively masculine dominant *Frame*, where that woman's desire is primarily focused on her man, (and where that man's sexual market value exceeds his wife's by at least a factor of 1) this establishes at least a tenable condition of quieting a woman's Hypergamous doubt about the man she's consolidated monogamy and parental investment with. In a condition where that husband is unable or unwilling (thanks to egalitarian beliefs) to establish his dominant Frame this leaves a woman's Hypergamous doubt as the predominant influence on the health of the overall family. That doubt and the insecurities that extend from Hypergamous selection set the tone for educating and influencing any children that result from it. In the past I've made the case that deliberately single, primarily female, parents arrogantly assume they can teach a child both masculine and feminine aspects equally well. In the case where a wife/mother assumes the headship of family authority, both she and the *Frame* abdicating father/husband reverse this conventional gender modeling for their children. That woman's dominant *Frame* becomes the reality that not just her husband must enter into, but also their children and, by extension, their family's relatives. []{#index_split_000.html#p45}That feminine-dominant *Frame* is one that is predicated on the insecurities inherent in women's Hypergamous doubts. **Hypergamy Knows Best** *I think this "putting the kids first" phenomenon is very simple to explain. She* *doesn't want to fuck you! She is using the kids as a shield, a barrier, to deflect* *your unwanted Beta sexual advances.* *It is generally accepted that women are only interested in the top 20% of men,* *and if you are talking about as marriage partners I would agree with this.* *However if you are talking about as sex partners that they are genuinely hot for,* *I would estimate this percentage to be north of 5% add in the frame required to* *maintain her sexual interest in a marriage / long-term relationship and your* *probably closer to 1-2%.* *It's really that simple.* *The women that are with these top tier men, the top 1-2% don't need to be told to* *put them before the kids, they do it because he **is** more important to her than her* *kids, because if he leaves she will never be able to replace him with another top* *tier man now she has his kids in tow.* *Top tier men don't raise other mens children and she knows this instinctively. If* *you think you can mitigate this by being top 20% and reading a few articles on* *frame and dread game then I think you will be disappointed.* *Sure you can improve your relationship but you're probably not going to be able* *to command the visceral, raw, desire that women have for the top tier men that* *makes them do this shit naturally under their own volition.* This was a comment from one of my regular readers that sums up the basic point; for women there is a natural, desired, recognition of a man's *Frame* that is attached to his fundamental sexual market value in contrast with her own. *"Is he really the best I can do?"* In a feminine-primary *Frame*, that question defines every aspect of that woman's family life and development together. []{#index_split_000.html#p46}It's important for Red Pill aware men to really meditate on that huge truth. If you do not set, and maintain, a dominant masculine *Frame*, if you do not accept your role in a conventional complementary relationship, that woman will feel the need to assume the responsibility for her own, and her children's, welfare. Women's psychological firmware predisposes them to this on a visceral, limbic, species-survival level. I've met with countless men making a Red Pill transition in life who've related stories about the burdening influence of their domineering mothers and Beta supplicating fathers leading to them being brought up to repeat that Blue Pill cycle. I've also counseled guys who were raised by their single mothers who had nothing but spite and resentment for the Alpha Asshole father who left her. They too, took it upon themselves to be men who sacrifice their masculinity for equalism in order to never be like *Dad the Asshole*. I've met with the guys whose mothers had divorced their dutiful fathers to bang their bad boy tingle-generating boyfriends (whom they equally despised) and they too were molded by their mother's Hypergamous decisions. And this is what I'm emphasizing here; in all of these upbringing conditions it is the mother's Hypergamous doubt that is the key motivating influence on her children. That lack of a father with a positive, strong, dominant *Frame* puts his children at risk of an upbringing based on that mother's Hypergamous self-questioning doubt. Add to this the modern feminine-primary social order that encourages women's utter blamelessness in acting upon this Hypergamous doubt and you can see how the cycle of creating weak, gender-confused men and vapid entitled women perpetuates itself. Finally, to the guys who are psychologically stuck on the shitty conditions they had to endure because of this cycle, to the men who are still dealing with how mommy fucked them up or daddy was a Beta; the best thing you can do is recognize the cycle I've illustrated for you here. That's the first step to pushing past it. Acknowledging Red Pill truth is great at getting you laid, but it's much more powerful than that. It gives you the insight to see the influences that led to where you find yourself today. Once you've recognized the Red Pill truths behind your Blue Pill conditioning, then it's time to realign yourself, and recreate yourself in defiance to them. The longer you wallow in the self-pity condition that your mother's Hypergamy and your father's passive Beta-ness embedded in you, the longer you allow that Blue []{#index_split_000.html#p47}Pill schema to define who you are. **Ectogenesis** At the *Man in Demand* conference I had a young guy ask me what my thoughts were about a man's being interested in becoming a single parent of his own accord. In other words, how feasible was it for a guy to father his own child with a surrogate or some other technology (artificial womb tech), much in the same way women can via sperm banks and artificial insemination? I had this same question posed to me during an interview with blogger and podcast personality Christian McQueen. At present this essentially breaks down to a man supplying his own sperm, buying a suitable woman's viable ovum to fertilize himself, and, I presume, hire a surrogate mother to carry that child to term. Thereupon he takes custody of that child and raises it himself as a single father. I'll admit that when I got the question about single fatherhood I was a bit incredulous of the mechanics of it. Naturally it would be an expense most men couldn't entertain. However, I did my homework on it, and found out that ectogenesis was yet another science-fiction-come-reality that feminists have already considered and have planned for. In theory, this arrangement should work out to something similar to a woman heading off the sperm bank to (once again, Hypergamously) select a suitable sperm donor and become a single parent of her own accord. It's interesting that we have institutions and facilities like sperm banks to ensure women's Hypergamy, but men, much less heterosexual men, must have exceptional strength of purpose and determination to do anything similar. Despite dealing with the very likely inability of the surrogate mother to disentangle her emotional investment in giving birth to a child she will never raise (hormones predispose women to this) a man must be very determined financially and legally to become a single father by choice. In principle, I understand the sentiment of Red Pill men wanting to raise a child on their own. The idea is to do so free from the (at least direct) influence of the Feminine Imperative. I get the reasoning, however, I think this is in error. My feelings on this are two part. First, being a true Complementarian, it is my []{#index_split_000.html#p48}belief that a child requires two healthy adult parents, male and female, with a firm, mature grasp of the importance, strengths and weaknesses of their respective gender roles (based on biological and evolutionary standards). Ideally they should exemplify and demonstrate those roles in a healthy fashion so a boy or a girl can learn about masculinity and femininity from their respective parents' examples. Several generations after the sexual revolution, and after several generations of venerating feminine social primacy, we've arrived at a default, collective belief that single mothers can perform the function of modeling and shaping masculinity in boys as well as femininity in girls equally well. Granted, the definition of masculinity is a distorted one, defined by egalitarianism and the Feminine Imperative, but the underlying social message in that is that women/mothers can be a one-woman show with respect to parenting. Thus, men, fathers or the buffoons mainstream culture portrays them to be, are superfluous to parenting -- nice to have around, but not mission-critical. This belief also finds fertile ground in the notion that men today are largely obsolete. Secondly, for all the equalist emphasis of Jungian gender theories about anima/ animus and balancing feminine and masculine personality interests, this presumptions is evidence of an agenda that suggests a woman is equally efficient in teaching and modeling masculine aspects to children as well as any positively masculine man could. With that in mind, I think the reverse would be true for a deliberately single father -- even with the best of initial intents. As such, I think a father would serve as a poor substitute for a woman when it comes to exemplifying a feminine ideal. The argument then of course is that, courtesy of a feminine-centric social order, women have so divorced themselves from conventional femininity that perhaps a father might teach a daughter (if not demonstrate for her) a better feminine ideal than a woman. Conventional, complementary femininity is so lost on a majority of women it certainly seems like logic for a man to teach his daughter how to recapture it. **Raising Betas** This was the trap that third wave feminism fell into; the belief that they knew how best to raise a boy into the disempowered and emasculated ideal of their []{#index_split_000.html#p49}redefined masculinity. Teach that boy a default deference and sublimation of his own gender interests to feminine authority, redefine it as 'respect', teach him to pee sitting down and share in his part of the *choreplay*, and well, the world is bound to be a better more cooperative place, right? So, it is for these reason I think that the evolved, conventional, two-parent heterosexual model serves best for raising a child. I cannot endorse single parenthood for either sex. Parenting should be as collaborative and as complementary a partnership as is reflected in the symbiotic relationship between a mother and father. It's the height of gender-supremacism to be so arrogantly self-convinced as to deliberately choose to birth a child and attempt to raise it into the contrived ideal of what that "parent" believes the other gender's role ought to be. Yet, this is what single mothers often elect to do, and as a society we laud them for it. We encourage and facilitate mothers in their raising children with the idea that they can be effective in teaching both genders' aspects. This should put the institutionalized, social engineering agenda of the Feminine Imperative into stark contrast for anyone considering intentional single parenthood. Consider that sperm banks and feminine-exclusive fertility institutions have been part of normalized society for over sixty years and you can see that Hypergamy and its inherent need for certainty has dictated the course of parenting for some time now. This amounts to a un

The Rational Male - Positive Masculinity PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue