Sept. 1, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:00:29
4181 The Hard Truth About Hypergamy | Rollo Tomassi and Stefan Molyneux
Book Summary: "The Rational Male is a rational and pragmatic approach to intergender dynamics and the social and psychological underpinnings of intergender relations. The book is the compiled, ten-year core writing of author/blogger Rollo Tomassi from therationalmale.com. Rollo Tomassi is one of the leading voices in the globally growing, male-focused online consortium known as the 'Manosphere'. Outlined are the concepts of positive masculinity, the feminine imperative, plate theory, operative social conventions and the core psychological theory behind Game awareness and "red pill" ideology. Tomassi explains and outlines the principles of intergender social dynamics and foundational reasoning behind them."Rollo Tomassi is the author of "The Rational Male," "The Rational Male - Positive Masculinity" and "The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine."Website: https://therationalmale.comTwitter: https://twitter.com/RationalMaleYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine.
Hope you're doing well. Pleased to be joined today by Rolo Tomasi.
Now, he is the author of The Rational Male, The Rational Male Preventive Medicine and The Rational Male Positive Masculinity.
And you can find more of Rolo's work at therationalmale.com.
And you can also follow him on Twitter at forward slash rational male.
Great conversation.
I'm really looking forward to it.
I believe if I go to the table of contents or the index, the word that comes up the most often is hypergamy.
And this is a word that, you know, we all know the word misogyny and we all know the cliche of the man who trades in his middle-aged wife for a young hottie and so on.
We all know that. But hypergamy is one of these...
It's a phenomenon that's kind of like the physics of sexual dynamics, which people don't really seem to know about at all.
And it should be central to our discussion.
So I wonder if you could give a brief introduction to this issue or question.
I'm glad you asked, because when I was just at the 21 convention back in September, I gave my first kind of public talk.
I did two talks.
The first one was about hypergamy, and I titled it, you know, Hypergamy Micro to Macro.
And I think that we can trace the dynamic of women's hypergamy from as basic as the ovulatory cycle and ovulatory shift all the way up to where we are right now with Hillary Clinton trying to become the first female president.
And you can trace from very simple beginnings, very biological beginnings, through personal and psychological dynamics and then up into Individual and social dynamics and then into political dynamics and even religious dynamics after that that are all founded on hypergamy.
A lot of people want to say, and I always lock horns with these guys, is that they always want to say that hypergamy should just mean a woman's tendency to marry up.
And I really feel that that doesn't do justice to hypergamy right now simply because it's so much more than that.
Yes, it is that, but that's the sociological definition of that.
When I came across that, And I started studying evolutionary psychology, and just so you know, I got two degrees.
I have one in a Bachelor of Fine Arts, and I have a Bachelor of Science in Behavioral Psychology.
So when I was in, you probably read this in the introduction of my book, is when I was in those classes, it was when I was writing, kind of a late bloomer as far as my university experience is concerned, but I was writing this stuff, and I was seeing a lot of the same dynamics that I would see As far as behavioral psychology being used by women on guys.
And I thought, well, you know, that's kind of strange.
Well, everything which accents a woman's figure, the lipstick which denotes sexual attraction, this is all based upon a man's being drawn towards youth and fertility and even features being markers of good genes.
So women, of course, are very aware of what drives...
A man's sexual desire and they're constantly using it, not all, but in general, the whole makeup industry, the fashion industry, all of that is strongly designed to know deeply what attracts a man to a woman and then manipulate it and put in hyper signals towards that.
But I don't think men really kind of get that same thing because they listen to women and say, well, what do you want?
You know, if you're hunting someone, as you point out, you're hunting an animal, you study it.
You say to women, what do you want?
Well, I want romance.
I want flowers. I want a man who listens.
I want a man who supports me and so on.
And then into this lovely little kid's garden of fluffy animals and sentimentality strides Fifty Shades of Grey, which is the most popular novel, if I remember rightly, in the history of the planet.
I think it's soon to outsell the Bible.
And that is what women want.
That is the hyperstimulation for women.
And he's not nice.
And he does not romantic.
And he doesn't listen to her.
And he orders her around.
And he makes a science contract so he can beat the crap out of her.
And women love that stuff.
So what women say versus what they actually buy and respond to, complete worlds apart.
Well, I've got a post and it's also a chapter in the book called, The Medium is the Message.
And I think that a lot of guys want to be, we're deductive creatures, we're problem solving guys, okay?
When men want to say two and two equals four and they want to find the shortest, you know, You know, point between two distances to, you know, solve a problem.
And so what guys generally do is they apply that towards their game, okay?
And what their game is, is whatever is going to get them from the point of not being intimate with a woman to being intimate with a woman.
And so most guys follow that same deductive reasoning.
If, you know, what do women want?
Well, let's go find out what women want.
I will do what women want.
You know, this plus this plus this equals this.
And what they're...
What they're really not understanding is that, as far as when it comes to hypergamy, there's really sort of the arousal side and then there's the attraction side.
And they're all about the attraction side, but they know nothing about the arousal side or vice versa.
So it could be they know everything about the arousal side and know nothing about the attraction side of hypergamy.
But I think that this deductive problem solving is where most guys sort of get themselves into trouble.
Now, of course, on the media and this message, it's just what you've been talking about, is watch what a woman does and not what a woman is saying that she wants.
If she's, you know...
If she's ignoring your phone calls or if it takes you, you know, if she's making you wait for sex or if it's this kind of stuff, that's the message.
That is the message. That's what's being told to you and it's not what she's saying is being told to you.
So there's kind of this duplicity of messages in there.
But there's also, I think the joke is that the pickup artists give women what they say that they never want.
They pretend to have what women say that they never want.
Well, this is a funny thing, too, because at least biologically speaking, for me at least, Rola, let me know what you think, of course.
For me, biologically speaking, there are two Perspectives to males and females and mothers and fathers.
Mothers face the children and fathers face the world.
That's kind of the way it works because moms are home raising the children and fathers are out there facing the world in order to get resources to bring to the family because women were disabled by childbirth and by child raising.
Basically, they would hit puberty, get pregnant and die eventually.
You know, maybe from pregnancy, maybe from old age if they were lucky.
And so the idea, when we have this situation or this system, biologically speaking, because we have this ridiculously slow-to-develop children, I mean, it's absolutely insane.
Like, mountains decay faster than children grow up sometimes.
And so men have to be out there facing the world, and women have to be facing their children and raising their children.
So the idea that the man goes to the woman and faces her goes against, I think, the basic biological imperative.
So a woman is kind of saying...
Pay attention to me.
And it's a shit test. Because if you pay attention to her, she doesn't want you.
Because if you're paying attention to her, you're not out there fighting with the other men to get the resources she needs to raise her children.
So pay attention to me.
It's like this big test that if you pay attention, she might put you in the beta orbit, but she's not going to put you in her bed.
Right. And that's the key.
I'm glad you said that, because in the second book, I go into that quite a bit about the hierarchies of love, really, or how...
The natural hierarchy was from man to woman, woman to child, and then, you know, child back to mother, mother back up to father.
And we're getting away from that right now.
And if you want to, like you were just saying, our natural evolved propensities is for that particular, you know, traditional gender roles is basically what that is.
And we can even see that in egalitarian countries right now where Given the opportunity to have complete, you know, equality of opportunity, men and women opt for traditional gender roles in those countries because that's what they're comfortable with and that's what we're evolved to,
you know, to be, you know, to Get from point A to point B. Well, and just to point out what a mind frack that is for a feminist, the more free a country becomes, the more men and women settle into traditional gender roles, men working with staff, women working with people, and so on.
And that, of course, goes very much – feminism, of course, is a sort of – it's socialism with granny panties.
It's basically – The idea that you can impose an ideology and somehow deny evolution.
It's weird in a way because there are some Christians who deny evolution but accept that men and women have natures that have evolved to be different.
But most on the left accept evolution but then deny that there have been different evolutionary pressures on men than on women.
The fact that Christians accept the nature of men a lot more easily than a lot of leftists and socialists do is kind of funny in a way because they need that blank slate so that they can create this massive oven of social experimentation.
Well, you see, again, it goes back to what our evolved propensities were.
Women evolved to be hypergamous.
That hypergamy then creates male dominance hierarchies that come from that hypergamy.
We can complain all day long about a patriarchal society, but it is actually women who are creating that patriarchal society because of hypergamy.
And that's why we have a civilization, right?
We have a civilization because the more resources you get, the higher quality female you get.
In general. And so we have a civilization because women choose higher performing men.
And because we are selected to be higher performing, we end up with very high performing men and a civilization.
And when that is interfered with, when women can gain resources from the state rather than from men, You end up with a growth, not of civilization, which isn't generally the minimizing of the state, but you end up with women then hypergaming with the state.
And then you end up not with the growth of male competence and power and civilization, you end up with the growth of state power, largely through debt, which is catastrophic in the long run.
And what you will see in that situation is you will see men adapt to that.
So when the sexual revolution occurred, you know, gosh, we're in the 60s now, the mid-60s, You'll see now we have the free love generation.
And I think a lot of people don't understand this, but the free love kind of thing has been around for a long time.
There's been other times in different time periods where the free love thing was going on as well.
In the 60s, that's just the most recent version of that.
But what we're seeing is exactly what you're saying there, is women can now be in control of the birthing.
And what do we see?
Because they have almost unilateral control over their own birthing process, we see them Move to a very unregulated, unfettered form of hypergamy.
And like what you're just saying, is that now we have resource transfer from men to women, and it's taking over that—I'll try to be nice about this—alpha seed and beta need, or alpha fucks and beta bucks.
It's taking over the beta bucks side of things, where they don't have to worry about it, whether it's through the— Whether it's through the government or it's resource transfer or it's the law or it's having, you know, domestic violence laws favor women over men.
It's that kind of insurance and that kind of certainty of security for that woman and what is left for her.
Well, there's only the alpha fuck side of things that are left for whore.
So what are men going to adapt to be?
They're going to adapt to be that guy who's going to get with the higher quality woman.
So now the competition and the male dominance hierarchy is not so much based on, you know, having a good job, being a nice guy, and all the stuff that was great right before the sexual revolution.
Now it's How good can I look?
Can I get six-pack abs?
Can I attract and can I appeal to the arousal side of that woman more so than Then the security side of things, and I think really that's one of the reasons why you're seeing things like Me Too and Time's Up right now, because men are adapting to be more sexual and to be more part of, you know, qualifying themselves, I should say, for that arousal side rather than the attraction side, which is the security-based side of things.
As a man, this goes back to a Strindberg play I read in college decades ago, that the woman always knows the child is hers, but the man does not, in general.
Again, in Japan, you don't know because it's a racially homogenous society.
In other cultures, you might have some clue.
To me, understanding that issue that a man must ensure to the very best of his ability and society requires this occur.
Because men go get resources in order to have children.
But if the resources are being applied to a child that's not from their own genes, it's not their sperm child.
That is the most catastrophic mistake a man can make.
Like, the worst mistake a woman can make in the past, before the welfare state, is to get married to a man who then leaves her.
When she's had children.
Because then no other man wants to be with her.
She's got to rely on charity.
I mean, her life is ruined, which is why there used to be a big vetting process.
And you wouldn't just go on Tinder.
Like, you'd have to have...
You'd vouched for by the priest, by the community, by the family, the extended family.
You investigate this guy's family.
You look at his history. Because that was the worst.
So the worst thing a woman can do...
Is to marry a man who splits.
And the worst thing a man can do is raise children that aren't his own.
And this fundamental problem is one of the reasons why there is, of course, no sex before marriage, no hymen, no diamond.
It's why there were chastity belts.
It's why, because, you know, as you point out, war widows, right?
Men go away. Women will have, oh, yes, it was that time you came back on leave, honey, really.
That's why he's got red hair and you're a brunette.
So, to me, this issue of raising another man's children has now been thoroughly institutionalized in that you and I as taxpayers are now paying to raise other men's children through the welfare state.
Now, we used to be able to do that voluntarily through charity, but charity was very restrictive and nobody really wanted a very social shaming to be on.
Being forced to pay for other men's children is just astoundingly horrifying and it could only happen in a society which completely devalued male perspectives.
Well, I was going to say, I have a post that just, I wrote it probably about two weeks ago, three weeks ago, and it's called The War on Paternity.
And it's exactly what you're talking about right now.
And to sort of give you a build up to this, just what you were saying before, prior to the sexual revolution, we had checks and balances on hypergamy.
So, consequently, back in the day, it was very shameful for a woman to have a child out of wedlock.
I mean, even as late as, what, the 50s and the 60s, you know, up to mid-60s anyways, it was very shameful.
She'd have to go away. She'd have to go away and pretend to have an abortion.
Or it would be pretended to be an oopsie child pre-menopause for the mom.
Right. Exactly. So we have these checks and balances both socially, religiously, and culturally.
It just depends on what the culture was.
But there was always, I would say, a good portion of traditional religions were very much about keeping that hypergamy in check because there's a subconscious understanding of that.
That's what's going to happen if we don't keep this in check.
Now, what did we do when we gave women the unilateral control to birth?
Well, now we have, you know, the birth rate for out-of-wedlock births is 42% right now.
We're looking at the rise of abortion.
Again, more abortions occur because of this.
And it was supposed to be the other way around.
We were supposed to be able to have free love and not have to worry about, you know, men wouldn't have to worry about their burden of performance anymore because, you know, I love you and you love me and all of these horrible, you know, we've all raised, we've risen ourselves above the, you know, the evolutionary animals right now.
And we, you know, it's what counts on the inside and it's not what's on the outside, which is complete horseshit.
But what I was going to say is that in this, what we're seeing right now is a war on paternity.
And it's exactly, again, it's exactly what you just talked about.
And I don't know if you're aware of this, but there are some studies, and I got these when I was actually in college.
I'm just remembering right now.
There's these studies about They would do these experiments with these men who would have to go and pick up their children from school.
And it was like a parochial school, so all the kids are dressed up in the same outfits.
So the only way you can identify those children was by looking at their faces.
It was facial recognition, right?
And the fathers of those children could find those kids faster than the mothers could find those children.
Yeah.
And I'm telling you because that's part of the evolved part.
It's that important to men to know that their progeny is their progeny.
And it's weird too because if – There have been studies, I still find it staggering that the numbers could be this high, but there have been studies, I remember, I think it was in Wales some decades ago, a teacher asked the students to do blood tests, like blood samples, and try to match up their parents' blood type with their blood type, and a third of the kids were not their father's kids, and this has happened in wartime as well.
So, I don't know, let's say it's 10 or 20 percent, or whatever it is, right, that men are raising children that aren't their own.
And this is not talked about.
And in England, you have to get the mother's permission to even get a blood test to find out if you're the father now.
So who knows? Let's say it's 10%.
Let's say it's 5%, whatever it is.
But can you imagine what would happen if 5% or 10% of babies were switched for moms in the hospital?
Like people would go absolutely insane.
People would go completely mental and say, what?
The woman would say, I'm raising a child, not even my own, because the hospital made a mistake and switched the baby with someone else's 5% of the time, 10% of the time.
But the fact that men really need to know that the children are their own is barely even talked about it.
Of course, as you know, young men who've been victims of rape by women have been forced to pay child support.
So men's perspective not being part of social calculations is something really chilling.
Once you really see it, it is quite a brain-splosion.
I think that's interesting because, again, in that post, I was making the case that there's a war on paternity right now.
It's sort of a social war on paternity.
We hold up men who take the responsibility of parental investment for another man.
That guy who marries a single mother with kids That guy we hold up and say, oh, he's great.
He's a hero and all that for a while.
But we don't look down on that guy.
We look at the guy who steps up and wants to basically be a proactive cuckold, is what I call it.
There's the cuckoldry that happens before the marriage, and there's cuckoldry that happens after the marriage.
Before the marriage, maybe the woman has had sex with her alpha lovers and has had kids with them, and then by the time she gets to be between the ages, say, 29 and 31, then that's when she's looking for that beta guy who's going to be the good prospect and is going to be the guy who's going to invest, help her raise these kids that aren't his kids.
And so we hold that guy up as a hero.
We look at like paternity right now in a social aspect as we try to downplay that.
I was just on an interview with Pat Campbell not too long ago when we were talking about this.
And we're talking about the CNN story that was just out last week about how they're trying to normalize cuckletree.
I mean, real, in-your-face, live, you know, why is cuckletree born such a big thing right now?
Well, what it is is a devaluing of the importance of men having that investment or knowing that that's their kid.
We see that in the laws like you're talking about.
We see that in the DNA, making it more and more difficult to get DNA testing.
I'm going to conjecture here, but I really think that once the male birth control pill comes out, I really think that feminism and feminists are really going to fight that because it's going to take that.
It's going to remove that control of birthing and hypergamy.
It's going to put it back into the control of men.
This is another conflict in the narrative that really began to have me look at what was really going on, Rolo, which is this idea that women are empowered and amazing and strong and independent and so on.
At the same time as they're begging for laws, a lot of them, that do their negotiating on behalf of them, right?
So you have equal pay for work of equal status, right?
It's like, well, wait a minute.
If women are so strong and empowered, why do they need the government to force men to pay them what they want?
Why don't they just go up and negotiate for themselves?
Then it sort of morphed into not even just like if you're in the same category, Then it just becomes for work of equal value, which is completely subjective.
If you want to know how your work is valued, put it out there in the free market and see who pays for it voluntarily.
It's not that complicated. Negotiate for more if you want it, and at some point you'll hit a ceiling.
This combination of...
Female empowerment, the strong independent female with a little registered trademark combined with running to the government every time there's a problem, it's like the kid who's a bully who then when somebody turns around and just goes and runs to the teacher and tries to get someone in trouble from the hierarchy.
That is to me a pretty wild combination that's very tough to reconcile.
What I was going to say is that it comes down to them wanting an equality of outcome as per an equality of opportunity for that.
And I can understand that, but even when they have the equality of opportunity, what happens?
What choices do they make when they have that equality of opportunity?
That then affects the outcome of the choices that they themselves have made.
So yes, they want it both ways.
They want it to be controlled on the side of Having that opportunity and they want it on the side of the outcome as well.
So basically what it is is I want to get on the roller coaster and I want it to be this great experience for me and I want it to pop up spontaneously wherever I want it to, but I want to know that behind the scenes there's always going to be people watching out for my best interests and they're not going to let me fall and you know it's like right before the car crashes into the wall I want somebody to be able to take the wheel and turn it away from me and make sure that I'm okay.
So I think that, yeah, definitely comes back to women's need for security.
Once again, we're going back to the hypergamous need for women to have that security side of things.
So there's the, again, the genetic and the alpha seed side, and then there's the security side to know that their kids are going to be taken care of, and they're going to be taken care of.
Because, I mean, women's sexual market value is perishable.
Once they get to a certain point, that sexual market value declines.
And I'm sure you've probably seen the graph I'm pretty, I guess I'm pretty infamous for is, you know, noting when a woman's sexual market value is at its peak, which is what I peg right around 22, 23, which is also her highest fertility window for today.
And then, you know, we see men take a lot longer to become As attractive as they possibly could be.
So I peg that right around 34, 36 years old because it takes longer for men to get into that, establish themselves socially, mature-wise, career-wise, and then still to be good-looking enough to keep themselves in shape and to still rock the other side of hypergamy as well.
Right. Now this question has arisen to me, I want to get your thoughts on it, around Yeah.
I can go without food.
My daughter can't.
I can eat less and it may not actually do me much harm.
In fact, it may do me some good.
I can eat less and that's fine.
No problem.
But my daughter, growing up, she needs the food or irreparable damage might occur to her entire physical ecosystem.
And this need for like, you know, three hots and a cot, as they used to talk about, you know, this need for three meals a day, for shelter, for protection and so on, I think has meant that women have a shorter horizon.
I think for men, you have to go out and you have to compete with other men.
You have to take the big risks in order to get the big resources.
It's win big, it's lose big, which is why men are clustered at the higher levels of IQ much more so than women because nature gambles where there's great rewards.
I think if we sort of look at the big picture politically, women's shorter Time frame has a lot to do with why they go into such terrible, useless degrees.
You know, like, I really, really want to take, you know, lesbian dance strategy and end up making the same amount of money as some guy who took petroleum engineering, right?
I mean, and the massive amounts of personal debt, of student debt, if you look at the welfare state, clearly, it screws the next generation enormously, like unfunded liabilities in America, north of $180 trillion, national debt, north of $20 trillion.
But it's like, I have to get food into my children's mouth right now.
I can't wait. Whereas the man can postpone, the man can save, and men save more than women and men spend less on frivolities.
You just go to the mall. It's all women's stores.
And I think if you combine the power that the government has to transfer resources with the shorter time preferences for women, I think it's one of the things that's driven this massive welfare state, massive unfunded liabilities and so on.
And it means that women only have to vote.
They don't actually have to choose a good man and therefore the demand for male virtue goes down.
Well, again, what we come back to is equality of opportunity.
Well, the thing is, is women want to have it all.
We hear that all the time. Women want to have it all.
And what that means is they want to have the same opportunities as a man.
Well, the big punch in the face here is that men and women are not necessarily borderline functional equals, okay?
Men and women are different.
We just, I mean, unless of course you go to Google and then everybody's the same, right?
No, sorry, except for Republicans who are saying...
Exactly. What I was going to say is that there's a social narrative that wants to convince women that they can have the same opportunities that men can have.
So we see women freezing their eggs until they can find Mr.
Right to have a child when they're 40-some odd years old.
And there are just simple biological differences between men and women that create an unequal I think one thing we haven't really covered here is menopause.
Women get to a point where they become, you know, effectively unreproductive beings.
It's a rough transition.
There's sleeplessness with the baby, and then for a lot of women, there are the hot flashes, the sleep interruptions, the hormones, and it can go on for years.
It is a tough, tough transition.
Men are just basically this block from puberty to death.
Let's say, I have one set of hormones, I have one thing to do, my body is pretty much the same.
Less hair, but everything else is pretty much the same.
Women go through not just monthly, but this decades-long cycles of like, wow, there's a lot going on there.
But we're going to try to convince women that they can have it all.
We're going to try to convince women that they can have the same life experience that a man can have.
And the simple truth is they cannot do that because of simple biological realities.
Well, if they don't want to have children.
Yeah, if they don't want to. And even then, they've still got to get to where...
Where they're not attractive enough, they hit the wall is what we call it.
They're going to hit the wall and not be as attractive enough to have other parts of their lives be what they think they can be later on in life.
It's called Stalling for Time.
It's about how these women, for the longest time, they wanted to say that they're freezing their eggs because they want to advance their careers.
Because it's so tough in a man's world that we have to really hunker down and, well, that means that other things have to be sacrificed.
And one of those things is finding a good man and settling down and having a marriage and having a good personal life.
So in order to facilitate that, we're going to go and freeze our eggs.
The ugly truth comes out later and says, no, now later on when these women who have frozen their eggs are getting to be 40, 45 years old, they're like, no, I simply cannot find the right guy.
And so what do we do then?
We hold their hands and we say, that's okay.
We've got sperm banks.
We've got artificial insemination.
We've got programs to help you be a single mother no matter what.
If you can't find the right guy, it's not your fault.
It's because, you know, these guys can't step up and can't do what they're thinking.
It's always on those guys, but we're going to help you out with that.
Well, I mean, the egg freezing technology is not what everyone cracks it out to be.
I mean, you might as well just, you know, throw a bunch of turkey eggs in a freezer and hope to get real turkeys in 20 years.
But... It's not quite as cracked up.
And it is funny too, but this basic reality that motherhood requires significant investment.
I mean, the very basic act of breastfeeding.
I had a caller years ago on the show who was talking about what a great mom she was because she was working at a corporate job and a couple of times a day she'd go into the toilet with a breast pump and yank out the breast fluid and then freeze them and then her nanny would give it.
It's like Do you ever think that maybe you've drifted a little bit far from the organic racing of human beings when you've got basically a robot sucking on your nipples, pulling out the mom juice, which you could then freeze and have another woman?
I mean, that's just weird.
So if you do want to have kids, you should stay home with your kids and you should raise them and you should breastfeed them for the recommended 18 months.
If you're going to have another kid, it's going to take you out of the workforce for years.
And then, of course, all that happens is that some other woman is going to have to take care of your kids should you go back to the workforce.
And people wonder, like, why has the economy stopped growing?
It's because we're educating women who end up becoming moms.
And so, you know, if you have, if you need two doctors in a village, and one is a man and one is a woman, and then the woman gets pregnant, you're now down one doctor.
Like you could have trained two men who wouldn't have to breastfeed and be pregnant and be disabled through all of that stuff.
So you're down, you've educated two doctors, but you only have one doctor.
And even when men and women are doctors, men work hundreds of hours more a year than women.
So this shifting of resources towards Educating women who end up dropping out of the workforce for considerable periods of time or to the detriment of their children don't, you know, you can like it or not like it, but basic economics tells us that that's one of the reasons why economies have slowed so much and why wage growth is so slow is that the free market would allocate resources the most efficiently and training women who are going to dump out of the workforce for five or ten years and may not even come back is simply not that economically productive.
Well, I should also mention that we want to lower the standards for women to be in those positions to begin with.
We want to make sure that we make special compensations for them to be able to breastfeed or to be able to have the time off for pregnancy leave.
We want to take the space that men made, the competitive The nature of men, all of the things we put together, whether it's competitive sports or if it's a business or if it's politics or anything like that, we want to take that and we're going to go, oh, hold on, we're going to lower the basketball baskets down so that you can make a basket.
And also that we can change things so that things are more woman-friendly in those environments.
And really what that does is, first of all, it changes the game completely.
And then second of all, it's not really It's not really a good measure of what men can be and what women can be if we're doing that.
We're not doing ourselves any favor by, like I said, lowering the basketball net so that women can slam dunk.
Well, of course. I mean, it's very hard to resist equality of opportunity combined with equality of outcome.
I mean, because equality of outcome makes you feel kind of shamed, right?
Like if you don't even bother running the race, but you get a participation trophy, you feel kind of cheap.
So you do have to have the illusion of equality of opportunity.
But if you can also get, you know, I want to be able to gamble in every casino and any casino, but I always want to win.
It's like, well, sure. I mean, of course you, everybody.
And the fact that in Western society...
By God, it seems impossible to say no to women as a whole.
I mean, we have a female deferral society.
And I think that comes out of the fact that arranged marriages were long gone in history, and women choose men, and therefore men have to please women.
And this basic fact of needing to please women, combined with women outvoting and outliving men in a democratic system, has combined male Subjugation to the preferences of women, which at a romantic level is not too bad, but you combine that with state power to redistribute resources, largely from male taxpayers to female consumers.
Boy, you put those two things together.
Male deference plus state power.
I mean, man alive, it is a power that corrupts from top to toe.
And then you see that today with the Women's March and you see that I think we're seeing that a whole lot more visibly now than we were before, particularly with the, you know, with the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.
And I've got another post called The First Female President, where I kind of go into very, very similar to what you're just talking about is that I think that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were kind of effigies or they were kind of like placeholders for the he and the she and what we're really seeing is we were seeing a battle between you know the most the biggest parody of masculinity and the big you know if there's a guy that you could say is the the most easily parodied masculine alpha dude in the world we're talking about we're talking about Trump okay and then you look at both of these both these people have brands that go back as far as that you know the 80s and into the 90s and I really think that it's not so much a hatred of Trump as the person.
I think it's more of a hatred of the fact that the man won and that it was her turn, but yet he took her turn away from her.
Not only did he win, But he keeps winning and he keeps delivering more and more value, you know, literally value, like people getting thousands of dollars in bonuses and minimum wages being raised voluntarily and companies investing hundreds of billions of dollars into America and an admittedly fragile but still somewhat impressive rise in the stock market and so on.
And so the fact that he said, you know, these masculine principles of accountability, of individuality, of borders, Masculinity is required for there to be borders in a country.
We know this all the way—I mean, what do the male chimpanzees do?
Well, the female chimpanzees raise the kids and get some of the food, and the male chimpanzees roam around the perimeter to make sure that the borders are secure.
It's the same thing with the male lions.
The females hunt, and the males make sure that no other males are coming in.
So borders is a very masculine concept.
This, like, open border stuff.
That is a very feminine concept because in some ways, invasions are an opportunity for hypergamy with regards to women because whoever wins the fight, it's like provoke the fight and then have sex with the winner.
That is a primitive and brutal but not ineffective strategy for all female primates to use.
And so the control that women have over the political process, not just in terms of often childless We're good to go.
Where men would have to go out and depend on each other on the hunt and to go out and bring, you know, back resources, you know, bring back a kill or bring whatever.
They were having to go and depend on each other.
Really that gave rise to what we presume are masculine traits or conventionally masculine traits.
And then we have the women who are at home taking care of, or the camp, you know, in tribal units, taking care of the kids collectively, communally, taking care of the kids, gathering resources themselves.
But having a much more social experience, I guess, having a much more interdependency and a collectivist experience with their kids, because they depended on each other for keeping those children alive.
And like you were saying, if an invading tribe comes in, well, their first priority is to keep themselves alive and to keep the kids alive.
And I really think that What we're seeing right now is when we put women into positions of power, and I really feel that today we're in what's called a feminine primary social order.
It seems like men are running the show, but it's women who are creating the laws and who are the power behind the throne kind of thing.
But I really think that one of the reasons that we see a rise in socialism and collectivism today is because we have that female primary social order.
Because if you give women, there's studies that they've done where it said if you give women a certain amount of money and they have to give it out to a group, distribute it to a group, they will distribute it evenly, as much as they can possibly do.
Whereas if you give it to men, they'll go out and they'll give it by merit and who did the best job.
And really that's pretty much How male-dominated businesses are run.
Actually, pretty much all businesses are run today.
It's based on merit. You do a good job, you get more pay.
Now, you move women into that male space, and the first thing that they want to do is collectivize it.
And they want to make it seem like it is more A more equitable thing.
So, again, equitability of opportunity and equality of outcome as well.
They're trying to push into that, but they're trying to push it into a social structure that is inherently merit-based.
You could call it capitalism, and that's pretty much the base of capitalism.
A merit-based program as opposed to the collectivist side of things.
Men benefit from competition and women benefit from cooperation.
I mean that's I think fairly clear and a man who's ostracized can still go hunt on his own and might in fact do better although the teamwork can sometimes be helpful for the bigger prey but a woman who's ostracized Is really doomed.
Because the woman is so dependent upon the conveyor belt of resources when her children are babies and young.
It's really tough for her to go out and get her own food and get her own water, which was a long way.
And you have to boil it. I mean, it's a big mess.
She needs a lot of resources. So cooperation was pretty key.
And I think it's not entirely accidental that if you look at More female-dominated cultures like Judaism, it has had significant roles in the development of, say, communism and socialism and so on, although this happens in WASP countries as well.
And I do think that the children who grow up without fathers, well, they still need resources, they still need security, and women simply turn to the state instead.
Now, once you're dependent on the state, Then you are going to really fight hard to defend state power, which is the source of your resources that you feel or perhaps do need to survive.
That is a huge thing.
I think it fundamentally changes the genetics of a society.
You're taking resources from more responsible people and giving those resources to less responsible people.
We know that, I'm sure you know this as well, that conscientiousness is one of the I'll tell you something that's kind of an aside story to this, but when I was at university and I was doing my work for psychology, I had child psychology classes that I had to...
I think I even wrote about this in the book, but my favorite subject was my daughter at the time, and she was probably about four or five years old.
And I would notice the difference between little boys interacting with little boys and little girls acting with little girls.
And it's just what you were just saying a minute ago.
The worst thing that can possibly happen to a little girl is that she is cast out from the group.
How old is your daughter?
Maybe you already dealt with this, but that's one of the reasons why we see social media being so dangerous to women right now, or to young girls particularly.
I really think that there needs to be sort of a regulation for that from fathers to their daughters right now.
To regulate their chance at social media, because social media is, I mean, if you look at the collectivist nature of women, or you look at that group dynamic that they have going on when they're little girls, when women get to be older, they're just the same little girls, but they're just doing it in a different context than what they used to do before.
And so it's like casting out the out member of your peer clutch to punish that person.
And then within that pure clutch, attention is the coin of the realm.
It's the coin of the realm in girl world.
It's like how much attention that you can draw to yourself is how women establish their own dominance hierarchies.
And so you'll see a lot of, you know, inner group It's not really combat so much.
I always say that men fight out here and women fight back here.
It's always a psychological type thing.
I really think that collectivist nature is definitely an evolved genetic part of women's mental firmware.
Yeah, I mean, men gain their resources through material reality and women gain their resources through relationships.
Again, these are broad generalizations and there's lots of exceptions and so on, but in general, evolutionarily speaking, that's kind of the way that it worked.
And so, given that men get their resources from objective reality, the fact that men are more interested in working with objective reality, you know, computers and engineering and physics and math and all that kind of stuff, well, that makes perfect sense, how we evolved.
Whereas because women get their resources from relationships, their relationships to men, and also their relationships with other women, because one resource is, who can watch my kids while I go and do X, Y, or Z, or person?
Who knows, right? So the fact that men are generally drawn towards more objective reality disciplines, and women are more drawn towards relationship disciplines, it makes perfect sense.
And none of this is a funny thing, is that people think this makes...
Either gender, better or worse, superior or inferior, which to me is completely incomprehensible.
Saying that there's inferiority or superiority between genders or ethnicities or races, completely incomprehensible.
I mean, it's evolution. It's like saying, hey, man, I need to finish this jigsaw puzzle.
There are two pieces left.
They're shaped differently. Which one is better?
It's like, well, you kind of need them both.
And the fact that they're shaped differently is good, because if they were shaped the same, you'd never be able to finish your jigsaw puzzle.
So it's funny when we talk about differences.
There are so many people who automatically ascribe superiority versus inferiority, which is really the essence of identity politics, which is like, hey, there are differences.
Oh, so you're saying that one is better and one is worse.
It's like, no, that's not what I'm saying at all.
You know, I've got meat, I've got potatoes on my – which is better?
Which is worse? Like they're complementary.
You know, I'm not – it's not like – we're not like two pieces of paper that you push together.
You know, one is going to go on top, one is going to go on bottom.
And this kind of weird thing where all differences must result in some fundamental superiority or inferiority is really horrible because it takes away our capacity to look at basic biological differences in bodies, in mindsets, in the physical brain chemistry because the moment you point out a difference, you're somehow a supremacist or a misogynist and it's like that does not even closely follow logically.
Again, once again, it comes back to that they want an equality of outcome between the two genders.
I get in trouble for this all the time, too, because I would say, you know, if you point out the difference, if you say women, and we can show you, I can show you the brain scans of women's, you know, synapses going, you know, firing left and right as opposed to front and back for men, I can show you that in black and white and And the first thing out of someone's mouth is, oh, so you think that men are better than women?
No, they're different.
They're simply different. And the other thing is that most of the people who are doing this research are saying, funny how all of the things that the man is deficient in or would have deficiency in, women make up for that.
And all the things that a woman would have that she's deficient in, men wouldn't be able to make up for that, too.
That's why I've always said that men and women are complements to each other.
They are not the equals of each other, but they are the...
And again, it's like when we're talking about equality, we also have to say, well, what is the task assigned that we're going to measure this equality by?
And so when we say, you know, well, there should be this baseline equality, this blank slate equality between men and women, and that's, again, that goes back to equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome.
It's like, what are you built best to do?
And I completely agree with you.
I think that men and women are complements to each other, but we have an adversarial Like, situation going on socially right now where we want to pit the sexes against each other.
And just like we were saying a little while ago, it's like, you know, it was her turn and he won.
And so now it's no longer about, you know, what the issues were or any of this other shit.
It's like he took that opportunity away from her because everyone was so damn sure that she was going to be the president.
Well, I guess if she hadn't cooked a whole bunch of confidential documents through her own private email server and sold 20% of America's uranium to Russia.
Anyway, so... This question of inequality and difference is really quite frustrating.
And it also has something to do, I think, with the other great challenge of being any kind of public intellectual figure.
And I can read the comments in my mind scrolling by below this particular conversation, which is, oh, yeah?
Well, I know a woman who does the exact opposite of the generalities.
It's like, oh, come on.
I mean, I know a tall Chinese guy.
I know a short Danish guy.
I mean, I know an albino guy in sub-Saharan Africa.
I mean, none of this makes any sense, but it is weird to me.
But it's a male perspective, and I still have a tough time understanding it, and it is fundamentally annoying because it's so factually incorrect.
Which is, why on earth would you take a general principle supported by reason, science, biology, and evidence?
Why would you take a general principle, take a personally experienced exception, Think you're saying anything of any use whatsoever like I just why would you well in my personal experience like no the plural of anecdote is not data the plural of your personal experience is not objective fact and it seems like It seems like it's not a great argument,
but I'll say it anyway. It seems like the more women have moved into public intellectual and academic and educational spheres, the more you get this philosophy of fields, this fascism of feelings, and this idea that you can establish the truth through your own personal anecdotes and think that you're talking about anything real at all.
Well, getting back again to what we're talking about as far as us living in a feminine primary social order, the frustration you're having right there is because over the last few generations we've acculturated men to think like women.
So women are going to be thinking, well, I can show you one exception to that rule, or I had an experience.
That experience makes, you know, what we're talking about, the universal, you know, cosmic reality of everything.
One of the, if you look in, I think it was the last book I wrote, I am a very strong proponent of the fact that I truly believe that women have an inborn, innate sense of solipsism, meaning that they're thinking about what is best for themselves and, you know, what is best for their children, but anything that is outside of that is either inconsequential, Or it's only consequential in as far as it affects them.
So that's one of the reasons why you get that.
I just wanted to mention that I really liked that you used the more neutral term solipsism rather than narcissism, which has, of course, a negative connotation.
And I try never to ascribe moral negatives to stuff developed by evolution because that's ridiculous.
Right. Well, in the book, I also say solipsism is not narcissism.
I try to make a differentiation between those two as well because I honestly think that it is something that women can't really...
It's something that runs in the hindbrain subroutines, you know, where it's like they're always thinking about themselves because they have to.
Because what were they thinking about, you know, back in our hunter-gatherer days?
Survival. That's what, you know, there's nothing more solipsistic than saying, oh, well, my husband's dead and the invading tribe has just come in.
I guess I love these guys, you know, because whatever's going to be best for them, whatever's going to work for them.
And so... We have this collectivist side of things going when we get a bunch of women together in a group, but when we get one woman together, she is the army of one.
Whatever affects her ends up becoming the universal truth.
And I think a lot of guys today are sort of picking up on that because they've been feminized, because they've been acculturated in a society that has taught them to think like women and to put women as their, what I call the They're a mental point of origin.
They want to put women's thoughts and put, you know, how is this going to affect a woman before it's going to affect me or anybody else?
Well, no, there's no backup position to that.
I mean, you've got this quote from Hillary Clinton in the book where Hillary Clinton was basically saying, yeah, women are the real victims of war because, you know, women end up losing their providers.
Women sometimes, do you know, Rollo, it's absolutely appalling.
Okay, it's true that men get regularly dismembered, disassembled, and turned into nuclear shadows in war, but women sometimes have to move.
Like, they have to leave their house and sometimes go somewhere else because of war.
And it's sort of like, it's not even like, well, women are the real victims.
They're 10, but men are 9.5.
It's like women are the real victims and the hundreds of millions of male deaths in the 20th century alone through war don't exist.
They don't exist. So to me, like when you get that, just how indifferent, like female genital mutilation, illegal, immoral.
Male genital mutilation, yeah, it's fine.
It's fine. I mean, I saw a movie, I saw a movie, sorry, I think it was called Bad Moms.
I saw a movie where the women were talking about how gross and unpleasant, uncircumcised penises were, right?
And it's like, if you could imagine making a movie where men were talking about how gross and flabby, unpleasant.
What mutilated female genitals were, I mean, everybody would go insane.
They would go insane. This absolute weird lack of compassion for men, the higher male suicide rates, how men get chewed up in divorce courts, the massive over-representation of male deaths in the workforce and so on, the fact that men, particularly white men, are dying Sooner and sooner these days, it's the first decline in longevity in over a century.
This massive indifference, the fact that boys are so ridiculously discriminated against in schools, that if you take gender off tests, boys' marks go up considerably because the female teachers just mark them down because of sexism.
And you could go on and on, but the massive indifference To the suffering and frustration and fear of men to the point where men are afraid of dating, they're afraid of buying women a drink, they're afraid of getting married, they're afraid of becoming fathers.
The entire purpose of masculinity as defined as a gender is to create and nurture a family.
And that identity is being stripped from so many men having seen these giant smoking craters of where their fathers were after the women in the courts got through with them in divorce settlements.
There's absolute indifference.
The fact that women Are taking so much money from male taxpayers through the force of the government.
There's massive indifference to the suffering of men.
And then you put that smoking crater of rampant indifference next to the idea that women are empathetic nurturers and it's like, I'm not quite seeing the connection here as much as some people are.
I know. There's the social mythology that women have this really supernatural empathy for, you know, anyone and everyone.
And of course, that goes back to the mother nurturer type thing.
But again, it goes back to You know, women's innate solipsism, like just what you're saying about the Hillary Clinton.
In fact, I think I started that post out with that quote, which is, you know, women are the primary victims of war.
And it's like, it doesn't even occur.
It's not even an afterthought that what they're saying is ironic.
And no one's saying, you can't say that.
No one in her circle is saying, what, are you crazy?
I just, yeah. So you've got this solipsism, and you line that up next to what you were saying about this empathy.
There's supposed to be this empathy, but there's not really this.
So it becomes this kind of paradox for them.
But the other thing, and not to go too MRA on you here, is that the suicide rate of men to women is five times the rate of women, but we don't have a special month for that.
We have breast cancer month, but we don't have, you know, men are killing themselves month.
Where's the prostate cancer month?
Yeah, we don't have anything like that.
And of course, then what do they say?
Well, you guys should do it yourself.
How come men aren't doing it?
Well, you know, how are we supposed to?
We're disposable. We're not supposed to do that kind of stuff.
We're supposed to be tough, right? We're supposed to be the guys that are, you know, take it on the chin.
Yeah, well, excuse me, but fuck that perspective.
That really pisses me off.
No, because listen, you say, well, why don't men get together and organize?
I'll tell you why they don't fucking get together and organize.
It's because when I spoke at a men's rights conference in Detroit, I spoke under threats of violence, of bombs being placed in the venue.
I spoke with fears of riots.
And it's like trying to get together as conservatives at liberal universities.
Why don't you do it more? It's like, I don't know.
Why didn't you ask the blacks in 1850 why did they organize unions?
It's like because they faced overwhelming violence if they tried.
So don't give me this, oh, men should just get up and do it.
It's like, come on.
Perhaps if you looked at the amount of violence any time men publicly try to express any kind of in-group preference.
Oh, yeah. Well, again, if men get together, there's always this suspicion of them being homosexual or they're crying about something that they shouldn't be crying about.
Because we all know men run the world, right?
And it's the same presumptions of male power when there's really no male power to it.
So it's okay if you're homosexual and you get together and you want to have a parade.
But if you're guys getting together for a weekend in Orlando, well, maybe that's not – you're not going to have the same level of acceptance to that as you would because they think that's dangerous.
I honestly think men getting together, they're definitely afraid of men getting together.
Banding together, just like the sisterhood.
I mean, I would say that women are – they put the sisterhood above everything else.
I call it the sisterhood uberalis, okay?
That means that if you take Rachel Maddow and you take Gretchen Carlson or some other conservative woman – On TV right now, and you put them together on the same show, and you said, you start talking politics, they're going to fight like cats and dogs.
But you put me on there, you put you on there, and we start talking about what we've been talking about for the last hour here, they're going to band together, they're going to close ranks, and they're going to talk about what a son of a bitch you and I really are.
Well, see, we're not allowed to get angry.
Of course. The livestock are not allowed to charge the fence.
That's bad for the farmer. And, you know, there's the old saying that says, if you want to know, Who's really in charge?
Just look at who you're not allowed to criticize, and you're not allowed to criticize women, or you're a woman hater.
But you can bitch about men all day long, and you're not a misinteress.
And if you ever want to know who's really enslaved, look at who's never allowed to get angry.
And in particular, it's white males.
You're just not allowed to have an in-group preference, and you're sure as hell not allowed to get angry, which makes perfect sense when you realize that we are generally the tax-paying livestock that keep the whole damn system afloat for the time being.
So the idea that we would band together, that we would have solidarity.
Yeah, two men who enjoy each other's company.
It's a bromance.
Can you imagine that you had, you know, every time the girls went out, you think it's a lesbian love orgy?
I mean, it would just be so disrespectful.
But of course, men can't band together.
They can talk together.
They can share wisdom, painfully accumulated over the last couple of decades, if not the last few thousands of years.
They can't talk about some of the biological realities of female nature.
They can't commiserate about how hard done by they are in society.
Because we're told that we're in charge, but I tell you, men are pretty competent.
We did build pretty much an entire civilization that's the greatest, at least for the moment, in the history of the world.
If we really were in charge, I don't think we'd design a system that would kill us off, that would emasculate our sons and inflate the egos of our daughters.
I don't think we would design a system where we ended up paying tens of thousands of dollars a year in taxes to irresponsible women.
I don't think we would design any of this kind of system.
I don't think we'd design a system of these family courts where a woman can just make a phone call and destroy I mean, there's no way that if men were actually in charge of any of this, and we would not be criticized.
We would not, I mean, if we didn't value free speech, right, if we were just like the nasty evil patriarchs, then there would be laws against criticizing men and there would be massive groups of men who would get out and protest against all of the endlessly negative portrayals of idiot men in the media.
We would just go completely crazy on this stuff and none of this happens and yet still Magically, we're just in charge of everything.
Yeah. We're the secret.
The secret power behind the throne is really women and not us.
What I was going to say is that when I was last September, we went to a conference called the 21 Convention.
And it was the first time I ever experienced something like that.
I have never... This isn't my real life.
I don't do this for a living.
I have other things that I do as part of my job, but to go out there and to meet these guys and to share this experience, it was really eye-opening, especially what you're just talking about right now, because when you get guys together like that,
there's always going to be that risk Of that ostracism or somebody's going to pull a fire alarm or somebody's going to, you know, I have every expectancy that there's going to end up being some sort of protest at the next one that we do because this last one just was too good for it to be left alone.
Or there's going to be some craptastic reporter who's going to be out there and distorted all this sort of neo-Nazi rally or there's going to be photos published and you're going to get doxxed or, yeah, people, I mean, people who are not Groundbreaking in this essential realm, I mean, you don't know. I mean, you don't know.
Just try. Try LARPing as somebody who talks about these issues for a little while and see what kind of response you get.
And then tell me all about the patriarchy.
It'll be fascinating to hear.
All right. Well, listen, I really, really appreciate your time.
I wanted to recommend the website, therationalmail.com, twitter.com forward slash rationalmail.
The books are The Rational Mail, The Rational Mail, Preventive Medicine, and The Rational Mail, Positive Masculinity.
I look forward to your comments below.
It's been a while since we've dipped into these.
I've dipped into these issues, so I look forward to your feedback.
Rolo Tomasi, T-O-M-A-S-S-I. You want to look him up and follow his excellent talks and so on.
