Men and women have always pursued fundamentally different biological imperatives, but the female need for survival resources and the male need for reproductive access forced them to compromise their competing drives out of necessity. This compromise was most perfectly expressed in the institution of marriage, wherein men would sacrifice the option to impregnate multiple women and women would sacrifice the option to all be impregnated by the best man, but both would be satisfied by the opportunity to live another day and produce another generation.

Today, in some part through manipulation of their sexual resources, but largely as a result of the changing nature of work itself, women have been granted the ability to provide for themselves and no longer have any need to compromise their biological imperative in order to survive. The resultant ideology of feminism can be appropriately viewed as the financially independent female id forcibly expanding the limits of acceptable behavior to the benefit of its biological agenda. The goal of this philosophy is for all directives of the feminine imperative to be free from stigma and completely acceptable.

Chief among these directives is the dual reproductive strategy of breeding with the man of greatest reproductive fitness (whose options in the reproductive market make him unlikely to settle down) and pair bonding with the man of greatest resources (whose willingness to invest suggests he lacks the reproductive fitness to attract other women.) Much work has been done establishing the fact that women have a two-tiered system of mate preference, and that they oscillate between the two along their estrus cycle. Social mores, however, prevent them from fully acting on it. When men controlled material resources, cuckoldry was outlawed, open hypergamy shamed, and paternity tests readily available to resolve any issue. These are precisely the social attitudes which we are watching change in our own generation as the newly unfettered feminine imperative asserts itself. Soon it will be possible for a woman to pursue both of these strategies separately without fear of legal, social, or moral repercussions.

90% of men are complicit with this transformation of social mores. The dissident remainder are red pill men, and they have two mutually exclusive options: to acknowledge the feminine imperative and attempt to suppress it, or to accept it completely.

By now, it should be obvious that the former is an untenable position. Females have historically suppressed amoral instinct only out of necessity, due to their reliance on male providers. That world is over. To be free from dependence on males is to be free from male demands, which means the egalitarian distribution of survival and reproduction resources is a relic of a former world. Women will remain financially independent and the female id will remain unchained. The sexual marketplace will totally reform our world in accordance with its inalienable principles and the best we can do is avoid the personal consequences of its implacable injustice.

While most red pill men pay lip service to the old values and expectations, the general response from the loosely organized male opposition has been a rejection of conventional male responsibilities and a dissemination of materials which facilitate a short-term mating strategy – a movement towards exploiting the greater availability of sex while expending fewer resources. On nearly all sides, this is where the game stands today.

I have held for the past year that there is an alternative to the wholesale adoption of short term strategy, and that this adoption amounts to little more than women taking control of society while the few men paying attention accept easy sex as a consolation prize. Pussy is the opiate of the masses, and on this path, men will become little more than grown children, content to leave the girls in power while they play with their video games and free snatch.

Nor can women be stripped of their status as the gatekeepers to reproduction. If men are stripped, as they have been, of their status as gatekeepers to survival, then women hold all the cards and feminism is best viewed as a protracted power play in which they will negotiate the most advantageous circumstances to pursue their imperative, forcefully and with no consideration for men. There could be no more impotent response than a moral appeal to suppress the already unloosed female id, and the MRA movement at large amounts to little more than a blatant denial of the facts on the ground.

In fact, the unstoppable restructuring of society in accordance with the feminine imperative is acceptable for one reason and one reason only: because regardless of their material circumstances, they are still consumed by an emotional need for the same behavioral symbols of our investment. But now, as patriarchy fades, we can simulate this without any material sacrifice and without any expectation of exclusivity. And we can do it in a way that puts us in an even greater position of power.

To Be Continued