When I first got started studying decision making, my fascination with it was all based on my own humility. I simply couldn’t understand how 10 people could look at a problem and come to one conclusion, while I looked at it and came to a completely different one. I honestly assumed that I must be doing something wrong. It took me a long time, but i think I eventually worked it out.
Ego. That’s the secret. That’s what I came to understand as the difference between how I saw things and how others did. We are all ego invested in our opinions even, (and in some cases especially) me. Whatever attitudes we hold, we convince ourselves that our solution to the problem is not only the best for us, but is also the best solution for others. This applies to big problems and small. And the more insecure someone is, the more fervently they will believe an unsupported falsehood that allows them to preserve their self image.
Some of us by our individual nature, don’t particularly trust our egos and will usually look to facts, statistics, and other readily observable phenomena for support of our views. In not finding them, or finding others which contradict them, we will then usually change our minds. But not if we’re insecure. For those people dealing with those questions, their ego's make it impossible. The risk of pain from changing their mind about something which they view as a core part of their identity, is too frightening to ever face down.
I used to think this was a ‘left-right’ phenomenon, but nothing in real life is ever so simple. The ‘men’ of the right and their reaction to Donald Trump’s ‘locker room talk’ video has taught me that. They may be able to have a rational discussion on race, or immigration, or most public policy questions. But they are very much not able to do so when it relates to women. They're too emotionally invested in their opinions on the subject.
In what looked to me to be a fairly well orchestrated and organized move, they immediately reacted with horror to the ‘locker room talk’ video and demanded that Trump step down. I viewed what Trump said as a bit of harmless chatter about the effect of fame on women, but they saw it as a direct challenge to the way they relate to women as a whole. What success they may have had with women is based on letting the woman tell them what to do and how to do it. It hasn’t occurred to them that there are secondary cultural fallout from unilaterally choosing that position.
They don’t realize that what they’ve embraced is a losing proposition for them personally and for men generally. They don’t see it as giving women control over their lives, and they don’t realize the contempt that women feel for such behavior when they demonstrate it. Most of all, they very much do not realize that to preserve their personal narrative about men and women, they need to ignore a great deal about the actual behavior of women. They need to be as blind to female motivations as the left is when discussing the issue of race.
Let me tell you establishment conservatives a few hard secrets. Secrets you won’t actually like and will be difficult for you to face, but are widely supported by actual behavior. Here’s the big one: Roughly 40% of your wives will be unfaithful to you at some point. 40% is no outlier, it's a major and pervasive trend.
It's not because you’re so awful or that you're lacking in some way, but because your wives feel like they need to for their own reasons. They need the validation of a strong man with lots of sexual options. They need to feel like they’re as attractive to men as they ever were, and because of the nature of their relationship with you, they can’t get that from you. If you want to feel like that 40% is some other men’s wives, that’s fine. That probably serves everyone’s interests, even yours. But it's not something we should simply ignore.
In terms of social status, women look above themselves with lust and look below themselves for comfort. This is why, as Donald Trump so inelegantly stated, Fame is such an enormous turn-on for them. This means though that your job, as far as the woman is concerned, is to be steady and reliable. Your job is to provide for the children, provide for your wife, and to be emotional support. But unlike in men, In women that ‘emotional support’ and sexual validation come from two very different places in their psyche.
Here’s another hard fact. As much as you crave the peace of a contented household, if you want your wife to be more likely to be faithful it’s probably a bad idea. She will be more likely to be faithful if you’re the kind of man that she believes has more sexual options than she does - as counter-intuitive as that may seem. This will not make her happy, but it does make you the focus of her physical desire.
The man she is unfaithful with will probably be the kind of guy you think is a jerk. A guy in some ways, not unlike Trump. It goes without saying that he’ll be self centered – he’s sleeping with another man’s wife after all. But to her he won’t seem that way. To her he’ll be providing her something she feels she needs and can’t get from you.
This is what Feminism is really about. It’s not about ‘equal pay’ or ‘respect for women’ or ‘man-splaining’ or ‘sexual assault’. It’s about giving women the emotional justification for gratifying both sides of their desire with men. It’s about making it emotionally “OK” for her to live in your house and to raise children with you, while still making it “OK” for her to sleep with the other men who excite her but that she knows she can never rely on.
I’ve spent some time thinking about the married women I’ve known who have expressed interest in me ‘in that way’. There have been quite a few over the years. Most were coworkers, but others were friend’s wives, or old friends from school. The vast majority I turned down out of hand (particularly my friend’s wives), but if I want to be honest about it, I didn’t turn down all of them.
Look, I’m not just messing with your mind with that confession or trying to make you even more insecure. I’m trying to help you, and in the process help all of us. You need to learn a new way to think of this issue – one which takes into account the real behavior of women, not their behavior as they like to describe it.
You need to learn a few things. You need to open some emotionally dangerous doors. I know you view it with contempt, but you need to take a hard look at ‘the red pill’.
In terms of a decision making process, the red pill is the same as other philosophies embraced by much of the right. It has a basis in evolutionary psychology, and is widely supported by facts and behavior. Feminism is based on equalism and subjective feelings, which we know is nonsense. The Red Pill is the unequal and objective response to those views. It recognizes that men and women are different, and motivated by different things.
You probably think the ‘red pill’ is about ‘game’ or being a ‘pick up artist’, but it isn’t. Many immature young men have used it to achieve immature goals, but that isn’t what it’s about. It’s about trying to have some kind of honest framework for understanding the relationships between men and women. It’s about admitting to ourselves what it is that women REALLY want (even if they would prefer not to admit it), and deciding for ourselves in that full honest light, whether we want to give it to them or not.
Go get yourself a copy of “The Rational Male” and read it. It’s not the most elegantly written book, but it’s clear enough for you to understand the basics. It’s not about being a pick-up artist at all. It’s about recognizing the differences between men and women, and understanding the differences in their motivations toward the opposite sex.
It won’t make you into an ‘alpha male’. It won’t make women fall at your feet. But it will open your eyes to who women really are. And we’ve all labored under the delusions of Feminism for more than long enough.