Below is my paraphrase of the show’s key points. Watch/listen to the video for the full context.
- Trad-cons are feminists’ goon squad to shame men when they step out of line
- Men cheat on their wives because they feel unappreciated, not because they’re after the “hot secretary”
- If a man can’t handle a woman, he can’t be trusted to focus on his mission
- Man’s sexual imperative is to spread his seed. Religion breeds this instinct out of men at a young age.
- Requiring a man to raise another man’s child is tantamount to rape
- Rollo’s post on alpha vs. beta body language
- Rollo’s Rational Male book series teaches you the rules of the game.
- You can read more from Rollo on his blog, The Rational Male or follow him on Twitter.
Double-Standards: A Fem-Centered Culture
A woman in Russia posted a picture on social media of her husband (or lover) hunched and bleeding after she stabbed him. The caption said “I’m a beast!” The image went viral and yet no one censored it.
When people criticised the picture, many women jumped to her defense saying “Well, he must have attacked her first.” They find a way to flip the script and turn it into a criticism of men. We live in a culture where if something bad happens to a man, public opinion is that “he must have deserved it.” If the scenario were flipped and it was a man who did it to the woman, the man would immediately lose his social media account and get thrown in jail.
We tend to forgive female anger easily as a culture. Like in the Carrie Underwood song “Before He Cheats” we find nothing wrong with a woman bashing in a man’s car and destroying his property. But again, if a man did that same vandalism to his ex-girlfriend, he would be in jail.
Women who commit crimes receive 1/10th the punishment for the same crime as a man.
If a man is suspected of sexual misconduct, the verdict is already against him on social media. But if it’s a woman, the response is “men do it too and they do it worse.”
There is a rise in the number of women being accused of statuatory rape (mostly teachers). We tend to laugh about it (“where was she when I was school?”), but the reality is it’s the same exact crime. The woman gets a slap on the wrist and continues on. But if a man is even accused of looking at a woman wrong, he loses his job.
Pat notes that the female teacher’s looks has a lot to do with the level of punishment she receives. Attractive teachers get off easy. Average-looking teachers have a harder time getting away with it. Looks shouldn’t matter in court, but they do.
Sitting with your legs spread is a natural posture for a man. Pat says if he sees a sitting with his legs clamped together he thinks “Gee, what happened? Have you been neutered?” It’s not natural for a man to sit like that unless he’s squeezed into that position (e.g. sitting between two fat people on an airplane.)
“Manspreading” indicates that the man is comfortable with the situation. It’s an alpha posture. You could argue it’s even a sexual display.
A man who sits with everything tucked in is maybe repressed, nervous, or holding something back. This beta body language.
Why are feminists bothered by manspreading? Rollo thinks it’s because when men do that they are signaling an alpha state, but the woman views the man as a beta. So there’s conflicting signals in the woman’s hindbrain. No one would have a problem if Tom Brady was manspreading.
There was a video where a feminist was going around on a subway and throwing water and bleach on men’s crotches who were manspreading. Women will say they hate manspreading for logistical reasons, like it takes up too much space. But if that were the case, why attack the man’s crotch? The action reveals what they really want to attack.
Trad-Cons: Feminism’s Goon Squad
Traditional conservatives are men and women who try to stick with the traditional idea of conservatism. Trad-cons are playing for Team Feminism without realizing that they’re doing it. Rollo describes it as feminism dressed up in a Norman Rockwell picture.
Trad-cons expect an old-school masculinity and want to see men “man up”, but when it comes to masculine authority they give in to feminism. It’s all the responsibility with none of the authority.
Pat tells a story about a frined of his who was a prominant chiropractor. He had been married about 18 years. All the sudden Pat sees his friend has this gorgeous fitness model hanging around him. His friend felt guilty and confessed to Pat, “I got married 18 years ago. People change. I’m not the same person I was then.” At the time, Pat’s thinking “Bullshit! You’re just coming up with an excuse so you can dump number 1 and move on to number 2.” But the more Pat thought about it, the more he realized his friend was right. You are not the same man at 20 as you are at 30, 40, etc. Hopefully, you’re a better man. If you’re the same person you were 20, 30 years ago, you’re stagnating. You’re actually losing ground.
Pat describes trad-cons as the “bouncers” of the feminine imperitive. They’re the “tough guys” who shame men who step out of line.
Rollo says trad-cons are some of the worst white knights you’ll ever meet. They feel empowered because they’re the enforcement arm. They use a technique similar to AMOGing (alpha male other guy). [AMOGing is when a guy attempts to divert attention away from the other alpha by asserting himself as the leader and discrediting the other alpha.] Evangelical pastors use this technique all the time.
Men have this idea that if we publically take the woman’s side, she’ll become endeared with him.
Women often use the trad-con identity as an “easy out.” They want to say “Look I’ve gone through my party years. I don’t want to be held accountable for all that. If I can just find a ‘real man’ who’s accepted his responsibilities then I can be forgivin of all that. We can move on and I’ll have babies.”
“Trad-THOTS” are women who praise the flattering parts of the red pill while criticising the unflattering aspects of the red pill (because it ruins their chances.)
Everyone’s still playing the same game, they just play it as conservatives.
As red pill becomes trendier, it’s important to “defend the brand.” Many people trying to piggyback on the movement by promoting only the parts that they like.
A lot of pastors will tell young men to “grow up” and criticise guys in their late 20s who are not prepared to start a family. What they don’t acknowledge is that, for most guys, this is a pragmatic decision. There’s simply no incentive for men in their late 20s to start a family. Without authority, what’s the incentive for a man to take on responsibility? It’s not a “marriage strike”, they just don’t see the point.
Trad-cons don’t want the red pill, they want a time machine. They want to go back in time to when men were men and women were women. But they never want to tell women what they need to be doing if we’re going to return to these “good old days.”
The “Abusive Alpha”
Pat noticed that many women like the idea of the red pill but are hesitant to embrace it fully because they’ve encountered guys who passed themselves off as being alpha, when in reality he was just a control freak. Some guys want to run every element of a woman’s life and the red pill gets associated with that negative experience.
Critics of the red pill think in reactive binary categories. “Red pill guys just think women are either sluts or frigid prudes.” “Alphas are abusive.”
Alpha vs. Beta Relationships
Alpha and beta are abstractions needed to explain more complex ideas.
Betas are obsessed with finding (or keeping) his “soul mate” or “the ONE.”
We love to put people on pedestals in our culture. But we love tearing them down even more. It’s dangerous to put anyone on a pedestal. We’re doing it with our kids, our spouse.
If a man doesn’t know how to deal with women, how can he be trusted to deal with other things?
The joke is if Elon Musk was more alpha in his personal life, we’d already be on Mars. He’d be able to focus on what he wanted to do instead of worrying about his relationships.
If you can get your relationship shit handled you can focus on becoming a better version of yourself. You’re not distracted by constantly trying to solve relationship problems.
The “Hot Secretary” Myth
Pat got a call on his show from a 50 year old woman who was furious with the content he was putting out. The lady said she did everything right. She was submissive and catered to her husband’s every need. Then he left her for a younger woman. Now she’s abandoned. Surprisingly, Pat was able to see a picture of the ex-husband with his new girlfriend. The new girl was not particularly attractive. The wife was actually better looking.
Most men who step out of a relationship do so because they do not feel appreciated at home. Men cheat because they’re getting something there that he can’t get at home.
We have this idea (largely perpetrated by women), that we need marriage laws in order to prevent men from abandoning their wives for the “hot secretary.” In reality, 70% of divorces are initiated by the woman. When women have a college degree, it jumps up to 90%. The data does not align with the tropes. It’s the apex fallacy [attributing the exceptional cases as the norm for the entire group].
The Trophy Wife Effect
An attractive woman makes the man look better. Trump looks older with his first wife. With Melania, he looks younger even though he’s 72. People perceive you by association.
We have an instinct to want to see people of similar sexual market values paired together. If we see what seems to be a mismatch, we intuitively apply the higher SMV person’s attributes to the other one. [e.g. if we see a balding overweight man with a gorgeous wife, we assume there must be something valuable about the man, rather than assume there’s something wrong with the woman’s judgment.]
Pat says the problem with the “trophy wife” fantasy is there’s a limited shelf life. If you marry a woman purely for her trophy status looks, you’ve got maybe 20 years on that if you’re lucky. A long-term relationship has to be based on something besides physical appearance and sexual performance. There has to be something to sustain that relationship once the physical aspects dissapate.
Rollo agrees to an extent. But he thinks we underestimate the importance of sex in our idealization of relationships. Sexual attraction should be the number one consideration for building a relationship.
Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks
Women have a different sexual strategy than men. Women are looking for the alpha fuck and beta buck. They’re looking for the best genetic quality they can get and they’re looking for the best long-term provision quality they can get. Usually this is not found in the same guy. In this day and age, women don’t even expect to find it in the same guy.
There are beta guys who are good at providing resources. This is the transactional sex. With alpha men, it’s all about validational sex. It’s about getting good genes.
Men’s sexual imperative is unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Men want to spread their seed. Men may say, “I’m just looking for a great woman”, but on the base level men want to breed and put their seed in as many women as they can.
Pat says that religion tries to breed out men’s sexual imperative at a very early age. Even when Pat was dating, the idea of dating two girls at the same time was “wrong” because it implied you were “cheating” or being “dishonest”… even though he hadn’t yet made a commitment to either woman. Men are brainwashed to remove anything alpha and become a beta that can be more easily controlled.
People say “religion is all about controlling people.” In reality, it’s about controlling guys. Religion is the goon squad to keep the guys in line.
The church serves the feminine imperitive. Men are trained to be perfect providers. In old-school religious doctrine resources were seen as part of the sex-appeal of a man. If he had more resources, he could apply those resources towards his wife and children.
Both society and religion works to shame man’s natural sexual impulse out of him.
Rollo says social mores and the church used to be a buffer against hypergamy. There was a lot of social stigma attached to having a child out of wedlock. Now, 42% of children are born out of wedlock and we don’t think twice about it. We want to place all the responsibility (blame) on the fathers, but we don’t want to give them the authority.
There is a stigma today around “disempowering” women. You are not allowed to tell a woman to think twice about what she’s doing or tell her she needs to change her behavior.
Nowadays, you’ll see guys who know their wife is pregnant by another man, yet they’ll post on social media, “it doesn’t matter who the babby daddy is.” Guys are now shamed into sticking with the woman even if she is unfaithful because it’s “the right thing to do.”
Men have a biological impulse to be certain that the kid is his own. Why? Because man’s sexual imperative is to scatter his seed. Parental investment restricts a man’s ability to go out and breed more. So if he’s going to stop breeding in order to invest in a child, his instinct is to make sure “this kid is my kid.” But now, the male interest is thrown out the window.
There was recently a fertility doctor who artificially inseminated women with his own sperm. He ended up impregnating 100 women with his seed (without their knowledge.) Women judged this to be tantamount to rape. Yet how is this different than a man who does not want to raise his own genetic kids?
On a biological level, rape is a violation of a woman’s sexual imperative. Her hypergamous choice is removed from her and she is forced to accept another man’s seed.
Requiring a man to raise another man’s kids is to a man what rape is to a woman; it is a violation of a man’s sexual imperative.
Why is it only a man’s responsibility to “man up” and take responsibility for another man’s child? Why is it not so for women?
We are “raping” men when we tell them to “man up” and raise another man’s child.
That concludes my show notes. Thanks for reading.
If you’d like to go deeper down the rabbit hole, check out my article below:CLICK HERE TO DISCOVER HOW WESTERN MEN GOT CUCKED BY THE CHURCH (AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT)