The Manosphere has done a lot of good work publicizing just how truly awful women can be. By now, the Blue Pill reality is miles away; the claims that women are all pure, that they deserve to be pedestalized, that divorce is mainly due to abusive men, that girls like nice guys, and that men were ever, as a whole, oppressing women – these have been thoroughly wiped away. What started off as strangers comparing notes online – “Wait a minute, you’ve been through the same thing? I thought I was the only one!” – has grown into a well-researched, theoretically-coherent, and statistically-demonstrable rejection of the Official Narrative. Examples of toxic, exploitative women abound:
- Jenny Erikson, a Conservative, Christian, Mommy-Blogger frivorces her husband, and proceeds to endlessly blog about it: Dalrock, Return of Kings reporting.
- Brittney Pierre, a snark-faced manipulator, wheedles free dinners out of men on dating websites (and she’s far from the only one): The Daily Mail Online reporting.
- Ohio State girl acts slutty in public, accuses the man of raping her (identity uncertain). Roosh V Forum
reportsdoes a caption contest.
And these are just the latest examples which come to mind.
Compounding them, are the constant cries of NAWALT – “Not All Women Are Like That” – seen throughout our comment sections, the incessant feminist/leftist apologies for this behaviour, and the prevarications of the media, twisting their language to twist the story. Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a conspiracy: not only do the facts point towards a conspiracy, we have plenty of examples of the conspirators themselves consciously manufacturing the false narrative; such as when I demonstrated the corrupt journalistic ethics displayed by ABC 20/20’s Alyssa Pry and Alexa Valiente.
Add in the fact that Game works, and we’ve got a full-spectrum antibiotic known as the Red Pill: as it turns out, Sheila, All Women Are Like That.
But what exactly does that mean?
We’ve managed to identify the Obvious Evils out there – Feminists, Sluts, Borderlines – and for many of us, it was an encounter with Obvious Evil that woke us up (in my case, a false accusation of domestic violence) – the sort of stuff which, in retrospect, we should have seen a mile away – but back then our eyes were shut to reality.
So what do we do now that our eyes are open?
It’s not the Obvious Evil that you have to worry about: an adult Rattlesnake will warn you before it strikes, but if it’s a juvenile, it won’t have grown its rattle yet: venom without warning. With women, the Feminists, Sluts, and Borderlines are easy to spot (now that we know what we’re looking for), but time and again we’re finding that ostensibly “good” girls are just as bad – if they don’t outright frivorce you, you wind up in a loveless marriage.
All Women Are Like That, but to what extent? Emotional, hypergamous, status-seeking, sure – potentially Evil? Yes! – but does that mean that women are inevitably callow, materialist, and solipsistic?
The answer is a resounding “No!”
Call it the Ontological Argument for Women’s Ensoulment: neither God nor Evolution would give Man a hunger which cannot be sated. Subverted by super-stimulus? Perhaps – but even here, the evidence is wanting. As individuals, we’ve all experienced addiction to super-stimuli of some variety – porn, candy, video games, or drugs – and yet, if these super-stimuli were truly satisfying, why do we label them as addictions? Why do we choose to struggle against them, and pursue the actual teleos underlying the hunger? Why is it that even rats – when free from the torture of solitary confinement – manage to overcome supposedly crippling addictions?
The Materialists might argue that we’re nothing but Chemical Automatons, a series of Inputs and Outputs, but what little evidence they had is eroding.
There is a hunger within us for Romantic Love. I have seen arguments that this is just a misplaced sense of Male Intimacy – “If you want intimacy, talk to your friends; if you want love, get a dog.” – but the failure of super-stimulants undermines this stance.
We crave both Intimacy and Love from a single person, and those can only be achieved with an Ensouled being, possessed of Free Will.
The cynicism is certainly warranted: many women have sold their souls, objectified themselves, sunken to the solipsist level of Relative Truth, and turned themselves into objects… and if we’re going to be honest, it is conceivable that all women have degenerated to this level… but women’s failure to be Good doesn’t demonstrate an impossibility; and our hunger for Romantic Love is palpable proof that such a thing is True.
The media has distorted Romance, but they didn’t invent it. When have you ever seen Evil create anything? It has no divine spark. That we have such hunger is the proof, and the proof is sufficient for us to Hope…
…and Hope demands that we get off the mountain, and start discussing tactics.
We can do better than just Sitting Poolside.
The ostensibly “good” girls are the most dangerous women you’ll encounter; there’s a deceptively innocent form of Evil within them. They’ll speak about moral virtue, they’ll do nothing that’s overtly wrong, and they’ll carry themselves with an air of honesty. How do they manage to pull it off?
They do it by never lying to you – they do it by lying to themselves.
These are the solipsists: they won’t outright scam 30 men out of dinner, but they will allow an individual man to take them out several times, before they “realize” that he’s not the one. They won’t outright argue feminism, but they’ll fail to notice how affirmative action constantly benefits them. They won’t slut about with the Bad Boys, but they’ll “fall in love” with a man for three months, before dumping him.
And if you ever try to call them on their behaviour, they’ll plead ignorance; this is where you catch them. This is where you realize that their innocence is Machiavellian.
At some point or another, we’ve all hurt somebody through ignorance: we said something which was unintentionally cruel, or we’ve accidentally taken advantage of them without realizing it. This is what the “good” girls pretend to be: “I never realized that the death camp was burning bodies!” There’s a fine line between innocence and wilful ignorance, and these girls are making the conscious decision to be on the latter-half.
In this era of celebrated victimhood, we’re all on our guard when somebody accuses us of hurting them: cries of “Check your privilege!” have given us calloused skins. Nevertheless, as Soulful Men, our minds are open. We require convincing, but we seek out information, we ask questions, we try and understand the Other’s point of view. The “good” girl will never do this.
While a Lady might not be aware of FRAs, Frivorce, or anything else we write about – while she might express shock that any woman could be so Evil – she will be open to new information. She might challenge it and demand proof, but she will listen. The “good” girl will change topics: she’ll shout “NAWALT!” when it was never your premise that all women engage in FRAs; she’ll lead you down philosophical side-roads, which hold little cogency to the argument at hand; she’ll jump back to previous topics, and use multiple definitions for the same word, without ever pinning anything down.
In other words, the solipsist will argue solipsistically; she’ll do anything to veer away from actually examining her own self.
Don’t mistake this for educable ignorance: it isn’t. This is wilful and conscious rebellion against the Truth, it’s the deliberate choosing of the Relative over the Absolute. The lie isn’t to save her conscience – she has none. The lie is for the sake of her persona – it’s so that you’ll mistake her for a Good Woman.
It’s the lie of the Confidence Artist, it’s the lie of the Psychopath, and now that you know it’s there, you’ll be able to spot it.
Dismiss with extreme prejudice, Men; save your love for the Ladies who deserve it.