Beta Orbiters Instead of Cats

To not cause embarrassment to women who publically talk about their personal life, I will speak of something I have witnessed in general terms and not mention names. It astounds me how women can gush, gush, and gush some more about their fiancé only for him to do a few bad things, bad at least according to her words, and in a heartbeat she goes from all the lovey-dovey talk to trash talking him and calling him a mother f—-. We never will know his side of the story.  These are red pill women.  You know the ones who harp on their submission and what perfect women they are and how they “get it”.

For example, if your fiancé asks you to give up your blog and few other red pill blogs because of suspicions over some online footsies with the men, then give up your blog. The fiancé probably had valid concerns over this but for women it can be a much bigger rush to get the attention and excitement online.  If he is making me give up my blog, that is controlling me and I won’t stand for that!  Its all said in the same tone were a feminist to be upset over her man making her give up her career to stay at home. Maybe he was feeling he wasn’t coming “first” and this is not something to shame him over, but was probably a well founded concern given the amount of time spent chatting with men online. I thought the red pill women were all about putting their men first, well, until he pisses you off then women always have plan B — plan Beta blanket to comfort her.

I wonder if the new trend will be women will end up alone not surrounded by their cats but by their Beta orbiters.

Women can only be Criticized in Private

It has been made abundantly clear that women can only be criticized in private, because after all keeping the polished appearance means everything. It would be unthinkable to ever humiliate, shame, call out, or disagree with a blog hostess in public or a woman in everyday life in public. We just can’t let the poor dear feel embarrassed and especially not so in front of her fan club.  She must be sheltered and protected.  It doesn’t matter if said hostess is all about exposing herself and sharing intimate details publically, to dispute or rebuke any of that, it must be done in private. Its a one way street. Agree and applaud everything I say, or tell me in private so it can be screened and my fan club or beta orbiters will not be aware that you found a hole in my persona.

A public blog is not a living room, rather it is a public park. It is a public space unless you make you blog private and give access to who you want to invite in (like your house). After gaining a significant following, if a woman is so averse to public criticism she should make her blog private and only let in the fan club, but wait! Then how would she go about her mission of spreading joy, her beauty, and inspiration throughout the world. The world would clearly die without her presence and so many relationships would fail without her advice. So, she is between a rock and a hard place. The only way to get around it is to kindly ask that criticism be done in private and then its a win-win. She can have her cake and eat it too.

If some comments are so offensive, delete them and if you want, respond to them in private. Seems simple enough. Be the strong one where rather than humiliate a person back, delete the comment and respond in private.  Every woman wants an online platform, but only if it keeps her firmly on the pedestal. None want to deal with the flipside that comes with having an online presence.

I will not cite the source that has prompted this post because I will try not to humiliate. I just wish those who believe that women should rather be rebuked and criticized in private would actually do it. I can only think of one woman who has put her actions where her mouth is on this topic and emailed me. I expect women who will want to criticize this post and believe that criticism should be done in private to put your words in action and actually email me (unmaskingfeminism@gmail.com). What I have learned is that women may feel a social duty to be nice to each other, but only in public. In private, when they think no one else is watching, when there are no men to applaud their femininity, the gloves come off. This goes with gossip as well. About a year ago there were some women professing about how gossiping is so wrong, but later I found a private group they started where they were talking about me and others in private. These are Christian ladies for you–appearances, appearances, appearances!

Bottom line — if you are going to expose yourself in public you should be able to defend yourself in public.

Related: The Game of Appearance

The Biblical “Hoochie Mama” Submissive Wife

For those who are bored watching the online reality shows of blogging housewives, there is now another option–a good old-fashioned televised reality show on submissive wives. The show chronicles a credentialed submissive wife mentoring a woman struggling with submission. Complete in R.P.W. style, she advises her mentee to “grab his butt” and dress like a “hoochie mama”, which is fine if that is what he actually wants, but the problem I have with all of this is the way its presented and the assumption that all men want this standard list Cosmo style items.

Now, here is the really interesting part — the husband says this:

As Tim explains to his fellow cast member Mark Haywood: ‘For her to submit to you, you have to give her something to submit to.’

You mean you can’t submit to a marshmallow? Or a woman might need a mission for submission. This sure flies in the face of a lot of manosphere talking points.

What many manospherians don’t tend to notice is the manosphere women who boast of being the most submissive also claim to have the most alpha of men–therefore they are submitting because he gave her something to submit to. Yet at the same time the women claim they are submitting cause that is what God commands from them, that their man is providing no impetus or inspiration to do so whatsoever; they are submitting in a vacuum. This makes the beta orbiters swoon as this  means there are women who will submit without him having to do one ounce of work, be attractive, or give her something to submit to.

“Look at me! Look at me! This is how it can be! Look at me!”

After learning the Spearhead is no more and in turn thinking about the good old days, I was reminded of this post (by No Ma’am) that is just such an absolute classic and rings true time and time again that it needs to be recycled often. Here is a part that I believe is now long lost knowledge:

One might spot an Elusive Wife perched on a branch overhanging your path. You veterans know her well. She is the one who has the perfect life; her marriage is free from strife, her children are raised the perfect way, and you’ll see her in church twice on Sunday. She will pleasure her husband anytime he desires, sex in their marriage is still burning fires. “Her home cuisine is delicious,” she insists he will say, and to top it all off, from this path she’ll never foray.

The Elusive Wife is most often a traditional stay-at-home mom who believes in the message of the MRM. She’s the one who never lets any man forget that “he should keep on looking because there are still good women out there!” Her song goes something like this: “Look at me! Look at me! This is how it can be! Look at me!”

The Elusive Wife appears to support men’s issues, but really, those more jaded and experienced within “The Movement” will recognize that the Elusive Wife is concerned about men mainly because she is scared shitless of men waking up to the scam. She wants men to return to their masculine role of pandering to women’s every whim, slaving away like a mindless drone for her and her children. It is noteworthy that the Elusive Wife’s husband never comes online, gushing about his wonderful life with his wonderful wife. Nope, only she speaks of how blissfully contented her husband is with her. He smartly (or cowardly) remains silent.

The Elusive Wife says she is interested in men’s issues, but what she really wants is to ensure that men keep serving women. She does this because, deep down, she knows she would be screwed if it were any other way. She knows she is a preferred human and wants desperately to maintain that concept. She has a manipulated man-slave at her finger tips and she damn well knows what a good con-game women have been running for thousands of years.

 

More Proof that You Can’t EVER Disagree with Women (Alternate Title: On Seduction)

I’ve long said you can’t ever disagree or be critical of women. If you aren’t lauding them with praise 24/7, you quickly get banned and called a troll. See the exchange that went down at girlwithadragonflytattoo aka GWDFT aka dragonfly, but don’t ever just call her “dragon”. I was commenting via my phone and she got her “satan’s panties” in a bunch because I called her “dragon” which I only did cause its hard to type on a phone and was trying to be as brief as possible.

In a nutshell, I had some disagreement with her post on seduction and how women should seduce their husbands. I agree 110% that women should be sexually available ALL the time, be feminine, pleasing, helpful, sweet, every good possible thing you could ever imagine, but I took issue with the word “seduce” based on the definition for seduce and that kickstarted a quick escalation into the usual realm of woman can’t handle disagreement, so the only way to handle is dismiss as a troll and ban. There. Problem solved.

This was my initial comment that started everything:

lgrobins

“I wish every woman would love her husband enough, desire him enough, to want to seduce him.”

I disagree with this and the general theme of this post, NOT in that we shouldn’t be available to our husbands, be charming, sexy, etc, but in the use of the word seduce.

If you look at the 1828 Noah Webster definition of seduce, its not a word of something you should “want” to do to your husband. I rely on the 1828 version as its more accurate to true definition of words and Christian based.

SEDU’CE, v. t. [L. seduco; se, from, and duco, to lead.]

1. To draw aside or entice from the path of rectitude and duty in any manner, by flattery,

promises, bribes or otherwise; to tempt and lead to iniquity; to corrupt; to deprave.

Me the gold of France did not seduce. Shak.

In the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits.

Tim. 4.
2. To entice to a surrender of chastity. He that can seduce a female is base enough to betray her.

Don’t know how I could have put it gentler than that. This leads me to some quotes I wanted to post, but did not get the chance. I am not the only one wary of “seduction” as discussed here.

“She doesn’t try to “seduce” you, i.e., act overtly sexual, expose herself, or act aggressively. She gives signals of her receptivity (smiling, making eye contact, laughing at your jokes, touching your arm, leaning in, revealing herself reciprocally) and leaves it to you to be the man and take action (penetrate her with your presence and sexuality)”

This is the “indicators of interests” everyone loves to talk about and this is all very well and fine. If you are good at those things, you don’t need to seduce. I get that men will sometimes want a woman to initiate, but initiating is not seduction and it should not be confused. You can initiate by doing all the things above in a very feminine, not siren like, fashion. Seduction in my mind has always been for the desperate, when nothing else works. This is the best part:

“A healthy woman will invite and be receptive. A healthy man takes action and sets the tone. An insecure woman seduces with her sexuality. An insecure man needs to be seduced.”

That says it all and exactly why I do not like the word “seduce” in relation to marriage or close relationships. In healthy relationships, where biological attraction exists, there is no need to seduce, everything just flows. And AGAIN, I am not saying women should still not make efforts to be attractive and pleasing. No matter how I say that though, unless I am on the “seduction” bandwagon I am going to be considered a no-fun, unpleasing, prude.

A last point I want to make and something that was brought up in the comment string is lingerie. The Red Pill Women and most women cling to this stuff like its the bread and butter of relationships, but I have yet to meet a man who actually likes it. They find it a hassle and a waste of money. A woman should have enough inner beauty that she does not need to rely on outward adornments and lingerie falls in that category. But I will say to be fair, if your man really digs that stuff then go for it! At the end of the day this is all about pleasing our men, not about pleasing other women. Why women go to other women for advice on these things is confusing. Its very simple. You ask your husband what he likes and doesn’t like and you abide by that. If you can’t ask him these things or he won’t tell you, then there are bigger communication problems afoot.

On Envy Inciters

On of my criticisms of modern women and this is especially true of the “red pill women” is they seem programmed with a need to incite envy in other women. Liberal feminists and conservative traditionalists are both guilty offenders.

In doing some research on envy, especially how its been viewed throughout history, it didn’t take long to find something that helps explain why modern women are programmed the way they are today. From the book, An Emotional History of the United States, an essay by Susan J. Matt is included and provides the following:

“In 1913, economist Simon Patten also encouraged women to get what they envied, arguing that women who dressed above their station displayed virtue, not vice. He rejected the common belief that well-dressed women of moderate means were immoral and sexually promiscuous, claiming, “It is no evidence of loose morality when a stenographer, earning eight or ten dollars a week, appears dressed in clothing that takes nearly all of her earnings to buy. It is a sign of her growing moral development.” Dressing “up” could help woman advance; it was now a canny and practical way of bettering her position.

Advertisement went further and encouraged women to make themselves enviable. “the Envied Girl—Are you one? Or are you still seeking the secret of charm? asked Palmolive. Another ad queried, “Do Other Women Envy You?” Or do you envy them? The women who gets what she wants out of life –the woman other women envy and copy–never depends on youth alone, or a preety face, or brains.” Such a woman had “charm”, “poise” and used Houbigant Perfume. There was no trace of the old fear that inciting envy might lead others to moral or financial ruin. After World War 1, if a woman was envied, she was successful.”

Essentially, the consumerism rush pushed women into competition with each other. It awakened sinful desires that were already there but had previously been kept down by strict social mores. Now, with the moral restraints gone, women are encouraged to “make themselves enviable”. The goal now is to be the woman other woman are envious of–this is the “brave new world” virtue for women. Whether or not you can make women envious determines your success and worth as a woman. Being envious is not a virtue, but being an envy inciter is a virtue.

So, women will brag and boast about their house, clothing, cars, jewelry, gifts, expensive face creams, land, husbands/boyfriends, family, amazing sex lives/skills, cooking/homemaking skills, children, careers or just being “blessed” in general.  They facebook, tweet, and blog it—never satisfied until every corner of the world knows how perfect, beautiful, and bountiful their lives are.  Why? Because this is how success is determined. If the world doesn’t know about their beautiful life it doesn’t really exist and didn’t really happen.  Having and showing off the best of everything is evidence of “growing moral development”.  Those who refrain from boasting, bragging, or even just displaying clearly must not have any joy, beauty or material value in their life and therefore are not successful.   They are morally inferior and of lower rank to an envy inciter. The envy inciter thinks if the woman had all these things, surely she would want to wear her badge loud and proud and prove her success to other women.

“Until World War 1, moralists denied that women had or should have desires. In doing so, they upheld women’s exclusion from the liberal capitalist marketplace. Market activity required individuals to be competitive, ambitious, acquisitive, and indeed envious. In contrast, women were perceived to be naturally religious, self-sacrificing, without desire or envy, and therefore contented. Accordingly, they had no impetus for the restless, struggling behavior endemic to capitalism. By 1930, social commentators, merchants, advertisers, and women themselves had redefined the boundaries of acceptable female behavior. The new behavioral model affirmed women’s rights to consume, to handle money (if not to earn it), and to pursue the objects they desired.”

In hand with a woman’s right to consume is the new woman’s right to incite envy and this is now acceptable female behavior. Some probably see it as a positive thing–that by making other women envious it inspires her to be better and do better. To go out and get what you want, to “one-up” the next girl, however; this of course can have negative consequences. In the consumerist drive to have what the next women has, they do whatever they must to get what they want, morals take a back seat, and a slipperly slope can ensue.  If the culture promotes a “get what you envy” spirit then its going to support women doing whatever they have to do to get what they want. If it means go into debt to get the material life Suzy homemaker down the street has, do it! If it means divorcing your beta schlub to get the alpha stud Suzy homemaker down the street has, do it! Afterall, your “moral development” depends on it!

Of course the envy inciters would defend themselves by saying, “It not my fault they are envious, I can’t control their feelings” and thereby absolve themselves of any responsibility. They play coy and shift the burden. Prior to World War 1 there was an understanding in society that we all had a more collective responsibility in moral matters and in preventing stumbling blocks. This should still hold true for Christians, but since most Christians are really churchians and consumed with consumerism it makes sense that the inciting envy drive would be second nature. A churchian with a consumerism mindset is by default going to incite envy, they most likely do this subconsciously, but they are doing it nonetheless. There is no longer the fear that we might cause someone to stumble by bragging and boasting about their beautiful, blessed life.

I will close with asking a questions with an obvious answer–should Christians incite envy? I am betting there are some segments that are going to rationalize how envy inciters can be beneficial and I am eager to hear from them.

Why do Women (and men) Post Photos Online?

A discussion got started at Dalrock’s about women who post photos online, specifically the ones who feel the need to use real photos as profile photo. Dalrock has since gone on break and turned moderation on so the conversation was stopped. I want to pick up that conversation here.

I ask this question to women and men—What benefit is there to posting your photo online, especially in discussion venues such as blogging? Do you feel it makes you more credible?

For the women, especially women who identify as red pill, why the need to post cutesy, suggestive, cleavage photos on your profile? Especially if you are married. Again, what benefit does this bring you? Besides attention, I can’t think of any.

Team “Strong and Independent” vs. Team “Submissive and Dependent”

In reading this post about how strong and independent women think they are, its spurred this thought, which I commented:

“For as much boasting as there is on the “strong, independent” team, there is an equal amount of boasting on the “submissive, dependent” team. By this I mean the traditionalist women who can’t shut up about how submissive they are, how they love to serve, how they rely on their men. Those on either team who generally are strong/independent or submissive/dependent are usually too busy actually being those things than to prattle on about them.”

Its the old two sides of the same coin. The liberal side is team “strong, independent” and the conservative side is team “submissive, dependent”. Both teams think they are the superior one and both are out on a mission to gain attention. It results in something like this, “I am the better one cause I don’t need a man” and “I am the better one cause I need a man”. If you don’t need a man, then “get back to your desk” and if you need a man then “get back to the kitchen”.