The Wisdom of Submission to Feminism

by Ethical on January 21, 2013

On Roosh’s new site “Return of Kings” a recent article “Why Marriage Can Still be a Viable Option” made the argument that for marriage-minded men the risks of what he and others call marriage 2.0, might be mitigated by “permanent expatriation to a society where Marriage 1.0 still persists”.

Despite all the controversy the article generated in its comment section, I found its search for solutions refreshing. If manhood is believing we have ultimate control over the circumstances of our lives, we sometimes forget that part of having that ultimate control is understanding where we are constrained. It’s only with this knowledge that we gain the power to free ourselves.

the idea of marriage has not entirely lost its luster for many of us … quite a few denizens of the manosphere would still be open to it under the right circumstances … I know that I am one of them.

Athlone McGinnis

As the author mentions the “right circumstances” are definitely not the west’s savagely anti-male divorce laws which turn marriage into emasculating bondage at the whim of “the feminine imperative”, followed by divorce slavery afterwards. Recognizing that he like other men who want marriage are actually being impeded from achieving such a key life goal, his simple statement is a tacit acknowledgement that leaving the cancer of feminism to consume society does have a devastating impact on both men and women whether or not we decide to do anything about it.

It’s a welcome step forward from “Men’s Rights” Has Become A Euphemism For “Sexual Loser” and shows a deeper red pill awareness is growing. It’s also an encouraging development from the misperception of the manosphere as being full of fearful, whiny misogynists which I’ve heard from a number of men in the past.

“So what’s unmanly about the men’s rights movement? … fighting for our own rights … Traditionally chivalrous men saw themselves as protectors and benefactors of the rest of society, and like the men who stayed behind on the Titanic, they understood that this sometimes meant we would get the short end of the stick. In fact, they were proud of it”.

Mike from Toronto, Canada, The Pussification of Men

“our calling as men is to protect the weaker sex, and this carping against those we are made to protect is unmanly and contemptible.”

Bonald, Patriarchists should shun The Spearhead

Many of these same men dismiss any perception of misandry as unmanly since the dictates of manliness make any semblance of fear or weakness utterly contemptible, particularly what to them seems to be the manosphere’s neurotic fear of some consequences of feminism they believe to be fictitious. I believe there are many more of these white knights and manginas than all the unchained men in the manosphere combined. Strange as it may sound, outside the manosphere the instinct towards white knighthood is probably so much more common among alphas than red pill awareness, and mangina tendencies so much more common than red pill wisdom among betas, that from their prevalence natural selection of beneficial behaviors implies white knightery and mangina betatude might actually have been more beneficial to society than the red pill at some point.

a female’s … life is far more valuable [to society] than a man’s … The number of babies that can be born is the same even if a large portion of the men die, while this not the case if even a single woman dies … [assuming] that women spend their entire lives … bearing and taking care of children.

Human society was geared to transfer all resources to women as this correlated to the survival of children … But in the modern era, women now only use 10-20% of their lifetime childbearing capacity … yet society is still programmed to transfer resources to women… In the meantime, all the work that keeps modern society running, is done by men.

the citizens who produce the most value are under attack, while those who receive the best treatment are the ones who no longer perform the primary task upon which this good treatment was delivered”.

This will change. Rather soon.

TFH (The Fifth Horseman, author of The Misandry Bubble)

Perhaps for men as a whole (though I can’t imagine it’s ever true for individual men) those white knight/mangina traits still are more beneficial in societies where gender relations are less broken than they are in the west now.

Even in the west where gender relations are so pitifully dysfunctional and contrary to the broader interests of society, the general male rejection of any fears concerning feminism might not be completely unjustified. There’s some truth to the saying that you get what you focus on. If for example having a wife and family is your dream, there’s a legitimate argument that believing you have the power to achieve your dream despite any obstacle is a more likely road to success than trying to avoid all feminism’s potential pitfalls. But at the same time the many horrific stories of divorce rape, paternity fraud, and false domestic abuse accusations clearly show the danger of some wet dream of self-mastery providing a false sense of safety from the extreme risks men face. Such blindness makes us predisposed to dismiss the need for men’s rights without even taking the time to inform ourselves. We’re helped along in our false security by the feminist censor’s stranglehold on the mass media. Without reliable media getting informed on any given issue becomes as time consuming as taking on a full time research project. Faced with the inconvenience of finding out the truth regarding gender issues, the ease for most men of lazily accepting feminist mainstream media propaganda provides more than enough percentage points of swing in public opinion to fuel the passing of misandric laws.

But most men don’t seem to feel threatened by any feminist laws. As men we’re naturally fearless of what we don’t know we need be cautious about. This is why awareness is our only protection. Because all the while we believe we are lions, before the might of the feminist state’s cloaked system of media control, we are merely a blissfully ignorant crop of lambs. Until we hit divorce court or face criminal proceedings against a woman, the sweetly narcotic blue pill fills our mind with a beautiful illusion of our male power. It’s only in court when we’re bent over to have the red hot poker of feminism anally administered to forearm depth, that many of us recognize the truth for the first time. We are in fact slaves; only more meat for the grinder.

It took this ignorance and recklessness of masses of un-awakened blue pill men to achieve our enslavement. So considering all the former or current blue pill men who’ve been so complicit in our current condition, I welcome red pill awareness from any quarter regardless of any philosophical differences with whatever part of the manosphere it comes from. As an MRA I’m not bothered in the least for example with comments on the website like those below:

Men’s Rights Activists. The beta male is the biggest external threat to the manosphere, but MRAs are the biggest internal threat.


Regardless of such comments, the awareness that Return of Kings is spreading among young Game practioners can’t help but eventually translate to a lack of support for further feminist laws undermining marriage and family, families some young men will always want for themselves regardless of whether men like Solomon don’t.

If you’re like me and children aren’t in your future, the possibilities are endless.


Young patriarchs whose vision of success in this world is leaving a legacy furthered by strong, healthy, and successful children know that marriage is the best environment to achieve this. They’ll eventually see the truth that men like Solomon don’t share the same goals. And though perhaps in far fewer numbers, they’ll continue to find ways to achieve their vision of a family whose wife and children are blessed with a strong patriarch. After all men are natural risk takers. Even if divorce involved literal castration some would still take the plunge anyways. Consider that the mere challenge of mastering our bodies, our physical environments, and our minds is more than enough to make us men risk instant death base jumping, or surfing giant waves. There is no level of risk that will stop a few men from marrying if there’s something as important as a legacy to be gained.

With our natural propensity for risk taking, articles like Athlone’s should be an essential part of any red pill diet; as our recommended daily allowance of risk mitigation. His article sets the stage for more that’s sure to come from the Game community on reducing marriage risk through expatting. They’ll be a fitting compliment to the in-depth mitigation strategies we’ve come to expect from Dalrock, like recognizing how divorce risk differs dramatically between demographics.

Of course marriage risk mitigation goes much further than relocating to the third world, or even choosing wisely as Dalrock seems to suggest. There’s much talk of Game itself as a marriage risk mitigation strategy which raises a much deeper question about the merits of mitigating marriage risk by adopting “alpha” behaviors vs. adopting “beta” behaviors.

In moments when my mind wanders WAY off the manosphere reservation, I’ve felt this nagging question growing at the back of my mind. I look around at the young men who’ve successfully come through the politically correct indoctrination of today’s universities, I look at the men who’ve successfully escaped divorce rape by submitting wholly and completely to their wives, and it seems clear that the whole of western society all the way from early education, through academia, the workplace, and marriage, is becoming more feminized. I’m compelled to wonder: if the environment is highly feminized doesn’t that mean that feminized men are more likely to thrive in it? Could it be that marriages involving manly alpha master of the universe types are actually more likely to fail in divorce? Could it be these types get divorce raped even harder? Then afterwards, if these men are more disposed towards demanding what they’re legally entitled to in divorce rather than prostrating themselves before their wives and begging for what she deigns to give them, are they in the end only forced by the full might of the state into a more costly submission? I can’t imagine for example that Kobe, or Berlusconi aren’t alpha in the eyes of most. And both are rich enough to hire the best legal representation. Yet when it came to a cage match with feminism each was quite decisively choked out.

Few other men have the resources to even try such a direct confrontation. So playing the devil’s advocate, if a man is able to live his entire life and die in bliss because he doesn’t notice the bars all around his masculinity, might he not be better off? And if that same man’s lack of desire to walk too far in any one direction prevents him from being yanked back by his choke collar, doesn’t his self-restriction enable him to live quite freely?

Increasingly the entire educational system that is a gateway to the upper middle class is already a kind of feminization filter. Feminism might not only be less of a hindrance for men who’ve assimilated enough to pass through it, but in addition, despite the negative long-term impacts on both women and men in society as a whole, feminism might actually also benefit the specific demographics of women these men tend to partner with. In particular feminism appears to be a net positive for upper middle class white women. After all under feminism these sexually liberated women are able to better leverage their sexuality by hypergamously riding the cock carousel before they marriage until they trade up as high as they can, though some ride so long they misplay their hand. Then after marriage they’re largely protected from divorce or separation unless THEY want it.

Feminism benefits them because the savagely anti-male laws don’t prevent these upper middle class women from finding a husband as much the laws do for the lower classes. The upper middle class men they tend to marry have less to fear from divorce. Firstly upper middle class men face divorce less often. For an upper middle class man there are fewer men above him in status for his wife to hypergamously trade up to. Even if they do divorce, upper middle class men can more often pay the support levied against them and still have enough to live on. They aren’t as likely to be completely ruined. They’re probably also far less vulnerable to being imprisoned as a result of messy divorces when compared to working class men. After the dust clears upper middle class men might even have enough assets left over to be attractive to other women so they can find a new partner and start a new life if they so desire.

By contrast feminism so effectively discourages working class marriage it likely harms working class women more than it helps. Without two parents in the home the children will statistically fare far worse than would be the case with intact families. Recognition that single parenthood is difficult and is far less effective at raising strong children isn’t helped by feminism’s promotion of single parenthood as a lifestyle choice without consequences. Only irresponsible people don’t know better. In this sense feminism might even be having the socially disruptive and dysgenic effect of creating an environment in which men and women who are the most reckless and least productive in society are the ones having children.

But at the upper end of the economic divide feminism is undoubtedly one of the factors creating an environment in which the upper middle class self selects for positive traits such as increasing IQ. This is ostensibly a benefit for the upper middle class, though in the sense that it’s increasing the class divide, it still might be far more harmful to society as a whole.

However regardless of the long term social devastation feminism will continue to inflict overall, it may have been inevitable that we are now ruled by women and the white knight male leaders who in reality serve them. Teamism (in group bias) is a group having a high likelihood of expressing strong support for its members regardless of the rightness or wrongness of their position as opposed to a non-teamist group only supporting their members if they specifically agree with them. Psychological studies have repeatedly uncovered women’s particularly strong case of this likely untreatable disease. When interest groups become involved teamism is revealed as a weakness of current representative democracies. Because any time there’s a high differential in the amount of “teamism” displayed by one group (e.g. women) and other groups (e.g. men), the non-teamist groups will eventually be ruled by the teamist one. Until democracy 2.0 brings direct citizen involvement in government, eventually the law that governs western democracies will always naturally come to reflect the values of the teamist matriarchal ruling class which controls our media as well as our legal and financial institutions.

Given the importance of marriage as an institution to growth the economic implications are grim. Even in the upper middle class where marriage is less at risk, the power imbalance of matriarchal marriage and a man’s decreasing ability to pass on property to his son’s in this matriarchal society are among only a few of the factors disincentivizing would-be patriarchs from matrimony. The feminist infestation is growing without impediment and creating a matriarchical upper class that may shrink in numbers, but is ruling an increasingly disproportionate share of wealth and power in a west with ballooning debt. Yet still they dig in deeper. More and more feminist women are finding their way into the judiciary, the legal profession and even the police where they are cleverly inserting themselves into positions of absolute control over all disputes between men and women. In many cases these women reign completely unchecked. Worse still the fact that quite a number of these women are lesbians means any balanced perspective of heterosexual gender relations in families, not to mention the interests of heterosexual men, are almost wholly unrepresented. Seeing men as “feminist appliances” there is no level of hateful injustice these women won’t take every opportunity to inflict on men. Expecting justice from them is a recipe for devastation. Imagine instead a klansman in charge of taking complaints from civil rights activists deep in the Jim Crow south and you’ve calibrated your expectations more appropriately.

All this begs the question:“if feminism is the natural working state of the west wouldn’t it be better to accept it?” Well these feminist values are endemic to and appear to benefit only the upper middle class and above who rule over society. Being ruled by a distinctly different class of people with values and goals that don’t benefit the masses has always had the potential to eventually produce an extreme backlash. It’s a pattern repeated for thousands of years now, and the fuse might already be lit. Of course if this feminist upper class is only identifiable or distinguishable by its behaviors … if the overlords look like the people they rule, and if the system of control is invisible and powerful enough, then it’s conceivable that one day the cycle of violent overthrow of tyranny will be avoided and permanent peaceful rule over us will continue indefinitely. Like Cypher, we’ll be contentedly enjoying our juicy steaks in the matrix, neither knowing nor caring that in some unhappy extremist’s views we are merely farmed humans.

But besides submitting completely to a feminist marriage on the one hand, and the strategies mentioned by manospherists like Athlone or Dalrock on the other, there are additional risk mitigation strategies such as going into marriage extremely defensively: trusts, renting and never buying property, accumulating multiple passports, keeping foreign accounts, hiding the details of those assets from one’s spouse (not the same as hiding them from the court), and being ready to expat at the first sight of a family court jackboot. I don’t have enough information to confirm I’d use any of these, but I do know that regardless of whether adopting feminism and submitting completely to a wife might provide more effective risk mitigation for today’s men than any masculinist strategy, I reject supplicating to feminism simply because a life of emasculation is too distasteful to justify the rewards. And I add that although I appreciate the wisdom of expatting and might one day do so myself, even those benefits can only go so far. I have to ask whether given the effort of running from feminism, whether it’s abandoning one’s country, abandoning one’s parents or bringing them to an unfamiliar environment where they’ll live out the rest of their days disconnected, is taking up some small position in the political fight against feminism really such a burden in comparison?

I occasionally hear opinions echoing this sentiment that wasting any time on men’s rights activism is an evil trap for men, such as in this glowing review of the book “How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World” that Roosh wrote awhile back. Now I’ll probably still read the book because I never cast aside any potential knowledge. But frankly Roosh’s review condemns the book as one more piece of writing telling us older “red pill” men, that we risk whatever happiness we can achieve on this earth by pursuing what may prove to be a futile attempt to change the world. That in trying to change misandric laws in a hopelessly feminist system we are quixotically tilting at windmills. We already know that in not accepting that our sons will be held in bondage by women who care nothing for them or their children, that we’ve willingly given up our freedom to disengage from a system that relishes in a man’s destruction. But we also know that by managing our expectations the effort can be liberating rather than making us miserable. Furthermore some of us reflect on what the world would be like if everyone before us also believed that the impossible wasn’t worth sacrifice, sometimes even dying for. And we wonder?

  • if Rosa Parks had just gotten off the bus
  • if John F. Kennedy Jr. hadn’t braved entrenched power and inspired an entire nation towards change?
  • if Galileo hadn’t fought the religious establishment with his heretical beliefs
  • if a man named Jesus hadn’t given his life that every man and woman might accept the redeeming and healing power of his message, and in that acceptance become free from fear

All of these individuals changed beliefs that were entrenched for not only generations, but for the entire history of human kind before them. I understand the prudence in restricting our efforts to where they’re immediately effective. But that limitation leaves no room to allow us to be moved by forces far larger than ourselves. I respectfully refuse to renounce my God given right as a man to fight for what I believe to be right and just. I expect there’ll be consequences for refusing to bow. As a man I accept paying that price.

And I submit that rather than giving up his masculine power by trying to change the mindset of unwilling millions, someone like Martin Luther King Jr. was more of a man than all but a few of us could ever hope to be when he accepted his inevitable martyrdom and still hollered out from the mountain top of his precariously prominent and dangerously exposed social position: “I am not fearing any man”.

Nevertheless a defense of man’s power to achieve the seemingly impossible isn’t denying the wisdom in gauging the potential effectiveness of an offensive.

“If it becomes obvious that your current course of action will lead to defeat then retreat and regroup.”


Just as defending man’s power to achieve the impossible doesn’t deny the wisdom of retreating from a direct assault against overwhelming forces.

“When the enemy is too strong to attack directly, then attack something he holds dear. Know that in all things he cannot be superior. Somewhere there is a gap in the armor, a weakness that can be attacked instead”


Here the author cited in Roosh’s review may have much to teach about survival given the war that gender relations in the west have increasingly become. The author is a clever rodent. Rodents are successful in adapting to whatever indignities thrown before them, and no doubt this rodent author has useful advice for all of us about the power we can achieve by disengaging in the same way he’s used to effect his own escape.

But I suspect the words of a rodent hiding from his responsibility as a male, and his responsibility to leave a better society for his children, are words that won’t move many to the very core of their soul or inspire many to greatness in the same way Dr. King’s message did. While I remain grateful for whatever blessings I have in this world, and hope for the strength to crawl as a rodent where that is the only means of survival made available to me, I for one won’t seek out this freedom of those who give up all they hold dear so that nothing can be taken from them. I’ll take my freedom from my belief in the power of free will and a world of limitless possibilities, from the value of fathering children and giving them the benefit of a strong father, from the strength to accomplish what I set out to do, and from the conviction that right thinking men and women will one day receive the red-pill and other truths that we as honorable men bring in good faith. And even if they ignore it … we will feel secure in the comfort that we have discharged our duty. We will die as we have lived, as MEN.

Of course having respectfully disagreed with Roosh’s review as men will do, and despite me coming from the position of admiring the contributions of Paul Elam his one-time arch-enemy, I believe Roosh is a valuable voice for young men faced with reproductive choices such as the world has never known. He’s a lawless pirate and an irredeemable cad in the most admirable way, a trailblazer who unflinchingly speaks his own unvarnished truth about women.

But back to the focus of this conversation. Manhood is power within one’s sphere of control. Dalrock and Athlone pointed out some great opportunities to increase one’s sphere of control by mitigating marriage risk. For the blue pill men on the outside who believe the manosphere to be fearful, I say recognizing that in the west men must be vigilant for unpleasant, entitled feminists who are selfish to the point of making unworthy wives and mothers, is simply a means of maximizing one’s own relative sexual market value. And to those inside the manosphere who have sworn off western women, I say increasing one’s sphere of control is realizing that expatting has its own pitfalls such as becoming financially responsible for the entire extended family of a disadvantaged woman. Non-western women have their own dangers that come with not speaking her language or knowing her friends, family, or social environment well. She could be a loyal and hardworking gem, or she could be for all intents and purposes be an escort who despite all the time you spend turning her into a housewife will never be anything more than a heavy spending liability. On top of that men without the flexibility to spend time in a foreign land looking for a bride often rely on dating services. Whether in eastern Europe, Asia, or Central America those services are steadily gaining sophistication in fleecing men of their money and there are increasing reports of them being populated by opportunists. Recognizing that emerging economies which are less feminist are on the other hand also unfamiliar markets with serious potential pitfalls to be wary of, is not fearful but informed. The essence of becoming powerful within one’s sphere of control is focusing on using the information at hand to seize opportunities out of this chaos.

To gain such mastery a man must be knowledgeable of his power, lacking a clear understanding of which he is at a severe disadvantage. Because women are rarely confused in this regard. The shit tests that evolution has given women are very effective at probing the boundaries of a man’s domain of control. In my experience alpha behavior arises organically from a man feeling that in some sense he carries a “big stick” which establishes his domain of dominance, whether that big stick is easy access to other women, or control over other men. In marriage that big stick might be replacing her without devastating financial consequences from divorce if she fails to do her wifely duties. It might be a prenup that puts her hypergamy in check, or it might be defensively securing trusts or distributed accounts and owning no seize-able real estate or property. Whatever the case women have a natural sense that gives them “tingles” when that big stick is near. But a man often believes he carries the “big stick” in the relationship without even knowing what the real stick is. If he doesn’t, chances are he’s not holding it. And especially where very desirable women are concerned, emulating alpha behavior without toting the lumber puts a man in a position of vulnerability.

Having been found bluffing suddenly he’s a victim story waiting to happen. Even “good women” often divorce frivolously and legally sodomize their husbands as by law they have the absolute right to do. The men that get away merely physically sodomized are lucky. True mercenary women who will enter into marriage agreements they have no intention of upholding inflict another level of damage entirely. They’ll think little of robbing a man of his resources while freely using their sexuality not only to obtain more resources from other men, but seriously undermining their own husband’s security and well-being in the process. Mercenaries among the “mail-order brides” brought back to the west can be the most dangerous of all. Feminist western governments are only too willing to join in and make an example of men who are victimized by these scamming women. When these mercenary women are done, the state is right behind them to fine, jail, or even beat a man into further victimization.

Knowing there is no certain escape from western feminism, no cure all panacea, is protection from walking into any situation naively, but it’s always desire to seize opportunity not fear that must guide us if we are to claim whatever power we have to control our outcomes. And the truth of the opportunity before us is that without claiming marriage and family is for everyone, there is nowhere on earth where a gem of a wife can’t be found by someone, and nowhere where some successful patriarchal relationships don’t flourish. An understanding of key strategies for patriarchs is emerging. There is no need yet to join the blue pill men prostrating themselves in marriage before feminism as the only way to procreate. As the manosphere continues to evolve we will see more of these masculinist strategies by which a patriarch can still “secure his domain”.

{ 52 comments… read them below or add one }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: