~ archived since 2018 ~

The Great Hamster Manifesto: <i>"It's A Trap!"</i>

Ian Ironwood
April 27, 2012

I'm taking a quick break from the Masculine Powers series -- don't worry, the next installment is in the pipe. But I wanted to take an intermission.


I never tire of Jezebel’s take on dating and sex – it’s quaint and entertaining.  Today there was quite the rant from regular contributor Lindy West, presented as a “dating manifesto”. 

Allow me, on behalf of the Manosphere, to respectfully rebut.

Ms. West is saying, basically, “Girls, quit torturing yourself to make yourself pretty because all men want to do is fuck you, and if you capitulate to their stupid whims about being fuckable then you’ll miss out on the chance to find a “real” guy (as opposed to all of the manufactured copies, apparently) who likes you for you and doesn’t want to fuck you unless you want him to fuck you first.  Oh, and he’ll spend all of his money on you and let you get fat and not mind one bit.”

Anyone see the error in logic in this idea?  Let’s break it down, shall we?

First, let’s look at her basic premise, from the article:

No matter what or who we (hetero) women are, we are always too something for men. Isn't that just fucked? Because to be "too" something implies that there's a something else out there to aim for.”

Well, yeah.  When your gender is part of a polarized dyad requiring social interaction as a prelude to reproduction, then your ability to mate (“have an emotionally fulfilling long-term relationship” in feminist-speak) is by definition dependent upon the desires of the other gender, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter.  If it wasn't  then all of those overweight male Omegas in their mom’s basements would be getting laid as much as the studly Alphas, on the strength of their great personalities alone.  

But the cruel fact is that women’s desires don’t run to the miserable and unsuccessful tub of lard, sadly.  So it should be fairly obvious that yes, men have a say in just what they find attractive in (hetero) women.  And if women are frustrated with the idea that they are always “too something” for men, then let’s examine just why that might be.

When feminism stormed the barricades in the 1960s and helped push through liberalized divorce laws, it was reacting in part to the fact that since WWII women have been able to support themselves without dependence on men.  Thanks to industrialization and urbanization there was no need for the old Agricultural Age division of labor anymore.  Women could make their own money, thank you, and they didn’t need to marry to sustain themselves.  In addition, they got almost complete control over their reproductive systems, allowing them to indulge in sex without the consequence of accidental pregnancy.  Those two factors were empowering enough in the minds of feminists to re-write the traditional marriage contract – upon which dating and courtship behavior were based.


Fair enough.  You ladies can marry whom you chose, divorce them when you get tired of them, and don’t have to worry about whether or not he can support you, because you can support yourselves.  You’ve struck a blow for feminine liberty and independence, allowing you to pursue happiness and a bulging 401k just like any man.  You can push aside the cold calculations about how much a prospective mate might earn or how successful he is in favor of finding that perfect emotional connection that blossoms into pure, blissful romance, complete with True Love and Happily Ever After (neither of which, if I recall correctly, are mentioned in many feminists manifestos).  Good for you.

However, by forging ahead with this revolutionary plan feminism failed to take a few important factors into account.  Firstly, it missed the fact that men have brains and feelings and emotions and desires and drives too, and that those are FAR DIFFERENT from the drives, emotions and desires of women, at least in terms of priority and intensity.  Feminism indulged in classic psychological projection when it inferred to two generations of Americans that if women would just do what they wanted to, men would just naturally accept it, regardless of how it affected them or whether or not it was in their best interest, and then fall meekly behind women by being  supportive and loving, until it was time for their wives to divorce them and trade up.

Indeed, West even points out that

Fundamentally, men are attracted to the exact same thing in women as women are in men: Confidence. Self-assuredness. Agency. Knowing who you are.

And that’s true as far as it goes – but it doesn’t go very far.  West projects what women like in men on what men like in women, and she gets it maybe 30% correct.  Because men do like confidence and self-assuredness . . . but they like femininity more.  Sexualized femininity.  We always have, and we always will.  

Further, as so many 30-something spinsters are starting to discover, much to their terror, men are not turned on or attracted to your resume, your earning potential, your romance novel addiction, your devotion to Glee, or the cute names you gave your cats.  All of those things that West says a woman should cultivate instead of beauty and attractiveness, those things that make her a “real” woman?  Here’s a newsflash: they aren’t inherently attractive.


Now for some women who really could care less if they ever have a boyfriend for longer than two months, that’s no big deal.  They have developed themselves into fully realized people, with no more need for a man than a fish for a bicycle.  They have self-selected out of the mating pool, the dating pool, and the gene pool, and for all practical social considerations they are no more or less the equivalent of gender-light drones with a predilection for non-fat yogurt (because they like the taste).  

These lucky women have eschewed the evil patriarchy’s plans to sexually subvert feminism by wisely keeping their legs closed, their cats well-fed, and their dreams of love safely buried.  I have the utmost respect for these women – they are taking West’s advice and are bagging True Love and Happily Ever After for a slow, secure, lonely decline into dotage.  These are the women who have truly arrived in the Feminist Utopia, the women who, as West advises, “have to quit defining ourselves solely in relation to dudes.”  Congrats, ladies: you’ve arrived!

But for a few other women, who can’t quite seem to get rid of the idea that an intimate relationship with a man might be a good thing, y’all are screwed.  Because if you keep following advice like West’s, then you’ll become the lady described above by default.

Let’s keep reviewing where she’s going with this:

“Any man who is a person wants to be with a woman who is a person.”

While I can’t help but feel a little thrill that West is willing to concede that men can actually be persons, as opposed to, y’know, just MEN, this is an utterly simplistic and singularly unhelpful piece of advice.  Yes, men do want to connect with women on an intimate, emotional level (which we also understand is a Big Deal to women, in aggregate).  But before we feel comfortable doing that, we want to know if they’re going to be able to fulfill our sexual desires, because just as a deep emotional connection is a primary Big Deal to women, an entertaining sexual connection is a Big Deal to men.

What?  You didn’t realize that?

Really, ladies, sex is a major priority for a dude, and if there’s no chance of sex or sexual attraction, it doesn’t matter what you name your cats or who you think is going to get knocked out of Dancing With The Stars next week, you've already missed the cut.  Does that sound harsh?  Oppressive?  Sexist?  Chauvinistic?  So sorry.  Now you know what if feels like when a dude hears “so what do you do for a living?” knowing that if he doesn’t wave his metaphorical tits around and they aren’t big enough, he’s missed the cut.  Women, as feminists who look at romance, sex and love often tell us, have standards.  Standards that shouldn’t be lowered, out of respect for themselves and their self-esteem.

But y’all really don’t like it when you find out that Men have standards, too, and that some of y’all really just don’t measure up to them.  Oh, some of you do – at first – and a very few of you are doing outstandingly, but the rank-and-file office drones who felt a career was more important than babies, y’all are working at a severe handicap to begin with.  You have placed yourselves in the “strong, independent woman” category and then wonder why no one emails you back on Match.com.  Because feminism told you that men liked strong, independent women, and if a man didn’t, then he wasn’t worth loving.

Only it didn’t work out like that, did it?

This is the brutal fact of feminism, ladies: it lied to you.  It has become the Great Rationalization Hamster, handing you darn good reasons for why you are so miserable, and guess what?  Feminism says it isn’t your fault!  That's what West's piece says.  It's not your fault.  It's teh Mens.

Sure, men will lie to you about how hot we think you are, how interested we are in what goes on at work, and whether or not we’d ever leave you if you got fat and bitchy, but we rarely lie to you about anything important.  We’re quite clear about what we like – it’s no mystery.  But feminism lied to you about what we would do when you went and altered the balance of power in the dating realm.  Feminism thought it had a lock on what men really wanted without, apparently, consulting any actual Men about the issue.

Look at what kind of man West says is going to find you:

“Attraction isn't intellectual, it's involuntary—and if men really only wanted to squirt their penises inside of silent supermodels, then regular people would be extinct. But look to your left. Look to your right. Regular people in the house!”

That is, “there are gullible Beta dudes all over the place willing to lower their standards for a chance to sleep with you and fake the Happily Ever After thing!”  Only West can’t quite bring herself to say that, because then she would have to acknowledge the reality of the situation, that the “regular people” who just happened to be male who these “regular people” who just happened to be female want to mate with are fed the fuck up with what the regular female people have put them through for the last few decades.  I mean, if men were happy with the way the feminist male-female paradigm was working, then there wouldn't be a need for the Manosphere.  

Yet here we are.

And West can’t resist taking yet more misguided potshots at teh Mens – after calling us liars, she decides to soothe our hurt feelings by emasculating us if we don’t capitulate to feminist whims about who we should want to fuck.

“…because confidence is also the opposite of helplessness, and a lot of men (insecure men) need women to be helpless, because helpless people aren't in charge. And people in charge want to stay in charge. And the people in charge are men. (To be clear, I'm talking in broad, sloppy, systemic generalities here—not saying your dad is secretly trafficking lady-slaves from Belarus or something. You know what I mean.)”

Gosh, that’s noble of you, Ms. West.  So teh Mens are insecure and need women to be helpless, right?  Because we want to re-establish the patriarchy and get y’all barefoot and pregnant again?  Because we can’t handle strong, independent women and we’re afraid of them?

In reality . . . not so much.  

The real fact is, Ladies, that women’s sexuality in aggregate (and I hate to use broad, sloppy, systemic generalities here, but…) is designed by Nature or evolution or God or whatever to be reactive or responsive in nature.  Women tend to have responsive desire, most of the time.  Men have spontaneous desire most of the time.  No, really.  This feminist sexologist says so.  And while she qualifies her theories by making all of her statements gender-neutral (“some people have responsive desire, some people have spontaneous desire”) the plain fact of the matter is that most women have a responsive desire as the basis of their sexuality, while men have spontaneous desire.

And the problem with that is that it challenges the whole ideological basis of feminist theory when it comes to sex and gender relations.  Women, feminism says, are naturally sexual creatures who have every right to enjoy their sexuality to the fullest extant possible, and rightly so.  But it also assumes that male and female sexual desires are (pardon the expression) equal in composition and expression, and that’s very much pre-WWII scientific thinking.  Feminism has assumed that men want the same things out of our sexual and romantic lives as women, and anything beyond that is blatant, oppressive Patriarchy, not the healthy exercise of (whisper it)  masculine sexuality.  Feminism says that men and women should approach each other sexually on a level, equal playing ground.  The problem is, that equal playing ground is a myth, it doesn’t exist, and it can never exist while we remain slaves to our own biology.

It wouldn’t be the first time a powerful 20th century ideology fell when its fundamentals were challenged by the reality of the world, or else we’d be living in a Marxist Worker’s Paradise by now, Comrade.  Feminism wants to cling to the beautiful humanistic ideal of all people being equal, which is great when it comes to the law and civic responsibility and such, but when feminism further says that women’s issues are more important and of greater weight than men’s (and there is no place where this is more pronounced than on the subject of dating, sex and romance) then it has lost any intellectual credibility it may have had.  When feminism uses its ideology to validate the idea of the eternal feminine victim and the eternal masculine oppressor without acknowledging the underlying differences in male and female sexuality which may underpin these memes, then feminism goes from being a noble attempt at humanistic equality to a gynocentric ideology dedicated to promoting the exclusive interests of women, regardless of the consequences.

If West’s bitter cry against teh Mens and their nasty penises seems filled with irony, that’s because it is.  The current perspectives of men in the dating world were informed first and foremost by feminism.  It’s the environment in which we grew up, the standard by which our entire lives were judged.  If it’s painful that men in aggregate are now recoiling in horror from everything associated with feminism, then you can assume it’s because we feel deeply wounded by it.  After all, feminism has done very, very little for the lives of men (outside of hypergamous divorce and bitter custody battles, the systematic denigration of masculinity and fatherhood, and the overt war on men and male sexuality...but the easy pussy is nice).  But it has affected us, in a very negative way, and y’all are just going to have to take that into account in your Happily Ever After calculations.

West continues,

because attraction is involuntary, admitting genuine attraction to the people we're really attracted to relinquishes a huge amount of power. It's terrifying. And when the people you're so terrifyingly attracted to don't even give a shit about you? QUICK, TELL THEM THEIR CALVES ARE TOO HEAVY.”


Of course that goes for dudes, too – if an Omega or a brave Beta screws up the courage to ask an attractive woman out and gets scorned, it really is terrifying.  Soul-crushing, even.   Suicides and lone-gunman tragedies have sprung from the font of such rejection.  So the perfectly normal, natural, and appropriate response for men in that situation is to distance themselves from the source of the wound and objectify the person who wounded them so badly.  

Sorry if that makes us seem “insecure” in your eyes, but as West pointed out attraction is involuntary.   We dudes like hot women, pretty much universally.  When we get rejected by them, then pointing out their physical flaws is the moral equivalent of a woman telling a girlfriend “he looks like an axe murderer, anyway” after being snubbed by a dude.  

And which would you prefer to be referred to as, “thick calves” or “axe murderer”?

Since West can’t realistically argue in favor of women lowering their personal standards, she goes the other direction and discredits the idea that physical attraction really matters to dudes:

All the faux-evolutionary excuses people give for modern beauty ideals (gigantic boobs means more milk for cave-babies! A tiny waist means a bigger uterus!) are garbage.


That’s it.  Garbage.  Evolutionary biology, the incredible amount of work that has been done by biological anthropologists and sociologists, anatomists and sexual psychologists, all that grant money and books and  brilliant ideas about how men and women got to be men and women . . . garbage.  The evidence she cites?

Third-wave feminist Naomi Wolf’s book The Beauty Myth, the premise of which is that "beauty" as a normative value is entirely socially constructed, and that the patriarchy determines the content of that construction with the goal of reproducing its own hegemony.”

See?  That evil ol’ patriarchy, at it again.  Teh Mens. 

The problem with this theory is that ignores something fundamental to the “beauty myth”: the role of the Female Social Matrix in the construction of this “myth” that dudes are attracted to attractive women.  Even those lucky ladies who have checked out of the dating game still dress up and wear make-up and do all of those other things that they complain are supposed to attract men even though they aren’t trying to attract men.  They do it out of a sense of social pressure, not from their male colleagues but from the intense pressure of the Female Social Matrix. 


The Third Wave feminist argument is that the only reason women have to do that is because they are, indeed, still fighting the patriarchy’s powerful hegemony.  But the cold, obvious, and plainly observable fact is that after forty years of heavy female involvement in the workforce, including their ascension into management roles in business and power politics, if women wanted to change the dominant female culture away from catering to the Female Social Matrix, they would have already.  Just like if trickle-down, supply-side, low-government involvement policies made everyone rich and prosperous, then the Bush II years should have been the greatest economic expansion in American history.  

Only . . . not so much.

Feminism doesn’t want to acknowledge the power of the Female Social Matrix because then they would have to take responsibility for it, and that betrays the essential foundation of feminism: “It’s not our fault!” and they can’t have that.  Instead they rationalize the powerful pressure that women put on each other as a result of the evil patriarchy, and that excuses pretty much anything without all of that pesky accountability. Go Great Hamster, Go!

This is where Game comes in.  Those who have taken the Red Pill recognize immediately Ms. Wolf’s hamhanded attempt to summarize natural female attraction to men:

“Here is what I will cop to in terms of our primordial human standards of beauty. To bag an early-man, you probably needed:
1.       Most of your limbs.

2.      Minimal open sores.

3.      A baseline level of health and robustness to be able to care for a child and/or defend it from lions.”

Talk about high standards . . . basically she’s saying “if you’re alive and have a functional vagina, you’re gonna be a catch to the primitive mens!”  All ideas of beauty and attractiveness follow from that basic premise, apparently. And if that’s the basic assumption that feminists are using in trying to date, I suppose that it’s no wonder that they’re railing against the unfairness of it all.  Aren’t dudes supposed to think you’re hawt just because you got ladyparts?  Regardless of whatever else they're attached to?  What the fuck is THEIR problem? 

And then West goes here:

We, as women, go our whole lives believing this lie that all we have to do is to stop being too fat and too flat-chested and too bitchy and too uptight, and then the perfect dude will finally love us forever.”


Well, at least she gets that part right.  That IS the lie.  Because the Perfect Dude’s standards are going to be much higher than “skinny, boobs, laid-back and polite” (although that isn’t a bad place to start).  As any serious student of Game will tell you, the actual standards the Perfect Dude uses to decide if you made the cut for the “love me forever (until I get bored and divorce his ass)" category are far, far higher than women, particularly feminist women with delusions of allure, ever want to admit.   (Hint: they rarely include "feminist activist" in the criteria--ever known a feminist to celebrate twenty-five happy years of marriage?)  And this is where West finally decides to at least mention the Female Social Matrix that is the real evil she’s railing against:
But chasing that stupid phantom doesn't make us necessary—it makes us disposable. It makes us powerless. Because we're not people anymore, we're holes. Miserable, back-stabbing holes.”

That’s right, ladies.  That’s the Ugly Secret.  That's the gift of the feminist utopia: once feminism and industrialization gave you a means to support yourself independently - thus removing the requirement of a husband for procreation and support while simultaneously turning potential suitors into mere professional business competitors - once your willingness to make “a permanent commitment” turned into serial monogamy fueled by hypergamous divorce, once you had total control over your reproductive freedom, while empowering you to become centers of power and influence in society in general, feminism placed you in a position where your only real value to men anymore as a woman was your sexuality.   
You want the Happily Ever After and the True Love, and boo-hoo when you can't find it on your doorstep, but the sad fact of the matter is y’all killed that, not us.  When you made yourselves independent worker drones competing for the same income as we, with no desire to form a lasting, working interpersonal partnership, you pretty much made your vaginas the only reason to engage you in any conversation beyond office gossip. 


West’s suggestion – that you give up on the idea of love and a commitment with a quality man in favor of self-indulgence and a fear of “settling” – is a noble one.  Of course your feminist sisters want you to do that, because within the frame (and according to the rules) of the Female Social Matrix, if they can convince you to do that, they have therefore decreased competition for the few decent males out there... and all in the name of Sisterhood.
Red Pill folks know exactly what’s going on here, of course: it’s the same female-sabotage used so often within the Female Social Matrix, like when a girlfriend helpfully suggests that cutting all of your hair off will make you “cute”, or that you should dump your boyfriend because he isn’t good enough for you (but two months later he’s suddenly good enough for her).  It is the Female Social Matrix, not the evil patriarchy, that makes them “disposable”, “powerless”, “miserable, back-stabbing holes.” 

West quickly compounds her misdirection with this:
“There's this dumb, deathless stereotype that women only chase men who don't need them—but, um, that's because everyone wants someone who doesn't need them.

Again, Ladies, recognize the Great Rationalization Hamster in your feminist sisters.  She’s trying to get you to rationalize away your desire for the Perfect Dude by telling you that if you pursue the Perfect Dude, you’re just hurting yourself and all womankind.  She’s trying to tell you that you and your peers aren’t really trying to get the hunky billionaire with the kinky BDSM silver tie fetish, you just want a nice Beta dude who will dote on you and not mind how fat you get. 
Only it’s not a “dumb, deathless stereotype”, it’s an easily observable fact that we’ve all seen over and over again.  It's been a staple of the human condition going back into prehistory, from what our myths indicate.  But she's not quite right: it's mostly women who want someone who doesn't need them.  Men need to be needed.  It enhances their masculinity.  If you don't need a man . . . you probably won't get one.

THAT'S what West is not telling you (because she either doesn’t know, doesn’t want to believe it, or doesn’t want her readers to know): most men really do want a woman who needs them, without being needy.  

Important distinction.

Men don’t want “helpless”, despite West’s hyperbole.  Helpless sucks.  Helpless equals "high maintenance".  Helpless might be attractive for its vulnerability (to which we are, indeed, attracted) but if that "helplessness" is sustained over time then we know we're going to spend our relationship wiping your ass for you, and we certainly don't want that.  "Helpless" means "flaky", and to the 21st Century man, Ladies, "flaky" is the new "fat".

There is a whole continuum between helpless and hyper-competent, and as men we both expect and understand that you probably fall somewhere between those two extremes.  We don't want you "helpless" so that we can rule your every thought and action -- and West does a disservice to you by putting it in those terms.  We want you to need us, or we don't see much point in a relationship.  That's different from wanting you helpless.  Feminism has always done that, encouraging you to develop the skills

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the blog The Red Pill Room.

The Red Pill Room archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title The Great Hamster Manifesto: <i>"It's A Trap!"</i>
Author Ian Ironwood
Date April 27, 2012 12:09 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Blog The Red Pill Room
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/blog/The-Red-Pill-Room/the-great-hamster-manifesto-its-a-trap.7784
Original Link http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/04/great-hamster-manifesto-its-trap.html
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter