Yesterday, I had an interesting conversation on my Facebook wall about guys that do not commit. The discussion was based around this article where one friend is chastising another for hooking up with a dude that's not interested in commitment. She then claimed to not criticize hookup culture, then went on a long diatribe about hookup culture and how it has replaced "dating."
Here's the deal, ladies. As I explained in the Ladder Theory post, dudes have two ladders they place women on - the "Marriage Material" ladder and the "Fuckable" ladder. Generally speaking, almost all women land on the "Fuckable" ladder by default. Give a dude some alcohol and privacy (nobody finds out) and our "fuckable" standards typically drop pretty low, especially for a one-night stand. Slightly higher value females may become fuck-buddies (meet up for sex on an ongoing basis) If the woman is somewhat higher value (fun and/or decently hot), he may desire a friends with benefits arrangement (meet up for sex and nonsexual things, but avoid exclusivity and a deep emotional connection.)
Generally speaking, most higher value dudes (alphas) are going to resist committing to women because they have options. Their abundance mentality gives them the freedom of being able to wait to commit until a very high value woman comes along. This is why they resist committing to one-night stands, fuckbuddies, or friends with benefits... they're just not good enough relative to the caliber of women that one particular dude can attract.
The problem the author of the Elite Daily article seemed to ignore is the fact that women aren't simply entitled to have access to exclusive relationships with high value men. The comments from my Facebook discussion echoed this "entitlement" sentiment. Some women seemed to be genuinely offended (with one even tossing out a "misogyny" claim) at the idea that men can and do reject women because they're not good enough. Believe it or not, guys have standards. The standards for "willing to have sex with this woman" are significantly lower than "willing to commit to this woman", and that entry into relationships is controlled by men.
The rule: Women control access to sex; men control access to relationships.
Saying women are entitled to relationships with any men they want is essentially the same as saying men are entitled to sex with any woman they want. Creepy, right? It's just as creepy when you ladies do it.
Options
So what is a girl to do? Here are some options:
Stay the same and lower your expectations. This is the strategy this lady is using (thanks Onion!) This is the easiest "lazy" solution as it doesn't require any actual self-improvement. Simply stop chasing high value guys. Given the nature of the sexual market, any woman will be able to find a man willing to commit as long as she has low enough standards. If that's not acceptable, the other option is to...
Improve yourself. If you're not happy with the quality of men you can attract, the only solution is to make yourself better. The general rule - the lower the commitment, the higher value guy you can attract. It looks like this:
In other words, the lower the commitment, the higher the value of the male a woman can attract. When a woman improves herself, she improves her ability to attract higher value males at all points on the graph above. What exactly do women need to "improve" to attract a higher value mate? If you're interested in a low or no-commitment relationship (just sex), improvement should focus on becoming more physically attractive and be more overtly sexual. If you're interested in securing a higher value male for a long-term relationship, improve physical attractiveness and be more overtly sexual, but also work on the personality traits of exuding trust, loyalty, admiration, and respect. Basically work on the things men want in a high value woman. Specific dudes may have other qualities they're searching for, but these are the universals that'll work for all men.
Female Objection
These discussions get a little weird because a lot of women really oppose the idea that a woman should have to improve to "land a man." That's the reason I mentioned option #1. Women shouldn't have to improve to land a man. However, if you're unhappy with your prospects OR are hooking up with a dude that is resisting commitment, improving yourself is the only solution.
As an example, the woman pictured on the left would have a lot more options after she became more fit in the picture on the right.
The woman on the left is attractive enough to get a lot of guys that would be interested in sex, but the higher value dudes would pass on any sort of commitment. After improving fitness, she would be able to attract higher value dudes willing to have sex, but more importantly, she would be able to get MUCH higher dudes that would be willing to commit to her. Hard work pays off.
I don't think this trend is a good thing. From a logical standpoint, it doesn't feel "right" that a woman hurts her opportunities in relationships by improving her socioeconomic status, but it is what it is. My hope - once we drop the silly idea that gender roles are social constructs and not biologically-mandated, we can start exploring the real dynamics behind this phenomenon.
Anyway, if you want to improve the caliber of men you can attract and get to commit, it requires improving yourself. If you're overweight, lose weight by eating less and moving more. Dress in more flattering, stylish clothes. Hone your cosmetics application skills. Study seductive feminine posture, body language, and communication patterns. Hone your flirting skills. If you're interested in a relationship, get better at the things men are looking for in a high value mate. None of this is easy, which is the reason so few women ever try. But hard work pays off.
Have a question or comment? Leave it in the comments section!
In the first post of the series, I introduced the four types of beta relationships. In the second post, I talked about how to spice up boring but otherwise healthy marriages. In the third post, I discussed fixing relationships where the dude was once an alpha, but she tamed him into a passive beta. Both of those scenarios aren't all that serious and the fix is fairly easy.
Today's relationship pattern is a little more complex. And a lot harder to "fix." What happens when a dude has been a beta his entire life, entered into a relationship as a beta, and has continued that beta trend? Before we get to the discussion on relationships, let's explore exactly what we mean by a "beta."
In the San Diego Man Camp, we've started using the following operational definitions for the terminology we use:
"Bad Boy" = male that causes women to release dopamine (and norepinepherine and endorphines... makes women excited and euphoric) in their presence, thus is exciting and sexually arousing. The problem with bad boys is they have little or no desire to commit to a long-term monogamous relationship. Bad Boys tend to be male sluts.
"Alpha Male" = male that causes a woman to release dopamine (and the other neurotransmitters) AND oxytocin AND release enough vasopressin in their own brains to remain monogamous. These are men that have the opportunity to cheat because they're desirable, have the desire to cheat because they embrace their sexuality, but choose not to out of a sense of loyalty.
"Gamers" = males that do not produce dopamine OR oxytocin in women. In other words, they tend to repulse women. These are the males that never score with women. Ever. They're usually low value AND lack the social skills or socioeconomic status to attract even very low value women. Most people call these men "Omega Males", but I chose gamers because it seemed to hit an amusing nerve among some people that play video games. As a general rule, if I find out I exposed an irrational nerve that causes people to get overly defensive, I like to poke at that nerve. Repeatedly. :-)
Global Betas versus Situational Betas
Sometimes men are "betas" in every art of their lives; sometimes they're "betas" only around women. In the case of the former, fixing the problem is a little more time-consuming because there's no frame of reference. These men are always searching for affirmations from others, avoid risks, cannot take criticism, tends to be needy and overly emotional, and has a tendency to use guilt and shame to manipulate others.
In the case of the latter, learning to be "alpha" is usually simply a matter of doing what you do outside relationships inside relationships. When they're not dealing with women, these men are confident, assertive, and decisive. With women, they exhibit all the beta traits listed above and in the linked posts.
Most of the guys that fit this scenario fall into a predictable pattern. Most did not have a strong male role model to display masculine traits. They were raised by single moms or by fathers that had strong beta tendencies. At some point on their youth, they failed to learn about the nature of women. In many cases, they learned about "what women want" from women themselves. As a result, they place women on a pedestal and treat them like princesses instead of, well, people. They are willing to do anything and everything for women because they believe women will then reciprocate and meet all their needs. In essence, they believe they can put "niceness" coins in and get sex and love in return.
The women that initiate relationships with betas meet pretty pretty predictable criteria. In our modern American society, the vast majority of these women have passed "the wall" (the point where they become aware that their sexual market value is decreasing) and realize they can no longer attract Alpha Males for commitment. They can still land Bad Boys, but they have no desire to commit. As such, they "grow tired of games" (which is code for "these bad boys refuse to be monogamous with me") and go through a process of "maturing."
That causes them to look for the opposite of the fun and exciting (and sexually arousing) Bad Boy - the beta male. The woman appeals to the beta because, in his mind, his "nice guy" game finally paid off. He finally beat the "alpha assholes" that have been stealing his crushes since puberty. Alas, it's just an illusion. Once the honeymoon period wears off, she will fall into the beta wife trap and their relationship will meet a predictable end.
So How is the Problem Solved?
Most of the guys in this scenario follow a very predictable "Nice Guy" pattern which is exceptionally hard to overcome, especially quickly. This is going to be a long, slow process. Also, there's less of a guarantee the beta wife will want to be with him if he makes these changes. Actually, it's more likely HE will increase his value enough to start attracting the attention of much higher value females and he'll be tempted to seek out greener pastures. This effect is slightly negated by the "passive dread game effect" where women will sense her mate's new-found popularity with the opposite sex and begin giving him advertising sex AND start increasing her own value.
Sidebar - a lot of guys ask me for ideas to convince their wives to do all kinds of things, the two most common being "lose weight and exercise" and "initiate/ be more passionate/ have fewer inhibitions when having sex." The simplest method - increase your own value.
Okay, so what's the process to make this situation better? Like the other scenarios, education is going to play a major role in the transformation. Unlike the other scenarios, this is a difficult journey if you're going solo. You'll have A LOT more success if you have a mentor or mentors that has been through the process. If you don't know any reformed betas, check out our Facebook page. Most of us have are are going through this process; it's an excellent resource for support and guidance.
These posts provide a good framework for the rest of the reading you'll be doing. Once you get through these posts, read the following books in this order. They will provide a more in-depth analysis of the things discussed in my posts above.
No More Mr. Nice Guy by Dr. Robert Glover. For the career beta, this is a requirement because it's really important to see how the "supplicating" dynamic usually works. Until you recognize how and why you do beta behaviors, you will not be able to overcome them.
The entire Women, Explained series - This will give you an understanding of female behavior, along with the conventions we use in SDMC.
Married Man Sex Life by Athol Kay - This is THE primer that provides a framework for healthy relationship.
The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi - Rollo gives a more in-depth analysis of female behaviors.
The Sex God Method by Danial Rose - An unconventional sex manual that covers the issue of dominance, which is largely ignored in other sex books.
The Way of Men by Jack Donovan - This book explores the nature of "masculinity", which is critical in helping the reforming beta act more like a man.
Rules of the Game by Neil Strauss - This is a pickup artist book, which will help the career beta learn the basics of being able to pick up women. This is critical to break the belief that women are a scare commodity, which is the reason the beta desperately clings to their wives or girlfriends. Knowing you have options is the single biggest source of natural confidence you can have.
Linchpin by Seth Godin - This book will help you understand what a "life mission" actually means.
Once you've digested all of these sources, you'll have an excellent frame of reference to a) identify your beta behaviors, b) understand why they're causing damage, and c) have effective alternatives. Odds are good your relationship is in a precariously bad spot. She does not respect you or find you attractive. One or both of you may have considered or is actively having an affair. You may either fight frequently or live in a state of perpetual apathy. You're more like roommates than lovers.
If you're reading this, I'm working off the assumption that you're interested in saving the relationship. In many cases, this happens because divorce may break up the family (if you have kids) or both of you may take a significant lifestyle hit if you lose your combined income. However, there's a chance SHE may not be interested in continuing the relationship. In the alpha-turned-beta situation I discussed in the last post, her first impression of him was that of an "alpha." When he starts improving, she's getting the man she fell for at the beginning of the relationship. When a dude starts as a beta, it's really hard to change that initial impression. He's becoming a fundamentally different man. Most women would love that change, but some are too insecure and need their men to act like whipped dogs.
Be aware that this process will make your life better, but that "better" may mean your current relationship ends. For the beta male, that's a terrifying thought. However, the new you will attract far more valuable women. If she doesn't want you, it's her loss. So... the process:
Find a mentor that has underwent a similar process.
Find a life mission to focus on that is NOT your wife or family. Mark Manson wrote an excellent article that can help with this step, as will "Linchpin." This will help make the transition from making women the focus of your life to women being a compliment to your life. This mental paradigm shift is absolutely critical for recovering betas.
Start increasing your value by self-improvement, including getting fit (lift weights, lose fat), learning better posture, eye contact, and body language, dressing better, and increasing confidence. It's important to do this in every situation, not just around your wife. Initially, this will seem really difficult and it may take a while to work up the courage to do anything. However, once you get the smallest taste of success, you'll feel empowered. You'll begin to see that your previous belief that people hate alphas was completely wrong. People love alphas, and they'll respond favorably to your alpha behaviors. Those successes create a vicious cycle of awesomeness and will fuel future progress.
Actively make decisions that will lead to greater levels of testosterone. Testosterone is masculinity. It makes us sexual, dominant, competitive, and assertive. It is what makes us attractive to women. Many beta men fear their testosterone, which leads to beta behaviors.
Start standing up for yourself and set very clear expectations for how you expect her to treat you, along with clear consequences if she crosses a boundary. This step is very clear as it will begin rebuilding respect. For the beta, this will likely be a long process with a lot of failures. That's to be expected; you're changing a lifelong pattern of behavior. Once she starts respecting you more, attraction will follow soon after.
Start making more decisions, passing all shit tests, and initiating sex. When having sex, use the lessons from The Sex God Method.
Start planning and executing fun stuff on a regular basis.
Maintain occasional beta behaviors, especially during the non-ovulatory days of her menstrual cycle. This serves two purposes - first, it decreases the frequency of her attempts to kill the "alpha" you're rebuilding. Second, it actually increases her attraction to you because alphas that know when and how to effectively use beta techniques are the highest value males.
As you can see, the process is fundamentally the same as the other situations, only the time frame changes. The first two scenarios can usually be rectified in a few months. This process? It may take anywhere from six months to several years. It took me over a decade to complete this process, but I had zero guidance, had no idea what the end goal looked like, and did everything via trial and error. If I would have had these resources at my fingertips, I could have saved years and years of struggle and have spent a lot more time actually enjoying life. Helping others save time in this process is the reason I do what I do here.
Anyway, in the next post, we'll tackle the most challenging scenario - The Graveyard Marriage. These are beta marriages that are essentially hanging by a thread and one or both people are desperate to save it but have zero answers. Hopefully the next post will give those folks a glimmer of hope.
Before we get to the solution to the problem, it's important to explain how and why this happens. In evolutionary terms, hypergamy dictates women have two sexual strategies - they search for superior genetics (alpha male) and a loyal, trusting provider (beta male.) Ideally, they would find this in one extremely high-value man (strong, dominant alpha with the relationship skills to use beta behaviors when appropriate.) Those men are rare, especially in today's society. These men do not require "taming" because they already have the requisite skills. Women will still try to extinguish their alpha skills, but these men usually have the confidence to resist said attempts. Unless a woman is very high value herself (young, hot, smart, funny, appreciative, respectful, etc.), she's going to have to settle for less.
The next most desirable tier are the "bad boy" alphas. Since they don't have the requisite "beta" skills, the woman will try extra-hard to "fix" him. This is pretty much universal, all women do it. I give a little more info on the exact reasons for this in this Sexpressionists post. These are the men that usually fall into this trap. They were dominant alphas when they met their lady, but soon went full-on beta.
This relationship suffers the decreased frequency of sex, along with a decrease in quality. Odds are good the female has also lost respect for the dude, and probably isn't especially attracted to him, either. He tries to remedy the situation by doing nice things for her, buying flowers and lingerie, or doing chores around the house, yet everything seems to make the situation worse. It never occurs to this dude that the solution is to simply return to the alpha she fell for in the beginning.
The bad news is that change isn't really an option if he wants the relationship to remain viable and mutually-fulfilling. If he maintains the status quo, his wife will suffer the fate of being married to a beta male and their relationship will fall into the incredibly common 21st century marriage pattern.
So How is the Problem Solved?
Like the "boring marriage" solution I discussed in the last post, this solution is relatively straight-forward. Since the dude was once an alpha, he has the foundation. Odds are good he allowed himself to go beta because he believed that's just the way you do long-term relationships. Most guys don't make the intuitive connection that their woman's behavior is often predicated by their behaviors. Had they maintained their alpha frame, their relationship would most likely be perfectly fine.
So... the first step is understanding women. Read the following posts:
No More Mr. Nice Guy by Dr. Robert Glover. For the alpha-turned beta, this is a requirement because it's really important to see how the "supplicating" dynamic usually works.
The actual stages of fixing this relationship is very similar to the "boring marriage", only it's going to take at least two or three times as long.
Increase your value by self-improvement, including getting fit (lift weights, lose fat), learning better posture, eye contact, and body language, and increasing confidence.
Stand up for yourself and set very clear expectations for how you expect her to treat you, along with clear consequences if she crosses a boundary. This step is very clear as it will begin rebuilding respect. Attraction will follow soon after.
Start making decisions, passing all shit tests, and initiating sex. When having sex, use the lessons from The Sex God Method.
Start planning and executing fun stuff on a regular basis.
Maintain occasional beta behaviors, especially during the non-ovulatory days of her menstrual cycle. This serves two purposes - first, it decreases the frequency of her attempts to kill the "alpha" you're rebuilding. Second, it actually increases her attraction to you because alphas that know when and how to effectively use beta techniques are the highest value males.
This scenario isn't especially "dangerous" in that the relationship is at a critical phase, nor is she likely to put up much resistance. After all, it was the alpha she fell in love with. She will be overjoyed to get that alpha back.
In the next post, we'll tackle the more serious issue of the "lifetime beta" marriage. These are the relationships where a woman with value that's trending downward finds she can no longer get the high value alphas to commit but she still needs a provider to start a family. It'll be a little more in-depth discussion because the risks are far greater. Not only does the beta have to completely reformat his entire persona, but his wife might not be all that keen on him dramatically raising his sexual market value.
In Part One of the series, I discussed the four common beta relationship patterns that occur in modern American society. In this post, I'll discuss a solution for the "boring marriage."
This pattern is exceedingly common in modern relationships to the point where it might even be considered the norm.In this scenario, the sex may not be as passionate or as frequent as it once was. The deep, fascinating conversations the couple once had may be replaced by discussions about the shopping list for the Friday evening trip to the grocery store. "Date nights" consist of the same boring "dinner and a movie" activities. There may be some bickering and nagging, but the disagreements are minor and quickly forgotten or resolved. Neither partner is looking outside the relationship for excitement (yet), but they also don't seem to have good answers to spicing things up.
Fundamentally, this relationship pattern develops because we tend not to understand the nature of female desire, the role men play in stoking that desire, or how passion and intimacy really work. Pop culture does not help as pretty much every piece of conventional "advice" tends to make the problem worse.
So How is the Problem Solved?
Luckily, relationship boredom is easy to fix once you understand a handful of concepts and follow some easy steps. Let's start with the concepts:
Once you've read through all the material, you'll have a firm grasp on all the basics needed to refresh your relationship.
Increase your value by self-improvement, including getting fit (lift weights, lose fat), learning better posture, eye contact, and body language, and increasing confidence.
Start making decisions, passing all shit tests, and initiating sex. When having sex, use the lessons from The Sex God Method.
Start planning and executing fun stuff on a regular basis.
That's it. There's not a whole lot needed for this scenario; it's just a matter of learning what really keeps the spark alive, then doing it.
In the next post, we'll discuss the slightly more serious relationship scenario where a former Alpha male has been "tamed" into being a beta by his woman.
Most modern relationships that encounter trouble can usually be defined based on the male's behavior. This isn't to say the male is to blame, per se, but the male usually has the power to lead any given relationship in a healthy direction or an unhealthy direction. In this series, I'll touch on four of the most common patterns and give suggestions on fixing the relationship.
The Way Relationships Used to Be
Prior to the sexual revolution in the 60's, marriage was pretty much a lifelong contract. It was defined by a sense of duty, obligation, and sacrifice. It was difficult to get out due to the legal landscape and social consequences of divorce stigma. This security meant both members of a couple could expend energy doing things other than continually "working on the relationship." Since premarital sex and infidelity were seriously frowned upon, partners had little choice but to make the relationship work sexually. This arrangement, while limiting in freedom, did result in stability and general relationship happiness.
The Way Relationships are Today
With the advent of loosened sexual mores and the introduction of no-fault divorce, marriage moved from an expected lifelong commitment to more of a temporary arrangement. The expectations on each partner changed as the sense of duty, obligation, and sacrifice was replaced with an entitlement of subjective "happiness." Relationships were no longer based on creating and developing a safe harbor for families to raise children. Instead, relationships are now based on emotional connections. Couples stay married as long as they're "in love." When one or both partners fall out of love, the marriage typically ends. This sets up a pattern where both partners have to continually work to keep the other fulfilled and satisfied.
Many people object to this transformation of marriages on moral grounds. Others object on practical grounds. Both of these groups usually support rolling back the clock to the days when relationships were "for life." Me? Since it's unlikely this pattern is going to change in the near (or distant) future, I prefer to embrace it.
Any time we increase our freedoms, it increases our potential to make bad decisions. Sadly, the increase in sexual freedom seems to have done just that. The most striking bad decision seems to be male behavior. Back in the day, most men acted like men. We'd call them "alphas." Most men also had enough loyalty, trust, and integrity (beta traits) to successfully lead relationships. Today, most men deny their masculine urges and act more like women. Since they seem to fear taking a leadership role in the relationship, they defer to their wives and girlfriends. They are "beta" males. Betas typically fall into one of four predictable relationship patterns.
The Four Patterns
Each of the four patterns are defined by specific characteristics. All four are fairly broad generalizations as it's hard to encapsulate the entirety of the human experience into four discrete categories. However, the patterns will provide a framework for making plans to improve the situations, which is my primary goal.
The Boring Marriage
The boring marriage is an otherwise good relationship other than it's gotten a little too routine. Both partners still love each other and are strongly committed to the relationship. In many cases, this occurs after the honeymoon period when the stress of work and family start taking their toll. In this scenario, both partners probably share the power in the relationship as opposed to the man deferring power to the woman.
Since this relationship is relatively healthy, usually all that's needed is for the man to take a more dominant role, understand the passion and intimacy paradox, understand female behavior better, and lead her to more exciting adventures. This was the premise of my last book "No Bone Zone." Women in this scenario almost always enthusiastically welcome the change and are unlikely to put up resistance.
The Tamed Alpha Marriage
The "Tamed Alpha" relationship occurs when an alpha male enters a relationship, develops ONEitits (she's a special one-of-a-kind irreplaceable unicorn!), and places her on a pedestal. In other words, he turns into a spineless, supplicating beta. This is another pretty common pattern, especially since women are naturally going to try to "tame" their men to increase their loyalty and trust. In the TV show "Sons of Anarchy", Jax and Tara would be an example of this phenomenon.
This scenario is a little more serious because she thought she was marrying a dude that sexually aroused her (and released lots of dopamine in her brain), but his inability to pass her shit tests caused his value to plummet.Women lose respect for men that can't stand up to them, and that leads to the fairly predictable "21st century marriage" phenomenon.
Since the power balance is shifted heavily in favor of the woman, she may or may not welcome the change. Odds are good she does not like wearing the pants in the relationship, but she also enjoys the perks of always getting her way. As such, the process to fix this situation requires a little more patience and tact. Since the dude had set "alpha" as the default first impression, he just has to reaffirm that role. THAT is far easier than...
The Lifetime Beta Marriage
This occurs when a man has been a lifelong beta across most situations, and his woman entered into the relationship with him framed as a beta provider (read up on hypergamy to understand the alpha fucks/ beta bucks sexual strategy women use.) The development of these relationships are incredibly predictable. The woman likely spent her early 20's partying and casually dating, reached the point where she realized her ability to attract high value males is decreasing, attempts to get an alpha male to commit, fails, then looks for the best beta male provider she can find. Hormonal birth control may contribute to this factor. All of this occurs under the rationalization of "maturing."
In this scenario, the man basically becomes the "bumbling husband" stereotype made famous by the likes of Homer Simpson, Ray Romano, and Peter Griffin. The woman typically plays the role of "Super Mom" and runs the entire household. The husband is treated like another kid. The wife is constantly nagging and belittling the husband, and he is completely unwilling to stand up to her. He usually does this out of fear of "rocking the pussy boat" (she'll cut off sex.) Never mind all the sex they have is infrequent maintenance sex. He stays in the pattern because lifelong betas are suckers for intermittent reinforcement.
Breaking out of this pattern is both difficult and somewhat dangerous. First, it requires a complete reformatting of the dude's personality, which takes effort, time, and a degree of resiliency. He REALLY has to want the change to be able to do the requisite work. Second, the dude will be turning into a FAR different person. From the woman's perspective, he'll be turning into a new but more exciting, arousing person, which is good. He will also be turning into a more desirable person. If she has insecurities, she will likely try to sabotage this effort. She understands that his improvement will draw the attention of better females than her.
The Graveyard Marriage
This is the worst-case scenario. The relationship is in tatters and one or both partners are hanging on by a thread. They probably fight all the time, feel a great deal of resentment, one or both may have or be seriously considering an extramarital affair, or there have been multiple threats of divorce. This would be a relationship on about step 9 through 14 of the 21st century marriage graphic:
This pattern is almost always the result of the dude being a long-term beta and the relationship has been in a downward spiral since the honeymoon period ended. Shit has gotten so bad, the relationship may not be salvageable even if both people genuinely want it. In all the other scenarios, the damage is minimal and the "fixing" is more like relationship rehab. In this scenario, it's like running your hand through the blade of a deli meat slicer set on "extra thick." There's a whole lotta bleeding that has to be stopped before you can begin making things better.
The key point to this scenario - both people genuinely need to be willing to stick it out. If one or both of the people have already checked out, attempts to save the relationship will be futile and simply delay the inevitable.
In the Next Post...
In the remaining posts in the series, I'll discuss each of these relationships in detail and offer a rough plan to fix the shit. No two relationships are the same, so the "plans" will be more like general guidelines that will require you to customize them to your particular situation.
I've had a few people ask to explain my take, in light of my last article on the biological basis of gender, on the nuanced gray areas of human diversity. Specifically, what's my take on gender and how it relates to biological sex (the presence of ovaries, testes, and external genitalia), genetic sex (what combination of "X" and "Y" chromosomes you have), sexual orientation (ala the Kinsey Scale), and sex drive (high libido versus low libido.)
All of this tends to get confusing because humans don't simply come in the four flavors I use for discussion purposes, which are usually manly men, effeminate men, masculine women, and girly women. The divisions I use intentionally ignore all that gray area because I'm more interested explaining the basic concepts in a concise manner. After learning the basic concepts, then people can apply them to their particular individual experience by adjusting to accommodate diversity.
Sex
In the previous post, I discussed the biological foundation of gender. Before I tackle that, let's address "sex." While we like to think of "sex" as a simple, discrete category consisting of "boy" and "girl", it's actually really complex. "Sex" refers to a person's biology, which consists of five different factors:
Number and type of sex chromosomes
Type of gonads, which are ovaries and/or testes
Sex hormones
Internal reproductive anatomy
External genitalia
All five of these variables can be combined in a variety of ways. There are actually a lot of combinations here. For brevity's sake, I'm taking the lazy route and linking to the Wikipedia article for those that are interested in the specifics. The key for our purposes - that boy/girl category has a whole lotta ambiguity.
Gender
In the post from yesterday, I discussed the fact that "gender" was biological. Like "sex", gender is usually simplified into two discrete categories - masculine and feminine. Like sex, gender isn't that simple. I like to describe it as a graph where the "X" axis is a measure of masculine and the "Y" axis represents feminine. It looks like this:
A person that exhibits both strong masculine gender characteristics AND strong feminine characteristics would be considered "androgynous." If both are very low, we'd call them "undifferentiated."
The key to this graph - gender can operate entirely independently of all the variations of sex listed in that first section.
My official stance on this issue is equally simple: People need to be allowed to express gender however they feel is most "natural", with natural being whatever feels right. The most obvious example of this would be a transgendered person. I'll use our famous example that's been in the news - Caitlyn Jenner. She was born a man and lived her entire life as a man. It wasn't until she was sixty-five that she made the decision to live as a women despite having identified as a woman her entire life. In my perfect Utopia, Caitlyn would have the freedom to have lived as a woman from the earliest age where she could have expressed female gender behaviors.
The San Diego Man Camp project is designed to help promote and educate about masculine thoughts and behavior for those that identify with the masculine gender role. I use the term "men" all the time, but as I mention in the FAQ on this site, we're welcoming of any variation of "sex" that identifies with the masculine gender role. Part of our mission is to do what we can to create a world where an individual like Caitlyn has the freedom to express her "natural" gender.
Caitlyn CAN (and did) live most of her life as Olympic hero Bruce, but she was living a lie. Like I stated in my own story of suppressing my "alpha-ness" in favor of "beta-ness" because that's what people told me I was supposed to do, we need to support and encourage everyone to be true to their real self. Living MY lie was probably a lot easier than it was for Caitlyn to live her lie, but it still sucked balls.
This is also why I get so pissy with many variations of modern feminism.
<soapbox>
First, some actively reject transsexuals (cough cough RadFems cough), which to me is akin to burning crosses and carting women and children off to take a Zykon-B "shower." That's a KKK and Nazi reference for my readers that aren't history dorks. ;-)
Second, they actively vilify the masculine gender role, which is the same idea. It's thinly-veiled hate based on denying people the right to express the gender they were born with. To me, this is simply unacceptable and I refuse to support their stance and will actively fight it. Accepting diversity means accepting diversity. Gender EQUALITY means gender EQUALITY.
</soapbox>
Sexual Orientation and Sex Drive
My official stance on sexual orientation and sex drive plays by those same rules. I try to be as consistent as possible in all my beliefs; I despise hypocrisy. As such, there's very strong evidence both sexual orientation and sex drive have a powerful genetic and/or biological component. The actual expression of this can be plotted on a graph:
In this graph, sexual orientation is plotted on the "X" axis and can be measured from "totally homosexual" to "totally heterosexual." Everything in between would be considered some degree of bisexuality. For simplicity's sake, I like to measure this by people's self-report of how they identify themselves. Sexual orientation could be measured by actual behaviors (who do you have sexual contact with?) or which gender are you sexually attracted to, but this gets tricky because of the aforementioned variability of both "sex" and "gender." For example, what if you're attracted to a transsexual male with a vagina and a very large clitoris that's almost porn-worthy? That's a behavior that would be hard to plot on a graph.
I also like to use self-report because sexual orientation, to a degree, can change (often called "erotic plasticity.") The nature of that concept is an entire discussion itself, but all we need to know right now is that it makes self-report a practical tool.
Sex drive (or libido if you prefer) is a little different. Like sexual orientation, it can fluctuate based on all sorts of variables like age, hormone levels, recency of last sexual contact, sexual stimulation, "hotness" of the potential partner, novelty, etc. Furthermore, male and female sex drive is affected by different variables. Because of this, I like to use self report, too. Some people have a very high sex drive (raises hand), while others have none (usually termed "asexuals".)
Like sex and gender, I fully support a Utopia where all the variations of sexual orientation and sex drive are fully accepted and supported so none of us have to live a lie. Here in the U.S., we've made incredible advances in gay rights, which has been awesome. However, we still stigmatize both ends of the sex drive continuum. "Sluts" and "frigid" (terms that I'm applying to all sexes) usually have a negative connotation. I want a world where that is no longer the case. I won't climb on my soapbox again; you get my point.
"Check Your Privilege, You Cisgendered Straight Slutty White Male!"
I want to take a moment to express my disdain for the pseudo-intellectual modern politically-correct butthurt movement. I'll simply say that if you're "fighting for equality" but dismissing anyone's opinion because of their demographic grouping, you are, by definition, engaging in the very behaviors you're supposedly rallying against.
There is absolutely no rationalization you can make, be it playing the victim, claiming oppression, or using any combination of "social justice buzzwords", that justifies the silencing of people trying to create a better world for all. I cannot count the times I've been called "entitled" even though the people making the claim have no fucking clue what hardships I've faced. Besides, are we really doing to only allow those that have suffered the most the right to fix shit? I'm pretty sure all the snobby "you can't have a voice because you're entitled" white class college-educated morons didn't grow up in abject poverty in post-Chavez Venezuela or war-torn Iraq.
Yes, I am white. I am a biological and genetic male. I identify with the masculine gender. I identify as straight. I like a lot of sex. None of those things invalidates the fact that I want to live in a world where all of us have equal opportunity, equal possibility, and equal responsibility.
Claiming to be "offended" or "insulted" by my thoughts on these matters will immediately earn my disdain, and likely a giant "FUCK YOU." At the ripe old age of 39, I'm too old to waste time with people that do not have enough open-mindedness to actually consider ideas without childish emotional reactions. I fully support your first amendment right to be a whiny little asshat, which means I earn the freedom to call you a hypocritical douche. And it also gives me the right to ignore you after I call you a douche.
The mentally-weak have no place in the planning and executing of a road map to a better world. If you're going to follow me, I welcome your input. Whining and bitching is not input. It's noise. Noise doesn't lead to action or change.
Conclusion
Sex, gender, sexual orientation, and sex drive are all variables that have, to some degree or another, have a biological basis. As such, we need to create a world where all of the variations of these constructs are welcomed so none of us have to live lies. We need to create a world where all of us have equal opportunity, equal possibility, and equal responsibility. Accepting these ideas is the only way that's going to happen, which is why this is the official stance of the San Diego Man Camp project. Like what we're doing? Join us here.
Since I started the San Diego Man Camp project a few months ago, we've (expectedly) encountered a lot of criticism that's based on preconceived notions of what we're trying to accomplish instead of what we're actually trying to accomplish. I generally don't care if people disagree (it amuses me because it's so predictable), but some of the men that could find our work valuable might disregard us because they think we're something we're not.
This post will clear that up by outlining exactly how we frame the issue of gender and gender equality, why we disregard many modern third and fourth wave feminists, what will happen if we do not change, and a road map to a brighter future. For those that are functionally illiterate or those that don't have 30-60 minutes to read and follow the more interesting links:
tl:dr - Many flavors of modern feminism fuck up society by castrating men and making unhappy women; gender is a biological construct, not a social construct; many of our patriarchal social institutions were set up to control men, not women; if we don't solve this problem, we're heading towards a very bleak future that places our children in the crosshairs; and Ronda Rousey is a perfect role model for a new fifth wave of feminism.
***
The Problem with Modern Feminism
Back in the day, the first and second waves of feminism fought for voting rights and equality under the law and throughout the judicial system. This was a brave, virtuous fight, and the women that fought this battle are heroes. Many of my thoughts on gender have been influenced by the early feminists.
The third wave of feminism, which began around the early 1990's, started to transition the focus of gender equality from the legal arena to the social arena. In some ways, this was important, especially because feminists fully recognized the first two waves did not account for the diversity of all women. The third wave feminists also started questioning gender roles and stereotypes and tackling issues like sexual assault, domestic violence, and access to contraception. The sex-positive feminists are part of this group and were a major influence on my No Bone Zone project, which was designed to help couples overcome the dreaded "dead bedroom" scenario.
While this should have been a good thing, far too many feminists bought into the idea that gender was a social construct that was infinitely malleable and had no basis in biology. This led some of the third wave feminists to advocate eliminating gender or suggesting there are no social or biological consequences for ignoring gender. I'll discuss that issue of gender as a social construct separately later in the post. Some of the third wave feminists also started redefining the very definition of "gender equality" from "equality under the law" to "everyone should be equal" or "everybody should have equal outcomes regardless of contribution or ability." That seismic shift led to the fourth wave of feminism where gender entitlement replaced gender equality.
Fourth wave feminism takes the idea that gender is a social construct and uses it as a justification to essentially attempt to create a weird fascist-like radical socialist dystopian social order. Sounds bat-shit crazy, right? One of the most concise, accurate essays on the matter was written by writer Zoe Zorka, and can be found here. Give it a read. She perfectly sums up the inherent logical and logistical flaws with the fourth wave feminists.
The biggest problem I have with the fourth wave feminists is their tendency to flat-out lie to women. For example:
They tell women there are no consequences to casual sex (admittedly, and not surprisingly, I'm okay with this lie... and that's all you really need to know to see how and why that's damaging.)
A specific sub-set of feminists openly despise the trans community. They call themselves RadFems. Hate is hate is hate, no matter how loudly or frequently you play the victim card. As a liberal dude that fully supports real equality, these dumbfucks and their painfully obvious hypocrisy make me sick.
Perhaps the most chilling effect: fourth wave feminism kills free speech under the guise of "political correctness." "I am a woman, hear me roar" apparently now comes with the qualification of "As long as the roar is the roar that does not offend my fragile sensitivities and is perfectly aligned with my own particular roar. Otherwise, you're a misogynist."
Later in this post, I'll suggest a plan that will correct the course of feminism that accounts for biology AND assures all of us, regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, culture, disability, age, or whatever other demographic grouping you want to consider - will live in a world where we have equal opportunity, equal possibility, and equal responsibility. First, I'll discuss the real purpose of the patriarchy that denied women rights, then I'll tackle the myth of gender being a social construct.
Gender is Biological
My academic background was in experimental social psychology with a focus on sex and gender, but I studied under a lot of evolutionary psychologists. A few were strong proponents of sociobiology. I had always assumed anyone that studied gender, including feminists, agreed that "gender" had a strong biological component because that's how all my feminist mentors operated. For close to two decades, I worked off that assumption.
When I started studying the effects of gender on male and female sexual practices in long-term relationships for the No Bone Zone project, I was a bit shocked and dismayed that many of the people that wrote about gender issues sincerely believed gender was entirely a social construct. Many took it even farther and asserted that gender was created by men to oppress women. The result of this belief is some rather comical assertions, such as:
Physical appearance doesn't matter. When I first heard this, I assumed it meant "all of us have value as humans that transcends physical appearance", which is true. Our value to humanity isn't measured by our physical traits. But that's not what these folks meant. They were literally arguing that appearance has no effect on how we treat each other (they've never heard of the halo effect) or worse, we are attracted to everyone in the exact same way. That supermodel is as attractive as the diseased, morbidly obese addict sleeping on the street corner. My challenge to that sentiment is simple - let me choose a person as the genetic donor and co-parent to your children. If appearance doesn't matter, that shouldn't be an issue, right? To date, nobody has taken me up on the challenge.
Gender is malleable. Gender, since it's biologically-determined, is a lot like sexual orientation. We can act like something we're not, but it's just not who we are. People can attempt to change our gender, which ends up looking a lot like "gay conversion therapy." That particular practice is so absurd, it's being outlawed. My own experiences with living as a beta male confirm this. I lived a lie for most of my life because that's what I was told I was supposed to be. Needless to say, life is a Hell of a lot better these days.
All men innately have all the tools to be a woman, and all women innately have all the tools to be a man. This takes gender malleability a step farther and claims any of us can successfully engage in gender thoughts and behaviors that fundamentally differ from the gender we naturally identify with. If this were the case, men and women shouldn't have any problems communicating with each other. Men should intuitively understand every aspect of the female experience, and vice versa. Anyone that doesn't live under a rock understands the silliness of these ideas.
It should be noted that the actual definitions of gender (and biological sex, genetic sex, sexual orientation, and all they gray areas of each) are operationally defined by people researching the constructs, the actual underlying principles are rooted in our biology. How any of those biologically-determined constructs manifests itself in society can be influenced by the environment, but that doesn't mean they are socially-constructed. That's the not-so-logical leap modern feminists seem to take.
Yet all of that data is completely ignored by the "gender is a social construct" crowd because it invalidates their entire narrative and kills their pity-inducing tendency to play the victim.
Interestingly, their take on gender not only ignores the biological basis of gender behavior, but it also dismisses all kinds of other issues of biology affecting behavior and famous gender-related cases. I already mentioned sexual orientation; it's pretty clear that there's a strong biological component at work there. What about mental disorders? If we say gender can't be biological in nature, then can we also say major depression, the personality disorders, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia are socially-constructed and people can "just get over them?" How about the John/ Joan or Caitlyn Jenner cases? Are we socialized for handedness, too?
Before we get to the discussion on where our society is heading, it's important to address the issue of "The Patriarchy." Aside from my training as an experimental psychologist, I also earned a history and social studies degrees (I wasted a lot of time and money on post-secondary education.) Social history was a favorite topic of mine, and I see a lot of complete and total misunderstandings about the how and why humans developed patriarchal systems from the earliest beginnings of our civilization.
The Real Purpose of "The Patriarchy"
Fighting against "The Patriarchy" is a pretty common strawman argument used today to justify all sorts of attempts at silly social engineering. It IS true; we used to have a patriarchal system of government. Women were excluded from representation. Winning the freedom of equality under the law was the original goals of feminism. As I stated before, that was a great thing. People don't seem to understand, though, that patriarchy was a system to control men, not women. Women were oppressed under the system, but that was incidental to the real purpose of patriarchy.
The idea that men would have to create an entire social structure to control women should fall apart immediately when you consider one simple, irrefutable fact - men are physically stronger than women. Men don't need elaborate social structures like religion, codified laws and a judiciary, and social mores to control women. They can simply use force. Testosterone gives us a size, strength, and speed advantage, along with the capacity and primal drive to use aggression to engage in extreme violence.
Controlling each other, though... now that takes some work. THAT is the reason men developed "The Patriarchy."
To understand why men need to be controlled, you really have to understand the nature of masculinity. Masculine men have that shit-ton of testosterone flowing through our bodies, and that causes all sorts of well-documented behavioral and attitudinal characteristics. This effect leads men to follow one of three "paths" that are driven by our primal, biological imperative:
Create
Destroy
Enjoy
That's it. Those are the three options men have. If we create, we find a passion that helps our fellow man and follow it with all our heart. We become givers and strive to make ourselves the best version of us we can possibly become. This is the vehicle that has led to pretty much every major advancement of humanity. The problem with "creating" is that it's hard work. There are few tangible rewards along the way except for the journey itself. In fact, the overarching goal of the San Diego Man Camp (join our Facebook group if you haven't already done so.) This is also why I kind of despise beta males... they refuse to improve themselves or do the hard work to create. They sit on their asses, content with being "special for who they are." Anyway, I digress.
If we destroy, we become takers. This would include petty criminals, con artists, rapists, murderers, evil dictators, etc. Biggest problem with destroyers is that it's a lot easier than being a creator and one man can do a Hell of a lot of damage. A small group of men can do even more. We don't want men to do this; it sends society backward.
The final option is to simply kick back and do nothing productive OR destructive. Weirdly, men have the capacity to be ridiculously industrious AND complete and total lazy fucks. This is your typical lazy fuck beta male chump today, which is encouraged by modern feminists that attempt to "redefine masculinity."
So what does this have to do with patriarchy?
Waaaayyyy back in our evolutionary history when we were still hunting and gathering, men didn't really have much of a choice. They were productive when they needed to hunt or build shit for the tribe. They were destructive when they had to protect the tribe or forcefully acquire resources from neighboring tribes. Finally, they were lazy the rest of the time to conserve energy for famines and other harsh environmental conditions. The tribes that had the most men that could successfully do all three survived and killed those that were less successful. See where those drives originated and were selected via natural selection?
Eventually we discovered agriculture, which led to villages, towns, and eventually cities. Larger, more diverse populations and more specialization meant not all men needed to use all three of these drives, but we still possessed the potential. And sometimes bad shit happened when men decided to destroy. Or get lazy. The leaders, at some point, started devising ways to control and channel men into a pro-social way. Those methods fell into three categories:
Force
Bribes
Family Life
The problem with force is that it takes a lot of time and resources, and doesn't work especially well over a long period of time. Imagine a dude standing over your cubicle with a whip. Positive punishment, in operant conditioning terms, needs to be immediate, severe, and consistent to be effective. You end up needing almost as many whip-crackers as male workers. That's a pretty inefficient system.
The problem with bribes is that it takes a lot of resources and it causes an extrinsic motivation effect where we eventually hate what we're "paid" to do. Think of how many Americans today despise their jobs. Without kids to raise and sex (only the rich handsome males had regular access to women, that's why the ancients were polygynist), there was little motivation to work for rewards long-term because the rewards become ineffective.
That left "family life." At some point, leaders realized men would be motivated to choose the "create" option if they were doing it to provide for a wife and kids. He would be motivated by sex from his wife and the desire to get his genes into the next generation.
The problem with family life is that we're not all that well-suited for lifelong monogamous pair-bonding. We're inherently kinda slutty AND there's the problem with polygyny I mentioned before where only the best males had wives. The idea of monogamous marriage and the expectation of sexual fidelity solves that problem because it gives a lot more men access to wives. However, it requires systems to control men's desire to fuck as many women as possible and women's tendency to always seek the best male they can attract. THAT is where all the oppression of patriarchy comes from. The oppression of females, which did happen, was just a consequence of controlling men.
Today, we've effectively ended the patriarchy. Women now have all the legal freedoms men historically enjoyed. We now have a social, legal, and economic system that allows women access to anything and everything men have access to, which includes government support should they decide or become a single mother. It's easy to get married, easy to get divorced, premarital sex and cohabitation are common and accepted, serial monogamy has replaced "till death" monogamy as the norm, and ethical, consensual nonmonogamy is increasing in popularity.
Needless to say, all of us have incredible freedom. But that freedom comes at a very, very serious cost because far too many of us still deny that gender matters. A lot.
Thanks feminists. Thanks.
The Future We're Creating
I don't want to spend a ton of time discussing where we are as a society right now, as it's my favorite topic to discuss in this blog and over at my other Sexpressionists blog. Besides, I've linked to a thousand articles earlier in this post. Needless to say, we're not at the doorstep of the magical Utopia we dreamed about a few decades ago.
The saying "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." is entirely appropriate here.
If we continue the trend we're on where we try to engineer new definitions of gender and continue to blindly sabotage our primal, biological imperative, here are a few things we can expect:
Alpha players will, well, play. A lot. A few days ago, I shared this piece on my Facebook wall. The gist - women were upset that a handful of very high value (i.e. - hot, wealthy, confident alpha males) were using Tinder to hook up with absurd numbers of women, but refusing to commit. Amusingly, the author seemed to be attempting to shame the men into stopping. Ladies, you're never going to be able to present an argument for change to a dude that's getting unlimited, free, hot women that are willing to have sex within a very short time of meeting. Ever. In a society that's becoming more and more saturated with beta males, the dividends of being an alpha are skyrocketing. Hell, that's the reason I started the SDMC! Modern feminism has sold the idea that dudes have to be a beta to earn a woman's love. The dudes that recognize those same feminists have zero sexual attraction to the dudes they're creating just smile. They're too smart to buy into the hype because, well, they have eyes. The situation described in this article will only get worse. Good for me and my alpha-making SDMC, but terrible for the ladies that can't get the alpha unicorns to commit AND the beta males that don't sexually arouse women.
We can expect to see increased mass shootings, increased drug use, and an increased prison population. We can't just "redefine masculinity" and make testosterone go away. As those early leaders of civilization learned, men are either going to create, destroy, or sit on their asses playing Call of Duty, and the only way to control that is punishment, bribes, or family life. Guess which ones are more popular today, and even MORE popular tomorrow?
There's an important point that needs to be addressed before I get to my solution for all of this:
We live in the safest, most prosperous, most technologically-advanced free society in the history of humanity.
I honestly think we'd have to go back to the pre-European encroachment days of Native American culture to find a society that could have the potential we have right now. But we're fucking ourselves over because we can't see what's right in front of our noses. This will come crashing down around us if we don't change.
How to we turn this ship around? We don't have to turn back the clock to the days of our patriarchal past. We don't have to smash any of our social institutions. We don't have to embrace a radical quasi-Marxist philosophy. All we need to do is make a subtle change in how we attribute gender from social to biological, really embrace that change, then find a role model and follow her lead.
Here's my plan:
Why Ronda Rousey Should be the New Face of Feminism
Before reading on, watch this forty-five second clip:
Okay, got it? The reason I believe Rousey needs to be the new face of feminism is because she perfectly exemplifies the definition of gender equality all of us need to use regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, culture, disability, age, or whatever other demographic grouping you want to consider - will live in a world where:
We have equal opportunity, equal possibility, and equal responsibility.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The biggest misunderstanding modern feminists have (well, aside from the "gender is biological" thing) is that men aren't "entitled" to jack shit. We literally start with nothing. I honestly think many women believe men automatically get all sorts of advantages just because we have a penis. When women use examples of "male privilege", they hold up examples of rich, attractive, powerful men that have either built empires or inherited empires. They don't use the garbage man that's literally arms-deep in trash as an example. Or the guy earning minimum wage that loads packages on the UPS truck in the warehouse. Or the roofer baking in the summer sun. Or the high school dropout that couldn't sit still long enough to read MacBeth.
Fundamentally, too many women don't understand men have to earn everything in life. It's not even enough to just work hard and you'll be entitled to the spoils of victory - you need to actually succeed. There are no participation trophies in real life. You need to have the urge to ruthlessly compete and utterly dominate in order to get anything in this world... if you're a man.
Some women DO get this. Some women have that cutthroat drive to succeed, thus earn the respect of those they lead and inspire. Hell, Shelly (my wife) does just that whenever she takes the mat when training Brazilian jiu jitsu. You don't get respect by showing up. You get a little respect for working hard. But to get respect to get to the top of the social hierarchy? You gotta close.
And how about some golden words about what it takes to succeed from Arnold:
Now, I know my hippie readers will say "but women bring a different mindset to business, and we can win through cooperation instead of competition!" While that's a nice sentiment, it simply doesn't happen. We live in a global economy where there are winners and bankruptcy. Any publicly-traded company is beholden to their shareholders and will (must) do anything and everything possible to make as much profit as possible. We can wish that were different, but the moment one company tries, they'll be devoured by their competition. Only a fool would think otherwise.
Feminine personality characteristics have an incredible utilitarian value; we cannot survive as a species without them. Hell, I'm a huge proponent of masculine men learning and developing their feminine characteristics because it takes the edge off the rough edges of masculinity. That's the whole idea of being a gentleman. We need a society where anyone and everyone regardless of any demographics has the freedom to express gender however their biological predisposition mandates. We have to stop trying to socially engineer gender just because we don't understand it. Anyway, I digress. Again.
So back to Ronda.
I believe she is the perfect face for a "fifth wave" of feminism because she understands gender. As I discussed in the "fear boner" post, she has a crazy-competitive masculine side that is directly responsible for her effectiveness inside the Octagon. Unlike the entitled "do nothing bitch" that's not willing to compete and expects to be given what others must earn (which is perfectly fine for women that aren't competing), Ronda understands what is needed to get to the top. The fact that she has been able to balance that masculine side with her sexy feminine side is a powerful indicator that she really understands gender. She understands gender isn't something we need to destroy, rather it's something we need to embrace.
Great things happen when we stop seeing the world we wish and start seeing the world that is. Every second we spend wasting our lives telling ourselves lies is a second we'll never get back. Do we really want to squander time, our single most precious resource? A whole lotta people, many of which are reading this right now, are doing just that. We only get one chance at life. You get to make the choice to make the most of it.
