A mixed windbag of virtues and vices.
Readership: Men; Single Men;
Theme: Faux-Masculine Archetypes
Length: 2,300 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes + 23 minutes of video
A Description of the Armchair Philosopher
An Armchair Philosopher (AP) is one who has developed a thorough understanding of life and the world through everyday experiences, and has therefore formed a rather complex personal philosophy, in spite of not necessarily having any formal education to back it up.
AP’s reasoning relies heavily on a priori knowledge (e.g. deductive reasoning, mathematics, tautologies), as opposed to a posteriori knowledge which depends on empirical evidence (e.g. professional sciences). The 21st century British philosopher Galen Strawson described a priori knowledge this way:
“An a priori argument is one that you can see is true by just lying on your couch. You don’t have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world.”
Now days, the pejorative label, “Armchair Philosopher”, is often used to discredit or disparage any person expressing their own off-the-cuff philosophy (discovered and formulated by the person who is expressing it), so as to recast such views as unfounded, unscientific, or untrue heresay. However, although the methods of an armchair philosopher are different from those of an empirical scientist, they can complement each other to produce new insights or explain obscure truths.
When considering the historical development of the empirical sciences, armchair philosophers and theorizers have played an important foundational role in formulating original theories that have explained perplexing observations. These theories were then tested more rigorously with further scientific investigation, and the findings became the basis of a new field of science.
In fact, the foundations for the eventual professionalization of psychology and the social science disciplines can be traced to ‘armchair scholars’ of the nineteenth century. The basic theories for the “hard” sciences originated from ‘armchair scholars’ of the eighteenth century. The scientific method itself was spawned from the ‘armchair philosophies’ and resulting communications (thanks to the printing press) of several polymaths of the seventeenth century.
It could very well be possible that the Armchair Philosophers authoring and commenting on Red Pill blogs could become the founding fathers of a new scientific field of Intersexual Dynamics or Sexual Metaphysics, or the like. Many of their theories are already being scientifically examined by experts in Sociology.
The Contemporary Armchair Philosopher
Granted, most Armchair Philosophers living today are nothing like Bacon, Descartes, Einstein, Euler, Gauss, Gibbs, Hertz, Laplace, Leibniz, Maxwell, Newton, or Shockley, all of whom produced original theories that eventually formed various modern fields of science. However, they do share many of the same traits as the old masters, namely being argumentative, critical thinkers, cynical, eccentric, sharply observant, rational, and sarcastic.
Because the AP is so thoroughly logical, rational, and sane, they cast off social restraints, ignore or gloss over emotional issues, and run roughshod over ethical implications as a matter of course. As such, it’s hard for others not to become emotionally involved and not to take offense at the insulated Spockish outlook of the AP. Therefore, whatever APs share or comment about abstracted mysticism or the apparent madness all around them, it is often met with strong emotions that evoke more arguments and emoting, leading to a negative energy vortex.
To make matters worse, the AP frequently focuses on many polarizing issues going on in the world that evoke strong emotions. As a result, the AP frequently butts heads with others who are as equally passionate as they are, regarding whatever it is that is going on around them or in the larger world.
If that were not enough to stoke conflict, many APs hold opinions on marriage, race, religion, and sex that are so extreme as to represent a parody of right-wing or left-wing bigotry. As such, APs are the stinking armpit of political debates that strike ire among their opponents.
For all these reasons, those who are circumspectly wise may take due efforts to avoid getting sucked into the eviscerating implications of associating with the AP.
Fortunately, some APs recognize the importance of maintaining good rapport with others and take themselves to task to tone down their rhetoric. Otherwise, they tend to withdraw or else surround themselves with agreeable or compliant persons in order to preserve their own microcosm of reality.
The Two Types of Armchair Philosophers
There are basically two types of Armchair Philosophers, the extroverted type, and the introverted type. Archie Bunker and Jesse Lee Peterson are quintessential models of the extroverted type. Trey Gowdy and Donald Trump also match this image to a large degree. Those fitting the image of the introverted type are Woody Allen, Jordan Peterson, Kevin Samuels, Rollo Tomassi, and Bill Cosby. I’ve included a video of Archie Bunker and Woody Allen as an extreme example of the respective types for those readers who are unfamiliar with these characters. I’ve chosen video excerpts that are short on discourse and long on style in order to give readers a taste of the AP personae and avoid getting caught up in their rhetoric.
The EAPs philosophies are usually built around rough, working-class life experiences, while the IAP’s philosophies are often based on personal challenges or frustrations.
The Extroverted Armchair Philosopher (EAP) – The Bigoted Hawk
The typical EAP has a gruff, overbearing demeanor, largely defined by his principles, purposes, and prejudices. As such, he is trapped by his own mental paradigms, often sincerely believing that he is entirely in the right. He is ill-tempered and frequently berates his long-suffering friends and relatives to “get real” or “fall in line” with his larger world view.
EAPs are gifted with a talent for speech and argumentation, often using hyperboles, malapropisms, sarcasm, and spoonerisms quite effectively.
The Best and Worst of Archie Bunker (Length: 11:55)
The EAP takes great pride in having a resilient Frame that is readily applicable to any situation. In fact, a Frame backed ego is the core value of this type. When his Frame fails in the face of sweeping changes, undeniable evidence, or a mass consensus of disagreement, the EAP copes with the situation by losing his temper, mouthing his poisons, and looking for a scapegoat to fix the blame for his own discomfort. He isn’t necessarily an evil man. He’s witty, shrewd, and often times humorous. But he won’t get to the root of his problem, because the root of his problem is his hardness of heart, and he doesn’t know it.
At his best, the EAP is a striving, loving father, and a diligent, conscientious worker.
At his worst, the EAP is prone to drinking, gambling and swearing.
The EAP is the quintessential bigot of the worst sort, mocking and belittling a diverse groups of individuals. Any type of demographic group, including Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Latinos, Asians, Jәws, immigrants, deplorables, rednecks, Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Fascists, Antifascists, Communists, Marxists, feminists, g@ys, tr@nnys, Catholics, Protestants, Calvinists, Arminians, atheists, PUAs, chads, incels, hypergamous H0es, single mothers, Karens… — basically anyone or any group who is strikingly unlike himself — may become frequent targets of the EAPs barbs.
As such, the EAP fully embodies the cultural icon of the angry white male.
The prototypical Karen is the female equivalent of the EAP.
A Christian EAP may take pride in being religious, even if he rarely reads the Bible, prays, or attends church services. Accurate psychoanalyses using Biblical truths can be stinging, and even when he misquotes the Bible, the intended eisegesis can still ring true and hit the intended mark.
The Introverted Armchair Philosopher (IAP) – The King of the Mole Hill
The best of the IAPs can be very intriguing stand-up comedians. Thus, the virtuosity of the IAP archetype is shown through Woody Allen. They often seem to be lost in their own little world, but in fact, they are quite talented in writing and forming debate-style arguments, and are not as out of touch as they might appear. They are skilled in maintaining concentration and may be talented in playing cards and board games, and in performing magic tricks.
Woody Allen Montage (Length: 11:04)
It should be noted that Allen was very unlike other comedians of his day. He acted “normal”, dressed casually, and made no attempt to project a stage “personality”. Allen spoke to his audiences in a gentle and conversational style, often appearing to be searching for words, although he was well rehearsed and he did not improvise. His jokes were created from life experiences, and typically presented with a dead serious demeanor that made them funnier.
The subjects of Allen’s discussions were rarely topical, political, or socially relevant. Most of his monologues did not discuss then-current events such as civil rights, women’s rights, or the Cold War. In this aspect, Allen’s example presents a valuable lesson to us in adapting frame — that one should avoid controversial topics such as religion and politics when surrounded by casual acquaintances.
Later comedians, such as Bill Cosby, Rodney Dangerfield, and Andrew Dice Clay coopted certain aspects of Allen’s style with great effect.
A mature IAP who doesn’t shy away from hot button topics can offer a biting, brutally honest, and satirical commentary on the cultural and psychological tenor of the times. When the IAP is confident and socially well adjusted, he can come off as a dark genius or mastermind.
At worst, the IAP is an anxious, fretful, insecure, intellectual, nervous nebbish (as Allen parodies in his acts). If he is sufficiently forward and expressive of his desires, he can fit the popular image of a sexual pervert, m0lester, or ped0ph!le.
If he chooses to openly display any of the above negative traits, he is not always well received or understood by his audiences. But in spite of his many social faux pas, the IAP finds redemption in his honest incisive truth telling, which in itself draws understanding, respect, and popular appeal, and is oftentimes comical.
It is not uncommon for IAPs to have had an estranged relationship with an authoritarian, ill-tempered mother who served to model their views of the world and hone their habit of forming debate strategies from their youth.
Virtues of the Armchair Philosopher
The virtues of the Armchair Philosopher (if present) are his authenticity, gut level honesty, being forthright in his opinions, and having a master class resilient Frame. APs can be effective mentors and iconic fathers if they have their act together and can walk the talk.
Some APs are quietly beloved figures to much of middle America. Even groups and races of people targeted by an AP can genuinely like or respect the character of the AP if his logic is sound and his presentation is exceptional.
APs can garner love, grace, and even respect if their world view fits the values and interests of their audiences, or if they are open to changing their views when another individual touches their heart or treats them right.
Vices of the Armchair Philosopher
The vices of the Armchair Philosopher (some of which are almost always present) are…
- Intransigence
- A harsh demeanor
- Stubborn cynicism
- Being a $h!t magnet
- Arrogance and pride
- Being prone to racism
- Being prone to bigotry
- Being continually annoying and difficult to deal with
- Having poor personal habits, such as drinking, smoking, cussing, gambling…
- Appearing to be (and sometimes really are) sexists, misogynists, perverts, etc.
The major spiritual fault that is often present in APs is that they are completely absorbed in their own minds, hard hearted, seldom engage from the heart, and therefore live in fear of being rolled by someone with a sharper wit. APs would do well to evaluate the effect they have on others, and identify exactly what is working towards their best interests.
Conclusions
As you can see, the Armchair Philosopher is all Frame, and little else. All other facets of his Masculinity (Honor, Authority, Respect, Purpose) are riding on his strength of Frame. Depending on the issue and the context, his willingness to follow through on what he professes to believe (and therefore not lose frame by being a hypocrite) may also play a factor.
The archetypical APs are…
- Frequently blue collar
- Generally disagreeable
- Self-sufficient but not really
- Logical but not very reasonable
- Entranced within their own microcosm
- Either strongly liked, or vehemently disliked by others.
- Frequently at odds with family members and close associates.
- Men who have had a very difficult life, or a traumatic experience in their youth (being bullied, parental divorce, physical or emotional abuse, military combat, etc.).
- Prone to think, do, and say as they please, which tends to set them outside the common boundaries of ethical decency. This can turn out to be either a virtue or a vice.
Because of the APs well-honed mastery of the reframe, and their well thought out philosophies based on their genuine appreciation of how it is versus how things are supposed to be, there’s a lot to be learned from these individuals about maintaining Frame.
Masculinity Rating
Frame is the make-it or break-it character trait for either type and is therefore the predominant determinant of one’s masculinity. So an AP with a strong frame may appear more masculine than what is suggested in the rating below. Also, Authority, Respect, and Purpose appear as strong suits, especially for the EAP.
| Extroverted Armchair Philosopher | Introverted Armchair Philosopher |
| Strength (other than Frame): 0-2 Honor: 5-8 Authority: 8-10 Respect: 5-10 Purpose: 7-10 Average Score: 6.5 | Strength (other than Frame): 0-2 Honor: 3-6 Authority: 6-8 Respect: 2-6 Purpose: 4-8 Average Score: 4.5 |
Related
- Bill Cosby 49 (1987) [YouTube video]
- Ain’t it Cool News: Woody Allen Casts Louis CK *And* Andrew “Dice” Clay In His Untitled 2012 Project! (2012-6-4)
- Σ Frame: Don’t Admit Her Argument (2018-3-19)
- Σ Frame: The Objectivity of Offense Constitutes Respect (2018-5-6)
- Σ Frame: Breaking the Fifth Wall – A New Protocol for Post-Truth Debate (2018-6-13)
- Engineering and Technology: Great polymaths of history: all-round genius (2019-5-21)
- Σ Frame: The Battle of the Prophets (2020-3-17)
- Jordan Peterson: YouTube Channel
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
Pingback: Faux Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame
In college for my Intro To Psychology I and II (Fall 1988 / spring 1989 respectively). We read William James’ Principles of Psychology which was two volumes written in that American Victorian venacular. Being a freshman in college, it was a bit of a grasp at first. By the end of the first semester, I found him lively, humorous, and actually a very well grounded man. I dont know if he was “armchair” and I doubt he matches the “greats” but I still like him.
Trey Gowdy???? Really?????
LikeLike
Everytime I see Trey Gowdy he seems to have even less of a nose — like Michael Jackson with the disappearing schnoz. Trey seems very polished. I’m not saying “gay”, just polished.
LikeLike
I respected Trey Gowdy until the end of February 2022, when he joined the FauxNews warmongering propaganda campaign against Russia. Any man who would be an “armchair philosopher” would, one would think, have something at least vaguely resembling a set of principles. People who spew mindless, intelligence-insulting dogma for 30 pieces of silver don’t fall into that category.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You respected him far too long. What’s odd was how he was a crusader on intel committees until he decided to quit being a congressman. Makes you wonder.
LikeLike
We just went through the textbook in psychology – that’s all. Vermont private college must be better than Florida public college.
Not to get personal but if you’re below average intelligence then I’m the Pope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cameron. Totally average. Actually below according to the “unquestionable IQ tests” we have.
Part of the reason why I choose to go to Green Mountain College because it was SMALL. It also was the only college in the USA that offered Welsh classes and language (due to the large Welsh community that arrived in the 1840’s to mine the slate and marble. By my sophomore year, I was in a class with a doctorate level professor with maybe six or seven students. By the time I was a senior. It might be two or three students.
Yes, it was left back then…but a “jimmy carter” left not the progressives that bankrupted and ruined it as the country became more woke.
I needed the HELP. I had to study longer but it was great that I could go to the professors apartment (many of them lived on campus) or to their home in the village. The professors at my college….for the most part…did enjoy and like what they were doing. They wanted you to succeed. If I was sitting in the State University of New York at Albany in a class of 400 with a “psychology” textbook, I would have failed the class.
I would have flunked out of college.
Sadly, the small, private liberal arts college…..the “New England Model” is dying and it did outlive its purpose and it had a really long run. Woke-ism is wrecking many (like mine) and also……a small, old college that is tuition driven can no longer be sustained. Its sad actually. Today student can get just a good education at a state university or college for a better cost too for the most part.
I miss the chats by the fire in the dorm lounges with teachers. I miss the chimes from the clock tower atop of Ames Hall built in 1834. I miss the small classes, the lectures. I liked that you knew every student on campus. It was about 600 student maximum capacity, and it needed about 520-550 students every year to break even. Even back in the 1980’s.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John Boyd, a genius who revolutionized air combat and invented the concept of the ooda loop, reportedly only tested in the 90s on an IQ test (haven’t been able to verify that). Some people test poorly, in general, or a single time. Did you score poorly on the SAT, ACT, ASVAB, etc.? Do you remember your scores?
Some people also have very divergent scores on subtests e.g. high verbal, low math or vice versa. These types of people exist but are outliers as the scores of most folks on the various subtests are pretty highly correlated. That’s the basis for the theoretical contruct “g” – general intelligence.
You don’t converse like a person with a below average IQ – not even close. You would probably whip my ass in a debate and I tested well above average both as a child (Otis Lennon) and as a teen (through IQ proxy tests like SAT, ACT, ASVAB).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cameron, I scored a 91 when I first took the Stanford Binet 1973r. It was administered by a professional with certifications to administer the test (Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY). I took it again when I was at IBM. I increased one “paltry” point to 92.
I scored 750 on the SAT. My grades were okay though. As usual, I had to work way harder than everyone else for B’s. I got an occasional A, usually in history. I did a lot of reading growing up. My college took me because the admissions counselors saw that when I am in a small group setting, I can adjust well. It was a good fit. I wanted to go to Dartmouth at that time, but my parents said to me, “We dont have the money to send you there, you don’t have the grades, and we don’t have an Anglo-Saxon name.”
I never took the ASVAB. My father told me in college, “If you ever sign up for the military, you will wish you were sent to the front line to die for useless causes before dealing with me. This country sends it’s young men to die for oil, personal vendettas, drug dealers… It props up thugs and burns children with Napalm. I saw it in Vietnam. The dumbest thing a person could do is going into the army as an enlisted soldier, and you don’t have what it takes to be an officer son.”
I have taken other IQ tests online and elsewhere…. and on all of these, I scored between 90-94. Yes, I am still in the “average” range, well, the lower end of it. But the thing is, my emotional IQ has been stunted since birth, and the drugs didn’t help it. You can’t fix stupid.
It may explain a lot of things in my life, if truth be told.
Sometimes when I’m in a conversation, I hear what is being said, but I miss nuances, or social cues.
I am at work when I am off because I am a bit slow, or not as fast on the uptake, and I have to work that much freaking harder than anyone else to get the same jobs done. I am often up “at work” when most are sleeping. You should see me trying to calculate depreciation with yearly assets and values….. I am swamped! Half my team gets it busted out in a few days. But I am just so confused that I am holding back tears in my office. I end up bringing it all home, printing out everything, making piles, and using post-it notes. My basic math requires me to take twenty logical steps instead of maybe two or three. Nevertheless, I get the job done on time… although I do have to spend three times longer on getting the results. That is just how it is with me.
The only thing that saved me over the decades was a hard, tough-as-nails work ethic.
I’m doing pretty well now. I don’t own a home, but I’m certainly not in any need. Again, my work ethic saved me. Nothing else.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I had to look up Green Mountain. Near the Taconic range. I hadn’t heard of that range. The mountains up there always look more impressive to me in terms of relief than the southern Appalachians with the exception of some of the very high points down south. I think this may be due to glaciation. There are glacial cirques up there.
Poultney isn’t too far from Rutland – one of the few towns I’m familiar with.
LikeLike
I hear you Jason. I kindly urge you to humbly ask God to give you more discernment.
The thing is, you can’t have more wisdom without first having more discernment. So pray for discernment.
Whenever I have prayed for this in the past, I always got “new eyes” which changed how I saw everything.
LikeLike
LOL, not gonna lie, Trey Gowdy was one of my favorite politicians to watch in the past few years, especially during that probe of Comey, I think it was. During a hearing he dropped a line that I only dream of using. “That was a perfectly good answer to a question nobody asked!”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fascinating read! I’m going to have to go through this again. I think to some degree, all of us “thinking types” have a little EAP or IAP in us.
At the end you stated this,
This is something I’ve noted in passing about some of the ‘Sphere personalities, many occur as IAPs, and exude a masculine frame; however when I listen or look a bit more closely, this begins to appear to me to be a bit more of a public persona they are portraying and not really who they are in day-to-day life.
This really hit home to me when I saw a female red pill content creator that I know personally. My first thought in seeing her was, “Whaaaaat??? You’ve got to be kidding me?” So I listened to her, intently I might add, and I listened to the male content creator doing a response video. Everything she said was red pill concerning intersexual dynamics, and the male content creator gave her the appropriate kudos in his response. However, and it is a BIG HOWEVER, I know something about her life and I said to myself, “Nope sweety, you may know red pill concepts and lingo, but there are a number of aspects to your life that don’t align with them. I know I saw it firsthand and you can’t BS me. I KNOW better!”
Oh, what are some of the disconnects you might be asking? Here’s a sampling: Former CC rider who married mid-thirties to a guy in his late twenties, one child. Husband is a blue pill, simping beta that exists completely inside her frame. She’s the dom, he’s the sub in the relationship. The seven year old kid is spoiled rotten. A little less than two years ago, she was cheating on him and threatening divorce. She calls herself a relationship expert and spiritual lector (literally in the subtitle of her podcasts). She’s 44 now, and when she was younger she was a beauty, probably a 9, or close to it. She’s still good looking, but aging, so declining male attention (which is natural as she ages), she’s found a way to get some of it back from ‘Sphere men, maybe some moolah too, since she has a podcasting business.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Thoughts?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, but it’s not so much “who they are in day to day life” as it is that the frame slips from time to time revealing the suppressed blue pill backdrop. The frame is real; but it sometimes betrays the old blue pill ways.
Which points up that for red pill to have real effect in your life, the changes have to be real, deep, and lasting. You have to change yourself all the way down to your core. This is why a lot of men find it very, very difficult to implement red pill changes — because it isn’t who they really are at their cores. Many men have said this. I’ve said it myself. Lots of men would love to personify Drake songs. Lovey dovey, I’ll buy you everything you want, I’ll take care of you, I’ll never fail you. etc. Change is very, very difficult, and deep change is almost impossible.
It might be an act for a lot of men, I suppose. Doesn’t matter — men need to get what they need from their relationships, or else not have them at all. If women won’t get on board, I see no reason why men should.
She’s a woman. Women are going to “woman”. Women will do what they will do. Every woman, and I mean every woman, will succumb to her hypergamy and her inexorable tendency to filter everything through their feelings. This is why you can explain something in painstaking detail, as crystal clear as spring water, and the “red pill woman” will still sit there and “not get it” and say things like, “But, um, I dunno, I mean, it’s like, you know….”
“Red Pill Women” have been in the sphere for 10 years or more, and they still can’t rein their hamsters in. Bloom (Notes From A Red Pill Girl) over at Spawny’s was famous for this. You could explain something to her, for the 17th time, and she would still grind up the cognitive gears. I would explain it again, and she would launch into how it just didn’t “feel right”. She had been listening to us men for YEARS. I personally had explained particular concepts to her, over and over and over again. I could just tell through the comboxes that she was sitting there genuinely puzzled. If she were a comic character she’d have that little thick scribble over her head denoting a mix of confusion, befuddlement, bewilderment, and frustration.
Hooking Up Smart was another example of this. Women just could not understand the male lived experience. Not “didn’t want to hear it”, not always “repulsed”. Most of the time it was a literal inability to process cognitively what the men were saying. They literally could not make it make logical sense. Many other times they had visceral emotional reactions, again stating things like, “That just doesn’t feel right.” Susan Walsh herself more than once did the internet equivalent of running screaming from the room at times when faced with men’s sexual and relational desires and failings.
Women literally cannot handle the fact that men have their own wants, needs, desires, hopes and dreams and that those things many times conflict with those of women. Women literally cannot grasp the concept that men are autonomous beings who are fully one-half of the relationships they say they want.
I personally think that this is because most of those women are in relationships with men they aren’t sexually attracted to and they aren’t submitting themselves to their men properly. A woman in right relationship to her man is submitted to him in all things. Most women can do this with a man — it’s that they don’t want to, and they don’t want to because they don’t want to have sex with him. They stay in relationships with these men because these men give them the commitment and resources they need to stay alive and for their kids; but don’t give them the sexytime tingles they need to submit and want to enjoy life. The women of the Manosphere Ladies’ Auxiliary are extreme, extreme outliers. Most women will NEVER have that in a husband because they can have sex with men who tingle them but they cannot keep those men.
This is the single biggest problem in male-female relationships today — most women are married to men who they aren’t sexually attracted to. They are married to men who are a little bit sexually attractive to them, but they aren’t anywhere close to being as sexually attractive as the men they had sex with before they got married. If you tell women: “Sexually attractive, or has resources and will commit: PICK ONE. Pick the hot sexually attractive guy, and he will not stick around, he’ll cheat, and you’ll have to support yourself and your life will be full of drama. Pick resources/commitment guy, and he’ll be there and take care of you, but your life will be boring and sex will be average at best.” …then a significant plurality will pick the Hot Guy and it goes just as they think it will. Later, they’ll pick Resources/Commitment Guy, and then they’ll divorce rape him after the last kid gets to school or else they spend the rest of their lives making everyone around them miserable.
The worst crime Resource/Commitment Guy is guilty of is that he’s not Hot Guy. The ONLY reason the woman who picks him ruins his life is because he’s not Hot Guy.
And women just Do. Not. Get. This.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks deti! Excellent reply!
As I slowly deal with more men and their relationship woes, this you said right here I’m finding to be true:
RC guy cannot seemingly compete with “Hot Guy.” In the two cases I’m thinking of recently, the man appeared to me to be a reasonable facsimile of HG. Good dudes I mean, and not bad looking at all. BUT, the two women in seemingly good, solid marriages; I mean why jump ship (?), one did so, and the other is on the verge of it.
My only conclusion, is reasonably good looking and decently built RC guy is just simply NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH for the Missus if HG happens to be anywhere around and available, even if it’s just an affair that will end up going nowhere. I’m sure some women resist the temptation to bolt RC guy, but from what I’m witnessing, albeit in a sample size, is apparently he’s NOT enough to stop some of them (many of them? IDK).
It’s making me revisit in my thinking the absolute centrality of attraction like some of the guys have pointed out here on the blog. If she’s not attracted to you, if you’re not the tingles producing HC in her eyes, you’ll never be anything more than reasonable RC guy (settling?), even if the resources are good and the man is decent looking and fairly well built (in good shape, looks good with his shirt off, no dad bod).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Someone told me once, and it’s proven true at the old Hooking Up Smart site and elsewhere. He said, “Men and women just cannot discuss dating, mating, sex, marriage, and intersexual relationships in any real, meaningful way.”
It was true in 2012 when it was first said and it’s still true today. Maybe someday I’ll finally internalize it.
LikeLike
I should explicitly point out to readers, especially the younger, unmarried men, that no western man has a perfect Red Pill marriage. To be a convincing, entertaining, and informative ‘Armchair Philosopher’ Red Pill blogger, one has to present an air of authority (after all, it’s all about Frame), but IRL, these guys, including myself, are fighting against long held and deeply ingrained Blue Pill habits and notions on a daily basis. It just sort of goes with the territory of being a huMan. However, the underlying motivation that many men in the ‘sphere have is to become less Blue Pilled and more Red Pilled on an ongoing basis. It requires daily discipline, which is why many readers come back to read sites like Christianity and Masculinity, Dalrock, and Σ Frame on a daily basis. Doing this while adding on the additional requirement of being a Christian and following God makes it much more difficult in some ways, but easier in others. Part of the problem with this is that most Christian men don’t understand what things like Male/Patriarchal Authority, Christian Masculinity, Headship, etc. mean or what they look like, because we’ve all grown up in a snowstorm of false doctrines, feminism, gynocentrism, man bashing, sex saturation, extramarital sex, and divorce. Thus, identifying and characterizing the mindsets and habits of Christian Masculinity, etc. continues to be a topic of ongoing discussion here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well put Jack! Becoming less and less blue pilled, and more and more red pilled, is really all we can hope for; and IMO it’s worth putting in the time, effort and work to do so. I also find all this red pill stuff helps me in other areas of life, like health and fitness, hobbies, and a few other areas. I’ve always had a younger energy then my age, but it is getting increasingly so just hanging around all this RP ideology. I’m feeling increasingly disconnected to the guys my age, i.e. they seem “old” to me. For younger men, I see how it can help them in even more areas of life because, if we follow the actuarial tables, they’ll be at this thing for decades to come.
I also heard something interesting today involving the red pilling of younger men. One of the “unintended consequences” of all the feminists, progressives, and woke people’s Luciferian ideology is an increasing red pilling of men at even younger and younger ages, like even down into the teens now. Instead of producing more blue pill betas, the “black hatters” are producing more red pill boys. I found that very interesting to say the least.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Salvation and Baptism by the Holy Spirit will help to temper their natural tendencies and point it towards Virtue.
I don’t believe women cannot change for the better through Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
Now I want to know who this “female red pill content creator” is. If she’s cheating on her younger husband, I bet she’s justifying it somehow. Something Pinkettesque, like “Well, I know it’s wrong, but, I mean, I got needs, and he’s just not meeting them, and I gotta get them met, and…. one thing led to another, and… yeah, I got into this entanglement, and, yeah, you know….”
LikeLike
Well, it was the summer of 2020, and by her own admission to me at the time, she went to the precipice of having an affair, but didn’t go over it. IDK, maybe true, maybe not. I didn’t think too much about it, other than, “smart move lady, if true.”
I’m pretty sure she became a content creator, primarily on FB and Instagram, in summer or fall of 2021. So, exactly how she became “red pill” I don’t know. I do now that when I was talking to her in summer 2020, she did have an issue with one lady in the group of our educational program who she felt displayed “too much masculine energy.” I didn’t fully agree with her, but I got her point. To me, the lady she had the issue with was feminine in appearance, feminine in manner in many ways; and yes, a touch of masculine energy because she was a leader in corporate world (mid-level manager, not HR related), but not overly so. I couldn’t get what her beef was with her because it seemed so petty to me at the time.
Looking back on the conversations now, I can see better that she was viewing the other lady through a red pill lense or burgeoning red pill lense, but she was not communicating in red pill language, except for the masculine energy thing; otherwise, I would have immediately picked up on it. To me it occurred as she just didn’t like the other lady, maybe a competition thing. Both close to the same age, although other lady was four years younger, Both good looking. I chalked it up to female jealousy and competition, a personality clash type of thing.
LikeLike
Robert Greene, the author of The 48 Laws of Power, is a great example of this. From reading his book, you’d get the impression that the author is a ruthless combination of Bundy, Rockefeller, Stalin, Sun Tzu, and Superman, all rolled into one man. But when you see him speaking in person, you’d think, “How the he11 did this guy come up with this stuff?!?”
LikeLike
Commenting on this one will be light… most manosphere commenters are APs.
Usually around here, “EAP” stands for “Evangelical American Princess”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You kind of have to be an AP to feel the need to boldly express your opinions to a bunch of random strangers who have no reason to care what you think.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Bingo! I think most of us on here fit that description, Lol!
LikeLiked by 2 people
California womens’ discussion about red flags.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thoughts on this video?
LikeLike
Listened to the first half – sounded too “complementarian” to me. A wife should obey her husband unless commanded by her husband to do something DIRECTLY sinful e.g. have a threesome, murder the children. Obedience is a virtue but only God is owed absolute, unconditional obedience. Sin does not consist of goofy, modern pseudo-sins like “not loving herself.” The tendency for women to use this as a loophole should be recognzed.
This should apply to direct sin not her subjective judgement like “this would be bad for our household.”
LikeLike
My concern would be that they use these OT examples to get out of obedience. “This would be bad for our family.” Also some examples he gives are “the woman should have said something.” There’s a difference between “saying something” to him and disobeying a direct command.
It’s the usual problem. If the wife gets to decide if the husband is “aligned with God” then he has no authority and she’s in charge since in a relationship of two one person is always in authority. Sounds bluepill Churchian. Dalrock wouldn’t approve.
LikeLike
In the real world, what is the main problem. Is it Christian husbands commanding their wives to do sinful things or is it wifely disobedience. It’s wifely disobedience. I’m sure it’s happened somewhere but neither me or my wife has seen a case of a husband commanding sin. The harshest case we’ve seen is a husband telling a wife to stop breastfeeding a toddler presumably because the husband wanted sexual access.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scott brought this into sharp focus for me.
Wives ask…
“But… but… but… What if he asks me to rob a bank!”
To which the response is…
“Uh huh. Because there’s such an epidemic of Christian male bank robbers. Because there’s such an epidemic of Christian men demanding that their wives rob banks….”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: The Abusive Criminal / Thug | Σ Frame
Pingback: A Summary of Faux-Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame
Pingback: Is “Self-Love” Really so Bad? – A Theocratic Essay | Stage In The Sky
Pingback: The 12 Harbingers of Masculine Doom | Σ Frame
Pingback: An open letter to Christian Wives | Σ Frame