The Relational Equity Fallacy

[Rollo Tomassi]

OK, take a deep breath, now watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVqeo4jMlXE

The first rule every Beta-Herb chump needs to beat into his head is this:
Hypergamy doesn’t care about relational equity.
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/relational-equity/

I think one of the primary neuroses Beta men fall back on is the expectation that all of their personal investment, self-sacrifice, emotional support, fidelity and acts of devotion constitute some form of equity that would insure them against the wanton forces of hypergamy.

The first recourse any Beta (our subject chump in the video for example) will resort to when presented with the demise of his relationship is reminding his estranged woman of his steadfast loyalty and history of self-sacrifice. He played by the equalist rule set he was led to believe would be appreciated, so his misguided beta expectation is that his woman's innate hypergamy could be displaced by a rational appreciation for his compliance with what anyone has ever told him women would love him for.

As you can see, the jagged rocks of a hypergamic reality often leave a bloody trail in their wake.

 

[Warrior74]

Awful, awful acting.

 

[Burroughs]

That did have the feel of a D level skid row actor's workshop.

that being said if your biatch ever leaves you for a dude in a pink bandana you need to jump off a bridge immediately.:kick:

 

[Greasy Pig]

Any man who pedestalises women should watch 10 episodes of this show back to back.

 

[ebracer05]

What you are articulating here sounds like level one of Super Mario Brothers... you understand this... so what? There are still several more levels to burn through before you've actually got the princess

I don't understand why this is such a hard thing for guys to understand and it seems like a lot of what has been written on the site lately has culminated towards this idea, and perhaps an even greater one. The reason beta guys do this is because as Backbreaker said, they don't know how to fall in love responsibly. So far as I've seen, they have a low level of confidence in their ability to attract whatever a "quality woman" is and/or they have self esteem issues. They may also not know how to express positively masculinity or feel comfortable doing so.

But beta guys will be doing this as long as feminism has the roots it does in society and probably longer than that. A disinterested woman gives a sh*t about a guy's undying love, devotion, gifts, flowers, poetry, or even public commitments before God and their friends. Women primarily feel, men primarily think. And a logical dissertation about why a man should be a good choice for a woman is a foolish way to go.

What I want to know begins somewhere after level one of this game of Super Mario. I've been driving myself crazy studying for a medical school exam and find myself thinking about the most random things in my breaks, and most of today it's been this stuff.

Rollo, do you really think hypergamy exists as you've defined it in the United States? I wrote a rather protracted explanation of where I'm coming from on Backbreaker's thread here http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=196020&page=16. I've been thinking of hypergamy along the lines of the economic theories I studied when I wanted to be a lawyer and my perception is that saying the United States' SMP is ruled by hypergamy is analogous to saying the United States' economy is totally free. While we don't live under full blown socialism in the US, we definitely don't have a pure laissez faire economy. It's a mixed economy. And I would say the same thing of hypergamy.

If hypergamy is analogous to competition in an economy, we don't have unencumbered competition in the SMP. There are both legal and social encumbrances that eliminate what a classical liberal would call "equality of opportunity" for men. The disparity is awarded to the women in increased opportunity.

True hypergamy would leave men and women in a position of equal opportunity to pursue their ends in the SMP, but it doesn't work that way, which is probably one of the biggest reasons this site exists.

What are your views on this?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Awful, awful acting.

No kidding.

That reminded me of some of the super low budget movies that are available on Netflix. Fake as hell.

Although Rollo's main point does remind me of a myth of economics, where it's wrongly assumed that the value of any product for sale on the market is based to any extent on the amount of work and material that went into it.

The value of ALL products, men, women, and boxes of cheese flavored pretzels is only worth what the going rate is, what people are willing to pay, regardless of how much work was went into producing them.

 

[Buddha_Mind]

LOL GOOD LORD

That guy with downsyndrome that kept popping in, saying "I'm your biggest fan" was fvcking hilarious.

 

[DonJuan_DeRosco]

Acted or not, please Rollo, the next time you drop a vid like that on us, prepare us better. The taste of bile in my throat is still lingering.

 

[SecondHalf]

Shouldn't have watched this first thing in the morning :s

Mangina, white trash, loser and half wit.
The half wit had the most value value!

Nicely set up to drive home a point.

Thank you,

SH

 

[sodbuster]

SH!T! couldn't watch the whole thing....disgusting whiny 4 year old in a mans? body

 

[Zarky]

What the f*ck did I just watch?

 

[SecondHalf]

What the f*ck did I just watch?

6 Minutes, 21 seconds of your life pass by without meaning, as did I lol.

SH

 

[Atom Smasher]

It's hard to believe the casting is so bad on that show. Probably some of the worst acting I've ever seen. It does serve to illustrate Rollo's general point,

however...

I'm becoming more and more aware that there exists a significant, critically important void in awareness in this community among the 45 and under crowd, and that is the fact that things were much different 45-50 years ago. It seems to you that much of what is going on with women today is universal, global, and hard-wired because you were not alive and did not experience life when society was vastly different.

You were educated in a feminized educational system. So was I, but it was when the disease of feminism was in its absolute infancy so I saw it develop before my eyes. You have experienced nothing but the entitled, bratty behavior and hypergamy of women all your lives. And although you have seen this societal decay accelerate, you were not around when it was contained and was a small subset of the poulation at large.

Look at your grandparents and great-grandparents. These women by and large were not branch-swingers and clueless hypergamous fools (as almost all women are today, but not quite all). They met a man, married, made a life for themselves and took care of their man and their household. Am I speaking of generalities and of the best-case? Of course, but still this was the general norm for society.

As an aside, does anyone here think the sh!t first hit the fan in the 60s when it came to societal devolution and feminism? Wrong! It happened in the "roaring" 20s. In that decade, the genders started melding together, many if not most women became feminists, men were devalued, sexual permissiveness was rampant, and all the issues we see today exploded on the scene.

But then curiously, a massive reversal took place and all that went into remission. Why? Reality hit. The great depression in the 30s and the war in the 40s permitted very little societal contrivance and experimentation. It was all about survival, and the genders were restored to normal literally overnight. The 50s reveal a society where there was newfound prosperity and people seemed to be striving toward some kind of ideal, a society where even though there were many more options and much more money floating around, women took care of the nest while men went out to the business battlefield every day.

But what did that prosperity and plentitude of options breed? The Roaring 20s roared into full fruition again. I speak, of course, of the 60s. I was born in 1957, so as a child I saw the rise of feminism in its absolute infancy in the late 60s. Prior to '70 or so, there was still a significant amount of respect afforded to men although by that time it was rapidly eroding.

At any rate, your grandmother and great grandmother and great-great grandmother were statistically probably not hypergamous branch-swingers. They made a life for themselves and derived satisfaction out of fulfilling the role that nature equipped them for. However, today's future great-great grandmothers mostly will be.

In case it's not obvious, my point is that things were very, very different back in the day and it is the mass media that has poisoned the minds of women to their current state of insanity and delusion.

Whoever is reading this, your current girlfriend or wife almost certainly doesn't possess the quality of character and inner strength of your great great grandma. Stastically, she is very likely either greatly influenced by or completely ensconced in the moral decay that has taken place since the very late 60s.

It wasn't always like this, men. What we see today is not so much that which is absolutely and irrevocably hard-wired into women, but rather female base tendencies that have been given complete permission and encouragement by society to bloom and flourish.

We must be careful to look outside of our own lifetime and experiences in order to evaluate the current order of things. It just so happens that I lived prior to the fall of womankind and for an all too brief time I enjoyed a world where boys and men were valued and when a woman felt honored to be chosen by a man for a date. My, how the worm has turned.

It wasn't always this way, gents. Trust me. I was there.

 

[backbreaker]

It's hard to believe the casting is so bad on that show. Probably some of the worst acting I've ever seen. It does serve to illustrate Rollo's general point,

however...

I'm becoming more and more aware that there exists a significant, critically important void in awareness in this community among the 45 and under crowd, and that is the fact that things were much different 45-50 years ago. It seems to you that much of what is going on with women today is universal, global, and hard-wired because you were not alive and did not experience life when society was vastly different.

You were educated in a feminized educational system. So was I, but it was when the disease of feminism was in its absolute infancy so I saw it develop before my eyes. You have experienced nothing but the entitled, bratty behavior and hypergamy of women all your lives. And although you have seen this societal decay accelerate, you were not around when it was contained and was a small subset of the poulation at large.

Look at your grandparents and great-grandparents. These women by and large were not branch-swingers and clueless hypergamous fools (as almost all women are today, but not quite all). They met a man, married, made a life for themselves and took care of their man and their household. Am I speaking of generalities and of the best-case? Of course, but still this was the general norm for society.

As an aside, does anyone here think the sh!t first hit the fan in the 60s when it came to societal devolution and feminism? Wrong! It happened in the "roaring" 20s. In that decade, the genders started melding together, many if not most women became feminists, men were devalued, sexual permissiveness was rampant, and all the issues we see today exploded on the scene.

But then curiously, a massive reversal took place and all that went into remission. Why? Reality hit. The great depression in the 30s and the war in the 40s permitted very little societal contrivance and experimentation. It was all about survival, and the genders were restored to normal literally overnight. The 50s reveal a society where there was newfound prosperity and people seemed to be striving toward some kind of ideal, a society where even though there were many more options and much more money floating around, women took care of the nest while men went out to the business battlefield every day.

But what did that prosperity and plentitude of options breed? The Roaring 20s roared into full fruition again. I speak, of course, of the 60s. I was born in 1957, so as a child I saw the rise of feminism in its absolute infancy in the late 60s. Prior to '70 or so, there was still a significant amount of respect afforded to men although by that time it was rapidly eroding.

At any rate, your grandmother and great grandmother and great-great grandmother were statistically probably not hypergamous branch-swingers. They made a life for themselves and derived satisfaction out of fulfilling the role that nature equipped them for. However, today's future great-great grandmothers mostly will be.

In case it's not obvious, my point is that things were very, very different back in the day and it is the mass media that has poisoned the minds of women to their current state of insanity and delusion.

Whoever is reading this, your current girlfriend or wife almost certainly doesn't possess the quality of character and inner strength of your great great grandma. Stastically, she is very likely either greatly influenced by or completely ensconced in the moral decay that has taken place since the very late 60s.

It wasn't always like this, men. What we see today is not so much that which is absolutely and irrevocably hard-wired into women, but rather female base tendencies that have been given complete permission and encouragement by society to bloom and flourish.

We must be careful to look outside of our own lifetime and experiences in order to evaluate the current order of things. It just so happens that I lived prior to the fall of womankind and for an all too brief time I enjoyed a world where boys and men were valued and when a woman felt honored to be chosen by a man for a date. My, how the worm has turned.

It wasn't always this way, gents. Trust me. I was there.

holy **** atom smasher good stuff

I try not to get too caught up in the good ole days talk because it does me no good in 2012. But what what it.. earlier this year one of my wife's friends brought a date over and he was an interesting cat and we kinda hit it off (needless to say the girls asn't interested in him any more lol just my luck) and after a few drinks we got talking about feminism and he said something that peeked my interest; he said he bets you can draw a direct line between prosperity and feminism. the more prosperous a country is the more it allows the liberalism of women and the feminist mindset.

and thinking about it it makes a lot of sense. Look at rome, at it's infancy of power, Carthage/Hannibal's crew were at the height of power at that time in the region and the Persians overall. AT that time Rome was a nation state built around war and controlling the city ports.

once they got the upper hand against Hannibal and so on and so forth blah blah ceaser, Augustus and all that good ****, around the time of Nero and all that, women were much more prominent. **** nero's wife basically ran Rome he sure as hell didn't.

It was only once King Henry the 8th took England from an european afterthought and made them a real player on the national stage that his 2 daughters, mary tudor (bloody mary) and Queen Elizabeth could run the show. if not for the almost 40 years of prosperous reign by KH that never happens.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

At any rate, your grandmother and great grandmother and great-great grandmother were statistically probably not hypergamous branch-swingers. They made a life for themselves and derived satisfaction out of fulfilling the role that nature equipped them for. However, today's future great-great grandmothers mostly will be.

...

In case it's not obvious, my point is that things were very, very different back in the day and it is the mass media that has poisoned the minds of women to their current state of insanity and delusion.

Whoever is reading this, your current girlfriend or wife almost certainly doesn't possess the quality of character and inner strength of your great great grandma. Stastically, she is very likely either greatly influenced by or completely ensconced in the moral decay that has taken place since the very late 60s.

....

It wasn't always this way, gents. Trust me. I was there.

I think you're giving the grandma's too much credit. Humans are extremely adaptable.

Based only on the information you touched on in your post, there's a couple of variables.

One is wealth.

The other is information.

When wealth AND information is scarce, people buck up and deal with life. The only option is to choose ONE male to stick with.

When there's literally no other options, you can't really give people for behaving the only way they know how.

Now, in after WWII, when the economy was kicking, you had Wealth but not so much information, maybe some fake shows on TV.

So there were more options for women.

Today, even though the economy is in a recession, the access to wealth, for most women, is significantly higher than it was back in the day.

So today's females have Wealth AND Information, which as you pointed out, is a deadly combination.

I guess the point I'm making is that humans, men or women, will tend to run wild when the constraints are removed.

You can't really say one generation had better morals than another.

It's like comparing twins, where one has to show up at a factory every morning at 8 AM or he'll get fired, and his brother who works for a guy (maybe some idiot who inherited a business from his pop) who lets him come in any time he wants, work for however long he wants, and leave any time he wants.

Naturally, the factory worker will go to bed early, wake up early, and budget his time accordingly.

The lazy boss twin can afford to sleep late, stay up late and party all night.

Does the factory twin have more discipline than the lazy boss twin? Or are two identical people who are responding to different external stimulation?


My point, again, is that I don't think you really can say that today's women are branch swinging, *** guzzling hookers, while our grandmas were upstanding citizens with fine reputations.

I think if our grandmas were born today, they'd be chugging c0ck with the best of them, while the sleeziest girl you know, had she been born during the great depression, would be a dedicated homemaker.

I believe that changes in societal pressures (access to wealth, information, etc) lead female behavior, not the other way around.

All women can be wh0res, given the right circumstances, just like they could all be church going angels, given the right circumstances.

It's just that nowadays, it's a sellers market when it comes to poon.

Which means if you want quality, you're going to have to come up with significantly more valuable purchasing power than our grandpa's had to.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Good points, BB.

When the Bomb finally drops and throws society into chaos (it is not a matter of if, but when), feminism will disappear overnight. Its fuel will be entirely expended and extinct.

It is only political and popular contrivance that keeps women's "entitlement" afloat. Without those underpinnings, it will shatter.

 

[backbreaker]

I think if our grandmas were born today, they'd be chugging c0ck with the best of them, while the sleeziest girl you know, had she been born during the great depression, would be a dedicated homemaker.

lol that made me laugh thinking of my grandma being a town pump. but you are correct though.

it's like presidents; the time and situation makes the president more than anything. abe lincon is not abe without the civil war. in fact he is probably considered a pretty ****ty president without the civil war

 

[Atom Smasher]

I think you're giving the grandma's too much credit. Humans are extremely adaptable.

Based only on the information you touched on in your post, there's a couple of variables.

One is wealth.

The other is information.

etc...

I think you missed my basic premise, because we do not disagree.

Great grandma had far more strength and quality of character precisely because of societal mores, and one could say, pressures at the time. Society buttressed finer personal qualities back then. Today society buttresses degeneration and the most base modes of thinking and behavior.

This is not a random degeneration. It is media-generated, media fueled, and is a deliberate and systematic attempt to destroy men through the destruction of women. Women are the easy target due to their inherent weakness in rational evaluation and their collossal egos (read: insecurities). I've always maintained that, give me enough time and I can make any woman believe anything I want her to, even the most outlandish departure from reality.

Technology and finance of course also play a role. As I said, the prosperity of the 50s provided the fuel for the ensuing explosion in the 60s.

As it stands, as I stated above, only the destruction of our technological, financial and political infrastructure (a nuclear exchange) can restore the natural balance. Either that or some other catastrophic event that will shake our foundations.

I fear that technology is the factor that has put a stop to the cyclical nature of societal insanity. Technology development is largely linear in nature, and it seems to me that cyclical forces like politics and the economy are taking a back seat to the more linear force of technological advancement. The result is that womankind's insanity cannot reverse, absent a devastating holocost of some kind.

 

[betheman]

I dont think grandma did have such strength of character, sociaety 'back then' shamed women, openly and publicly, it wasnt even that long ago, even in the 60's early 70's. a child born out of wedlock was stil somethign to arouse public and personal shame.

during WW1 &WW2, While their men were away fighting the wars, or else be shamed by women thrusting white feathers into their palms, those same women, the grandmas and great grandmas, were getting c0ck elsewhere...just as they do now

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

I think you missed my basic premise, because we do not disagree.

Great grandma had far more strength and quality of character precisely because of societal mores, and one could say, pressures at the time. Society buttressed finer personal qualities back then. Today society buttresses degeneration and the most base modes of thinking and behavior.

Perhaps we disagree on your terminology. I don't see strength and quality of character as dependent on societal pressures.

I think that the existence of certain pressures/mores make it easier for most people to adhere to a certain moral standard, and then stripping away reveals the true moral character of most people.

I suspect this is related to the percentage of people in society who live self determined lives, despite the temptations to do otherwise.

This is not a random degeneration. It is media-generated, media fueled, and is a deliberate and systematic attempt to destroy men through the destruction of women. Women are the easy target due to their inherent weakness in rational evaluation and their collossal egos (read: insecurities). I've always maintained that, give me enough time and I can make any woman believe anything I want her to, even the most outlandish departure from reality.

This I disagree with. I think much of what is going on, in the media, government, etc, is just opportunism, rather than premeditated destruction.

Technology and finance of course also play a role. As I said, the prosperity of the 50s provided the fuel for the ensuing explosion in the 60s.

I believe the bottom line is access to wealth.

When wealth (resources) requires effort and risk, people generally step up. When the only access women have to wealth is a man through marriage, obviously they are going to stick with it.

When women can get access to wealth either through their own efforts, or through government assistance, then long term commitment is no longer necessary.

Technological advances merely even the playing field when it comes to access to wealth, so women can earn as much as men, in certain situations.

Also, it's not unrelated that a large number of women are teachers, social workers, counselors, many of which receive their salaries ultimately from the government.

So at the same time you have increased technology which allows women to get paid, as well as an ever expanding government which takes the place of the traditional male provider.

The media and entertainment is just taking advantage of the situation, presenting whatever news is most profitable. Because a greater portion of women are financial decision makers, the media and entertainment naturally cater to them.

In short, the media is following recent trends, not creating them.

As it stands, as I stated above, only the destruction of our technological, financial and political infrastructure (a nuclear exchange) can restore the natural balance. Either that or some other catastrophic event that will shake our foundations.

I don't believe there is any natural balance. There is a relatively stable equilibrium between men and women that is reached based on general trends.

I sincerely believe that the "good old days" that existed between the end of the industrial revolution and before the technological revolution are gone for good.

Women no longer need men for security, only for making babies. And then they only need them for a couple/three years.

Long term marriages existed only because they were demanded by the situations of society. As these conditions no longer exist, neither will long term marriages, unless they are entered into with the specific choice of being maintained.

That's neither good nor bad, only just humans responding to the environment.