Secrets of The Henhouse Sisterhood

Fact:

Women hate it when men verbally express their sexual preferences.  If you express your sexual desires to the women around you, for example, who you consider “hot” or “not” regarding a woman’s age, weight, or beauty, women react violently, condescendingly, and often seize it as an opportunity to lecture you on to the “preferred” beta-cuck-nice-guy AFC (Average Frustrated Chump) behavior that you should adopt, of course, to the detriment of your own sex life and self-esteem.

Women do this on behalf of other women, including women that they don’t even know, or will never meet!

In his seminal volume The Rational Male, Rollo Tomassi gives examples of women on dating sites, who overtly express their sexual preferences in their profiles.  Women openly describe the looks, style, personality traits, height and other qualities that they look for in a man.  Rollo then flipped the script, modeling his profile to express HIS very male sexual preferences, namely, that he didn’t want any overweight women, that he wanted a “Jessica Alba type,” etc.

In today’s society, where “equality” (shudder) is the moral imperative, one would think that there is nothing wrong with this.  Women are free to express their mating desires, and so are men – right?   But, as to be expected, his dating site inbox was flooded with hate-mail.

I have run experiments similar to Rollo’s, here is a quick summary of some of the responses that I, as well as others have received:

To paraphrase:

“If you want a hot woman you better be hot yourself.”

“You’re shallow!”

“I’d never get with a guy like you!”

“Uh yeah, you’re just looking for sex and you’ll never get with a quality woman like me if that’s all you care about.”

And on, and on… like clockwork, you can always expect a woman to find any expression of your own sexual imperative to be morally deplorable, downright offensive, and just-plain misogynistic or mean.  Feminist social-progressives have bull-horned so hard on this issue, that we are now seeing time-honored traditions, such as “Track Girls” in circuit auto racing, and even cheerleaders at professional sports events, go the way of the dodo bird.

On this subject, again, I have to credit Rollo Tomassi.  Before Rollo, female behaviors have been only vaguely identified by pick-up artists, men’s rights activists, MGTOW-types, and others in the manosphere.  Rollo boils everything down to one thing: evolutionary sexual selection, and the breeding behaviors that men and women have adopted in order to ensure our reproductive capabilities.  His thesis is beautifully simple, elegant and clear – if not a little frightening.  Tomassi peels back the curtain of female behavior, once you read him, your illusions will be shattered forever.  You will never look at women the same way again.

So – let’s analyze the violent antagonism that women have against male sexual preference through the “Lens of Rollo.”  WWRD?

Competition between men and women, the selfish gene:

1. Men are motivated to fuck as often as they can, and prefer the most fertile females – the ones that have the best feminine signals (beautiful, hot, large breasts, nice hips, cute face, and of a young, reproductive age).
2. Women are more selective and qualify men into two categories
   1. Alphas – purely for their genetic material, these are strong, wild, and even a little dangerous.  Alphas are the most sexually arousing to females, have desirable “male” physical traits (abs, chiseled looks, tall, muscular, uncontrollable, wild, independent). “Alpha fucks.”
   2. Betas – provider-servants.  Betas are conditioned to serve women in any capacity, and are the victims of females attempts to Psycho-emotionally castrate them (PEC them), because a woman wants to ensure that her beta-male does not seek out other females that are in reproductive competition with her.  “Beta bucks,” Betas provide long-term survival benefits to a woman.  A woman will attempt (and often fail) to transition her Alpha into a Beta by controlling him and PEC-ing (Psycho-emotionally castrating) him, so as to ensure that he does not breed with any other females.  Often, she fails to do so, and he becomes the “cad ex husband/boyfriend” that ultimately gets taken to the cleaners in court, so that our new single-mom can seek out a Beta to take care of her.  Either way, she wins – as the court system ensures that her ex will be Beta-fied one way or the other.

So men and women have competing sexual imperatives, which is why anytime you get a group of men and women together, be it in a college classroom or a “friendly” outing with a mixed group of men and women, the infamous “men vs. women in relationships debate” always rears its ugly head.  But if we are to look at it truthfully, it is, what Tomassi calls, “The Feminine Imperative” that dominates post-modern society.

Above, we see a perfect exhibit of the modern woman, cozy in her presumption of the Feminine Imperative.  First of all, “thirty-three years old, my ass!”  If she is thirty-three, with those lines all over her face and forehead, she’s a pretty rough thirty-three.  But by the description of who would make for her ideal mate, you would think she was a twenty-one-year-old bikini model.  “He will not only put up with my wacky moods [shit tests], but he may even think they are cute [beta male], (even if he won’t admit it. [solipsism – she knows what you’re thinking!] )…. confident and self assured but isn’t cocky with an over-inflated ego [goldilocks narcissism]… keep me on my toes both when it comes to intellect and energy [pepper it with some alpha, please, so that I can be attracted to you].”

The issue is not that males and females have competing sexual narratives, imperatives and standards.  The issue is that it is the Feminine Imperative has dominated western culture, such that it has become synonymous with “relationship morality,” or just “doing the right thing.”  Ergo, the Male Prerogative has become tainted, evil, immoral, toxic, “abusive to women,” or (at minimum), just plain stupid. Because women are in direct competition with the Masculine Imperative, they attack it whenever it is presented to them.  There is an old joke, “How does a woman screw in a lightbulb?  Answer, she holds it in place and the whole world revolves around her!”  Rollo I.D.’s this better than anyone else in manosphere-history:

Solipsism. 

After all of this equality-talk, women still don’t think equitably about a man’s sexual imperative and objectively compare it to hers.  To a woman, all that matters is her imperative and her narrative.  It is in her best interest to inflate her own SMV (Sexual Market Value), as much as possible.  If she’s three-hundred-pound pig, in her eyes, she’s a “real woman, and when you’re done with all those fake, skinny bitches, you’ll wise up and get with her, a woman who KNOWS how to treat a man right!”  In conjunction with this, she needs to preserve her own reproductive imperative, “SHE does the choosing, and decides who is Alpha and who is Beta, NOT you.”  Thus, if you overtly express that you, as a man, think that you are of a certain value that contradicts her perception of herself, she will step in to correct you, and undermine your own self-worth.

The feminine imperative is to control the sexual landscape.  “He who CAN be beta-cucked SHALL be beta-cucked.  Who is an alpha-fuck? I’ll decide that.”

Women are offended by overt, verbalized expressions of male sexual preference, because it threatens their control over the Sexual Marketplace, and often will threaten their own SMV.  Their only solution to this, is to degrade your SMV, inflate their own, and promote the mentality of Beta-cuckholdry.

But this begs the question: WHY do they do this on behalf of OTHER WOMEN?!

If a female acquaintance of mine showed me a guy she was interested on a dating profile, perhaps saying, “he’s hot, I like his abs and his chiseled good looks,” my only response would be “ookay.. go for it then..”  I wouldn’t be offended, nor would I ever think to be.  The only thing I might be thinking is that I need to hit the gym harder so that I can be as desirable as the guy she’s looking at.

Women, however?  That’s a different story entirely.  Allow me to share a personal example:

One day I was traveling for work, and this necessitated that I share a meal with a female coworker, named Melinda.  While we were waiting for our meal to arrive, I started flipping through eHarmony profiles (I know better now, and have since cancelled my membership).  Naturally Melinda was very interested, she leaned over and watched intensely.

“You’re on eHarmony?  Lemmie see…”

Melinda watched as I opened my inbox and saw a new message.  It wasn’t from the lady who’s profile I posted above, this one looked about ten years older, sixty pounds heavier and with five or six giant, protruding boils on her face.  You get the picture, she was downright hideous.

“What did she write to you?” Melinda asked.

I skimmed through it.  She wrote, “Hey Devin, nice pictures.. hope we can talk sometime… have a great day.”

Me: Yeah.. um.. I think I’ll pass. (I motion to delete the message).

Melinda: WHY? She could be a great girl?! Why are you doing that to her??

Me: Because I’m not attracted to her.

Melinda: (silence).. but still she wrote to you..

Me: You’re being silly.. I message girls all the time on here and most of the time they don’t respond. That’s just the way it is. I don’t expect every girl out there to be attracted to me.  I’m not attracted to her.  That’s fair, right?

Melinda: ….(silence)

Me: You’re attracted to your boyfriend, yeah?

Melinda: … yeah..

Me: Well I’m not attracted to this hideous, overweight girl, that’s the way it goes.

Melinda: But it’s not the same for women as it is for men… women get tons of messages, SHE wrote YOU!

In the manosphere, is not acceptable for us to simply dismiss this as “that’s just the way women are.”  We aim to understand why women do the things they do, why they have structured their own moral compasses in this way, and how it suits their own sexual advantage.

So, here’s the answer: The Henhouse Sisterhood.

To Melinda, my coworker, I openly displayed my own Alpha-esque Masculine Imperative: to fuck the hottest girls that I can, and to dismiss the rest.  This flew directly in the face of Melinda’s Feminine Imperative, which is to either A) find a hot alpha to bang of her own choosing, or B) ensure that enough men are steady and reliable Beta-providers to ensure her long-term survivorship, and the survivorship of her children.

This doesn’t explain why she would attempt to Beta-cuck and Psycho-emotionally castrate a man that she has no intention of sleeping with, on behalf of another woman – or does it?

Women raise children in communes.  There is her children, and “our children,” which are the children of the other women in the tribal group.  Women do this today at baby showers, or when they see a baby being strolled down the street, “Awww what a precious little baby!”  Women have a natural care-taking instinct, and that instinct is transferred to EVERY child in their group.  As such, women feel innately responsible for “all of the children.”  This sentimentality is echoed in modern-day socialist mentalities, as feminists see the government as a maternal caretaker, and its subjects as victimized, feeble “children.”  Note how quickly they are to label radical migrants or illegal immigrants as “poor, misunderstood souls.”  These are people they have never and (most likely) WILL never meet!  Yet, feminists, leftists and their ilk, see no issue with obligating by way of force, the taxpayers to “take care of” the poor little victims.

To make a long story short, WOMEN CARETAKE COLLECTIVELY.  By the fact that I was even looking at “eHarmony Girl” as a potential mate, eHarmony Girl became tangentially related to me, and therefore, tangentially related to my coworker Melinda.

Melinda felt a deep and very instinctual need to watch over eHarmony Girl, ensure that her future-kids were looked after, and (yes), ensure that I would make for a good beta-provider, in the off case that I would be stuck taking care of the two of them.  Should Melinda’s husband be killed in battle, or on a hunting trip, she would look for me to take care of her and their offspring — and vice-versa for me as the imaginary husband of eHarmony Girl.  Thus, The Henhouse Sisterhood is born.

So the rundown of the relationship is as follows:

1. Melinda -> Devin (coworkers)
2. Melinda -> Devin -> eHarmony Girl (potential mate), therefore:
3. Melinda -> eHarmony girl (Henhouse Sisterhood protection)

By way of this tribal, collectivist, shared-childcare evolutionary convention, Melinda already sees me as a tribal member, and now feels that “Devin’s potential mate” is a tribal member, and is therefore in her domain of needing protection and care-taking from me.  The Henhouse Sisterhood is the evolutionary behavioral mechanism by which women feel compelled to look after each other’s kids, provided that those kids are members of the same social/tribal group.

Melinda’s second unconscious and deeply evolved strategy is the Key Club / War Wives strategy, which is pursued entirely out of her own self-interest.  If Melinda’s man were to perish, she has ensured that I will feel obligated to take care of BOTH of them.  It is in Melinda’s best interest to have as many Beta Buck Orbiters in her social periphery as possible.  Melinda already fucked her Alpha, but he could get killed, so she is ensuring that the men in her social circle (i.e., her tribal group), are psycho-emotionally castrated and beta-cucked into servitude, so as to ensure the long-term survivorship of herself, THEIR children, and the other members of The Henhouse Sisterhood.

As with most unconscious and evolutionarily-determined mechanisms, all of this betrays rational thought.  Melinda relays her evolutionary imperative over to a silly digital phone-app (eHarmony) and to a girl that she has never met, and never will meet.  Melinda’s reaction is simply expressed as an earnest and urgent form of offense.  “If Devin is Alpha with her, he won’t stick around… he’ll be off pursuing his sexual imperative and not OURS!”  Melinda immediately associates this woman as a member of “our tribe” and aggressively moves in to protect her and ensure that she is protected.  Any statement that I made regarding me expressing my sexual preferences (such as finding her unattractive, etc), is a survival-reproductive threat to the both of them.

Male reproductive strategy is overtly offensive to women because it defies all sides of the feminine strategy:

1. Alpha-strategy is offensive to women because the male is pronouncing that he is not interested in being a Beta-provider to be leveraged for care-taking and resources.
2. Alpha-strategy means that the male is inherently uncommitted and pursues other options, which causes a man to abandon the women in the Henhouse Sisterhood (won’t take on additional dependents).  It makes a man unavailable to serve the place as a replacement-caretaker (no Key Club member or Military Wives).
3. Alpha-strategy is offensive to women because THEY want to decide who qualifies as Alpha.  “He who can be Beta-cucked deserves to be Beta-cucked.”

It is not that women violently sticking up for other women, in conversation or otherwise, is an effect of the widespread feminist ideology.  Rather, it is the other way around.  The Feminine Imperative (again, credit to The Rational Male), is the female-competing side of the sexual battleground/marketplace.  This imperative has informed feminism, and thus, has become the “popular morality” for the culture at large.

Think for a moment, about how may times you have seen a man and a woman form a relationship when they were just the tangential friends of an originally paired couple.  Often, it is the woman who pursues her ex’s best friend when the initial relationship ends.  Evolution is all about selfish genes, therefore it is not collectivist (as groups don’t have genes).  However, as a selfish reproductive strategy, it serves a woman’s best interest to engage in co-childcaring with other women, and to surround herself with tangential beta-orbiters, knowing full and well that a man might jump-ship to her, or be needed in the case that she needs a replacement provider for her slain or otherwise absent partner.

I hope this (forgive me) long-winded essay finds you well, and please keep in mind that women can never be trusted to lend you a compassionate or supportive ear when it comes to you pursuing your own relationship needs in the world.