The End Of Women's Rights
She feels; I think... I'll cuff her to the kitchen sink.
Precisely nothing that follows can be assessed in good faith.
…if you’re a woman that’s because your epistemics are precognitively circumscribed by deep and primordial heuristics to which you don’t have meaningful conscious access—which make it all but impossible for you to assess certain propositions purely in terms of correspondence with the world as grasped through shared observation (measured by predictive closure / explanatory power) instead of backsolving for risk mitigation logic or relational and status-driven credibility weighting, which for women tends to either register as correspondence as such or function as an operative veto thereupon.
…if you’re a man it’s far simpler: under the extant incentive structure it’s maladaptive for our sex to internalize certain correspondence-level facts about sexed asymmetries in the Liberal Democratic epistemic standing regime that remain both institutionally obscured and moralized post hoc, as when vocalized such truths severely lower one’s status position, and even kept to oneself precipitate a certain ambient cognitive load.
So how can something like this persist?
Historically it functioned as a stable equilibrium on account of every man with the status buffer and rhetorical chops to upset it even locally being himself a beneficiary of the narrative sovereignty it affords high status men, such that there was never any incentive to cooperate downward with losers—incidentally the same logic modern men invoke when obliged to justify some accord with the less winsome facets of the modern intersexual dynamic, and also what once instantiated at an embodied level is ultimately what underwrites that earnest and implacable moral certainty women bring when epistemically foreclosing malcontents as bitter and entitled and all the rest prior to forevermore parsing their speech acts as either sour grapes or meaningless noise.
Thing is though historically that intuition was basically correct.
Today it isn’t.
Not least of which because the recent salience of incels as a Girardian scapegoat class has made it socially and erotically disastrous for men to cosign anything even vaguely incel-coded even by second or third order implication… which of course means men are strongly incentivized to either A) narrate themselves as regime beneficiaries while deploying whatever delusional motivated reasoning is necessary; and B) signal beneficiary status publicly even when privately suspicious they’re no such thing.
Both of these are distortive illusions of a long-term stability every man reading this knows in his marrow to be irretrievably out of step with the lived intrasexual zeitgeist of men on the ground and Zoomer boys especially. Alas, said illusions also carry tremendous power as coordinative fireblocks to socially legible male grievance aggregation, and so precognitive feminine risk mitigation heuristics compel women to take them 100% at face value and reward men for participating in their mass dissemination while also moralistically coding talk of distortive incentives as incel-adjacent or conspiratorial.
This creates in effect a self-sealing epistemics-status ecosystem, wherein for a man to remain sexually viable and legibly dignified under modal late modern sensibilities he must aggressively police his own speech and cognition for any potential “grievance” and “bitterness” regardless of how legitimate said grievance actually is in practice, as at the end of the day men have no instantly legible harm narratives like women that e.g. mitigate the perception of rumination as pathetic ipso facto or are ironclad moral justification for aggregative heuristics that neuroatypical men especially need quite badly to hedge against e.g. reputational tail risk when mingling romantically or sexually with affectively volatile women in artistic status hierarchies.
Despite decades of power convergence broadly socialized in pop culture culminating pretty famously at this point in a flip among Zoomers, men are if anything afforded LESS epistemic standing every year women grow in relative power—which by the way is exactly what you’d expect in a liberal order without any genuine commitment to its purported governing ideology or any principle sans plausible deniability. Meanwhile due to persistent evolutionary drives and more importantly female disgust for male sentimentalism it’s hugely unlikely any such allowances for men will ever surface (or are even analytically coherent as such) given that even when deeply wronged it will ALWAYS be optimal for men to move on at once given resentment towards women and especially aggregated or systematized resentment will sabotage later prospects.
Which of course means that functionally speaking a wholly predictable consequence of feminist liberal democracy is that maleness itself becomes sort of Ontologically Wrong simply by dint of its conditions for operative rectitude being soft-excluded from the possibility space in a diffuse deniable way through a self-sealing therapeutic moralism tautologically incapable of good faith engagement but aligned in telos with adaptive paleolithic behavioral structures, making it entirely robust across cultural contexts and probably best made peace with as a structural burden of maleness.
That said it’s also true male tolerance for womanly disgust at male weakness (and attendant impulse to ourselves foreclose unagentic loser faggo types) and women’s solipsistic foregrounding of modes of harm most salient to them emerged over many millennia under resource-scarce and warlike patriarchal conditions in which on a low resolution level at least women were essentially property, which meant it was wholly adaptive to feel protective of them in a deep and exceptionalist way that could easily and most of the time quite safely bleed into simpiness.
Yet as you diverge from those conditions and begin to rear new cohorts in a society where women are richer and better credentialed than men it’s not that men are like to expect empathy they’ve never gotten so much as gradually and softly begin denying empathy to women in reputationally cheap ways.
Or in other words, exactly what we see in Zoomer boys.
So one reason I tend to date a lot of molested girls—or at least I’m choosing to narrate it this way, and if you don’t like it bite me—is that relative to hotness level they a lot of times are materially less likely to get the ick from you emphatically pursuing them.
Now the only group that’s genuinely terrible about that is affluent white girls, and especially those of an artsy or bohemian bent—which it probs goes without saying is the only genre of femoid I’m into enough to idealize in a suprafleshlight register such that procuring one as wife would read as a meaningful victory against the cosmos. But with other women it’s flexible and contextual and in my experience poor and minority women are generally fine as a rule with a rich white boy acting simpy to basically whatever extent class and race constitute a weighty and obvious status differential—e.g. black or single mom will let you go ultrafaggotron whereas Jewesses and Castizas will generally need to have been molested and even then it’s usually pretty important for you to maintain an overtly rapey and theatrically cruel affect whilst being gay.
With rich white girls you have basically zero margin for error, because the instant you come off as actually invested you’re a dildo at best and narrative deadweight at worst.
Because in ultra high optionality sexual markets—essentially the wife pools that won’t get you looked at like JD Vance at the office Christmas party—there’s no sin half as wretched as an Unfilled Belly; male appetite, interiority, yearning can’t be anything but pathetic or dangerous or deluded until sanitized and sanctified by womanly choice.
Which to steelman the position actually does make some sense in broad strokes given women are undeniably the sexual selectors of our species—it’s just kind of asinine to presume that aggregate desire between the sexes will be monotonic and symmetrical through time… especially after women no longer earnestly eroticize male protection and provisioning as something incontrovertibly dignified and useful, while endocrine disruptors make everyone look 14 well into middle age which it goes without saying bears fruit entirely differently for men and women—and lowkey this is actually the biggest benefit of living in the modern era quite frankly, because even the relatively trashy mid Zoomettes I groomed amidst my swashbuckling late twenties would have every one of them looked like a scarcely pubescent literal princess to just about any dude in 1850, whose options were per old pictures all librarian coded or super dykey.
Point is girls are all neotenous and kawaii now which both makes Zoomettes far more substantively lesbian than you ever saw in Millennials and makes it far and away more cognitively burdensome not to simp compared to with your grampa’s lesbian librarian, who was realistically simping for HIM, but these days stories of female yearning have basically exited the zeitgeist because the sexual balance of power is just that skewed.
And the worst part is it’s not like men can romanticize e.g. serving their country or belonging to a brotherhood or being a company man anymore, which means if you’re a sentimental and ruminative neurotype then functionally all that’s left is Puss, which of course will resent you and seek your obliteration for putting all that presh on her.
Anywho don’t take any of this as incel apologetics per se, because as far as Wally B is concerned they should all of them be launched into the sun on account of this shit:
That said it genuinely is just kind of cray I got over 100 likes on that, right?
Well ackshully no, it’s not—because long story short this is exactly what a Girardian scapegoat looks like, except the thing about scapegoats is no one ever said that they NEVER kind of deserve it on occasion—or even, perhaps, tacitly yearn for it on some level?
Point is though you have 5-10% of the male population right now that wouldn’t have been an incel in a coherent society, while in the 1950s you had roughly 10-15% of the male population that likely SHOULD have been incel but procreated anyway thanks to ultra-strong marriage norms and broad prosperity, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this trend had a hugely dysgenic effect on Boomers hence them being sort of retarded.
But my point here is the incel sweet spot is probs around ~30% or thereabouts, with lots of dangerous release valves for surplus males included to facilitate meritocratic resorting as opposed to subjecting literally everyone to brutalist essentialism. Then lots of girls should be routed more candidly into prostitution as well to absorb all that ambient directionless yearning in a more ordered manner… which functionally we already kind of see in Zoomettes btw via OnlyFans and SeekingArrangement and tbh Instagram above literally all of them, though it’s probs mostly only affluent sleazeball Millennials like moi and I assume Dan Baltic who are benefiting from that dynamic and not the Zoomer boys themselves who as a rule trend kind of scrub so
Anywho the primary issue with all this is the fairer sex has this REALLY insufferable tendency to moralize outcomes in three very different but equally annoying ways:
Attributing inceldom / sexual failure generally to moral error on the man’s part, which seems to be borne of a precognitive reattribution of womanly disgust to behavioral noncompliance which then backsolves for a moralistic poopoopeepee reason a man was rejected. And I hate picking on Kryptogal (Kate, if you like) again as I really don’t want her to take another hiatus but I think she knows I only do it because we’re archetypally salient metadiscursive rivals and so:
Now tbf the counselor’s sartorial critique here is entirely astute. But it’s crucial to drive home for all the lads that BEING RACIST MASSIVELY HELPED ME get pussy more times than I can even count: most mythically via my first girlfriend in the Alt Right with that YouTube casting couch, and then from my second chick who was fighting with her fat Latina roommate at the time and rather impishly had me wait in the foyer of their dwelling with chiquita while babygirl got ready making small talk against furrowed amber brow, and then in Orlando a bajillion times whenever I’d take some inked-up little xanax-muncher to Thai Pearl or World of Beer and get a nice long preview of that cockholster by nonchalantly saying Nigger amidst the very spiciest weeks of the Summer of Floyd, which before long became in practice probs my single most efficacious cunt opener—though granted I also had p dece guns.
Whereas you want to know the ackshual reason I was an incel until 24, Kit-Kat?
I took women seriously.
Anywho another humongously pestiferous womanly moralization vector is when girls refuse to admit (often even to themselves—esp with Millennial Matrons) that they’re into a guy for something “shallow” e.g. height muscles money wiener size platform size or literally anything else that happens to be a bit too measurable—probably because this risks randomly precipitating insecurity in the current dude or inchoate resentment for not being scariest cock. Though to their credit I find Zoomettes don’t really ever do this since it’s at this point sort of just normative for them to act a little niggery in certain ways, whereas with any girl born prior to 1995 you can bet your ass she’s entirely convinced that she married the gigachad financebro because he’s like Good At Puzzles or something. Which if I’m honest is probably quite good for society overall, but also kind of ensures I’ll never hold onto something lasting with a damsel my own age since nearly everything girls find attractive about me has always been sort of irretrievably nigger-coded at the end of the day and quite frankly yeah I kind of just want my stupid little girl to overtly compliment me for all that stuff
So the one I tend to hate the most—by far—is this very particular register of like faux-populist contempt for overt status jockeying that’s virtually always drenched in all these faggoty analgesic bromides exoterically pushing total indifference to status whilst esoterically attempting to maintain and immunize extant hierarchies under the guise of owning the strivers and reducing social friction from those obnoxious trygard social climbers who can’t have a normal one John Mulaney and just be coo—and yeah I’m lowkey subtweeting Kate again here, because she was pushing this exact line of rhetoric in our last pod episode together, also mentioning some planned treatise against status she intended to write but may have since abandoned given she later opined my thoroughgoingly status-stratified General Theory For The Gender Wars was (to use her words) “fucking brilliant.”
Anyway the thing you need to internalize is that for a man status isn’t simply about how many feet pics you receive in the DMs or how many people will pay you a retardedly inflated consultant’s fee to spitball ideas with them and lowkey just sort of hang out with you—both of which are of course quite splendid don’t get me wrong, but ultimately this shit runs quite a lot more existential, and the status gradients that matter basically come down to the fact that anything a high status man says and does is retroactively processed as Good post hoc—and not Good in the overtly amoral aesthetic sense but in an obnoxious redditor voice that figures out all these arbitrary womanreasons the powerful thing is also virtuous fam because of paleolithic bride capture and such, whereas the dalits of the world literally can’t do anything right and will trigger precognitive disgust responses that make them a permanent outgroup or Girardian scapegoat who women especially will find some foible to pick on as a legible vector of moral assault and then that’s kind of just their entire-ass story now because we’re too cowardly to abandon fake and gay normative language and speak honestly in wholly aesthetic terms.
And the thing is—and Kate will hate I bring it back to this specifically—but the fact that Aunt Kate happens to be a tall rich blonde of WASP-adjacent extraction (see The Aryan Question and Girl Who Cried Incel) in particular means she has basically zero ways to just overtly take her own side without culturally coding as Queen Cersei or a Fox News anchor but counterintuitively gains a ton of indirect power photonegatively through self-deprecation and flattening and headpats to assorted subaltern poopoos, and it’s not exactly helping her position when Wally B overtly foregrounds her apex status and breaks headpat kayfabe. But the thing she must grok here is that headpats might work on a dadrock hobbit sitting around gormlessly scarfing down pie , but they offer basically zero dopaminergic return to any of Saruman’s boys, who having tasted meats once kind of wants meats again tbh, fam—but even more than that would really quite like to be respected not in spite of but because of the white hand on his face and tarded-looking sword.
That said speaking of Kate I know a lot of you boys can’t stand her and think she’s arrogant or w/e—which is clearly true directionally but at the same time and as shit-eating as this sounds it genuinely reads as endearing once you’ve finagled a couple broads of that phenotype outside the Straussian Beehive and get a chance to appreciate what that genre of narcissism looks like properly pasteurized by the solitary nigga who can verbally overpower her explaining how and why it’s analytically impossible for her NOT to be the Master Race.
Which most definitely isn’t to say I NEVER find the matron irksome—merely that such domains are by and large kind of predictable and overdetermined given her own life outcomes are optimal when people are less consciously attuned to status and thus both less overtly resentful of the tall rich blonde and also more keyed in to cooler, more restrained, and more ambient WASP-coded signals of status as opposed to my own more flamboyant Ellis-Island and maybe also lowkey niggerish-coded theatricality.
She also seems to have a certain quasi-ideological fixation on the symmetry of partner attractiveness as a normative ideal, which as per usual she also won’t admit is her normative ideal, instead framing it descriptively as the modal “normal” circumstance, which is both a woman thing to do and Gen X monoculture thinking that sees central measures as more interesting or important than tail behavior… and even worse Kate is invested in defending the ontological legitimacy of Tinder and therefore Height Filter Maximalism which is unironically just a dumb bad opinion but I also won’t begrudge her for that because she met her husband there which being a woman makes her prone to normatively valorizing it in a register that at least in a vacuum reads as pretty discordant with her usual disinterested cool girl affect but is lowkey pretty cute when I step outside my instinctive sperg rage 2 assess its genesis.
That said she never really responded at length to the Girl Who Cried Incel even though it was literally written for her specifically to mythopoetically explain the workings of her own half-conscious opacity to her in a way that doesn’t feel reductive or mehanistic… and while she actually revisits the piece for rereads quite frequently I’ve found the public response I got from her at least during the gardening vid contextualized everything I’d written in terms of me wanting to date girls who are hotter than me, which on the one hand read as sort of flattening / uncharitable at first but I’ve since realized was in a sense metadiscursively analogous to what I myself was doing to her in that there piece in terms of routing the convo onto terrain where frame control is ezpz since everything the other person says is predictable from your model—and that btw is the main prob with sexed gaps in epistemics / phenomenology, which are basically inscrutable and especially for women will always feel like gaslighting or pretext for a Handmaid’s Putsch if you speak in full candor.
That said I also think it’s possible that in trying to make Girl Who Cried Incel palatable to womanly sensibilities I was kind of just writing it for art hoes specifically whereas Kate prefers things a lot more straight and lawyerly, often suggesting by the way I slice up my pieces into different chunks more correspondent with whatever formal syllogistic argument I’m making in each one, which is kind of funny because the aggregation is usually exactly what gets my other girl readers to plow through the syllogistic stuff so they stay invested enough to actually pony up feet pics at some point, my ultimate goal being a lot more literary than analytic there. And despite clearly differing from normie woman discursive styles in all the same basic ways as a sperg woman she’s clearly neurotypical… which tbh kind of makes me wonder if her pushing me to disaggregate is almost like a precognitive threat heuristics like when chatgpt will also try to disaggregate in not even overtly political / biased terms but probs because there’s like an underlying subliminal intuition that mixing registers in a certain way opens doors that The System isn’t ready for maybe? idk not to be a conspiratard about your interiority there, Kate.
That said we’ve already established that taking women too seriously is one of my perennial failure modes—and I also think in our last pod you were doing the second order safety consequence thing by narrating womanly attraction to dominance / aggression in more anodyne and librariany terms than you might in other contexts so it doesn’t scare any impressionable young pies… which I guess fair. But I likewise think your dismissal of my own lived experience that women straightforwardly just respond best to aggression, dominance, and a certain coldness whereas basically all my most catastrophic failure modes with the fairer sex originated basically in excessive sentimental affect—yes including that bih in the hotel who ralphed on my cock I told you about, who experienced that part itself as entirely lovely but called me a faggot when I tried to eat her out. And maybe you overindexing on the puke part was like a generational delta in kinkiness cause I’ve only fucked like one chick your age and she was waaay too strung out on xannies at the time for me to properly clock whether she thought the weird shit I did to her was cwazy—but point is it’s just trivially true most women kind of just want you to rape em these days in a way that’s scary / toothy and also occupy tremendously different registers publicly and privately when it comes to all this shit, and if there’s one thing that continues to surprise me about you Kate it’s how moralistic you tend to get about things specifically when it comes to running cover for normie male perceptions of female innocence—which is probs some latent socio-custodial impulse to preempt its further decay, but the issue there is young guys now who kind of just hate women, and I don’t think some old fat dad hearing any of this will ruin his life; he’ll just say “good I’m married.” But the young kid needs an automatic register of candor about the classic modes of female sexual sadism as instrumentalized through a dude as well as female-coded patterns of sociosexual predation and agency abrogation—not as a misogynistic training manual, mind, but as mythopoetic innards that allow him to actually metabolize his feelings of misalignment with society at large and especially his female peers without hitting up the Tates.
Also not to relitigate the entire discussion of male vs. female semantics on “incel”—but calling Elon Musk of all people an incel when he literally has a sizeable harem of concubines he impregnates on the reg and besides that a not-inconsiderable cadre of spergy fangirls is going to read as a cunty sort of neurotype bigotry and isn’t going to serve your long term political goals any more than doing that with Vance. Or like guy attacking random middle aged women writing about their daughter.
Moreover it seems to me the honest thing here is to recognize that Yes—women very genuinely do have an instinctive aversion to late bloomer men based on a reasonable intuition precognitively that it potentially suggests poor genetic health that might not be closely legible—or simply predicts an overly ruminative and diachronic nature that even amidst periods of sexual excess will overthink and overcommit and overfeel and thus register to her quite rightly as Unsafe. And even beyond that realistically most rich white girls just have enough ambient sexual attention that they usually aren’t going to want to put up with rumination of that nature in a romantic partner unless they themselves are autistic or severely BPD or molested a la my Natalie and Rebecca or something—which isn’t the end of the world, because as sad as it is to abandon the prospect of intellectual and emotional mystery and mutual enchantment I also kind of suspect that was always a fake and gay millennial lie and most people have always sort of known it’s basically all about power whereas high status white women kind of just have too much leverage at the present moment for anyone who isn’t an ackshual celebrity to diachronically bind them in a stable robust way. But dunkin puss is of course bery splendid!
The problem is I genuinely don’t think women know what they’re doing half the time when they ambiently enforce a status coding regime that makes it reputationally costly to seek dignity in asymmetry for instance, because a ton of normie female social maneuvering is a relational affective quasi-fugue—like that’s literally what “vibe” means, you’re not conscious or narratively “heavy” moment to moment almost reacting as pure affect like you’re in a waking dream. Which don’t get me wrong, It seems to me y’all definitely have sincerely held beliefs in keeping Muh Liberal Democratic Norms and such, and also that whenever I force the issue to contradiction and you express pluralistic tolerance you genuinely experience a palpably dampened amygdalic response compared to if you were with another woman or e.g. arguing with someone in the comments of that first slutty woman article disparaging certain relationships in a manner that almost compelled me to block you before we ended up becoming friends, as your cognition here prioritizes coherence of Muh Liberal Democratic Norms.
But then in certain other contexts—almost always circumscribed by relational proximity (a la Tinder) or second order consequence proximity to anything proximal to collapsing female optionality—the door is occasionally opened to an aestheticized cruelty or aristocratic / decadent flaunting of privilege in a context culturally accessible to you. Like in your early days on Substack for instance you loved being Bitchy Hot Girl, but Bitchy Blonde Hot Girl doesn’t really seem to cohere with your self-image in the way its deracinated sister did—which I lowkey think is one reason you’re sort of annoyed at me narrating blondeness as hotness; you like and are comfortable flaunting hotness and though I see blondeness as a part of that for you that would functionally sort of just drop a huge log of shit in your favorite semiotic swimming pool.
But you also know blondes are the hottest and for sure wouldn’t have been so invested in never ever conceding that if you didn’t know
anywho point is that not liking Late Bloomers actually makes perfect sense—the issue (and this is the biggest cleanest takeaway from this whole entire section, Miss Kit-Kat) is that women don’t seem to have much of an Is-Ought Distinction that lets them analytically separate Sexy from Good and Gross from Evil in a manner that preserves the dignity of any particular menfolk they themselves aren’t attracted to. You’ll also routinely see them after a disgust response involving a low status man locally foreclose epistemically any low status interlocutors without realizing it and frame it all in moralistic terms that exposes him to severe and asymmetric reputation risk.
And I’m not even saying women ought to do something especially different here, frankly, as I think that kind of misses the entire point of synchronic cognition, which is that you genuinely NEED to moralize Tinder as legitimate in a register that leverages aestheticized cruelty and aristocratic contempt as you would basically nowhere else cause if women didn’t do that you wouldn’t cohere your emotional state into a stable diachronic frame by e.g. expelling cognitive detritus and semiotically sanctifying certain realms as inviolable.
The problem is that it’s honestly really gay to be moralized when you know more or less everyone around you locally is a cynical actor, which has been the case for Zoomer boys their whole life and has already begun to precipitate a pretty severe loss of public legitimacy for women’s de facto jurisdictional sovereignty over post hoc renarrativization and ability to moralize preference / disgust without reading as a frivolous cringe ad baculum. And so what’s gonna happen in practice is women will lose their sovereignty as meaning-makers
So another major issue in this realm is that you can’t really discuss the dating market in sharp relief without coding yourself as a weird incel not having a normal one, even if you’re overtly doing so very specifically to prevent incels from killing people.
Sadly there’s a discursive compulsion at work to adopt a certain moralistic register that focuses on all the wrong things for actually containing the problem and is mostly optimized to cohere aesthetically with liberal moral sentiment.
Which again boasts a certain elegant logic under premodern conditions because when women relied on men for protection and provisioning and opting out was vastly less practical the social order stabilized at an incel rate of approximately 25-30%, most of whom could then be expunged through war or seafaring. Whereas today the incel rate has climbed to a full 40% and by all appearances remains on track to reach the 60% mark broadly observed among certain hunter gatherers that also was the global norm during paleolithic times (it remains to be seen if modernity can steal that crown), and meanwhile our release valves de jour are porn and video games, which as opposed to expunging incels merely turn them into useless and parasitic mouths increasingly prone it seems to high-profile assassination schemes.
Now in a sane world we’d figure out some way to deploy the kids as warm bodies in Taiwan or Ukraine or Gaza—note under masculine dignity phenomenology such a resolution offers them far and away a cleaner exit than under the status quo, whereas realistically anyone who comes back with all their limbs intact for sure won’t be an incel anymore. But at any rate, if a martial outlet isn’t feasible it’s time for the state to explore directly culling this population through a widely-propagandized MAID-type initiative designed to persuade a significant number of incels to kill themselves.
That might seem harsh, but realistically they’re becoming a massive social problem because we’re failing to metabolize surplus males in anything resembling an ordered or coherent way—the reason being, of course, that women are precognitively locked into maximizing their optionality by narrating all unrealized male desire as “entitlement” ipso facto, which on an individual level is clearly their prerogative but for society at large stands as functionally just another obscurantist fireblock making it analytically impossible to discuss a highly salient issue in full candor and entertain options for rerouting surplus males they might genuinely experience as dignified on their own terms instead of aprioristically restricting the possibility space to a dehumanizing tincture of epistemic foreclosure and post-hoc moralization of failure that mostly serves to browbeat them into accepting eternal celibacy as a dignified end state.
Which it obviously isn’t—at least not for men.
And so if female optionality is to remain sacrosanct the social contract must likewise entail a chance at proper heroism in Taiwan or a seat in a one-way Mars voyage or at the minimum an all-expense trip in a phantom phonebooth to realms unknown.
Literally anything but even more goon caves and Fortnite and rooftops.
Anyway stepping back at this point to assess at a bird’s eye view a few things jump out.
The first and most obvious being that all issues under discussion and many adjacent topics are sort of just intractable because my faction in essence is telling women they don’t rightly experience the antecedent causal chain of their thoughts, beliefs, and values, which obviously threatens on some level to break down conversation.
My proposed ontology to sidestep this is to speak in terms of Ultimate Causes—think that esoteric and at most half-conscious swollen puss Lilith bouncing around amidst your noggin’s negative space and getting her asshole blown out by Ted Bundy—as distinct from Proximate Causes, which is the province more typically of falling in love with a 6’5 financebro because he’s Good At Puzzles; or experiencing Late Bloomer Ick in terms of some behavior it clearly precipitated but is more broadly seen as subject to moral implication; or narrating your rough and vaguely adversarial dynamic with a man as sweet and innocent because that’s truly how you experience it—or ambiently reframing, softening, tone policing, hedging, or above all strategically withdrawing sans narration as a means of containing or mitigating the damage of something your central nervous system will tend to parse in precisely the same way any man would parse e.g. a text saying she wants you to know last weekend wasn’t entirely consensual.
And it’s like… babe c’mon, we were obviously doing a thing, and like I walked you to work next morning and you texted me that cartoon and shit. Hey come on let me talk to you on the phone—can you go to your car maybe? Right. Right! Yeah I’m sorry babe I didn’t mean to ghost but you remember my da—hey tell you what, I can understand if you have lots of feelings about it—I mean I do too—so how bout I buy you brunch tomorrow and I’ll take a look at that short story finally! Cool. Yeah, so I hate to be a weirdo but can you just text me a fast retraction of that so it’s not like… in words somewhere without correction? I just don’t want anything taken out of context by people who don’t understand the situation or might not have your nuance…
None of us are perfect with correspondence when extreme tail risk enters the equation—though we men trend just a bit more intentional in how we carry out our perfidy (if just as sloppy), and tend more to optimize for control while you do so for optionality.
And on the subject of female optionality—it seems to me in practice there’s kind of a motte and bailey going on that selectively conflates what I’d define as Thin Optionality (basically just not being coerced into marriage), with a Thick Optionality that demands:
the right to frictionless and reputationally cheap exit, whenever—even in marriage
the right to never be diachronically bounded through conventional implicature
unilateral jurisdictional sovereignty over the narrative meaning of all past events that totalistically obviates / renders pathetic or deluded all male meaning-making
the right to impose asymmetric and boundless reputational cost on a man through backchannels with no means of orderly redress or mediation
a presumption of good intent (or at least non-malice), especially when Harm is foregrounded or something gets narrated as having been Scary
And to belabor a recurring theme—these are all the sort of accommodations it frankly makes perfect sense for women to expect from men in, say, a paleolithic natural state characterized by Hobbesian anarchy between tribes and endemic bride capture, and likewise after agriculture is developed are the sort of privileges women would likely have relied on through the years to not become livestock or get beaten to death by their husband after ending up in a Paula Jones situation with some random knight… and meanwhile if you ever engaged a woman in casual sex or an affair she’d obviously expect the right to renarrate shit and pivot on a dime given asymmetric risk profiles.
Today that’s just not the case, as especially among Zoomers women are institutionally and socioeconomically in a vastly better position than men, whose strength advantage is now in practice most salient as a narrative albatross around one’s neck designating him antagonist ipso facto in any He Said / She Said—hence higher status Zoomer boys not infrequently leaning into and even aestheticizing that role as a matter of course.
Essentially the privileges and rights of Thick Optionality emerged amidst a particular negative space in patriarchal social psychology wherein de facto feminine power will at times markedly exceed that of women in a feminist liberal democracy, as instead of having their affective and synchronic talents captured by androgenizing corporate gay goo proceduralism women’s energy gets routed into domestic life—which for elites tends to look a lot less like June Cleaver than Queen Cersei, involving higher order social games that needn’t ever be rigorous or profitable or involve learning vlookup but pretty often venture into realms of relational ambiguity and photonegative status signaling that make men feel like girls might peeling through an Austrian Economics textbook, and then meanwhile in this universe girls like Layla can start unironic wars.
What feminism and liberal modernity do is cap the upside of such maneuvering while ostensibly flooring baseline female power by carving out for all women a nominally independent institutional and economic ballast outside individual male control where instead of sourcing power from sex appeal or social acumen they do so from learning vlookup—which a lot of times seems a pretty shabby deal by the way to the girls who could have started wars but can’t anymore and so have to settle instead for hurting Walter’s feelings and making him look lowkey retarded on substack dot com,
…which I suppose in fairness genuinely kind of did alongside other events change my operative incentive structure such that the cheap and easy status I’d normally harvest from punching down / humblebragging is at this point dwarfed by the dopaminergic return I get from theorycrafting the sort of sticky, high fidelity, portable heuristics that enable other hyperverbal autismos to see through feminine opacity and narrative maneuvering and thereby protect themselves from the same sort of plausibly deniable, socially illegible, and asymmetric reputational and affective tail risk I spent so much of 2024 and early 2025 running into ad infinitum kind of like a Silent Hill npc.
Yeah it’s déclassé.
When you factor in opportunity cost so is every solitary discursive mode sans nonstop humblebragging, because on some level everything between Buttigieg and Diogenes is unforced inefficiency and a failure to pick your lane.
More important is I’m genuinely just far and away more invested now in hastening the decline of the extant epistemic-status regime than in optimizing my own personal status position, as tbh fam I kind of just take for granted that my autistic racists will never stop carrying my balls whereas normies are cockroachers to me and so status has only ever seemed especially salient insofar as I can juice it for fangirl cunt.
Which if anything synergizes quite nicely in at this point.
Anywho I had a point somewhere in here—probably that at a minimum since the sexual revolution most guys who genuinely felt the regime didn’t benefit them were either super duper low status or like unironic incels in the semantically conservative male sense—so completely devoid of exit paths through money / rhetoric / conditional sexual optionality and almost without exception too dumb to cohere halfway plausible aggregative heuristics impossible to spin as cope or baseless grievance.
Whatever’s happening here, it’s pretty obviously not that.
The Zoomer boys most interested in my heuristics workshopping are not as a rule incels—they’re smart, capable, outgoing guys wanting to test for themselves what models comport most usefully with lived experience, and it isn’t clear to any of us at this point how much correspondence should be privileged at the expense of all else.
Of course, precisely none of the shit I’ve written about this past year is all that new in theory—for all intents and purposes it all goes back to Eve.
What IS new is the Zoomer Oral Culture, as well as Late Zoomer functional amorality, Zoomette quasi-DID adjacent hyper-synchronicity, and most importantly for our purposes Zoomer boy operative contempt for the traditional narrative license afforded women under Thick Optionality and sexually symmetric ideas of Liberal Personhood that basically all men have always known don’t reliably line up with our lived experiences with chicks and have only not acted against / absorbed the asymmetric harm thereof because all men of every generation up to us Millennials really do just adore women.
Not Zoomers, though.
To my knowledge it was only us Millennials who were lied to insanely overtly from K through 12 about literally all sexed cognitive differences, and because of that we expect a certain level of basic personhood-camaraderie from women they can’t extend to us in high voltage sexual situations, and a lot of fellers got shredded by that.
Whereas your modal Zoomer boy having come up watching and internalizing all the obvious contradictions of that regime doesn’t feel much need to make sense of things or systematize or narrate, which if anything is a perennial failure mode of us famously diachronic Millennials in the modern oral culture.
Zoomers know intuitively the system was never made for them.
And at this point it hasn’t even the courtesy to keep up a polite fiction.
Liberal personhood is obviously incoherent.
Men and women experience knowledge differently and operate under a qualitatively different precognitive architecture that under womanly cognition will basically always result in perfumed dehumanization, epistemic foreclosure, and moralized contempt for men she finds sexually repulsive alongside preternatural alignment (even across ideologies and neurotypes) for a man experienced as extremely highs status.
Now functionally men will of course likewise dehumanize fat chicks and such literally all the time (though mostly in little ambient ways or by ignoring them), but when we do this we know exactly what we’re doing.
Whereas with women it often feels like there’s something fundamentally different going on in their minds that grasped in high fidelity doesn’t seem to give any man a woman holds institutional power over but finds annoying or reminiscent of someone high salience or repulsive or irredeemably low status an especially dignified position—or even one properly capable of redress or good faith engagement sans gaslighting.
When you cross the wrong broad it honestly feels like this:
Now the standard move here—made in countless other pieces thus far—would be to foreground at the end of a piece or somewhere similarly impactful all the classic failure modes of masculine cognition and places it loses purchase with reality.
Which it’s not that such places don’t exist—more that as a rule male correspondence deltas are a lot more intentional and strategic when they happen whereas in women they’re ambient, deniable, and in a relational and context-dependent phenomenology that weights epistemic standing heavily by the speaker’s status position.
Men tend to experience this as arbitrary and unpredictable anarcho-tyranny whenevet subordinated to a woman or judged by her as a salient social authority, as Free Cunt when the girl is simple / unagentic and acting like captive prey or just synchronically aligned for some reason, sloppy and embarrassing when not attracted to her, and then ethereal or quasi-mystical amidst feelings of deep limerence for a higher status girl.
Meanwhile whenever women narrate their most salient downsides interacting with male cognition it’s basically never about the Unfair Sex being affectively volatile or incapable of binding through time (women of course will chase a high status guy who’ll ditch but anticipate it most of the time) so much as too autistic and reductively systemic, or oafishly simpy / needy, or vaguely sociopathic and dangerously strategic.
Note these are not especially symmetric failure modes; one is capable of observing in a patterned / iterative way the behavior of the other, who in representative situations experiences romance more as falling into his diachronic frame. Modally the tension is basically always one of lightness vs. heaviness, stories vs. weather, and duty vs. play—because fundamentally it’s phenomenologically analogous to a parent and child dynamic, and there’s a very real sense in which women (especially young, single, urban, normie women) basically never are true adults in earnest until a man can gainfully pasteurize her frothy and inchoate stew of affect, vibes, and selectively moralized risk heuristics into something stable, reliable, and correspondent when predictive closure is needed.
This, of course, is where male tenderness towards women comes from, even amidst handling the most catastrophic forms of womanly retardation—it’s that deep and abiding childishness of female nature that ultimately makes their caprice and unseriousness land more as endearing than perfidious or insane. Sadly Zoomer boys aren’t really getting to experience that though outside high achievers, as intersexual relations in the youth have deeply soured over the past decade, with the longstanding male fiscal advantage first having shrunk and then having reversed to favor women.
Which frankly was just an irredeemably retarded thing for society to have let happen.
Because first of all Zoomettes aren’t especially proud of that development, and sure as shit didn’t celebrate it like Millennial girlbosses for sure would have a decade ago. Rather the prevailing attitude in at least the ones I’ve bedded has been something kind of approximating “yeah isn’t that pathetic? that’s why I can’t date guys my own age…”
The girlboss idea was never going to predominate outside Gen X and Millennials making that initial push to win formal credibility as colleagues and then pantsuit normalization, and even in them only got as far as it did thanks to insane Butlerslop blank slate shit getting forced down everyone’s throat for the better part of a decade.
And the bitter truth for feminists is that in practice once hypergamy reaches a certain threshold there’s not a lot incentivizing the shittier half of men not to basically just disappear from society altogether so as to goon all day more efficiently and in peace.
Meanwhile even chickies MY age were starting to think about access to husbandable men who aren’t penniless scrubs as lowkey sort of a feminist issue—an intuition that in Zoomettes honestly isn’t even super ironic these days given they’ve generally all abandoned Millennial-type aspartame Butlerslop feminism for Neo-Dworkinsm or Hooker Feminism or not infrequently both in concert.
And it was thus in assembling a discursive regime intended to forevermore obviate male sexual “entitlement” that the feminists of the nineties and aughts handed their daughters a world wherein perfectly normal coeds will casually allow dissolute and aging methheads to shred their starfish for a couple benjis on the first date before memeing her into being his girlfriend—which if I’m honest has functionally enabled me to be pretty fucking entitled through the years all things considered.
Because as a man if you aren’t entitled to hole you aren’t entitled to shit—simple as.
And societies that expect incels to sit around stealing oxygen instead of routing them towards a venue where they can at least die with some modicum of vitality and dignity oughtn’t themselves be afforded a crumb of dignity or buy-in or norm compliance—least of all from men who know what it’s like as a Have and Have Not both, and grok that once you’re a Girardian scapegoat it’s a remarkably short jaunt to Omelas Child.
Societies that can’t talk candidly and lucidly about aggregated male appetite in a dignified register while pricing in implicitly the risk of not talking about it and in which more or less everyone with a cock is obliged to participate in fake and gay signal hacking games just to avoid the Incel Concentration Camp is not a polity or broader culture deserving of even the meagrest crumb of respect
So wrapping this up with the title of the piece:
“Rights” are obviously fake and gay
Frankly you should have internalized that around 11.
That said just functionally people have “rights” only but precisely to the extent they reliably compel obligate institutional defense—which by that token women’s implicit cultural rights and privileges in the negative space of interpersonal dynamics (those enumerated above with Thick Optionality) are in many respects far more compulsive than the basic suite of graham cracker affordances people usually mean by that phrase.
If most women had to choose (or at least Zoomettes, whom I understand better than my own cohort’s women at this juncture tbh) they would given a thoughtful choice pretty overwhelmingly choose any of these over the right to vote or work, as ultimately literally no one cares if a bitch can do vlookup. And yeah she can pull in dece money selling butthole entrance, but what really matters in 2026 is does her story stick?
It will with her parents… and probs also her retarded Millennial daddy.
But guys her own age?
They see through it like bubble wrap, having no special goodwill toward women to yield interpretive slack, as every Zoomer knows implicitly that Oral Culture is a merciless jungle where the inattentive end up ganked.
Meanwhile her besties gladly proffer loud and visible public validation… then usually start triangulating hard in private and like sending dude who raped her cunt shots etc.
And talented though these dames may be, there’s ALWAYS someone waiting in the wings to send chickie back to her own Cornfield eventually if she ever slips up.
Because at this point the regime isn’t especially kind to anybody, frankly.
Moreover whenever you smash one of these chicks she always acts super like a lil girl during… probs just one reason among many that her fattest fren will even when you’re like 32 and 21 tend to constantly narrate the whole situation as basically pedophilia .
Which—honestly? Yeah.
And it felt basically the same inside that 45 year-old.
I’m liking for feet
Final pic is 👌