Worship. Adoration. Valence.
The sexes resent each other when they cannot glorify each other.
This essay was written while listening to this song (a favorite of mine).
The feminine yearns to worship. The masculine craves to adore.
Feminine Worship
Women evolved to selectively provide approval, veneration, and submission to the masculine. I think this can be understood holistically and spiritually as a desire to worship.
If you’re going to submit to someone, you must be deferential to him, which means you must respect him, which means he must do respectable things. Submission is always earned. To venerate strength, someone needs to be strong. Masculine actions display these traits to the feminine to win her worship. You willingly allow someone to lead who shows you he’s capable of leading. For the feminine to devote herself to the masculine of her own volition, men must behave in a manner deserving of her surrendering.
The feminine yearns to worship the masculine in this way; she wants to dispense it, but doesn’t just hand it out. Her intrinsic currency is her body and her worship, and it’s up to her to be prudent with it by allocating it to men she deems worthy. The modern term for this is “hypergamy”.
The masculine wants to feel powerful like the feminine wants to feel safe and beautiful; to feel powerful requires you demonstrate power, and feeling beautiful requires an embodiment of beauty. This drives men to perform in ways that exhibit power; if all it took to feel powerful was feelings, then it would be meaningless. Power acts, beauty is. This is why women are born, men are made.
Men seek admiration, prestige, dominance… these are proximate motivations and nominal descriptions for what’s ultimately a distal aspiration to be worshipped. The masculine wants to obtain the feminine’s fawning through acts that demonstrate he merits it; when he does this, she freely surrenders.
Men won’t describe it as wanting to be worshipped though, they’ll say they want “respect”, “recognition”, “honor” or something that sounds more selfless. However wanting to be worshipped isn’t pejorative or narcissistic, it’s noble. If a goal requires you do noble things to achieve it, then the goal itself is a noble one by virtue of the actions it necessitates. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the road to heaven is paved with good deeds.
An impotent tyrant forces a woman to fear him with a gun; a man earns her respect with his conduct. If you’re voluntarily revered, genuflected, lionized… you are worshipped. If you’re admired, that means you did admirable things. Male achievement informs male value.
Male sexual market value is cultivated via output and competence. Men strive to become someone worth worshipping, and women reward us with it. The masculine urge for conquest and outcompeting each other to gain eugenic access to women makes the world go ‘round and creates shareholder value. Men may superficially seek monetary currency, but the real currency is the organic reverence of our women, and respect of our fellow men.
When the masculine resorts to violence to get what he wants from the feminine: Beating her until she does what you want is not respect, it’s not worship, it’s an admission you’re barren of any noble traits or accomplishments; if you can’t inspire submission, you impose compliance.
If you can only get a creature evolved to behave eugenically and hypergamously to be around you by force, you are shit. You can’t make someone worship you, but you can make them to obey you. Inept hyper-masculine societies are perennially violent, unstable, and dysgenic, in part because they deny the feminine her duty to eugenically choose. Violence is how laws, property, and nations are upheld and defined, and men are the gatekeepers of it. However when violence is used on an individual scale to rob the feminine of what she gatekeeps, sex and reproduction, it’s a testament to how dysgenic and inferior that environment is. In noble societies men covet and earn feminine worship, not her compliance.
This is to say, reasonable feminism is eugenic and an indicator of prosperity. Man must domesticate himself to some degree to even permit it, and it encourages males to think and behave with lower time preference to gain female sexual access. This creates positive externalities for society.
Sperm donor preferences tell the story, hypergamy’s north star corroborates it. Women are the most eugenics-promoting beings alive. Let them cook.
The ladies are eugenic in ways we don’t consciously fully appreciate…
The third-wave radical feminist is perpetually at war with her ingrained desire to worship. She protests nature and repudiates the feminine for her natural programming to honor the masculine, while castigating the masculine as if it’s his fault she’s like this. Patriarchy, or something.
The radfem lashes out at the masculine for the same reason the incel reviles the feminine. A woman with nothing worthy of her submission is an unhappy one. An incel has no hoes; a radfem has no man she looks up to.
(Note: you can find more research regarding how subconsciously eugenic the ladies are here, here, and here.)
Masculine Adoration
The masculine has its own mandate to worship the feminine back, but for very different reasons, and in a different way. He doesn’t worship her, he adores her.
It’s not female accomplishment that elicits a man’s adoration, but a woman’s beauty, pleasantness, and quirky little affectations. Wearing a sundress? Adore. Listening to a weird indie band called Neutral Milk Hotel? Gosh that’s cute. Have any silly idiosyncrasies, like calling hamburgers “steamed hams” or muffins “nibble nubbins”? Do you have any idea how fucking precious that is. The masculine urge to simultaneously tenderly kiss your forehead and savagely bend you over is overwhelming at the mere mention of how you enjoy your nibblies in a sundress.
This video is a form of masculine adoration of the feminine: a song about how you’re amazing because you’re... a girl who’s pretty. This is like 50% of the songs guys write, tributes to the feminine for just existing! Goddamn simps, all of them!
Female value comes from feminine essence. We adore it.
A woman simply needs to wear a sundress, be sweet, listen to Electric Jelly Cathedral, call hamburgers “steamed hams”, and men will write sonnets and sacrifice themselves to lock that ass down. The feminine worships masculine achievement; the masculine adores… the feminine.
We’ll make up excuses so it seems profound and enlightened, but we’re simply acting out our sundress-seeking programming. God’s plan.
The guy who wrote this 4chan text absolutely thought about them growing old together off this encounter. Men are the real romantics.
You too can be a protagonist’s love interest in a 400-page novel if you’ve got that Anne Hathaway energy going and are into poetry or something. You can be basic, a barista with James Dean posters on your wall and everything, men will fall over themselves if that feminine light is divine. Exalted for your spirit and “I’m just a girl” vibes. Your accomplishments could not be less relevant. Has anyone told you how pretty you look when you smile? You mostly just have to smile. Men are designed to adore this. We reciprocate the feminine’s worship in this way. Both parts of the dyad want to love the other for what they do best.
Men view women as magical elf-like creatures, little bits of poetry wrapped up in mortality; women view men like making an investment in the stock market. Women come out of the oven ready made for adoration, whereas men require some elbow grease to unlock their worship.
Hypergamy’s Rules
Men are not hypergamous. Women are. The girlboss is struggling with this.
The unique difficulty besetting the capable, self-actualized, modern women is that pesky hypergamy that’s embedded deep in your brain doesn't go away… and your set of suitors increasingly diminishes the more erudite and talented you are. Whereas with men, the opposite is true.
The more adept he is, the larger his set of potential concubines. It’s not fair, but then again, nothing in life is. A disadvantage in one domain results in an advantage in another; balance is found in the aggregate, not the specifics. Remember, you get adored literally for being cute. You can’t have it all.
Men and women dislike equality at almost all levels of intersexual dynamics: capabilities, sexual performance, physical traits, duties, attributes. No self-respecting man or woman wants any of these things to be “equal”.
She likes that he's taller. Prefers he's older. Gets moist at how easily he physically dominates her. Aroused when he’s smarter than she, and feels more comfortable deferring to his judgement when this is so. He’s expected to be the agentic one in bed. She wants to feel small both in his arms, and outside of them. He relishes this as much as she does. Poetic complements, those boys and girls are.
Neither sex likes when the faculties and expectations are equal, no matter how stridently the purple-haired professor shrieks otherwise.
The more elite and competent she is, the harder it is for her to find a man worth admiring, worth worshipping. It’s hard to worship someone who isn’t just a little better than you. Do you look up to your equal, or your superior? Do you venerate a man you can beat? You don’t revere someone you can overpower. You can’t admire a man whose abilities are beneath yours. A leader must be more capable than the person being led; if he’s not, then those being led begin to object to that leadership. Hierarchies. Equality is a false god, and an even worse aphrodisiac.
You cannot submit to a man you can dominate.
Imagine if your husband was clearly more beautiful and elegant than you, more lithe and adorable, how would that make you feel? Now understand the masculine experiences the same thing when his domain is encroached upon.
Hierarchies have rules, and neoliberal feminism lies about their existence and how attractive they are to both sexes. If a woman is as good or better than a man in masculine competition, she cannot worship him, because she cannot submit to him. No one actually wants equality, because we are evolved for hierarchy.
Liberalism propagates a pernicious societal delusion that women don't actually want what they want. However, she still wants it, and she’s increasingly upset she can't find it. And it’s producing widespread observations like this.
This should not be confusing. The girlboss cannot find someone worth worshipping.
Only a rationalist could be confused by this. Only someone who’s been trained to think unnaturally, to reject the empiric and apparent, could be so gosh darn befuddled by this heckin’ conundrum. Someone who’s had crystal-clear laws of nature chased out of her by rabid they/them invalids whose religion demands that humans of either sex be understood as fungible cogs made of gray goo, shaped into whatever academic orthodoxy deems appropriate.
Gray-goo religious orthodoxy is packaged and sold to feeble minds as “equality” and “progress” and creates caustic conditions by denying natural reality. Innate differences?? Go to college! If you’ve been indoctrinated to believe “men and women are the same and want the same things” or are the type who needs to see a study to conclude the obvious, you will be disoriented by these statements. SOURCE???
The masculine/feminine dyad is a beautiful display of nature’s complementary laws of attraction. And it’s tragic when it’s fractured on account of an ideological snake pit’s gospel.
Modern feminism is an oxymoron, because it treats the feminine as implicitly inferior, and with tacit disdain. It exalts the masculine ethos as the ideal, and marginalizes feminine preferences as things to be fixed, not embraced. All because it fractures the holy scripture delusion of increasing the labor supply “equality”.
It inculcates women into the deception that what makes them happiest is being a shitty man. It’s empowering, actually, spending your prime child-bearing, family-raising years working to climb the corporate ranks at IBM. Who wants to be a mom when you can be the best product manager you can be! Email job > a family.
The womanly craving to care, nurture, and worship spat on so you can jam a feminine hole into a masculine GDP square, reroute her desire to worship onto a corporation and the state, and ship her off to work. Isn’t it funny how what’s always empowering also coincidentally ends up expanding the labor pool? Weird!
When Worship is Left Unchanneled. When Adoration Cannot Be Expressed.
It’s a hardwired feminine imperative to worship masculine competence and strength, and it’s an encoded masculine obligation to adore the essence of the feminine. When worship-and-adoration supply and demand is out of balance, a societal dislocation occurs. The sexes resent each other when they cannot glorify each other.
When men are drained of their natural desire to achieve, when their heartbeat is societally demonized by androgynous cultural poison, they start to check out. They collectively begin to exhibit less of the admirable masculine that’s worthy of worship. “Toxic masculinity” and the insidious dogmatic indoctrination of men that timidity and self-castration are what women crave, vitiates the masculine into a milquetoast male simulacrum. It’s culturally en vogue to shame innate, honorable male characteristics; only a sick, declining nation promotes such things. Both men and women suffer for it.
The hypergamous feminine cannot distribute the masculine deference she wants to provide when men are weak. So she denies the masculine her playful, natural essence in protest, robbing him of what he wants to adore in kind. “Women aren’t women anymore”… you don’t say? Man, I wonder why. What are the men like? Are they still men?
The masculine grows frustrated by the dearth of feminine warmth. The sexes stop worshipping and adoring each other, because they provide less and less that warrants it. A malaise sets in. The sexes turn bitter and unleash their frustrations. A petri dish for malcontent. Both are correct about what they observe, but are oblivious they’re largely responsible for it. A destructive self-reinforcing cycle. You get what you give, you give what you get. What started this? I have an explanation.
Valence
Valence is an undeniable force. You attract what you exude. You're drawn to what speaks to who you are. Whatever light you put out gets the moths it should. You found this essay and got this far for a reason.
Men and women get exactly what they deserve from each other, because at no point do they act as islands. Their actions beget reactions. No part of a dyad exists in a vacuum; it’s a collaborative, reciprocal, interdependent entity. You cannot disentangle the behaviors of only one side. You cannot harm one without harming both. You cannot advantage one without disadvantaging the other. A balance sheet must always balance, and a dyad must always be in symmetry; when this is missing, you have a problem.
Weak men get shitty women. Good women get strong men. Congruence. The character of men and women and its expression is a window into how they treat and regard themselves, each other, and their surroundings. They are mirrors of the other.
Most of what men and women accurately identify about the other’s shortcomings is a response to their own collective behaviors. They unwittingly disparage themselves when they malign the opposite sex with generalizations. For better or worse, they're both right about what they see, and fail to understand they're to blame. Dyad.
Closing
If you always get what you want, you’ll eventually get what you need. And you really don’t want that.
I support moderate feminism (i.e. neither sex overwhelms societal values) for similar reasons I support pragmatic union and labor rights. Complements must be productively symbiotic and adversarial for healthy equilibrium. If there’s no countervailing element, that means one side consumes the other. A natural dyad is always worse off with asymmetry.
It’s both spiritually corrosive and dysgenic when only one sex rules, when either the masculine or feminine’s preferences and morality engulfs a nation. Societal health requires proportionality in its moral emphasis. Balance is good, and allows us to worship and adore the best in each other. All things are poison and nothing is without poison, the dosage makes it so.
Subscribes and shares are very much appreciated. If you enjoyed the essay, give it a like.
You can show your appreciation by becoming a paid subscriber, or by donating here: 0x9C828E8EeCe7a339bBe90A44bB096b20a4F1BE2B
I’m building something interesting, visit Salutary.io
Related essays:
The Anne Hathaway Archetype
The Anne Hathaway archetype is the kind a 400-page novel can have as the protagonist's love interest. That's to say she's coveted predominately by a male archetype that could be many things, but uninteresting isn't one of them.
Biofoundationalism IV: Masculine Because You Have To, Feminine Because You Get To
This essay can be read on a standalone basis, though I recommend reading Biofoundationalism Part II: The Moral Genotype to fully internalize it. If my comments on genetic morality are new to you, the elaboration for those statements are found in Part II. All Biofoundationalism essays are linked at the end.
I agree with your description of how things are for (many) men and clearly seem to them. Totally disagree with the woman side. I hate to tell you this, but women do not truly respect anyone, and certainly do not worship them. The only people women worship is their own kids. I have seen zero evidence that any woman respects, beyond the level of basic decency and empathy, any adult, and certainly doesn't worship. Those are both primarily male concepts and men have vastly greater capacity for both. They project their assumption that women have the same above/below hierarchy of respect and worship in their emotional repertoire, which they do not. Some merely play along with those expectations for other reasons, much like employees who laugh at their boss's jokes and kiss up to their boss, but make fun of and shred him apart as soon as he's not around. Women do admire, like, love, and have attraction, but respect and worship is not there. We are like cats, that's an appropriate metaphor. Dogs worship and respect, not cats. That's about how different the emotional writing is. I think men would be quite disturbed if they truly understood just how little women actually respect status. Luckily, they will mostly never believe it bc to them it feels so natural and inevitable.
FWIW, people pay tens of thousands to egg donors and select them on precisely the same metrics, favoring height, high test scores and IQ, and athleticism, just as they do when selecting among sperm donors.
Last, the most likely women to marry are the most highly educated and high in socioeconomic status. The top 15% of women on those metrics are almost 3x as likely to marry as those in the bottom 40%. If men just wanted pretty, easy-going, and nice, it would be the opposite.
Women are eugenic I suppose, depending on what traits you think qualify as eugenic. Most guys in prison are fathers and women have babies with a lot of enormous losers who they regardless find sexy and charismatic. I would not describe that eugenic, unless you're wanting to select for charismatic anti-social criminals and low-lifes.
It somehow took my parents a decade to figure this out. I do blame propaganda, but it's still mindboggling how easily supposedly educated people never question such obvious nonsense.