Woman’s Primordial Fear

It is frequently observed by Manospherians and traditionalists alike that women have a tendency that borders on the pathological to invade previously male-only spaces, with little to no regard for the effect that has on the dynamic of the existing group; even if the original group’s purpose is entirely thwarted by the presence of women, and even if women have no interest in the thing that prompted the formation of the group in the first place, they nevertheless insist on being admitted to it, or on destroying it.

Now, it is certainly the case, as is usual with feminist nonsense, that men, collectively speaking, deserve some of the blame for rolling over and letting them get away with it. I say that just to get it out of the way, because for the purposes of this post I am not interested in that fact. I am going to attempt to explain why women behave the way they do; the fact that men should have stopped them is beside the point and comments to that effect will be deleted.

Why, then, is it so important to women to be included in everything? Why will they break off a long-held friendship because another woman forgot to invite them to a party? Why must they insist on joining men-only golf clubs and shutting down the old-fashioned gentlemen’s clubs?  I imagine these questions baffle a lot of men. They certainly baffled me, until recently. I could see what women were doing and recognise the ill effects of their behaviour pattern, but I didn’t understand the motivation.

Now, however, I think I do. You see, social exclusion is woman’s primordial fear.  More than anything else, a woman fears being cast out of the tribe.

In the ancestral environment, women were entirely dependent creatures. (Honestly, I think they basically still are, but it’s not as obvious anymore; rising technology makes a lot of social dynamics hard to understand, as neoreaction has previously observed with regard to crime rates.) They depended on men for protection against hostile tribes, wild animals, adverse weather, and other physical dangers, as well as for the provision of basic material needs. A man, of course, benefited greatly by being part of a social group; but if you cast him out, he could probably survive at least long enough to find a new tribe to join. For a woman, on the other hand, to be sent out on her own would be a death sentence.

As such, women are naturally adapted to the task of securing male protection and provision. They do this through the maintenance of social bonds, both to particular men (husbands, fathers, and sons, for the most part), and to the tribe as a whole. Accordingly, women developed a mode of discourse adapted to the realm of interpersonal relations in which they dwelt, and, moreover, they developed desires and fears that would push them toward the achievement of this evolutionary goal. It’s the fears that I’d like to focus on in this piece.

It is only logical that if the maintenance of social bonds is the means by which a woman secures her living, then the breaking of those social bonds is what she would fear most. The idea that people close to her have a social space that she is utterly excluded from causes her great psychic distress. She is not concerned with the fact that her presence would interfere with the group’s ability to perform its purpose, nor with the fact that she has no interest in the activities the group engages in. All she is concerned with, fundamentally, is the fact that a deep biological fear has been triggered, viz. the fear of being cast out on her own.

This same reality also explains women’s obsessive desire for attention, in all its manifestations: the attention whore, the attention-seeking false self-deprecation, the constant need for male validation, etc. If what women need most of all is the protection and provision of a man (usually their father early in life, their husband in mid-life, and a son by the end of their life), then for them to be neglected or forgotten by the men close to them is the small-scale equivalent of being cast out of the tribe, and just as terrifying, if not more so.

This explains a key difference between men’s behaviour and women’s behaviour:

To a man, abuse is worse than neglect.

To a woman, neglect is worse than abuse.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that men want to be neglected, or women want to be abused, exactly. But it does mean that if a woman has the choice between being abused and being ignored entirely, she will often choose to be abused. At least an abusive man is paying attention to her. In the ancestral environment, even a man who would beat his woman for petty reasons probably wouldn’t let her starve or be eaten by wild animals. Suboptimal? Sure. But was it better for her to strike out on her own? Not at all.

Of course, a woman who has options is less likely to stay with an abuser. What kind of options did a woman have in the ancestral environment? Realistically, the only thing that was likely to be on the table for a woman severely mistreated by her husband was a return to her father’s custody.

The absence of her father, therefore, would have two negative effects on a woman:

1. She would grow up starved for male attention, protection, and validation, and would learn to seek it wherever she could find it. She would soon learn that the easiest way to get male attention is to give away sex. It should come as a shock to no one that this theory predicts women with absent fathers will be sluts. (I’d cite a source to prove this is the case, but come on.)

2. She would be more likely to tolerate abuse, partially because of the attention starvation mentioned in (1) and partially because she wouldn’t have a father to fall back on if she left her husband.

And again, I dont really think I need to have a whole lot of scientific study done to confirm that women with absent fathers tend to be: a) more promiscuous and b) more tolerant of abuse than others.

This hypothesis explains a great deal of female behaviour that might otherwise baffle men. As a final example, let’s take men’s and women’s differing responses to shame.

It is well known that women respond to herd-shaming; they want the broader society to think well of them, and as such if the mass of women (or men) disapprove of their behaviour they will change it. (They will also tend to change their behaviour if one or a few men they really respect and consider to care for them disapprove, but men also have this response and therefore it’s not quite as interesting.) Men, on the other hand, are relatively indifferent to the opinions of people they dont respect. Mass cadshaming by women does not work. Mass slutshaming by women does work. It works because woman is a herd animal who fears being cast out of the tribe, and man is not.

When you understand this crucial point, women’s behaviour, and their misbehaviour, starts making a whole lot more sense.

Advertisements

18 comments on “Woman’s Primordial Fear

  1. I think that, in discussing female dependence you’ve raised a very good point and one that many (myself included) miss entirely. It’s awkward to admit, but it holds true, even with an “outsider” woman such as myself. But you could go even deeper.
    Think of it this way: perhaps females aren’t so much “herd” animals as “tribe” animals. A woman who turned against the other women but still had the respect of the men was more likely to survive than one who worked desperately to have the attention of the women at the expense of male respect. The men are the providers and the leaders. It’s like sucking-up to your boss a bit too much and getting disrespected by a couple of your subordinates or co-workers: as long as the boss still likes you for it, you’re doing well. Similarly, it makes no sense for women to be designed to form a female herd, even at the expense of positive interaction with males.

    Which leads to the next point: women seek men at all cost because they don’t think they have a tribe. A woman who has a good relationship with her father, brothers, uncles, etc, a couple of lower-ranking male friends (co-workers often do the trick, but in a tribe it would likely be very young and very old males, outside of the reproductive pool) and a partner or a few prospective partners is more likely to not seek out spaces full of men. Why? It’s more of a risk to her than it is a benefit. She HAS men who will provide for her and protect her. To leave their shelter is to put herself at risk. To seek other men, who may not be as amicable or generous, is a gamble. Women aren’t designed to gamble. Women are designed to seek security and comfort.* However, a woman with few men in her life (bear in mind that men she disrespects are going to be viewed the way very old men are viewed by young tribal women: useful, but not a Man) is going to seek-out spaces full of other men. Why? She wants a tribe. She wants provision, protection, reproduction.
    Of course, these women will largely seek-out men that are similarly minded to themselves. Hence the prevalence of traditionalist women commenting on non-PUA manosphere sites, sluttier women commenting on PUA sites and rich women wanting to be in gentlemen’s clubs. They are looking for men of their own kind, who may be marriageable or suitable as friends. This also explains the “beta-orbiter collection” a lot of women have: these orbiters are replacing the non-sexually-viable men a tribal woman has at her disposition. With the decrease in birthrates, the increase in divorce and single-parenting and all-working households, many women are growing-up without the brothers, fathers, older men and younger boys around them that they would have previously needed for protection. So, they collect a group of perfectly mate-able men and declare them reproductively non-viable, so they replace their ‘family’ men.

    Finally, you have the “one for all and all for one” female herding behaviour. This is a combination of a natural drive and a social message.
    The natural drive: women are, ultimately, social creatures. When the men reject them (beta orbiters disappear, family distant, mates cads), they need to feel they are where the resources are. In case the men open up again and start showering food, shelter, protection and children upon women once more. They want to be at the centre of the action. So, they look at what other women are doing. Where are they heading? The assumption is, of course, that if a group of women are congregating somewhere, there is food, shelter, safety or sex there. Potentially all four. They want to hit the jaackpot, so they herd. Yet, study after study has shown that group dynamics among women are incredibly, albeit covertly, aggressive. They don’t LIKE being around all these other women (and who can blame them, as female “social norms” are nonsensical at best and harmful at worst; it’s not men making us wear lipstick or get breast augmentations). But they want to hang about, in case resources show up. When the resources fail to show up, they start getting more aggressive and more openly so, because they perceive the resources to be scarce. This creates a herd of angry, stressed, confused women, all grouping around something they perceive to be a source of resources (a bar, a bridge club, anywhere where men might be).

    The social message: as men are now only providers by proxy, a lot of women fail to see how these men are still providing for them. On welfare, tax-breaks or a housing scheme? Millions of men are paying for that. Women-only college grant? Men paid. Use water, food, transport, a house? Men made that for you. But they aren’t grateful. Because, as they don’t see the men giving them these things, they assume that resources fall off trees**. They are entitled to food, shelter, water, transport, protection, sex. This gives them the impression they’re “Independent” because they can’t see the millions of people they’re depending on. As they are congregating in herds, but still not attracting a man, they feel men have abandoned them. They are looking for them everywhere and everywhere they find either Betas or turned backs. This creates anger. Feminism and liberalism use this anger and further it by telling women that men are horrible. Not only are you out here on your own, but men want to rape you, get you pregnant, steal your only source of income, etc. Men want you to be deserted or be a slave to them. This means women avoid the places where good men congregate that women are allowed in and seek-out female-only spaces (for the perceived safety of being away from men) and male-only spaces (for the resources these men are perceived to be hoarding).

    Women WANT to be dependent. And when we can’t be, because there are no “real” Men around us, they hide when they see us, our male relatives have been turned away and modern society keeps us away from those men who would care for us, we become distressed.
    And I can understand that. If I didn’t have Jon for financial support (resources), emotional support (mate), guidance (leadership), etc; if I didn’t get along with my father, my uncle, my brothers, etc and had no other “non-reproductive” males to interact with (tribe); if I felt I was out there on my own, helpless, needy and stressed, I guess even someone as normally cold and calm as myself would collapse and behave irrationally. Think of how oddly humans behave when starving, dehydrated, freezing to death. Think of the panic. A woman who thinks she’s on her own is basically preempting that suffering, that panic. She is desperate and afraid. And she doesn’t even know it. It’s instinct.

    *This seeking of security and comfort does not necessarily reflect as security and comfort. This is why a woman may go for an abusive druggie over a kind doctor. The kind doctor has resources, the druggie does not. But in the wild the druggie would be the kind of male to rob the doctor of his resources and dominate him. In modern society a woman who irrationally goes for the druggie makes a bad choice. In tribal society a woman who irrationally goes for the druggie makes a safe choice.
    **Not necessarily the case, but, not being a moron, I have never assumed entitlement to resources, welfare, attention, etc, so I have no idea what goes through people’s heads when they assume a system should support them forever. “It grows on trees” is the closest I could get.

  2. aramaxima says:

    Really, awesome article. Your contrast between abuse and neglect between men and women is — well — ‘mind-blowing.’

  3. Tom Joad says:

    Thanks for clarifying the reasons behind this behavior. Totally confirmed my long-held suspicions on their intrusive behavior.

  4. […] herd animals, women innately possess a profound fear of being cast out of the of their […]

  5. Robert What? says:

    Very interesting analysis. Thanks.

  6. joseph says:

    I’m bookmarking this article. Of all I have read on the subject, this is an excellent summation of many thoughts from many contributors all coherently rolled into one article. Required reading for all men if you ask me.

    Many Thanks

  7. […] Women’s Primordial Fear, on The Avenging Red Hand’s blog, offers a fascinating evo-psych explanation for why so many women are so insistent on invading any male-only space that men set up for themselves, from Irish pubs to the Australian “Men’s Shed” organizations: The one thing women fear most is social exclusion, or in ancient terms, being cast out of the tribe…. […]

  8. AdTheBad says:

    I’ve seen this in action via my local ‘Working mens social club’ (a UK phenomena I think but maybe Oz and Canuk too) becoming merely ‘social club’ (women allowed with partners) to ‘creche with beer’ (women and children allowed and working men go elsewhere) and its true. The working mens social club was nowhere a women or child wanted to be, just a dull old beer hall where labourers kick back a while, network and have a pint…nothing outwardly special…but an exclusive space. Not exclusive out of any sense of snobbery or sexism or racism whatever…not even a desirable space really, just a space with a label on the door ‘working mens social club’…where working men can go and mutter over a smoke and a pint, play snooker, darts or dominoes.

    Let ’em in and its gone…and it has gone.

    Its sad but true.

  9. rugby11ljh says:

    That’s such a good read.

  10. “It is well known that women respond to herd-shaming; they want the broader society to think well of them, and as such if the mass of women (or men) disapprove of their behaviour they will change it. ”

    If you’re going to play at scholastics you might try noting some supporting sources for some (any) of your points. Remember, Wikis and fellow-crackpot blogs do not count as effective source support!

    Keep up the good work though. This blog is hilarious.

  11. Sabetha Zamira says:

    :-0 Of all the pseudo-scientific…

  12. […] want something to live for. Most people do. But the strong ingroup aspect of women demands a common cause. This is why they cling to fuzzy-wuzzy ideologies. Really, how courageous is […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s