On the Female Groomer

Why some women seek absolute control over the men in their lives, and why those men let it happen.

Introduction

Viktor Vasnetsov, Baba Yaga, 1917

Those familiar with my previous works are aware that one of the single largest factors in why I transitioned was a girlfriend of mine who introduced me to the Ground Zero of early 2010s transgender grooming: Tumblr. She was herself already taken with all the microlabels the site offered when I met her at 14, and I listened dutifully to all the identities I was unaware of, things that I needed to know in order to be a “good person” in the modern world.

Surely, it wasn’t all her fault, but I do believe that had I not met her, my likelihood of medical transition would have been lower. She was the person who made me aware of the concept, she was the person who initially coached me into the ever-changing etiquette of the subculture, and she was the person who convinced me that since she decided she was a lesbian, that meant I must be a woman. Sure, there could have been other vectors for me, but this one was mine. I made the decision to follow along with this, and that decision rests with no one else, not even her; I will never make it again.

But this experience (which is not that uncommon) has led me to consider the phenomenon at large, outside the realm of trans contagion. It’d be nice if this was the only place where it came up but much like pedophilia and exhibitionism, trans is just the most obvious place where this can be observed only because of how deranged and politically extreme it is. It is most obvious here because the castration isn’t metaphorical, the emasculation a literal phenomenon with undeniable physical effects. There is very little doubt as to what is happening, and the role of many radical feminists claiming to form the opposition can be distilled into running cover for the women who are involved in this kind of insidious grooming.

There have been a number of “ROGD” radical feminist mothers —notably, almost all of them mothers of sons — who have openly acknowledged a “temptation” to medicalize their trans-identifying children. Likewise, many prominent “trans widows,” i.e., ex-wives of trans-identifying males, tend also to have been radical feminists before their husbands “inexplicably” decided they were “lesbians.” You see women on the internet all the time, both on the far-right and the far-left, arguing that women’s role in life and love is to civilize men, to bring us to heel, to make us social and emotional creatures despite our perceived mechanical and violent nature. What these women don’t understand is that that machine-like and violent essence is still very much a part of our own social and emotional development, they just cannot understand it because they aren’t men and never will be. These women see these masculine means of relating to other people as a defect that they should rescue us from, and this mission transcends the so-called “political spectrum.”

Materialist Matrimony

Edward Hopper, Room in New York, 1932

This is because women’s reproductive success historically rests on hitching herself to a man capable of protecting and providing for her and their offspring. Man’s reproductive success, on the other hand, rests on being able to impregnate as often as possible. This is often at odds with women’s reproductive strategy because pregnancy and childbirth can be quite dangerous, and having too many children too quickly can mean too few resources to spread around, at least for the years before the children can work. Therefore, for the species as a whole to survive, men and women need to negotiate a compromise that limits men’s proclivity for maximum reproductive attempts while also extending women’s proclivity for having and raising children.

These society-wide compromises emerge from existing political structures and economic constraints. They are conscious reactions to the material confines of their time. The institutions of marriage, polygamy, freelove, the nuclear family, etc., did not merely come about as a result of measured compromise between the sexes, but as methods of controlling the population of laborers and petit bourgeois, and creating mechanisms of securing political alliances and legacies. In other words, pairings between men and women were (for almost all people until very recently) a means of pooling together resources in times when such resources were scarce and extraction of them grueling for the vast majority of the population.

Now, resources that used to be considered luxuries less than two centuries ago are abundant even for the poorest of people in the developed world, but they flow through the economy with much greater momentum and force than they did before, leading to constant production and destruction of surplus. This makes everything replaceable, everything capable of being converted alchemically from some resource for use into cold hard cash from and for exchange. This economic arrangement has made all of our social bonds as fluid and replaceable as the plastic wrap sex toys are packaged in and made of. The political structures of our time reflect this; what is democracy if not aristocracy but faster, more violent, swifter, more agile? What is a politician or a bureaucrat if not a disposable, interchangeable aristocrat?

In this modern world, marriage is predicated on love and love predicated on feeling, but today especially, that feeling is grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted. It is taken to mean the feeling of infatuation, the fleeting feeling of immediate sexual attraction and basic personal compatibility. The conscious effort it takes to maintain a marriage is not valued, the idea of love as a never-ending process is foreign to most who claim to believe in it, in large part because the institution of marriage itself is no longer a lifelong contract. No-fault divorce renders the entire institution meaningless for many, as the permanence of the bond used to be the whole point of it, that permanence now dissolved into thin air by the signing of a few documents.

The dissolution of marriage as a stable institution cannot be readily applied solely to feminists as many (including probably myself) have claimed. Yes, feminism was the ideology of the 20th century that justified the erosion of marriage, but that erosion was already long underway due to material trends upstream of the development of feminist ideology. The nuclear family itself developed as a consequence of the liquefaction of already-existing deeply-rooted rural communities suddenly uprooted by industrialization and urbanization. Even the nuclear family, the assumed base unit of society, hasn’t really existed as a stable institution in earnest in over a century. It’s had a few half-hearted resurrections here and there (and we might see one again before the close of this decade), but it will never remain long in this world where everyone and everything is a discrete and disposable economic unit in an ever-changing, self-revolutionizing system of value extraction.

The Feminine Will to Power

Sandro Botticelli, Venus and Mars, 1483

The will to power exists in all living things, and all of life is a struggle against extinction. Life is violent and competitive, and it’s either conquer or be conquered. Therefore, the Ubermensch, the Overman, the Superman, is he who exerts his will to power on others ruthlessly and without moral compunction in order to strengthen himself, improve his own lot in life, to use the life force within him by any and all means necessary. It does not require one’s own physical strength necessarily but it certainly doesn’t hurt. It does require, at the very least, someone’s physical strength in order to subjugate the weak and ill-constituted.

That clarification out of the way, the masculine will to power is one of sheer physical strength, of brute force, of poised rationality that does not hesitate to waste another’s life force if one is indeed a waste of life. It is the will of the roving warrior, of the Mongol, of the samurai, of he who oppresses without mercy, who has so much physical force in reserve that he can waste it without restraint in order to expand his own dominion. The feminine will to power uses the body not to subjugate others with physical force, but to conquer the heart and mind. To be sure, a true Overman needs both fortitude and cunning to be an Overman at all. However, the modern-day Overman mostly relies on the latter, using someone else’s muscle for the dirty work, creating nihilistic holograms for their lessers to chase down while doing the Overman’s bidding.

Women’s power in the world emerged from a few base facts. Firstly, that they alone possess the ability to sustain life within themselves. Secondly, that they are (usually) highly sought after and prized by men. Thirdly, and as a consequence of the first two facts, women evolved better emotional and aesthetic fluency than men in order to become better manipulators; this is the primary way they exert their will to power.

As recently as the Second Great Awakening, well before the advent of the women’s vote, women exerted power in this manner, becoming the most prolific missionaries of newly-created American Protestant sects. They were the ones converting their husbands and children, and they were the ones organizing the churches, charities, and schoolhouses. They led the development of the nation, of the People, at a time when men were leading the development of the state, of the means by which to commit violence against Peoples opposed to their own People’s interests.

This nature within women cannot be broken. It is a consequence of their vitality and vigor, it is a sign that they are alive and that they exert force upon the world. I don’t seek to castigate it by casting it in this light; on the contrary, it is a good and necessary thing, because if it did not exist we would not be here. However, this nature can be hijacked, controlled remotely by Overmen who know what women are capable of. Just like when they send undermen on death marches through foreign soil motivated by a vague sense of patriotism and progress, they’ve begun sending underwomen into male-dominated institutions to further centralize control and reshape the world according to their own even greater will to power.

Instead of solely reproducing ideology in the home, among loved ones for whom they possess a powerful biological drive to protect and sustain, a certain class of women — the college-educated, salaried, managerial petit bourgeoisie — reproduce ideology for the state towards people they have no such bond with. They are teachers, they are nurses, they are academics, they are administrative managers and human resources departments and activists and lawyers. They use their penchant for emotional manipulation to secure their own interests (again, not a bad thing in itself), in order to secure the interests of their masters. They force radical new agendas, they make radical emotional appeals, they pursue a politics devoid of rationality because the only rational choice when faced with their demands is either to accept or to be destroyed by someone who will claim to be a defenseless victim, channeling emotionally justified outrage in your direction, amplified by those who fall under her sway.

It is an astonishing show of force, but I do not often admire the women who pursue it because many of them aren’t even doing it for themselves. Some of them are and I respect it, but most of them are completely blinded by the pursuit of the nihilistic hologram, by the fervor, by the fickle waves of empathy and validation coming off the crowd. I can only respect the master manipulators who have managed to bring this into fruition, or who see the framework for what it is and use it accordingly, I don’t really respect those merely caught up in it, thrashing wildly just because that’s what they see everyone else doing. I especially can’t respect the thrashing because I was doing it myself not too long ago and I know how pointless, draining, and wasteful it is.

A Social Breakdown

Jacek Malczewski, Vicious Circle, 1895-1897

The waning social power of men and the rise of the “girlboss.” The meteoric rise of female social dynamics overtaking all social dynamics, and the catastrophic failure of certain men to keep up, sandcastles lost to rising tides and thundering storms. Below is how I’ve gamed out the situation.

1. New social relations between men and women emerged as women of a certain class entered the workforce as managers and put off having children. Petit bourgeois men’s role as family breadwinners not as valued as it once was, leading to more men of all classes becoming of lower value to women because they can get what they need from their employers and the state without hitching themselves to a man. However, just because a man’s ability to provide has been devalued doesn’t mean it is without value, it just means the standard’s been raised and his autonomy diminished.

2. Petit bourgeois women’s social power as ideological matriarchs for the state/corporate world rather than for the family or community has led to men having to mold their views and behaviors in order to be allowed entry into social spaces that are dominated by female social dynamics. This leads to men becoming of lower value to society at large, both because they need to radically adopt these traits before they are considered of enough value to join society and because their very adoption of these prescribed feminine traits lowers their value as men.

3. These lower value men are now faced with several choices:

   1. Never compromise with the new arrangement and therefore never get married. This has three possible outcomes.

      1. Outcome 1 is giving up altogether and living a nihilistic lifestyle that weakens the body and leaves one wallowing in one’s own low-value status. Allow yourself to be lain low, give up on yourself and your future. A spiritual eunuch, possibly a real one if you fall for the trans psyop; this would expand your social power for a time, but it also has a strong likelihood of driving you completely insane and unable to function. The NEET with dual porn and video game addictions is the archetype for this.

      2. Outcome 2 is giving up on marriage but not on life. You choose to seek fulfillment and expanded dominion through other means, making yourself a higher-caliber man than you were before while still refusing to internalize or make yourself vulnerable to these social pressures. Possibly hook up with women for sexual needs only, as a pastime, or become a completely celibate savant.

      3. Outcome 3 is believing you’re in Outcome 2, but you’re only raising your value to have sex. Taking in all the advice of right-wing dissidents and parasocial pals telling you how to be alpha, how to be chad, how to be the guy that gets bitches just to hit it and quit it. You delude yourself into thinking you’re some paragon of masculinity when you’re still obsessed with what women think of you, and obsessed with being a victim of “the matriarchy.” Not quite as sad and pathetic as other options, but sad and pathetic nonetheless.

   2. Compromise with the new arrangement. Make yourself higher value using the same methods as the man in Outcome 2 but in part — and only in part — for the purpose of finding a lifelong mate. Attempt to raise a family knowing full well that this new arrangement is designed to make both yourself and your bonds weaker, and choose to accept the potential consequences of this decision. Choose not to resent women for the arrival of this arrangement which is largely out of their control, and instead choose to place faith in a woman with similar goals and outlook on life who isn’t likely to abuse the inflated social power she didn’t ask for, instead using it to benefit you both.

   3. Fully accept the new arrangement, and therefore intentionally emasculate, castrate, and cuckold yourself, develop learned helplessness for the sake of copulating and hopefully bag a mommydom waifu who lords her social power over you while attempting to convince yourself that this is what you actually want. Exist solely for the women around you; spineless, weak, a slave to your own sexual impulses and your woman’s emotions. But hey, at least you don’t have to grow up. Maybe you can even be in some sort of disgusting polycule with a failed OnlyFans model and a pink-haired chick on testosterone.

4. Women, in turn, are faced with their own choices:

   1. Compromise with the responsibilities of this social power, work for a time to save up money and feel a sense of accomplishment while looking for a man capable of fulfilling your long-term needs as a wife and potential mother. Come up against all manner of obstacles and disincentives established to prevent you from abandoning your burgeoning career to raise a family. You’ll have a genuinely hard time finding a man worth committing to when there are so many losers bending themselves backwards for just a crumb of pussy, so many who have lacked any kind of rite initiation in their lives to take them from boys to men, including those that lean hard into a pre-fabricated machismo they’ve cultivated from lifestylist dissidents. The social rejects who can’t function because they refused to be feminized and the men who have allowed themselves to be feminized are both generally not worth your time, and for good reason.

   2. Fully embrace this social power and attempt to flex it in every single direction, often without clear purpose. Attempt to achieve sexual validation via hypergamous promiscuity (the femcel route) and/or marrying a chameleon-like man capable of turning himself into whatever you want without any substance or force behind it, and without any desire or drive beyond placating you and his favorite porn actresses. A man who cannot think for himself, who won’t be able to protect you and who won’t hold you steady because you’re the one doing it for him. It comes with the satisfaction of being permanently in charge at home in all things, but at the cost of trusting the state/your employer for the things he’s supposed to do, which in turn requires you to believe and enforce compliance with their “mission.”

   3. There is no option C. Once such levers of power are established or seized, they are never given away freely, they can only be taken. Those women who choose option A are going to flex this power on occasion, often not realizing the bind they put their man in when they do. Even those women who attempt to opt out of this altogether by transitioning will not escape it because transitioning is itself an example of option B. It dramatically expands the social power available to a woman who might otherwise be of much lower value. These levers exist, and are not going to disappear until they either exhaust their utility or are wrested away by forces far more powerful.

There may be more options available, this was not meant as an exhaustive list. Of course, there are also low-value women, but low-value women are afforded some of the same social power that high-value women have. Additionally, low-value women are more likely to be having lots of meaningless sex with men they’re not attracted to than none at all. Rather than leverage their sexual desirability, they leverage some form of victimhood be it a chronic illness, a past sexual assault, a vague act of misogyny, claiming to be nonbinary, a racial grievance etc. What’s important to remember is that it could be real or it could be fake, but that doesn’t matter all that much; the grift works as long as it’s convincing enough. Real grievances are more useful to this end than fake ones, but in the end, the performance for validation and support and ginning up a mob is still ultimately a performance. It doesn’t even matter if it’s done consciously or not. A lot of this is done unconsciously, as an unintentional acquired reflex from online social dynamics; men do it too.

As I’ve mentioned, all these choices and behaviors are downstream from developments in politics and the economy. It took a substantial amount of legwork and societal reorganization in order to get here and the very nature of this setup demands even more to come. This was never meant as a permanent arrangement, just as a placeholder to usher in specific policy goals before being discarded and reshaped again, bunnyhopping from issue to issue, take to take, stance to stance. This process is neverending. Nevertheless, these are the choices as they exist.

Any option offered which neglects to reflect these underlying tensions that I’ve laid out here is an option which may be immediately discarded. There is no fairytale solution for anybody. All choices in the real world come with benefits and costs. Surely, a meaningful relationship is more than that, but it is also exactly that. Attempting to avoid this base reality in all things is what drives us to temporary bouts of ideological insanity.