new

Evolutionary psychology predicts that a man will love a woman he regularly has sex with, who lives with him and that he lives with and will be inclined to look after her welfare, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing what she wants. He will do what he thinks is good for her, and make her do what he thinks is good for her, even if she wants something different. Because one flesh. Taking care of her is taking care of her capacity to bear him children and raise his children.

It does not predict that she will love him all that much, since Gnon wants resources transferred from men to women, and from parents to children, but it does predict that she will obey him, respect him, and physically desire him, in order that he can take care of her and the children they have together.

That is how it supposed to work.

If, however, she is someone else’s wife, or is staying with her family rather the joining with him to form a new family, thus someone else is going to be looking after his kids by her, maybe the state is going to be taking care of her and he is just passing through, then evolutionary psychology predicts romantic love, that he will flatter her and do whatever she wants, no matter how foolish, unreasonable, and self destructive, as Lancelot treated Guinevere.

So, evolutionary psychology predicts that males will primarily experience romantic love in the case of adultery, and to a lesser extent in casual fornication. It predicts that they they will experience the love that a husband bears his wife after they have been living together and having sex for a while. And that women will tend to be at best good wives, rather than in love with their husbands. The wife who craves the seed of a man more alpha than her husband says

“I do not love my husband any more, therefore it is OK for me to service this rock musician and his biker roadies”

but women never love men all that much. They are not supposed to. They are supposed to respect, honor, obey, and desire their husbands.

Thus, the second mention of sexual love in the bible: Rebekah meets Isaac, explains herself. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” The first mention of sexual love in the bible on the other hand has love and romance preceding sex and marriage instead of following sex and marriage – and things go badly wrong.

Romantic love was celebrated by the troubadours, and as depicted by the troubadours, was always adulterous love. King Arthur’s wife Guinevere desired Lancelot, and had sex with him, and Lancelot romantically loved Guinevere, King Arthur’s wife. In consequence Lancelot does lots of stupid humiliating self sacrificing things that prove his enormous burning love, Guinevere acts like an arrogant depraved obnoxious spoiled slut bitch, the fellowship of the Round Table breaks up, Camelot is defeated, and everyone gets killed.

This makes sense for maximizing reproductive fitness. Crazy destructive passion in order to cuckold other men, calm, gentle, firm, nurturing affection for one’s own family. Romance is what the troubadours depicted with alarming accuracy.

Romance is defect/defect equilibrium. Lancelot believes he is sacrificing himself for Guineverein in a Christlike fashion, and the troubadours believed he was sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, but in fact he is maximizing his Darwinian genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else. Guinevere also behaves badly to both Lancelot and to her husband King Arthur because she is maximizing her genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else.

Guinevere and King Arthur are in a defect/cooperate relationship. King Arthur is cooperating with Guinevere, by looking after her, and cooperating with Lancelot, in that Lancelot gets benefits as a knight of the fellowship of the Round table, while Lancelot and Guinevere are defecting on King Arthur.

King Arthur, of course, finds out, and Camelot gets defect/defect. Everyone is much worse off, and Camelot falls. That is Romance.

Sexual love is a bad thing except inside the confines of marriage. Men are supposed to have sex first and love later, and women are not really supposed to love men all that much at all. Nowhere in the bible are we told of women loving their husbands, and Guinevere treats both Lancelot and King Arthur very badly. We are, however, fairly frequently told in the bible of women seeking the love of their husbands.

If a woman thinks she is love, she is lying to get some alpha cock. Perhaps lying to herself because all the books she reads and all the movies and television shows she watches tell her that romantic love justifies and purifies every kind of horrible bad behavior. In reality, women are never in love all that much, rather they experience desire for love and sex, which they confuse with love when they proceed to do bad things in pursuit of this desire. Rather than loving a man, a woman desires to be loved by a man. If a man is in romantically in love with a woman whom he is not living with and having regular sex with in his own bed, he is crazy or evil.

What is the Red Pill?

It is the practical and applied knowledge of the Dark Enlightenment, the bad news about how the world really is, and especially and particularly the bad news about the nature of women. The Dark Enlightenment is science and the Red Pill is engineering. There is a certain cynical ruthlessness about the Red Pill. You are told how to use it against other people, and how to protect yourself from other people. Much seemingly virtuous and altruistic behavior, like the behavior of Lancelot towards Guinevere, is revealed to be foolish or, more commonly, wicked and dangerous. Even virtue is reduced to pragmatic self interest – virtue is trying to get into and maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships – as distinct from pretending to virtue in order to get into defect/cooperate relationships. Also, virtue is developing one’s own excellence, as for example lifting iron, or perfecting social skills.

What is the Blue Pill?

It is the official truth about the way the world supposedly works, and particularly and especially the official truth about the nature of women. If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work. Unfortunately, the way you are supposed to behave fails, and fails horribly badly with utterly disastrous consequences.

What is the Purple Pill?

It is an attempt to reconcile Red Pill truths with Blue pill morals: “Not All Women are Like That”. It is an attempt to avoid the most grossly self destructive behavior commanded by the Blue Pill, while still accepting that Blue Pill behavior is wise and virtuous behavior, rather than foolish, destructive, self destructive, and evil behavior. It is an attempt to reconcile with reality while remaining virtuous as Blue Pillers see virtue. But Blue Pill “virtues” are like Lancelot’s love for Guinevere: They are evil in themselves, and manifestations of evil. It was wrong for Lancelot to love Guinevere, as much wrong as it was wrong for Guinevere to have sex with Lancelot. Not only is it unwise to be the equal of your wife, it is also wicked. It is your job to supervise and discipline your wife, and some women, not all of them, not most of them, but quite a lot of them, sometimes need to be physical disciplined. You are wicked if you are not prepared to physically discipline your wife and your children in the unfortunate case that the necessity should occur.

What is the Black Pill?

The Black Pill is despair at the sad and cynical truths of the Red Pill, and the belief that we are doomed, that we as individuals shall not know a good sexual and family relationship, that we shall have few or no great grandchildren, that our race shall perish, that our homelands will be flooded by hostile angry sullen low IQ aliens who live on crime, welfare, and voting for the left, who get violent at microaggressions, that our civilization will die, overrun like Detroit and Salisbury by savages incapable of operating civilization.

What is the White Pill?

Deus Vult: That we will be victorious. That those of us that are lucky and strong will create proper families, that we will have love and grandchildren, that we will save our civilization and conquer the enemies of our civilization. That the able will rule over their inferiors, and men will rule over women, as is right for us to do.

The Truth About Women In STEM

Over the weekend, I was treated to some truly hearty laughs when a group of computer programmers posted on GitHub the specifications of a feminist programming language. (It has since been removed and posted to bitbucket.) As a professional software developer and recreational critic of Social Justice Warriors, this article felt tailor-made to my interests. If either of those descriptions applies to you, feel free to check out the link above, it’s worth it.

“I wonder how long it would take an offended “feminist” to overreact to this article?” I thought. Turns out, not so long, as a feminist coder posted her response almost on cue, complete with “trigger warnings”, using the original post as 75% of her article content, the whole nine yards (check it out here).

Naturally, I was reminded about the infamous Adria Richards “Donglegate” incident, which has become somewhat legendary in the tech world, where a female employee of Sendgrid got two men fired because she overheard them making a joke about “dongles” in private at a conference. I couldn’t help but to think of Beavis and Butthead snickering and saying “huh huh, huh huh, she said dongles”. Crude? Maybe. Reason to lose employment? Absolutely not. And yet when “Donglegate” was all said and done, and Adria Richards got fired because sweet justice exists, the feminists and social justice warriors got the last laugh. For weeks, I saw Adria Richards on TV, playing the victim, distorting the story so hard that I was reminded of a famous Simpsons episode I saw on TV.

That was the Adria Richards coverage in a nutshell, and to someone who was not as invested in the story as I was (which is roughly 99% of people) it seems like another chapter in the long continuing narrative of “The evil ‘bro-grammer boys club of STEM fields that hates women and wants to make their life a living hell’”.

This narrative has always pissed me off because I can tell you firsthand that it is not true. In fact, in just about every aspect it has been the opposite. High schools, universities and employers try to fight so hard against the “boys club” stereotype that they end up giving women some rather unfair advantages. How do I know this? I graduated from one of the top science and engineering schools in the country.
College Years

When I was a college freshman in the Computer Science program, I immediately noticed that there were a lot more men than women. No biggie, people do what they like. I didn’t think much of it. It was widely accepted that computer science was one of the tougher majors in our university and students would routinely change majors when they started being overwhelmed by the incredibly demanding course load.

How demanding? During sophomore year my roommate and I pulled so many all-nighters that we inadvertently learned the rules of cricket (the cricket world championships were broadcast from halfway around the world, live, in the middle of the night, and it made for better background TV than infomercials.)

I first realized something was wrong when I got into trouble with the housing department of our school. My crime? Being a nerd hitting on the hottest girl in the dorms next to ours. Apparently, this was labelled as harassing behavior, and the only thing that saved me from being kicked out of on-campus housing was a friend of mine, who was an RA and member of some housing committees, vouching for me and promising everyone there that he would remedy the problem in private. Once again, I didn’t think much of it, we talked it out, and I was actually believing that what I did was wrong. But that’s a story for another time.

Some time later, I saw a student giving a tour to some high school kids, but then I noticed that the high schoolers were all girls, almost all of them wearing matching t-shirts. This was our state’s program to get more girls interested in science and math. Boy interested in science and math? You’re on your own there, buddy. The next year, it was touted as a success—many more girls enrolled in our schools science and math programs than they ever have. Except the numbers were still overwhelmingly male, I think the overall ratio moved by half a percent. I didn’t think much of it then.

As I progressed through my classes, I would see the same faces over and over again. By your senior year you will probably be in at least 1 group project, study group or circle with about 25% of your major by incoming class year. And while there were some brilliant, exceptionally bright and hard-working women, they were outnumbered by women who took the easiest duties in group projects and just coasted. How some of these girls ended up in Junior and Senior Level computer science classes at my school was a miracle. There were numerous instances where you would have to explain basic concepts to them. It blew my mind. And we encouraged them! We either took the harder group project roles because we did not want a bad grade, or we acted as complete supplicating chumps and ended up doing about 80% of these girls homework assignments thinking it would win us favors (it didn’t).

It’s not like the school had a shortage of resources to help them. Quite the opposite. There were several women’s organizations to help ensure the success of these ladies by helping them with tutoring, counseling, etc, for free. But these resources were often ignored in favor of the easy group projects and thirsty men.

There was a computer lab that stayed open all night. There were only 1-2 girls there pulling all-nighters at a time. But lots of dudes. Lots and lots of dudes. Because of the course load, people were dropping out left and right, but I can only recall one instance of a girl I knew dropping out, compared to the dozens of guys I knew.

And then came the job fairs. Because of my school’s prestige and reputation, many prominent companies and organizations recruited from our school. And you can guess what happened. All of the girls that coasted, all of the girls that cheated, “short cut” and gilded their way through college, ALL, without any exception, got job offers at these prestigious companies with those sweet high STEM salaries. I have known several guys that could not find work in their field while grinding hard for up to a year on the same exact prestigious degree. This was demoralizing. But, you know, male privilege.
More Examples.

“But maybe you’re just nitpicking and biased?” OK then, I will give you more examples from outside of my college career.

One of my friend’s girlfriend, on the surface, has a STEM career (computer software to be exact). If you google her name you will find several articles about her, talking about the challenges, hardships, and all the other bla bla bla that women face in computer science. The thing is, I am pretty sure this girl has never written a single line of code. And no, my friend is not dating Adria Richards. Companies are so desperate to employ and tout women, to be seen as that “progressive” company, that many create non-technical positions to fill that role, and then pat themselves on the back for it.

Another example: an ex-girlfriend, a hard science PhD, would routinely complain about the sexism at her job. As a caring and doting boyfriend, of course I took those things seriously, until I realized that the issues were not sexist – they were with her work. When you’re doing research-based academic work that kind of thing tends to happen. You are constantly under scrutiny, your bosses are people that haven’t been outside of academia for any parts of their lives, you get paid shit money, and it’s generally an unfriendly and unwelcoming environment. I realized this when I met more PhDs, male and female, from various fields. All of them had the same story. This girl mistook difficulty for sexism. Getting a PhD is so hard that there is a popular niche comic describing the rigors of professional academia (PhD Comics). Their humor won’t resonate with everyone, but every single PhD I know loves it.

So yes, STEM is indeed easier for women. Everyone wants then to succeed. Everyone needs them to succeed. No matter what the cost.

But you know who I respect the most? The grinders. The girls that work hard, the girls that learn, the girls that try to make a difference in the world on the same playing field as boys. Because, in reality, there is no sexism in science. In fact, there is no “-ism” in science. It’s a meritocracy, with knowledge and achievement as the main focus. And I can respect that.

This is exactly why the “bro” culture will persist. Science can not be held to the same politically correct standards as plain old office work. Because if I’m working with you at 4 am, fueled by pizza, mountain dew and cricket matches on TV, no matter who you are, man or woman, you’re gonna be my bro. Because that’s the only way anything will get done.