For a long time now, a man’s place in society has had no direct bearing on his social dominance – a wall street investor is no more likely to command interpersonal power or charisma than a gas station attendant. But women are more likely to read social dominance than abstract status, and the female mind is far more likely to reject this cognitive dissonance. They are programmed to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is their biological imperative to sort the alphas from the betas.
They will accept the high status/low dominance paradox as long as they rely on it, but it is not in their nature. As men have ceased to be their meal tickets, they have progressively rejected unequal power relations with those who are not socially dominant while maintaining them with those who are. Its often been pointed out that gender relations are fundamentally different in environments of abundance and scarcity, and this is why — because women will only accept unequal power relations with non-dominant men when it is absolutely necessary.
Two Points:
1. Feminism’s descent into illogical shaming does not represent a tipping point, because it was never a logical argument in the first place — feminism sprang from the female mind’s emotional rejection of social stratification based on rational organization.
2. For this reason, feminism itself is not a wholesale condemnation of men — it is only the rejection of a social order in which betas can be in positions of relative power.
Men have an egalitarian social impulse that women do not have, and the manosphere is based on the idea that this new beta disenfranchisement is a grievous injustice perpetrated against honest and hardworking men. Unfortunately for the manosphere, this injustice is unavoidable. Fortunately for men, whether or not you will fall into the category of the disenfranchised is now a choice that you can make for yourself. In the future, game will not be an option — it will be a necessity, because only men with female social consciousness will be allowed success. A mass movement against feminism is a total impossibility, but you can still learn to inoculate yourself against it personally.
Originally posted as a comment on Roosh’s article about the feminist movement’s descent into unreason.
Collapse of Man 
High Dominance/High Status: A rockstar, a rapper.
High Dominance/Low Status: A pickup artist, a player.
Low Dominance/High Status: An investment banker, most lawyers.
Low Dominance/Low Status: A computer guy.
What it comes down to is that an advanced economy is at fundamental odds with human “animal” nature. Systems don’t have any need for emotional dominance, they need cold analysis and often very deep and broad knowledge. That in itself self selects for “beta” types and the effort and time put into acquiring it pushes out the acquisition of social skills even more. All of which is at odds with what women need and want in their immediate interpersonal experience.
It’ll be interesting to see which forces win out, because while women are exited by social dominance, their ability to choose it is predicated on a physical level of comfort that we’ve become used to in the West, which is based on the fruits of a technologically advanced economy. Besides the vanishingly small proportion of rockstars and rappers, it’s going to be a tough call for women choosing between the pua with the guitar, dilapidated condo and curdling jug of milk in the fridge and the unassuming IT nerd with a mcmansion. They’ll probably choose both.
I think ultimately the betas are going to hold the card(s). Withholding commitment seems to be their only card, but their desperation is a strong counterforce to that.
I’d err on the side of women being women and men being men.
Civilization and its Discontents had a profound impact on me when I was younger, and gave me the belief that people are always moving back to a state of nature absent a very good reason not to. Today we have a better idea than ever of what that state of nature looked like. I think the convincing evidence suggests that patriarchy is cultural and not inborn, and that it can’t exist without sexual repression. Sexual anarchy gives rise to a specific type of social structure itself, which I suspect precludes complexity by diminishing the relative power of the men who uphold it.
With that said, I disagree that the ability of women to choose dominance is predicated on material comfort — in fact, the dichotomy between dominance and resources only exists because we’ve created an economic system which supports betas, and that dichotomy doesn’t exist in the wild. I think in a state of nature, dominance and resources go hand in hand and after any kind of economic collapse (which anyone can agree will happen “on a long enough timeline”) the possibility of being a wealthy beta will disappear.
It may be more accurate to say that material security has given women the freedom to follow their own rules, and they will always choose naturally attractive men (i.e. alphas) the same way men will always choose naturally attractive women. Down the road, we will be back to a state of scarcity and men will be in a position to make the rules again. Patriarchy will presumably be reinstituted, the journey to complexity resumed, and the dance of history restarted. This, I believe, is the life cycle of all civilizations.