The Rational Male

lufties

Has anyone read these books by Rollo Tomassi about inter gender dynamics? I read all 3 and its changed my life (made me angrier) lol.

I'd love to hear opinions, especially female ones.

Black Swan

Hi lufties,
Please consider elaborating on some of Rollo Tomassi's ideas; and if you do, you may get some discussion going from those who may not have yet read his works?

lufties

Black Swan wrote: »

Hi lufties,
Please consider elaborating on some of Rollo Tomassi's ideas; and if you do, you may get some discussion going from those who may not have yet read his works?

Thanks for the recommendation. In a nutshell, the main point I took was that 'generally', he speaks of a philosophy about female sexual nature. The term 'alpha ****s/beta bucks'. In other words, women's sexual strategy is to feed her sexual desire with so called alpha men in her prime, then when her SMV (sexual market value) starts to decline, she'll settle for a provider who isn't as sexually desirable, but fulfills her need for long term provision.

This thread by the way is not misogynistic or anything of the sort. I just read a book, and am relaying my main take from it, which really shocked me tbh. I know that of course every man and woman is different when it comes to wants and needs. However, this book is based on general terms.

Black Swan

At first blush it appears that Rollo Tomassi focuses on sexual marketability as the essential factor when measuring a woman's worth, claiming that it peaks for women in their early to mid-20's, and after that, it is all down hill with age. Other factors that may be used to estimate a woman's value have been subordinated by Tomassi by this one sexual marketability factor (i.e., intelligence, education, personality, accomplishments, etc., are worth less than physical appearance).

It also appears that Rollo Tomassi, just like Jordan Peterson, has been appealing to the male self-help book genre, especially those men who are struggling with changes in male and female roles and relationships in society. He suggests ways to manipulate women to serve male needs, as well as to recommend that men have several partners.

lufties

Black Swan wrote: »

At first blush it appears that Rollo Tomassi focuses on sexual marketability as the essential factor when measuring a woman's worth, claiming that it peaks for women in their early to mid-20's, and after that, it is all down hill with age. Other factors that may be used to estimate a woman's value have been subordinated by Tomassi by this one sexual marketability factor (i.e., intelligence, education, personality, accomplishments, etc., are worth less than physical appearance).

It also appears that Rollo Tomassi, just like Jordan Peterson, has been appealing to the male self-help book genre, especially those men who are struggling with changes in male and female roles and relationships in society. He suggests ways to manipulate women to serve male needs, as well as to recommend that men have several partners.

Yeah, I'm sorta sorry I even read it. Its just made me angry, ignorance is bliss sometimes. Honestly, I used to be far better with women before I read this book.

Having listened to Rollo being interviewed, he has said that he bases it solely on sexual market worth, not conflating personal worth with it, like how virtuous a woman may be for example.

Fathom

Rollo Tomassi's "inter gender dynamics" was one-sided. Male bias. The "inter" would make for lopsided "gender dynamics." No appeal for women.

Black Swan

Rollo Tomassi in discussing his book The Rational Male caters to, and addresses the "manosphere" audience in such a way as to alienate women readers.

In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men, so what we’ll see is a new wave of female bloggers bastardizing the world-worn ideas that the manosphere has put together and repackaging it in a female context.

Fathom

Is Rollo Tomassi's book title The Rational Male an oxymoron?

Black Swan

Fathom wrote: »

Is Rollo Tomassi's book title The Rational Male an oxymoron?

Indeed a contradiction in content and context, provided that we are not discussing a psychological rationalisation by Tomassi.

Fathom

Devalues the whole human experience.

Black Swan

Rollo Tomassi Life Lessons advice for men:

You should look for a woman who has a good strong Alpha father figure in her upbringing... she can’t look up to you if you’re equals. So you cannot be equals. You have to be above her...

Tomassi advocates male domination and subordination of women.

Fathom

Fathom wrote: »

Is Rollo Tomassi's book title The Rational Male an oxymoron?

Not necessarily. I think.there's probably a grain of truth in what he's saying, but it's reductive and not at a level at which we should be aspring to operate as an intelligent species.

I've never heard of him before, apparently he's not a philosopher but a blogger and a "pick up artist", which makes me wonder why his outlook should have any philosophical implications at all.

Unless you're trying to make a sexist joke about men in general in which case please don't even bother replying.

Fathom

Rollo Tomassi nominally categorizes males into Alpha or Beta. It's the lowest level of measurement. And suffers from being a dichotomy with great limitations. Males are more complex than this either/or oversimplified characterization by Tomassi. What about variation due to time, place, etc.? Are Alpha's alpha in their sleep? Do they snore louder than Betas? A fun illustration, and just as meaningless as Tomassi.

Black Swan

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Not necessarily. I think.there's probably a grain of truth in what he's saying, but it's reductive and not at a level at which we should be aspring to operate as an intelligent species.

Change and adaptation has been problematic for Rollo Tomassi. Then again, methinks he is another opportunist like Jordan Peterson attempting to profit (i.e., selling books) off of the confusion that some males may be experiencing during structural changes in society.

Fathom wrote: »

Rollo Tomassi nominally categorizes males into Alpha or Beta. It's the lowest level of measurement. And suffers from being a dichotomy with great limitations. Males are more complex than this either/or oversimplified characterization by Tomassi. What about variation due to time, place, etc.? Are Alpha's alpha in their sleep? Do they snore louder than Betas? A fun illustration, and just as meaningless as Tomassi.

Jacques Derrida, et al.

notobtuse

Throughout history women have preferred men who behave in ways that could be described as benevolently sexist. The parental investment has shown women being attracted to men who display a muscular physique (health), can provide food (wealth), or protection from aggressors (strength), as it increases her reproductive success. Even today, although women perceive benevolently sexist men to be more patronizing and more likely to undermine their partners, they also perceive view them as more "attractive"... and despite the potential pitfalls they are seen as more likely to protect, provide and commit. I don’t think that will ever change.

Fathom

notobtuse wrote: »

Throughout history women have preferred men who behave in ways that could be described as benevolently sexist. The parental investment has shown women being attracted to men who display a muscular physique (health), can provide food (wealth), or protection from aggressors (strength), as it increases her reproductive success. Even today, although women perceive benevolently sexist men to be more patronizing and more likely to undermine their partners, they also perceive view them as more "attractive"... and despite the potential pitfalls they are seen as more likely to protect, provide and commit. I don’t think that will ever change.

Is this a broad sweeping generalization about women and men? Do you have scholarly sources to support your position above? Or is this your opinion only?

notobtuse

Fathom wrote: »

Is this a broad sweeping generalization about women and men? Do you have scholarly sources to support your position above? Or is this your opinion only?

Of course it’s my opinion, but the opinion is based on both years of anecdotal experiences and scientific evidence.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/201808/why-are-women-attracted-benevolently-sexist-men

https://www.livescience.com/63623-why-women-like-sexist-men.html

Black Swan

The insidious nature of benevolent sexism subtly supports the continuation of old male and female sex typing, roles, and associated behaviours. It is the Ozzy and Harriet syndrome that keeps women in 2nd place, behind Da the breadwinner and Mum the homemaker, when today dual career couples (2 breadwinners) are needed to maintain or advance family standards of living. Another terribly outdated stereotype example: women are nurses, and men are doctors.

Yet another: Wife following her husband from job to job, having to subordinate her career to his, which in turn may contribute to women earning less than men when performing the identical job, thereby reinforcing the old stereotype that the man deserves 1st place in the household because of superior earnings.

Ref: Melanie Tannenbaum (April 2, 2013), The Problem When Sexism Just Sounds So Darn Friendly, in PsySociety of Scientific American.

notobtuse

Black Swan wrote: »

The insidious nature of benevolent sexism subtly supports the continuation of old male and female sex typing, roles, and associated behaviours. It is the Ozzy and Harriet syndrome that keeps women in 2nd place, behind Da the breadwinner and Mum the homemaker, when today dual career couples (2 breadwinners) are needed to maintain or advance family standards of living. Another terribly outdated stereotype example: women are nurses, and men are doctors.

Yet another: Wife following her husband from job to job, having to subordinate her career to his, which in turn may contribute to women earning less than men when performing the identical job, thereby reinforcing the old stereotype that the man deserves 1st place in the household because of superior earnings.

Ref: Melanie Tannenbaum (April 2, 2013), The Problem When Sexism Just Sounds So Darn Friendly, in PsySociety of Scientific American.

Yet the attraction of women to benevolently sexist men continues to exist, and seemingly will continue… apparently even amongst feminists.

From the study in the Psychology Today article...

A surprising finding was that even participants who scored high on a feminist belief measure found benevolently sexist men likable.

The researchers offered two possible explanations for this finding.

According to one interpretation (as reviewed earlier), from an evolutionary perspective, all heterosexual women (i.e. feminist and non-feminist) would be expected to be more attracted to men who show willingness to invest in a relationship.

According to a second account, given that in our current society the division of labor and access to financial resources still favors men, it makes sense that even feminists would like a man who shows willingness to act as the provider.

Black Swan

notobtuse wrote: »

Yet the attraction of women to benevolently sexist men continues to exist, and seemingly will continue… apparently even amongst feminists.

From the study in the Psychology Today article...

Methinks that I would like to review these studies in terms of research design, sampling, analysis, limitations, and conclusions before accepting the reported outcomes. Unfortunately I am at an offsite meeting and cannot access our campus journal subscriptions; now only able to read very brief abstracts that offer little specific details pertaining to these researches you have cited.

notobtuse

Black Swan wrote: »

Methinks that I would like to review these studies in terms of research design, sampling, analysis, limitations, and conclusions before accepting the reported outcomes. Unfortunately I am at an offsite meeting and cannot access our campus journal subscriptions; now only able to read very brief abstracts that offer little specific details pertaining to these researches you have cited.

Sounds reasonable on your part. But Psychology Today is a pretty reputable entity, wouldn’t you agree? And thanks for not shooting the benevolently sexist messenger.

Black Swan

notobtuse wrote: »

But Psychology Today is a pretty reputable entity, wouldn’t you agree?

Psychology Today has popular content, orientation, and overviews, not scholarly; consequently, it lacks the specific detail of research studies to where they can be peer-reviewed.

notobtuse

Black Swan wrote: »

Psychology Today has popular content, orientation, and overviews, not scholarly; consequently, it lacks the specific detail of research studies to where they can be peer-reviewed.

I agree. Psychology Today was my goto reference in my Psychology classes, but it was not my major. I remember from my university days they always referenced the research data to support their articles. I see they did here also, but I notice access is limited… but with your school association can you access it?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167218781000


Article Information
Volume: 45 issue: 1, page(s): 146-161
Article first published online: June 29, 2018; Issue published: January 1, 2019
Received: May 23, 2017; Accepted: May 14, 2018
Pelin Gul1, 2, Tom R. Kupfer1
1University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
2Iowa State University, Ames, USA

Corresponding Author:

Pelin Gul, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, W112 Lagomarcino Hall, 901 Stange Road, Ames, IA 50011-1041, USA. Email: pelin.gul@gmail.com

Black Swan

I've been very busy with month-end-close. Now relaxing at favourite javahouse on a Sunday morn, and taking another look at Rollo Tomassi and The Rational Male. Unfortunately I am once again too far from my university to pull down signal access, so review of licensed scholarly articles will have to wait.

Rollo Tomassi is not a philosopher. He does not have a formally constructed philosophy. Rather, his works fall within the self-help genre, and in particular he appeals to a male audience. Nothing wrong with narrowing his focus to this audience, per se, provided that he does not disparage women in broad sweeping, illogical, or unreasonable ways; e.g., men should only pick women raised by a strong alpha male father, discarding all others as undesirable.

Women being raised by, and later paired with dominant alpha males, along with the second class subjugation of women by these alphas, appears to be Tomassi's primary male self-help advice to today's men struggling with the gradual and historical changes in Western society gender roles.

This makes me wonder if Tomassi suggests that all males, also in broad sweeping ways, are to become alpha males if they want to be happy; or just acting as alpha males in male-female relationships? And if they cannot all be alpha males among males, will females only be attracted to those few alphas, ignoring the vast majority failing to be considered alphas by their male peers? Does anyone see the problematic nature of Tomassi's self-help advice to males today, or the very limited population of females only raised by alpha male fathers to draw from?

Given that populations tend to approximate half male and half female during optimal ages for pairing, and that those females raised by alpha fathers would be less than half of females in the population, what happens to those males who fail to compete with other males for the relatively smaller population of alpha father dominated females? What self-help advice does Tomassi offer those unsuccessful males? I recall that he suggests they stay single. Will they too be happy, or as happy as those alphas that have women to dominate?

Black Swan

From an alternative viewpoint, how many alpha males will be attracted to, or stay attracted to those subordinated females raised by an alpha father? To what extent would a strong, intelligent, self-reliant, confident, and highly successful alpha want a similar female partner (i.e., alpha female)? Although Hollywood characters and fictional roles lack any scientific rigour, it appears anecdotally to me that there has been a shift to more female heroes in films of late. To what extent has this shift to Lara Croft-like alpha female characters been prompted by a stronger male attraction to such female roles? Is there any recent scholarly research that suggests this shift, that may also fly in the face of Tomassi's return to the old Ozzy and Harriet WWII era (and before) gender role male domination model?

Drumpot

Black Swan wrote: »

From an alternative viewpoint, how many alpha males will be attracted to, or stay attracted to those subordinated females raised by an alpha father? To what extent would a strong, intelligent, self-reliant, confident, and highly successful alpha want a similar female partner (i.e., alpha female)? Although Hollywood characters and fictional roles lack any scientific rigour, it appears anecdotally to me that there has been a shift to more female heroes in films of late. To what extent has this shift to Lara Croft-like alpha female characters been prompted by a stronger male attraction to such female roles? Is there any recent scholarly research that suggests this shift, that may also fly in the face of Tomassi's return to the old Ozzy and Harriet WWII era (and before) gender role male domination model?

To those of us less able to decipher the motives of changes such as these, the cynic in me presumes the more female dominant characters is more movies response to the modern concept of equality. In short , shoehorn a load of woman characters in to even things out and give the perception of equality. I remember having a discussion with a psychologist and asked why do we have to do things so badly when it comes to change. They suggested that we often go from one extreme (abortion, religion, sexism, equal rights , politics etc) to the exact opposite in an almost over compensating way. That’s how I feel would interpret what’s going on, an over balancing of what was an unbalanced system.

Ripley, in aliens, is one of the most iconic and arguably my favourite action hero’s of all time and yet most woman heroes are rehashes or copy and paste of male counterparts. I love the uniqueness of her character and strength she gets from vulnerability that I’m not sure many other characters can claim. That’s my benchmark for female role models but I feel it’s disastrous having Hollywood imprint their own narrative - copy and paste luke = Rey. Copy and paste captain America = Wonder Woman with less desire to protect humanity :pac:

Lara Croft is more a sexualised fantasy then captain marvel or even black widow (who uses her sexuality when required) but I wouldn’t say is comparable with Croft in terms of motive for bringing these characters to the big screen.

You mentioned earlier that Rollo is not a philosper but I thought we were all our own unique philosophers but some are just less informed , more ignorant , more strategic or less aware of the concept? This is a genuine question, do you have to be constantly engaged in philosophy or how the world works or can it be an interest? Also, whatever the answer, I get the impression a true philosopher lives their lives based on their own philosophical findings. I’m reading a book discussing Stoicism and it mentions marcus aurelius who sounds like a fascinating person (any good books for newbs in philosophy on him?) who lived his life true to his philosophical beliefs. Do people here who consider themselves philosophers feel they live their lives true to what they have learned or does talking or learning about it qualify one as a philosopher ?

What’s also funny is that supposedly philosophical schools used to pander to certain crowds like you accuse Rollo of Doing. Some actually picking and choosing snippets of philosophy from other schools to try and entice more students. This suggests Rollo pandering to an audience is not something alien to philosophers hundreds of years ago. Again I’m only reading this stuff now, I’m not correcting you only repeating what I’ve read. Perhaps Rollo is just a person exploiting a niche like Peterson, perhaps that’s what you mean, but what separates these guys from philosophers? (Genuine question, I don’t know the answer).

I’m only beginning to scratch the surface of philosophy but find it over whelming at times. Even on my down time I’m listening to information that is fascinating. Heads a bit melted to be fair. Also any sort of lectures or places where people discuss philosophy that doesnt require extensive academic knowledge?

Black Swan

Drumpot wrote: »

You mentioned earlier that Rollo is not a philosper but I thought we were all our own unique philosophers but some are just less informed , more ignorant , more strategic or less aware of the concept?

There are some who contend that all people are philosophical in varying degrees, but I doubt all would be called philosophers. There is a focus on philosophy by philosophers missing for most of us. A formally constructed philosophy is essential to be a philosopher, that is why I do not believe that Jacques Derrida was a postmodern philosopher, as he lacked one. Rather I would classify him as a philosophical methodologist, or one who deconstructs the formally stated positions of other philosophers in such a way as to better understand them.

This raises the question if a formally constructed philosophy must be written by the philosopher? Socrates lectured but did not write down his philosophy. Members of his philosophical circle, including Plato and Xenophon wrote it.

Drumpot wrote: »

I get the impression a true philosopher lives their lives based on their own philosophical findings.

Methinks it is safe to say that Socrates lived his philosophy during classical times, as did Jacques Derrida live his philosophical deconstruction in postmodern times. There are many others. But should an experiential component be a requirement for the philosopher label?

Fathom

Drumpot wrote: »

Ripley, in aliens, is one of the most iconic and arguably my favourite action hero’s of all time and yet most woman heroes are rehashes or copy and paste of male counterparts.

Not all are male rehashes. Perhaps there will be more uniquely female leading role examples as social change gradually and structurally occurs over time? For example. Watched the film "Let Me In" (2010) yesterday. It's an American remake of the Swedish "Let the right one in" (2008). The lead role appears to be a twelve-year-old female. Or a character that appears to be a female vampire in appearance and role behavior. Her age 12 male counterpart was called a girl by bullying male classmates. She tells him to fight back. Was this an example of role reversal ("rehash") or how a leading and strong female would confront bullying? it's complicated (excuse the cliche) but not a simple male role rehash by a female character.

Drumpot wrote: »

Lara Croft is more a sexualised fantasy then captain marvel or even black widow (who uses her sexuality when required) but I wouldn’t say is comparable with Croft in terms of motive for bringing these characters to the big screen.

Are we talking early Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) or later Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander)? Both Tomb Raider games and films have changed over time in character appearances and female role behaviors.

Still waters

notobtuse wrote: »

Of course it’s my opinion, but the opinion is based on both years of anecdotal experiences and scientific evidence.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/201808/why-are-women-attracted-benevolently-sexist-men

https://www.livescience.com/63623-why-women-like-sexist-men.html

Not to mention thousands of years of social engineering where men and women assume certain roles and prefer certain characteristics when choosing a reproductive partner, these can't be ignored because of changes to the social fabric within the last 200 years.

Drumpot

Black Swan wrote: »

There are some who contend that all people are philosophical in varying degrees, but I doubt all would be called philosophers. There is a focus on philosophy by philosophers missing for most of us. A formally constructed philosophy is essential to be a philosopher, that is why I do not believe that Jacques Derrida was a postmodern philosopher, as he lacked one. Rather I would classify him as a philosophical methodologist, or one who deconstructs the formally stated positions of other philosophers in such a way as to better understand them.

This raises the question if a formally constructed philosophy must be written by the philosopher? Socrates lectured but did not write down his philosophy. Members of his philosophical circle, including Plato and Xenophon wrote it.


Methinks it is safe to say that Socrates lived his philosophy during classical times, as did Jacques Derrida live his philosophical deconstruction in postmodern times. There are many others. But should an experiential component be a requirement for the philosopher label?

What defines a philosopher? I’m genuinely curious as I couldn’t say, but I’ve only a shallow understanding of this subject.

Does a persons logic/teachings/musings, their actions (or following of said teachings) or both? Is it doing a Philosophy course in college or trying to live your life according to thought out and reasoned analysis? Anybody can throw out counter arguments to most things, is that not a philosophical challange ? If your philosophy of life is ignorance and greed, does that preclude you from the Philosophers circle?

People who take advantage of capitalism in all it’s glory, but doing so with full understanding of what they are doing and intentionally manipulating events for an unethical hedonistic life. Do they have to stop and think about their actions or can you be an instinctive philosopher where you see the world with open , informed eyes but choose to make it fit whatever is your own creed?

Drumpot

Fathom wrote: »

Not all are male rehashes. Perhaps there will be more uniquely female leading role examples as social change gradually and structurally occurs over time? For example. Watched the film "Let Me In" (2010) yesterday. It's an American remake of the Swedish "Let the right one in" (2008). The lead role appears to be a twelve-year-old female. Or a character that appears to be a female vampire in appearance and role behavior. Her age 12 male counterpart was called a girl by bullying male classmates. She tells him to fight back. Was this an example of role reversal ("rehash") or how a leading and strong female would confront bullying? it's complicated (excuse the cliche) but not a simple male role rehash by a female character.

Are we talking early Lara Croft (Angelina Jolie) or later Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander)? Both Tomb Raider games and films have changed over time in character appearances and female role behaviors.

I do wonder if the lack of female hero’s is down to the general idea that woman don’t fight (in comparison to men, how many woman faught in wars?) and generally don’t do physical jobs as much as men so we don’t really associate them with physical roles in general?!

In fact just thinking about it why isn’t there more female philosophers or famous scientists or even inventors? Was that down to society forcing a role on woman? Should we expect this to change remarkably over the coming decades?

I suppose I’m just wondering if there is a sub conscious backlash of sorts to woman super hero’s because they don’t feel “earned”? There are many quality traits one could associate with woman over men but from a biological perspective being stronger physically is not one.

I’m not implying that above is correct , I am only trying to ascertain why we have such poor “hero’s” for woman characters in comparison to their male counterparts. Will the efforts to make things more “equal” change perceptions and provide a more balanced alternative?

Fathom

Drumpot wrote: »

In fact just thinking about it why isn’t there more female philosophers or famous scientists or even inventors? Was that down to society forcing a role on woman? Should we expect this to change remarkably over the coming decades?

Linda L. Carli, Laila Alawa, YoonAh Lee, Bei Zhao, & Elaine Kim (January 2016). Stereotypes About Gender and Science: Women ≠ Scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly Vol 40, Issue 2:

Abstract: The results are consistent with role-congruity and lack-of-fit theories that report incompatibility of female gender stereotypes with stereotypes about high-status occupational roles. The results demonstrate that women are perceived to lack the qualities needed to be successful scientists, which may contribute to discrimination and prejudice against female scientists.

Song to the Siren

lufties wrote: »

Has anyone read these books by Rollo Tomassi about inter gender dynamics? I read all 3 and its changed my life (made me angrier) lol.

I'd love to hear opinions, especially female ones.

I watched something of his on youtube before. The very long winded approach he has would probably turn a lot of people off alone. He's actually just added a 2 and a half hour video analysing a Will Smith interview.

Anyway, I remember him talking about how women are more likely to stray from their men (to sleep with other men) when they're in heat. I distinctly remember him saying something like "has anyone ever had a female boss who you've suddenly noticed dressing very flamboyantly, and then about a week later that she's suddenly very bitchy?". From that he seemed to imply that a woman is more bitchy when she's on her period??

He also said that young women will often isolate themselves from their fathers and brothers while they're in heat.

Song to the Siren

Fathom wrote: »

Abstract: The results are consistent with role-congruity and lack-of-fit theories that report incompatibility of female gender stereotypes with stereotypes about high-status occupational roles. The results demonstrate that women are perceived to lack the qualities needed to be successful scientists, which may contribute to discrimination and prejudice against female scientists.

Generally speaking what one perceives is correct. People trust their instincts for a reason. After all, there's probably an equivalent study (to the one you quoted) out there that states that men are only perceived has having lower emotional intelligence than women, which may contribute to discrimination and prejudice against male nurses!

Women aren't as good at maths. And for the most part, you need a mathematical mind to be an inventor. I think it's something like 99% of all real inventions are by men. If it were 70/30 you might have some argument with that, but otherwise not.

Jimmy Bottlehead

The Rational Male is anything but philosophy. It's toilet paper, and Tomassi a hack.

Apiarist

Song to the Siren wrote: »

....People thrust their instincts ....

They do, into various edifices, instinctively.

Song to the Siren wrote: »

....Women aren't as good at maths. ....

Citation needed.

Black Swan

victor8600 wrote: »

Citation needed.

Indeed.