The Rational Male

[Tara123]

Did anyone else read this book?

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rational-Male-Rollo-Tomassi/dp/1492777862

Any thoughts on it?

XX

 

[xss27]

I read it last year at some point, couldn't reference any of it at all now if I tried but I do remember thinking that it made some good points and observations on social dynamics between the sexes or something. You might get a frosty reception if you mentioned it to people though, especially any feminist type ladies.

 

[blue lunar night]

Bought it as a gift for my brother when he got married I've skimmed through it, and while various others have made many of the same points, I found Rollo's style to be especially crisp, direct, sensible, and effective. He doesn't engage in the coarser, cringier kinds of rhetoric that can emerge from the 'manosphere'.

It's not anything mind-blowing if you're already familiar with the concepts discussed, but if it's all new to you then it will definitely be an eye-opener.

 

[hug46]

I have read blogs, twitter and seen a bit of a talk on utube by Rollo but i have not read his books apart from various quotes ,which perhaps could be taken out of context if they are not attached to the rest of the book. I think that he sometimes talks sense but i have reservations about the way he packages his observations for his target audience. One example being....

Women have boyfriends and girlfriends. If you’re not f*cking her, you’re her girlfriend.

A lot of men couldn't care less about being referred to as a girlfriend but i think that the kind of wannabe "alpha" male that might look to Tomassi's books for guidance would not be happy to be seen in that light and be put off of having platonic relationships with women.

Another thing that i do not think is good is that he has posted a couple of news stories on his twitter acount about men shooting their wives and kids due to failed relationships, implying that the reasons for the murders are hypergamy.
On one of the stories he writes "keeping my mouth shut til i get the facts" with a link to a daily mail story and then continuing to make speculative accusatory tweets about the womans fidelity.
To me it seems less likely that these women are splitting from their partners due to wanting move up on the DNA reproductive ladder and more likely that they are leaving because they
realise that their partners are a complete freakazoid that would wipe themselves and their families out if their fragile egos were damaged.

He seems like a nice reasonable guy and not some ranting women hater (which i do not think that he is) but i cannot help but feel that there is something sad, duplicitous and divisive about this kind of rhetoric. It just seems like the other side of the nutjob feminist thing to me but wrapped up in this "hey we are being rational, logical and scientific because we are thinking guys" sparkly paper.

I am probably wrong cos i havent read the book. What does OP think?

 

[Tara123]

I have read blogs, twitter and seen a bit of a talk on utube by Rollo but i have not read his books apart from various quotes ,which perhaps could be taken out of context if they are not attached to the rest of the book. I think that he sometimes talks sense but i have reservations about the way he packages his observations for his target audience. One example being....

Women have boyfriends and girlfriends. If you’re not f*cking her, you’re her girlfriend.

A lot of men couldn't care less about being referred to as a girlfriend but i think that the kind of wannabe "alpha" male that might look to Tomassi's books for guidance would not be happy to be seen in that light and be put off of having platonic relationships with women.

Another thing that i do not think is good is that he has posted a couple of news stories on his twitter acount about men shooting their wives and kids due to failed relationships, implying that the reasons for the murders are hypergamy.
On one of the stories he writes "keeping my mouth shut til i get the facts" with a link to a daily mail story and then continuing to make speculative accusatory tweets about the womans fidelity.
To me it seems less likely that these women are splitting from their partners due to wanting move up on the DNA reproductive ladder and more likely that they are leaving because they
realise that their partners are a complete freakazoid that would wipe themselves and their families out if their fragile egos were damaged.

He seems like a nice reasonable guy and not some ranting women hater (which i do not think that he is) but i cannot help but feel that there is something sad, duplicitous and divisive about this kind of rhetoric. It just seems like the other side of the nutjob feminist thing to me but wrapped up in this "hey we are being rational, logical and scientific because we are thinking guys" sparkly paper.

I am probably wrong cos i havent read the book. What does OP think?

Agreed he's a bit direct with his language.

He does go on in the book to say that he isn't suggesting that men and women can't have friendships, just that there is always going to be a sexual dynamic between males and females. Always.

I haven't seen the twitter account or those stories, but he does make the point in the book that female behaviour (yes driven, often unconsciously, by hypergamy) has been known to drive men to suicide. This is particularly the case when women are idealised.

I think just looking at the twitter account won't give you the full picture of what this book is about.

Edit: sorry you did say you looked at the blog. I think that's where most of the material for the book came from.

 

[Nitegazer]

He does go on in the book to say that he isn't suggesting that men and women can't have friendships, just that there is always going to be a sexual dynamic between males and females. Always.

What if the male or female or both are gay? What if one of them is asexual?

Something about Tomassi's writing just seems, well... old. The younger folks I hang out with are much more about gender and sexuality fluidity. His views only seem to apply to fairly rigid gender types.

I did some quick reading, which I'll admit probably does not do the author justice, but I have to say that I wasn't impressed. Interesting insights, sure, but in terms of gender theory his thinking seems to take great leaps that end up being a big mess.

Maybe I'm biased because I believe effective social criticism needs to look forward and not be so reactionary.

 

[hug46]

Edit: sorry you did say you looked at the blog. I think that's where most of the material for the book came from.

No apology necessary. I have looked at tweets, blogs and utube talks but admittedly not enough content to compensate for the contents of a book. Having said that i do think that reading someones tweets can give an insight into where an individual maybe coming from because they have to get their point across without padding it out.

With regard to the platonic relationship between men and women thing i disagree about there always being sexual tension. One of my best friends is female and i am a hetero male and i know for a 99.9999 per cent fact that there are no hidden desires going on between us.
I have also been in male/female friend relationships where there has been one or the other wanting something else.

I don't have a problem with his direct way of communication but i do think that he was wording the male/female platonic relationship in such a way as to put men off being friends with women. And if i was being uncharitable i would say that easily influenced "beta" men who , i think, are a large part of his demographic would be negatively influenced by this. We should have a responsibility in how we try to get our points across to other people. Especially when we are making money out of the rhetoric that we are pushing.

Also i think that there is potential for personal growth in entering into a platonic relationship with someone that you may have sexual feelings for. If you approach it in the right way and don't become bitter it can enhance empathy and perhaps more of an understanding of human nature. Rejection is a learning process.

 

[Tara123]

One of my best friends is female and i am a hetero male and i know for a 99.9999 per cent fact that there are no hidden desires going on between us.

I hope you don't mind me asking:

Is she hetero too? Why is it so platonic? Is she unattractive?

there is potential for personal growth in entering into a platonic relationship with someone that you may have sexual feelings for.

I think Rollo would say here (and I may be wrong, lol) that this is a contradiction. You cannot enter into a platonic relationship with someone you have sexual feelings for. You may become their "friend", of course, and you get to know them, flirt with them, explore if you like them and if they like you, but you have not entered into a platonic relationship. At least that's with my understanding of the word platonic.

XXX

 

[dragonrider]

What is happening? Why do so many men seem so insecure towards women all of a sudden? And why do so many of them seem so bitter and cynical?

Firstly, i think that if you're a heterosexual, and you dislike the other sex, you realy have a bit of a problem. Whether you're a man-hating hyperfeminist or a sexually frustrated misogynist....how could you ever expect to have a meaningfull relationship with anybody from the other sex, if you are not capable of any kind of sympathy towards them?

But secondly...isn't it logical to assume that men and women in general do have the same goals in life, but that from a biological perspective it makes sense for them to deploy different strategies to achieve these goals?
If some men feel ignored by women because of their low socio-economic status, that may suck. But don't be a hypocrite then....because i'm willing to bet that they only feel ignored by those women, who in their views are physically attractive. So they themselves aren't any less picky.

It has become fashionable among some men, to believe that women tend to like assholes more than nice guys, and that by being nice, you are destined to stay in "the friend zone" forever.

I would say that's bullshit. Women generally do not like assholes. But what they like even less than assholes, is men who are disingenuous. Men who are too affraid to show their true intentions.
Ofcourse they rather sleep with men who at least are open about what they want, than with men who aren't. What would you expect?

I've been rejected by beautiful women a lot, just like any other man. You can't always get what you want. But i always felt that those women respected me nevertheless, and sometimes we even became good friends eventually. Because they appreciated that at least i had the guts to be honest about my feelings for them.

 

[xss27]

Firstly, i think that if you're a heterosexual, and you dislike the other sex, you realy have a bit of a problem. Whether you're a man-hating hyperfeminist or a sexually frustrated misogynist....how could you ever expect to have a meaningfull relationship with anybody from the other sex, if you are not capable of any kind of sympathy towards them?

I think a large part of the reason why there's been this surge in interest in 'manosphere' type dialogues, specifically about women, is because in truth a lot of modern women don't show any real sympathy towards men and the role they play in society, especially since the state and corporate culture has subverted much of the male role for itself and simultaneously worked to suppress genuine male expressiveness.

I can only speak for myself when I say I don't dislike women, but I'm not blind to the fact they are lapping up the benefits of a modern material world and forgetting what it took to get us here.. men fighting, dying, inventing, building. A lot of modern women vastly overestimate their worth quite frankly.

Naturally they don't owe men anything, but the same applies in reverse. We're really testing the bond between the sexes in our modern world and it's sad to see.