in the press.

. .

From The New Dating Game:

“If Roissy has anything resembling a mentor, it is F. Roger Devlin. Trained as a political philosopher—he has a doctorate from Tulane—Devlin holds no academic post, and his oeuvre, besides a published version of his doctoral thesis on Alexandre Kojève, consists of a series of essays and reviews concerning relations between the sexes for the Occidental Quarterly, a paleoconservative publication whose other contributors tend to focus obsessively on the question of which ethnic groups belong to which race. The dubious nature of the venue aside, Devlin deftly uses theories of evolutionary psychology to argue that the sexual revolution was essentially aimed at restoring primate-style hypergamy to human females and freeing women to try to capture the attention of and mate with the alpha males of their choosing instead of remaining chaste until their early marriage to a decent and hard-working beta (only the very best looking young women stood a chance of snagging an alpha in the old days).

“The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own [hypergamous] utopia, not that of men,” Devlin wrote. Beta men become superfluous until the newly liberated women start double-clutching after years in the serial harems of alphas who won’t “commit,” lower their standards, and “settle.” During this process, monogamy as a stable and civilization-maintaining social institution is shattered. “Monogamy is a form of sexual optimization,” Devlin told me. “It allows as many people who want to get married to do so. Under monogamy, 90 percent of men find a mate at least once in their life.” This isn’t necessarily so anymore in today’s chaotic combination of polygamy for lucky alphas, hypergamy in varying degrees for females depending on their sex appeal, and, at least in theory, large numbers of betas left without mates at all—just as it is in baboon packs. The aim of Mystery-style game is to give those betas better odds.

In a series of interviews, Devlin declined to disclose his own marital status or lack thereof. Nonetheless, in an email to me concerning the disinclination of many of today’s career- and sex-chasing young women to learn, say, how to bake an apple pie to please their husbands, he wrote: “My own experience with pies is limited to buying Tastykakes at Seven-Eleven.” That suggests either nonexistent or unpleasant domestic arrangements which may in turn explain why Devlin’s writing about the feminist and sexual revolutions frequently shades from the refreshingly politically incorrect into the disturbingly punitive.

Devlin may be spot-on when he writes, “The female sexual revolution, as typified by Helen Gurley Brown of Cosmo, amounted to a program of getting women to follow all their worst instincts” or “Part of the folk wisdom of all ages and peoples has been that sexual attraction is an inadequate basis for matrimony.” Yet his review of Wendy Shalit’s 2007 Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect and Find It’s Not Bad to Be Good was a merciless evisceration of an author who is on his side, at least insofar as urging her sisters toward sexual restraint and the selection of mates based on criteria other than alpha allure.

Devlin took Shalit to task for implying that young women are essentially the innocent prey of vulpine men who have taken advantage of the sexual revolution as a means of “pressuring” them to surrender their virtue and that in order for young women to recover their “self-esteem,” they ought to hold out for a man who “proves his worthiness.” Devlin argued, perhaps correctly, that Shalit’s position amounted to a socially conservative inversion of the boilerplate feminist view of women as passive victims of evil males who “use” them, evidencing a blindness to women’s responsibility for their all-too-frequent complicity in the seduction scenarios that both feminists and social conservatives decry. Girls Gone Mild, obviously pitched to a youthful readership and couched in a upbeat women’s magazine tone, might have come across as simplistic and overly romanticizing of a fragile-flower female sex. Yet Devlin was so unwilling to give Shalit any quarter—and so eager to heap 100 percent of the blame on women for the current sexual chaos—that he went so far as to declare, “Men do not have to prove their worthiness to anybody.” Really? Anybody?

The word misogyny does come to mind here (men get a free pass but women don’t). Nonetheless, his writings—and those of many of the self-styled alpha bloggers who have taken up his theories—can also be read as cris de coeur. Underlying the bravado is a deep and understandable anger on the part of many men at having to live through the sexual and familial wreckage of the New Paleolithic.”

(The Weekly Standard, Vol. XV, No. 21, February 15, 2010).

. .

From Woman in Full:

“William Crooke and Sir Herbert Risley, two 19th-century English social scientists, coined the term “hypergamy” to describe their observations of inter-caste marriage in India. Women, they found, married up but never down. Crooke and Risley concluded (or assumed) that hypergamy’s root (in India, at least) is the male insistence on preserving the status of the patrimonial line. A decade ago, political theorist F. Roger Devlin revived the term and gave it a new twist. Far from being unique to India, hypergamy is in Devlin’s account universal and, what’s more, driven by female, not male, desires. ‘[W]omen,’ he wrote, ‘have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best’.”

(Claremont Review of Books, Vol. XV, No. 2, May 2015).

. .

From Read Houellebecq To Free Your Mind:

“There are also certain strains of this intellectual ferment that have a vaguely Houellebecquian ring, such as the ideas of the men’s rights theorist F. Roger Devlin, who argues that “the breakdown of monogamy results in promiscuity for the few, loneliness for the majority.”

(Quillette, October 5, 2017).

. .