Man is a simple creature. When you get Man right, it's not too difficult to become one. Despite all the digital ink that has been spilled in the past 20 years of Red Pill wrangling with the question of "What is a Man?" and how to become more masculine, all of it is nothing but an effort to reinvent the wheel. As if somehow, a wheel is just not good enough anymore to facilitate the most effective transfer of energy in a straight line that has ever been invented (not surprisingly, by us, Greeks & Romans).
This blog has undergone a more than slight philosophical change of perspective.
I have called for men to return to a focus on the reality of his immortal soul and thus the traditional exhortation to walk the path of virtue, not vice.
These two posts combined, effectively, spit on just about every single writer in "the sphere" in one way or another. To even entertain the thought that the above arguments on the nature of Man, capital M, are not just valid, but the very root of Man, will get you labeled a heretic by the majority of them at worst, or a guy who simply "does not get it." (i.e. hustle, self-improvement, girls, sex, etc.)
Maximus is "living in the past." A new way forward is on the horizon! The hero generation, Millennials, are going to fix everything by throwing their entire cultural history out the window; to rebuild 'man' from new 'knowledge' - science and "the hack" - not old fusty, dusty western religion & philosophy.
When I started to write, I did have some affinity for the Red Pill and Game, but when you begin to truly examine it as a life philosophy, really examine it up close in detail, there is simply no support for it as a valid path and way forward for men. At least not one that will return Man, capital M, to centre stage and usher in a patriarchal renaissance.
This (refuting RP & Game on the whole) was not my intention when I started this blog, but as a writer focused on the truth and not what men simply want to beat their chests to in faux displays of bold and determined masculinity... I feel honor bound to spit the truth as I see it, no matter how much 'woke' western men may hate it.
How can Maximus reject the entire corpus of Red Pill writing and thought for the return of masculine men?
Where is his evidence that all of it is the wrong path for men?
Let's take a closer look at the Man, Sean Connery.
Some might want to quibble about Maximus' hypocrisy in selecting Sean Connery as the definition of Man, capital M, as he is inseparable from the James Bond myth - i.e. the distillation of Red Pill on women, the adventure playboy of free sex with no commitment and the pleasures of the material life. (Can you say "Plato's definition of the tyrant?" I knew you could.) All I can say to refute this is that the man (Connery) is not the myth (Bond) and to point out that a myth is precisely what James Bond is. And one with a decidedly negative focus; i.e. this is the beginning of the sexualization of women and the disconnect of men from them that was the goal of globalists in the 60s/70s.
So, let's take a look at this man from the perspective of the women that came to know him.
- adorable, pleasurable (to kiss), a wonderful person, marvelous (actor)
- handsome, kind, charming, magnetic eyes that had an irony to them
- first and best, sexiest thing on two legs, he looks terrific, a wicked twinkle and very virile
- a gentlemen, very "rough" (like a diamond), rough edges but down to earth, very giving
- he was fantastic, a very good colleague, friendly, helpful
- a very good pal to have as your leading man, felt protected
The Achilles' heel of Red Pill men is there open disgust at actually listenting to what women have to say about men and what they find attractive.
Is this not the height of blue pill illusion and delusion? To actually believe what these women are saying about Connery without running it through the Red Pill matrix hypergamy/feminine imperative filter and thus throwing out completely the core feedback of what women truly find attractive in men?
Let's break down some of these descriptions by their etymology and definitions shall we? I know, a tedious and laborious process that chews up precious time we have so little of... but please, bear with me good man and try to follow where this is all leading.
Why go through all of this? Why do words matter?
Because words are the only way we can describe Man, and the words we choose to do so are of grave importance.
Remember... these are the words Bond girls chose to use to describe what kind of man Sean Connery was.
(You can skip down if you wish, but do come back and reflect on a few of these words after you finish reading.)
adorable - inspiring great affection; delightful; charming.
pleasurable - pleasing; enjoyable.
wonderful - inspiring delight, pleasure, or admiration; extremely good; marvelous.
person - a human being regarded as an individual. In Christian theology, "each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, who together constitute the Trinity."
marvelous - causing great wonder; extraordinary.
handsome - (of a man) good-looking. Synonyms: attractive, striking, gorgeous.
kind - having or showing a friendly, generous, and considerate nature. As a noun: character; nature, Old English cynd(e), gecynd(e), of Germanic origin; related to kin. The original sense was ‘nature, the natural order,’ also ‘innate character, form, or condition’ (compare with kind2); hence ‘a class or race distinguished by innate characteristics.’
charming - pleasant or attractive. Middle English (in the senses ‘incantation or magic spell’ and ‘to use spells’): from Old French charme (noun), charmer (verb), from Latin carmen ‘song, verse, incantation.’
magnetic - very attractive or alluring. Synonyms: seductive, inviting, irresistible, charismatic.
irony - A noun typically: the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect. But as an adjective curiously, can also mean of or like iron, "an irony gray color" is possible to be implied (i.e. strength of metal, strength of character)
first - coming before all others in time or order; foremost in position, rank, or importance. Old English fyr(e)st ; of Germanic origin, related to Old Norse fyrstr - the titular prefix given to a prince and German Fürst ‘prince,’ from an Indo-European root shared by Sanskrit prathama, Latin primus, and Greek prōtos
best - of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality. As a noun: that which is the most excellent, outstanding, or desirable. Google appears to connect best etymologically with good (as adjective - to be desired or approved of; having the qualities required for a particular role; possessing or displaying moral virtue) and well (as adverb - in a good or satisfactory way; and as adjective - in good health; free or recovered from illness; sensible; advisable).
gentleman - As a noun: a chivalrous, courteous, or honorable man; a man of good social position, especially one of wealth and leisure. Middle English (in the sense ‘man of noble birth’): from gentle + man, translating Old French gentilz hom . In later use the term denoted a man of a good family (especially one entitled to a coat of arms) but not of the nobility.
rough - As an adjective: having an uneven or irregular surface; not smooth or level; (of a person or their behavior) not gentle; violent or boisterous; not finished tidily or decoratively; plain and basic. Adverb: in a manner that lacks gentleness; harshly or violently.
diamond - A noun: a precious stone consisting of a clear and typically colorless crystalline form of pure carbon, the hardest naturally occurring substance. Variant of Latin adamans, or adamant - refusing to be persuaded or to change one's mind. Old English (as a noun), from Old French adamaunt-, via Latin from Greek adamas, adamant, ‘untamable, invincible’ (later used to denote the hardest metal or stone, hence diamond), from a- ‘not’ + daman ‘to tame.’ The phrase to be adamant dates from the 1930s, although adjectival use had been implied in such collocations as “an adamant heart” since the 16th century.
colleague - a person with whom one works, especially in a profession or business; early 16th century: from French collègue, from Latin collega ‘partner in office,’ from col- ‘together with’ + legare ‘depute.’
friendly - kind and pleasant; in a friendly manner. Synonyms: affable, amiable, genial, congenial, cordial, warm, affectionate, demonstrative, convivial, companionable, sociable, gregarious, outgoing, comradely, neighborly, hospitable, approachable, easy to get on with, accessible, communicative, open, unreserved, easygoing, good-natured, kindly, benign, amenable, agreeable, obliging, sympathetic, well disposed, benevolent. (Curiously, a word of consistent use up to 1950 before a serious decline, only recovering half of the loss around 2000).
helpful - giving or ready to give help; useful. (Also curious, a word that has been in decline since about 2000.)
pal - a friend, "we're best pals". Late 17th century: from Romany, ‘brother, mate,’ based on Sanskrit bhrātṛ ‘brother.’
leading man - the actor playing the principal male part in a movie, play, or television show.
protected - keep safe from harm or injury.
We can see in these words just how high the bar has been set for men to rise up to.
Do any of the above words get used by Red Pill men with regard to a man's conduct, comportment and treatment of women in the modern & woke 21st century West?
All we hear ad nauseam is that the ONLY way to treat women (yes, all women) is with alpha contempt and childish disrespect. Children... are the only 'men' now available to western women. Yes, even the Red Pill variety, especially so in fact. We now have men so devoid of connection to authentic masculinity that it takes women of a bygone era and generation to point out the true roots of what makes a man a Man.
When was the last time you actually tried to act like a gentleman - a man capable of being a prince with all the power, authority and respect that comes with an official title of nobility?
You want to know why western women treat men like shit?
Because we deserve it.
She is not being cruel or harsh, she is being a woman. The asshole she having sex with is the worst kind of man because there are no real men anymore. Yes, you read that correctly. If a woman is sleeping with you and not asking for a damn thing in return, she does not even see you as being worthy of the lowly title of man, let alone gentleman. Yet guys with Game are getting their dick wet believing they have found the Holy Grail of mastery (not respect) of women. Pathetic.
All the above descriptions of Connery would be considered blue pill and beta by today's 'woke', Red Pill disciple of Game. MGTOW would shit on all of it as well because they have now convinced themselves that the Red Pill has revealed the true evil that is female nature (i.e. feminine imperative in society) and that the only way to treat women is with equal venom and hatred.
Let's try to break down this feminine world view of Man and see these terms from a woman's perspective.
Adorable, pleasurable, wonderful, marvelous, terrific, friend, pal, helpful, etc. All of these are seen as a negative now by men if you become like this for women. Is this another case of what women say they want versus what they actually choose? By no means!
Women are responsible for children, they need and require a man that is a good partner.
The Darwinian evo-psyche, all-hail-hypergamy cult will cry this is dangerously deluded to believe, but if you take the view that women are human beings, just like men, then it is clear to see that the raising of children is best accomplished with a man of this type. Dark triad man may attract, but he is a complete disaster as an actual partner in raising children.
That said, if the vast majority of men around them are now children themselves who either disrespect women or require women to mommy them, then yes, women are going to go with the strongest and most machiavellian man they can find. Women are practical and if in practice there are no more real men to partner with anymore, they will not and will never choose nice men who can't be good partners (i.e. protect) and will choose the best of the worst to mate with.
"But Maximus, this is the core of hypergamy theory - alpha fucks, beta bucks."
This would be true... only if men actually consider a woman nocked up by another man as mate material. Alpha fucks will always be around, but beta bucks is a choice.
In a past patriarchal age, a single mother was social death sentence.
No man would touch her (not even for sex) and there was no community support for her either. A single mother was expected (i.e. be responsible) to give up the child to an orphanage. Hence the term bastard child - a child with no father to raise and guide its development. Also once used as a negative slur upon someone, man or woman, because of the irresponsibility implied about one's parents and thus your own possible moral character as "a bastard" - someone with no familial roots to ground them in traditions of a community.
Now that baby-momma's have Daddy Government to help out, it has allowed woman to push the envelope of survivability should she find herself "knocked up," but the core problem still remains. Why is there even one single western man contemplating "manning up" and taking on the responsibility of a baby momma? Why are men having sex with single MILFS, considered the easiest of targets for Game? This is the problem.
Women can only get away with abusing the good will and intentions of men if men allow it.
So, it is not that the above descriptions of Connery by his female co-stars mark him as having beta bucks behaviour, it is the attitude of men that has changed with regard to drawing boundaries and lines of respect that woman shall not cross.
So, how can a man embody such beta and blue pill traits without becoming a nice guy women walk all over? It's clear in the tone of voice of the Bond girl women that Sean Connery is no beta male, but they use nothing but descriptions of one? How does one reconcile this apparent contradiction?
WARNING & CAVEAT: This is an investigation into the very nature of what a woman respects in a man - his capability to be violent toward her. I am not advocating and do not condone, in any way, violence against women.
This is an intellectual argument that states clearly that what women want from a man is for him to have authority over his world, even if that means using physical violence to set a woman straight if she goes beyond the bounds of disrespect toward him.
The fatal flaw of emancipated and independent western women is the delusion that a man is never allowed to hit a woman. It is this very restraint of the threat of physical violence that women respect in a man who does NOT use it, but this restraint implies the threat exists and is thus acknowledged, even if unconsciously, by women.
Rough. Like a diamond. Wicked twinkle. Virile.
Fuck the Red Pill. Grow a pair of balls.
Just learn to a) stand your ground with women and b) say no to them.
And while you are doing so... in complete control of your physical response... it should be clearly transmitted that the threat of physical violence toward her if she disobeys or aggressively opposes your decisions is an option you are willing to consider.
That is the entire formula a boy needs to mature into a Man, capital M.
No frame control. No charts and lectures on the iron law of hypergamy. No shit tests to pass.
Just a man... living in his world... that no woman is allowed authority or entry into unless by his command.
The entirety of the women's liberation movement that spawned feminism succeeded ONLY... because men allowed it; western women having lost all fear of the physical authority & dominance of men.
The refusal of western men to... when warranted... lay down the law with a good slap.
WALTERS: It must have been a very great experience to work with a guy you liked as much as the two of you.
CONNERY: Yea, we had a wonderful time there I must say because it is the basis of the movie, friendship, and he's great fun Michael [Caine!].
WALTERS: Does the friendship mean a lot? Friendship with men?
CONNERY: Oh yeah. I like that, yea. I think that's one of the pleasures of golf as well. I don't like playing golf with women, no matter how good they are. I really don't.
WALTERS: Your wife plays golf?
CONNERY: She's a very good golfer.
WALTERS: You don't like to play with her? Why not?
CONNERY: Cause I don't like playing golf with women.
WALTERS: Why not?
CONNERY: I like the company of men better playing golf.
CONNERY: It's very difficult to explain. It's just ummm.... it's more... pleasurable. Playing golf with men, than women.
(As you begin to see he is getting ticked off with this line of questioning from Walters.)
I won't reproduce the most famous quotes of Connery on women from this interview (which you can watch yourself at 9:19). Suffice it to say, you can tell from his reaction to Walter's line of questioning, her tone, that Connery knows where this is going. The now infamous "It's not the worst thing to slap a woman now and then." The look Walters gives Connery when she describes the finer point of his "remarks on women" as a man using an open hand vs a fist...
"Oh boy, have I got this misogynist asshole now!!! He can't get out if it! I am going to FORCE him to answer and face his dangerous views of the "proper place" of women and how men can put them back in it."
How does Connery respond to this clear accusation-by-implication of hateful, patriarchal and male-privileged misogyny?
I wouldn't change my opinion.
The look on Barbara Walters face... $$$priceless$$$. "That didn't go at all how I thought it would." is most likely all she could think of lying in bed that night, about to drift off and dream of Connery ravishing her.
And because she continues on and will not drop this line of inquiry... he lays it all out for her.
Women... may need a slap (depending on the context and circumstance)... if they simply won't leave well enough alone.
I.e. Just keep arguing, arguing and pushing a point in complete defiance and denial of the superior power and force of an adult male to simply end the argument anytime he wishes to do so.
Sean Connery gives Barbera Walters a verbal slap on national television. You can't escape the parallel he is drawing between his defence of physical violence against a woman and Walters' continued assault on his character as a "bad man" for thinking such things. That is precisely what Walters was attempting to do - a passive aggressive sneak assault on his character before a national audience. And it gets worse! She literally calls out Connery as a male chauvinist. Connery adds "pig" himself to the slur, proving he knows what she wanted to call him, which Walters cowardly dismisses by saying "I did not say/call you that." It's a brutal end to the interview and I am shocked how calm Connery remained. (And also explains why he has left Hollywood entirely with this kind of stupidity now running it.)
Connery does not back down. He does not bow in fearful submission or apologize. He stands his ground and defends himself as if Walters' opinion on the matter simply does not matter and he does not give two shits about what she is trying to do. Connery knows who he is. Period. And there is nothing Walters can do to get him to break with the gentleman, the rough diamond that is his true character.
In openly defending the right of a man to hit a woman who gets out of line, Connery actually comes off as more reasonable and mature than Walters. His defence actually elevates one's respect for him, whether you agree with what he says or not. Barbara Walters was clearly attacking him and there was no call or justification to do so. Sean Connery... is a good man.
And that, ultimately, is what women find attractive and respect.
A Man that can stand his ground with a woman and not lose his cool in the face of an outright assault on his authority & character.
All the while in complete command of himself and his masculine authority to utter the most terrifying two-letter word every woman fears from a Man - "No." Followed up right behind with "You're wrong. End of discussion." A Man, capital M, with the balls to put a woman in her place respectfully, forcefully if necessary, and not give her a single inch of T&A wiggle room to begin to believe he can be shamed, guilted or manipulated by her.
But if she goes too far... if she won't leave it alone...
Real men... don't hit women... but they very much know that they can.
They don't deny this aspect of themselves and of masculinity. That is the difference between a man and a boy - the understanding and respect for the power and authority his physical dominance brings to the relationship table with women.
What was the movie being referred to about the great friendship he enjoyed with co-star Michael Caine that began this line of questioning?
The 1975 film The Man Who Would Be King
A Rudyard Kipling story. Yes... that Rudyard Kipling.
Man, capital M, is a King.
Not a playboy, an on-call-dildo for the goddess' pleasure.
Not an angry and bitter recluse from the world and women.
Man is a sovereign over his mind and body, a leader that no woman can subvert or control.
This... is what all those women were describing as attractive in Sean Connery. A Man, capital M. A gentleman who is respectful, kind, polite and caring, but one with no fear of bringing out his hammer of masculine authority and laying down the law.
Can you see now how simple Man, capital M, is when you get it right?
When you distill it to it's very essence?
Can you also see how disgusting Barbara Walters must have come across in attacking the clearly good, honest and respectful toward women character that is Sean Connery?
Still not convinced. Women, even Bond girls, can have no opinion on the nature of Man.
Fine. What do men have to say about Sean Connery?
Craig Ferguson is one of the funniest comedians relegated to the kitchen of the late night comedy show circuit. The man could run circles around Jimmy Fallon and could have truly been a replacement for Johnny Carson in my opinion. Brash, daring, down-to-earth, un-serious, yet capable of deep, deep, reflection when not trying to stop himself from laughing.
What more needs to be said about Kevin Costner?
[Ferguson remarking on the depth and scope of acclaim in Costner's career as actor/director]
FERGUSON: These are like HUGE movies. To have even one of those in a career, it would be spectacular. To even work with Sean Connery once for God's sakes.
COSTNER: You know, I'll say this. People ask you about the best actor you have ever worked with blah blah blah and... I thought Gene Hackmen was the strongest actor I have ever worked with. But I felt that Sean Connery was the biggest star that I ever worked with. That does not diminish how great an actor he was but, when he walked around, there was no bigger star than Sean Connery.
[Ferguson on meeting Connery]
FERGUSON: Sean must have been about 73, 74 at the time, and he came over and kind of said... (Ferguson inside voice IT'S SEAN CONNERY!!!)... so he said, I introduced him to my wife at the event, and he went...
"Hello Megan, nishe tu meetch yuuu."
COSTNER: Ohhh... [no words, wow, the charm in that one line.]
FERGUSON: And she blushed from her breasts all the way up!!!
COSTNER: [throws head back and laughs]
FERGUSON: I was like... "What are you doing?" It's Sean Connery!!!
COSTNER: Biggest star.
FERGUSON: Biggest star.
That... is the definition of a true 'alpha' gentleman.
The respect and admiration of both men and women.
A gentleman who is first and foremost humble, kind, self-effacing, friendly, jovial, polite, considerate, respectful...
But at the same time, beneath that falsely perceived beta-soy-boy-cuck exterior, is a lion you never want to cross.
COSTNER: He [Connery] is such a fair man. I remember at one point he [during filming] thought something was... when he worked outside the country, if he does too much work, he loses a lot on taxes and Sean watched his money very carefully. When he took that job, he was really careful with the producers saying "Ok look, I have to be out at a certain time." He was very careful about that and they got lazy about it.
And it really put him in a spot. I remember, I caught him in the bar one night and he said "Mr. Nash, [Costner's character in _The Untouchables] come over here."
FERGUSON: Ah... see, I knew you would do it. [Connery's voice imitation.]
COSTNER: Well he does, he did it... but you come, he says something like that and you just trot over to him and he had a list of things that he wanted me to look at... this list and said "Do you remember this happening? Do you remember this happening? Do you remember this happening?" and, what this said to me was...
he was going to tear someone's head off.
But he wanted to be sure that he was fair, and then tear this person's head off.
but I, I just thought, he's a very, very fair man.
CONNERY: Yea, and a brutally frightening man as well apparently.
There it is...
The diamond and the rough, the gentleman and the king, with personal power, justice and authority over himself and his world.
I will give you all due courtesy, respect and trust... but if you fuck with me... look out.
Man... capital M.
Get's women wet between the legs and weak in the knees every time.
If you COMBINE the beta with the alpha, you get something that trancends and obliterates both.
This is why I loathe the whole alpha/beta boxes that the Red Pill has forced men to cram themsleves into and judge other men by as women do. Women don't see alpha or beta. What they see is a male that is on a spectrum from boy to Man, capital M. Women might agree to use these terms to box a man into this or that, but that's merely a description, not a definition of what Man is or his only binary possibility of being seen as by a woman's eyes. "Where have all the good men gone?" is both a lament of following the feminist siren call of career over marriage & family as well as admission that in looking for a Man in The West, there are no more of them to be found.
Sean Connery was the last of a generation of men that grew up in a culture that still had as it's main reference points for masculinity...
- God and country
- virtue as excellence in Man
- vice and sin as the path to destruction of Man's soul
Connery is a member of the Silent Generation. Born in 1930 and growing up during the war, Connery was steeped in the ethos of the G.I. or Greatest Generation of the early 1900s which was, for all intents and purposes, the last generation of men and women one could call "fully Christian" as western peoples. A quick glance at the actors and entertainers of that era gives you a glimpse at the sheer chasm in terms of cultural mores and norms that has been created in the past 100 years.
Fair men of honor, courage and moral decency. Who respected women no matter how they were treated by them, but never had to worry about being mistreated by women because they would never allow women such freedom to disrespect them in the first place.
Truly I say to you, it is men's refusal to embrace the King, the lion within, that has allowed women to become so coarse and feral in their behaviour and disrespect toward men.
Sean Connery... "brutally frightening."
Harrison Ford. Do you know how long this article could be if I kept falling down this authentic masculinity rabbit hole? A more perfect contrast of the conflict and respect between father and son that was the Silent/GI/Greatest generation and the Boomers. Indiana Jones was a "chauvinist pig" as well it seems and also not afraid to use physical force on a woman who clearly deserved it. ("All I have to do is squeeze.")
Look around the Red Pill sphere of 'men'. Is there a single Connery, Costner or Ford among them?
To conclude and prove my thesis that Sean Connery is the definition of Man, capital M, I want you to contemplate the following thought experiment. Just a question, nothing too difficult.
Gentleman, raise your hand if you would NOT... take the opportunity to trade places with Sean Connery for just ONE day in the prime of his life?
Not the Connery of Bond myth, but the Man, capital M.
Nay... if you had to choose between your most revered Red Pill sphere guru... and Connery... who would win?
Sean... F'n... Connery. Period.
This is how far we have fallen as men of The West gentleman.
A man, soon to reach his 90s if God should grace us with his presence a few more years, is still the measure and mark of Man, capital M, almost six decades out of his prime. When Sean Connery does finally shuffle of this mortal coil, his death with be a global reminder at how far western men have fallen from the mark and measure that is Man.
No 'G's' here mates. No players. No hustlers. No angry and bitter whiners. Men still living large at the height of the feminist assault on western civilization because they chose to be men in the face of all opposition to Man that was to come.
Some might cry in refutation that these men, the Boomers, allowed feminism and women to take over western civilization. No doubt, a few men may have been too nice to women back then, but on the whole, none of them would allow women to get away with what they are getting away with now. And without the support of the government (the real beta cucks), the entertainment industry and the money behind it to pervert and subvert western culture... the triumph of feminism would never have happened.
The return of Man is the return of the real G.
But how many men have what it takes to be Sean Connery today?
Where have all the real men gone indeed.
Strength & Honor
Further support for the violence-is-what-women-respect in men is the attraction of the asshole/jerk.
Why do western women in the 21st century not now finally choose the nice guy? Why does the beta supplicant, the do-gooder, the I-will-do-anything-to-make-you-happy and never stand up to a woman doormat of a man still spark no attraction in her womb?
Protection - a nice man afraid of his violent, physical nature cannot protect a woman and her offspring.
It's that simple. A woman would prefer the nice man's behaviours, but not at the cost of the loss of protection from other men who are capable of being physically violent.
To suggest that Connery, in his defence of slapping women around "now and then," is somehow a violent, dangerous, women hating male chauvinist pig... is to deny the very thing that makes him attractive to women in the first place.
A man's physical ability to defend himself, his wife and his family.
Men who are afraid of their physical nature, their violent side, are useless to the tribe in defending itself from outside threats. Even if some women marry a clearly non-violent man, the tribe still depends on some men who are not afraid of violence to protect the whole of it. In times of crisis (as The West finds itself in now), it is not just "hypergamy" that is causing women to shun nice men and hook-up with assholes/jerks (violent or not). It's survival.
To prove violence as respect from yet another angle, look at the violence in the liberal/leftists toward women that has been exposed by the #metoo Harvey Weinstein scandal. Leftist/feminist men are the most likely to be violent toward women because they fear and hide their violent side. They trick women into thinking there is no violence in them, and then use violence against women to get what they want (i.e. respect).
A conservative man on the other hand will never use violence against a woman because he knows he is capable of it. He is not afraid to stand up to women knowing his superior physical strength is what a woman respects in men most of all. His demeanor, tone of voice and body language all communicate... violence is just beneath the surface, but in check. Women respond to this instinctively. Cucked men on the other hand are mistrusted and loathed by women because they refuse to embrace this core aspect of masculinity.
What about Sean Connery's social and financial status? Does this not play a large part, if not the majority, of his attraction to women and thus their "respect" of him?
This is a possible refutation using hypergamy once again, and a strong one.
The counter would be... if Connery was not a movie star, do you think he would be any less respected by women? More to the point, do you think he would allow women to disrespect him in any way?
What is there about the rough side of Connery that would not still work with women even though he would just be an average guy?
Viewed from the Red Pill/Game lens perspective - i.e. one primarily concerned with getting laid, not respect - then yes, Connery would not be as 'respected' by women nor desired by them. But it would not be because his deferential and respectful behaviour toward women would be construed as beta and thus weak, but because women know they can't manipulate or disrespect him. Sean Connery would not get laid because he is not looking to get his dick wet, but get respect. Even saying "Sean Connery would not get laid." sounds completely ridiculous and not because he is/was the myth "James Bond." It's because, as Craig Ferguson gushes on more than one occasion... it's Sean Connery!!! I.e. Sean Connery... the Man, not the myth.
The Man, capital M, is who he is. His status, social or financial, would only limit the number of women that would be attracted to him, but not the core of the reason why women find him attractive in the first place.
This is why Sean Connery was perfect for the role of James Bond. He actually embodies and believes in the physically violent side of man, restrained and channeled toward truth and justice. It's why the Bond's between Connery and Craig were good, but never had the same edge until Daniel came on board and, once again, embraced that violent side of Man that, while it could be used to abuse women, is also and in the majority used to protect them.
James Bond is the dictionary definition of the violent gentleman.
It's not his playboy attitude toward women that makes James Bond attractive, it's his control and channelling of masculine violence to protect.
And with that... I rest my case.