The red pill community and more generally speaking the manosphere have something of a love-hate relationship with women. I don’t love women as a collective, but seeing them for what they are to the bare bones I have learnt to accept them. In the rare instances they occur I can appreciate the minority of well-raised women that’ll contribute positively to my life. I can see how men are idealistic romantics that need/crave a woman in their life to “have a kind of connection they can’t have with another man,” but by the by, women are nothing to be lauded or worshipped. Western women in general are just shitty people. Red pill men have all the reason in the world to hate women when it’s made painfully clear how they operate and how much bullshit they manage to get away with. As unpopular as that notion is, it is far from unjustified. Being hateful however is merely cathartic, not constructive. Long-term catharsis is a sign that you are stuck in the bitter phase in your understanding of women, rather than progressing onward to accepting their limitations whilst simultaneously self-actualising.
Being continuously angry will not help you improve yourself. For the sake of your own mental health, you have to look past the flaws of modern women by being extremely selective with which ones you’ll reward with relational commitment. Ultimately, you must employ RP strategies to hold frame and maintain dominance with women who do manage to make the grade. It is in this way that you can learn to enjoy their positive attributes whilst mitigating their negatives, and if necessary subsequently drop them like hot shit when they cross the line. Which of course many, if not almost all, will at some point.
Imposing your boundaries is imperative. If you catch a woman young enough and she is merely uncultivated, as in lacking depth and desirable non-sexual traits – rather than the alternative, which is the complete and utter corruption of the psyche caused by the fucked-up feminist culture we live in – then you may just have a shot to make such a woman into what you want her to be. How is this accomplished? By training her to be someone that’s likeable rather than just fuckable. Otherwise known as “LTR game with an aspiring RPW.” Even so, not every man is willing to take a woman on as a full-time project alongside his own self-development. A woman who has taken the initiative to make herself worth a damn regardless of the value of her pussy is vastly superior to one who hasn’t; she didn’t need a man to take up the reins of father figure and teach her how to be a good woman, an effort which involves fighting her every step of the way on each and every detrimental habit she’s acquired over the years.
There is a phenomenon I have however noticed with a number of veteran red pillers. The total inverse of bitterness. The proud proclamation that in spite of the volume of knowledge and wisdom they have amassed on women, they have come to “love women.” Accepting women for who they are and managing them, adjusting your management style to complement their individual quirks is one thing. Loving them as a collective just for being women is something completely different. An appreciation of the feminine form is a refined predilection that all men possess, but allowing this to take hold as “love” is futile. If taking the lens of political correctness off women to see them for who they are has caused you to “love them” in spite of the perversity that is the modern state of femininity, something is definitely wrong with you. Just how shitty do women need to be for you to not love “them?” Or are you going to be a hopeless romantic no matter how low the bar is set?
When I hear a “red pill” man say “I love women!” (plural) rather than a particular woman, it strikes me with all the similarity and delusion of Stockholm syndrome. It’s almost as if there is a desperate urge to love women as a collective in such a man (an irrational ideal), rather than simply love a specific woman where conditions permit. Stockholm syndrome is defined as the desperate need to love someone in spite of their abusive nature. With some “red pill” men in the acceptance stage (and blue/purple pill men) this concept is applied to women as an ambiguous collective rather than any one particular individual. It goes something like this: you so badly want to see the best in modern women and crave to be in love so much that you’ll consume yourself in the self-accountability that the quest for masculinity and self-improvement has taught you. Then in your romanticism, naively project your new-found sense of hyper responsibility into your relationships with women.
You’re only inherently responsible for how well you objectively govern, not any affront to your governance. If you lead well but she objects to follow, that’s not your fault. It is implied a good leader will not lose influence over their subordinates, but that is not necessarily so. If someone thinks there are better alternatives to you or is simply delusional, they will leave or otherwise rebel against you. In your endeavour to embody all things masculine, placate your ego to realise that you cannot control everything. You can merely stack the deck in your favour. It’s as simple as that. I’ll give you an example: say you manage a company and despite meeting all your quotas and ensuring the staff are looked after and have their grievances met, one member of staff persists in disliking you. Is it your fault that this particular member of staff doesn’t like you? Are you going to blame yourself for not having read “How to Win Friends and Influence People?” Or is this person simply influenced by extraneous factors outside of your control? You wouldn’t blame yourself when one of your employees disliked you despite great leadership so why blame yourself when things fuck up with your woman and you played your cards right? Men in love lose cognitive clarity, even the most masculine of men burdened by the responsibility of romantic leadership blame themselves for any mishaps that occur whilst the woman is all too happy to kick back and agree. Romanticism seems to profoundly cloud otherwise lucid reasoning within men. This is the delusion I see with some of the guys in the acceptance stage: total indiscriminate hyperagency, rather than the faculty to hold women to account for their shortcomings. This is a blue pill error that even the most seasonably masculine man will make, and it is something that will come to kick you in the ass with the precedent that “always taking the blame” sets.
The feminine imperative combined with masculine pride has convinced even the most red pill of men to take the blame for all manner of things in spite of its irrationalism, and it’s pathetic. For your own happiness and sanity you should learn to accept women for who they are, but realise they carry far more negatives than they do positives. Women are an unending source of drama, they are a lot of hassle, and they need constant management. It is for this reason we refer to women as “the most responsible teenager in the house.” When you romanticise them in any way that deviates from reality you’re adding tinges of blue into your view of women. To love them, worship them, or even prefer them to men, despite having read a lot of manosphere material is not red pill at all, but really, a purple pill mindset that’s gone full circle. To elaborate it looks a little something like this: You began as an average uninformed guy, you were blue pill in your beliefs because you were ignorant and had no success with women. Then you 180’d to being red pill but bitter, angry or otherwise indifferent but well-informed about the nature of women. After employing some asshole game, you had some success with women and got yourself a relationship. She then managed to wear you down and begin to beta-fy you over time, and as a result you’ve 180’d again into a purple pill hybrid. You have red pill knowledge but you find it easier to give your chick free passes and blame yourself for her misbehaviour rather than put your foot down. You confuse leadership with being a hegemonic scapegoat. You’re the wilfully ignorant guy blaming yourself for any mistakes that occur because you believe women have no agency and merely reflect how you’ve made them feel. You don’t hold her accountable because you believe that by being the leader everything automatically becomes your fault. This is hyperagency.
For those who don’t know what hyperagency is, it is the male tendency to assume responsibility/fault for things that weren’t directly the man’s fault, but through some indirect slippery slope reasoning can be convincingly rationalised as being his fault. Men who have taken the red pill and gone down the path of accentuating their masculine qualities to then successfully land themselves a relationship tend to be hyperagents, whilst plate spinners are more likely to throw caution to the wind. Hyperagency is the inverse to the feminine hypoagent instinct, which you guessed it, is the predilection of women to divert responsibility for their actions away from themselves. She will take credit where it is due, but where fault is to be allocated her instinct is to blame shift and shirk accountability. Being accountable to yourself and acquiring discipline and honour to keep yourself on track in the quest for masculine self-improvement is fine. Holding yourself accountable for a woman’s fuck-ups however is as blue pill as putting them on a pedestal. It implies they are better than you are because they are beyond the realm of fallibility. Yes, you can influence a woman’s behaviour greatly, any masculine man can, but assuming all responsibility when anything goes wrong is irrational and just plays into the narrative of the feminine imperative – the innate Machiavellian tendency women possess to absolve themselves of blame. If accountability is important to you then blame is attributed where it is due. Logic will best deduce where blame should be attributed. Treating yourself as a catch-all for anything that goes wrong is not the answer and it doesn’t make you “a real man” or “a proud man”, it makes you an honourable idiot.
Ultimately as men I think we’re fighting our instincts. Our instincts are to romanticise women, care for them, provide for and protect them, seeking sexual favours in return to pass on our genes, whilst our culture has made our instincts deadly to our own survival. All of this is exacerbated by cultural Marxist indoctrination which makes us ripe pickings for women who have been trained to be less empathetic, more narcissistic and more predatory towards men. Women are manageable when their egos are kept in check (this is why negging works) but allowed to get high on “you go girl!” instant validation streams for the tiniest and most asinine of things (such as a selfie) they become incredibly narcissistic, unruly and unmanageable. Combine this with man’s natural predisposition to romanticise women and woman’s inherent Machiavellian abilities and what we have is a disaster waiting to happen. What we have is a culture that brainwashes men to give into their romantic instincts whilst dissecting and supplanting their masculinity with feminine viewpoints. These viewpoints then get mixed in with the male protector/provider instinct (masculine romanticism) as to make them hard to tell apart from one another. In part, this is why guys sometimes pathetically bicker over “what being alpha is”, especially in relation to women and long-term relationships which are no doubt the trickiest sphere for any man, let alone a seasoned red piller.
Feminism as institutionalised as it is in society is responsible for exacerbating female narcissism. It encourages women collectively to monopolise and exemplify their worst traits (hypergamy/entitlement and solipsism) in order to scapegoat us collectively (as men) for their own material betterment; training them to hang us out to dry rather than learn to appreciate us and work with us in spite of our monumental differences. Part of the facilitation of this conditioning is to make it so that women can’t love, trust or pair bond to any one single man. This is accomplished by encouraging them to be “sex-positive” aka huge sluts. It is a well-established maxim throughout the manosphere that the more partners a woman has had, the less capable she is of bonding romantically to any future partner. This is great if you want casual sex but it’s bad if you actually want to be in love/start a family. A woman who’s had many dicks and relationships no matter what she rationalises or desires is near incapable of pair bonding. These women are often bitter, they feel owed something from their chain of suitors as a symptom of their latent narcissism and view men collectively as an arbitrary segment of the population that can be exploited for self-gain as a result. All of this only makes the conscious choice to “love women” as a collective even more insane.
Without a patriarchal society in place to enforce honour onto women, our freedom to love women is diminished because they have the ability to destroy us and get away with it. Allowing yourself to love a woman should not mean tussling with the Devil. Due to a few gargantuan differences between men and women, equalism fails in matters of love. Predominantly this is caused by: femininity’s lack of reason, femininity’s lack of honour, but perhaps most importantly: the ability of the female mind to so easily rationalise away atrocities as necessary for their emotional well-being, and therefore, perfectly acceptable. This is what is known as “hamstering” and it ties in with the earlier point made about the feminine predilection to absolve herself of blame in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. This instinct is so strong that it will even override the decision-making process of women that otherwise possess strong logic. By making them our legal and social equals without them being our rational and ethical equals we have upset the balance between leader and follower, captain and first mate, and left ourselves susceptible to their whims. What has this done? Destabilised society, leading to divorce, suicide and a whole bunch of other fucked up crazy shit that no hot chick’s sweet voice, long hair and gentle touch is worth. For all the flak they get, the “men going their own way” are the rational one’s here. They’re rational in pursuing their own happiness, but irrational evolutionarily as they enact the obliteration of their ancestral genetic line. If there was ever a war between nature and nurture, this is it, and it’s socially engineered human reproductive kryptonite.