~ archived since 2018 ~

Red Pill Roles: The Praxeology of the Dominant Man (UPDATED: Mrs. Ironwood Responds)

Ian Ironwood
May 13, 2014
I came back from the weekend to an intriguing comment on one of my Wife Test posts:


I stumbled upon the Red Pill ideology about a year ago. My relationships were alright, but I did seek a dominate and masculine man (like so many women desire...but it's hard, I admit..to differentiate unwanted sexual advances from YES take me NOW...). The 'problem' was that I was raised egalitarian, that men and women share all roles. So I started to experiment when I went to bars, using the Red Pill (and ROK) rhetoric as my guide. 

I am pleased to inform you, that after only three weeks I managed to claim a pretty staunch Red Pill boy. I didn't mention my medical school or charity work, or familial problems (when he asked if there were any), and I mentioned that marriage was something I was looking forward to and living with a man and our children. Man..it was too easy. 
It's been a year now..and our relationship has never been better. Now I have to tell you, he is none the wiser that I...am definitely no 'Red Pill Girl', and I have been able to maintain the illusion that he is in control. He has been so over the moon about meeting a 'conservative', attractive, intelligent girl who was FAMILY orientated...he's loosened his own Red Pill ideals (without me saying a thing!). I.e. about a woman shouldn't work and should take care of the kids. etc etc. 

Don't worry though I will treat him right, as he treats me. It's true I craved the dominate man who would spontaneously slip into the shower with me, or even touch me under the covers during a couples movie night...but also a man who respected that I want to be a doctor and childcare/housework is a shared task. 

I was doing it all wrong..thinking a man would be attracted to my intellect and accomplishments...blah! They just think with their lower head...once that is satisfied, the upper head starts working. It's ironic though..the lower head controls all, and when that is satisfied...real dialogue can take place. He likes the one thing about me, even when I am ticked...he'll know I'll always embrace his sexuality. He also enjoys that while I am very smart and will have a lucrative career...I'll always be his sex kitten in lingerie ready to pounce. 

So Red Pill girl in the bedroom?..not so much in job/chores/life. Can't have it all..can we? :) 

Depends on what constitutes "having it all" . . . and who "we" are.

If you read closely, you might be concerned that some cagey lady has misused the Red Pill to bag an unsuspecting hunk under false pretenses.  If that's your take on it . . . you are mistaken.

The anonymous reader mistakenly calls the Red Pill an "ideology", similar to feminist or any other ideology. The thing is, the Red Pill isn't an ideology, it's a praxeology.  Why does that matter?  Isn't that just an intellectual technicality?  Actually, it makes all the difference.

Ideologies are belief systems which hold up ideals - moral, ethical, social - as standards by which to live or guide us.  Humanism, Marxism, Christianity, and the Boy Scout Law are all ideologies of various sorts.  They establish lofty goals toward which we aspire, celebrating unifying beliefs that, theoretically, guide our purposes.  

Praxeologies, on the other hand, are not systems of belief, they are systems of practice.  They are not concerned with whether or not something lives up to a preconceived ideal, they are concerned with whether or not something actually works.  Engineering, small engine repair, computer coding, fishing, and first aid are all praxeologies.  The Red Pill is a praxeology, not an ideology.  (corr. Hawaiian Libertarian did a magnificent piece on the Praxeology of the Red Pill awhile back  Originally attributed to Roosh.  My bad.).  

The difference is telling, because when one examines the "ideology" of the Red Pill, and assumes that because it favors a male-dominant marriage it automatically also favors the SAHM and male breadwinner model of the days of yore, it can be disconcerting when you find successful Red Pill marriages that defy that model.

The fact is, the Red Pill doesn't favor that model, explicitly.  We live in the 21st century, a post-industrial society where our economics dictate certain things that make the old agricultural model of marriage archaic, for most folks.  Dual-income marriages are the norm, and the Red Pill doesn't fight against that.  In fact, a great portion of Married Game is predicated on methods - indeed, expounds an entire praxeology - based on the dual-income model.  See Athol Kay for such brilliance.

The goal of a Red Pill marriage isn't how to get your wife back into the kitchen where she belongs, as the well-intentioned Anon seems to think, it's how to effectively and efficiently run a family in a way that provides the most secure happiness to all.  The male-dominant method is the most proven and reliable, so that's the one that the Red Pill adopts.  

Most Red Pill marriages are "non-traditional", economically speaking.  That is, both spouses usually provide income to the common household.  But the Red Pill also recognizes that if marital power is realized in terms of economic power, as feminism accepts, then the current trend of wives outearning husbands will inevitably lead to an undermining of the successful male-female dynamic required for a stable and successful marriage, under the current beta-building feminist ideology.  

The Red Pill answers that issue by abandoning economic input as the factor by which dominance in the relationship is established.  

5135033344_993c8eb608_o.jpgFor years Mrs. Ironwood was in a career that provided far more income than mine.  Once she became established in her profession, she was making twice what I was, and in our Blue Pill days that was a serious issue.  

Why?  Because we both assumed that since she made more money in our "equal" partnership, then she should be invested with most of the economic power and make most of the financial decisions in our marriage.  Since I was the weaker economic factor, I guiltily yielded both power and responsibility to her - and she wanted neither.  Mrs. I hated that, in fact, and every attempt she made to push it back on me added to the stress of the relationship.  I didn't feel empowered to take a leadership position, she didn't feel entitled to ask me to, and we plodded along unhappily for years.  

Post Red Pill - that is, once I gave up worrying about who made more money and got off my ass and led my family - it doesn't matter who makes more money.  It doesn't matter how good she is at what she does.  While I am fully supportive of my wife's career, the fact of the matter is that as long as she meets the basic requirements we agreed upon when we wed (stable, predictable income), she can be a neurologist or sell Mary Kay, and I'm not going to let that interfere with my responsibility as husband and father - or how I hold her to account as a mother and a wife.  Not because of any silly ideal, religious commandment, or misguided machismo, but because the praxeology of the Red Pill states that heterosexual relationships in which the male leads with unapologetic dominance are the most successful.

As Anon concedes, they are.  Even when the female attempts to rationalize that dominance away.

Despite her contention that he "maintains the illusion of control", in apparent contradiction of the Red Pill praxeology, the fact is that it doesn't matter what she believes . . . if she is acting Red Pill, then she is Red Pill.  Period.  Not glorifying her accomplishments or expecting extra points for a professional degree is Red Pill.  Not attempting to be domineering with her income and her social position is Red Pill.  If she is willing to follow a man, offer him respect and praise in public and private, and screw him righteously and often . . . she is Red Pill.  It doesn't matter who picks up the kids or scrubs the toilets.  It doesn't matter who makes the most money.  What matters is what you do, not what you think.  

8716477902_e09bacb296_o.jpgIf you're putting out for your honey like it's prom night, you're a Red Pill woman.  If you respect, embrace, and celebrate in your man's sexuality, you're a Red Pill woman, no matter what you might think you're pulling over on your man.  

And when he finally agrees to commit to you, it will be with the expectation that you will continue to be a Red Pill woman . . . so don't think that a ring on your finger is going to somehow alter the basic, underlying, highly pragmatic Red Pill foundation to the relationship.  Equilibrium, not Equality, is the key to marital longevity.  You might think you're "fooling" him, while you're making that sandwich . . . but he still gets to eat the sandwich.  Among other things.

Despite the commentor's slightly misandrist denigration of male sexuality, she hits on a key point: men value their sexuality over much else in their lives, and if that area remains satisfied they are capable of profound depth.  It's axiomatic that men cannot connect emotionally until after sex . . . so the praxeologic solution to the issue of emotional connection in a long term heterosexual partnership is NOT a Downton Abbey binge marathon, contrary to feminist propaganda, it's humping your dude well and often.  That makes him feel dominant. That makes him feel secure.  That makes him feel capable of bonding with you.  Not your job title or your take-home pay.

I've covered the housework issue before, my views on an active and responsive patriarchal approach to parenting are well-known, and I've even covered the symbiotic nature of a good Red Pill dual-income marriage elsewhere in the blog.  The fact is that husbands do, indeed, want their wives who work to be in a respectable trade or profession.  But it's also true that they really could give a rat's ass less what that profession is, as long as they remain the dominant force in their household.  They do want to do their share of housework, but they want credit and respect for the full load of chores they inherit as masculine prerogative (it's funny how many women are eager to list "cleaning the toilet" on a list of household chores, but not "cleaning out the gutters" or "changing oil in both cars").    

The Red Pill pragmatic truth of the matter is, indeed, that high quality men are not attracted to feminine achievement or income.  Nor should men be "intimidated" by wives who out-earn them.  A man who pursues a dominant position in his own home realizes that his wife's resume becomes immaterial the moment she walks through the door, and that his relationship with her is not based on any other title than "wife". 

That is a very specific and pragmatic job description on its own, and suffers little interference from a mere vocation.  He may support her, personally, by being supportive of her career, but she should make no mistake about what he values in her as a wife and partner.  

Because when it comes down to it, this is the only degree you have he's concerned with:



For those who believe that Mrs. Ironwood doesn't exist, or she doesn't read my blog, she had some particularly keen insight on Anon's comment and gave me a more complete understanding of her perspective.  When interpreted through the lens of the Matrix (FSM), and understood in the context of female multi-phasic communication, more becomes clear.  In her words,

"I completely understand what Anon is saying," quoth Mrs. Ironwood, "but I don't think Ian does, entirely.  Anon is speaking more to other women, than to men, and she's right: she is getting away with something.  But she's not pulling something over on her man . . . she's pulling something over on the other women she knows.  Perhaps all women.  Because a Red Pill understanding of masculinity and male social behavior, not to mention the interplay between the genders, is a dirty little secret.  We Red Pill women have the ultimate trump card in our dealings with other women, even if we occasionally have to defend it against them.  We're blissfully happy in our relationships.  When we hear about our girlfriends and sisters and mothers and their endless relationship woes, we're a little giddy inside, knowing what they're doing wrong but knowing that they'll never let them understand themselves.

"Being a real Red Pill woman is like having a superpower.  It is a hidden strength and a real sense of personal female empowerment, the same kind I imagine a woman feels on a stripper pole.  We understand our men, and we love them enough to invest ourselves emotionally and personally in their happiness, taking our own happiness in part from that.  That's a point of stability and a sense of empowerment that most women can only dream of . . . but it's one we cannot share or be open about around our female friends.  It must remain a secret, and that's okay.  Only a few of them out there are ready or willing to accept the idea.  As Red Pill women, why would we lay our unconventional insights on the table to be critiqued, when I know that they are effective? Why am I going to dissect it if it works?  As Red Pill women, why would we make our husbands vulnerable to the unearned criticisms and unworthy attempts at manipulations of other women?  If they understood the Red Pill innately, we wouldn't have to talk about it.  I don't have to "handle" my man, he handles himself.

"Anon is not rationalizing away the idea of male dominance, in my opinion, she's embracing it.  She understands the secret power of the sandwich, the allure of her sexuality, and the potency of her own receptivity.  Of course she feels in control, that her husband only has an illusion of control - when you understand men and masculinity and masculine sexuality, and you understand how to invest yourself in that to the point where you can act - and think - with such utter feminine strength and power that the issue of "control" is moot.  You're both in the boat.  You're both headed for the horizon.  You are both subject to the same winds and tides, and without both of you baling like fucking hell when there is a hole in the boat, neither one of you will make it to shore.

"Being a Red Pill woman gives you the strength and security to act from a place of supreme feminine confidence.  That's like having a stripper pole in your pocket.  And like having a stripper pole, it's not something you necessarily want everyone to see.  That's okay . . . and that's part of the strength you get from the Red Pill.  Ian is partly right: it isn't about what you think, exactly.  It's about what you do . . . but it's also what you feel.  Knowing that my husband is also my boyfriend, and always will be, that makes me feel better than any professional achievement or educational degree I've gotten.  I want to help save people's lives and make the world a better place, but that all starts in keeping my home and family a better place.

"And for the record, I wouldn't be caught dead selling Mary Kay.  Just my personal opinion."



TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the blog The Red Pill Room.

The Red Pill Room archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Red Pill Roles: The Praxeology of the Dominant Man (UPDATED: Mrs. Ironwood Responds)
Author Ian Ironwood
Date May 13, 2014 4:24 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Blog The Red Pill Room
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/blog/The-Red-Pill-Room/red-pill-roles-the-praxeology-of-the-dominant-man.7649
Original Link http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2014/05/red-pill-roles-praxeology-of-dominant.html
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter