Unlike many newcomers on this subreddit, I feel that I was independently aware of the truths this forum represents well before coming into contact with it. Part of this is due to my own intransigent nature (unwillingness to compromise comes naturally to me), and part of it is because I have previously encountered these ideas-- in an entirely different context, presented through a different lense. When a truth can be independently discovered from two completely different angles of attack, you know you're on to something, right?

The previous context to which I am referring is Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, with which I am moderately well acquainted. I would posit that many readers here would have an easier time understanding her ideas than the general public. After all, the scorn piled upon her viewpoints sounds remarkably similar to the hatred regularly directed toward The Red Pill, and for the same reasons. Both perspectives are incredibly easy to misrepresent, misunderstand, and attack with strawman arguments.

Ayn Rand had very deliberate views on the topic of the relationship between man and woman. One could even say it held a central position in her philosophy. She rejected the label of "feminist" and, in fact, publicly labeled herself as a "male chauvinist." And this was well before modern Tumblr feminism even existed, mind you. My point is-- the similarities between Objectivism and The Red Pill on the topic of male-female dynamics is so striking that it warrants closer inspection.

Why is it that The Red Pill and Objectivism are in such accord on this topic? It is because they both correctly identify the nature of a female's sexual desire within a relationship. Good women, sane women who are untainted by twisted ideologies, have a desire to worship the strongest man they know as a hero. They find the utmost fulfillment in this action, and likewise, a man finds fulfillment in being worshiped as such.

The catch? The man must be WORTHY of this worship and adoration. Female hypergamy, at its core, is the tendency of females to be drawn toward the highest-value man they can access. If you are not the strongest and most worthy man within your woman's frame of reference, you will have a hard time holding her affection. This arrangement is equitable for all parties involved, morally just, and produces the best evolutionary results. It is the only way that all aspects of reality can exist without contradiction to one another. And if this were the way that things always worked, I don't think we men would have much to complain about.

The problem is that human beings (and females in particular) do not come out of the womb as fully rational beings. We have been created by an iterative process of evolution over hundreds of thousands of years, dictated by realities such as violence, scarce resources, and social control/manipulation. The capacity that human beings have to act as rational beings is a consequence of this process, but at the same time, it predisposes individuals to inherent biases that blind them to objective truths. Working around our biological blind spots is a mission that every human being should undertake, but few even attempt it, and even fewer succeed.

Like many facets of nature, sexual strategy is harsh and ugly. Men and women stand at opposite sides of a chasm of biological dictates. These opposing, biologically-programmed strategies control us and force us into perpetual strife. Are we, the recipients of this programming, nothing more than biological robots unable to see the bigger picture behind what is driving us?

A perspective which I have seen espoused on this subreddit, the idea that sexual strategy is "amoral," seems to accept this. Both men and women are playing out their sexual strategies and the social dynamics that arise (and that we study) are nothing but an inevitable consequence. Being angry about it would be like being angry at a storm for destroying your home. It sucks, but it's a force of nature-- what good does your anger accomplish?

However, I would argue that a coherent moral philosophy could not accept the idea that sexual strategy is amoral. Sexual strategy is, after all, one of the fundamental factors that drives human motivation and choice, and as such is a fundamental facet of life. If moral philosophy cannot address this topic, then what good is it? By defining sexual strategy as amoral, one has made the topic off limits as such.

As Ayn Rand stated in The Romantic Manifesto:

"As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation—or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown."

Shall we accept that moral philosophy is utterly pointless in the face of pre-programmed biological dictates, or is a sufficiently rational individual able to integrate their biology into a rational frame of mind in order to maximize their long-term happiness?

Ultimately, the choice is yours. As men studying social dynamics from an objective perspective, we are already studying our own nature. But to what end-- mastering women, or mastering yourself? I believe that the latter ultimately accomplishes both objectives more effectively.

Women, too, are capable of mastering their own nature. It is, however, exceedingly rare... and they may need guidance. If you master yourself, you will become a capable teacher.

Before I'm done, let me clarify something. Self-mastery does not entail limiting or suppressing one's nature, but rather understanding it on such a deep level that your emotions and perspectives naturally coincide with your true nature AND your objectives for long-term happiness. When men and women are both able to achieve this ideal, the dynamic between them can approach the aforementioned idealized state: the woman follows her hypergamy to worship the highest quality man she can find, and YOU must unequivocally be that man.