Tuesday, May 13, 2014

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

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.  

For 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.  

If 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."



  1. "The Red Pill is a praxeology, not an ideology. (Roosh did a magnificent piece on the Praxeology of the Red Pill awhile back)."

    That wasn't Roosh...


  2. Excellent post. I struggled with my husband's surprising wish for 'equality' until I read your post. I just didn't get it. I love to cook, clean, etc and get all upset when he tries to help me, because I fear that he has been indoctrinated with feminist ideas, and I am very traditional. In fact he wants to be a stay at home dad when our kids are born, and wants me to go back to work...this doesn't appeal at all, even if it makes economic sense as he is self employed and will be at home anyway, and I have a very high earning job. But having read your post, I see your point now. It kinda makes sense. I was quite upset with him, thinking 'why is he so resistant to my traditional wife ways when he alluded that this is what he wanted before we married?' But I guess it requires a bit of 'open mindedness' on my part. Thanks for the insight. Nowhere else in the manosphere is this discussed. I think it should, because some of us are confused. :)

  3. Wow wow! Ian! Fabulous entry! And I am honored you used my post! Fantastic! (Here I was hoping you'd just reply to me...but to use it as a teaching piece, I am flattered!) In conclusion - I am living the Red Pill life. I love my man and will give it anytime he wants...hmmm! I guess I was caught up in the ROK rhetoric which bashes women left, right and center...I mistakenly thought Red Pill was about women being pregnant, barefoot and making sandwiches while on all fours. THIS was masterfully written and a real joy!

    Furthermore Mrs. Ironwood was spot on! She was able to deliver my message in a way I never could. Probably because I hadn't realized I was a Red Pill Lady.

    However, what about your marriage/children Red Pill alerts? Although I have not spoken against them verbally (action speaks louder than words)..I have put off getting married to him & having children. I guess if he is king of the castle and he knows I respect and love him...and show it in public he is fine with my decision to put off a family until I am done school. Perhaps he doesn't want a family either right now...hmmm. Thoughts?

    ~Red Pill Lady

  4. As she now calls herself 'Red Pill Lady' I think while she is putting out and doesn't use sex against her man, it is still a partnership, as Mrs. Ironwood pointed out same boat. However, I have a feeling if 'Red Pill Lady' found out her 'Staunch Red Pill Boy' had a mistress...she wouldn't be so obliging to wear skimpy lingerie and perform fellatio during a football game. I am beginning to see that like her, Red Pill is NOT 'Return of Kings'. Yet both support the manosphere...the Red Pill man wants his woman to respect him and his authority...but in turn respects her back? (which it seems is with Red Pill Lady)...while the ROK man demeans women and feels mistresses are OK as long as she doesn't find out and she is just a waste of space, save for her ladyparts. Is this distinction correct? If that's the case I can definitely see why 'Red Pill Lady' thought a Red Pill man was misogynistic.

    Maybe 'Red Pill Lady' can expand on this? I found her post to be intriguing as well...especially how she did start as dishonest. She lied about her family problems, or a better set of words 'failed to disclose', said she was interested in family and children...yet was aspiring for medical school, and I do not think 'Red Pill Lady' is making any sandwiches...with bread that is.

    She has understood what men crave and that if you fulfill their base instincts, you can have a fulfilling relationship. As "Red Pill Lady' claims, she is attending school and has successfully put off marriage and children. So in a way...I'd say she did manipulate him from the beginning. Using her sexuality and obviously Red Pill 'ideology' in her arsenal. But as long as he is in control...she essentially gets what she wants as well.

    I am interested though. Is 'Return of Kings' just plain misogyny? Or is 'Red Pill Lady' expected to obey her partner even if he cheats on her or treats her like crap...would this still be considered 'Red Pill'? 'Red Pill Lady' did say "Don't worry I'll treat him well, as he treats me." I am thinking it's a two way road in her mind.

    Also while 'Red Pill Lady' seems to love her man...unconditionally for now...I do not think this would be the case if her man suddenly gained 400 lbs. Which leads me to believe 'Red Pill Lady' is 'Egalitarian' Red Pill.

    Or perhaps very reminiscent of old royalty...she'll treat you like a King if you deserve it. So as long as he remains dominant and sexually appealing...she'll be all opened legged.

    I guess what I want to know...are the same body standards set for both men and women in a Red Pill marriage? This is based on sex. IF sex is important, sexual attraction is key. Now while women are for the emotional aspect of sex...they still want to be attracted to their partner and this is been furthered fueled for female sexual liberation.

    Thus it would seem to me, 'Staunch Red Pill Boy' will keep his 'Red Pill Lady' only if he maintains his physique, as I am certain he will expect of her.

    Or after all that. Is cheating only when she doesn't put out?

  5. I find ROK a little off the deep end sometimes. To be sure I enjoy it and there is some insightful stuff going on over there at times, it is also all a shade Nihlistic at the end of the day. E.g., It's the end of the world so we may as well party and get laid a lot.
    Ian Ironwood is married, as is Athol over at MMSL (I am married too). So I find you get a distinctively different approach in both worlds. ROK is very much the young man, doing his own thing, possibly get married. RPR and MMSL are both more along the lines of, "Well you're married no so you had better figure out a way to make it work right if you want to cross the finish line together". ROK does get tiresome at times with the slut bashing and the feminist bashing. It has a place, but I would call it the pointy end of the ideological spear. Plus, ROK is frequented by PUA's whom frequently to not be all that successful and so they project their own shortcomings as women hating.
    It would seem to me that by the time you get to a functional and workable marriage under the red pill umbrella you have come to have some modicum of respect for your partner and have a more pragmatic understanding of everyone's motivations so there is no need to be absolutist in how you see the world. To Ian's point it's what works that counts.

    1. ROK and the Red Pill marriage sites are indeed different . . . but not opposed to each other. In fact, I see ROK as the gatekeeper to those Wolf Alphas who want to start a family, informing them of their realistic options and potential pitfalls. The fact is, marriage is NOT a good idea for most guys these days, and ROK does a great job of preaching that. A Red Pill marriage is just a way for a MGTOW to have a fulfilling relationship without recourse to Blue Pill Beta relationship issues.

    2. Indeed. I was not trying to suggest they were at odds with each other, rather that perhaps the underlying priorities of their primary audiences are slightly different, to the extent that they are calibrated to men in different life stages.
      ROK is entertaining, informative and provocative which are all good things. My point I think was simply that it is sometimes rather un-varnished shall we say.
      So yes, RPR, ROK, MMSL, CH all swim in the same direction informed by an underlying understanding of and appreciation of evo-bio and praxeology as Ian has so properly pointed out this week.

  6. Is wanting your wife to be your "partner" red pill? I see the family as a team where we work together. First we take care of ourselves, although we balance it with the team responsibilities. It is not always about me, there is a family too.

    I could not care less who cleans what, while the workload is balanced. It is not only about the load: get more or less tired, but also about how it feels seeing your partner having fun while you go to work to pay for that fun/free time.

    A red pill person for me understands the real needs of today and has learned about what worked and didn't work in the past.

    I'm positing as anonymous while trying to focus working while my wife watches movies and plays with the dogs. Before I was tidying up our garden I don't care about, she loves but she won't take care of, (or perhaps I take too much care of things).

    1. I don't think this is how red pill works.

      First, it is about recognizing that in a group of people trying to achieve some task just 1 person should be responsible. There should be no ambiguity about who gets the cane if things get messed up or gets the big piece of chicken if things go well.

      This is the most efficient way of getting things done: when everyone is equally responsible for doing something, then noone is.

      No matter, what though process was used to reach a set of potential solutions (brain storm / someone doing all the work / outsourcing the solution to experts) - there is just 1 person in the end who chooses either plan A or plan B

      He has the power to make the choice + he bears full consequences of this choice.

      A red pill person accepts, that in marriage this person is a "he".

      Red pill is about men choosing to occupy the position and then living up to the related responsibility of being CEOs of "Family Inc." (or captains of SS "Sexy Times") - not about who makes more money, has more physical power, spend more hours busy or gets more sandwitches.

      Ian will correct me, if I got it wrong.

    2. I tend to agree. If your wife is more committed to the garden than you, then stop doing it until she is willing to change. See how important it is to her. (Agreeing to garden in return for kinky sex of your choice is an acceptable alternative).

      But Delichion is correct. A male-led household is just more pragmatically able to weather the misfortunes and challenges of family life, all other things being equal. Wanting your wife to be your partner is a fine goal to have, but recognizing that she's always going to be the junior partner - First Officer - is the key to understanding how that partnership will manifest. If you do not make your expectations known and hold her to account, then it's not Red Pill, it's wishful thinking.

  7. Thank you thank you thank you for this post... and thank you to Mrs I for her input and insight. Madam you have hit the sweet spot with your insightfulness. I am in exactly the same position as the original commenter but a little earlier in the relationship, about four months. I feel like I have found this amazing secret and scored a really lovely, and naturally quite red pill boyfriend, however I was struggling with the thought that I was somehow tricking him by using red pill, something I have been working hard on for a number of years. I will strongly take your advice that I should carry on after we commit, which given he recently asked me what kind of wedding I might like if we decided to get married one day, is hopefully something I can look forward to.
    This works, it really does, and I've never felt more content in my life...

  8. How did Mrs. I learn about the "red pill?" Did her husband tell her about it? Did she find it out for herself? What was her initial reaction?

    It would be interesting to know. How do you share this knowledge with your wife, esp. in a way that won't initially put her off? It seems that it would be preferable that the knowledge become common property in the marriage after a while. How is this done?

  9. You might say a word about resources for women, too.