There is no such thing as Perfect

This is another post that I wrote for RPW recently to address a disturbing trend in the comments.  It’s something else I thought some of you would like.

A trend I’ve noticed here and there in the comments lately is this idea of being a perfect RPW or that the women here should live up to some perfect ideal set by the mods and Endorsed Contributors.

I would like to put this idea of perfect to rest. There is no perfect. There is only improvement.

To give you an example, I’ve been in the RP world now for about 6 years and I’ve learned a great deal. I’ve implemented it into my marriage and it has gone from good to great. This is not to say that I don’t have problems from time to time. That I don’t have set backs and sometimes just flat out fall on my face and fail. I don’t talk about it here very often for several reasons (none of them really conscious until I started to think about this issue) 1. My age. I’m old and I just don’t really talk about things like this with anyone. 2. I know what I did wrong and how to fix it. I just failed in the implementation. Or, in other words, I slipped up. 3. I’m very private especially when it comes to my husband.

There are probably other reasons, but there you go. Now, for the sake of exposure and truth, things have been stressful around here lately. We have a huge amount going on and my husband and I are both strung tight and very tired. I have been snippy (more than snippy) from time to time and causing some strife. Not horrible, but enough that we’ve been upset and angry with each other some over the past couple of weeks.

This is the usual stuff. Letting the frustration bubble up and saying something I shouldn’t in a tone that shouldn’t be used. My husband responding. I couldn’t tell you if he responded as he should or not, because that doesn’t really matter. I screwed up. I know I screwed up. After I had time to cool off, which took much longer than it usually does, I could see things for what they were and we moved on.

Things are coming to a close soon and the stress has let up some and things are getting back to normal. But I want the women here to know that there is no such thing as perfection when it comes to your relationship. It is never something to aspire to because it’s a false idea. What should be worked toward is continued improvement. There will always be something that you can improve in your relationship. It might become more and more difficult to pinpoint, but it is there. The only time one can utterly fail in this endeavor is to stop working to improve.

Perfection is not the ultimate goal here. Continuous work and improvement for life is.

Smash it Down vs Acceptance

I’ve written a couple of posts at RPWi that I would like to share here.  Here’s the first (with a couple of minor edits):

A common theme for women accepting red pill truths is to try brushing away, smashing down, or otherwise ignoring the feelings that are causing problems. Hypergamy, the desire to fitness test, wanting to talk out of insecurity, fear, the ever present hamster, etc. This causes problems because these things never go away. Sure, we can lessen their influence and in some cases make them very rare, but they never really go away.

Our desire to abolish these things, to get rid of them by pushing them down, makes sense. We are trying to stop these behaviors so why not ignore them instead because they aren’t doing us any good. However, in my experience, pushing these things away might work in the short term, but long term they always come back and they always tend to come back with a vengeance. When this happens things tend to boil over and we fail, sometime spectacularly, at the things we were trying so hard to improve at.

Here is what I discovered. When these feelings pop up, whatever they may be. Do not push them away and do not ignore them. Rather, feel them. Allow yourself to feel what you are wanting to feel. That doesn’t mean you have to react to that feeling, it just means accept what you are feeling because there are reasons they are there. Those reasons might not be rational, but there are reasons regardless.

Those feelings are your reality and pushing them away allows you to not have to face that reality. What worked for me was just allowing myself to feel these things and then making myself face what is causing them. Pushing them down, I never had to face the root cause. I never had to face my irrationality and my rationality. It made things easier in the short term. In the long run, things would blow up.

Facing these things head on, accepting that you are feeling fear, anger, frustration, etc. will give you the time and the reason to mull these things over and figure out why you are feeling them. Not just the everyday hamster, but actually the reason why that thing is running loose. It is very often not the reason we initially think it is.

Accepting what is going on in your head for what it is gives you the opportunity to face reality. This is a far more effective tool in ridding yourself of feelings you know you shouldn’t have rather than just trying to smash these feelings away. They are there for a reason. Until you figure out what that reason is, you will never just push them away to get rid of them.

Being Woman

Mother and Child Reading ~ Frederick Warren Freer ~ 1896

One of the most profound things I have figured out and the thing that took me the longest to come to was the idea that I am a woman and that is good.  You might be a bit confused by that revelation, but I remember when this thought first occurred to me as when true understanding finally dawned, it hit me so hard that I felt it physically.

Superficially, I always knew this to be true, but one of the things I’ve learned in reading these Truths over the last few years is that there are different levels of understanding.  You will think you understand a concept and then someone will comment on it and you will reach a deeper, almost tangible level of understanding that really sends it home for you.  An understanding that proves the superficial level you thought you were at before was really not an understanding at all.  It was merely an acknowledgment.

“If we knew ahead of time what was going to happen we’d be – we’d be like the people on Camazotz, with no lives of our own, with everything all planned and done for us.  How can I explain it to you?  Oh, I know.  In your language you have a form of poetry called the sonnet.”

“Yes, yes,” Calvin said impatiently. “What’s that got to do with the Happy Medium?”

“Kindly pay me the courtesy of listening to me.” Mrs Whatsit’s voice was stern, and for a moment Calvin stopped pawing the ground like a nervous colt.  “It is a very strict form of poetry, is it not?”


“There are fourteen lines, I believe, all in iambic pentameter.  That’s a very strict rhythm or meter, yes?”

“Yes” Calvin nodded.

“And each line had to end with a rigid rhyme pattern.  And if the poet does not do it exactly this way, it is not a sonnet, is it?”


“But within this strict form the poet has complete freedom to say whatever he wants, doesn’t he?”

“Yes.” Calvin nodded again.

“So,” Mrs Whatsit said.

“So what?”

“Oh, do not be stupid, boy!” Mrs Whatsit scolded. “You know perfectly well what I am driving at!”

“You mean you’re comparing our lives to a sonnet? A strict form, but you have to write the sonnet yourself.  What you say is completely up to you.”

~ An excerpt from A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle ~

We are women and we have a female nature.  This nature is inherently different from male nature and gives us our own strengths and our own weaknesses.  This nature, this being woman, is not inherently bad nor is in inherently good.  It simply is.  These are our rules and it is our sonnet to write.  Trying to break these rules means playing at being men and we fail at this.  We make poor men, but we have the opportunity to make excellent women.

When we first find articles deriding what women have become today, it is very easy to get down on oneself, to start seeing women as terribly flawed and today, this is true.  We’ve been learning for decades now to try to be men and, of course, we are failing miserably at it.  But . . . when we learn and we try to be women, when we stay within the rules of the sonnet, we can become excellent.  To hate this, to hate these rules and to find them oppressive, weak, degrading, etc is to hate what women are.  It is to hate what we were born with and to deny our very selves.  This is what feminism has taught us to do.  To the very thing that makes us women.  What I want to tell you is that being woman is not a terrible thing.

From Transhuman and Subhuman:

Feminine in general means being more delicate in speech, either when delivering a coy insult or when buoying up drooping spirits. Femininity requires not the sudden and angry bravery of war and combat, but the slow and loving and patient bravery of rearing children and dealing with childish menfolk: female fortitude is a tenacity that does not yield even after repeated disappointments and defeats. And, believe you me, dear reader, a woman in love has a very clear-eyed view of the faults and flaws of her man, and if her love is true, she does not yield to despair or give up on him. The female spirit is wise rather than cunning, deep in understanding rather than adroit in deductive logic, gentle and supportive rather than boastful and self-aggrandizing. The strong feminine character is solid in faith in all things.


It would be wasteful and absurd for nature to give women the sexual organs needed to bear children without giving women the sexual nature of women needed to use those organs properly or raise those children properly. That women would be more concerned with the tasks related to childrearing than men is neither absurd nor unfair, but reasonable and natural.

Like it or not, nature has oriented female thinking to make them generally better at teaching a child how to volunteer to do a task, so that he will naturally and willingly do his tasks once he is grown; whereas men are generally better at commanding and punishing, so that the task gets done whether the child is willing or unwilling.

The female concentrates on the doer; the male on the deed.

Whether or not nature is being cruel and arbitrary with this specialization of roles is a debate for another day.

But the purpose of the specialization is also difficult to deny: children need both a father-figure to mete out justice and fight for the family against the world, winning bread and slaying foes, and need a mother-figure to quench the thirst for mercy and nurture the family within the home. The mindset needed for these tasks is different, hence the approach is different. Men fight and women nurse the wounded, and then tongue-lash any malingering men into going back into the fight. Their role is support rather than front line duty.

No doubt there are people reading this and thinking, “Women are not like this!  They are not nurturing and caring creatures!” and today, for a large amount of women, you would be absolutely correct.  We have been taught to deny our femininity just as men have been taught to deny their masculinity.  We rail at our given strengths and believe and teach them to be weaknesses and we teach them to be weak, bad, and wrong.  But out femininity is none of these things.  We have a choice as to what we do with our nature.  We can deny it and break the rules, thereby losing what it is to be woman, or we can embrace it.  We can see it for what it is, our given nature and work and learn within it to nurture our own lives and the lives of those around us.

A caution: Yes, a sonnet has rigid rules to abide by in order to make it a sonnet, but within these rules, the possibilities are endless.  Do not hate, fear, or loathe your own nature.  It is a beautiful thing when you learn to embrace it.  Amazingly, when you fall into your own rules, not only will your life change for the better, people around you will react to you in a completely different manner, because the rules make sense at a profound level.

To be woman, is not evil.  It is what we choose to do with our nature that will show what kind of person we are.



A Picture of Wifely Forbearance

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife (I Cor. 7:14) 

If the reader knows anything about Saint Monica, it is that her tearful and persistent entreaties before God succeeded in bringing her son back to the Christian faith after he had fallen prey to fashionable philosophies and fleshly temptations – fact to which Blessed Augustine gratefully and eloquently attests in his Confessions. For mothers who try hard to instill the Christian faith into their children, only to have them veer off on some wayward and spiritually perilous course, Saint Monica is an encouraging example. She is alike instructive as a model of wifely forbearance, credited with the conversion of her very difficult husband – a fact less well known but equally deserving of attention. In an earlier issue (OA 110), we printed a life of Saint Monica that concentrated on her influence on her son. Here we have chosen to focus on her relationship with her husband.

SAINT MONICA was born in 332 in or near the North African town of Tagaste, some forty miles from the port city of Hippo. Her parents were native Africans, related ethnically to present day Berbers, and were devout Christians. 

In addition to the careful nurturing of her parents, Monica benefited as a child from the vigilant attention of an elderly nurse. An excellent Christian and respected by her heads, she disciplined her charges wisely if sometimes inclined towards “holy severity.” The entire household was imbued with a rare atmosphere of Christian piety, and it is not surprising that Monica grew to be a sober and virtuous maiden with a well-developed habit of prayer. One would have expected her to consecrate herself wholly to God in the monastic life, or to become united to a like God-fearing and virtuous husband. Instead, as soon as she reached marriageable age, she was betrothed to a pagan, a man of choleric temperament and dissolute morals. One wonders how Monica’s parents could have consented to such a marriage for their daughter, after having taken such pains for her Christian upbringing. Surely they were mindful of the Apostle’s injunction: Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers (II Cor. 6:14). Unfortunately, many parents are never so blind as when arranging, or approving, the marriages of their children. 

Patricius was a native of Tagaste, and twice Monica’s twenty-two years. While there is no precise information about his background, it is probable that he came from an old, noble family, more prominent than Monica’s. At any rate, this is the supposition of Blessed Augustine’s ancient biographers, who could find no other explanation for such an unequal union. In fact, Patricius was not wealthy. It is true, he was a city administrator, but at that time anyone who owned more than seventy acres of land was obliged to hold such a position. Patricius was not without generous qualities, but these were largely dormant and became animate only later, in response to Monica’s unflagging prayers and exemplary Christian behavior. 

Whatever Monica felt towards her betrothed, she was obedient to her parents’ will, consoling herself with the thought that here was a lost soul that was being entrusted to her, and she determined to sacrifice herself to the task of guiding this soul onto the path to salvation. Nevertheless, she could not have anticipated just what this sacrifice was to entail. In the days and weeks after the marriage, she became increasingly and painfully aware of the abyss that lay between her and her husband. He was annoyed by her prayers; he found her charity excessive; he could not understand her desire to visit the sick; he could not fathom her love for slaves. At every step in her Christian walk, Monica met with countless hindrances. Her case was far from unique and is well described by Tertullian in his treatise, “To His Wife,” wherein he speaks of the difficulties a Christian wife endures at the hands of an unbelieving husband: 

“When it is time to go to church, the husband takes his wife to the baths; if there are fasts to be observed, the husband arranges for a banquet; if she wishes to visit the poor, no servants are available to accompany her. And will such a husband allow her to be absent all night long for the paschal solemnities? or permit her to attend the Lord’s Supper, which they disavow?”

As a young bride who had spent her life in a Christian atmosphere, where the very purpose of existence centered upon the love of God and neighbor, Monica suddenly found herself in an alien environment. Her husband, although he loved her in his own way, was a stranger not a soul-mate; and her cantankerous mother-in-law, who lived with them, only reinforced his fits of anger with her own. These were prompted by the slanders of the maidservants, whose animosity towards their young mistress intensified an already painful loneliness. Even more grievous was Patricius’ infidelity, for what wife, especially one raised, as Monica was, with high standards of chastity and marital devotion, can countenance the defilement of her marriage bed? 

Prayer was Monica’s strength, and the joys of motherhood further served to mitigate the bitterness of her circumstances. She bore two sons and a daughter, whom she nurtured in the faith with great diligence – and ultimate success. As a boy, writes Blessed Augustine, “I already believed, and my mother and the whole household, except for my father. Yet he did not prevail over the power of my mother’s piety in me, that as he did not believe, so neither should I. For it was her earnest care that Thou my God, rather than he, shouldst be my father” (I:11). To Monica’s great sorrow, Patricius would not have the children baptized. And when Augustine began to show promise of intellectual brilliance, Patricius sent him for higher education to Carthage,. where the youth gradually fell prey to youthful passions. 

As young as she was, Monica bore her cross with remarkable fortitude and spiritual maturity. She realized that her husband’s weaknesses and moral failings stemmed from the fact that he had not yet been enlightened by the Gospel, that he lacked the grace of God. She shed bitter tears in his absence, but she knew that a man who did not love God could not be expected to be constant in his affection towards one of His creatures. With firm hope, she prayed that God Himself would grant her husband faith and love for Him, which alone are able to inspire a man with the desire to lead a chaste life. 

Monica knew that reproaches were counter-productive, and she tamed her husband’s violent temper by her meekness and devotion. Other women, who endured blows from their husbands, asked Monica how it was that Patricius, whom they knew to be irascible, did not once strike her. Monica replied that instead of blaming their husbands they should blame their tongues, for “she had learnt not to resist an angry husband, not in deed only, but not even in word.” (IX:9) 

Regardless of Patricius’ religious indifference and often unchristian behavior, Monica was very attentive towards him, “whom she, the better obeyed, therein also obeying [God] Who hast so commanded” (I:11). Compelled at times to contradict him and to go against his will in what concerned the Faith, she was all the more meek and submissive to him in other matters. And although superior to her husband in education and moral qualities, she made every effort not to reveal her advantage. She firmly believed that if the light of the Gospel was reflected in all her actions, then Patricius would eventually be persuaded of its power and its truth, and would submit to it more readily than if she attempted to persuade him with rational arguments. Indeed, her Christian conduct acted like a soothing balm on Patricius’ soul, and, without his realizing it, drew him gradually closer to the Faith. As Saint John Chrysostom wrote half a century later in his homily, On Virginity, the believing wife “will be able to save her husband by putting the Gospel into practice.” This is precisely what Saint Monica did, winning over not only her husband but also her mother-in-law. 

This fruit of her prayers, of her long-suffering, and of her steadfast application of the Gospel precepts took a long time to mature. It was only after sixteen years that Patricius was baptized. Nor did Monica enjoy for long her husband’s company at the Lord’s Supper, for he died only a year later, in 371. Nevertheless, her aim had been to sanctify her husband for eternal life, and, by the Grace of God, this she had achieved. It remained for her to extricate her wayward son form the delusion of the passions and from the Manichean heresy. This required another fourteen years of persistent prayer. When at last his heart, too, was converted, her joy was complete. 

Monica was present at Augustine’s baptism at the hands of Saint Ambrose in Milan at Pascha, 387, and they were returning to Africa when they stopped to rest in the port city of Ostia. One evening they had a long conversation in which she said to him, “Son, for mine own part I have no further delight in anything in this life. What I do here any longer, and to what end I am here, I know not, now that my hopes in this world are accomplished” (IX:10). Indeed, she had excellently fulfilled her purpose in life, and, after a brief illness, God took her that she might receive her due reward with the saints in His eternal kingdom. She was buried in Ostia, a fact verified by the inscription on a stone tablet discovered there by archaeologists in 1946. 

For centuries, Saint Monica was revered in the Roman Catholic Church as a patroness of married women. It is time that Orthodox women became more closely acquainted with this exemplar of womanly virtues, whose prayers are especially to be invoked by those with wayward children and by wives desirous of sanctifying their unbelieving husbands. (H/T Ann Barnhardt)


Are you a good wife? circa 1938

One of the women at RPW found these gems from the Good Housekeeping Marriage Book from 1938.

  1. Did my husband start for work this morning in a better frame of mind for having married me, or would he have been happier as a single man or married to someone else? Remember, as you ask this question and apply your own answer, that we are talking about business; hard, practical business where intentions do not count. You may love your husband dearly, but if the results of your love are not constructive, you must write the word FAILURE across the record. 
  2. Do I always treat my job just as seriously as if I were working in an office for a monthly salary? Some wives feel that it makes no difference if they linger so long over bridge or cocktails or shopping or whatever in the afternoon that they are unable to prepare a suitable meal for their husbands in the evening.
  3. Have I grown in poise and interests like the wives of my husband’s associates and superiors? Wives who keep up with the procession are an asset; those who fail to grow are a liability.
  4. Can I talk in the same terms as his associates and their wives? This indicates how carefully you have maintained your interest in the source of your income, and how accustomed you are to expressing yourself.
  5. Do I dress and act like the wives of the business associates and superiors of my husband? You place a heavy handicap upon your effectiveness if your husband cannot be proud of you in the inevitable comparisons with other wives in his organization.
  6. Do I entertain with reasonable frequency the people who are in a position to help my husband in business, or is our social life planned wholly for my own amusement? Perhaps this question should read, “How long since I have entertained So-and-So?” You may be surprised to find that months have slipped away without your having done a single stroke of good for your husband socially. 
  7. Do I limit our social engagements during the week to those which will not take essential energy from the job, or do I feel that my husband “owes” me constant amusement when he is not actually at the office? As employers pile responsibility upon your husband, more and more care must be used in the allocation of time to social affairs. You may be able to rest the next day, but business does not permit husbands to rest on the job. 
  8. Do I act as a balance wheel, cheering him intelligently when he is tired or discouraged, or do I rub him the wrong way on such occasions? If your husband does not share with you his disappointments, it is almost invariably because you have not qualified yourself to share them. 
  9. Do I try to smooth things out after unpleasant discussions—as I would if a new dress or theatre party were at stake? Many married persons have an uncanny capacity for making miserable the objects of their affection. It is said that the course of true love never did run smooth, but the wise husband or wife will not unnecessarily roughen it. 
  10. Do I carry my share of responsibility, or do I save up all the petty annoyances for our dinner-table conversation? Wives who complain that their husbands are silent during dinner have usually good reason to overhaul the quality of their own conversation. Don’t bore him with your fight with the grocer or the catty things Mrs. X said at bridge or afternoon tea.

I was immediately struck by the straightforwardness of these questions and suggestions.  No hand holding.  No trigger warnings.  No excuses.  Just frank questions with blunt explanations.  It seems women were treated like they weren’t fainting daisies once upon a time.  Now with third wave feminism we require trigger warnings, safe spaces and the hiding of scary man statues.  Surprise, surprise we don’t need to be treated like children.  Only, it is feminism who seems to require this special treatment.

I then noticed how respected the position of wife is.  Sure, some will read this and see it as oppression.  But if you can look past this, it is phrased in the same manner as one would expect any man to be treated at his career.  There is no fluff, only the question, “Are you doing your job well and for the right reasons?”  A job that holds respect.

Thirdly, I noticed how competition between women is not only obvious but exploited.  However, exploited in a way that will help the woman to work harder.  I leave it to you to decide whether or not this is right or wrong.  Frankly, in these instances, I don’t think it really matters because the point of these is to help a woman do her best for her husband and by extension, family.

Fourth, take a look at number 4.  Source of income. Boy that stings at first, probably for both men and women today, but it is the simple truth.  It doesn’t mean that that is all a husband is or was.  Of course he is much more, but this simple statement is still a chunk of the truth and should be acknowledged from any SAHM.

Fifth, it doesn’t shy away from how a wife helps and supports her husband and how very important this job is.

This post was left at RPW today and illustrates these 10 points:

It is a humbling thing to realize that my mother and grandmothers were right after all about lifestyle choices. I swallowed the blue pill for many years and all it did was make me miserable. My grandmothers and mom were and are adored by their husbands.

In the past, I viewed them as oppressed and ignorant. My grandmother was still trying to maintain a slim figure in her late eighties. I am pretty sure grandpa was beyond noticing at that point. I had to reassure her that the tummy she had as a result of osteoporosis bending her forward was not the result of eating too much. It makes me smile to remember her pleasure at a manicure she received while in the nursing home.

My grandpa was a strong confident man who provided well for my grandmother. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge in World War 2. He was a bad ass warrior, but at home he was a kind gentleman who basked in my grandmother’s devotion.

I made the observation that it is feminism that is oppressive toward women today and not men or the dreaded “patriarchy”.  Iwishiwasamermaid responded:

Exactly. Feminism has only forced more work and stress onto women by saying “you can be everything” ball buster career woman at work, pop out babies and put them in daycare, then what? Dump the household duties onto paid help that you or your husband have to work longer hours to afford? Task your husband with half of the duties because you’re both exhausted? Eat take out or convenience foods because you’re too tired to cook properly? That’s been my experience. I realized how fucked up things were when I was pumping breastmilk for my 3 month old at work while someone else took care of my baby because I had the big career and income and it “made sense” for me to work. Oh, and my 70k of student loans that only I could afford to pay. Thinking I could play both roles ruined my life. It stole my babies earliest years from me and ruined my relationship. Thanks feminism.

We all make our own choices and must take responsibility for them.  But we need to start teaching what the possible consequences of these decisions are.  Not sugar coat them to make ourselves feel better out of pride or embarrassment.  We also must learn and teach the very fact that our choices are our own and no one else’s.  That should we decide to buck the trend, we are not being oppressed.  It’s what we chose.  End of story.  No matter how much that might offend the fainting daisies.

Ann Barnhardt on Feminism

Ann Barnhardt has joined The Remnant.  I present her first piece, “Diabolical Narcissim: “Go Clean Up the Kitchen You Stupid, Stupid Woman” without comment.  What could I possibly add to this?

A sample:

My evening ritual before turning in for the night was, in order, to go into the kitchen, wash and dry any and all dishes and cookware used that day, including the coffee pot, lift the grates off of the gas stovetop and thoroughly clean and polish the stainless steel stovetop, clean the countertops, kitchen table, and stainless steel double basin sink, and finally replace the stove grates and then set upon the perfectly clean stove the small saucepan for my friend to heat his milk for the next morning’s coffee.

Bear in mind, rarely were any of the dishes dirtied by me, as I ate out more often than not.  Further, I was almost never the first in the kitchen in the morning, and was not a ritual morning coffee drinker.  I cleaned the kitchen and set out the next morning’s accouterment not for myself, but for my friend and housemate.  I wanted him to start his day off not with a dirty kitchen, dishes stacked in the sink, and a grease-covered stove, the thought in the back of his mind, “Oh, I’m going to have to clean this kitchen after I get home from work today….”

No. I wanted to give him the smallest of gifts – a little help around the house. And God forgive me, that twenty minutes of quiet, nightly kitchen clean-up, in particular the polishing of the stove and setting out of the saucepan, was the best part of my day. If I were dishonest I would say that something liturgical or some formal prayer was the best part of my day, but it wasn’t.  The silent, spontaneous prayer of thanksgiving that flowed out of my soul as I recalled that day’s events, and how happy I was to be where I was, surrounded by friends, recalling past adventures and making plans for future adventures, and praying for my friend and housemate and his intentions, as I scrubbed grease splatter off of the stove with Ajax grease cutting spray and paper towels – that was the best part of my day.

“The Look”

Shamelessly stolen from Keoni’s piece.

Mike Cernovich had a fantastic post up a few days ago that is a must read for men and women.  While he writes for men, I find that much of what he writes, when read between the lines (and directly) really applies to women as well.  Mr. Cernovich writes about The Look:

I learned how to tell if a man was dead by looking in his eyes. When living in Thailand and Vietnam, you learn how to spot the look.

The look is what an old man gives when a short-haired harpy leads him down the streets of Vietnam. The man glances around to see smiling, feminine women everywhere. He may even see an older man with one of those smiling women.

“What’s taking you so long,” he hears from her shrill voice.

Slowly a realization hits. A man has wasted his life serving an ungrateful nag. He could have had so much more. His soul leaves him.

To which Hawaiian Libertarian adds:

The Look is easily recognizable to those of us who managed to avoid developing it. It is the look of defeat, despair, submission and resignation to a life of suffering in subservience and complete subjection to another’s will. We can see it everywhere in this Brave New World Order of inverted gender roles, decimated families and general societal dysfunction.

But Keoni takes it further.  Mike’s post is about men and this look but Keoni’s post is important for men and women.  As he explains:

While Mike’s post is focused on The Look in the men he witnessed following their masters down the streets in South East Asia, I’m virtually certain their is a certain corresponding Look in the eyes of their women  masters leading them. It’s a look worse than the living death witnessed in their emasculated men’s face…it is the look of the bitter, contemptuous and perpetually unhappy shrew.

When women assume a leadership position over men, it hardens them. But the polarity of natural intersex attraction is based off of opposites complementing each other. Soft woman and hard man are the natural order. Hard woman and soft man is most unnatural…and the unnatural state is what causes the development of “The Look” in both sexes.

For rest assured, accompanying every man with The Look of living death, is a woman with The Look of “resting bitch-face.”

For men, while still extremely difficult, there is no better time to understand how and why to avoid living this hell.  I highly recommend reading the following posts as regards this:

The Look – Mike Cernovich

They Can’t Hear You – Keoni Galt

Live to avoid “The Look” – Vox Day

Build to be happy – Vox Day

For women, Mike mentions in his article:

90% of men are miserable. 99% of women are miserable.

Don’t be in that 99%.  Don’t be that “bitter, contemptuous, and perpetually unhappy shrew.”  Now, some might be thinking, I’m not that bad.  I might do this some, but it’s not terrible.  Even if if your behavior isn’t that bad, it’s still bad.  Stop it.  There is no reason to be these things.  Understand that it is not up to your husband to make you happy. That is all on you.  You will never, ever reach that 1% depending on someone else for your happiness.  Learn to find it for yourself and start by looking at how you treat others, most especially your husband.

For you single women, find this happiness.  Men in that 10%, those that you will be most attracted to, will be looking for you.

To Hell With Your Standard

My husband bought me The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classic for Christmas and I just began reading Mere Christianity.  The first 2 paragraphs of the first chapter caught me immediately (heck, the preface had me wanting to write a post).

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”-“That’s my seat, I was there first”-“Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm”- “Why should you shove in first?”-“Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine”-“Come on, you promised.” People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: “To hell with your standard.” Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now, Mere Chrisitanity was written in 1952. I imagine if it was written today it would look far different. But this is reasonable and right.  Having said that, doesn’t this sound awfully familiar?  Especially the first paragraph?  Here Lewis talks about The Natural Law or Human Nature, but using these same and similar words today, in an effort to sound completely reasonable, women and not a few men use these same tactics to defy human nature.  To redefine what it means to be Man, Woman, Married, Mother, Father, etc.  This redefinition coupled with these arguments listed here (to maintain that sense of normalcy) is what Rollo Tomassi refers to as the Feminine Imperative.

Today, this is the new normal, this redefinition of what is “Human Nature” (or rather what people think human nature should be).  Only it’s no longer Human Nature, it’s Social Conditioning.   We now have people saying women are the same as men minus biology (forgetting that hormones and so much more also constitute biology), that men have finally found their feminine side but are now lacking in chivalry, that marriage is a partnership, with the woman leading of course, and so, so much more.  Only since it is the new normal, and it is discussed in the same way Lewis laid out here, people can’t see it for what it is.  Anything but “normal”.

Here’s the interesting thing about this new “normal”.  Most people, even if they can’t put voice to it, know that something is inherently wrong with it.  And since they can’t put voice to it, we see arguments just like Lewis outlined in the latter part of the second paragraph.  We see excuses made or appeals to why the situation is different.

We rarely see anyone say, “To Hell with your standard“.

The standard today is false.  Any appeal to circumstances or special situations will be used and manipulated against you.  The only way to argue is to reject all their premises to begin with, because they are false.  Do not argue to their standards.  It is a waste of time and less than useless.  And. ironically (or not), when you do this with women (done well, of course) they become enamored of you.  Who are you to tell me I am wrong?!  It’s like a magnet.

If you’ve spent any amount of time around the alt-right or the manosphere, you know this is changing.  And since the Truth will always win out, instead of arguing that their standards are, in fact, the truth, these people are attempting to shut up anyone who rejects their standards.  It strikes me that only people who know they are standing on shifting sand will do this.

A New Way of Looking at Relationship Dynamics Part I

The following was written by Camille 11325 at Red Pill Women.  It’s a new idea that explains a whole lot in women’s different reactions to certain red pill theories.  For the women reading, before you get to the part in the article where it breaks down your combination, figure it out for yourself.  Don’t read the combinations and apply it to yourself that way.  Know what it is before hand.  If you go in just reading the descriptions, it is far too easy to think one is “good” and one is “bad” and assign yourself the good one to save your ego and to be part of the good group.  This is like the alpha and beta in men.  One is not good and one is not bad.  These things just are.  If you can’t be honest with yourself about where you are beginning, you will not be able to accurately see where you need to go.


There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding dominance, submission, and RPW. Many unacquainted with our subreddit assume that all RPW are 1950’s housewife wannabes, or that we are interested in the plate-spinning, alpha archetype that TRP endorses. Others write us off as a group of women in denial about our sexual kinks, and completely ignore the evidence to the contrary. Even within the sub, there is confusion when it comes to explaining the RPW relationship model, and what type of man is ideal. 

After several enlightening conversations with /u/_wingnut_ I have created a system to describe various relationship models and dynamics from an RPW perspective. A streamlined set of terms to discuss this subject is a necessary step, and hopefully this post will lead to further exploration of similar topics within RPW. 

A basic understanding of RP concepts and vocabulary is a prerequisite for this post, so please consult the FAQ, Wiki, and/or top posts if necessary. Please note that this entire post is limited to describing the personalities of average and attractive men (5+ on the SMV scale), and of course, these ideas are generalisations that can be applied to most people, not ironclad universal laws. There will also be a follow up post that explores these ideas more, this is merely an introduction. Please be honest when assessing yourself based on the criteria outlined below, there are many different RPW dynamics, and they all have the potential to be equally harmonious.

Our disposition, mindset, and personality, all have a profound effect on the types of relationships we thrive in. A couple doesn’t need to be identical to have a strong marriage, but they certainly must have the right balance of traits to make them compatible. There are two important characteristics that must be taken into account: the dominance level of each person, as well as the woman’s dominance threshold. 

Your “Dominance Level” (DL) measures your natural tendency to assume the lead, exercise authority in interactions, and display other alpha male traits. For the purposes of this post I will use a scale of 1 – 10 to discuss DL, with 10 representing the maximum possible level of dominance one can have. A “1” on the scale represents pure beta, not omega characteristics, as we are only discussing attractive men here. The “Dominance Threshold”indicates how dominant your man has to be in order for you to feel attraction, commitment, and love. I will also be using the 1-10 dominance scale when referring to the dominance threshold. For the purposes of this discussion it is assumed that all women have a range of 0-2 points past their threshold where attraction is possible, and I think this is in line with reality. The threshold is the minimum but most women who prefer a 5.5/10 would not be comfortable with an 8 or higher. 

How are dominance levels expressed in each gender?

  • Men who are lower in dominance (1-5.4 on the DL scale) have a higher ratio of beta traits in comparison to alpha traits. At the lowest end of the spectrum they can be easygoing, empathetic, gentle, and considerate. They can also be sensitive, emotional, unconfident, indecisive, and soft. The 3.5s-5.4s exhibit more alpha traits but their nature is that of a “greater beta”. These men are able to provide comfort and leadership as required in a relationship. 
  • High dominance men (5.5-10 on the DL scale) have a higher ratio of alpha traits in comparison to beta traits. There are many types of alpha men: apex, renegade, patriarchal, criminal, corporate, political, etc. and they all have different characteristics that allow them to succeed and take charge in their respective environments. One thing they all have in common is an immense amount of masculinity, which can be both good and bad. The 5.5 – 7.9s are “lesser alphas”, similar to greater betas, only they provide less comfort and their personalities are less feminine. 8 – 10s have the highest amounts of Dark Triad traits, and are the rarest group of men. 
  • Women who are low dominance are non confrontational, empathetic, sensitive, and accommodating. In essence, they are feminine, not only with their men but in their everyday lives, automatically. They can be doormats, passive, weak, and insecure if they do not learn how to prioritise themselves first instead of others.
  • High Dominance Women are more confident, driven, assertive, and ambitious but this is a result of being more masculinised. This also makes them more argumentative, self serving, and insubordinate. Some women like to think of themselves as “alpha women” but this is a myth, not an RP concept. Feminists have pushed the idea that male characteristics and virtues are a universal ideal that all should strive for so women are encouraged to be high dominance. Many who come to RPW find that with the right man they actually prefer not having all of the control. To be clear, a woman with a DL of “10” is not as dominant as a man who ranks at “10”. There are two separate scales. 

How are dominance thresholds expressed in women?

  • Women with low dominance thresholds require less alpha, more beta in their relationships. This means more affection and softness, more obvious and frequent displays of love and care. These women are repelled by or afraid of extreme displays of male aggression, anger, or arrogance. They are suited for betas and greater betas. 
  • Women with high dominance thresholds require more alpha, less beta. They crave arousal, displays of power, raw masculinity, etc. from their man and cannot tolerate emotional sensitivity, pedestalization, uncertainty, weakness, or other beta traits in excess. They’re perfect mates for all types of alphas. 
  • When a man’s DL is way too low for a woman, she reacts with disgust or infantilisation. If it is merely a point or two lower you’ll see shit tests. If it’s slightly too high, she’ll comfort test, and when it’s way too high she’ll be afraid. This applies to all women regardless of their threshold. 

Taking the 4 categories into account (low/high DL, low/high threshold) there are 8 possible relationship combinations. Not all are optimal or RP but all of the dynamics exist in the real world. My hope is that we can use these labels within the subreddit in our discussions and the advice we give. In the IRC we came up with an easy way to refer to each dynamic with just 3 letters, all of which are either H or L. The first letter establishes the man’s dominance level, the second the woman’s, and then the third is for her dominance threshold. So a high dominance man with a low dominance woman, who has a high threshold, would be described as HLH. A low dominance man with a low dominance woman, who has a low dominance threshold, would be LLL. 

Now onto an overview of the dynamics, which will be described from the female point of view. They are ordered from least potential to be RP to most potential to be RP, with 3 equally RP dynamics, there is not one universally ideal dynamic. Please keep in mind that these descriptions are all generalisations of what is most likely to happen, there are always exceptions. 

  • High dominance man, high dominance/low threshold woman (HHL) – she vies for dominance and feels little to no comfort or security. Possible violence as she is likely to stir up trouble by constantly challenging her man.
  • High man, low/low woman (HLL) – she needs more beta comfort and can’t stay motivated when feeling unloved. Her man doesn’t know how to interact w/ her, and may find her useless or overly sensitive. She feels he is mean or scary. There is also a strong chance of violence in this relationship which only further discourages the LL woman from being her best and creates a cycle where the man is constantly punishing her.
  • Low man, high/high woman (LHH) – she walks all over him or bosses around. This is a very common dynamic as it is what usually happens when a woman is out of the CC riding/AF phase and has settled for her beta bucks. 
  • Low man, low/high woman (LLH) – she is repulsed and/or can’t respect him, wishes he was more dominant. This is one of the most common dynamics when women come to rpw for advice. Whenever you see a post where the OP asks: “How can I get my main to be the captain” or says “I tried captain/first mate but he’s not taking the lead” then you know it’s an LLH situation. 
  • Low man, high/low woman (LHL) – a lot of feminist and “equal” relationships are like this, and they can work, and people can be happy in them. But there is a greater chance that the woman walks all over the man and disrespects him and he just puts up with it. 
  • High man, high/high woman (HHH) – potential to be RP if the woman respects the man. Women in these relationships may be masculinised/male brained by nature but they are able to achieve psychological femininity within their relationships and defer to their men. “Captain and First Mate” as described by RPW is not an adequate description of the dynamics in HHH relationships. /u/_wingnut_ (who is in an HHH relationship herself) prefers to think of this pairing as “Zod and Ursa”, or “Magneto and Mystique”.
  • High man, low/high woman (HLH) – potential to be RPW and is a classic fantasy, but not seen as much in reality. The woman is naturally submissive and aware of it. She is drawn to a dominant man and requires power over her. There is a strong sense of ownership and there can also be a paternalistic element to the dynamic. A lot of women who would thrive in HLH relationships get mistaken for and/or wrapped up in bdsm communities. Again, “Captain and First Mate” does not fit, I personally use “supervillain/hot sidekick” to describe my HLH dynamic w/ M, but the best analogy for your relationship is dependent on the type of alpha your man is. 
  • Low man, low/low woman (LLL) – this is the most common both in and out of the subreddit. Contrary to what many may assume, most rpw are interested in or already with greater betas! When done right, these relationships are the epitome of the captain and first mate concept. The man leads and the woman occupies the traditional female role, but it may not feel like submission or deferment to her because of the lack of power imposed explicitly. 

Can you change your dominance level?

Yes! If you are a high dominance woman, you can become less controlling, argumentative, disobedient, etc. RPW is great for that. “Cultivating a Feminine Frame of Mind” (located on the sidebar) is a good place to start and it is applicable to all as it deals with psychological femininity. The Surrendered Wife may also apply depending on the preferences of your man. If you are low dominance, you can become more assertive if that is an area of weakness. However, men who want the traditional, RP relationships are not interested in women who do not listen to or respect them, so it’s important not to go too far in the other direction.

Can you change your dominance threshold?

Attraction is non negotiable. It’s important to be aware of and honest about your preferences and select a partner wisely. If you are in a marriage, RPW can help you with your behaviour and thought processes but it’s not likely that your actual nature as a person will change. Understanding how men think can help you become more comfortable with a man that has a DL way higher than your threshold. If you are with a man who’s DL is below your threshold RPW can help you with respect, loyalty, and all of the other issues that come with those dynamics. 

What can we do with this information?

Part 2 will explore these ideas more, especially the RP dynamics, and it will go into how to identify which dynamic you have if you aren’t sure. As mentioned earlier, this system will be a great way to have everyone on the same page when it comes to discussing relationships and giving advice.

We should all be aware of our biases, and our individual dominance levels and thresholds greatly affect the responses we leave about other people’s relationships. A lot of women with low dominance thresholds can’t understand masculine, dominant men, and that contributes to them advising women to leave their men in certain instances or worrying that something is abusive. The reverse also applies, women with high dominance thresholds are less able to wrap their heads around how other women can stay with and be attracted to low dominance men. It is important to be aware of our biases and work to overcome solipsism. It’s not about what we would do in their situation, but what they should do in their situation. Hopefully having the language to identify dynamics will help us all provide suggestions that work well with whatever dynamic a user is involved in. 

Thank you for reading, I hope this all made sense and was helpful! Let me know what questions you have and what things you want to see in Part 2 🙂

This is a unique idea and one I really wanted to share.  One note I wanted to make is I think many women’s dominance threshold’s are out of whack with what they would naturally tend towards.  We have been taught (many from birth) that masculinity is dangerous and bad and some women, who would have a high threshold would find masculine men attractive and then not understand why she does.  This would cause  confusion, among other things, to say the least.  Not to mention those who are low dominance threshold controlling so much of the narrative today.  They use their position to weaken masculinity and to shame women with high thresholds .

I have a lot of thoughts on this, but really I wanted to put it out there.  This wouldn’t be so much of a manosphere theory as it applies to women, but it might help men to better understand the women they are with.

For women, I think it can be invaluable.  If you can accurately assess yourself here and get your natural baseline it could open up your eyes to problems within your marriage and make it far easier to find and understand solutions.