Women Are Grown Children Who Need A Master

From Open Letter To American Men About Women, Love & Power, a man named Tom writes to the author:

I love my wife very much but in doing so I’ve become perhaps her servant (housework, childcare, sex) and less her man. I’ve always wondered that perhaps being a loving and stronger man would be better for her. Reaching to what you are perhaps suggesting is deep down her desire for a real man.

My problem has been that she is an alpha, and I love her even though I’m tired of the power struggle. I don’t want to go about this like I’m breaking in a horse. I don’t want to win every time. I want a partner.

But I feel like my actions of love are perhaps enabling. Then I feel like husbands I know who aren’t serving so much or some that are real ‘dicks’ have their wives clinging to them, and it sounds like the sex is good. Because although they might err on the side of being a jerk, if their firmness is demanding, respect seems to drive their woman closer.

I just wonder if she’d be happier if I lovingly put my foot down. I know how to do that with my kids, and I know they’re better for it. I wonder if that’s what I need to do for my wife, but then it seems like I’m treating her like a child. I just don’t know!

Here’s my advice to Tom and other men in the same quandary –

The thought that you should find an equal partner in a woman is arising from your idealistic conditioning. The notion that men and women are or should be equals – in marriage or otherwise – could not be more faulty.

Women are, generally speaking, physically weaker, intellectually poorer, and mentally unstable when compared to men.

Women are not equal to men, nor do they want to be treated as such. They won’t say it, but they reveal it all the time through sexual dynamics.

It’s in the nature of woman to be subservient to a dominant man. A dominant woman can’t be a happy woman.

A damaged woman (i.e. a woman plagued with feminist ideology) who can’t be tamed by a dominant man can’t give herself a happy marriage.

Don’t go by what women say, go by what they do. Tom has already observed that the husbands who are ‘dicks’ are happier in their marriage. What he needs to be certain about is that their wives too are happier.

Tom would benefit from reading this article. Just keep in mind one thing that the linked article is a guide to getting women’s love in the short term. It correctly describes women’s nature. However, when it comes to long term relationships and marriage, the right mix of assholery and niceness shifts towards more niceness and less assholery.

That said, a man must always be assertive and dominant.

In the context of marriage, I agree with Suzanne Venker where she says this:

Being dominant does not mean being a you-know-what. It is not the same thing as being domineering. What conveys dominance, notes Townsend, are three things: confidence, self-assurance and assertiveness. It is true most women do not want a domineering man, but neither do they want a man they can dominate.


What they’re looking for when they do this is a man who’ll provide and protect and assert himself—in other words, be a man in the traditional sense of the word—but who’s also good, kind (not nice, kind) and willing to change diapers and do dishes. She wants, in other words, a saint with balls. When a man becomes too accommodating, as in Tom’s case above, he loses his manhood. And that’s when the relationship begins to deteriorate.

Lastly, I will say this: In a happy marriage the man raises an additional child who is his wife, for women are grown children – not equals or partners – who need a master.

Nuggets On Women’s Need For Dominance

“Both men and women — at least normal, sexually dimorphic men and women and not bitter androgynous blobs — would feel sexually aroused by this photo. […] If you could only know one thing about women, this photo, and how men and women react differently to its stimuli, is sufficient to guide you through life.” (Courtesy: CH)
Happiest woman is who is slave to a dominant alpha male. And that is the only way a woman is contented in life.

Serving an alpha male and mother his offspring is the purpose of woman’s life. Ironically, most women don’t realize it themselves.

Feminist women feel miserable and forever discontented because they are stripped of the female imperative. (Feminist men are women with penes.)

In her heart of hearts a woman does not want to be free. Dependency on a strong male is true inclination of the female nature.

If one’s woman rebels against one’s dominance, that means one is not alpha enough for her. The solution for the man is not to give up dominance, but to develop alpha characteristics.

Give up your dominance and you might as well give up on the woman’s love. Nothing repels a woman more than a dutiful gentleman.

Squander your love on a woman like a fool and watch her love vanish. Give your love sparingly and as favor and watch her love for you grow.

Be the kind of nice man the woman says you should be and get punished with her apathy. Give her dominance she secretly craves and rule her heart like a king.

A woman needs a ruler, not a lover. Love is a feminine emotion. Loving is woman’s job, not man’s.

A man’s job is to understand a woman for her, and master her. Tame her like one tames a dog. The reward is her unrelenting love.

The man who rejects this wisdom (aka The Red Pill) is victim of the contemporary media brainwashing. Such a man will never taste a woman’s true passionate love.

A Woman’s Need To “Find Herself” Explained

Only a woman would say such a thing as she needs to find herself. It’s a code for saying I don’t want responsibilities and burdens of relationship, family, or society.

A woman who needs to find herself would be most selfish, irresponsible, and narcissistic like a child. By irresponsible I mean when she realizes that she is causing emotional hurt to the people around by her behavior, instead of changing her behavior she will only think about herself and justify her cruel whims by saying she can’t help it and that she needs to find herself and will want to break away to freedom. She doesn’t know compromise which is the first thing an adult human should know.

For a woman in relationship with a man, the phenomenon of need for self discovery occurs when the woman, owing to her hypergamous nature, viscerally feels that she is not with the best man she could get. She can not rationally justify to herself why she needs to alienate the man she is with, yet she doesn’t feel at home with the man who is perhaps too beta to satisfy the animal inside her. She is in conflict which she can only explain by saying she needs to find herself – which means she doesn’t know what she wants yet. It is true, because reason says she is with a good man, but the animal inside her feels deprived, and therefore she is not happy and can’t decide what she wants. The need for self discovery makes the childishness and emotional cruelty on her part okay.

A woman who isn’t in a relationship and is on a journey of self discovery is really on a journey to find the best alpha male mate which mostly involves a lot of sleeping around for trial and error. Consciously she may not be aware of the fact that she is looking for a mate who will hold down the animal inside her. In her awareness she is only “experiencing life till she finds herself”. It’s about satisfying the animal nature by finding a man to feel at home with. The purpose of human existence is to spread one’s genes by mating with the best options, after all. We are not designed to feel satisfied if not by serving the biological purpose.

So in her awareness she wants to experience life till she finds herself. Except that it is an impossible quest. Because she won’t find herself till she finds “the man”, and no man can satisfy the animal inside a woman forever. That is because we don’t live animalistic lives. A man’s heart would soften once in love, and alpha would turn beta, if slightly. A callous alpha man who doesn’t turn beta after taking on a woman may keep her attraction up for longer, but there is no guarantee that her hypergamy won’t create the conflict in her and force her to feel that she still needs to find herself. Too much alphaness can also trigger this when she feels she can’t settle down with the man.

How is a man to know the subtle balance of alpha and betaness forever when the woman’s need for it itself varies based on her age and even her menstrual cycle? Hence, there is no guarantee that any woman will be satisfied always. And the moment she is not satisfied, she will cease to feel at home and will want to discover or re-discover herself.

A woman raised by religious and traditional values is taught the virtue of compromise instead of self discovery. An independent modern woman is taught that self discovery is important above all. What is sad here is that there is no Self to be discovered.

Run away from a woman who says she is on a quest to find herself.

The Power Of Bold Woman At Workplace

I have a hypothesis based on my experience about bold women at workplace. It is this: A bold woman in middle management would be far, far more effective than her male counterparts.

By bold woman I mean a woman with mannerisms of a man. A woman who is manly and outspoken, who swears at work like men do in casual settings, who doesn’t hesitate before insulting a subordinate for their performance related or other issues.

A woman with a bunch of qualities described above would be exceptionally successful as manager. It would be nearly impossible for a male counterpart to compete with her for growth in the organization.

The reason for this has to do with women having free pass in a lot of things in the society. One of those things is behaving unprofessionally at work. I’ll also break down the free pass in a bit.

Some examples of women’s free pass: In many offices, women can wear a top that shows their cleavage but men wearing a t-shirt would be considered unprofessional dressing. There are formal knee length skirts, but there is no such thing as formal shorts for men. A man who stares at a woman at work would be terminated from employment for that – and I have seen that happening – but a woman staring at men would face zero consequences. It’s not even a concern worth mentioning.

I mentioned the above examples to show that there are double standards in viewing men and women at work and in the society at large.

These double standards that create the free pass for women have their roots in biology, and they are justified. The point of this article is not to complain about or dispute the double standards.

The so-called “double standard” – or different ways of judging men and women’s behaviors – can not be changed nor does it need to be. Because it is biologically rooted, and for a reason. The problem arises, however, when we are forced to accept the view that men and women are equal and hence it’s okay for them to behave the same way. This view forced upon our conscience creates a confused psyche which combined with biologically rooted double standard then views men who swear as rude and unprofessional but takes kinder and amused view of a woman displaying the same behavior. This is how the free pass for women arises. And when the narrative of women empowerment is incorporated in that psyche it gives the bold woman a rather positive aura.

Even when she swears at a subordinate while reprimanding them, she would not come off as offensive, if at all, as a man doing the same. Moreover, a man can’t  reprimand a female subordinate without a risk of her taking offense and possible HR action; but a female manager can use any language towards a man without any fear because most men are used to the bad language.

It is because of the confused psyche that if a man displays boldness – in language and manners – at work, he will be considered unprofessional. But a women who is bold in the same way would at best be considered empowered, at worst would arouse amusement. Yes, by applying rational thought one would agree that the woman is being unprofessional, but one’s reactions are seldom based on rational thought. Therefore, the bold woman would not elicit the same negative reaction as the bold man would while getting the job done.

This gives bold women great power over their subordinates, influence over their peers, and marked advantage over their male counterparts, making them unusually effective in management positions.

This is of course generally speaking and there can be exceptions. I would love to know observations of other people on this.

Gender Is Not Socially Constructed

One of the reasons why feminists should not hold the reins of the society is that they are not capable of seeing truth. They don’t understand what common sense tells us. They even reject scientific studies if they run contrary to what they want to believe.

Here’s a story of a feminist mother who is upset because her little girl loves pink color and dolls, and wishes she was into toy cars instead.

A few days ago, she told me that boys can’t wear dresses. Surprised, I told her that anyone can wear whatever they want. It made no difference: she was convinced that this was the rule and I was wrong.

Last week, when she asked me to be the prince and rescue her from the monster, I suggested she rescue me instead.

She looked at me like I had lost my mind. At this point I was rolling around on the floor crying ‘Help! I’ve fallen off my horse!’ Unmoved, she asked when we were getting married.

I’m a feminist, and I hate it when people decide a car is a toy for a boy, or a fairy outfit is for a girl. People should be able to like whatever they want and dress however they want.

Apparently, she doesn’t understand that her three-year-old likes girly stuff not because the society has decided for her to like girly stuff, but because biologically she’s a female sex. Her likes, preferences and mannerisms are written in her genes.

The differences in men and women are real, measurable biological differences. Men and women are different in their physical strength, emotional responses, sexual behavior, rational capacity, life preferences and on numerous other counts. Owing to the innate biological differences men and women fit different roles in the society and receive different treatment. Thus, gender is not socially constructed but is genetic, with only small behavioral variations across different cultures.

She doesn’t like toy cars and never will.

Why Women Show More Skin Than Men


Women who dress to show skin make themselves vulnerable to rape or sexual assault, and more often than not face harassment in the form of catcalls or at the very least hungry stares from men. Men on the other hand are not vulnerable in this way. Hence traditionally there have been no restrictions on how men dress and express themselves, but on women there have been restrictions.

Feminists want to point to these facts about men and women and cry inequality and differential treatment to genders.

They question, why women can’t wear what men can, and do what men do. Why women are treated differently. Then they answer it by labelling the society as “misogynistic” and “patriarchal”, or calling it the “man’s world”. It is a wrong answer to the ill-considered question.

The question is ill-considered because it is only externally directed and completely lacks internal self-scrutiny on part of the feminists.

I suggest a different question. Instead of asking why women can’t wear what they want to wear (which is clothes that show skin) and be as safe as men, we should be asking why women want to show skin.

Thinking upon this question would give us different answers than “misogyny” or “patriarchy”.

Anyone would agree that women show more skin than men. They wear short skirts, body tight jeans and transparent shirts, clothes with slits in strategic places, deep neck and sleeveless blouses. Hell, the clothing articles that look like men’s underwear are the norm for women’s casual wear.


There is no debate on this. It is settled that women are severely obsessed with dressing to show skin.

In the former question – why women are treated differently than men – the underlying assumption must be that men and women are the same, and the differences are only anatomical. For if it is accepted that men and women are different in major ways then the difference in their treatment is explained already. Feminists don’t want to admit that men and women are fundamentally different in their biology, and consequently they behave and respond very differently to various social stimuli and that may be the reason why they are expected to obey different norms or are treated differently.

Hence the different question that I suggest. Pondering over why women want to show more, way more skin than men would reveal the ways in which women are different than men.

If we look at the world as a sexual marketplace, women’s position is that of the seller, for they possess the resource called sex; and men’s position is that of the buyer, for they exchange their commitment and wealth to gain access to sex. It is sexual economics [1].

Think about it. Men are always ready for sex, but women will not give sex to just any man, and certainly will not initiate it. Men spend money and resources trying to woo a woman. Women wait for a worthy man before they decide to have sex. Most women expect commitment before giving sex to a man, whereas men love the sex free of commitment.

Thus, women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of commitment. The easier and cheaper the sex, happier the men. Not so with women. Hence, more men than women would be ready for a one-night-stand.

Coming back to the point, women are the sellers in the sexual marketplace, and men are the buyers.

A woman’s urge to show skin is her “marketing strategy” to attract more men so that she has a larger pool of potential mates to choose the worthy one from to trade sex with. It does not matter whether the woman is single or in a relationship or married. Subconsciously, the forces are always active. Fundamentally, life is about men and women looking to procreate. The society and everything in it is immaterial in the nature’s scheme. Women would always display behavior that puts them in better bargaining position vis-a-vis potential mates in men.

This explains why men don’t wear cosmetics or show skin like women. They don’t have to. Men’s strategy to prove their worthiness to women is displaying masculine behavior and showing off wealth, not their bare body.

Now imagine a store where expensive and most attractive items are kept on display to lure more buyers. Is the store running the risk of getting robbed? Hell, yes.

Men’s stares are akin to window shopping (which might involve scheming to rob) in the sexual marketplace, and rape is robbery of sexual resource that a woman possesses.

Don’t want to be harassed or assaulted? Well, then don’t showcase your sexuality. It is not “victim blaming” but sensible word of caution. This is the reason why all traditional cultures broadly placed restrictions on women’s sexual expression.

The same line of thinking can be applied to understanding “discrimination” between the genders in many other areas. Drinking for example. Drinking is bad for both men and women. But in traditional cultures there is stronger stigma against women drinking than men. One of the reasons is because when a woman would lose consciousness as a result of drinking she stands to lose her resource. If the store keeper passes out with the doors open, the store would be robbed. Men are in no similar position. If they lose consciousness, the most they stand to be robbed of is the wealth that is on them at that time. What is more harmful and psychologically damaging: Getting robbed of little wealth, or getting robbed of sex (rape)?

Differences in men and women are the facts of biology. A mature and wise society would know the limit of blame that can be placed on men for acting according to their nature. Moralizing can help to an extent but it can not change people completely. And importantly, moralizing should be for both men and women.

Too much moralizing of men while allowing everything to women on the name of equality, and expecting the same treatment to both genders is trying to bend the nature which would destabilize the society by creating externalities and perverse behavior in the sexes.

1. Sexual Economics is a groundbreaking and vastly illuminating theory by Roy F. Baumeister.

Free Pass to Vaginas, Punishment to Penises

A 12-year-old student (boy) gets suspended form school for staring, yes staring, at another student (girl) in a staring game.

I can’t believe this is happening in the same world I live in. A 12-year-old boy. For staring. C’mon!

From Fox19:

A 12-year-old boy is suspended from school for ‘staring’ at another student. It happened in September of 2014 at St. Gabriel Consolidated School in Glendale. The parents filed suit in Hamilton County Common Pleas court to try and get the suspension erased claiming the school didn’t give their son due process.

A Judge denied the claim, which means as of now the suspension of the 12-year-old stands. “The perception is he intimidated her,” said Candice Tolbert, his mother.

The boy also wrote an apology letter that read: “I never knew she was scared because she was laughing.” It also read, “I understand I done the wrong thing that will never happen again. I will start to think before I do so I am not in this situation.”

Candice Tolbert, mother of the boy, says in the interview: “The same girl that accused my son of this act of perception of intimidation, aggressively poured milk on someone else’s lunch. When she did that there was no penalties for that. She received nothing for that.”

That’s called free pass to vaginas, even when they are at fault; and punishment to penises, even when they are innocent.

We are surely moving towards the feminist utopia.