For Real Love to Emerge, Romantic Love Must Die – Part III
We’ve arrived at the third and final part of my series on Red Pill Relationships. To recap what I have covered so far, step one asserted that romantic, gynocentric love rested on a foundation of the mental disability that comes with infatuation; that romantic love as a pretext for pair-bonding imposes onerous double standards on men, wildly unrealistic expectations in women and is more likely to result in relationship failure and injury than in a healthy, durable relationship.
I also established that inviting the state to regulate this kind of dysfunctional attachment, aka marriage, is risking disaster, particularly for men.
Step two asserted the need for men to embrace the calculus required to screen out undesirable women; to see that screening as a healthy shift away from gynocentrism, toward a consciousness that gives primacy to personal well-being.
I also established that said screening reduces the pool of suitable women drastically. Call it extreme vetting. And again, a reminder. We aren’t looking for unicorns. Non-gynocentric women are even scarcer than non-gynocentric men, which is to say their existence is debatable.
We are simply talking about being able to spot the minority of women who are trainable; women with the capacity to adapt to non-gynocentric expectations in a relationship. Those women do exist, even if they aren’t low hanging fruit.
I spotted a comment recently by a woman on one of my YouTube videos. She said she did not agree with everything I said but that she followed my content closely and found it useful in being a better girlfriend. I take that as a supreme compliment, and as evidence supporting my conclusions here.
Her comment spoke to something else, if you will permit me the digression. For years now I’ve seen an abundance of opinion in Red Pill material that appears to narrow men’s state of being to two options. They assert that men can either be an obsequious cuck, ever a step-n-fetch, subject to women’s caprice. Or, they can live life an insulated monk, shielded by abstinence and isolation from women’s gynocentric control.
It’s not that the choice of going monk is a problem, should a man consciously choose that path. It’s perfectly sensible for some. It’s the false dichotomy to which I take exception; the idea that a man must keep a woman entirely at bay lest he be pinned under her stiletto. It’s the notion that men are, by nature, at the mercy of women. That isn’t Red Pill Philosophy in action. It is instead is the powerless wailing of defeated men who have abdicated all personal accountability for their values and boundaries.
This is, as it turns out, not so much a digression as a segue to step 3 of my suggestions.
And that brings us to step three, which is ABT. Always be training.
The reason for that is simple enough. Let’s say you have performed due diligence in screening. You have found a candidate. She has a job and doesn’t mind paying her own way. Let’s say in fact that she insists on carrying her own weight financially in the relationship. She is personally secure. She doesn’t whine and she doesn’t damsel or manipulate with sex or emotions.
That alone is a rare find, like plucking a gemstone out of a gravel pit. And it is a great place to start, but what you will find at the end of the day is that she is still just as conditioned to gynocentric privilege as every other woman you have known. And in all likelihood she will eventually walk the relationship to a gynocentric crossroad.
She will be subtler about it. Her displays of childish womanhood will be less overt and garish than most of her counterparts, but you can bet your ass it will happen. There is no such thing as a woman in this culture who does not have “me, me, me,” in her vocabulary, even if she self-regulates with unusual skill. It is woven into their DNA, and in ours to accept and enable it.
Once presumptive gynocentrism finds a receptive home in a relationship, it will expand and intensify. Eventually, it will take over.
If you allow it.
You must remember that this culture and arguably this species hardwires gynocentric expectations in women; so much so that women tend to measure their personal worth in terms of sexual power over men. Ironically, though, the degree of unchallenged sexual power over men that women have is inversely proportional to their happiness. The more gynocentric power they wield over men, the less happy they tend to be. Sorry folks, I don’t make the rules. I just report on them.
Even women raised by good fathers, with appreciable humility and otherwise sound values are included in that proposition. Sooner or later, the gynocentric tendency will fuel her quest for dominance and control in the relationship.
Of course, there are other factors, like the rules (and damage) we all bring with us from our families of origin; factors that will foment struggles for control from both partners once infatuation fades – each person in the relationship vying with the other to recreate the familial. Such is the lot of all relationships.
In healthy (Red Pill) relationships, those classic struggles can eventually be ameliorated with learned compromise and compassion. It is much harder in gynocentric relationships where the woman’s sense of entitlement and privilege precludes her from the empathy required to form a mature bond.
It is important to mention this because the traditional power struggles that couples face are at once separate from the struggle against gynocentrism, and a game-changing part it. Gynocentrism gives her the absolute edge in the traditional power struggle. She will use damseling, sexual blackmail, threats of abandonment and challenges to your manhood to prevail. That manipulative gynocentrism, unchecked, is a trump card. Which is to say that a gynocentric relationship is, by its very nature, an abusive relationship.
Mind you, the point here is not for you to use anti-gynocentrism to “win” relationship power struggles. After all, if your aim is to win at every turn regardless of what is fair or proper, then how much different are you than the women you’ve grown wary (and weary) of? Creating a gynocentric boogeyman every time you feel potential conflict isn’t going to serve you or the relationship. It’s just going to turn you into the monster you are trying to fight. That monster is real enough without help or embellishment from you.
Consider this, though. We coined the term “When Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy,” to describe how women typically win control. The term radiates gynocentrism. When “Momma” has this much control, it’s serve or suffer. That includes everyone. Children are no more exempt than men. You either make a woman happy, or you pay. That is what passes for normal in this world.
That diamond in the rough you found? The one who cheerfully pays her way and takes the occasional no with some grace and dignity? Well, she is more than capable of the exact same behavior if the relationship has room for her latent gynocentrism to blossom. Whether its conscious on her part makes no difference at all. Sooner or later it will emerge, and if you are not prepared to train her out of it, it will consume the relationship and possibly you with it.
And this brings me to an unavoidable part of this series; a pivotal point on training. When you are going up against gynocentrism in a woman, or a man for that matter, you are the only adult in the room. Get that into your head and let it steep there indefinitely. In her gynocentric mode, she is not an adult in waiting. She isn’t one pithy line from you away from instant maturity. She’s a child, and a petulant, incredibly destructive one at that.
That’s the point. Gynocentrism is the enabling credo of an indulgent childhood. It is not rational. It is not healthy. It does not know limits, or propriety or even common sense – and very, very importantly, it doesn’t want to. Ever. It is a child screeching for something it wants without regard to fairness or consequence, and it will only react to your bargaining and reasoning with more childishness.
This is where you can do some good with the right approach. And it is where we need to remember one of the key lessons from part one. Much of this work is about an evolution in your self-perception. You don’t buy into romantic love and you don’t invest yourself in attracting women near as much as you do in your ability to screen out the wrong ones. Those two changes are not just in behavior, but in identity. It’s not just what you do, it’s who you are. If you are trying to fake it, you are going to fail.
The same kind of shift in identity is essential to take on the task of training. It means surrendering the days when you were a frustrated guy trying to reason with his sweetheart so her can feel like he won the fight, or even to just get back into her good graces. In the face of gynocentric control, you shift into the role of dispassionate disciplinarian. Your lessons from screening kick in and you take on the task of responsibly dispensing sufficient pain to send the message that you won’t bargain with a child.
I imagine that some of the snowflakes who scour my material for incriminating quotes just started melting at that one. However, there is really no other way to put it. Training is about punishment and reward. That is as simple as knowing that a petulant child’s experience with a boundaried, stable adult is a painful one. This is not about being sadistic or cruel. Quite the opposite. It is just operating with the knowledge and rejecting gynocentrism is a painful experience for the average woman. It will frequently appear cruel and unjust to them, because being just is painful. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Think of it this way, if you are a male supporter of my work, you’ve probably been trained by women, with the use of pain, to be exactly where you are now. By using abusive forms of control, most women train men to either become lapdogs, or to say fuck that and fuck you. Sometimes it takes years. Sometimes decades. But there is no arguing that it is training.
As I have said before, even in more healthy circumstances, we all train each other in how we are treated. You will either train a woman in how to treat you with boundaries and solid values, or by being a doormat. Either way, she will get the picture of who you are and act accordingly.
To get more to the point of what I am talking about here, let’s pretend for a moment. Imagine that you have been dating someone long enough to be serious. You are at a social gathering with a group mostly comprised of her friends. And now imagine, as proof to her friends that she says something personally belittling to you in front of the crowd. It is not typical for her to do anything like that. After all, she is your diamond in the rough. She’s the one that legitimately passed screening, and this is the first time you’ve seen her act this way.
Now imagine the look on her face as you stand up and say, “You embarrass yourself,” then walk out on her in front of all her friends.
Next, imagine that you see her again and she demands to talk about what happened. Because you know, women like to talk about things. Now imagine her hearing you say calmly that the only thing you are interested in is a sincere apology, an explanation for her behavior and some reasonable assurances that there won’t be a repeat.
Imagine her face again when she realizes you’re dead serious, because you walked out the door again the moment she tested your resolve.
Now imagine again that you stay completely and totally unplugged till she wakes up and smells the coffee. You stay that way as she claims you’re manipulating her, as she claims that you are pouting and acting like a child. And she will. Women are perfectly capable of acting like three-year old’s and then telling you that you are childish one if you disapprove. Gynocentrism is always on the ready to add two and two to get five.
At any rate, you hold your ground till she caves to the truth or exits the relationship. You refuse to participate in life with her. You don’t kiss, fuck, talk, sleep or even share a meal with her till she grows up and faces the problem like an adult.
And that is this whole series in a nutshell. The entire enchilada. Gynocentrism is the abuse of men, particularly in relationship life. By refusing to be abused; by cultivating non-gynocentric attachment with women, by rejecting the role of a vassal and by practicing a healthy boundary — that you don’t ever try to reason or bargain with children masquerading as adults — you do two key things on your own behalf.
One, you quietly, and without any need for drama, force her hand to either change or leave. As long as you are willing to live with either choice over tolerating her abuse, then you can’t lose. Mind you, you can’t fake this stuff. If you are a man who will tolerate gynocentrism (abuse), abuse is what you will get, for which, of course, you only have yourself to blame.
This applies to almost any scenario you can imagine. Gynocentrism takes on many faces in a relationship. Most often it is the pressure to do everything her way, which is to say that what she needs and wants comes first. Or, more directly, you come in last, every time.
Sometimes it can be a bit challenging. After all, what is the difference between just wanting your way in a particular instance vs wanting your way because of gynocentric privilege? I can’t tell for sure in every case, but I look at gynocentrism like pornography. It’s can be very hard to define, but I damn well know it when I see it. I recommend trusting your eyes and your instincts way over any doubts. You are still, even at your Red Pill best, more likely to overlook gynocentrism than create it where it does not exist.
Finally, for you to succeed at training, the first and every other encounter with her bald gynocentrism is that it results in her being reminded that you don’t have any tolerance for it, and that the one and only way she can move forward with you is by suiting up in her big girl panties and being a responsible adult. After all, when it gets down to brass tacks, refusing to be controlled by gynocentrism is exactly analogous to refusing to be bullied. There are very few unhealthy ways to put an end to that.
It’s a necessarily painful strategy, but while the pain is intentional, it is not inflicted maliciously. The point is, if you have adequately screened, you are dealing with a woman who has some kind of moral compass. She is not trying to be a bully, even if she is doing a good job of it. Her conduct is mostly unconscious. The pain serves to make her conscious.
The problem with gynocentrism, and its cousin romantic love, is that it separates people, men and women alike, from their capacity for reason. It removes the direct pathway from a presenting problem to a values-based solution.
The purpose of the withdrawal, and the subsequent pain, is to reconnect her to her values. Her defensiveness will invariably slow that process down, but sooner or later, in dealing with the brick wall that you have become, she will either reconnect with her values, or get a connecting flight. There is literally nowhere else to go. Your job, in the event she opts to change course and do the right thing, is not to be a gloating asshole and rub her nose in it.
Remember, if she is opting for good values for the sake of your relationship, she is literally defying as much pre-programming as you did in swallowing Red Pills. Treating her supportively for doing that isn’t gynocentric, it’s basic human decency. And if you can’t do it, it’s because she didn’t screen well enough.
If you have paid attention to this series, that disappointing end game where she leaves is pretty much as bad as it will get. By not getting married, sharing finances, or cohabitating in a way that gives her legal reach into your life, you have insulated yourself from most of the consequences except for the grief you will feel when she leaves.
The only other possibility is an attack by damseling; faking a DV or sexual assault claim, or trashing you with lies to your friends or family. Then again, if you screened out all of the many varieties of garbage very early in the game, your chances of that are significantly less.
I wish you the best of luck in your efforts.