Subjugation vs Leadership

While reading Alpha Game, I noticed this gem from their newest interlocutor:

I do not hate humanity, only the parts that want women to be subjugated to men. Who uses excuses like women being "exempt from work" to keep them dependent on men. Who thinks only men should overtly make their mark on the world, while women remain shadows. Who thinks men should lead and women follow. Who thinks that the world should remain controlled and shaped by men while women just serve.

 Without question, I cannot speak for Vox and his commentators, nor should I even try: his blogs convinced me that the Red Pill can embrace a more sophisticated and civilized debate than the fecal-throwing cesspool that was Roissy (though I enjoyed Roissy quite a bit, I might add!)

However, I did want to interject on this point. Due to the continual progress of gender "equality," any suggestion of a strong male leadership role immediately draws out all manner of hyperbole from the opposition. Frothing feminists assume this means we want to overturn decades of gender legislation and subordinate women entirely to men, kick them out at all places of power, require them to have sex on demand, etc.

Again, I cannot speak for Vox(who advocates for the elimination of the female franchise to the best of my knowledge). I can vouch that the great number of men do not wish at all to erode the last decades of gender progress. The legion of Beta men support women in their quest for higher education, birth control, safe streets, and legitimate outs from abusive or failing relationships.

Take it from Roosh:

 I will concede that some aspects of feminism are just and proper. Women should have some say of how many children they want, if they want to work, and if they want to get married (and with whom). They should not be held as sex slaves against their will. They should be rewarded based on their skills and accomplishments just like a man should, and equal pay for equal work is reasonable.

Even the most staunch supports of Neo-Masculinity support, with full faith and strength, the legitimate demands for female agency. The constant protests from the Froth Brigade, that we DEMAND women stay at home, we REFUSE to pay women equal wages, we INSIST upon sex with no commitment, etc, are all hollow lies.

 What we support is a push-back on a culture obsessed with elevating the role of women and attacking men. Roosh details the end game of Feminism in a different post. A small excerpt follows:

1. Girl has no willpower and is 50 pounds overweight? Not her fault. She’s beautiful. Social constructs need to be changed.
2. Girl sluts around with 100 guys without condoms? Not her fault. She’s empowered and strong.
3. Girl is irresponsible with sex and has five abortions in her 20s? It’s her body and she can do whatever she wants. A fetus inside her is not a living entity.
4. Girl is making less money than men? The patriarchy is holding her down.
5. Girl gets drunk in a guy’s house and has sex with him? He took advantage of her. She was raped.
6. Girl studies stupid major in college and can’t get a job? The 1% owes her a marketing manager position. 

For brevity's sake, I will not post the entire list. However, for the average enlightened Beta, these constant attacks resemble a one-way Operation Barbarossa upon a disarmed, peaceful, loving Denmark. The aggression upon men who support the rights of women to vote, work, and live alone is simply unwarranted. This harkens back to my prior post, highlighting a continual process of moral elevation by men and furious rhetorical assault by bitter feminists.

The Neo-Masculine movement does not teach men to oppresses. It teaches men to ignore this unearned barrage and embrace their masculine energy. It teaches them the joys of being a man (which does not include higher wages), and how to properly command and lead in romantic relationships.

Why do I use the terms "command and lead"?

Because for the vast majority of couples, a commanding male role is a welcome addition. Men enjoy the leadership role and feel comfortable in it: women generally enjoy a strong, caring hand guiding them through the world. When the time for physical intimacy arrives, both man and women can fall into their instinctive dominant and submissive roles, which are the biological consequence of testosterone differences between biological sexes.

This does not mean sentencing women to the kitchen or chaining them to the bedroom. What works for each couple will vary from couple to couple, due to differences in upbringing, temperament, and condition. Obviously my Wife will not raise children at home, as we need to pay off her student debt and wish to live in an expensive neighborhood with top-rated schools. My Wife is generally not allowed to cook, because I enjoy the honest joy of preparing flavorful and healthy meals for my family.

However, I will set the schedule for the day, let her know in no uncertain times when I believe she is failing one of the chores assigned to her, decide all meals, dictate the family budget, and expect intimacy more or less upon demand.

These "privileges" are mostly one-way, with others reciprocating. Her privilege is having a caring lead that will save her from the stress of constant decision-making, shield her from emotions turbulent enough to capsize a carrier, and protect her from all harm. To her, this is a great deal. Since marrying me, her humor has greatly improved, her weight has down, her stress has dissipated. The sad times of trying to live her own life and struggling to get the garage door open or failing to change laundry in time are finished.

Obviously, not all relationships follow this model, nor should they. My sister-in-law has few employment opportunities and no student debt: of course she remains at home and raises children. Father cannot cook, so of course Mother Dearest prepared meals for the family (though Father always washed afterwards). My Father-In-Law traveled for work, thus my Mother-In-Law bore the brunt of all domestic chores.

The specifics change, but the Neo-Masculine movement wishes to establish a resounding harmony across all relationships, a chord of male leadership and female submission. And, again, this does not entail removing female choice in any fashion.

Our duty is to lead by example and display the benefits of these absolutely healthy, absolutely normal relationships. My Sunday began with a classic farmhouse breakfast, three over-easy eggs cooked in rich bacon drippings. After that, I finished up this post. My Wife wanted some stimulation, so I threw her on the bed and we tickled each other for ten or so minutes (not everything is about sex). |Then I led her to the ellipticial and told her she should continue her exercise routine.

She is still a doctor, she is still employed, she is neither barefoot nor pregnant.

That's what Neo-Masculinity promises men or women.

Here's what feminists promise you:

That paycheck? That means women don't have to keep themselves attractive to and submit to a man. Despite you being into it; submission, to most, equals the death of the human spirit - that spirit that is supposed to take life by the throat and challenge it - to make what one can of it oneself.

You might be happy living on your knees, most of us would rather risk die standing.

Romanticizing much? Here is what they actually deliver:

“College is nothing more than a baby-sitting service. These students are totally unprepared for the real world. The reality for women who want to work in PR is that they are going to be working with 24 catty [women] who will backstab and compete with them. No one will say thank you. You will eat lunch at 5 p.m. It sucks and it’s hard work."

 Does that sound like anything besides living on your knees? Anything besides submission? Women have advanced, but they collectively exchanged the chains of domestic servitude for the intoxicating high of consumer goods and hollow serial monogamy, and find that neither can fill the gaping hole permanently etched into the human soul.

Neo-Masculinity will deliver men and society perfectly suited for such a yearning, and it will not be accomplished by a collective disenfranchisement of women, but by a willing surrender, on an individual level, to masculine men who make their own ambitions their life's mission.