I consider myself to be a traditional man. A traditional man seeks to claim for himself the gender role and the gender identity that men took on in the past traditionally; the 1950s breadwinner man ideal or how men behaved 100 years ago before feminism. A traditional man is strong, he is the leader and the authority of his family, and he provides for and protects, he takes care of, he financially supports 100%, his woman.
Furthermore a traditional man is idealistic, places the interests of others first, sacrifices on behalf of his family, and obeys God. He serves his wife as his duty to God, he guides and directs the upbringing of his children as his duty to God, all of what he does on behalf of others is part of his God given mission and purpose as a man.
What kind of woman does a traditional man want? A traditional woman of course. The traditional woman loves being a woman, she loves her role and her purpose as a woman, she likes feminine things, she gives of herself generously and kindly to others, she is obedient to her man, she recognizes that men have a natural authority over her and that in particular the man she has chosen to be with romantically has a right to maintain his dominance over her even when she doesn’t like it or even when she disagrees. The traditional woman doesn’t hate a man for being a man, doesn’t resent the man for being a man, doesn’t seek to undermine or attack the man for her own personal gain or her own personal advantage.
Likewise the traditional woman is idealistic, places the interests of others first, sacrifices on behalf of her family, and obeys God. She obeys God in the role of a woman.
The purpose of the traditional man is to serve the traditional woman; likewise the purpose of the traditional woman is to serve the traditional man. In the process of the man and the woman serving each other, the man serving the woman’s feminine purpose as a woman and the woman serving the man’s masculine purpose as a man, both the man and the woman together then serve God.
The idea that I would attack and degrade and insult a woman because she labeled herself as being a traditional woman seeking a traditional man is insane to me. Why would I attack my own women, the women claiming to be on my side, the women offering themselves as romantic partners to me? That makes no sense.
Yet we have the spectacle of Rollo Tomassi, leader of the Red Pill, dedicating a whole post to bashing Red Pill Women. Behold Tomassi’s recent post “Love and Ambition.” From this post Tomassi writes:
“I had this sent to me recently. It’s actually a pretty standard trope for Trad-Con women who want to justify their leaving a husband or having left an old lover/baby-daddy. They like to pretend they’re ‘red pill’ and so the only men who might qualify for their expired sexual market value will be Red Pill men who meet their new qualifications. One thing I’m seeing more and more of in this sub-section of the manosphere (really femosphere) is aged-out divorcé women who want to rebrand the ‘red pill’ to justify their unmarried, unpaired, state in the new sexual marketplace. As you might imagine, their solipsism gets combined with what they convert into a convenient rationale about what Red Pill men ought to be like. The lack of ‘real men’, real ‘red pill’ men is ostensibly why they’re still single – no man is actually ‘red pill’ enough to satisfy their hamstering and thus, it’s not they who have the problem, but rather the men who lack the balls to live up to those expectations.”
What Rollo Tomassi is responding to here is a message sent to him by a psychotherapist whose main point was that women feel unloved when their man gets lazy and fails to pursue his purpose and his ambition to the best of his abilities in the wider world. This makes perfect sense to me as a man serves a woman by using the status and accomplishment he achieves to benefit the woman and to connect the woman to his own higher idealistic purpose as a man. The woman is indeed harmed when the man withdraws from his drive to accomplish and succeed in the wider world.
Tomassi however responds with snark and contempt to this perfectly reasonable and valid observation. This is because the woman is presenting herself as someone who has standards, who has expectations and demands of what she is looking for in a man. She is claiming that her previous man failed her, did not live up to his duties as a man on her behalf, and that she wants her next man to live up to Red Pill consistent ideals of who a man should be.
Tomassi fights back that these women are divorced, past their prime, come carrying baggage from their previous relationship, and that they’re still single because their demands on men are way too high compared to what they have to offer.
Red Pill / Traditional women do have a problem that there are not enough high functioning traditional minded men around; a lot of older divorced traditional minded women really will end up without a man because there is no man who is “good enough” who wants them; this being one of the tragedies of the current feminist created romantic marketplace.
I however am not going to fault or blame a traditional minded woman who ends up alone because no man is good enough for her; is able or willing to meet her standards of what she expects or demands from a man. This is because from an objective point of view a woman is entitled to a traditional man, the traditional man being the standard of what all men should be like, the duties of the traditional man being what all men are obligated to give to women. So the woman faces a horrible choice; accept an immoral man who does not honor her or support her as a woman and who may actively fight against what values she seeks to uphold as a Godly woman or as a traditional woman or alternatively go through the rest of her life with no man at all. Either option is reasonable; it is reasonable to accept an inferior morally corrupted man because such a man is better than no man at all and it is also reasonable for the woman to hold to her high standards that no man is better than a bad man as then she will at least be free to promote her traditional values and pursue her Godly purpose unencumbered by a man who will only get in the way.
As a man my philosophy for myself is that I would prefer to remain single rather than join with a woman who is opposed to my mission and my purpose and my role as a man. Being a husband by definition means that I am dedicating myself in service to my wife so it makes no sense to dedicate myself to a woman who hates who I am and what I am as a man, who is opposed to who God created me to be.
For me however as a man this poses no terrible dilemma as there is a surplus of traditional women for me to choose from and pursue. I am not going to attack or degrade my female counterpart who faces a shortage of men and the real possibility of lifetime singleness as her punishment for holding to her moral standards as a traditional woman.
Fundamentally it is not the woman’s duty to lower her demands of men; it is instead the man’s duty to raise his abilities and his performance as a man.
Later on in the post Tomassi delivers this “Message to the ladies”:
“Message to the ladies: Men don’t owe you shit. If you happen upon a man who shares your entitlement belief-set, a man willing to forgive your past indiscretions and marry you despite a ruthless marriage/divorce industrial complex arrayed against him, then thank whatever God you pray to and fuck that guy’s brains out to keep him happy, but don’t pretend it’s because either you or he is ‘Red Pill’. The fact that he would entertain the idea of a relationship with you disqualifies him from being ‘Red Pill’.”
This is a pretty shocking rant. “Men don’t owe you shit.” Tomassi declares. This is an outrageous declaration. Men OWE women care, consideration, sacrifice, and full financial support; this being what any man OWES any woman the man chooses to marry. It is the man’s decision whether or not the woman lives up to his standards of what he demands and wants from a woman and it is the man’s choice which woman he wants the most. A woman wanting and expecting from a man the basic things that a man owes to her as part of his gender role and duty as a man is not an “entitlement belief-set,” it is just basic self-preservation and wanting to be treated well as a woman.
This spectacle of Rollo Tomassi attacking and degrading his own women, the women who self-identify as Red Pill Women wanting a Red Pill Man, makes no sense to me. Well, on deeper reflection, maybe it does make sense in a way. Tomassi is trying to beat down Red Pill Women’s sense of “entitlement” because in general Red Pill Women want a man who is more high functioning traditional than the typical Red Pill Man is. The Red Pill Woman is “demanding,” she wants the man to be better, she wants the man to improve up to her level. Tomassi then attacks the Red Pill Woman trying to force her to lower her expectations and demands of what she wants from a man. This is very wrong headed. It is not that women should lower their standards; instead men should improve their performance to meet the woman’s objectively legitimate demands.
A man owes to a woman what God says men owe to women. The standard that men should live up to is based on objective moral duty and obligation according to the inherited and intrinsic gender role of the man.
The woman does not define what duties the man owes to her, the man defines for himself what duties he owes to the woman. The man also defines what duties the woman owes to him as the man. The man is dominant over the woman in a romantic relationship. The man however is obligated to submit to and obey God and owes to the woman what God says he as a man owes the woman.
Rollo Tomassi’s rant against Red Pill Women is denying the objective duties that he as a man owes to women; he is trying to get the Red Pill Woman to accept the Red Pill Man’s weaknesses and shortcomings rather than placing the focus on where it should be; men’s duty to make themselves better men.