Although I do not want to go into a long philosophical discourse about the essence or nature of human suffering as part of our life as living beings and because I have already discussed the essence of this issue as in regard to red pill philosophy it is important to remember that there are countless ways in which people inflict suffering on themselves. One of them is related to the definition of suffering and specifically when suffering is defined as happiness and happiness is defined as suffering. Again, one of the ways to do this is to exaggerate the good things in a phenomenon and to minimize the bad things about it. This is the basic workings of gynocentrism, romantic (chivalric) love and the gynocentric marriage itself. This type of dynamic is present in all forms of misandry, gynocentrism and feminism including the consetvative and traditional one as we will see in the infamous rant of Iain Duncan Smith quoted and explained bellow as well as the discourse about the basics of this dynamic itself.
First of all, we have to say that in that sense and in a specific way based on the foundations of cultural gynocentrism, we submit women to a process where they are elevated to the level of Goddesses, we speak only of their good side and completely suppress or ignore any bad element labeling as misogyny any attempt to do so. For men, of course, the opposite is true. In a hypocritical way, we speak only of the bad side of men, completely hide the good side and submit them to a process where they are demonized and dehumanized. This all is still beyond the fact that the gynocenyric marriage is a tool for the exploition of men. This kind of marriage also constitutes a kind of labor and re-education camp where men are trained to obey these gynocentric principles. Therefore, men should ask themselves these difficult questions. They should begin to understand the negative sides. This can lead to giving up all on those imaginary "perks", but in most cases it will cause men to look more soberly, come with adjusted expectations, be prepared for the gynocentric reality of a marriage, not be disappointed and at the end suffer less. In fact, this is also the doorway to happiness or if to use the metaphor of Led Zeppelin's famous song, stairway to heaven, and freedom. It is the hidden door which allows us to escape the labyrinth of gynocentrism and its subsequent suffering as well as the oppression of this matrix. In essence it is the deepest nature of the red pill and its message.
In contrast, on its deepest level, the common tendency to confuse cause and effect, to mix up between the horse and the rider, these things are not a product of the external conditions, those are in fact actually only triggers, but have their roots inside and not outside of us, that being said they are the real reasons for all of this mess. And this inner dimension is what ultimately creating the external world of the man and not vice versa. It is important to remember that each of us is a master of himself and no man has ultimately a master over whom his fate depends. Any other interpretation or presentation of this reality or facts means to shake off responsibility and it also leads to suffering. These are also parts of the in-built delusions of the matrix that binds us to suffering. When we talk about the bad side of women (men have them too), it is not hatred but realism. When we talk about the bad aspects of romantic (chivalric) love, it is not abstinence, but practicality, and when we talk about avoiding marriage, it is not fears, anxieties and self imposed seclusion, it is pragmatism and risk management. There are good sides to all of it but also a lot, too much, dangers and suffering especially in a gynocentric and feminist environment.
Obviously, these choices can also come from a place of fear, clinging, hatred and so on. Therefore, I always recommend that whatever path is chosen we still have to work on ourselves and chose a path of self empowerment so that we will not suffer. We have to chose a more conscious path and a mindful approach, one that does not avoid and is fearful of hard and uneasy questions, a path that is followed and accompanied by male self empornment as an inseparable part of our journey. In the end, suffering and liberation from it is something that we create with our own hands and here we once again have returned to the starting point of the discussion namely that everything begins and ends internally, not externally.
Why is this so and what kind of dynamics this gynocentric delusion that constitues the matrix displays, or in other words, what is the calndestine and illusive nature of this gynocentric matrix itself? It also should be remembered that in terms of evolutionary survival based on the concept of neoteny women seek male attention. In the end, no matter how much of formal as well as informal power women have, no matter how much of technology there is available for them, in terms of their survival women will always need men. As far as they are concerned, the feminine psychology is one that links male attentions and parallels it with security and survival. Because women control sex as they are also the evolutionary natural as well as sexual selection and in the gynocentric feminist context they also exploit men through sex, through gynocentric marriage and through the chivalric love and romance. This of course done with the aim at controlling men. What men have to do in response is simply stop paying attention to women. This will translate and result for women and be perceived as a potential existential danger. Then and only then the system can be restored to balance, harmony and sanity.
We as men also have several options to do so. We can stop giving women attention and balance everything. We can keep running after them fullfilling every whim they hurl at us. We can also cut off any contact altogether. The truth is that the gynocentric reality can not be completely changed. It is a survival modus of evolutionary reality not only in humans but in all mammals too. We can change the conditions in which we operate within this reality. At least those that are not the product of reality itself.
The problem of most men in my opinion is that they do not even devote a minute of thought to it. How many really asked themselves and made a conscious decision to get married? How many ask themselves why they get married? For the majority, this is an autopilot response and many times it comes from fear, religious imperatives or social norms and pressure. It's not really a mindful decision that is taken by the man. If they did aske the question why (should they mary) then this sad situation would have been resolved because in such a case it would have been based and a part of a self-empowerment path. The majority decide to continue to sleep in full ignorance unaware of the potential dangers and indulge in delusions thus inflict only more suffering on themselves. As I said, sex is an instrument through which women exercise power to control men through seeking male attention which is perceived as existential necessity for them. Once men will understand this gynocentric reality, they will be released from this condition because women will lose their power over them as a result of it.
A good example that exposes and demonstrate those dynamics is the former MP Iain Duncan who claimed that "unmarried men often grow into “dysfunctional” human beings and become “a problem” for society. Duncan Smith continued here to spew his intetnalized misandry by spreading lies that "men out of wedlock were“ released to do all the things they wouldn’t normally do” such as committing crimes, drinking too much, taking drugs and fathering multiple children".
As I said and outlined here in the discourse Duncan had done this by selling the big lie under the pretence that marriage brings many advantages to men while hiding he's true motivation and incentive which sees marriage as a camp of re - conditiong and re - educating men into civility . He then went on and said: "The answer I think is because cohabitation suits one of the partners more than the other. Almost invariably it suits the man, because they have to make good on their commitment and when that commitment is facing them they then withdraw.”
Then mixing more of the lies, especially ignoring the female perpetrators of his baseless claims he ends up by exactly doing what I said namely claiming that marriage and oppression of men would make them more happy; in other words, he defines suffering as happiness and happiness as suffering by applying this perverted logic: "they are out, no longer having to bring something in for their family, so they can be released to do all the things they wouldn’t normally do and shouldn’t do, so levels of addiction, levels of high criminal activity, issues around dysfunctional behaviour, multiple parenting – all those things are as a result of the un-anchoring of the young man to a responsibility that keeps them stable and eventually makes them more happy.” Yeah, clearly, being a slave in such a camp, exploited and degraded, would make them happy.
Then he goes on to use the tactic of mixing cause and effect and says: “Out there, these boys particularly, when left without the concept of what [marriage/commitment] is about will find the alternative on the internet. And the alternative on the internet, now so readily available, is about abusive sex and low value for women. That is where they will". Again, despite the lies the fact is that those are women and feminists not men who have destroyed commitment and are responsible for the vast majority of divorces; those are womem and feminists who have ruined relationships and destroyed marriage not men. And those are women and feminists not men who objectify themselves through the creation of hook up culture not men. Duncan, however, has no problem to lie and blame men for everything. And what should womem bring to the table? Oh, that's clear, it's simply nothing. As such it is also an excellent representation of how the bad in women and marriages is ignored, the good is exaggerated while men will be demonized, de-humanized and their good side ignored
Duncan is however not the first one to do this and he just continues the millennia long old school of traditional and conservative misandry. In fact, a bachelor tax was already introduced in ancient Roman Empire on all single men alongside with other measures that had the aim at publically shaming unmarried men and forced them into marriage. It happened then in the same way as it is exactly done today as Roman men turned their backs on Roman women and marriage.
Unmarried Men Are 'A Problem' For Society, Says Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith
Gender Roles in Ancient Rome and Today
Gender Roles on Ancient Rome and Today and the Rise of MGTOW
The Ancient Roman Root of Female Privilege