Back in the 18th century, well before the “progress” of modern feminism, Samuel Johnson observed in a letter that “nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little.” The power Johnson refers to is women’s power over men.

It is easy to see how overwhelming that power is. If you are a healthy heterosexual man, and especially if you are relatively young, it should be obvious to you, once you subject yourself to a little honest self-examination, that nothing in life motivates you as strongly or as frequently as the desire to have sex with attractive women. But, life’s greatest pleasure is also its most relentless burden. The pursuit of women is endless because of the very nature of the male sex drive. This pursuit is an affair in which a man, time and again, tries to get a woman to yield to his advances—or to put it another way, to finally relinquish that power she has been exercising over him, in order to consummate the sex act.

This is quite a lot of work, and frequently expensive, tedious, frustrating, and finally, embittering. For women, it mostly comes down to receiving a massive amount of attention and basically saying yes or no, though in our time it more and more amounts to saying nothing, that is, to flaking, since, thanks to feminism, liberated women need no longer be bothered with such an oppressive notion as propriety.

Dating and courtship is a one-sided affair

With all this in mind, consider the nature of heterosexual dating and relationships in the Anglo world today. The law has in fact given women a lot of power. They work and vote, hold office, and more. Meanwhile, so long as they are at least somewhat attractive, they still enjoy a fair amount of old-world chivalry, men lining up one after another to do things for them. Of course, that can’t be said for us men. While many of us are still paying, as it were, for the mere possibility of having sex with women (and even the most skilled alpha player must admit that beautiful women still often tend to cost at least some money), few of these lovely creatures are at all inclined to do anything for us. The beautiful career woman is happy for you to buy her dinner, but she is not happy to cook you one, nor does she even know how.

Feminists tell us that human history is so much “patriarchal oppression.” This is a rather simplistic view. The truth, which is much harder to accept, is that if men have oppressed women, it is because our desire for them is itself oppressive, no less so than those other incessant biological needs, those for food and drink. Furthermore, now that women are considered “equal” to men (a confused notion which really denotes sameness, even though the two genders are not the same), if we look closely we can see that what women have really wanted is not equality, but rather superiority. Again, just as oppressed peoples would be quite willing to be the oppressors—if only they could—so modern women expect both old world chivalry and modern “equality.” Yet taken together, the two render women superior in the overall power dynamics; and it follows that, with respect to dating and romance generally, most heterosexual men in the Anglo world today, though they may not know it, are essentially dominated by women.

This grim state of things appears to be the inevitable result of feminism, that highly successful slave rebellion. The truth, as Samuel Johnson knew, is that the natural power women have over men is so great that, unless we seize it from them, by not allowing them equal rights and status, they will dominate us. And that is just what happens to most heterosexual men in the Western world today. “Courtship” now essentially means pursuing women and hoping and waiting, often in vain and quite tediously, that they will yield to our advances. They either will or will not, and either way, the choice and power is clearly theirs. And unless you’re George Clooney or super rich, you’re really no more than one among an endless array of options, which, in the age of social media, of OkCupid, Tinder and the rest, never stop arriving. You pursue, then wait. She simply sits back and fields one offer after another, with all sorts of material benefits along the way.

The only way to prevent this female dominance is for women to be materially dependent on men. Of course, that is not how it is today, and so we find that modern women, enjoying both equal rights and a fair amount of traditional chivalry (that is, material power simply given to them, for no clear reason and usually with no recompense), utterly dominate heterosexual men, who, between competition from fellow men and female flaking and cockblocking, are indeed lucky to get laid at all.

We have seen, then, that while women say they want equality, what they really want, just like an oppressed people, is superiority, to be the oppressor themselves. And this is no surprise; human beings, after all, are deeply self-interested, and tend towards unfairness and corruption.

Still, there is more to the situation. For, in spite of feminism, it is clear that women cannot shake off their deeper nature; when it comes to sex, dating and relationships, women still want to be led by strong and confident men. This is well-known to all red pill men and students of the manosphere. The only way to consistently get what you want from women—namely, sex—is to be confident and direct, and not passive or overly emotional. Nice guys get flaked on and friend-zoned. Cocky and aloof men sleep with that haughty stunner, and later with her hot friend too!

What men can do

Then there is the still universal female attraction to social status. Even though women are now equal citizens, with money of their own and a steady supply of generous suitors, they remain what they have always been: power and fame whores. This is frequently amusing and absurd. A man can be a talentless twit. Still, so long as he is famous or has some social standing, countless women will be irresistibly drawn to him. That ridiculous wimp in the awful Bon Jovi cover band—he bedded more 9s last month than most men will in a lifetime!

The reason is that, deep down, women are incorrigible slaves. The display or mere semblance of power and authority arouse them in the strongest psycho-sexual way. Napoleon was an ugly, undersized man. Yet women loved him. Why? Because he was powerful and therefore confident.

Indeed, for women, male confidence is an aphrodisiac in itself. Just why a man should be confident—in other words, whether he is truly any good at something or worthwhile—is generally inconsequential. When it comes to male confidence, women are like children at the amusement park; it’s a wonderful spectacle; nothing matches its excitement. Moreover, because female perceptions are generally shallow and superficial, a man who simply puts on a show of power and prestige—this exuding tremendous confidence—is sure to do quite well with women, those cheaply awed simpletons. Few things are more important to women than being validated by others. For this reason, they can hardly resist any man who appears to have accomplished this on a grand scale.

If we consider the nature of heterosexual intercourse, it quickly becomes obvious why women, even in our “progressive” era,” remain slaves deep down. In the sex act, the man penetrates as the woman receives. He is active while she is passive and receptive, her pleasure corresponding to his thrusts. And, the more he takes charge in bed—throwing her around, slapping her ass, pulling her hair, pounding her silly—the greater will be her arousal. I have had many women, after a bout of rough sex, say to me: “I never knew I liked that!” And henceforth vanilla sex is forever inferior. A woman has no control or choice over feeling this way; like any other, she is simply a creature acting in accord with her biology. And this passive psycho-sexual character certainly corresponds to what women are attracted to in all other areas of life, namely, power and confidence.

In sum, from these reflections it’s clear that we live in a backward and confused time. It’s natural for an inferior being—in this case, the Second Sex—to revolt against its Master (or “oppressor”). After all, equality is a sham, and human relations are not meant to be equal, least of all those between the sexes. Life is rather marked by immense natural inequality, savage self-interest, unavoidable discord, and awful strife. Yet now that women have equal rights and status, we find that they essentially tyrannize heterosexual men, whose efforts to win them over amount mostly to vain pursuits and waiting for brief satisfactions that are by no means guaranteed to be renewed—unlike in the better former times when women were materially dependent on men. And yet amid all the backwardness and confusion, the female desire to be led both in and outside the bedroom is as palpable as ever. Well then, time to man up, don’t you think?

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh's book Free Speech Isn't Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read more: Women Are Lying When They Say They Want “Equality”