We red-pillers all know that androgyny is a vice often confused as a virtue. People from all ideological sects have written at length about what masculinity is, but what is femininity?
It’s worth mentioning what femininity is not. When looking for a wife or girlfriend (or just a bang-buddy you won’t hate to be around), some tomboyishness isn’t a disqualifier. That’s on a spectrum, and a girl who enjoys playing basketball isn’t necessarily androgynous. Nor do we want a complete ditz valley girl or a codependent basket case. After all, addiction to the iPhone is certainly a womanly trait, and none of us want that in a partner.
If we are to grant a little over-simplification, masculinity is about power and femininity is about beauty in the broadest sense of those descriptions. Ultimately, to be feminine, a woman must be in touch with her femininity (If that is not too much of a tautology to say). She must be willing to embrace it. And that femininity must involve docility.
Real Men, Real Women
I like the word “docility” to describe femininity. It’s laden with much more meaning than “submission.” On the surface it has the same meaning, but it’s missing the negative connotation the modernists have given it. “Docile” is from the Latin word for “to teach,” which frames it even better within proper relationships between the sexes.
A feminine woman is a woman who is teachable. And what woman is not attracted to a man who can do everything she can better, a man who is greater than her? She wants someone to admire and aspire to. She wants someone to teach her things. In short, she wants to be docile.
You’ll notice in our society, everybody has a different definition of a “real man.” People claim being a real man involves hunting, growing a beard, chivalry, or expressing your emotions. Everyone may disagree over what the exact definition of a “real man” is, but most males strive for some ideal. Note the phenomenon among millennials who play dress-up masculinity by bringing back old trends like the straight razor or fedora.
However, people do not have a notion of a “real woman,” at least in today’s society. So if masculinity looks like [x], what does femininity look like? We’ve eradicated that notion. If a woman can cook well, we believe it is merely a useful skill, not an expression of her sexuality. And even then, what good is a woman who maintains a home if she is unbearable to be around? Domesticity is worthless without docility.
Why is there an ever-present war between the sexes? That doesn’t seem healthy for anyone. Men and women should strive for symphony, instead of always one-upping each other for the mere bragging rights of it all. Men continue to try offering an olive branch, but women gloat incessantly at every slight way they excel beyond men, such as how they graduate more often from the baby-sitting service known as American universities. In one breath, they’ll claim that taking care of small children isn’t part of being a woman, and in the next they’ll claim men are all dunces about it.
Nor can you have two people agreeing on every decision. That just sounds miserable. Eventually the man will give a compromise just to appease the woman, and he will resent her for it. Meanwhile, she’ll resent him for his half-heartedness.
Compound that on a regular basis over several years, and suddenly everyone is terrified of marriage. Nobody is ever truly happy in a compromise. You need one to make the decisions, a man the woman trusts to look out for her best interests. And it must be the man, because no woman respects a man who never gets his way.
I’ll preface that I’m about to quote the Bible at length to tell a story. I think I’ve ragged on Christianity enough that the regular reader will understand I’m not trying to convince him to become a Christian. However, remember that part of the purpose of religion is to keep people from coloring outside the lines. If one can view the Biblical narrative as a myth in the classical sense, then passages like below will fit in well with our purposes.
1 Peter 3:1-6 has a very effective picture of femininity. It’s good general advice regardless of one’s worldview.
1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. [ESV]
A few months back, I showed it over Facebook chat to a friend of mine who was unhappy with her new marriage to an alcoholic video game addict. (Women suck at choosing partners, amiright? Unarranged marriages…) She is non-religious but vaguely spiritual. We’ll call her Florence.
I explained to Florence in brief about what female submission looks like, in that it’s not a coercion but a desire to seek the best for those around her. I told her that if he’s being less than all he should be, she should focus even more on being all she can be, and that will pull him up in a roundabout way. But if she is constantly criticizing him, then he’ll just become resentful and withdrawn.
Did Florence get angry at my suggestion that she should hold herself accountable to the success of her marriage or that she should make an effort to bring others happiness? That seems to be the common pattern one finds on those awful feminist websites.
No, the exact opposite happened. She thanked me enthusiastically and said it was a beautiful passage. A week later she messaged me again to express her gratitude. Apparently Florence doesn’t want the modern empowerment that society has fed her, and she is not alone.
Wired For Submission
So we see that—especially evidenced by the steamroller success of 50 Shades of Grey—that women want to be dominated. And this makes sense. Docility wouldn’t be expected of women in every human society ever if women did not have an innate desire for it. Men would not brag about their ability to control a woman, to conquer her will, if women did not naturally settle into submission.
Women are like Pokemon—they are designed to flourish most when taking orders from the ones they love. And like with Pokemon, the order-giver must prove his worthiness to the order-taker before wholehearted obedience is yielded.
Women show love through their femininity, and men show it through their masculinity. No man wants a slave for a wife, because a slave does not love. Love is a choice. It takes all your will to give up your will. And by giving up your “want” and focusing on your “should” (i.e. your role as a man or woman), it shows that you are willing to be selfless for another person. Marriage is about interdependence, not independence.
Recall The Taming Of The Shrew, in which both the metric of men’s marital success and the metric of women’s marital happiness is determined by the woman’s willingness to submit herself to her husband’s will. Even though I may not agree with them, it’s worth here defending Petruchio’s extreme measures, as Katharina would have been miserable on her wedding day no matter what he did and that Petruchio did not actually harm her through the brief starvation.
Katharina’s closing monologue is absolutely beautiful both in its aesthetics and its moralism. 20th century critics have tried to write the whole play off as satire, and both the the 1929 and 1967 movies made it appear in the final scene as though Katharina was merely faking adoration to appease the powers that be.
But the speech is clearly the thesis of the whole work, and if it were satire or posturing, there is never any shadow of it anywhere within the play. To abruptly shoehorn a modern moral into the end disrupts the natural flow of the play. Ethnocentrism is the hallmark of the liberal. The University of Alaska at Anchorage, however, has a fantastic red pill rendering of the play on Youtube that is one of the most endearing Shakespeare performances I have ever seen, far better than any Hollywood Shakespeare.
Perhaps ironically, the monologue fits perfectly in today’s society, even better than in Shakespeare’s society. One would think Katharina was directly talking to 21st century women. Let the below be a lesson to all women in miserable marriages.
Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow,
And dart not scornful glances from those eyes,
To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor:
It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads,
Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds,
And in no sense is meet or amiable.
A woman moved is like a fountain troubled,
Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty;
And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty
Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it.
Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance commits his body
To painful labour both by sea and land,
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks and true obedience;
Too little payment for so great a debt.
Such duty as the subject owes the prince
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
I am ashamed that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace;
Or seek for rule, supremacy and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love and obey.
Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth,
Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?
Come, come, you froward and unable worms!
My mind hath been as big as one of yours,
My heart as great, my reason haply more,
To bandy word for word and frown for frown;
But now I see our lances are but straws,
Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare,
That seeming to be most which we indeed least are.
Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot,
And place your hands below your husband’s foot:
In token of which duty, if he please,
My hand is ready; may it do him ease.