RP THEORYYour Relationship is Not Equal (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by FleetingWishEndorsed Contributor

Every time we get a woman asking about our relationships, concerned that they might not be “equal enough”, we always give the same canned response, which amounts to “We have different responsibilities, but we are equally important.” This, however, is disingenuous.

It is almost as though we have bought into their line that equality is important, and that if things aren’t “equal”, then they must be bad and we must be oppressed. But, using the word “equal” makes no sense when talking about a red pill relationship. It’s not as though I can say “He makes more money than I do, but I wash the dishes, so everything is equal!” That’s not how it works, we can’t measure those things on the same scale. I have no idea how many washed dishes it takes to be equal to his extra hours at the office.

When claiming to be equal, we are focusing on the wrong things, whether our contributions to the relationship matches his. But, that’s not what’s important, what is important is that we are doing our best to make him happy. In a relationship, it is your responsibility to make sure to do everything in your power to make the other person happy, and if you picked a good captain, he will do the same for you.

In a way the type of equality we do have is that our obligation to make him happy is equally as important as his obligation to make us happy. We are the most important people in our partners’ lives and we have responsibility to make sure that we influence them in a positive way. Of course, since men and women are different, the things that involves are going to be different.

At the end of the day, I don’t wash the dishes because he makes more money than I do. I am not keeping score of whose duties are more important, who works the hardest, and who has done what for whom lately. I wash the dishes because it is one of the things I can do to fill his happiness bar, then he comes by and smacks me on the butt, because that’s one of the things that fills my happiness bar. It’s based on the principle that if you do things to make him happy, he’ll want to do things to make you happy, which in turn makes you want to do things to make him happy, and so on. It is a positive reinforcement cycle that encourages both parties to fill the other’s happiness bars.

That is what is important about you duties, not whether they are equally hard, equally time consuming, or even equally important, it’s whether you are going above and beyond to make him happy, even if at first it means doing more than him. No, that’s not equal, but so what? Someone has to be giving, and someone has to go first, if you want to have a positive relationship with your partner.

[–]sugarcrushEndorsed Contributor 64 points65 points  (3 children)

Along similar lines, I like the saying that relationships shouldn't be 50/50- they should be 100/100, each person putting in their best effort. Instead of keeping track of who did this and who did that. It just leads to frustration.

[–]vintagegirlgame 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Marriage is not 50/50. Divorce is 50/50.

[–]dalls18 2 points3 points  (0 children)

i really like this! I used to have a naive view of true love, but I think what you just described really defines a truly loving, caring relationship instead of constantly making a mental tally list because it will become a never ending cycle, and nothing will be good enough. It's a dangerous game.

[–]Coolfuckingname 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You are a smart woman. Or man.

I have no idea.

[–]SouthernPetite 19 points20 points  (0 children)

The inherent problem in their reasoning lies in the fact that they still see each other as individuals with differing interest that are in competition with one another- this is not my perspective.

My relationship is a single unit, with thee same path and goals. It has different parts that perform different functions for the purpose of the unit to function well. It doesn't matter if it's a small part, or a big one. They both matter.

Think of it like your hands. You wouldn't call the less dominant one useless, and cut it off because it does less strenuous/complicated work. Both are necessary.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think the big thing people on "the outside" don't get is RESPECT in our relationship(s). I cook, I keep house, I run errands for my man. This does not automatically mean he has no respect for me - at all! Far from it. He tells me all the time that I am his favorite person in the universe, he always tells me how much he appreciates me, on and on.

I thought feminism meant that I had the right to choose! Well I choose traditional gender roles! And I think that deserves respect, not pity.

[–]tintedlipbalm 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I guess the subtext of this usage of equal is just as relevant, both necessary parts to make the whole, not equal in quantifiable terms.

That said, I agree with you. I recognize I am in function of him, I like being part of his journey, I don't care to make it about myself because what fulfills me is to make it about him. He has the upper hand, and I love it. I think other women that like this dynamic still may concern themselves with fitting a politically correct narrative or make it sound more acceptable so others don't say it's sad, depressing, pitiful, undignified, etc.

[–]futurama890 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"I am a function of him" Love that so much :)

[–]BakerofpieEndorsed Contributor 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Hallelujah. I admit that I'm guilty of using the "different roles but equal in value" line, and I'm going to stop doing that. People get into such a tizzy over whether things are fair or equal. Keeping a score card is not healthy. I don't walk around measuring Husband's alpha points and keep constant tabs on his behavior, just as equality between us under his leadership isn't a concept that crosses his mind. OF COURSE this is assuming that both parties are happy in the relationship and obviously doesn't apply to marriages to truly abusive men.

Do these people really sitting around discussing the equality in their relationships? To each their own but that sounds like a crap relationship to me. I doubt they do think about it specifically, except when they want to concern troll. When it comes to male and female relations it's little more than a buzzword. It's an adverb masquerading as its own singular cause.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The "what have you done for me lately" mentality drives me up a wall.

[–]lazysnakes 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I think that the popular notion of 'equality' is confused by a lack of logic. There seems to be an insistence that 'equal' means 'the same' when it does not at all.

If you look at a mathematical equation like

a + b = c

Clearly a and b are equal to c but they are all completely different entities.

You can imagine a set of weighing scales. On one side you have an apple and a satsuma, on the other side a mango.

They are completely different, but they balance out the scales, so they are equal. Each element is unique and valuable in its own way. No-one would think they are the same. What is important in a relationship is that it is balanced.

[–]nemma88 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I agree with this. You can not quantify consistently the value of any role - what matters is the sum, and ultimately the value added can be seen by how each becomes a better person by partnering with the other.

If someones not a better person, that's the time to worry.

[–]lazysnakes 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes! That's exactly how I have found it. I tended to lose sight of the big picture when I'm in a relationship, so I used the guide of 'do I like the person I have become' when deciding whether to end it or not. Similarly, my SO and I are going through a very stressful time, but if I ever doubt my choices I reflect that I am truly am a better (and overall happier) person than I was. And remember that sometimes it takes a tough challenge to make a better person!

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Statistically, more equal relationships have less sex as well.

[–]TempestTcup 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Equal = tit for tat = keeping score

[–][deleted]  (19 children)


[–]FleetingWishEndorsed Contributor[S] 10 points11 points  (12 children)

I know on the surface, "what if I give and give and receive nothing back" sounds like a valid concern, but it's really not. Let me explain why:

In your head it is very easy to imagine a person who never cares about your needs, but that person does not exist, or if he does he is extremely rare. Men are hard wired to care about women, even the most cynical and jaded man can become very loving if you treat him well, and show him you appreciate and respect him.

Furthermore, you are talking about men in the abstract, as some vague concept. Men in the abstract can be anything, they can be fathers, they can be prison inmates, they can be homeless, they can be firefighters. I am not talking about "men in the abstract" in my post, I am talking about a specific man, your or my SO. I am talking about a man you specifically picked out. If he never gave you any indication of caring about you wouldn't pick him. I am talking about a man you specifically picked out to give your heart to.

To give an example, a few days ago there was am AMA with Laura Doyle, a woman who helps save marriages by teaching women to be submissive. I asked her if there where it didn't work. She said out of 150,000 couples, there wasn't a single one.

[–]vintagegirlgame 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes Laura said that the only "divorce she'd endorse" is when the woman picked a man who was a cheater, beater or addict. As long as he doesn't have these vices there were no instances in which he wouldn't become affectionate, loving and giving when he was treated like a man.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–]freebumblebeeendorsed woman 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    I know I'm going against the party line here, but honestly, that sounds like bs to me. My first relationship was like that. I did everything for him, tried to make him happy, was never good enough, and never got my needs met, just like you're not getting love and affection. My relationship now? I get my needs met. He gets his met, and I get mine met. I realized one thing I need that I'm not willing to compromise on is a lot of communication, and I get that now! I like a lot of physical affection, and I get that now! And that's just simple compatibility. My ex probably didn't think he was getting his needs met even though I was working my ass off trying to do what he wanted.

    And yes, my man now is very alpha. He leads the relationship and works full time while I handle the rest of it. I love that our relationship dynamic is very traditional and that I'm submissive to him, but I can get that while still getting what I need.

    I'm not saying break up. I'm not saying give up on improving yourself--you should never do that. What I am saying is that it is possible to get your most important needs met (definitely look inside yourself and prioritize what you need out of a lifelong partner vs. superficial wants) while still having a wonderful, RPW-approved relationship with an alpha.

    [–]lazysnakes 1 point2 points  (8 children)

    it is very easy to imagine a person who never cares about your needs, but that person does not exist, or if he does he is extremely rare

    How about sociopaths? I understand that 1 in 25 people are sociopaths - they seek to manipulate people for their own benefit and are unable to empathise with others' feelings. And the sociopathic/psychopathic personality is often very successful in the business world, so can (appear to) be an alpha male.

    I would like to think it is possible to change these people with love, but I am not so sure!

    [–]FleetingWishEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

    Do you actually know any sociopaths? Because I do. The thing to understand about sociopaths is that being "in it for themselves" does not mean "no one else receives any benefit from them", and "not being empathetic" does not mean "never concerning yourself with someone else's well being".

    Successful sociopaths know that in order to get what they want (because they are in it for themselves) they sometimes must get things from other people. There is a high percentage of sociopathic CEOs because they have both the capability of being ruthlessly pragmatic, and being charismatic and likable. If no one likes you, you never become CEO. If you are only ruthlessly pragmatic, people come after you with pitchforks. In order to get what you want, you have to learn to cooperate with other people. Knowing that is what makes a sociopath successful.

    This extends to relationships as well. If you are an asset to a sociopath's life (give him what he wants), he will be motivated to continue getting that from you. If he wants you to be a continuous source of love and affection, rather than a well that runs dry, he will be motivated to care about your needs. He doesn't do this because he is empathetic, he does this because he understands that without reciprocity, he will lose something that is valuable to him.

    I don't know that all sociopaths are smart enough to realize this, but the ones that don't aren't the successful ones, the ones you would be attracted to. The ones who are successful, the ones that become leaders (and alphas), know that in order to lead you must be able to inspire others to follow.

    And to your last point, no, you cannot change people, but I have learned if you are a woman, you can inspire just about any man to want to take care of you... If you treat him well.

    [–]lazysnakes 3 points4 points  (2 children)

    We suspect my father in law is a sociopath, although not diagnosed officially he ticks all the boxes. He has a complete inability to even pretend to care about anyone else. (For example, I have known him 10 years and he hasn't asked me a single thing about my life). However he is able to present a veneer of a fun, cheeky chap. He makes everyone laugh with his silly jokes yet it is impossible to have a conversation with him. He expects, and gets, everything to be organised around him without contributing at all.

    He has completely neglected his sick wife to the extent that my husband has had to step in. It was a horrendous marriage characterised by alcoholic rages (him) and depression (her). However he was obviously charming enough to lure my mother-in-law into marriage with him. She worked herself to the bone and divorce was not an option so she had no way of getting out.

    The sociopaths you are talking about obviously have enough intelligence to simulate emotional responses. So they are to a great extent 'normal' people. Still not sure I would want to be in a relationship with one though, if they are liable to dump you as soon as you are no longer 'useful' to them. Anyone can end up with cancer or dementia or MS, I need to feel secure that I would be looked after, should the worst happen.

    [–]FleetingWishEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    He may be a sociopath, I don't know. But, I do know that this man is not an alpha, and not a leader, because no one wants to follow him.

    [–]YourShadowScholar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I am a diagnosed sociopath.

    What you've said is correct. It's amazing to me how few people realize this. I guess the image of sociopaths just takes over in people's minds, and they don't consider the reality of being a sociopath.

    Anyone that proves to be an asset to me is handsomely rewarded by me in order to ensure I continue receiving those benefits. As far as I have observed, I am actually far more generous than most normal people, as I go out of my way to ensure that the people that do things for me receive rewards, whereas other people either just take it for granted or (narcissists) just expect it.

    Really, it's narcissists that people should be worried about being in relationships with, not sociopaths.

    [–]aspdpositive 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Someone who gets it, very rare.

    When I talk to people online about being a sociopath, they are shocked that I am a helpful, friendly and outwardly normal human. They expect all sociopaths to be the lead charecter in Donny Darko or some other hogwash.

    Yeah, Ive done actions that would make some people vommit, and would have others calling for my death(literally), and those actions dont bother me at all. When you meet me, Ill be one of the nicest people you'll every meet because I understand the value of large scale, distributed good will, and I know very well how to cash in on it.

    [–]YourShadowScholar 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Fellow sociopath: sometimes I wonder if sociopaths are the only ones that understand the value of good will, since we see it objectively?

    [–]aspdpositive 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    That may very well be the case.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

    When you are with an alpha you are just along for the ride, you will never be the important one and its all about him.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)


      [–]freebumblebeeendorsed woman 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      You should never feel like that. In a LTR you're not looking for your average, anger-stage guy on TRP who's just realizing he's been a beta and is pissed. You want a naturally alpha guy who has some beta traits, because pure alpha makes a shitty longterm partner--most women on here will agree, from what I've seen. You should not put up with being treated like crap, seriously. The baseline for "good relationship" should not be "hasn't cheated on me."

      Out of curiosity, can I ask how old you are? You don't have to share if it's too personal, it's just that you both sound pretty young.

      [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      first of all, almost no one has a relationship with an "alpha TRP man", because almost no one encounters "trp men" in the wild. My H has never heard of the red pill or reddit, hes just naturally very masculine

      Tell me all the things he ACTUALLY does to show he loves you, not the things you WISH he did

      [–]WhimsicalWonderland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Thank you so much for this post. I love how spot on this is with how things should be. I admit that I am sometimes guilty of "keeping score" when it comes to working hard for the relationship. But it's super important to realize that you're doing these things for your partner because you want to see him happy. Not because you want him to do things for you back in return.

      [–]thefisherman1961 -1 points0 points  (4 children)

      Great points. What makes a relationship equal is both partners putting an equal amount of effort towards making each other happy.

      [–]IVIaskerade 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      You're still trapped in the paradigm that a relationship "has to" be equal.


      If you're both getting what you want out of it, does it matter whether or not it's "equal"? If you have to redefine "equal" to fit the relationship, why not be content just accepting that it's not equal, but that's ok?

      [–]thefisherman1961 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      You're still trapped in the paradigm that a relationship "has to" be equal.

      No I'm not.

      [–]IVIaskerade -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      You are attempting to justify why a relationship is "equal" if both people put in an equal amount of effort, despite the overriding theme being that that "being equal" is not what makes relationships work.

      [–]thefisherman1961 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I'm saying if you wanted a relationship to be truly equal, that's what would have to happen. I'm not saying that having an equal relationship is necessarily desirable.