# Red Pill or 'What the hell has happened with our society'



## TwistedMuses (May 20, 2013)

Recently, I got to know a certain type of pick up methods, quite vastly spread in the masculine community. And yes, I do live under a rock, if you asked. 

This article is quite long, so please, no 'tl;dr' messages if you can't read it. 

What's Wrong With "Taking The Red Pill" - Paging Dr. NerdLove

How do you view this strategy/philosophy?
Have you ever been interested in this type of philosophy in life?
Do you know anyone who has been affected by it?
What would be the best way to avoid 'red-pilled' men? 
Do you think women can 'red-pill' too?


----------



## The Doctor (May 29, 2015)

The best way to avoid these men is to learn to see it _quickly_ (if possible). Abusive relationships can be very difficult to get out of; I think it would be best to be very cautious and not make any commitments until you're comfortable. That being said, it's very difficult to tell whether someone will be an abusive partner until they are your partner (and even then it's hard to see). Take note when a partner makes you feel uncomfortable or bad about yourself- maybe write it down somewhere and make a list so you don't forget. It's easy for people to ignore these things- a relationship is full of ups and downs, and they just consider them normal "downs." Mentally keep track of the way they treat women in general. If they seem red-pilled, you should probably find external help. Breaking off abusive relationships can be risky, since the abusive partner is unlikely to take it well, but you want to do it as soon as possible.

I don't know anyone who has been affected by the red pill specifically, but I have an online friend who was in an abusive relationship over the internet. There were no men in the relationship, but my friend's partner clearly dominated the relationship, would not let go, and made my friend feel bad about herself. Some other friends and I helped her to end it, so while I may be ace/aro and not have much experience with relationships myself, I feel strongly about situations like these and I've had some experience from the outside of an abusive relationship.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

TwistedMuses said:


> Recently, I got to know a certain type of pick up methods, quite vastly spread in the masculine community. And yes, I do live under a rock, if you asked.


Lol your cute that made me chuckle.



> How do you view this strategy/philosophy?


An insecure/immature way for one to protect oneself, gain self importance, deflect onto others rather then look internal, and delude thy self.



> Have you ever been interested in this type of philosophy in life?


I guess when I was younger like a teen I got more sucked into the female version of it, but it was short lived. 



> Do you know anyone who has been affected by it?


Yes basically its just people who are radical whether female or male that take on counter mentality. Its actually from my view more common then not.



> What would be the best way to avoid 'red-pilled' men?


I think they are pretty easy to spot in all honesty. PUAs are not all that discreet in their philosophies. 



> Do you think women can 'red-pill' too?


Absolutely its just the same as these men but coming from women.


----------



## Incognito Detective (Jun 14, 2015)

TwistedMuses said:


> Recently, I got to know a certain type of pick up methods, quite vastly spread in the masculine community. And yes, I do live under a rock, if you asked.


I live under a rock too, and definitely by choice these days. Every once in a while an innocent bird flies too close with a song from the outside world and gets pulverized by my fist coming out from under the rock. 



> This article is quite long, so please, no 'tl;dr' messages if you can't read it.


I like to imagine that if there was a hell, there would be a special hell for people who leave TLDR messages: They'd have to read all the material they didn't read where they left TLDR messages over and over again and at the end of every day they'd be buried alive under thousands of books muhahahahaha.




> How do you view this strategy/philosophy?


I had vaguely heard about the red pill philosophy, but I didn't know what it actually was about at the time. I had interpreted a meaning from the name of the term only, thinking it was about seeing the world more objectively: After reading the article you linked, I realized I was gravely mistaken. 

Men who follow the red pill philosophy, even the ones who do it instinctively (without knowing about the term or its rhetoric), have always pissed me off and made me want to get as far away from alpha male stereotypes as possible. I basically see the red pill philosophy as caveman logic brought into the modern world to justify promiscuity and being assholes to women and to men who don't agree with their set of behaviors that quite literally comes from the stone age (albeit modified to be even worse). 



> Have you ever been interested in this type of philosophy in life?


Never have, never will. I have this extremely rare resource that many humans call integrity, and it's not for sale. 



> Do you know anyone who has been affected by it?


Not personally, no. If anyone in my life suddenly adopted that philosophy, I wouldn't care how long I had known them, they'd be dead to me until they saw the error of their ways and came crawling back. 



> What would be the best way to avoid 'red-pilled' men?


If it thinks like an asshole, talks like an asshole, and acts like an asshole, then it's probably an asshole.

Granted, some modification is required to make it more specific to red pilled men, but you get the idea.



> Do you think women can 'red-pill' too?


I agree with Cinnamon83, but I'd have to go a step further and say that there's actually an equivalent philosophy widely associated with women, which some men also use to take advantage of women in basically the same ways as the women who use it on men. People on both sides borrow from each of these complimentary, morally vacant philosophies to get one up on the opposite sex and fulfill their hedonistic whims at the cost of the well being of others.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Has anyone here read TRP handbook? I'm just curious. I have actually read most of it. I don't endorse it in its entirety or post or read through their subreddit. Disclaimers are becoming very common as to not cause misunderstanding, but they often do little anyway. But I will use this disclaimer because just by reading TRP I'm associated with it and that alone will invalidate my thoughts on the subject for some. 



> How do you view this strategy/philosophy?


It's like a modern version of The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar (1971), which I have also read. TRP is similar in thought and presentation: gynocentrism, observations on male-female relations, unabashed criticism of both sexes, and the idea that subconscious sexual instinct is what guides relationships. TMM caused controversy in the 70s like TRP causes controversy today. Both use hardboiled language and rationale to support their ideas. The way they are written jostled my feelings at times. A central idea of both is that women and men love each other differently and experience relationships with one another differently, though on an instinctual level. TRP asserts both want sex, children, and partnership but not for the same exact reasons. There is a simple theoretical evolutionary basis to the core ideas:

1. Women are not as physically strong as men, thus they needed strengths in other areas to offset this deficit. A woman's primary strength is her mental ability and being the gatekeeper to sex and legacy (acceptance and children, i.e. the future).
2. Men can love women unconditionally and can develop a sense of purpose just from being in love, but women do not love men unconditionally because for them, love is not a pure exchange of emotion, but more of a rational, economical exchange. A woman with a man has additional resources at hand, which leads to #3:
3. A man has always been valued primarily for his health, achievements, and resources. Everyone has heard of this in some form or another. A man without ambition, achievement, or resources is not really a man at all, and there are a lot of men out there like this now. The conjecture is that this is due to the decline and transformation of traditional masculinity, an increasingly liberal society that has taken power from individual men in relationships and handed it over to the state (e.g. family courts favoring women, no-fault divorce laws, subsidized single mothers, etc.), and the lack of quality male role models and fathers. These fathers and male role models would give boys the tools they need to be successful in relationships, but their marginalization or outright absence has created a noticeable imbalance in modern relationships. 

TRP appeals to men who are unsuccessful in relationships, because the message of TRP is aimed at those men. The loser who smokes pot and plays video games all day, the man with no achievements, the doormat, the clueless boy with little masculine guidance -- the modern day bastards and real world Theon Greyjoys, and so on. It isn't intended for men who are already successful in that aspect of their life. It's supposed to urge ditching behaviors that do not lead to success in relationships with women, which begins with replacing his erroneous ideas of relationships with more realistic ones. I'll admit I ignored the 'Game' portions of TRP because I'm not as interested in 'Game', so I won't attest to that part. Although, there are bits of what TRP endorses as having good game throughout and it's a mixed bag -- they're not without fault though the advice is not necessarily wrong. It's explicitly Machiavellian and straightforward. Overt endorsement of 'game' is stigmatized for its nature, but I think there's some validity to it. Just as it pays to discard conventional morality in other areas of life when appropriate. A possible hang-up with this aspect of TRP is that TRP actually backs manipulation of women to get sex while simultaneously calling women out as manipulative. But this is how things must go according to TRP. Flirting and courting is somewhat analogous to dueling, where missteps, regardless of what comes naturally to you will lead to rejection.



> What would be the best way to avoid 'red-pilled' men?


I skipped the other two questions because I think I pretty much answered them already. I have yet to meet any 'red-pilled' men in person, they're all on the internet. I have the feeling that there are a good deal of men out there who possess some red pill ideas knowingly or unknowingly and choose not to express them for obvious reasons. If you express any RP ideas, you are opening yourself up to shame and mockery. Just as when you express political opinions and such. 



> Do you think women can 'red-pill' too?


Yes, there are some women out there on youtube and blogs and such who have TRP or similar philosophy, but they're few and far between. They aren't average.



TwistedMuses said:


> What's Wrong With "Taking The Red Pill" - Paging Dr. NerdLove


This article represents the mainstream opinion of TRP. Its title is a loaded question to appeal to its intended reader. Yes, there are actual misogynists in TRP and MGTOW and PUA, yes there are the 16 year olds who got rejected a few times and are bitter and outcry, and these extreme folks paint the reputation of the community just like within any group. An individual cannot reflect the group in entirety and vice versa. TRP is still infantile and very counter-culture and therefore not socially acceptable, which is usual with such ideas. 

This is why I don't identify as RP, but I think it comes to some pretty rational conclusions about relationships and should not be disregarded entirely because of mainstream opinion. A group's image is at the will of its most fervent subscribers. The larger the community gets, the more mixed up it gets and more ideas get tossed in or reinterpreted or used for individual agenda. Just as most groups stray from its original values as time goes on and membership grows and changes. 

My final opinion of any philosophy is to consider parts that makes sense and leave the rest. And for your own good, refuse to identify with group labels of any sort. It doesn't need to be taken as a whole like any set of ideas. Its word isn't law, and you are an individual. Here's a quote directly from the source:



TRPH said:


> *What is The Red Pill?*
> 
> A loose and highly debated collection of frameworks that describe sexualdynamics between men and women. In short, it is purely information. What eachperson decides to do with this information is up to them. Remember, sexualstrategy is amoral. You decide what you want to do and how you want to go about doing it. You are responsible for your overall happiness, and all consequences ofyour actions. We're here to provide and discuss the framework.


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

I could write a lot about it, but nobody really cares about discussing "red pill" stuff logically as they already have their mind made up one way or another. It's basically just the new male version of feminism. Like any other type of "social justice warrior" most of what they say is true in a general sense, but they've exaggerated it massively.

Also, I'd just like to note that the sort of guys who post on "red pill" forums and Reddit are the exact OPPOSITE of the sort of guys that act like this in real life. It's like how you go to a bodybuilding website and half the posters are nerdy guys who weigh 145 pounds. Red pill forums are the same way. They are nerdy guys who have little to no sexual experience. They are idolizing the attractive "alpha" males, because that's who they WANT to be, not because that;s who they really are. If you meet some "asshole" guy who is taking advantage of a lot of women I'd say it's almost guaranteed he has no clue what red pill is. Red pill is for the guys who stare at girl and are too scared to ask them out so they need an excuse why that's OK.


----------



## caffeinekid (Jun 29, 2015)

I am reminded of The War Against Boys? It basically gave a heads-up warning to this state of affairs.



> Despite popular belief, American boys tag behind girls in reading and writing ability, and they are less likely to go to college. Our young men are greatly at risk, yet the best-known studies and experts insist that it's girls who are in need of our attention. The highly publicized "girl crisis" has led to many changes in American schools, politics, and parenting...but at what cost?
> 
> In this provocative book, Christina Hoff Sommers argues that our society has continued to overemphasize the troubles of girls while our boys suffer from the same self-esteem and academic problems. Boys need help, but not the sort of help they've been getting.


It may not be PC, and the idea has been known to get radical feminists frothing at the mouth, but it is true nonetheless- avoiding red pill men is a matter of choice. If you don't like predators, don't package yourself as prey. This idea that every woman is worthy of a good man is about as valid as the inverse. An honest self-assessment of who you are, what you are attracted to in men and why will go a long way. If you find yourself attracted to these asshats and the culture that enables them, then you get what you give.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Omg I don't know the world just needs more ISTJ men. I can't even understand why a feminist marriage would be called coercive and sexless, that sounds more like patriarchal fiscal desperation, as in I'm desperate to support myself and my children and you're a nice guy though I'm not attracted to you. Why would a real feminist stay in a sexless marriage where she was a breadwinner? That's like lol kbye relationship. 

Red pill sounds like the last resort of desperate men who never get sex, or complete effed up misogynists.

I didn't grow up around sexless marriages or any of this upper middle class nonsense. I don't know.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Gore Motel said:


> Has anyone here read TRP handbook? I'm just curious. I have actually read most of it. I don't endorse it in its entirety or post or read through their subreddit. Disclaimers are becoming very common as to not cause misunderstanding, but they often do little anyway. But I will use this disclaimer because just by reading TRP I'm associated with it and that alone will invalidate my thoughts on the subject for some.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stopped reading at men can love unconditionally and women can't. You're an emotionally stunted individual who should probably stay away from women.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Thalassa said:


> I stopped reading at men can love unconditionally and women can't. You're an emotionally stunted individual who should probably stay away from women.


So you missed both the opening disclaimer and the shaming parts then? Where do you get off insulting me personally? You're validating the same post you're disagreeing with because you can't remain collected.


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

Thalassa said:


> I stopped reading at men can love unconditionally and women can't. You're an emotionally stunted individual who should probably stay away from women.


Re-read the post. You'll notice he was discussing the ideas of the TRP _without_ endorsing it, and ultimately, doesn't even identify with it.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Gore Motel said:


> So you missed both the opening disclaimer and the shaming parts then? Where do you get off insulting me personally? You're validating the same post you're disagreeing with because you can't remain collected.


No I just think it's an ignorant, sexist and actually dangerous statement that could lead to abuse, because it frames men as saintly and women as evil.


Men or women can love unconditionally. Tammy Wynette advised Christian white girls in the 60s to stand by their man. Miss Kay from Duck Dynasty sure did back when Phil drank heavily in his twenties. I know women, like my exes mother, who stayed married through physical abuse. Many women forgive infidelity. Women even occasionally support deadbeat boyfriends. There's no reason a woman does or cannot love unconditionally. Women have loved fat, old or poor men.

Meanwhile, though men also love unconditionally, there are men who ditch their wives when she gets wrinkles and stretch marks.

I apologize if I misunderstood you. Your final statement was something like take what you agree with and leave the rest, that didn't leave me cozy.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Thalassa said:


> Men or women can love unconditionally. Tammy Wynette advised Christian white girls in the 60s to stand by their man. Miss Kay from Duck Dynasty sure did back when Phil drank heavily in his twenties. I know women, like my exes mother, who stayed married through physical abuse. Many women forgive infidelity. Women even occasionally support deadbeat boyfriends. There's no reason a woman does or cannot love unconditionally. Women have loved fat, old or poor men.


Are these people good examples of healthy minded individuals though? They might stay for other reasons, not just love. You aren't ruling out the possibility that each of them loved conditionally. Aside from maybe the singer, whose song came out during a time when sentimental love was an overused theme in pop music. Lyrics don't fundamentally reflect honesty.



> Meanwhile, though men also love unconditionally, there are men who ditch their wives when she gets wrinkles and stretch marks.


Nowhere was it written that men can't love conditionally.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Gore Motel said:


> Are these people good examples of healthy minded individuals though? They might stay for other reasons, not just love. You aren't ruling out the possibility that each of them loved conditionally. Aside from maybe the singer, whose song came out during a time when sentimental love was an overused theme in pop music. Lyrics don't fundamentally reflect honesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere was it written that men can't love conditionally.


Yes obviously their love is just unhealthy and not unconditional. Just make up your mind gore motel, love is unconditional or else. There's no unhealthy in the old school jargon, just unconditionally.


----------



## Obstructor (Oct 10, 2013)

*INCOMING WALL OF TEXT*



TwistedMuses said:


> How do you view this strategy/philosophy?


The philosophy is interesting in itself, it has plenty of good and bad. The core of the philosophy is true, just as the core of feminism is true. 

The better parts are the things that improve the self: getting rid of the stagnation of the *"just be yourself" mindset, critically looking at the poor advice you get from everywhere, getting rid of Oneitis.

It's valuable to know that women and men love differently, and that you can never 'win' with women, the same mechanism that causes Stockholm's syndrome will justify her position whatever it is.

The neutral/(good?) things are the uncomfortable truths you subconsciously already know: 25% percent of men date 75% of the women, the top 1% are out of control; Men just don't have the innate sexual marketability of women; Marriage is something beyond far away, the average male age is entering the 30s last I checked so give up on that for a while; Women are acting like men and men are acting like women; Hypergamy, the female biological imperative to find the best mate/s.

The bad: There is the issue of going from one extreme to another, nice guy doesn't work so that means asshole does; Dating doesn't work so MGTOW**/PUA. Nihilism. 

A lot of followers of TRP are bitter and hateful towards women, quite often viewing TRP as something that needs to be continuously taken, "Your daily dose of red-pills", to stave off natural tendencies. Mostly an issue with how one stumbles upon TRP, usually as a result of a breakup or horrible dating results.

TRP specifically claims to not be part of the men's rights movement yet still create content about things like: women having smaller prison sentences, the family court system being anti father, etc; this is damaging as these are MRM issues not TRP, a lot of the bitter hatefulness of TRP is because they aren't actually as separate as they should be.

Comments: It would be far better if it lost some of the darker pick-up-artist roots i.e. dread games, dark triad. I would imagine its going to gain a lot of traction (or at least MGTOW is) as it's one of the only real oppositions to feminism which many agree is out of control.

*You should always be yourself, the problem is when you use JBY to justify actions or lack of actions that have nothing to do with your core. How you look isn't a personality trait, social skills aren't a personality trait, etc. It's incredibly entitled to think you 'deserve' anything in this world.

**The only way I could see MGTOW succeeding as a movement is if women become so abrasive and hard to be around that loneliness and need of oxytocin aren't strong enough to bring a man into marriage. Which already speaks volumes that such a movement exists and is probably larger than the generic red-pill community. Must be the acronym, TRP just doesn't ring.



> Have you ever been interested in this type of philosophy in life?


Everybody is exposed to a little bit of the PUA community here and there, which is easily dismissed until you start figuring out that chivalry and all the dating advice you have been given over the years does not work in the slightest. When I decided it was time to start dating as I was entering my twenties the PUA community is the only place which actually gives you a 'how' to dating (for better or worse).

I was just entering college, starting to date, etc. I took the cocky-ego thing to heart and used it to prop myself up, this is a bad idea although it helped in the long run, it ended up with a breakdown I wasn't being myself (see *). The sad thing is the unhealthy nice guy to asshole flip is still more successful than being a nice guy. Breakup, super sad, wouldn't have even started dating if it wasn't for her practically asking me out. Huge resolve to enter dating world.

I dropped it and focused instead of How to win friends and influence people and The seven habits of highly effective people.

Half a year later I move up to campus instead of commuting, it wasn't until I did this that I started seeing the truth of what the PUAs were actually saying, over what everyone thinks they are saying. I was back into blue-pill, which doesn't work; so you shift back to PUA which is the only thing you know that works, I got nice clothes and started sitting at the front of everything and sitting at tables of women, I learned to read palms and play fun little introspection games/riddles. I still wasn't full PUA by a long shot, I never really found anyone that would have improved my life to pair off with. (I still had the relationship as goal mindset.)

I started reading psychological studies on dating, gender, etc. They all tell the truth of what is called The red pill, although I still hadn't come across Red pill yet. I date two more girls simultaneously, which if I wanted to avoid what comes next I would have continued doing, The one starts using me to fill the void left by her cousin leaving the country so I start using her for intimacy (snuggles, its against my religion to have premarital sex). The end of the semester I know its not going to go anywhere and she is moving away for the summer, I take her on one last 'not a date' kiss her to force the issue and give her a hug goodbye out of my life. (Wasn't anywhere near as sad as I expected to be.)

Bam! find MGTOW then TRP, places terms on what I already understood. I couldn't have said some of the things better myself. Still off-put by alpha/beta PUA stuff. Hypergamy is a term you hear outside TRP community, it was TRP that actually explained what it means to the individual; I understood why it always seems like there is an infinite number of sexier men than myself; I came to understand why several relationships that could have evolved into something long term rapidly petered out. I understood why being "friends" with a woman is not possible if you are attracted to her. (A problem women do not share.) I learned why women seem so fickle. I found the truth. Now I am about as close to MGTOW as you can get.



> Do you know anyone who has been affected by it?


Myself. Honestly, I am not sure if I have become damaged goods to a group of women that I just never met; or if I have saved myself from heartache and come to an understanding of gender dynamics. Either way I have grown.



> What would be the best way to avoid 'red-pilled' men?


If they have nothing better to identify as than Red-pill you probably should avoid them. Red pill philosophy itself points one in the direction of doing something valuable with one's life.



> Do you think women can 'red-pill' too?


The ones who specifically claim the name only seem to be trying to further the "Feminine Imperative" in there own way. (to use Red Pill terms.) I am not sure women can be red-pill, even the supporters of it only seem to have gotten into it to help out the men in their lives.

Final Comment: I wouldn't say it's a good Ideology to base one's entire life around. But it is a good philosophy to recenter your life, it allows an outlet to vent all the frustrations and a couple solutions, whether you choose them or not, knowing you have options offers escape from the only blue-pill option marriage/kids/house. Using TRP in terms of a central life philosophy like The seven habits or Religion is probably the best way to go about using TRP.

*Yes I revived a dead thread*


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Obstructor said:


> The core of the philosophy is true, just as the core of feminism is true.


Well, can we talk about this? 

Feminism as an idea was tossed about a number of times in distant history, notably in the Enlightenment, by a number of _male_ philosophers. It was a male French philosopher who eventually coined the term. Feminism as a movement, on the other hand, was more of a grassroots women's activity in the late 1800s and early 1900s, with far less emphasis on philosophy and far more on action. In both cases, the concept was not one of elevating women beyond men, but one of bringing women to parity with men, of attaining for them the same opportunities and rights. Men were never depicted by early-wave feminists, male or female, as outsiders to feminism; they were inherently included. It has only been in recent years and on the fringes of feminism that the idea of men being outsiders to feminism has really emerged, and even now it is not a substantial or influential mindset amongst women, despite its 15 minute of fame on the internet. Plus, I think it is reasonable to suggest that pattern is extant for virtually every movement; there are always radicals at the fringe. The vast majority of heterosexual women I know feel fond camaraderie towards males on the whole and desire a longterm romantic relationship with one man. So feminism historically has its roots in both genders, and is a concept that caters to both genders - the end goal being gender parity. There is a good, healthy place for men in feminism! The ideal is for both women and men to be able to pursue happiness and wellbeing in equality and harmony. 

On the other hand, TRP as far as I understand it is a philosophy and movement developed by males that identifies women as inherent outsiders from the outset. Women are defined as fundamentally different than men, at base level threatening and untrustworthy. You mention that you're not sure women can be Red-Pill - well, realistically, how could we? I don't think it's really even possible to a certain extent. We can be supportive of the males in our life becoming self-caring, confident individuals who don't take shit from abusive people, but we can't really be equal supporters of the philosophy because we are defined as outsiders to it. How could a woman both support TRP and pursue her own wellbeing? From what I have read, her only real worth to men is in being a young, pretty sexual conquest. There is no room for her to be able to have positive platonic relationships with men, or even sexual relationships where she is a respectable, trustworthy partner. There is little concept, as far as I have ever seen, for how a woman can be a positive, healthy force in TRP, though that begs the question of how males are supposed to be raised (mothers giving them up to adoptive fathers?)... It therefore becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: TRP points to alienated women, identifying them as different. But TRP defined them as different from the get-go. 

(I suppose whether or not you believe that women should fundamentally seek healthy, happy lives is up to you, and sort of underlies the whole debate.)



> The better parts are the things that improve the self: getting rid of the stagnation of the *"just be yourself" mindset, critically looking at the poor advice you get from everywhere, getting rid of Oneitis.


Yes, agreed.



> It's valuable to know that women and men love differently, and that you can never 'win' with women, the same mechanism that causes Stockholm's syndrome will justify her position whatever it is.
> 
> The neutral/(good?) things are the uncomfortable truths you subconsciously already know: 25% percent of men date 75% of the women, the top 1% are out of control; Men just don't have the innate sexual marketability of women; Marriage is something beyond far away, the average male age is entering the 30s last I checked so give up on that for a while; Women are acting like men and men are acting like women; Hypergamy, the female biological imperative to find the best mate/s.


I do believe the dating world _is_ currently harder for men. Through a combination of biological and socio-cultural factors, men are faced with the challenge of being expected to be the initiator, pursuer, competitor, and breadwinner, while simultaneously handling the preferences of each individual women. It is probably true that a smaller percentage of men dates a larger percentage of women, and it is also true that women experience a different sexual market (though whether it is better or worse depends on individual preference. For a committed, demisexual, or asexual woman, the market can be enormously frustrating). Relatedly, the experience is not entirely easy for women. We tend to face different struggles, like fending off negative attention, not being seen as secondary to our male partners, and finding a partner that desires a serious longterm relationship, but we do struggle. TRP perpetuates the deeply, deeply false idea that women run the Matrix. Yet if we did, all that feminist history would never have needed to exist, would it have? And what of the numerous threads from shy women asking about dating and male attention? If women are in charge, why are women still sometimes falling behind? Unfortunately I suspect this is because at the core of TRP lies the idea that men and women cannot both seek happiness and health and attain it in harmony. But... why not? Because a man has never seen it or experienced it personally? Sadly, I suspect that is often the reason. 

Ultimately, I believe the best thing you can do for your views is to have a positive, genuine relationship with someone of the other gender, and see what you find. What is disheartening to me is that so many men seem to be lacking positive, healthy role models in their mothers, sisters, grandmothers, family friends. What causes a male individual to go from seeing women as partners in life to believing that they are a collective enemy that needs to be alienated and overcome? The positive I see coming out of TRP is that of encouraging men to be self-developing and self-confident, but I wish we could have a philosophy that encouraged this of both genders. TRP is good to the extent that it encourages men to love themselves. It's sad and ironic to the extent that it suggests that women cannot love them.

So is that true? Of course it's true that men and women love differently - but _it's also true_ that men and men and women and women love differently. No two individuals are the same. Could there be some greater-level trends? Yes, certainly. But does each individual follow those trends? No. And that's the huge issue with TRP - it leaves no room for women to be individuals. In the uncommon event that a women shares that she agrees with TRP, she is held up as an example of the long-sought-after evidence of the truth, rather than considered to be an individual with a perspective that may well be different from other women's perspectives. I can't see any way to argue in a way that you will believe me that women can and do love men, though. I can only attest my personal feelings towards my significant other. As for whether they are the same as his feelings towards me, well, I don't know how we will ever know if any two individuals feel exactly the same way. 

And indeed, the question I am left with as a woman at the end of writing this is whether someone who supports TRP will be able to hear what I have to say with any ability to relate. Will my voice and my opinion be written off from the get-go because I am a woman, and therefore unable to be trusted? Am I only writing this to further the women's agenda, or can I have a voice that is separate from the crowd? If not, then I am not sure how you escape that perspective. 

Besides, well, a red pill. 

Turtles all the way down...


----------



## Elspeth (Jan 24, 2013)

Incognito Detective said:


> If it thinks like an asshole, talks like an asshole, and acts like an asshole, then it's probably an asshole.


This summed it up pretty well.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Nerds should not be taught how to date better. It goes against natural selection.


----------



## Saturnian Devil (Jan 29, 2013)

Gore Motel said:


> Has anyone here read TRP handbook? I'm just curious. I have actually read most of it. I don't endorse it in its entirety or post or read through their subreddit. Disclaimers are becoming very common as to not cause misunderstanding, but they often do little anyway. But I will use this disclaimer because just by reading TRP I'm associated with it and that alone will invalidate my thoughts on the subject for some.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I actually very much understand where you are coming from and I'm glad someone took the time to actually explain this stuff. Unfortunately, this is a huge pill that a lot of people are unable to swallow since it's not PC. Pun not intended. 

What I find illogical, though, is that there are many people who automatically assume that if someone doesn't identify as feminist, they must hate women. I don't think this is always true.

But, as you already know, herd mentality is a thing on both sides. Disagree with the status quo, you're a bad person. Doesn't matter what side you're on, which is why I tend to avoid feminist and anti-feminist groups altogether and remain on the sidelines. Too much drama on both sides that I don't really care to deal with. 


And lol at the other member who went straight into the ad hominem attack.


----------



## Obstructor (Oct 10, 2013)

angelfish said:


> Well, can we talk about this?
> 
> Men were never depicted by early-wave feminists, male or female, as outsiders to feminism; they were inherently included. It has only been in recent years and on the fringes of feminism that the idea of men being outsiders to feminism has really emerged, and even now it is not a substantial or influential mindset amongst women, despite its 15 minute of fame on the internet. Plus, I think it is reasonable to suggest that pattern is extant for virtually every movement; there are always radicals at the fringe. The vast majority of heterosexual women I know feel fond camaraderie towards males on the whole and desire a longterm romantic relationship with one man. So feminism historically has its roots in both genders, and is a concept that caters to both genders - the end goal being gender parity. There is a good, healthy place for men in feminism! The ideal is for both women and men to be able to pursue happiness and wellbeing in equality and harmony.


It is quite interesting, feminism started pure; a strong philosophical base. (I imagine feminism wouldn't have gotten anywhere without male supporters, as women couldn't vote at the time.) TRP started in darkness with pick up artists and manipulative techniques, slowly it seems to be finding itself. The movement itself got its name from the matrix so I won't try to defend it's roots. Most of the philosophy already existed, after all men and women have been together since the dawn of man (An interesting read from 1918 there are better places to download the ebook for free I just couldn't find the database where I got mine).



> On the other hand, TRP as far as I understand it is a philosophy and movement developed by males that identifies women as inherent outsiders from the outset. Women are defined as fundamentally different than men, at base level threatening and untrustworthy.


It's true, the roots are in Pick up; where women are 'targets' to be isolated a game to master.



> (I suppose whether or not you believe that women should fundamentally seek healthy, happy lives is up to you, and sort of underlies the whole debate.)


Everyone should seek to have a healthy and happy life. Aristotle said the telos of man was happiness.



> Yet if we did, all that feminist history would never have needed to exist, would it have?


The red pill movement is named after a term used in a 1999 movie. It's never been claimed that it has anything to do with history. It's arguable whether women have really been so oppressed as to justify half of what the feminist movement has.



> Ultimately, I believe the best thing you can do for your views is to have a positive, genuine relationship with someone of the other gender, and see what you find.


It's interesting this is the advice I have told myself, If I could just find one good relationship.

But, How would one go about doing that exactly? I would probably have to work on my game and... wait that is PUA philosophy which is red-pill.. hmm.



> What is disheartening to me is that so many men seem to be lacking positive, healthy role models in their mothers, sisters, grandmothers, family friends. What causes a male individual to go from seeing women as partners in life to believing that they are a collective enemy that needs to be alienated and overcome?


The fact such a thing as the red-pill exists or needs to exist is incredibly disheartening.



> The positive I see coming out of TRP is that of encouraging men to be self-developing and self-confident, but I wish we could have a philosophy that encouraged this of both genders. TRP is good to the extent that it encourages men to love themselves.


It's appalling that women are told that they are beautiful and amazing and deserve the best and the right one will find them someday all without effort, yet for some reason they are against being submissive even though they pretty much submit to accept themselves and let fate give them what they deserve.

It's equally appalling to tell men that they need to be better men and that someday they will find the one that saves them and turns them into a man and to just keep looking, yet they never hear the power of male creativity.



> It's sad and ironic to the extent that it suggests that women cannot love them.


Suggest is an incredibly good word. In theory they merely profess that women don't love the same way. It would likely help if men had more access to things like this. In case it is nolonger the top comment here it is.


* *




*Masculine*
Masculine men are absolutely delicious. Men "do" more, "talk" less. They are action-oriented. When I was a wee girl, I'd traipse behind my father into his workshop. You see, he designed and built furniture. I was curious to watch what he did there all day. He worked industriously, silently. All day. Totally focused. At the end of the day, he smiled at me, saying gently: "My Pearl, I had a lovely day with you. Thank you for your company. Now, go wash up for supper." And I understood. To bond with men, do things with them, side by side. And speak very little, if at all. Fast forward to present day, I'm in the same vicinity as my lovely brother-in-law, who is programming for fun at the dining table--he's a computer engineer who works remotely sometimes. I'm doing my own work silently. All of a sudden, he lifts his head and pipes up: "What do Canadians do to get chestnuts? In France, we go into the forest and pick them." I listen, imagining them doing that, and probe with more questions. Boom, a 45 minute conversation from my strong and usually silent brother. I love that men are doers who use communication as a support of their actions. 

*Curious*
Men are curious. How else do we explain the insatiable drive in explorers the world over, since time immemorial? They seek, they brave obstacles, they endure cold and hunger, they find, they discover, they learn: New places. They create, they invent, they build: Tools, gadgets, buildings. They observe and study: Inventions. They improve what is already working: Computers, Quora. They make toys...and great movies! Fun, fun fun!! They create a better world for us. We benefit from their endeavours.
My boyfriend is always learning. I ask him about seals, he goes and researches them, and comes back to tell me all about these animals. I have a friend who hunts and shares his harvest with me. Both my godfather and father garden avidly. They embody their curiosity in so many ways.

*Protective*
Men stand up for their convictions. Men volunteer for the military. Men in uniform are so handsome...on so many levels. And that's just looks. Their substance is even more attractive. If I'm being bullied, my male friends step up to the plate and shoo the bullies off. They walk me to my car at night. They walk on the outside of the sidewalk, and they shield me just before we cross the street. They make sure that my home is in working order, and ask if they can fix anything. My techie friends fix my computer problems; still others offer to move heavy furniture, help me organise the garage, and take out the trash. And when it comes to these men's families and friends, don't get me started. They selflessly sacrifice if it means their families get their needs met. They take up menial jobs just so they can put a roof over heads. Menial, you say? "No matter! At least my family can eat!' is a classic reply.

*Proudly Providing *
Many of these characteristics overlap. Fiercely protective men provide for their loved ones proudly. Fatherless boys get whatever jobs they can, as soon as they can, to help their mothers and siblings. My father was such a boy. These men finance their younger siblings' higher education. Their wives live in comfort, thanks to their hard work. My brother-in-law is such a man. (Don't get me wrong, my sister stays at home to care for their two children, and does a great job of it. She is his partner in every way. But this article about the wonderful things men do that earn my respect.) 

*Nurturing*
Real men are great nurturers. They are awesome teachers. I don't know how my father put up with me, an odd girl. But he did. The countless days and nights he sacrificed his own comfort and sleep to care for me, when I was sick, when I was scared and he held me tight until I was okay. He patiently read to dyslexic me until I could sound out the words. Both he and my mother took turns to stand behind me to hold my right hand (a leftie learning different voluntarily), giving me the grip I needed. I am ambidextrous. (This is now a "Neurobic" exercise to stave off age-related cognitive decline.) They fought friends and church acquaintances who criticized me and wanted me to conform with words such as: "Our Merry has other gifts. Now more tea?" You can only imagine the sense of acceptance and safety I felt as a little girl, overhearing this conversation where my inadequacies were detailed. 

*Logical / Practical*
Men are direct, clear and simple in their priorities, organized, uncluttered. If they need gift wrap, they just go to the store and get it: simple, uncluttered, uncomplicated, really. Whereas, I have some saved on hand, and that's good too. But isn't it great we have both options? 
And what about the way they write? So much fun to read. 

*Straightforward*
Men are so easy to communicate with. Their yes is a yes, and their no is a no. I do not need to guess. They are honest and they live their integrity. They are so easy to please. They do not fuss. They show their delight quickly, and they refrain from pouting when things don't go their way. This takes me nicely into the next characteristic that I love about them...

*Gracious*
Men are quick to forgive a mistake. Last week, I apologized to my boyfriend for a stupid thing I said that really hurt his feelings. Without a pause, he forgave me. Poof!, just like that. And we moved on. They do not hold grudges.

*Fun *
Men are so much fun to be around. They love to play, eat, play with fire, play video games, watch sports, and rough house. They know how to have fun. They golf, camp, swim, fish, hunt, run, bike, hike, ski, garden. And the gym rats! They are so cute. And what about them playing musical instruments, eh? Classical, jazz, rock, and their singing! And then there are the filmmakers. Men cook, and make new sauces for the barbeque. How cute is that? Some even knit and sew. My favourite tailor is a man. So is my favourite cook. Wow! Life with men is a festival of the senses!

*Funny*
Men are hilarious! Behold: the number of stand-up comedians! Their idea of funny is far-reaching and varied. Slap-stick, pranks, understated humour, play on words, irony, metaphors, visual gags, bodily-function jokes, and teasing...they are up for them all. They tell jokes, send them to you through e-mail, save you comic strips and snail-mail them to you. And let's not forget the magicians! Aren't they a hoot?

*Giving*
When a man finds out what you like, oh my goodness, be prepared to be spoiled! When I was little, I inherited my father's stamp collection. Next thing you know, men from church I didn't even know existed gave me their duplicates! This is how I scored a copy of the very first stamp!!! My father is the same way. Love to read? Boom, subscriptions to a half dozen literary magazines; I was eight, for crying out loud. My boyfriend, same thing. He stocks my fridge with favourite foods. My brother-in-law, same thing. My friends, same thing. Men I work with, yup. I'm serious. Men live to give.

*Relational*
Men are very relational...not in ways women do it. That might be one reason women do not recognize it. But that's okay, we learn. And we girls will figure it out...slowly. So sweet men, be patient with us please. We're learning to listen to you. You relate by being in action. Like, when my friend Zach invites me to go fishing with him, I go. Go to the range...yeah, let's! 
Men are romantic. I once dated a man who on our first date brought his cello and guitar with him, asking: "Which one would you like me to serenade you with?" I melted.
Men are poetic. My boyfriend sweetly whispers Dr. Seuss-like poems to me when he first greets me. When he puts it in writing, I fold it up and wrap it with a pretty ribbon. I take it out to read it every now and then. Because, in a moment which he can never get back, he thought of me. And here's the evidence! How lucky am I?
Men are affectionate. If a man loves a woman, he is f****d. Yes, it's that serious. Men are not biologically built to love a woman. And when a man does, he is placing his happiness in my hands--this is a real, legitimate emotional need our men have. For starters, he will depend on me to affirm him. If I withhold it, his emotional health will be profoundly compromised. Most women don't know this, and they waste this opportunity to uplift their beloved. I totally see this as a sacred responsibility, and I am happy, happy to take it up. I should be so lucky! I offer my boyfriend all the affection he asks of me, and I invent new ways to surprise him. 

*Spiritual*
Perhaps it's their amazing curiosity, and/or natural tendency toward leadership, men are exceptionally spiritual. I am surrounded by such men. They practice their faith quietly, steadfastly. We experience their faith in their actions. While overseas filming episodic television on weekends deprived me of my faith community, I told my pastor that I would sing and study scriptures on my own after work, he got up from behind his big desk, and motioned me to follow him. He took me to the sanctuary, picked a church hymnal from the back of a pew. Handing it to me, he said: "There, that should help you to feel at home." "But, isn't this...stealing?" "I'm the senior pastor of your hometown's biggest church, and I give you this book. I say it's okay." That hymnal travels with me everywhere I go. He leads and teaches from his heart.
When a family man steps up to be that family's spiritual leader, ah, then I, the woman, can focus on doing my job--being the _heart _of the relationship. What a delightful, fulfilling partnership!

So, how can I thank you, Men?! You are my Heroes! Superman has nothing on you!




Does anything she says she loves about men go against the red pill?



> I can't see any way to argue in a way that you will believe me that women can and do love men, though. I can only attest my personal feelings towards my significant other. As for whether they are the same as his feelings towards me, well, I don't know how we will ever know if any two individuals feel exactly the same way.
> 
> And indeed, the question I am left with as a woman at the end of writing this is whether someone who supports TRP will be able to hear what I have to say with any ability to relate. Will my voice and my opinion be written off from the get-go because I am a woman, and therefore unable to be trusted? Am I only writing this to further the women's agenda, or can I have a voice that is separate from the crowd? If not, then I am not sure how you escape that perspective.


Very true indeed. I am just a stranger.



Saturnian Devil said:


> And lol at the other member who went straight into the ad hominem attack.


Don't forget the strawman attacks.


----------



## Saturnian Devil (Jan 29, 2013)

Obstructor said:


> Don't forget the strawman attacks.


Or the post hoc fallacies.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

I've actually read some Red Pill articles and I personally find it ridiculous and embarrassing but to each their own. Due to the traumatizing nature of the content of the articles I've tried my best to forget them but I vaguely remember something about mangina's and cock carousel's. *Shudders*


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Now that I've had the time to read this article-thank you insomnia- I can give my opinion.

Firstly, these " alphas" are anything but. The vast majority of femmenist-hating nerds are the greasy losers who were picked on by the real alphas in HS. Now that they have the Internet and thier parents basement to hide behind, they think no one will catch on, but we do. They can call themselves whatever they want but in reality they _ wish_ they were betas.

Is this font of insecurity not obvious by their nessecity of cutesy terms like " men going thier own way" to try and convince the rest of the world that they aren't really just pathetic losers? We have a name for women like that we call them " crazy cat ladies" and these men are the same...except since thier shitty bachelor pads don't allow petsthey need to settle for cats on the Internet.

While they are wasting thier days looking at these cats, I suggest they instead do some research, namely on true Alpha behavior.

Anyone who has ever observed other living things knows that the alpha is given what he has because he is respected. His leadership is not all once-sided. He keeps the pack in order. 
The alpha dog knows he is the alpha and so does everyone else. He not need to establish this by acting like a jackass from the jersey shore.

That sort of behavior is so beneath the alpha that he pays these attempts to show dominance little, if any mind. " Yeah, I get it. You think you tough. It's cute, really."

For an adult human male to act this way, isn't even cute. It's just pathetic and shows everyone around what an attention starved, supremely insecure trogledite he really is.

I will say that reading articles like this makes me love and appreciate my own SO even more.

Oh, and no, " women" don't do this. 14 year old girls who think they're " badass" do and much like the bark-ey attention starved runt of the pack, no one is fooled.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

You all heard of "herbivore" men in Japan? I think that's sort of the way the West is going if things don't change. I don't think it will become such a huge phenomenon here in the U.S. but it is and will become more noticeable. Are many wondering why? Or are those men just "losers"? I found this article interesting: No Sex in the City: What It's Like to Be Female and Foreign in Japan - Vagabondish

It'll only become a more common trend. Immediate access to porn, deadbeat fathers, people making poor decisions in choosing their education and career, current dating trends, the information age, fall of real masculinity, and so on.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

If the dating world is harder for men, it's because until recently men have been told that they are entitled to any women woman he wants. Even if he's a total lose or a pig who put no effort into this thing called "Hygene."

Not they are starting to realize that if they want a quality girlfriend they need to at least to be somewhat appealing themselves. It's very hard for them.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

I was going to _troll_ but I'll just leave this here:

*Fart noise*. 

Carry on.


----------



## Tucken (Dec 13, 2009)

the blue pill happened. people chose the lie before the real, living in denial

Reality


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

Tucken said:


> the blue pill happened. people chose the lie before the real, living in denial
> 
> Reality


Either way, both sides are retarded druggists with a hero or denial fetish.
Turns out they're both right and wrong at the same time.
But hey, that's what it always is.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

TwistedMuses said:


> What would be the best way to avoid 'red-pilled' men?


1 - They think that some privileges can be justified by a natural order and will easily admit it if you're crafty.

2 - More generally, avoid men who treat you like a bitch AND those who treat you like a princess.


----------



## Finn_the_Human (Jan 1, 2013)

Red Pill is being awake, but unfortunately it has been hijacked from its original intention, as illustrated in the Matrix movies, by the Men's Rights terrorists. I say terrorists, because this is what so many of them are. They despise women, just for being women. 
If you decide to make 55% of humanity your enemy, you have serious psychological problems. There have been two recent attacks in England linked to MRA, one was a seventeen year old virgin who stabbed four women he did not know in Portsmouth because he couldn't get laid, the other was two brothers who blinded a woman with acid in Southampton because she commented on facebook that one of them had a small penis. Only this week a female labour MP was attacked by MGTOWS on Twitter who threatened to rape her. 
I see no reason why there can't be a People Going Their Own Way movement, I go my own way for sure. 
This Mens Rights stuff is just too fucking ill.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

TwistedMuses said:


> How do you view this strategy/philosophy?


Being awake to the machinations of immature women is normal and wise. In short, the MGTOW movement has that veracity. You would be well advised to understand that some of the movements complaints are valid. That is critical. I also believe they are somewhat misogynistic and unwise in their overall approach, but, their core complaints are real and meaningful.



TwistedMuses said:


> Have you ever been interested in this type of philosophy in life?


Having been betrayed by many women and financially mistreated by almost all of them I had relationships with, I can say truthfully, yes, this lifestyle change does interest me. I will never again allow a woman to mistreat me in such a way and sadly, unless a woman who wants me in her life is not ready to deal with me honestly and fairly, that means she will have to sign a strict legal agreement to protect me from her irrationality and our society's foolishness as well. Otherwise, I will know she is duplicitous and does not understand love.



TwistedMuses said:


> Do you know anyone who has been affected by it?


Affected my MGTOW, no. It is not big enough yet. I only hear stories on the web. But it is coming hard and fast, growing like a storm. It will be epic in a few years at this rate. 

If you mean affected by women that treat their men horribly especially financially I have literally hundreds of stories. Fairly speaking I know a few horrid men, but, that number pales to insignificance by comparison with the horrid women, and I am no misogynist. I am all about equal and fair treatment. The real definition.



TwistedMuses said:


> What would be the best way to avoid 'red-pilled' men?


Ha ha! Avoid men who do not base themselves in fairness and wisdom. But make sure that you expect the same of them. If you seek an imbalanced relationship where you are put on a pedestal or only your wants and needs matter and not his, then you are part of the problem. Red pill men will seek to avoid cohabitation, marriage, and overspending on you. 

I think you will find though, if you are wise, and expect balance and you give balance, even a red pill man will eventually see your worth and quit taking silly drugs.



TwistedMuses said:


> Do you think women can 'red-pill' too?


Of course. Misandry is exceedingly common. Misandry is the reason MGTOW exists.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Series, I understand where you're coming from since I read somewhere that you were super-rich at one point. but I think that naturally gives you a skewed perspective. Of course, when you have money you are going to draw the attention of terrible people.
I'm sorry that you've been treated badly before. I think it's absolutely disgusting to take someone on a ride like that just for financial gain. 
I've turned down plenty of men who had tons of money and no personality. 

However, most of the people who follow this "Redpill" bullshit are not only not rich but have few, if any desirable traits.

This movement only exists to remove any responsibility from themselves. It's okay that they don't have a job, any desire to get a job, a concept of hygiene or social skills. They want a girlfriend ergo they are entitled to one.

The reason this movement exists is because they can't stand it that other men have girlfriends and they don't but making themselves more desirable is too much effort.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

I'm very familiar with it. I'm not a Red Piller myself , but I think it's misunderstood.

It doesn't promote abusive relationships, it is about improving yourself and having traditionalist relationships where the man is in charge. Many Red Pillers also use TRP to have casual sex with women. You can ask me anything about it . If you're on reddit , you can PM /u/HappilySingleWoman.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Thalassa said:


> I stopped reading at men can love unconditionally and women can't. You're an emotionally stunted individual who should probably stay away from women.


I personally think that nobody can truly love unconditionally. There are always some conditions.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Mair said:


> I'm very familiar with it. I'm not a Red Piller myself , but I think it's misunderstood.
> 
> It doesn't promote abusive relationships, it is about improving yourself and having traditionalist relationships where the man is in charge. Many Red Pillers also use TRP to have casual sex with women. You can ask me anything about it . If you're on reddit , you can PM /u/HappilySingleWoman.



Oh I'll do that! Because if it's on Reddit, you _know _that it is absolutely written by professionals and not angry loser-nerds in a basement.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Fumetsu said:


> Oh I'll do that! Because if it's on Reddit, you _know _that it is absolutely written by professionals and not angry loser-nerds in a basement.


I'm not an angry nerd though :tongue:


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> Being awake to the machinations of immature women is normal and wise. In short, the MGTOW movement has that veracity. You would be well advised to understand that some of the movements complaints are valid. That is critical. I also believe they are somewhat misogynistic and unwise in their overall approach, but, their core complaints are real and meaningful.
> 
> 
> Having been betrayed by many women and financially mistreated by almost all of them I had relationships with, I can say truthfully, yes, this lifestyle change does interest me. I will never again allow a woman to mistreat me in such a way and sadly, unless a woman who wants me in her life is not ready to deal with me honestly and fairly, that means she will have to sign a strict legal agreement to protect me from her irrationality and our society's foolishness as well. Otherwise, I will know she is duplicitous and does not understand love.


While I have read the Red Pill philosophy plenty times - spoken to these men / and some MGTOW's in fact, there is one thing I've noticed they do have in common. 

No, not all ''MGTOWs'' are bad in nature; I've spoken to a few positive + negative ones - _however_, the ideology itself is based on conformity to (i.e .. men) and underlying red pill philosophy - which is fueled by misogynistic reasoning.

The red pill philosopy - under observation - claims 

'Women are incapable of love' --> 'Women are all manipulative' --> 'Pseudo-myths on ''female nature''', et al. Thus, 'use' and avoid. While, there are plenty of women like this, the notion they spread is a swooping generalization based off non-facts + subjective reasoning and emotional bias.

Most of it is just emotional + illogical gibberish.

Back to MGTOW - I have no problems with the 'idea' of the movement; however, it doesn't make sense as the movement is specified 'Men going their own way' - while going to conform to men. Which - makes no sense. My speculation is that, they aren't going anywhere but rather, making a assertion of departure from _*women*_ - that MUST be fueled or consist of *generalizations *by misogynistic reasoning; for it to make sense. I have seen 0 peer reviewed nor fact-based evidences for their claims; only one peer reviewed document on Hypergamy. - As it is specific to women --> ''Going my own way away from Latinos'' - with an underlying unethical basis. Because they are departing women in general and not 'men' as well - the reasoning only departing 'terrible women' rather than 'terrible people' screams to be an underlying *irrational* basis / objective. 

Not one MGTOW has been able to disprove my point that even though it is not a misogynistic base - the reasons are usually misogynistic.

The red pill consists its primary focus on *women* --> Does not address Asexual / bisexual nor homosexual men, but specifically 'women'. While asserting _horrible_ people exist / ''men have dating problems''. There is no 'sub-section' for women - the main basis is around the entire female sex.

While I respect you as a good user, 



> Fairly speaking I know a few horrid men, but, that number pales to insignificance by comparison with the horrid women, and I am no misogynist.


_This_ makes me uncomfortable. ;headshake - and is probably fueled by misogynistic reasoning; you do not have to be a 'misogynistic' to have a misogynistic reasoning base or harbor misogynistic thoughts.


----------



## Obstructor (Oct 10, 2013)

Fumetsu said:


> This movement only exists to remove any responsibility from themselves. It's okay that they don't have a job, any desire to get a job, a concept of hygiene or social skills. They want a girlfriend ergo they are entitled to one.


What? That is a huge lie. 

I pretty sure the red pill says if you don't have a job, hygiene, or social skills you are incredibly unattractive to not just women but other men too.

You want to know who feels entitled to have a girlfriend: blue-pill men, if they "just keep being themselves" then " the right one will come along", you just have to "keep looking until you meet her." Our culture feeds this stuff to even the most undesirable men along with a mix of Pick up artistry, which seems to make a mindset of "why should I do that when she should love me for who I am?"



Catwalk said:


> _This_ makes me uncomfortable. ;headshake - and is probably fueled by misogynistic reasoning; you do not have to be a 'misogynistic' to have a misogynistic reasoning base or harbor misogynistic thoughts.


I will add my fuel to the fire that I know far more horrid women than horrid men. Misogyny is a vague term that can mean everything from dislike of women to prejudice against women. How could not wanting to be around women ever be interpreted as anything other than misogyny, clearly one dislikes women if they don't want to spend time with them.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Mair said:


> I'm not an angry nerd though :tongue:


yeaah I hav no idea why you'd waste you're time there.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Catwalk said:


> While I have read the Red Pill philosophy plenty times - spoken to these men / and some MGTOW's in fact, there is one thing I've noticed they do have in common.
> 
> No, not all ''MGTOWs'' are bad in nature; I've spoken to a few positive + negative ones - _however_, the ideology itself is based on conformity to (i.e .. men) and underlying red pill philosophy - which is fueled by misogynistic reasoning.
> 
> ...


While it is based on generalizations you need to realize these generalizations exist to warn men about a certain type of women.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Mair said:


> While it is based on generalizations you need to realize these generalizations exist to warn men about a certain type of women.


*OK.*

I no issues with *generalizations* they are good things to raise awareness - but ''generalizations'' (re: _hasty generalizations_ / and other types yielding compositional fallacies, - and unwarranted generalizations that are false / *incoherent* are 'useless' - thus hold no barring on anything. 'Fact-free _personal experience_' claims are useless, and only make sense when others conform to them with like experiences; _Talk_ is only talk - and nothing beyond. 

I see nothing but ''_gender Bibles_'' - for the anxiety ridden.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Fumetsu said:


> If the dating world is harder for men, it's because until recently men have been told that they are entitled to any women woman he wants. Even if he's a total lose or a pig who put no effort into this thing called "Hygene."
> 
> Not they are starting to realize that if they want a quality girlfriend they need to at least to be somewhat appealing themselves. It's very hard for them.


Yes, partly but I think that's oversimplification of the issue. Dating has also changed because women now do not need to depend on men for support or even to raise children (not to suggest a single mother and government check or step-provider is optimal AT ALL) so the requirements are often higher. Recession and poor governing has also put many out of work or take up jobs with lower status, and a man must have a good, stable job to attract most women, in addition to many other qualities that would suggest they are a good investment, such as basic hygiene and social skills. Men are practically invisible to women of higher status than they. I believe the men you speak of are the ones who try to date "up", not realizing or caring that it's a lot less likely they can secure a higher status woman unless they can be convincingly deceitful in the short-term. The ones who get upset when it doesn't work simply don't possess the knowledge that would save them the trouble. They should elevate their status and/or lower their dating expectations.

Ultimately, the problem comes down to the fact that women are increasingly achieving higher status while men are declining in status overall.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Gore Motel said:


> Yes, partly but I think that's oversimplification of the issue. Dating has also changed because women now do not need to depend on men for support or even to raise children (not to suggest a single mother and government check or step-provider is optimal AT ALL) so the requirements are often higher. Recession and poor governing has also put many out of work or take up jobs with lower status, and a man must have a good, stable job to attract most women, in addition to many other qualities that would suggest they are a good investment, such as basic hygiene and social skills. Men are practically invisible to women of higher status than they. I believe the men you speak of are the ones who try to date "up", not realizing or caring that it's a lot less likely they can secure a higher status woman unless they can be convincingly deceitful in the short-term. The ones who get upset when it doesn't work simply don't possess the knowledge that would save them the trouble. They should elevate their status and/or lower their dating expectations.
> 
> Ultimately, the problem comes down to the fact that women are increasingly achieving higher status while men are declining in status overall.


I complete agree with this. I tend to simply things because Iam bad with words. So I prefer to use fewer.


----------



## Elspeth (Jan 24, 2013)

Something else on this - it seems that unless women are below a certain age, they are not of interest to guys at all. Hubby says it's all about reproduction - that if a woman is post-menopause, or even appears to be, she is not of interest. 
SO that means that the men - ALL the men - are fishing in a MUCH smaller pool. Because the only women of interest are the proportion below say 35 years old, even to guys who are 50+, they have to compete even more for the remaining "suitable" women.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Elspeth said:


> Something else on this - it seems that unless women are below a certain age, they are not of interest to guys at all. Hubby says it's all about reproduction - that if a woman is post-menopause, or even appears to be, she is not of interest.
> SO that means that the men - ALL the men - are fishing in a MUCH smaller pool. Because the only women of interest are the proportion below say 35 years old, even to guys who are 50+, they have to compete even more for the remaining "suitable" women.


A friend of my friends is about...57 by now? I wont go to his house because it is filled with figurines of very young anime girls in "suggestive" ( at best) poses. Look, I know that youth is attractive but flaunting an attraction to girls of that age at well_ that age_ just isn't acceptable. He should really keep it to himself

It also isn't okay to make comments like " Oh I know you were looking for a boyfriend because of the shirts you wear." i dress quite conservatively. I wear Asian style collared shirts because they are the only thing elegant enough to suit my tastes.
...at least I used to. Around him I wear like three layers head to toe.

Anyway, back on topic- this reminds me of a man I used to know; he was in his early fifties and quite over-weight. he was also smart, funny, generous and bitter as fuck. 
All because he couldn't laid..by the only style of women he wanted; thin, pretty, and thirties or younger. He would use biology as an excuse " It's only natural that I'd like younger women!" Well, okay but we don't live in the paleolithic so if you base your life on biology rather than what it is considered acceptable behavior, you're going to be alone.

Such a shame too, other than this one flaw he was a really great guy. He just couldn't understand that the only thing that made women avoid him is that he was so angry about women avoiding him.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> While I respect you as a good user,
> 
> _This_ makes me uncomfortable. ;headshake - and is probably fueled by misogynistic reasoning; you do not have to be a 'misogynistic' to have a misogynistic reasoning base or harbor misogynistic thoughts.


I understand and what I said is experiential and is anecdotal. I do not conflate that with truth (like the MGTOW movement does). As I have stated, their reasoning indeed seems misogynistic to me as well.

But their criticism of Western woman as a stereotype is spot on. I see them being right about their critique far more than wrong. 

I think MGTOW is about going their own way from men and women but the movement is a reaction to the way heterosexual first world women treat heterosexual first world men. It is already foundered on unsafe reefs with its limited scope origins, just like feminism.

Like so many movements the limited scope of their founding causes them to fail in wisdom. Only pure and open scope wisdom does a proper founding make. This is also parallel to the reason the Enlightenment is a moral failure.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

series0 said:


> I understand and what I said is experiential and is anecdotal. I do not conflate that with truth (like the MGTOW movement does). As I have stated, their reasoning indeed seems misogynistic to me as well.
> 
> But their criticism of Western woman as a stereotype is spot on. I see them being right about their critique far more than wrong.
> 
> ...


I think it'd do you well not to generalize. 

Yes, there are women like that. They can mainly be found in bars and parties 24/7 with equally terrible men. It's an unfortunately large sub-culture and it isn't based on gender.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Fumetsu said:


> I think it'd do you well not to generalize.
> 
> Yes, there are women like that. They can mainly be found in bars and parties 24/7 with equally terrible men. It's an unfortunately large sub-culture and it isn't based on gender.


When I meet enough exceptions to the rule to begin to expect that I will enjoy the company of women in general ... I will be tempted not to generalize. I have found many men who are exceptions to the party culture rule. Many many men. But oh so few women. And I do not hang out in horrible places. 

Maybe I am just horribly unlucky. But I do not have that perception either.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> But their criticism of Western woman as a stereotype is spot on. I see them being right about their critique far more than wrong.
> 
> I think MGTOW is about going their own way from men and women but the movement is a reaction to the way heterosexual first world women treat heterosexual first world men. It is already foundered on unsafe reefs with its limited scope origins, just like feminism.


By this logic - I can draw up plenty ''rights'' - on my critique of western men by collaborating with emotionally damaged western women; then start ''WGTOW'' and compare life-like empiric / fact-free based experiences until they 'make sense' coherently only in a sense that others can _relate_. That'll be what the mainstream radical _feminist_ movement is doing right about now.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

The thing about MGTOW that is wonderful really, is that they are not saying anything about what others have to do. 

That is way cool and refreshing. They are only saying what it is they intend not to do. At the core of the movement is the decision not to cohabitate, not to marry, and not to spend money on women out of balance with what women spend on them. 

There is nothing there about what the woman must or must not do. It's a self contained belief.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> By this logic - I can draw up plenty ''rights'' - on my critique of western men by collaborating with emotionally damaged western women; then start ''WGTOW'' and compare life-like empiric / fact-free based experiences until they 'make sense' coherently only in a sense that others can _relate_. That'll be what the mainstream radical _feminist_ movement is doing right about now.


Partially true. But they wish to say what is right behavior as an extension of their philosophy. I think the MGTOW thing is only saying what the men intend to do for and with themselves.

Keep in mind as well that we all contribute to what the world we live in is perceived as. If it is taken in as a horror on a daily basis, philosophy can help, but only to a point. People WILL react to their anecdotal reality, even if they simultaneously know the basis in truth is not assured.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

series0 said:


> When I meet enough exceptions to the rule to begin to expect that I will enjoy the company of women in general ... I will be tempted not to generalize. I have found many men who are exceptions to the party culture rule. Many many men. But oh so few women. And I do not hang out in horrible places.
> 
> Maybe I am just horribly unlucky. But I do not have that perception either.


You're too smart to act so un-self aware. There are billions of people on the planet. I will never understand how one person can think they're experience with a few hundred can accurately depict the majority of such a large group of people.

My standing; people are people and all are capable of good and bad.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

As an example, we have the traditional issue of monogamy. Now this institution came about for any number of reasons. BUt I think one of them was stability. If a culture promotes the idea of dedicated partners for life, in theory, many more people can be satisfied and not lonely.

In practice of course this has issues and people flit about from relationship to relationship unhappy with what they have by way of comparison. 

So a bid for individual freedom in choice is a bid for instability in culture. Shore 1 up and the other disintegrates. Which is the truer wisdom?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Fumetsu said:


> You're too smart to act so un-self aware. There are billions of people on the planet. I will never understand how one person can think they're experience with a few hundred can accurately depict the majority of such a large group of people.
> 
> My standing; people are people and all are capable of good and bad.


I agree with your last statement. I only radically wish the women I have met not only believed it, but acted on that belief (to the good). Again, that has not been my experience. And my being smart has made this truth in observation especially poignant.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

A video of generalizations, don't laugh too hard.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Fumetsu said:


> Series, I understand where you're coming from since I read somewhere that you were super-rich at one point. but I think that naturally gives you a skewed perspective. Of course, when you have money you are going to draw the attention of terrible people.
> I'm sorry that you've been treated badly before. I think it's absolutely disgusting to take someone on a ride like that just for financial gain.
> I've turned down plenty of men who had tons of money and no personality.
> 
> ...


I didn't see this part and the first bit I thanked. But as to the last, no, it is the men who are on the verge of becoming whole, who are wealthy and capable, who are sick of the unavailability of suitable women, that are going MGTOW. There is a subcurrent of the type you speak of here, but that is not the main force of them.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> Partially true. But they wish to say what is right behavior as an extension of their philosophy. I think the MGTOW thing is only saying what the men intend to do for and with themselves.
> 
> Keep in mind as well that we all contribute to what the world we live in is perceived as. If it is taken in as a horror on a daily basis, philosophy can help, but only to a point. People WILL react to their anecdotal reality, even if they simultaneously know the basis in truth is not assured.


On top of that - red pill users (_ahem_) - make fact-free unsupported 'claims' for female biological make-up - then submit to female biological make-up; then blame _females_ for female biological make-up. It is, at best, a vacuous concept. If it is not 'bio' make-up, it is purely cultural; such generalizations are unwarranted, fact-free and incoherently 'empty', thus should be dismissed as a pity-party circle jerk.

Nothing is based on facts / or logical reasonings - just empty personal experiences and emotional bias; and making 'truth-claims' as such for these, men submit to these, as I like to call it, 'gender Bibles' - mind you, some women do it also (e.g Mainstream 'feminist' Bibles') written by 'Gods/Goddesses' --> and mindless submission to these buffoons --> *Roosh V* and *Anita Sarkeesian*, at best, is idiocy and rather self-defeating because one can merely because one can _relate_, (i.e .. laziness, foolishness, et al).

I do feel sorry for these gullible people. Indeed.

''Wisdom'' is about as useful as ''common sense'' --> Unreliable, and vacuous to be applied to anything objectively.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> On top of that - red pill users (_ahem_) - make fact-free unsupported 'claims' for female biological make-up - then submit to female biological make-up; then blame _females_ for female biological make-up. It is, at best, a vacuous concept. If it is not 'bio' make-up, it is purely cultural; such generalizations are unwarranted, fact-free and incoherently 'empty', thus should be dismissed as a pity-party circle jerk.
> 
> Nothing is based on facts / or logical reasonings - just empty personal experiences and emotional bias; and making 'truth-claims' as such for these, men submit to these, as I like to call it, 'gender Bibles' - mind you, some women do it also (e.g Mainstream 'feminist' Bibles') written by 'Gods/Goddesses' --> and mindless submission to these buffoons --> *Roosh V* and *Anita Sarkeesian*, at best, is idiocy and rather self-defeating because one can merely because one can _relate_, (i.e .. laziness, foolishness, et al).
> 
> ...


And I just agree with all of that, except the empty part, Personal experiences are not empty.

Just like feminism, the partial wisdom of MGTOW is no proper basis for a whole philosophy.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

series0 said:


> I didn't see this part and the first bit I thanked. But as to the last, no, it is the men who are on the verge of becoming whole, who are wealthy and capable, *who are sick of the unavailability of suitable women,* that are going MGTOW. There is a subcurrent of the type you speak of here, but that is not the main force of them.


I..don't really know how to respond to this. "Suitable women" aren't a commodity or an entitlement.

I know you don't think of women that way but..ah..I guess I really just don't know how else to take that statement.
I mean, I'm sorry they are lonely.I don't know how that feels because a relationship has never been a top priority of mine. I bet if I were single again it would be devastating...but some people just end up single. 
It's always been that way and it's due to free will on both sides.

I see t MGTOW like I see bronies:

Good for them, but why do they need their own special group? They aren't special they aren't doing anything revolutionary. It's called being single. 

They don't need to be pat on the on back. They're going they're own way. Cool, just do it a'eady.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Fumetsu said:


> I..don't really know how to respond to this. "Suitable women" aren't a commodity or an entitlement.
> 
> I know you don't think of women that way but..ah..I guess I really just don't know how else to take that statement.
> I mean, I'm sorry they are lonely.I don't know how that feels because a relationship has never been a top priority of mine. I bet if I were single again it would be devastating...but some people just end up single.
> ...


And if this makes any sense you will understand better. I was 'going my own way', just a single man, without the damn misogyny, when, all of a sudden, a group comes along saying all the things I felt, going through those stages, yet denying whole wisdom.

So I relate to their situation. The culture has poisoned people. And granted, anecdotally I and a lot of men see and profess that there sure do seem to be an awful lot of women involved with the broken cultural mindset. Guilty as charged of generalization.

Are you familiar with the term NAWALT. It is a MGTOW term meaning not all women are like that. The NAWALT is thought of as a unicorn. The woman who is not like the stereotypical woman. A fantasy. It is the case, I think, that some of the tendencies ascribed to the NAWALT are present in many women. But it is a rather expectant ideal I think. 

For my own part I expect balance. Balance in all things and where there is imbalance, a graceful departure on both sides resulting again, in balance. Fate, or lack of suitability in some way have conspired to see me through an inordinate amount of failed relationships. But I add that what many of my friends and relatives consider a successful relationship would never be enough for me. I admit to being reasonably demanding. Balance is fairly hard for people to pull off, for anyone to pull off. 

The wise relationship contains even more virtue. All of them expressed together. But I am no perfectionist. Balance alone would be an excellent start. It is tricky as you approach the issue not to conflate it(balance) with codependency but there is a huge difference. In health, each side of a relationship is whole in wisdom unto itself. The other side is an exponent to the healthy life, not a need.

Anyway, I have long expressed to the MGTOW people I met and spoke with that the pursuit of whole wisdom, dropping the gender bias, and expecting the best of others, not the worst, is a better approach. I've bothered to try the same thing with feminists. And with capitalists. And even communists. Everyone gets lost in separationist philosophy, blaming specific groups rather than a whole and balanced approach. Each of these unwise approaches favors its own demons to live while castigating the diametrically opposed group's demons. Where will the nonsense end?

What has happened to our society indeed?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> And I just agree with all of that, except the empty part, Personal experiences are not empty.


They are - *useless* + empty, when you try to pass them off as fact - to the majority. Just like hasty generalizations and the other lists of fallacious claims against _women_. 'Western women', mind you, ''certain types'' - which constitutes a LARGE enough portion of the planet and *irrational* at best to hold every single 'woman' to such a claim and thus is eligible to be considered a swooping *generalization* - there is a ''underlying'' misogynistic basis, even if the movement is NOT misogynist in nature. 

Expecting women to not react to a comment such as ''Men are bad - but there are farrrrr more bad women,'' is just as irrational as the former. 

''Women are manipulative self-serving biotches'' is about as *useless* as ''Men are sexists, rapists and bigots,'' ... Ya' know how? Because, that's what I've experienced through my lifetime. ;headshake 
Therefore, my vacuous thoughts align with my fact-free '_gender Bibles_'.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> They are - *useless* + empty, when you try to pass them off as fact - to the majority.


I didn't. I specifically mentioned that it was just my own experience.

I still say personal experiences are not empty and not useless. They must be integrated properly. You will not be able to help people do that JUST by telling them how wrong they are. Useless ... no. Partly wrong ... yes. Unfortunate in their experiences and deserving of compassion for having had to deal with other very limited and unwise people, ... yes.


----------



## Elspeth (Jan 24, 2013)

So where in all this are the Women Going Their Own Way? The women who don't want to be cannon-fodder? They seem to be implied as missing by the MGTOW equations. Just because a woman doesn't want to go to parties, do the dating thing in which she is objectified?

Answer. SOME of them are happily married and settled. And therefore completely invisible. Some of them are busy doing their own thing. And ignoring the comments like ''Men are bad - but there are farrrrr more bad women''.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

"Most people in the world stumble about like witless cattle, blind to their true nature and purpose. Are you such an individual? Or do you seek something greater?"

If you want to take the Red Pill and discover exactly what is wrong with our society, then go to Amazon.com and type searchwords 'Mike Hockney' 'Adam Weishaupt' or 'Michael Faust'. 

Alternatively, you can head to illuminati.site, thegnosticlegion.com, hyperborean.info and pythagoreanilluminati.com.

Once you see the truth, there won't be no turning back.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

@Obstructor, my response. I apologize if I muddled up some of the organization - I copied and pasted from Notepad! Also, sorry it took me so long to get back to you! 



> It is quite interesting, feminism started pure; a strong philosophical base. (I imagine feminism wouldn't have gotten anywhere without male supporters, as women couldn't vote at the time.) TRP started in darkness with pick up artists and manipulative techniques, slowly it seems to be finding itself. The movement itself got its name from the matrix so I won't try to defend it's roots. Most of the philosophy already existed, after all men and women have been together since the dawn of man (An interesting read from 1918 there are better places to download the ebook for free I just couldn't find the database where I got mine).


That is interesting!! I’ll have to look for others. 



> The red pill movement is named after a term used in a 1999 movie. It's never been claimed that it has anything to do with history. It's arguable whether women have really been so oppressed as to justify half of what the feminist movement has.


Ha, yeah, I've seen The Matrix a few times  

I suppose my point was, throughout the history of feminism, I don't think there has been very much if any substantial sentiment that men consciously _intended_ to oppress women (disregarding, of course, the fringe faction of “feminazis”, who I see as basically the same as any other hate group) - whereas in contrast, TRP as a theory is based on the idea that all women intentionally manipulate men.

What I learned about the theoretical origin of women’s oppression in school was this: in nomadic life too many children could be a burden and a danger, making it more difficult to gather enough food and to travel quickly. However, as societies became sedentary and agriculture-based, it became advantageous to have more children to work the farms. Women therefore began spending more and more of their lifespans having and raising children instead of sharing in hunter-gatherer tasks, and male and female tasks became very split as a result. Since women stayed at home, pregnant and tending to their breastfeeding children, while men were outside working and negotiating, women became dependent on men for their food and other resources - so the "lesser" role of females theoretically (at least according to this theory) evolved from there. In time, women as a whole came to be seen as less capable of decision-making, less intelligent, and better suited to the home than outer life, despite individual women clearly demonstrating otherwise when equipped with the same resources as men - sometimes even when not.

Moreover, personally, I have never really had any reason to think that any unfairness against me was particularly conscious or intentional. I have a number of times been at the receiving end of clear prejudice at work because I am young and female, but on the whole, the men in my life have as a general rule been reasonably kind and respectful to me. My INTP dad made sure that I was constantly learning both in and out of school, challenged me, and praised me for my intelligence. My ISTP younger brother and I are good friends, and he comes to me for life advice. 

As with any human prejudice between groups, it seems mostly to me that theories of inferiority/negativity stem from fear and the unknown. The men who embrace PUA and TRP seem largely to be young and with little experience in healthy longterm relationships with women.

Given this - I would like to establish a real-life understanding of feminism through a woman's eyes. A feminism that has nothing to do with taking male power, or being masculine, or disempowering men. A feminism that is only about women being able to pursue happy lives according to their own interests. The thing is, since previously males did basically all jobs except nurse, secretary, and midwife, it seems like men (and some women!) define a lot of tasks and traits as masculine even though they're sort of neutral. And it seems like males currently feel some trepidation that women might "steal" those "masculine" tasks and traits. But - what if at least some of those tasks and traits were never really masculine to begin with? What if both women and men can participate and embody them? If there are true biological differences, they should become clear as we naturally sort into our traits and what we like to do. There is no need to artificially reinforce them. So then there should be no real competition between us, and we can just enjoy who we are and what we like to do naturally without worrying about "whose" realm of power it is.

An article including this: 



reddit said:


> Feminists crave privileges which consolidate the realm of male power with that of the female. […] In taking this highly one-sided approach to power, feminists play upon humanity’s propensity to take pity on women, and where the myth of female powerlessness is bought into, more power is redistributed to them. Feminism is nothing more than a female supremacy movement posing as one of humanist egalitarianism.


Is at the top of the TRP subreddit. Here's the thing:

I guess that all could make sense if you’re a man who has never experienced someone writing you off at the workplace because of your gender. I guess it could make sense if you’ve never been told you’re not strong enough, or that "you should just let a man take care of that”, or that your job should be given to a man instead. My job involves spending a few hours lifting heavy boxes every other workday; most days someone (both women and men!) walks by and comments that a man should be doing my job instead. Rarely does anyone comment on my lifting form, which I’ve worked hard to master and am still actively tweaking, or my efficiency, or my success in accomplishing said lifting. (Though the nicest compliments I have received have been from men!) Still, mostly, they just walk by and tell me a man should be doing my job so I can do something else. Never mind that I am perfectly competent. Never mind that I enjoy and take pride in my job. They still think a man should do it instead. 

_This_ is a case for what feminism is and why we need it. It’s not women trying to take something away from men. It’s women trying to have equal opportunities to pursue what we enjoy. It’s women trying to get the same respect and affirmation when we do the same jobs. It’s me wanting a “nice work” or just a “see you tomorrow" after a hard, successful workday, instead of “we really should hire a man to do that instead”. Both men and women are still stuck at the idea that a woman can’t or shouldn't do certain things - _even when a woman is actively doing them happily and successfully_. 



> The fact such a thing as the red-pill exists or needs to exist is incredibly disheartening.


Agreed!



> It's appalling that women are told that they are beautiful and amazing and deserve the best and the right one will find them someday all without effort, yet for some reason they are against being submissive even though they pretty much submit to accept themselves and let fate give them what they deserve.


Well, it's kind of more complex than that through our eyes. Some women are told they are beautiful and amazing. But growing up, we are also heavily critiqued on our physical appearance. I remember people of all varieties - gender, age, race, roles in my life - commenting on my body. They would tell me my eyes were pretty, but that I was too muscular. They would comment when I had lost or gained weight, being very emphatically congratulatory when I had lost it and sadly disapproving when I had gained. They would comment on my hair, whether they liked or disliked it (I don’t remember any people ever asking _me_ if I liked it) and how my clothes matched, or whether they thought things I were wearing were stylish or funny or not. I mean, I say all this in the past, but it's been constant throughout my life. Even friends and family now, even coworkers comment. I don't know how much of this happens to men, too, but as a woman I have always felt like people perceive my worth as very closely tied to my appearance - and everyone feels differently about what the best appearance is. So I always feel a little "less than" perfect. I am always not quite right looking for someone, and people feel like it’s fine to make that clear to me. 

Plus, even though we are supposed to submissively be "found", our role to play is in being a good catch. We're supposed to be slender, pretty, tactful, submissive, graceful. We're supposed to be able to run our households meanwhile supporting our male partner and letting him make the major decisions. So we are sort of expected to be able to be in charge but also to submit whenever someone else wants us to submit. It's a bit frustrating and confusing. We're supposed to be strong and capable but also to only use that strength and capability when someone else says it's ok. We're supposed to be intelligent and hardworking but it’s embarrassing if we make more money than our male partners. 

So all in all I think it's still a confusing world to be a woman in. We want to be free to pursue our personal goals and ambitions, but we also want to be able to be attractive and supported and loved. We want “happily ever after”, and we are told since we are children that we can have it. But we are also told through our lives that we are not good enough for everyone, and that we can’t be _too_ successful, or we we never be viable relationship candidates, or our partners will leave us. And I'm sure there's some biological dose of submission in there. I don't have any problem with that idea. I don't think most women do - but I think we also don't want to be forced to have that submission define us. 



> It's equally appalling to tell men that they need to be better men and that someday they will find the one that saves them and turns them into a man and to just keep looking, yet they never hear the power of male creativity.


Yeah, I’m not into “the one” theories either. I like the idea of personal development and personal health and healthy relationships. I don’t think men and women need to save each other. I think we can all be happy, healthy, flourishing individuals in and of ourselves. 



> In theory they merely profess that women don't love the same way.


On one hand, the idea that a man and a woman love differently might not be entirely unreasonable - oxytocin, the bonding chemical, does function differently in women and men, and that may be a true, substantial difference. 

At the same time, like with race in ages past, I think some people are conflating "differently" with "different value". Some red pillers are saying that women can't love men in a way that is equally valuable and respect-worthy as the way men love women. Which is interesting - I'm pretty sure that opinion was common in ancient Greece. "Higher love", or something like that. Love of God first, then love between men, then love of women. A hierarchy. But women are always relegated to the lower rungs. This is the historical evidence for women's oppression. It really isn't just something we made up. Historically women have been identified as "lesser", because we are different. 

But even if we do love differently, I think the jury is very, very out on _how_ we love differently. And individual variation is near-infinite, if not infinite. There are as many ways to love as people in this world...



> It would likely help if men had more access to things like this. In case it is nolonger the top comment here it is.
> 
> […]
> 
> Does anything she says she loves about men go against the red pill?


Yes - throughout runs the implication that she is valued; she is worthwhile; she can reciprocate love. Some red pillers seem to see this as the endgoal - others believe it’s an impossibility based on the "gap" between men and women. A gap that _might_ exist between one individual man and one individual woman... or might not. Are some women just as TRP suggests? Definitely! Are all? No.



> But, How would one go about doing that exactly? I would probably have to work on my game and... wait that is PUA philosophy which is red-pill.. hmm.


I think the antidote to the game - at least in my own eyes - is utilizing the positive and dismissing the negative. “You catch more flies with honey”, you know? The trouble with “dark" tactics is even if they succeed beyond imagination, they create doomed relationships. You can’t build anything on mistrust and mutual manipulation. It’s not that there’s nothing of value in PUA or TRP. It’s that it’s being used the wrong way. All that interpersonal learning and practice, it’s like the Force. But TRP is on the wrong side! You know - fear leads to anger, leads to hate, leads to suffering. 

At least personally, I suspect most of the traditional dating-game starts with the idea that males are pursuers, and women pursued. Males tend to initiate more with females, and females are typically in the position of reciprocating or rejecting. What is difficult for a woman about being on the receiving end of romantic attention is that we can’t know whether the guy doling it out is healthy or not. For a woman who desires a life partner - which IME is a large percentage of women - our ability to assess men is deeply tied to our quality of life. If we want to have biological children, we have until about age 35 to meet, stabilize a relationship, and procreate with one man. That’s a fair amount of pressure! So I think we tend to overcompensate by avoiding a fair percentage of the attention that comes our way, based mostly on contextual clues. Does he seem like a healthy, functioning male? Does he seem to meet our preferred character qualities? Do we feel comfortable around him for whatever reason? These quick assessments probably do end up filtering out some guys who are totally decent guys genuinely looking for relationships, who are either just a little socially awkward, whose timing isn’t just perfect in the woman’s life, or who are just unfamiliar in their approach.

But I think for men, there are certain activities that can really help increase your odds of reciprocation. Going to events that will allow you meet peers with similar interests is a huge one. Joining a volunteer or interest group, some kind of religious or political organization, even trivia nights at a local bar. I was uncomfortable when my now-boyfriend first flirted with me, but because I met him at work, I already knew that he was intelligent and interesting to talk with; I could observe the positive, healthy relationships he had with his coworkers and bosses, and I knew he had a good work ethic and attitude. Our shared platonic environment allowed me to see many of his positive traits that wouldn’t have been visible if he had just approached me on the street. So the more positive context clues you can give a woman, the higher your likelihood of success is going to be.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

I used to be a heavy fan of ROK. A Red Pill site. I would log on every day and read the latest articles.

What happened....

Like anything you focus on, it maninfests into reality.

Before I read the Red Pill, I was going out talking to girls and enjoying myself. Then when I was reading the ROK I started viewing girls as riders of the cock carousal and I just couldnt trust them. I ended up in a relationship with a Gold Digger, I was bumping into feminists on nights out and getting into arguments. Sure I got laid but the quality of woman was low. They had exactly the same mindset towards men as I had towards women at that point. 



I now avoid the Red Pill like the plague. Im not denying that there is truth to it. There is.

But its quite a negitive view of reality. Now I have steered away from it, its just become a dark part of my past.

Dont get me wrong, Im glad I went through it, it opened up my eyes and it enabled me to stop thinking of women as Princesses on a pedestal. And I cant personally see any other way of getting rid of that mindset. But I used to have women quite high up on a pedestal so I guess the Red Pill just knocked them down to a more realistic level. Where as if a guy already views them at a normal and non needy way, the Red Pill will probably do more damage than good.

For the record I did used to have girls very high up on a pedestal.

But for me Im glad it was a stepping stone, but for some guys, they stay at that point and never progress.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Sometimes with things like this I have to wonder how prevalent it actually is, or if things on the internet get exaggerated. I've never met a person in my life offline who even talked about red pill or mgtow


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Fumetsu said:


> Now that I've had the time to read this article-thank you insomnia- I can give my opinion.
> 
> Firstly, these " alphas" are anything but. The vast majority of femmenist-hating nerds are the greasy losers who were picked on by the real alphas in HS. Now that they have the Internet and thier parents basement to hide behind, they think no one will catch on, but we do. They can call themselves whatever they want but in reality they _ wish_ they were betas.
> 
> ...


This type of attitude only perpetuates the anger and hurt. If a red pill person read this it'd just worsen their views on women. You can make your points without the extreme harshness.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Sporadic Aura said:


> This type of attitude only perpetuates the anger and hurt. If a red pill person read this it'd just worsen their views on women. You can make your points without the extreme harshness.


Well, since all off my comments were directed at anyone ( Did you even read my last sentence?) who believes that behaving like a loud-mouthed bully is "Alpha" behavior,and not men in general, this would only be further evidence that they are looking for reasons to hate.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Fumetsu said:


> Well, since all off my comments were directed at anyone ( Did you even read my last sentence?) who believes that behaving like a loud-mouthed bully is "Alpha" behavior,and not men in general, this would only be further evidence that they are looking for reasons to hate.


I realized who it was directed at, what I was saying is posts like that won't change the minds of the people its directed at but instead make them even more angry and upset. I think they just serve as a way to vent frustration while possibly making the problem worse. I've been encountering a lot of harshness all over the forum lately around gender issues (from both sides) and its grinding on me.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Sporadic Aura said:


> I realized who it was directed at, what I was saying is posts like that won't change the minds of the people its directed at but instead make them even more angry and upset. I think they just serve as a way to vent frustration while possibly making the problem worse. I've been encountering a lot of harshness all over the forum lately around gender issues (from both sides) and its grinding on me.


I agree. There has been.

So where were you in the thread about "Financial abortion"? Where the majority opinion was " Only woman are bad and trap men and they can easily get an abortion anyway so fuck 'em."?

Or the thread about how rape is bad with a woman listing all of her near-rape, molestation, and harassment incidents for which the response was " Quit whining bitches."or the guy intense vitriol and hate toward all women who, when was told " You know this spreads mere hate, right?" Decided he had been too nice too feminists?

Or when the vast majority of femmenism here seem to be "They're all crazy bicthes!" ?

When I say "No one should be an asshole" you decide it's a good time to lecture about not spreading hate? 

Sorry dude while I agree about no spreading gender-hate you've completely missed the mark here.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Spitta Andretti said:


> "Most people in the world stumble about like witless cattle, blind to their true nature and purpose. Are you such an individual? Or do you seek something greater?"
> 
> If you want to take the Red Pill and discover exactly what is wrong with our society, then go to Amazon.com and type searchwords 'Mike Hockney' 'Adam Weishaupt' or 'Michael Faust'.
> 
> ...


Please desist from marring the name of Gnosticism any further by mentioning it alongside those organized criminals in the making; it'll only serve to distract and confuse those who could benefit from the actual Gnostic concepts.

I'll remind you that the main antagonist present in Gnosticism has a distinctly masculine gender; it would behoove you to remember it whenever you toss those psychopathic hate groups in with it.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

Fumetsu said:


> I agree. There has been.
> 
> So where were you in the thread about "Financial abortion"? Where the majority opinion was " Only woman are bad and trap men and they can easily get an abortion anyway so fuck 'em."?
> 
> ...


Couldn't have agreed more.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

How do you view this strategy/philosophy?

It seems like there would be legal repercussions to following it. It's mainly intended for weaklings of course. The that I of course don't like about it is the abstraction that serves as the substrate of its justification. "Women" is a complete abstraction. All qualities and roles associated with the concept of women are most likely abstract. This is probably made by some guy who failed in his own life and then built a picture of "women". I would simply ask "which women?" Because these genres of thought don't account for reality, just abstraction.

Have you ever been interested in this type of philosophy in life?

Yes, I have been rejected before. I didn't know anything about this particular philosophy, but I have also developed such a story in that genre. That substrate is abstraction as well. I can get very mad at "women" yet "women" is only a thought. I don't know anybody who is female. It's probably safer for society as a whole at this point anyway, but I'm just mad at an abstraction. I have been rejected before and it's gone its course of developing into constant cyclical frames of self-destructive thought that had no bearing on reality. Now whenever I see the remotest sense of "hypocrisy" or "entitlement" on part of "women" regarding "men", it demands a very vengeful reaction. The philosophy or really thought of mine is that if some random girl were to approach me and to be the fool that I was, I would say "I reject you." It's only fair, and gives that feeling of power. There's no power in being the fool. But there's no satisfaction without climbing out of a mindset of failure. The very idea of deluding myself by saying "I deserve more" or "I should build up a sense of healthy confidence/(unhealthy confidence in the case of this red pill nonsense) is just so repulsive to me. Let's say I was so confident and so healthy. I would be completely desensitized to the experience of success. I can't love someone because it would be destroying the most fundamental aspect of my nature, failure and stupidity. These are powerful drugs, I'd rather soak up the drugs than enter the zone of games, delusion and desensitization. It would be much better to succeed if I didn't think I deserved to succeed. Convincing myself that I deserve it, is just desensitization. I also realize how that reads, success. I understand having a relationship is not considered a goal, a success rather some mutual loving. There is no such thing as mutual love for a person whose love is wasted. My very medium is broken and distorted. I'm nothing but wasted potential, that's the way I see it. There can be no mutual love. There can either be lust on my part, which is simply a crime. Or there can be someone apparently "loving me", which is nothing but negligence on part of the lover. Only a crazy person would love me and I would be crazy to try loving another person again. In the realm of abstraction everything contradicts, there are no solutions and there are no escape hatches as you can see. I have dug myself a hole and I will bury myself in it. This is permanent.

Do you know anyone who has been affected by it?

No, only people who treat having sex as a traditional game. These are the people who surrounded me. They are also very distorted.

What would be the best way to avoid 'red-pilled' men? 

Avoidance is merely a choice. If someone is a careless hater, there is no point. You may be able to witness it for yourself and you should act accordingly if you have suspicions. Unfortunately, many do not and they fall prey to predators.

Do you think women can 'red-pill' too?

It is basically a philosophy of rejection. So, yes. But it seems so much easier from my point of view for a woman to simply demand sex and to get it. Stereotypically, they don't just want sex. But I know males as being more willing and able to do it. For females, it seems to be some dark secret, I do not doubt that they may desire sex as many of them do. But it's their position in society to deny it and to hide it. I doubt that their desires would fall upon myself anyway, so it is largely irrelevant if they were being secretive or not.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Fumetsu said:


> I agree. There has been.
> 
> So where were you in the thread about "Financial abortion"? Where the majority opinion was " Only woman are bad and trap men and they can easily get an abortion anyway so fuck 'em."?
> 
> ...


I recently have called out people who have said things similar to 'feminists are all crazy butches' too. The anger and unnecessarily harsh posts have been coming from all sides. Your message was cleary much more than 'don't be an asshole' and the harshness of it is counterproductive.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Sporadic Aura said:


> I recently have called out people who have said things similar to 'feminists are all crazy butches' too. The anger and unnecessarily harsh posts have been coming from all sides. Your message was cleary much more than 'don't be an asshole' and the harshness of it is counterproductive.


Nope. That was really all.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Fumetsu said:


> Nope. That was really all.


Your message focused predominately on insults, and less on condemning people who act like assailed.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Sporadic Aura said:


> Your message focused predominately on insults, and less on condemning people who act like assailed.


Is there such a big difference between insulting and condemning? Okay then. Guilty I guess.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Fumetsu said:


> Is there such a big difference between insulting and condemning? Okay then. Guilty I guess.


It's very different, you can call out people's behavior without saying things like "they were picked on by the real alphas..only wish they could be betas...basement dwellers...completely pathetic".


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Sporadic Aura said:


> It's very different, you can call out people's behavior without saying things like "they were picked on by the real alphas..only wish they could be betas...basement dwellers...completely pathetic".


Yep, I sure could have.


----------

