They're totally equatable, as is 4chan-activism, when you consider that Comet Ping Pong was shot up by a terrorist who believed the pedophilia ring lie.
Reddit and 4chan activism have spilled out onto the streets often enough to make them serious considerations.
Why was this article written under a pseudonym? The author, "Bonnie Bacarisse", appears nowhere in the internet, other than this twitter account created just yesterday: https://twitter.com/bbacarisse
>Women-hating Red Pill
If Red Pill is about hating women, what explains this subreddit existence? Women discussing best strategies to hate themself?
https://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/
Surely it's not that simple. The sidebar alone indicates otherwise.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm pretty much the opposite of a 'red-piller', or whatever they call themselves. I find this whole thing utterly fascinating, to be honest, as well as a bit scary/concerning.
I would also say that it probably comprises a large collection of throwaway accounts from male redpill subscribers as a way to try and legitimise thrmselves.
Women are all different and have a wide range of views any topic. Some women are offended at the idea of women having a subservient role in society. Some don't feel strongly either way. Some believe that women should have a subservient role. The psychology of a woman wanting to be kept down is obviously not the same as that of a man wanting to keep women down.
Whether you call one or the other or both "hating women" is just a label and is irrelevant to the point that fighting equality is an unenlightened and unfortunate direction.
So I can see three cases where one would want to look down or discourage these "voluntarily submissive" or "voluntarily traditional" womens (and groups of women).
(1) That these people are "trapped" into a worldview, somewhat like in anti-religious cult thinking or as in the Marxist concept of "alienation".
(2) That they enable "wrong thought patterns" on men and/or ultimately promise the impossible (to employ some feminist jargon, to oscillate between the madonna-whore poles at will); and
(3) That they provide "unfair competition" to women who are not willing to be submissive/traditional.
So.
Are we willing to discard (1) as more or less the exception and not the rule in an enlightened society? If not, we could slightly tweak our "Women can be anything they want, including submissive homemakers" and please everyone (provided we've discarded (2) and (3))
Item (2) is interesting in that I don't know it can be adequately discussed with some voices from the red-pill-women movement. At any rate, red-pill societies for men and women should fix the miscommunication issues where a red-pill man meets a girl and expects her to red-pill herself. Put it this way: maybe red-pill is something like a fetish and we should be encouraging these people to join up in god-fearing red-pill households (in the process keeping red-pill men away from blue-pill freedom-loving girls).
Item (3) is less silly than it sounds like -- you don't need to buy into Red Pill to see "sexual market" (as in your relative position in the attractiveness distribution) as something that sort of exists in the aggregate. Fat girls have lots of legitimate complaints here -- that thin women have it better in many aspects of life. But to fix this, you'd have to educate men (all men) into not wanting those things red-pill girls are advertising, which is kind of Orwellian and not unlike trying to educate gay boys into wanting girls.
I say (as a male into women): this isn't a kind of relationship I've had, and may be even intimidated by the idea of having to cough up the grrr masculinity to complement a red-pill partner, at least on a continuous basis. But I know couples that do this very well. I know an engineer that quit the whole thing because she wanted to have kids and raise them rather than do the STEM thing she was pushed into.
So can we ease up on the social engineering? Or is my analysis of (1), (2) and (3) wrong?
The redpill community is not an embarrassment because it's unacceptable in principle that some men prefer submissive women or some women prefer to be submissive. People can want what they want and it's not my business.
What makes redpill an embarrassment is the tone, the stuff like pretending than men are the real victims in our society, the worldview that partitions men into alphas and betas. The need to see men vs. women as a zero sum game, or fundamentally adversarial.
Stuff like this from the glossary:
> CC, or Cock Carousel – The period of time in a woman's life where she successfully exploits her sexual value and maximizes her hypergamous tendencies by having sex with as many alphas as possible. Usually happens between ages 18 - 27. Often ends when the woman hits the wall.
> Feminism – ”A doctrine built on the pre-supposition of victimhood of women by men as a foundation of female identity.
This view of the world says more about the men than the women they're trying to describe. It's not that there isn't any reality to any of these concepts. But it's poisonous to view the world with cynicism and reduction to these concepts as the ones that primarily motivate people. Rather than seeing people as complex individuals who struggle with these concepts but work towards overcoming them, or aren't primarily defined by them.
It's like how the_donald is the cringiest bullshit, but not because I tend to disagree with Republican policy positions. I don't even necessarily disagree with all of them.
And I'll definitely say that liberals sometimes have extreme views and tactics worthy of ridicule as well. It can be easier for me to find common ground with a Republican who rejects Trump's bullshit than some extremist liberals.
Wait, you're saying these things are true but it's poisonous to say so?
Or, more charitatively, that reality is composed of a large spectrum of true things and it's poisonous to emphasize the kind of true things they're saying?
(Or, to comic effect, that a three-valued logic of true/false/cringe is needed to evaluate social theories like that?)
---
Here's how I feel about those "hatefacts". First, I don't know that they're true - ages 18-27, really? I know to some extent that Bono from U2 might be able to just waltz in and steal or have sex with my girlfriend. But here's the thing: I don't need to care. I firmly believe in the stoic distinction between stuff that's "up to me" (and I can fight for) and stuff that's not. I know I'm not about to become the protagonist of "Magic Mike 3" or some such optimally attractive man. I also know I have my own kind of charm which I can develop and let the dice roll.
It seems to me that the Red Pill stuff is structured exactly like class (and generalized "oppression") resentment. There are extraordinarily fine things and experiences I cannot afford in my current station in life and there are extraordinarily attractive women in the world (I saw a bunch today) that I will probably never enjoy as a mate. (Red Pill would likely say that if I became wealthy I'd get the girls, but doesn't that defeat the point?) But if you're going to be happy at all in life you need to do what you can do.
So Red Pill literature reads to me a lot like gender wage gap or black-lives-matter literature. It comes out of a place of disconnect between actions (what I can do) and consequences (what the world gives me) that's actually real. Of course the world's not fair. But it's sometimes painful, isn't it?
> It's not that there isn't any reality to any of these concepts.
So he's not saying they're false.
I think I'd be more comfortable with the assertion (on vague authority I'd be willing to believe) that Red Pill ideology is false and that's why we're supposed to oppose it.
Sure, there are women who'd leave their partner for a rock star because of their status, and men who'd leave their partner because someone with better looks came along. It's true there are a lot of shitty people, but there are also a lot of good people.
Extrapolating the behavior of the shitty people to the whole gender and forming a worldview around shallowness as a primary motivation of people in general is self-defeating. You're just embracing and becoming the shittiness you see in the world. A shitty game only has the power we choose to give it.
It's like how you can't point to a Trump voter and assume they're a terrible person just because Trump is a terrible person. Their motivations for voting for him could be complex and conflicted. If I was to treat all Trump voters according to the behavior of the worst of them, I'd never be able to have respect for any of them. That's not a sustainable way to view a large segment of people.
25 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 64.4 ms ] threadI admittedly live in a bubble where the type of people who'd say that society "lacks a positive identity for men" don't exist.
Reddit and 4chan activism have spilled out onto the streets often enough to make them serious considerations.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm pretty much the opposite of a 'red-piller', or whatever they call themselves. I find this whole thing utterly fascinating, to be honest, as well as a bit scary/concerning.
Whether you call one or the other or both "hating women" is just a label and is irrelevant to the point that fighting equality is an unenlightened and unfortunate direction.
(1) That these people are "trapped" into a worldview, somewhat like in anti-religious cult thinking or as in the Marxist concept of "alienation".
(2) That they enable "wrong thought patterns" on men and/or ultimately promise the impossible (to employ some feminist jargon, to oscillate between the madonna-whore poles at will); and
(3) That they provide "unfair competition" to women who are not willing to be submissive/traditional.
So.
Are we willing to discard (1) as more or less the exception and not the rule in an enlightened society? If not, we could slightly tweak our "Women can be anything they want, including submissive homemakers" and please everyone (provided we've discarded (2) and (3))
Item (2) is interesting in that I don't know it can be adequately discussed with some voices from the red-pill-women movement. At any rate, red-pill societies for men and women should fix the miscommunication issues where a red-pill man meets a girl and expects her to red-pill herself. Put it this way: maybe red-pill is something like a fetish and we should be encouraging these people to join up in god-fearing red-pill households (in the process keeping red-pill men away from blue-pill freedom-loving girls).
Item (3) is less silly than it sounds like -- you don't need to buy into Red Pill to see "sexual market" (as in your relative position in the attractiveness distribution) as something that sort of exists in the aggregate. Fat girls have lots of legitimate complaints here -- that thin women have it better in many aspects of life. But to fix this, you'd have to educate men (all men) into not wanting those things red-pill girls are advertising, which is kind of Orwellian and not unlike trying to educate gay boys into wanting girls.
I say (as a male into women): this isn't a kind of relationship I've had, and may be even intimidated by the idea of having to cough up the grrr masculinity to complement a red-pill partner, at least on a continuous basis. But I know couples that do this very well. I know an engineer that quit the whole thing because she wanted to have kids and raise them rather than do the STEM thing she was pushed into.
So can we ease up on the social engineering? Or is my analysis of (1), (2) and (3) wrong?
What makes redpill an embarrassment is the tone, the stuff like pretending than men are the real victims in our society, the worldview that partitions men into alphas and betas. The need to see men vs. women as a zero sum game, or fundamentally adversarial.
Stuff like this from the glossary:
> CC, or Cock Carousel – The period of time in a woman's life where she successfully exploits her sexual value and maximizes her hypergamous tendencies by having sex with as many alphas as possible. Usually happens between ages 18 - 27. Often ends when the woman hits the wall.
> Feminism – ”A doctrine built on the pre-supposition of victimhood of women by men as a foundation of female identity.
This view of the world says more about the men than the women they're trying to describe. It's not that there isn't any reality to any of these concepts. But it's poisonous to view the world with cynicism and reduction to these concepts as the ones that primarily motivate people. Rather than seeing people as complex individuals who struggle with these concepts but work towards overcoming them, or aren't primarily defined by them.
It's like how the_donald is the cringiest bullshit, but not because I tend to disagree with Republican policy positions. I don't even necessarily disagree with all of them.
And I'll definitely say that liberals sometimes have extreme views and tactics worthy of ridicule as well. It can be easier for me to find common ground with a Republican who rejects Trump's bullshit than some extremist liberals.
Or, more charitatively, that reality is composed of a large spectrum of true things and it's poisonous to emphasize the kind of true things they're saying?
(Or, to comic effect, that a three-valued logic of true/false/cringe is needed to evaluate social theories like that?)
---
Here's how I feel about those "hatefacts". First, I don't know that they're true - ages 18-27, really? I know to some extent that Bono from U2 might be able to just waltz in and steal or have sex with my girlfriend. But here's the thing: I don't need to care. I firmly believe in the stoic distinction between stuff that's "up to me" (and I can fight for) and stuff that's not. I know I'm not about to become the protagonist of "Magic Mike 3" or some such optimally attractive man. I also know I have my own kind of charm which I can develop and let the dice roll.
It seems to me that the Red Pill stuff is structured exactly like class (and generalized "oppression") resentment. There are extraordinarily fine things and experiences I cannot afford in my current station in life and there are extraordinarily attractive women in the world (I saw a bunch today) that I will probably never enjoy as a mate. (Red Pill would likely say that if I became wealthy I'd get the girls, but doesn't that defeat the point?) But if you're going to be happy at all in life you need to do what you can do.
So Red Pill literature reads to me a lot like gender wage gap or black-lives-matter literature. It comes out of a place of disconnect between actions (what I can do) and consequences (what the world gives me) that's actually real. Of course the world's not fair. But it's sometimes painful, isn't it?
> It's not that there isn't any reality to any of these concepts.
So he's not saying they're false.
I think I'd be more comfortable with the assertion (on vague authority I'd be willing to believe) that Red Pill ideology is false and that's why we're supposed to oppose it.
Extrapolating the behavior of the shitty people to the whole gender and forming a worldview around shallowness as a primary motivation of people in general is self-defeating. You're just embracing and becoming the shittiness you see in the world. A shitty game only has the power we choose to give it.
It's like how you can't point to a Trump voter and assume they're a terrible person just because Trump is a terrible person. Their motivations for voting for him could be complex and conflicted. If I was to treat all Trump voters according to the behavior of the worst of them, I'd never be able to have respect for any of them. That's not a sustainable way to view a large segment of people.
Who would have thought.
Not sure why this is supposed to be taboo to say, when it has a body of scientific evidence behind it.
Whatever this guy is, it probably isn't any worse than the flip-side McCarthyism they're attacking him with.
If you give food to your dog, he thinks "WOW this guy gave me food HE is a GOD".
If you give food to your cat, he thinks "WOW this guy gave me food I am a GOD".