top 200 commentsshow all 210

[–]Garl_Vinland 175 points176 points  (40 children)

The thing is though, he did exactly what feminism wanted him to. Get older, become successful, have money, then a woman will settle for you. Guys like this are shit on so much that the prospect of becoming a woman's BB sounds great to them.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 107 points108 points  (21 children)

You're absolutely correct. Feminism is merely the optimization of female sexual strategy. Ensuring that they have legions of beta yes-men to pick them up after they've secured their alpha fucks is the core of Feminism.

[–]2 MRedPillWatchTower 72 points73 points  (5 children)

As Roissy so eloquently put it:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

A Beta attempting to court an attractive woman is an absolutely repulsive notion to the feminine imperative, because it implies that a man is the one doing the choosing. However, when a woman happens to succumb to the Neanderthalic "grab assery" of an Alpha male, that means she is doing the choosing.

Everything our Disney-esque society teaches men to do is seen in this way by women. Buying a woman flowers, chocolates, dinners, etc in an attempt to "win her love" is interpreted as manipulative, repulsive, and pathetic by women. You appear to be attempting to negotiate desire.

I mean, think about it. This woman, that a Beta tries to "court", has probably had the best sex of her life on a cum-stained bare mattress, sitting on the floor in the corner of some tattooed, Alpha douche-bro's dirty studio apartment. He didn't buy her dinner beforehand. He didn't bring her chocolates. He didn't take her shopping. He didn't offer a vacation cruise.

No, instead, texted her "hey come over", she did, he fucked her brains out, and tossed her a bag of Skittles when she said she was hungry afterwards. He didn't even take her to Applebees even though he gets a discount because he works as a line cook there, to supplement his income between working gigs as a bass player in a local band. After all, his bass guitar needs new strings and a re-tune, and a dinner date would've cut into the time he needed to do that.

That's the man she wants to fuck, that's the man she chooses. For a beta mangina feminist professor to assume even the slightest notion he has a crack at that nut is repulsive, creepy, and might just be stare-rape.

Remember boys: it's only sexual harassment when the man doing the harassing is unattractive. When he's attractive, she calls it "flirting".

edit link format

[–]Garl_Vinland 10 points11 points  (0 children)

A Beta attempting to court an attractive woman is an absolutely repulsive notion to the feminine imperative, because it implies that a man is the one doing the choosing.

There is another important aspect of this that you've left out. We all know that women love to project. They think others think the way they do. Part of her determination of a man's worth is evaluating the value of the women who are attracted to him. The more quality female attention he has, the higher his value (preselection.) She assumes (consciously or not) that the same rules apply to her. Therefore, she thinks that an unattractive man openly showing interest in her is a DLV. The fact that he thinks he has a chance with her really is an insult in her eyes.

[–]jcrpta 9 points10 points  (2 children)

A Beta attempting to court an attractive woman is an absolutely repulsive notion to the feminine imperative, because it implies that a man is the one doing the choosing.

The logical response for any beta teenage boy who has got this far in figuring out society is to wait for girls to ask him out. 'Course, we all know how well that works.

[–]2 MRedPillWatchTower 21 points22 points  (0 children)

You've mis-interpreted me entirely. What betas do with the supplication, the compliments, the roses, the dinners, trips to the movie theater, etc, this is all overt. It puts it square in a woman's face that you, a man, are "choosing" her. This is repulsive. You are putting square in her face the cold, hard, transactional nature of sex, and you are literally trying to trade things for pussy, and expecting her to trade pussy for things. Again, as I said above, by behaving in Beta modes of attraction, you are plainly trying to negotiate desire. And as we all know, desire is not negotiable.

As an Alpha man, your job is to mark your target, then behave in covert ways that start to build her attraction to you. These behaviors are collectively known as "game". Push/pull, the 2/3rd texting rule, being mysterious, being physically attractive, responding to shit tests with amused mastery, etc. You are displaying an abundance mentality that makes it clear to her that you are not going to "choose" her, rather, she had better choose you, or she's going to lose you to another woman.

Rather than using "things" like a Beta, you become the "thing" that she wants. And by "thing", I mean "object of her desire."

In short, a woman wants a man who "Just Gets it."

edit add Rollo link to relevant article

[–]1grendalor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Right, which is why it's best explained as "males display, females choose". No getting around the display part.

[–]StillRedder 42 points43 points  (10 children)



What a vitriolic and angry response to that BB wall of text he wrote, by that woman. She wrote everything as if the beta expected women to fall onto his dick.


If this isn't more of a proof that every dude here, reading these posts, should start lifting and stop listening to what women say they want, instead do what works; I don't know what is.

[–]Frankly_George 26 points27 points  (8 children)

stop listening to what women say they want, instead do what works

What if after realizing this I decide the "prize" isn't worth it? That's where I'm at right now. Disgusted at myself for desiring something incapable of desiring me back without needing to play a game of reassurance to convince women of my worthiness.

[–]DexiAntoniu 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Live your life for yourself. Be great. Have fun. Be a pro. There are good women out there, but whether you meet one or not is something you can control, so don't wait for it. If the chances favor you, it will happen. Disgust is a waste of time.

[–]QuengKong 10 points11 points  (2 children)

You can still get much out of TRP. For me and many others TRP isn't about getting women, it's about becoming "best possible version of you", and if some women want to join you on your journey it's cool, but it's not your desire, so she's the one putting effort.

Also you will probably get over this phase, at least you should, if not, well you can try MGTOW.

[–]deceptinomonom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed, the self-improvement advice really struck a chord with me. Be the prize on the pedestal and appreciate yourself when you've earned it.

[–]Kyuzo_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Truth. The only person you need to convince of your worthiness is yourself.

Be the best version of yourself you can be, go out, have fun, do cool shit. Women will want to be in your life, or they won't, either way, you should be enjoying life.

[–]jcrpta 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sounds like the anger stage. Either that or you're reaching the end of the bargaining stage and you realise there is no bargaining to be done.

[–]neolithicera 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What if after realizing this I decide the "prize" isn't worth it? That's where I'm at right now.

Yes, I have been there as well. My solutions was to create a new prize that doesnt hinge on other people. I made my personal prize understanding human nature to a T. It has become a hobby of mine to learn how we think and why we do what we do. Also reading body language fits well with this.

My point is you have to give meaning to your life because nobody will do that for you. And once you master something, you will realize that you in fact know more than most of humanity, even if it is in a small area. This gives me immense satisfaction and I feel that most people would do well to create their own prizes.

Shitty mobile formatting...

[–]1Zackcid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude, just keep doing you, keep being working hard and being awesome. Years down the road (if you've kept at it), you'll be the total package. You won't have to reassure or convince women of anything. This bullshit "convincing" only applies to betas who are trying to "sneak" their way into pussy. There's a "secret sex society" out there. 95% of guys just aren't invited. It's only natural women put up their guard for unworthy mawfuckers.

[–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are free to choose that. Learning the game has quite a few benefits though - women are fun and the game is fun. You're literally bred to play it, afterall. You were just trained not to.

[–]drkstrs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

they aren't worth the effort. MGTOW for me.

[–]Aiadon 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It doesn't seem to me that that's what feminism is aiming. More likely they are trying to force everyone, male and female to follow their oppressive dogma and they have no idea what terrible effects they would have on society if their sect doesn't fail at it's plan.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Consider why it motivates them. There is no effect without a cause.

They feel strongly about it internally, a sense to right a moral injustice, but that internal feeling is fueled by their biological imperative. They're likely not consciously doing it.

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

the optimization of female sexual strategy would be to build up a large cast of strong, decisive, yet reliable alphas and to have a legal system which encouraged them to marry and punished them for being players

what we have now is far, far from optimal

[–]drrtyfrrnr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are only a few alphas in any population. If they are all married, then how are most women supposed to partake of the cock buffet?

[–]Granny_Whisperer 22 points23 points  (14 children)

What feminism wants the most is that low SMV men are removed from the gene pool. If they do it by themselves, like Scott Aaronsons of this world are wont to do, even better. Ultimate shit test.

[–]Rathadin 28 points29 points  (12 children)

The problem with this idea, and why its ultimately self-defeating for feminists and the wider world of women, is that by removing more of these men from the gene pool - or more likely, the dating/marriage pool - what's actually going to happen is that women now have less and less choice, so we end up with more 40-year old women suffering from crippling neuroses, seeing a therapist twice a month, trying to figure out why they haven't met their dream man, without realizing that their "dream man" was a concoction developed by mass media - he doesn't exist in the necessary quantities, and never did.

Women themselves are starting to wake up to this reality, but sadly in too few numbers to make any sort of difference. This is gonna be great when the shit finally hits the fan. God I hope I'm alive for it. I just want to grab a huge bowl of popcorn and watch from the sidelines.

[–]vakerr 25 points26 points  (8 children)

On top of that civilization is mostly built by betas. If those are removed, you can kiss your civilization good bye.

[–]sway_usa 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I feel like this is frequently forgotten.

[–]bobbatosakosanose 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Do alpha's really need civilization? They get laid with or without it.

[–]vakerr 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If there is no other goal or dream, just getting laid, then there is no need for civilization. We can all just climb back on the trees. Personally I don't like that plan too much.

[–]juanqunt -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

True alphas lead masses of betas to the advancement of civilization. Alpha by definition means leader, while betas are the tools/workers. Headless drones do not advance civilization without their alpha.

[–]bobbatosakosanose 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Not true at all. Most billionaires are pretty geeky. Look at Warren buffet, Eric Schmidt. The trp alpha is a guy who gets laid. That's it.

[–]juanqunt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They may be geeky, but are they white knights? Do they get laid?

The answer is that they don't need to bow down to any woman and they attract plenty of women. They might not follow a 100% red pill philosophy. But I think to get to where they are, they are shrewd enough not to fall for any BS a woman might give them.

Men want to be them, women want to be with them... if you think they aren't alpha just because they are old, nerdy looking, and don't even lift, then you're an idiot. I'm young, shredded, and fairly good looking, but I'd gladly switch places with them.

[–]vakerr 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You'll find that what's referred as alpha in TRP does not match the definition of leader or true alpha.

[–]airheadzombie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. Alpha in TRP terms is the sexual alpha (good genes). There may be an overlap between the two though.

[–]ProductivityMonster 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I had a dream woman concocted by media ever since I hit puberty. I used to see her in every woman I met. After being exposed to TRP, I didn't see her at all, and was left hating women for not being my dream woman. Then, I started to see there was some small value to them as a place to comfort me in my self improvement journey. I started to realize that I should try lowering my standards (from disney princess to normal girl) and now I'm finally doing okay. But I still don't really like women, at least not like I used to, even if I can stand the fact that they're hypergamous and extremely selfish. I also don't know what to make of relationships seeing as they're entirely controlled by dominance and hormones, and have very little to do with romantic love.

I tried ignoring girls and going into monk mode after my last breakup. But now it's time to get back out there and I really find it hard to like women, knowing what I know about their core nature.

EDIT: solution seems to be spinning plates (don't actually have to like their character) to raise abundance mentality instead of trying to search for a LTR (someone I could actually like) from the get-go.

[–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't try to like women. Don't try to dislike them.

It is perfectly OK to dislike them. The media will tell you otherwise but know your independent mind and, to the extent possible, the reasons. Be at peace with that.

Look at women anew. See how they behave. Go drink several coffees in a Starbucks someday and just observe. Study those creatures.

[–]Redpillc0re 4 points5 points  (0 children)

suffering from crippling neuroses

Men suffer a lot more in their lives, but they are only told to man up. I have stopped caring about female feelings. The biggest fallacy is that women are "more emotional" than men. They are so only if you enable them.

[–]juanqunt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't call Scott Aaronson a low SMV man... yes that's what he is currently due to his circumstances, but he had the genes to be a genius researcher. I would say that he is a tragic case. Had he been raised by an alpha father figure, he could have been extremely high SMV; his potential is wasted. This is distinctly different from idiot losers who'd never be high SMV no matter what.

If feminism simply removes the lowest quality men from the gene pool, then it's like the invisible hand of the market and it's a good thing... but it's the opposite. Feminism seeks to remove the most intellectual men from the gene pool, but giving them false promises of rewards for serving mankind with great discoveries and inventions, then completely shitting on them.

[–]16 Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 17 points18 points  (1 child)

And the piece by Marcotte is in furthering this strategy: "How dare you imply that you had it hard? You were supposed to follow this path, and you should be thankful that some women decided to finally be with you!"

More mockery, more attacks, to make sure he goes back to being the useful beta. Because each man awakening is another dent in the rickety foundation of feminism.

[–]1Padre55 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly, the CC Rider shrew brigade begins harping on how awful whatever behavior is from "you!!" The cawing is designed like a cage that the poor Beta is dumb enough to crawl back into with a "oh I'm sorry, whatever was I thinking? Of course m'ladies!"

When examined however, it is afterall merely..cawing..and more than likely, unless one is a Scalzi type, poor M'Lady! Beta was never hitting those drawers anyway. By withdrawing one effectively drains the last chains that CC Riders have around poor ol Mr Beta

[–]HeadingRed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there is also a "Stockholm syndrome" at work here. You have a guy who agrees with the inflated BS he has been fed (male privilege, women have zero power, the only difference between the sexes is society etc.) and says "OK, I see a couple kernels of truths here and I want to reform". And he is taken prisoner (or goes willingly) and begins to identify and think like his captors.

Then he reforms and conforms to this new social construct he has been given. But he's an educated man and a thinker. And as the wave of initial guilt fades a bit he starts to think. And he has a hard time thinking about any "special male privilege" he experienced. And remembers all of his own hard work. And perhaps how often he was passed over romantically for a guy who did things he was told was wrong.

And now he older and a better catch. And he has some social status and financial success. And only now is is finally a suitable romantic prospect. Not for a crazy weekend or a fling, but settle down material.

And he finally got it- it's not just that he is "settle down" material, but now he has finally peaked into someone that women will settle for.

[–]1IdiDadaAmin 156 points157 points  (59 children)

Women don't respect male feminists because feminism is a giant shit test.

Guess what? If you are a male feminist, you have failed the shit test. You have no respect from them which is why, time and time again, you see these 'men' get chewed up by the women they champion.

As a male, you cannot win with a feminist:

If you support her, you've been pulled into her frame. You lose.

If you engage her with reason, you've been pulled into a battle of feels vs reals. You lose.

If you engage her with emotion, you're fighting on ground that is unstable and subject to goalpost moving, ad hominem, and all manner of fallacy designed to portray you as a misogynist shitbeard. You lose.

The only winning move is to not even acknowledge them - let their ideology reach its inevitable apartment with three cats and no man willing to commit to them.

There is an entire world of women to date who don't adhere to a philosophy built around hating men.

[–]GregariousWolf 64 points65 points  (9 children)

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

[–]1IdiDadaAmin 18 points19 points  (1 child)

As someone who has pulled nuclear alert, this was deeply appreciated.

[–]YOUGOTMOxY 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good advice generally. Though in my experience there's an iron nail for any argument. Quick. Sharp. Tough.

[–]Spacemage 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Someone ran an Unreal Tournament game on the computer for three years, full of 16 bots. At first they all ran around and killed each other, but eventually, as the owner decided to go into the game noticing an odd kill/death ratio, he noticed none of the bots moved. All they did was watch him as he ran around. He decided to kill one of the bots, which caused the 15 other bots to hunt him down and promptly kill him.

The bots learned that the only way to win (aka not die) is not to play the game.

[–]Redrog1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its a good example to show the result, but those type of experiments are misleading because achieving that conclusion depends on the programming of the bot. And that programming could (and most probably does) not have anything to do with our biological programming.

[–]makethemsayayy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's creepy as fuck, lol. they evolved beyond the need for conflict!!

[–]blandboringusername 37 points38 points  (8 children)

I'm done having rational debates with women. Just think of them as tantrumy little children who live in a me me me fantasy world. Why would you want to waste your energy trying to have an adult conversation with somebody like that anyway?

[–]OakTr3E 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Exactly. You cant argue them with logic. Can´t seem to understand why it took me such a long time to understand. Yes there are a few exceptions but they aren't feminists in the first place. Not saying NAWALT because women with some rational capability isn't part of AWALT.

But by default, if a woman have crazy ideas (i.e feminism) and "seem normal in all other regards" she is just a normal woman incapable of looking at life in other ways then her own (and womens) perspective. No point in trying to argue with her.

Intelligent women (rare breed - but not unicorns) who are capable of rationality don't hold crazy ideas. They may have some minor weird ideas or opinions that differ from yours. But you can actually debate with them to some extent. They still have the hamster to "think" for them when they need to. I-e in topics related to relations, "who's at fault", and "why her opinions are correct even if your opinions differ (hint: it's because of vagina) and you are a bad man for having another set of opinions and using logic to make her feel bad".

[–]TA_2985_A6E1_9FC3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To paraphrase: If you engage a 4 year old in an argument, you have already lost.

[–]galvanised_computer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Can confirm. All my interactions with feminists have lead to them: 1. Trying to shame me 2. Poisoning the well fallacy 3. Being sexist as fuck

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad 15 points16 points  (2 children)

The only winning move is to not even acknowledge them - let their ideology reach its inevitable apartment with three cats and no man willing to commit to them.

Captivating and concise. Appreciate those copy skills. Excellent lesson point at end.

[–]Upvote Me!trpbot[M] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Confirmed: 1 point awarded to /u/IdiDadaAmin by RedPillDad. [History]

[This is an Automated Message]

[–]nrjk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree this works on an individual level. But the broader implications are what sane people should fight back against. Remember, the cultural passivity to this ideology is the very reason we're even discussing it.

[–]zephyrprime 12 points13 points  (2 children)

The way to win feels vs reals arguments is to play feels vs "feels". ie, only argue "feels" on the surface while actually arguing reals beneath the surface. An argument like this would make any debate coach want to vomit because of its blatant disregard for logical debate and totally absurd arguments (and lack of arguments and specific positions). However, this is actually the way to fight someone who is really only having an emotional tantrum and grabbing for social power and is motivated by egotism. Throw some tantrum back into their face and walk away with detachment to demonstrate ego superiority.

Back in college, I was in love with a girl who was feminism minor. I made a comment about one of her stupid feminism books one day and she scornfully dissed me. Later, I would see this other guy opening tease her about being a feminazi and she would laugh along with him. WTF? I could not believe it. However, now I see that since he was playful with the issue and was socially dominant by providing emotional energy and entertainment value, he was able to insult her to her face and have her implicitly agree.

Now that is how you fight to win, gentlemen.

[–]GabeTheImpaler 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The way to win feels vs reals arguments is to play feels vs "feels". ie, only argue "feels" on the surface while actually arguing reals beneath the surface.

What the royal fuckenbaums did you just say

I think women who want to play the feels game need to be laughed at and lightly patted on the head.

[–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's sorta what he just said.

[–]Johntookthepill 7 points8 points  (2 children)

If you engage her with reason, you've been pulled into a battle of feels > vs reals. You lose.

You can do this, not to convince the bitch, but the audience and make her look like the a emotional, non-rational nutcase she is. (exeption: if the audience is daytime tv talkshow live audience it won't also probably work when 200 cunts cheer for her emotional "arguments")

Without the audience I agree, absolutely waste of time.

[–]DaSaw 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This isn't just women. Most debate, whether against men or women, is a waste of time if you're actually trying to convince your opponent. Among friends who can be trusted as a sounding board, it can be useful, but even then, you're unlikely to convince anyone who ha reached a level of conviction where they're actually willing to debate you... and if they don't have that kind of conviction, they're probably not interested in developing it, either for your ideas or theirs.

Debate is less for the benefit of the debaters than the audience. They are the ones that get to hear different sides and have an opportunity to make a decision.

[–]deaduponaviral 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you know you have nothing in regards of a winning argument you must attack the personal character of your opponent, not their talking points. Watch any bullshit "debate" on the news nowadays and and all you see is the same formula. 1. opening arguments 2. squabbling shout offs jockeying for airspace 3.personal attacks on character trying to rally the herds to 1 of 2 sides.

People are emotional, scared, lazy fucking idiots who have no idea how nuanced and complex the world really is. I mean, we voted in a bush more than a few times because we thought he'd be the kinda guy to have a beer with instead of looking at his diplomatic policies, lol. Kerry looked like a pompous intellectual cock and he lost for that. There's no logic or reason in trying to fix stupid...just manipulating stupid to your own ends.

[–]ChivaVonChiva 7 points8 points  (6 children)

There is an entire world of women to date who don't adhere to a philosophy built around hating men.

I need to keep reminding myself this to stay sane. American society will either be completely dead or very interesting in ten years.

[–]jcrpta 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Societies don't tend to change terribly quickly.

The more rabid feminists will gradually find it harder and harder to get airtime; men will be allowed to be men but it'll be a long, slow process. It'll take at least a generation, possibly two or three.

[–]through_a_ways 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Societies don't tend to change terribly quickly.

Societies don't tend to have internet communication either.

We do now, though

[–]ChivaVonChiva 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh man I hope you're wrong but who knows. Things tend to happen a little quicker these days than anybody expects.

Happy cake day bruh

[–]sweetgene05 1 point2 points  (2 children)

start by ruling out all American girls...that clears out a good deal of the trash

....look for cultures that are red pill - I prefer East Asian, especially Korean and Chinese women.

[–]ChivaVonChiva 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brother I'm way ahead of ya ;)

I just wish I didn't have to travel to have access to incredible women. On the other hand it's something to work toward.

[–]Redpillc0re 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jealous i didn't think of that! This should be a meme.

In the Developed West,


In other parts of the world, it's an actual process.

[–]lycanthr0py 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I never lose a game of feels versus reals, I've become too adept at bullshit destruction from studying the trivium method.

[–]1IdiDadaAmin 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I just don't play because even when you "win" the resentment lingers and carries over into unrelated arguments.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)


    [–]lycanthr0py 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    Not at all. I've personally seen it play out perfectly plenty of times. You simply point out the errors, say why, and do it all from frame. It's easy and people respond to truth delivered with clarity. The other techniques work also, but so does this. I wouldnt do it in certain situations, but people understand that their feelings don't determine reality. They may lose sight of that in the heat of emotion, but having the frame and eloquence to guide things back to reality is sexy.

    Bullshit is very worth thinking about in a certain sense. Otherwise you would never have the red pill, because no one would have subjected feminist conditioning to critical thought. You can constantly deflect bullshit, or you can kill it forever in that person with skill and reason. Studying bullshit is like studying hacking, it makes you good at security.

    [–]ProductivityMonster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    ^ do not attempt the above if you're not a master-debater.

    [–]Chaosrock 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I had to eventually realize this. I used to bicker with feminists, ripping apart their frail ideology with well known facts but it inevitably led to their hysteria and anger being flung at me. I've had femtards on reddit say they wish I would die. It wasn't a good use of my time. Now I mostly ignore them. Their anger won't prevent them from ending up old, single, unloved with no offspring in a one bedroom apartment with 12 cats. It won't provide substance to their shitty movement. Once you embrace this fact you live a happier life.

    [–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I've had fun with them, arguing on ThoughCatalog a few months ago (when it was visibly more feminist than it is today!) But it was low to zero stakes.

    Not only did I win, I got a few female allies. They were very brave, because the other women really went after them. Feminism is hardest on the women.

    [–]a_nus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    All of your scenarios for engaging with feminists have one thing in common: taking her seriously. It's impossible to win that way.

    I've had female feminist friends who I've fucked on and off during many years. The only way to "win" with them is to not take them seriously, and simply acknowledge their feminine side and use it to your advantage, even if they themselves don't even acknowledge it.

    I can even say I'm relatively good friends with some "feminists." Sure, they rant sometimes, but I don't really give a fuck as long as they provide some sort of value, be it sexual, network (parties, female friends, etc.), or anything that I can enjoy.

    [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 29 points30 points  (4 children)

    Of course he's getting attacked. He's flirting with dangerous heresy.

    As a side note, that's the exact way I became redpill.

    First I was a feminist. Then I called myself a feminist except for dating, because feminist thought offered no dating solutions.

    This introduced cognitive dissonance, which led to the redpill.

    [–]Redpillc0re 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    I think it's about time to stop calling it Red Pill. Let's call it Sanity.

    [–]punkrock_101 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I know your post was only semi-serious but I agree it's odd that the absence of something has a specified name. I think "reality" is more suited.

    [–]JovianTrainWreck 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Well if there's anybody that could talk this guy into the help he clearly needs, it's probably you. Fuck, I feel bad for the guy, but I don't have the feminist perspective to help him the way someone like you could. Maybe nudge him in TRP's direction somehow?

    [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I considered it, but from his perspective to my current perspective takes time and experience - and I think Aaronson is already married so he's going to be less open to these ideas. By the time I abandoned feminist thinking, I was already treating girls like children, because I found it effective, being aloof, and hard to commit, etc.

    I do remember being absolutely confused as a teenager too, like he was.

    [–]themoor 25 points26 points  (0 children)

    He just needed MORE feminism!

    [–]1tombreck2 61 points62 points  (18 children)

    It's getting worse; I work in a federal building and last week they installed electronic locks on all the womens bathrooms because ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS

    [–]Anderfail 67 points68 points  (8 children)

    And when a woman pisses herself because she can't remember the password and is stuck outside, the patriarchy will be blamed again. This is absolutely hilarious.

    [–]Ibex3D 37 points38 points  (3 children)

    Well yeah. Maybe if men would stop raping women so much they wouldn't need locks on their bathroom and Deborah wouldn't have pissed herself in the hallway.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–]YuriJackoffski 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      No, she will demand all the rapists cleared out of the men's bathroom so she can pee (and fart) in peace.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)


        [–]Anderfail 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Yes it was a joke. The point was is that women will complain and it will be changed really fast back to how it was.

        [–]juanqunt 26 points27 points  (4 children)

        Jokes on them when they forget the password and piss themselves publicly. #justdumbblondethings

        [–]through_a_ways 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Blondes are actually more intelligent than brunettes, statistically speaking. Just saying

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Really now? That's interesting. What's the source?

        [–]cocoguard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        The ones forgetting it probably didn't care about putting it in place to begin with.

        [–]Philhelm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Who wants to rape a woman while she's dropping a steaming deuce?

        [–]pDiddyParty 38 points39 points  (6 children)

        It's funny. I go to a large state school (not the best and brightest go here, but a lot of very attractive people). I'm in the greek system here and in a pretty good fraternity. Lots of Alpha males etc. All my friends and I talk about how sluts are worthless except to bang, that we would never marry or date them, etc. Openly. And guess who fucks the most hottest girls? All my friends and people in other "top" fraternities. Not the Beta males in shitty nerdy fraternities who "respect women" and support "males against sexual assault". They get nothing.

        You'd think the girls would be lining up to fuck guys in the "boyfriend" fraternity. But they don't. Sure, they hang out with them, go to the bars with them, and party with them. But once 12:30 comes around on a Friday night, they text their men in the top frats begging to come over and fuck them.

        And what are these guys doing? At other parties, other bars, putting in zero effort to these girls that text them. They just wait, and then when that text comes up show all their friends and brag about how they are going to rail this girl in 20 minutes. The guys who hang out with them, buy them drinks, respect them...nothing. Maybe start dating after college when she's all used up.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 37 points38 points  (4 children)

        You'd think the girls would be lining up to fuck guys in the "boyfriend" fraternity. But they don't.

        This is precisely where beta-shaming comes from. Feminists know how this looks from the outside -- that they're hypocritical and clueless. They resolve this by shaming betas, by making it seem like there's something wrong with them. That way they've absolved any accountability, any agency they would otherwise have. Suddenly they have a means of rationalizing why they're not actually with the betas.

        Women use language to effect results, unlike men who use action.

        [–]1grendalor 13 points14 points  (2 children)

        Yes. Basically that's when the "you're not entitled to sex" line gets wheeled out, while, of course, the guys at Top Frat actually are entitled to sex. All comes down to AF/BB, friends, over and over and over again. Life is now AF/BB, full stop. As a man, you get to choose which you are by what you do with yourself, really.

        [–]JimmyDeLaRustles 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        I think genetics does more of the choosing sadly.

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Genetics has some part in it, but you're probably not trying hard enough.

        [–]Roshambo_USMC 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        [–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (8 children)

        This is going to be a year of backlash, I think. Watching the Golden Globes last night, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler did a Bill Cosby joke that fell completely flat. I'm sure there won't be any uproar about it, but as feminism keeps poking and prodding, there will be a backlash against it. It's already started, just very, very small.

        All he really realized is that women don't like weakness and will attack it. They do it to men, they do it to each other. Women are the wolves that make our pack stronger.

        [–]Ibex3D 12 points13 points  (1 child)

        If funny really. I grew up thinking men were the animals. The ones who would crush you to get what they want or even just for fun. Nope. Men are the ones who will help you pick yourself up.

        [–]nrjk 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Someone here posted a quote. It went something like this

        "Men are lovers parading as realists and women are realists parading as lovers."

        [–]1cover20 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Yes, and many people don't realize that because their image of women is dominated by their relationship with their mother.

        They don't sufficiently realize that that relationship is unique, stronger than a woman's love for her husband or anything else. They will never have it again with any other woman, and by seeking it from a woman they set off her beta-alarm.

        All he has to do is negate that, the beta cues will generally cease, and he'll be amazed how much better things go with girls.

        [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (4 children)

        But as we all know, most women are very stupid.

        This guy was a fucking MIT professor, a genius. He was dominatingly strong in his field.

        All he needed was a bit of interpersonal relation advice and he could figure out the rest. And a woman would have this prime specimen for herself.

        Darwin at work. Those women who attacked when they should have defended, missed the chance to have his children.

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        But you're presuming women want to give that sort of advice - they don't. He doesn't, "really get it" in their minds if they have to tell him what they want. In the girl brain, somehow his trickery got him where he is, but it certainly won't get in her pants. She's smarter than his tricks (note, this is primarily an unconscious process).

        It's just an evolutionary trait that's maladaptive in the current environment, but nowadays natural selection is pretty much gone so it won't be selected against.

        [–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        It will be selected against. She won't have his very bright children.

        A smarter woman will see the diamond-in-the-rough and grab on, and they will have extremely bright children.

        I know most women will not give that sort of advice. Those who overcome that tendency when it matters will do better than the majority who don't.

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Except for the fact that the well-educated and wealthy tend to breed less, and most everyone's children nowadays survives to breed as well.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Most people are stupid. It isn't just women.

        [–]smokingmonkey420 17 points18 points  (4 children)

        Feminism is actually a subtle thing in our culture. Most men and women don't subscribe to it, nor pay any attention to it. Far fewer recognize the implications it has on our collective psyche.

        Most people go to school, go to work, live for the weekends and settle down when they're tired of the party. That's their "normal."

        A shift in attitude towards a more patriarchal culture is going to take a lot of undoing. The women of today will fight tooth and nail because to accept the truth would hurt far too much. Of course, men care too much about women to let them accept their fate and will play captain save-a-Ho.

        I recognize the baby steps taking place but I could see it taking longer than 2020 to undo.

        [–]Rathadin 8 points9 points  (1 child)

        I honestly don't expect to see the end of feminism in my lifetime. I suspect it will only start heading downhill long after my sons are grown with their own families.

        You'd be surprised how long -isms can persevere.

        [–]JovianTrainWreck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        To highlight your point, Nazism ain't exactly dead yet. There's probably still a few witchcraft cults and shit as well.

        [–]zephyrprime 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        2020 is just a blink of the eye away really. Shit like this won't turn around easily so I agree with. Only a society wide catastrophe will turn this around.

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        If we get into another world war, we'd have patriarchy tomorrow.

        [–]CornyHoosier 41 points42 points  (10 children)

        Feminists loathe beta males

        This always makes me feel bad (especially when I remember my old "beta" days). The man being spoken about here is incredibly intelligent, likely friendly, has a great career going and is probably doing quiet well for himself financially. There are days I just want to shake some women and say, "Look! This is the kind of guy you all need to be fawning over. "

        However, confidence and strength win the day. Maybe one day it won't; but thousands of years of evolution cannot be overwritten in a few generations.

        [–]BrunoOh 19 points20 points  (8 children)

        I actually sympathize with women here. Such a dissonance between who you want to feel attracted to and who you are actually attracted to must be very emotionally taxing. Female attraction triggers are not suitable in our current environment.

        [–]16 Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 29 points30 points  (1 child)

        I don't. They supported feminism, and they got exactly what they wanted. It used to be that the majority of men had a confidence level (male pride) above that of women, so the average woman had the ability to feel attracted to Mr. Nice Goodprovider. Then they decided that men need constant shaming from a young age, and girls need the moxie, and now they can only get an orgasm from a guy who doesn't care about them and is only using them for sex. Tough luck, but that's the social changes working as expected.

        [–]1grendalor 20 points21 points  (4 children)

        Female attraction triggers make as much sense in our environment as male attraction triggers do, really. Male triggers are based on fertility -- even when almost all sex we have is not intended to be fertile in the least. This doesn't make much sense. We should be attracted to women based on other factors, right? But we aren't. Wired in. Whether we want to actually procreate or not, we want someone who would be a great procreation partner sexually -- it's what gives us a boner. Same for women. Even though they don't generally need physical strength very much (other than lifting things here and there) and don't need social dominance, large muscles, larger than average cocks and so on, these are all cues of behaviors that were marks of a superior procreation partner, so they are the attraction triggers for women and get women wet.

        This stuff doesn't match the current world for either sex, but that's beside the point because it isn't changing, either. We can't reason away our attraction triggers.

        [–]BrunoOh 9 points10 points  (2 children)

        I think women are still worse off.

        In the typical marriage (ex-cc-rider with beta bucks) I'd say the cc-rider has a lot less attraction towards the beta bucks than the other way around. Plus, men have wife goggles.

        This stuff doesn't match the current world for either sex, but that's beside the point because it isn't changing, either. We can't reason away our attraction triggers.

        I had a shower thought about this the other day. For example, the Pill does change attraction triggers - your body thinks you're pregnant, thus selecting beta traits over alpha ones. It doesn't seem impossible to me that a "fall in love with beta bucks"-pill/injection/device could be invented. And, would women voluntarily take that pill?

        [–]1grendalor 11 points12 points  (0 children)

        Oh women are worse off because they are naturally attracted to far fewer men than vice versa. This means that it's statistically very unlikely for a woman to marry a man she is actually strongly attracted to. This worked better (was capped more effectively) when people lived in smaller communities centuries ago, extra-marital sex was socially punished, etc. -- because while a woman might not have been magnetically attracted to her husband compared to some other guy in that limited context, there likely were not very many silverbacks in the context of most women, and they weren't experiencing them sexually. So, yes, the modern context has made the problem more acute, but I think the sadder fact for women is that they are just not that attracted to most men. That means, for most of them, lives of frustration as they have sex which is much less arousing and satisfying for them (probably why many of them "have a low libido" when they are married ... just can't marry the guys who get them off, because there are so few of them). So in that sense men do have it easier because we are attracted to many more women. The trouble we have is the temptation to variety seek, especially if we can pull. But that's a "good problem" to have.

        Interesting question on the "I love the beta" pill. I don't know how many women would take that -- I mean, it would lead to more satisfaction for them, but I think the idea of messing with their natural attractions -- especially if they have sampled the alpha sex as most of them have today before marrying -- would be unappealing.

        [–]ProductivityMonster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Why invent a new pill when the birth control pill does that already?

        [–]16 Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Male triggers are based on fertility

        Not exactly true. Evolution is not goal based, it just prunes sub-optimal possibilities. Men are generally attracted to larger breasts because the men who were attracted to smaller breasts tended to leave fewer offspring. Same for men attracted to older women. So it's not so much that male triggers are based on fertility, they are based on visual characteristics which correlated with the likelihood of the mother producing more healthy kids.

        [–]aptway 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        His behavior comes from a place of neediness and manipulation.

        I liken it in the same way to following a religion because you're afraid of going to hell. You're behaving/believing a certain thing because you believe it will get you results.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter 15 points16 points  (0 children)

        What a fantastic post by /u/Cyralea. A powerful source and personal story to back up the most basic of redpill lessons:

        • feminism and its hypocrisy

        • Alpha fucks beta bucks

        • Pursuit of personal happiness. Men waking up that they actually deserve to pursue sexual happiness.

        • How women actually loathe beta males and even male feminists, who they proclaim as allies.

        [–]1IdiDadaAmin 12 points13 points  (0 children)

        "Fuck you beta, how DARE you talk to us about your frustration with us?"

        [–]Speed9402 12 points13 points  (1 child)

        Amanda Marcotte... oh boy I'm bracing for it.

        Where the fuck does a white woman get off playing in the oppression Olympics? They're playing on easy mode.

        [–]kaspell -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

        this made me sniggle. Ty sir/mam ... "easy mode"

        [–]brotherjustincrowe 11 points12 points  (0 children)

        If there was ever a "missing the point" award I'd give it to Marcotte for her strawtastic rebuttal of things Aaronson didn't say. But then all she heard was I'm a beta I'm a beta I'm a beta and responded accordingly.

        [–]MindTheFuture 11 points12 points  (2 children)

        Read a heated discussion about this in Metafilter, with feminists hating this guy and explaining why his outcome made them so angry. They really hated the socially awkward, and that it'd be insulting from socially clumsy to ask for advice. Instead of reading guides, men should have balls to do the heavy lifting of trying things out, failing and figure it out himself (like everybody else). Asking women for an advice was considered rage-causing entitlement and the thought of educating a beta to become more attractive repulsed them to no end. And probably, even if they could find a will for honest instruction, they wouldn't knew the real reasons in the variance of attraction felt.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Women simply have no sympathy for weak men. They're literally programmed to feel revulsion for them. Unless that male is related to her biologically, any sign of weakness merits only scorn and disgust.

        That's why you see the type of responses to Aaronson from feminists. This is their nature.

        [–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 27 points28 points  (13 children)

        Feminism is a lot like Inquisition, the Devil being Patriarchy. Inquisition may torture you, and maim you, but see, Inquisition is not "evil", since by definition "evil" is caused by the Devil! So you should give more power to the Inquisition so that your torture, as necessary as it is, stops! Never does it cross the mind of common believer that the Devil hides best behind a smiling face of zealous and self-righteous preacher.

        This is highly relevant.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 5 points6 points  (8 children)

        Lengthy, but awesome read. Interesting to get the perspective of yet another beta male waking up to this very issue.

        [–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 14 points15 points  (7 children)

        He ain't waking up. He's a rationalist looking at this rationally. Throughout the article his research is in-depth, his facts all check out, and his logic is impeccable. But, at the conclusion, due to peer pressure or God knows what disorder, he short-circuits and says "I'm still 97 percent for". I find that kind of dishonesty disgusting.

        It's an honest waste of brain power trying to rationalize feminism.

        Alternative is something that others have proposed, that he's a neoreactionary masquerading as a progressive in order to boost the movement.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 6 points7 points  (5 children)

        I see it as a minor victory, still. Most men aren't as dogmatic about feminism as this guy. Most guys have a much smaller breaking point where they turn their noses up at obvious feminist hypocrisy.

        If even he can turn away some fraction of feminism, then there's hope for the greater population.

        [–]Ronin11A 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        (seriously, you wanted to throw the gauntlet down to lonely male nerds, and the turf you chose was Star Wars metaphors? HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY SEEM LIKE A GOOD IDEA?)

        As a reformed Star Wars nerd, that was worth reading just for this line.

        [–]1kingofpoplives 5 points6 points  (3 children)

        I see it as a minor victory, still.

        It is a victory. Aaronson and Alexander are hardline leftists. What we are seeing is their love of rationality winning out over their love of leftist ideals.

        When the most devout start losing faith, what hope do leftists have of controlling the rest of the population?

        The "liberal" brand, the one that appeals to the masses, is broadcast on NBC, ABC, etc, is rooted in being more intelligent, rational, and compassionate than The Right, who they depict as mouth-foaming Fox News viewers. If they lose any part of that the whole thing crumbles.

        [–]drrtyfrrnr 6 points7 points  (2 children)

        Jon Stewart. I used to really like the Daily Show, and even watched the Colbert Report sometimes.

        However, one day I watched the Colbert Report on the day when it was International Women's Day, and the obsequiousness and blatant bootlicking turned me off to the core. I stopped watching the Colbert Report that day, and shortly after, stopped watching the Daily Show as well.

        As they go more and more into the fringe, they'll lose the rational viewers.

        [–]1kingofpoplives 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        Exactly. The frame of those shows is a great example of the liberal brand I mentioned above.

        Like you, it was ruined for me when I could no long "un-see" the leftist propaganda dripping from every segment.

        [–]makethemsayayy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        LITERALLY EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS: Liberals are ALWAYS GOOD, affirmative action is super fair!, ect.

        Even fucking Bill Maher, a liberal, HATES feminism, and is real when it comes to muslim terrorists.

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        Saying he's 97% for is about the only thing he can say without being reviled - hell, look at Aaronson, he said 97% and he was attacked.

        He's clearly on the cusp of getting it - he sees the raw deal and he's rejecting the narrative. He's just not saying that flat out because to say that would immediately get all of the other plugged in men to immediately reject his statement, as well as virtually all women.

        In the modern environment it is best to pretend to be orthodox, while covertly spreading heresy like this as you can.

        "I am 97% on board with the Pope, but there's just a few things I think Catholicism could fix..."

        [–]1grendalor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        It's a pretty good read.

        It's worth knowing that the woman he is fisking there, Laurie Penny, is a well known member of the radical left in the UK. So she isn't a moderate in the least, but is representative instead of a kind of "radical feminist girl nerd" type of whom there are not very many overall, but who are more represented on the internet, as one would expect.

        [–]trpalternate 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        That is highly worth the read simply for the exposition on Patriarchy being a "Motte and Bailey" trick.

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Insanely long, but good article.

        You can tell he's right on the cusp.

        [–]NaughtyFred 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Still in the angry phase, this didn't help, but still a very interesting read

        [–]RPSigmaStigma 8 points9 points  (3 children)

        From Rollo's Moments of Clarity

        Even for the most abject Beta man there comes significant points in his life when he makes a Red Pill connection – a point at which, despite his feminine-primary socialization and for all his own participation in a system that deceives him, his circumstance or a trauma rattles him into a state of clarity.

        I don't think this is a sign of feminism dying, or a RP awakening. I do think TRP is gaining a lot of momentum, but this is just a normal beta moment of clarity.

        [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Feminist misandry can't stand much of it though, because women do not cooperate. If they see other women changing at all, they get all scared and change a lot themselves.

        [–]RPSigmaStigma 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Yep, the first goal of every woman is to flock with the consensus.

        [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I don't know if that's true, but a very rational fear that is starting to emerge in women is that they will be like the current crop of 35 year olds, who counted on finding betabucks and are now stranded because the betabucks are reading RP and saying "nope".

        Women are good at self preservation. Often that means going with the consensus, which is pretty safe, and other women will indeed give them shit if they don't. But their desire for the best father for their eggs is way above any "loyalty" to the consensus or other women.

        [–]juanqunt 16 points17 points  (1 child)

        Truly sad story... He's an acquaintance of many of my friends. At one point, maybe at age 15, I thought the same thing as him... might as well as become asexual and devote myself to math. But then at age 17 or so, I said fuck this shit, I'm already accomplished enough in the brain, so time to get better at other aspects of life. I decided to get shredded and also look up some PUA stuff. Didn't really get into PUA, since it seemed like an empty effort that still put women on the pedestal, but then I came accross some Rational Male and Heartist articles that really clicked with me. Scary to think that if my natural test levels were lower and had I been in slightly different situations, I could have gone down his path... well maybe not become a feminist, since I hated feminists and black knighted girls ever since I was a kid, but the nerdy beta male path was real, since I was indoctrinated by public school into thinking that is how you become successful in life.

        There was A LOT of cognitive dissonance. I've always had alpha thoughts, but everything I did was beta, because that's what was expected of me. I was supressing a lot of my inner alpha, thinking that type of "caveman" behavior didn't belong in our modern society.

        [–]monkeytechx 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        "Incidentally, if you want to see a response to his post, here a Rawstory article. Are they supportive of their ally, who found happiness while still mostly carrying their banner?

        Hah. You guys know better. Feminists loathe beta males. AWALT."

        WOW, I usually don't bother reading material from those types. I must have been seeking some adrenaline today and read the post and some comments. That was some of the most disingenuous, vile crap I have read in a long time. I can count five of those people who I'd slap the taste out of their mouth's if they ever spewed that toxin near me or my family.

        Thanks for the post and your insight.

        [–]crypto_nonce 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        Before this incident I had a huge amount of respect for this guy. His research is truly amazing and answers some of the most fundamental questions that will usher humanity into a new age. However I have pretty much lost respect for this guy (still like his work), he surrendered without a fight, accepting that "Patriarchy" was to be blamed for his situation. He is a prime example of how knowledge and intelligence do not provide any self confidence. This guy is a prime mating candidate given his intelligence but but his life will be spent as a looser husband while "Bad Boys" with low IQ impregnate multiple girls and produce 10 offsprings. Worse those kids will bully his children who rather than getting any support from their spineless father, will be blame patriarchy. And it would be fitting since its just that their father failed them.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        You have to consider the fact that he grew up in a very indoctrinated society. You bombard anyone with ideas since adolescence and they will conform to them. Compound the fact that he's also likely a low-testosterone male and you can see how it's difficult for him to be the kind of person who bucks the status quo.

        He's still weak in my mind, but I can understand why he's the way he is.

        [–]2RedPillSafe 18 points19 points  (6 children)

        The Red Pill exists because Feminism is a type of Marxism and entirely artificial.

        Nature just doesn't normally allow things like Feminism to exist and historically it's never lasted long.

        Feminism is like a fire that consumes civilization... when the fire burns out then we return to the "common sense" (MGTOW stoic) of a Patriarchy.

        Hypergamy has never produced a successful culture and never will.

        And the faster we can get Betas to turn into MGTOW's the sooner the pop comes.

        We don't really need more Alpha's, just fewer Beta Bucks.

        [–]16 Endorsed ContributorDemonspawn 15 points16 points  (5 children)

        Hypergamy has never produced a successful culture and never will.

        I have to disagree with this. Hypergamy is exactly why we have successful culture. All the men competing with each other to be the best to get good women is why we have advanced upon their backs.

        Hypergamy is just like fire. When harnessed and contained, it can fuel the steam engine that turns the wheels that gets us advancing.

        When uncontrolled, it is a fire that destroys everything.

        And, yes, in our current society, hypergamy is uncontrolled. When it consumes up the resources and good will of men, it will eventually run out of fuel, having destroyed everything, and men can begin to rebuild.

        [–]2RedPillSafe 11 points12 points  (4 children)

        Marriage 1.0 did fuel the fire of man to improve himself and indirectly society overall.

        Marriage 2.0 with the "perpetual hypergamy" of the cock carousel and Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks / Divorce Rape does everything to undermine masculinity.

        So we agree I think.

        In Marriage 1.0 women had just ONE chance at hypergamy and that was her choice in a husband. If that choice turned out badly her only option was to walk away from her marriage and lose everything. A divorced woman in those days couldn't even own property so there were no "cash prizes" for tree swinging back then.

        Hypergamy should be highly limited to achieve success in a society.

        [–]1grendalor 3 points4 points  (3 children)

        Looked at from the broader perspective, yes.

        I mean hypergamy just "is". It's always present -- that's a given. And it's a part of mate selection that isn't inherently bad -- it's served our species well ... when kept in its proper place.

        The issue occurs when restraints on it are removed. All successful cultures had hypergamy (it's wired), but they also all had multiple, belts-and-suspenders ways of restricting its exercise -- social, legal, cultural, religious, etc. All of it deeply, deeply restricted any woman from pursuing hypergamy in its "desired fullness" (AF/BB), and basically ensured paternity, which led to increased male productivity at the same time. It worked because it was restricted. When you take away all of the social, legal, cultural, religious controls, and at the same time take away the physical consequences of sex and remove women from the need for specific men financially -- an amazing, almost "perfect storm" of factors happening all at the same time -- well, then you get hypergamy on steroids. Unrestricted, feral, unchecked. And that's the form that's destructive. It's the form we have today, of course, as well.

        Having said that, not much to do now about any of that. The genie has been out of the bottle now for decades and she's been busy pole dancing the whole time. She's not going back into the bottle any time soon. And that's why we have TRP, so we can navigate this specific time in history -- the era of feral hypergamy -- successfully as men.

        [–]2RedPillSafe 6 points7 points  (2 children)

        At the beginning of Red Pill it was 100% adaptive because the feeling was that doing anything to change the situation was considered hopeless.

        Now the growth is so rapid that we might all be getting a false sense of euphoria that with enough Beta's unplugging and going MGTOW (or further still to chase the Alpha top positions) that the Misandry Bubble might pop in years rather than decades.

        That was the point of this thread... the confidence of Red Pill is growing.

        • Red Pill is starting to get a Neoreactionary flavor.

        This is because of events going on around the world. In Germany there were large "pro-Germany" ("anti-Islamization") protests that stress the same kind of ideas that we discuss here. At some point everyone needs to wake up and take seriously the idea of preserving Western civilization and work against the cultural Marxists.

        [–]1grendalor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Its certainly spreading. Co-option is a big risk, I think -- people taking some ideas and "making them safe for feminism", and so on.

        [–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Recently (not right now, maybe there was moderator action) there were a lot of shills on this very sub, pushing blue pill and white knight (but tough sounding) points of view.

        [–]armenia4ever 4 points5 points  (4 children)

        I've been following this story through Scott Alexander of Star Slate Codex as well as some other places.

        Marcottes response to this might be the coldest thing I've ever seen. Anywhere. This guy lays out his heart, asks for help, and she just ignores it and attacks him.

        It's hard to believe that she literally isn't capable of compassion.

        [–]1grendalor 4 points5 points  (3 children)

        Not for men. Marcotte is a straight-up man-hater like Valenti. Pretty open I think.

        [–]kaspell 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Just curious, I've read at least one of Valenti's books a few years back and I never picked up on the 'man hater' part. what Am I missing?

        Granted it was when I was reading feminism at the point where I was like, "everyone is equal, I support that.... but what is theis dissonance i feel when I read things I agree with?"

        I just don't remember her as seeming overly anti manish, and again, I honestly wouldn't remember the title unless it was said.

        [–]1grendalor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        She's not like a Valerie Solanas, and she's less sarcastic than Marcotte (that's Marcotte's main modus operandi), but it's there in a more subtle way. She's always tried to be more mainstream and less shrill than Marcotte, but the messages are still very anti-male (or anti-masculinity), coupled with the idea that all men who disagree are misogynist.

        Here's an interesting picture:

        Now, of course, if pressed she would say that this was a "joke" to make a point to "misogynist male whiners", but the fact that this is her sense of humor is itself pretty telling.

        So, yeah, not snarky like Marcotte, but underneath it all pretty similar.

        [–]kaspell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        took me a sec to remember the context. There was a pretty goood TRP discussion regarding what art/image/humor of a subculture reveals regarding a movement that this ties into nicely. (would link if i could remember who it was, but I don't comment much) should be pretty easy to find if you check the sub. thanks for the food/though.

        [–]∞ Red Pill VisionaryRollo-Tomassi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal of love at the same time.

        Neither can they sell Open Hypergamy and the premise of egalitarian equalism. There will come a tipping point where men see the duplicity.

        [–]twinyix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        One thing I that really struck me about the Rawstory response is:

        Because of my fears—my fears of being “outed” as a nerdy heterosexual male, and therefore as a potential creep or sex criminal—I had constant suicidal thoughts. As Bertrand Russell wrote of his own adolescence: “I was put off from suicide only by the desire to learn more mathematics.”

        There are many women out there who are also crippled by social anxieties who would prefer to hide in their hobbies and interests. The difference is a) they can’t blame the entire opposite sex instead of themselves for their mental health issues and b) when they actually try to turn those interests and hobbies into professions, they are told by various social forces, both explicitly and implicitly, that their femaleness means they will always be second-rate at best. Being able to hide in mathematics is, in fact, a privilege, because it is one that has long been and continues in many ways, denied to women.

        Or in short Scott talks about his suicidal thoughts resulting from his extreme cognitive dissonance trying to understand his situation in life.

        Scott is by all means a smart man with a hell of a lot of willpower. He was even strong enough to combat suicide. Male suicide rates are extremely high in comparison to womens.

        Of those who died by suicide in 2012, 78.3% were male and 21.7% were female. Source

        However his attacker here plays the victim card, essentially saying "Oh YOU have problems, women have it much worse!". For a rational person, this implies that his attacker gives no shits about his suicidal thoughts. If I were Scott, it would be clear to me that this women, a strong and independent feminist does not care whether he lives or dies.

        Some people would simply say, "Oh that's just a radical feminist, Not All Feminists Are Like That. There's a slient majority that truly believes in the equality of the sexes." That is complete bullshit. It is 2015, any person with any electrical signals in their brain can post information to Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc., where their information can be seen by millions of people. If this "silent" majority were to care about this at all then they would actively refute articles like these. It's that simple, downvote and move on.

        This silent majority is essentially dark matter. A construction/lie made up by feminists to validate their world view without having to take a look within themselves.

        I will not listen to any arguments arguments made by feminists. Because the fact of the matter is, if your movement doesn't care whether I live or die, there is no reason for me to listen to it.

        [–]1grendalor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Heh, Marcotte is always good for a laugh.

        [–]the_optiomal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        i find this to be very sad

        [–]cooltrip 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        funny enough, the entire Amanda Marcotte's reply can be "translated" into: "Yes, we women feminists prefer superior men. So what? aren't we free?"

        Sure, Amanda. You just should have added: this is why we women NEED feminism, namely a gender equality movement: because of our very female inferiority that makes us prefer superior men.


        [–]should_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I hope he is sent this post.

        [–]1kick6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        The Rawstory article even throws Andrea Dworkin under the bus. Feminists don't even like other Feminists. There must be a way we can use this to our advantage to enact their undoing.

        [–]Redpillc0re 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Kudos to him regardless of what u think of him, feminists are the biggest bullies for nerds.

        [–]makethemsayayy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        its how North Korea treats its citizens. They're brainwashed and treated like shit, but still think their course of action is the best. I don't fucking like it.

        [–]FallenHighSchoolJock 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        Elliot Rodger was just the Beginning. I think we're going to see a lot more beta males with cognitive dissonance imploding. So many men share sentiments like the examples in the OP but so few have the knowledge that we do to make sense of it all. I've seen the future and it ain't pretty. A war is coming. Between the incels and the establishment. Between the have's and have-not's. France 1789, Germany 1933 and New York 2011. The only difference is that our war is a spiritual war, spurned not by differences of class, race or culture but of biology. A genetic, evolutionary revolution. Expect to see mass incel rampages, fire bombings and ultimately organized movement in the coming years.

        [–]wazzapmang 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        wtf are you talking about you've seen the future? drugs are bad

        [–]1NV0K3R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        The response article was a 100% example of "tu quoque".

        Makes me laugh that this is the only way to "refute" any sort of logical, thought out, researched argument.

        [–]1johnnight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I like how Marcotte shits on her male 97%-feminist ally.

        [–]sir_wankalot_here -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

        Yes, aliens from outspace will come down to earth and change our DNA. They will use some sort of hand held DNA disrupter, or maybe their technology is so advanced they can just use telepathy.

        My theory is just as plausible.