all 187 comments

[–]2 Mredpillschool 105 points106 points  (31 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Take note of precisely what women/feminists typically claim to be a bad imbalance of power that causes said "mind control." Any factor that boosts a man's sexual value. It's so engrained that sexual value for men is evil and wrong, that even people here on TRP tend to get shamey when it's brought up.

For instance, the age gap. As it turns out, being an older, established man is just preying on insecure, weak women. Think about this for a second- women are naturally turned on by and attracted to older, established, successful men. But if a man takes advantage of this -- he's wrong. He's bad.

It becomes politically incorrect to use your advantages to attract women. You should date somebody your own age.

What about beauty? If age and status boost men's SMV, then beauty and youth are women's equivalent. Feminists don't seem to care that a young beautiful woman has such an enormous amount of power, they can make a living off of just having tits, control men, get men to buy them things, and a variety of other things.

Women can leverage their SMV without any backlash- it is strictly when men do that it becomes wrong. Because how dare men attract women!

It's just standard fare for the hypoagents. When faced with somebody of significantly higher SMV, they actually cannot resist. The guy should know better than allow a woman to be attracted to him.

[–]17 Endorsed ContributorArchwinger[S] 63 points64 points  (15 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Take note of precisely what women/feminists typically claim to be a bad imbalance of power that causes said "mind control." Any factor that boosts a man's sexual value. It's so engrained that sexual value for men is evil and wrong, that even people here on TRP tend to get shamey when it's brought up.

This is key. If you're rich (and she knows it) and you proposition a younger woman for sex, you're a pervert. ("You should have known why she was pretending to be interested in you!")

If you're hot and you proposition a woman for sex, you're a player. ("You're just a vapid pretty boy preying on innocent girls!")

If you're super-buff and you proposition a woman for sex, she was probably just afraid you'd beat her up if she said no.

Power is attractive. Power comes from looks, professional success, social aptitude, and so on. Women like men with power and status. So by definition, anything that makes you attractive to women is "using your power" over her to "manipulate" her into sex.

[–]2 Mredpillschool 35 points36 points  (5 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So by definition, anything that makes you attractive to women is "using your power" over her to "manipulate" her into sex.

Precisely.

[–]Upvote Me!trpbot[M] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Confirmed: 1 point awarded to /u/Archwinger by redpillschool. [History]

[This is an Automated Message]

[–]LadyLumen 24 points25 points  (8 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pretty much every social interaction is a subtle manipulation. If a young woman uses her looks to get free drinks, she is in effect manipulating the men around her - but no one is claiming that this behavior should be banished - or should be illegal.

If a man is using his nice sports car to pick up chicks, all of a sudden he is a shallow perv.

[–]cray-cray-cray 12 points13 points  (7 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If a man is using his nice sports car to pick up chicks, all of a sudden he is a shallow perv

... with a super tiny dick.

This is usually said by girls who aren't candidates, or guys that drive crappy cars.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If a man is using his nice sports car to pick up chicks, all of a sudden he is a shallow perv

... with a super tiny dick.

guys that drive crappy cars.

Hey, I like a good sleeper car .

Sure you can have your 2013 Mustang GT Shelby, but, I'll take my 1998 Buick Regal with only $513.00 investment and smoke ya on the 1/4 mile.

As being part of a sleeper mod community, I can see the logic of both of these statements having a lot of validity.

A lot of these kids/guys out here are overtly macho so much they reek of being insecure in the most horrendous way possible.

[–]maderail 4 points5 points  (1 child)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

.

[–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (1 child)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Focus on actually becoming powerful yet keeping a low profile. That way not only are your more capable but you are less likely to paint a bullseye on yourself.

[–]LadyLumen 10 points11 points  (4 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This also extends to the recent movement of shaming men for not being attracted to fat women. Women aren't allowed to be shamed for simply not being interested in a guy. But if a man expresses that he isn't attracted to over weight women, all of a sudden he is a shallow, sexist pig. Only women are allowed to have standards, men should just be happy for whatever they can get and treat any woman in their life like a princess for simply having a vagina/sarcasm.

[–]Mintaka7 3 points4 points  (1 child)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Only women are allowed to have standards, men should just be happy for whatever they can get

The reason for this is very simple. Most girls really believe that when they like a guy and are willing to sleep with them, they are in fact doing the guys a favor by letting him touch her.

This means they truly think girls are the ones doing the "chase" and guys should feel grateful because she chose him. After all, she could have chosen any guy, and chose him, so she is allowed to be picky, whereas the man is not, he should accept the girl and stfu.

[–]LadyLumen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The reason for this is very simple. Most girls really believe that when they like a guy and are willing to sleep with them, they are in fact doing the guys a favor by letting him touch her.

Yeah this is very true. It's a common complaint in r/sex that men have. Many women are terrible in bed because they just lay there like a log and act like the man is lucky for simply being able to touch them. And in a way, women can justify this mentality because of the artificially high SMV that society gives them via Feminism.

If prostitution were legal and easily accessible, women who are fat/boring/bitchy/lazy in bed/ would suddenly be treated the same way that low SMV males are, instead of like prom queens for simply existing.

[–]Cyhawk[🍰] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's a difference between thick and fucking fat. While modern media has started the starving thin is beauty crap, I can see how the movement started. But it soon encompassed the 'fucking fat' women too because they haven't been told the difference between the two. Since men aren't allowed to even have normal standards (I get shit all the time for my preferences. I like em thick, not uncontrolled snowball round or rib showing thin, pretty sure I'm fucking normal here) these land whales who could lose 150 pounds and still be considered a whale get included in the movement.

It's fucking stupid all the way around.

[–]LadyLumen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Definitely. I agree that there needs to be a difference between the two. Most of the women on television and models are so thin that I can see a perfect outline of their collar bones and other bones. Even back in the day when I was 95 lbs, I could never see a perfect outline of my collar bone.

This standard has caused many self esteem issues for girls who are a normal and attractive weight. Many of these girls develop eating disorders and other weird psychological issues. People say "oh, stop being so affected by what you see." But it's only human to be effected by a media world that is all around you - and becomes more real than reality itself.

Yet at the same time, this has turned into woman (who are fucking heart attack fat) prancing around in their underwear, showing how proud they are of themselves (and this is applauded). Yet if some fat hairy guy did the same thing, people would probably call the police on him.

The 1950's curvy pin-up girl is attractive, a 300 lb woman in a walker with diabetes is not.

We need to understand the difference here.

[–]1PaulRivers10 6 points7 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Take note of precisely what women/feminists typically claim to be a bad imbalance of power that causes said "mind control." Any factor that boosts a man's sexual value. It's so engrained that sexual value for men is evil and wrong, that even people here on TRP tend to get shamey when it's brought up.

Oh man, that is just a great post. Since I started reading and watching certain Game work, I crack up every time I read someone online claiming that a relationship is wrong "because of the power differential" - it's almost literally saying "it's wrong because it's sexy".

I don't have a problem saying women shouldn't be able to basically trade sex for grades or something like that, but they're always trying to apply it in any situation where the man has more power than the girl. It's like saying "It's wrong to sleep with women who have big boobs".

As many posters have said, these people are often great sources of advice - you just need to realize that you need to do the opposite of what they say.

[–]animea90 12 points13 points  (1 child)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The feminist issue is that what's attractive to women are coercive traits. Women want a man who intimidates them. One who is older, more aggressive, wealthier. It flies in the face of the "equality" they want.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would like to refer you to watch the movie LIMITLESS with Bradley Cooper on how basically the mindset of his ex-girlfriend is,... intimidated by him and extremely attracted to his successful lifestyle he's created as a stock broker

[–]sfg6 2 points3 points  (4 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A woman who denies sex to the man in a relationship is seen as empowering, a man who denies sex to the woman is seen as the abuser.

[–]Cyhawk[🍰] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Any one who denies sex in a relationship at all is a douche, male or female. Sex isn't a weapon, or a reward or a treat.

[–]greycloud24 2 points3 points  (2 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

bullshit. i was engaged to a near nympho and had to break it off. there is a certain limit, you can only have sex so much before it becomes a fucking chore. she ruined sex for me. i can now fuck in any position, i can use dildos, go down like a champ and have several fingering strategies. and after a year in i would rather do dishes than have sex. i would rather go dig a ditch than have sex. there gets to be a point when enough is enough. nearing the end of our relationship i was okaying girls for her to sleep with, because i was too worn down to keep up with her insatiable lust.

[–]Cyhawk[🍰] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Denies sex as a weapon to get what they want. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Not wanting sex due to fatigue is a whole other issue.

[–]psycho-logical 2 points3 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've also run into the Double standard from women who have no problem fantasizing about older men (mostly celebrities) or who have even dated men 10-20 years older than them, but if I date a girl younger than me I hear stuff like, "she isn't your peer, what could you possibly want from her besides sex?"

Complete bullshit double standard. When threatened or faced with competition, women constantly drag down others. Insecure men do this too, but many of us are much more likely to strive to be better instead.

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

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's the male burka. We must keep our attractiveness hidden so women don't lose control and accidentally get raped

[–]LadyLumen 32 points33 points  (5 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hmm, that's a pretty good argument. That's the thing about Feminism that confuses me - it claims to support a woman's agency and empowerment, but then when women start making decisions that are against their own best interest - all of a sudden "the woman was manipulated, she didn't know what she was doing!"

Yet what about all those times a guy chooses to date a woman who is totally psycho - a woman who cheats on him, beats him, steals his money, does drugs or uses him for sex? Plenty of these situations exist, yet never do people claim that the guy is an innocent victim who was manipulated into this relationship. People see the guy as a person with agency, who had the freedom to stay or leave a toxic relationship as per his choice.

The Feminist/Blue Pill/White Knight attitude is actually somewhat similar to the religious conservative ideology in some respects, that women are delicate creatures that must be protected from "the animal nature of men." This is why Feminists want to impose all kinds of laws and social changes to protect women - because they don't think women are strong enough to protect themselves.

Much of the Feminist theory I've heard at college about protecting women from date rape and what not centers around "teaching men not to rape" - and basically targeting men as 100% of the problem. But no where is there talk about giving women self defense classes, teaching women how to shoot guns, encouraging safe behaviors like (not getting plastered drunk if you don't have a trusted friend at the party) .

If Feminists really thought that women were adults with agency, they would stop coddling us and treating us like children.

[–]Mr_Andry 16 points17 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But no where is there talk about giving women self defense classes, teaching women how to shoot guns, encouraging safe behaviors like (not getting plastered drunk if you don't have a trusted friend at the party) .

That's because so-called "victim blaming" is absolutely verboten. If you suggest in any way that a victim might have used better judgement to avoid the situation, you might as well be the rapist yourself. You will be flamed and all conversation will cease.

[–]Darkwoodz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've heard plenty of times when people said women/girls were dumb for staying with their SO who was not nice to them.

Obviously a woman shouldn't be at fault for getting drunk and acting slutty, then getting raped. Physically forcing someone to do something against their will is wrong in a civilized society. They should be informed that those things will certainly make them more likely to be raped. I get what you're saying though.

[–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (1 child)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Their error is not only presuming that women are delicate little flowers but innocent and without sin.

In truth both are just as wicked as each other its just that wickedness is expressed in sexually dimorphic ways. And men's evil is restricted by law.

[–]LadyLumen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What's interesting is that Feminism as a movement emerged at the same time that Victorian Ideals about women developed (somewhere in the middle of the 19th century). Before this time, people commonly thought that women were actually more animal and sexual in nature than men, and that men were the controlled and logical gender.

I mean, this is also a bias, but it was the common bias that people had before the Victorian/Feminist/Industrial Age.

Sex positive feminism is very recent, for the last century most of Feminism was about empowering women by promoting the idea that men are animals and that women are virginal, pure flowers that can do no wrong.

[–][deleted]  (18 children)

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

    [–]bbbbbubble 17 points18 points  (7 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    what happens when a drunk woman drives her car through the front wall of a daycare?

    We ban alcohol obviously. The drunk woman could never be held responsible for her actions.

    [–]1FrogTrainer 22 points23 points  (6 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Women already banned alcohol. Prohibition was primarily driven by women. They even used sex as a weapon: "Lips that touch liquor shall not touch mine" http://www.zazzle.com/lips_that_touch_liquor_shall_not_touch_ours_poster-228073008105986328

    [–]knock_knoch 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    That photo was actually satire.

    [–]Mr_Andry 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    True, but the slogan was actually used.

    [–]HAMMURABl 14 points15 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    holy crap. even the ur-feminists 100 years ago had this bitter and angry look.

    [–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    The social purity movement also existed more than a century ago and also a feminist movement to screw men. They tried to ban prostitution and protect women from male sexual subjugation. They were the ones who first sought and succeeded to raise the age of consent. http://gem.greenwood.com/wse/wsePrint.jsp?id=id614

    They are linked with the women's temperance movement (alcohol banning movement)and the suffragettes.

    [–]1Gavlan_Wheel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    [–]Yoda7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    The first major vote women were involved in was for nanny state prohibition. Kinda showed how hings were gonna go from there.

    [–]LadyLumen 8 points9 points  (7 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    In Sweden (The Saudi Arabia of Feminism) I've heard that men don't hit on women at all. They simply wait for the woman to ask them out. Maybe they believe that any kind of flirtation/seduction is some kind of rapey coercion, so they don't even try to initiate sex anymore.

    It sounds like this is what Feminists want for every country.

    [–]1Zackcid 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I also hear it's a PUA haven out there because their local men are such pussies, the girls are hot, but have no guys to hit on them.

    [–]Endorsed Contributoraaron_the_just 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Yep! One of our own is out there and makes field reports from time to time. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, except... you're truly and utterly fucked if you get a woman pregnant. Your options are to fly somewhere for a vacation and an abortion or flee the country.

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

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    If I'm not getting any man, then nobody will!

    [–]back_in_towns 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    This is basically the most effective strategy for me (living in a very liberal part of the US). I think that you're definitely onto something; passivity will be the new "game" in femliberal world.

    [–]Cyhawk[🍰] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    A good friend lives in Sweden and.this isn't far from the truth. Remember the wiki leaks guy and his 'rape' accusations? It was for not wearing a condom, which amounts to a fine. They have some really fucked up laws.

    [–]LadyLumen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I've read an account of an American woman where she went to Sweden, made friends with some Swedish guy and hung out with him for months, never knowing that he liked her. This is because he never hit on her, or expressed his interest. And apparently this is just the average way that guys act in Sweden.

    [–]Mr_Andry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I once did have that argument with some idiot. I've had drunk sex with long term girlfriends several times. Some random internet dude is not going to convince me that I was raping her. I'm also not raping her when we have morning sex and she doesn't explicitly say "I want to have sex now." Some of these concent-obsessed people are really detached from the real world.

    [–]macsenscam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I wonder why she drank so much in the first place? Could it have been to relieve those inhibitions and gain the freedom to make "bad" decisions?

    [–]6Invalidity 40 points41 points  (40 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    It was brought up in TRP before how women would die sooner and be generally unhappier than the generations of females before them. I wouldn't necessarily say that TRP strives to help women out with this problem, but it clearly identifies what women are looking for and what facilitates the best standard of living for females.

    Feminism is a blight in that it tells women what they should want, instead of actually realizing the strengths of women. Feminists want to push women into the workforce, into environments of high stress and they fully expect women to be able to work at the same level and pace of their male counterparts.

    ... but men and women are different. Each gender has their weaknesses and each gender has their strengths, but they have few overlapping characteristics. Feminism wants to downplay that notion completely. This in turn pushes women to work and pursue careers, feeding this ill-thought notion that this is what women want.

    But this is not what the majority of women TRULY want! I can tell you as a guy that work is stressful for me and I hate it sometimes, but society expects me to. If I don't work, I'm essentially considered worthless. Women have inherent value and they have strengths in many other areas where men do not have the same capabilities. Why treat these areas as a bad thing? For example, motherhood. Why is there such a negative stigma against being a good mother who maintains her household and cares for her children?

    Feminism is just a horribly misguided movement.

    [–]LadyLumen 20 points21 points  (20 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    There was some study that actually said that young white women in this generation were experiencing more illnesses, more stress, and dying earlier than women in the previous generation.

    This is because many women are now struggling to perform BOTH the duties of working AND being a mother. Whereas before, women were just mothers. Feminism has only benefited the elite women who can now become Humanities Professors and over paid magazine editors. Aside from this bourgeoisie group of women, most women are still doing jobs that the previous generations did (nurses, maids, teachers, librarians, waitress) or they are working a double shift at a shitty retail job trying to pay the bills.

    Instead of being easier, life is infinitely more complicated and stressful for today's young women. Most of my female friends actually wish they had the ability to stay at home with children while their husband works - they see this as a luxury because the cost of living is so damn high. The reality is that both sexes are required to work in order to even stay afloat in this crazy economy.

    [–]1PaulRivers10 13 points14 points  (7 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Instead of being easier, life is infinitely more complicated and stressful for today's young women. Most of my female friends actually wish they had the ability to stay at home with children while their husband works - they see this as a luxury because the cost of living is so damn high. The reality is that both sexes are required to work in order to even stay afloat in this crazy economy.

    This is what I find interesting about the origins of feminism - it manages to convince woman that they were being "oppressed" by being able to stay home, raise children, and not go through the grind of working.

    Imagine someone told you, you could flip a switch, and suddenly women find you attractive for staying home, raising children, and you'd only ever have to work in a soulless corporate job if you didn't get married or you wanted to. Somehow, women would still want you, your wife would completely respect you, and you'd never have to work again.

    Would you do this?

    Feminism somehow convinced women that this was "oppression", and they should fight hard for the right to have their days resemble an episode of "The Office".

    [–]Mr_Andry 6 points7 points  (5 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Sadly, being forced to do anything, even something that many find satisfying, is being oppressed.

    The problem here really is that feminists not only fought for the right to work outside the home, but are now actively working to convince women that life satisfaction can only be found outside the home. To me, that is a far worse oppression and psychological manipulation.

    I fully support a woman's right to work outside the home, but I also think that stay at home mother should be more widely valued for the wonderful career that it is.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Thanks for that. Other women who work give me lots of crap because I raise my own kids and gasp do homeschool to.

    [–]1PaulRivers10 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Sadly, being forced to do anything, even something that many find satisfying, is being oppressed.

    I wouldn't go that far - by that definition, all human beings are oppressed. Everyone needs food, water, and shelter, so we're all forced into jobs. If you were born rich, you're forced to manage your money in some way. Etc.

    Seeing how easily and eagerly feminists (well let's be fair, almost every major political cause is like this, George Orwell's Animal Farm describes feminism, but it's written as an allegory about Communism, it's about the stages of nearly all political movements that are successful) bend history to match the ideology they're trying to promote, I'm not convinced women were kept out of the work force as much as their rhetoric claimed. (To be fair, I don't actually know as I wasn't alive then, I'm just not convinced it was true either.)

    Feminism didn't convince women that they should have a choice between a career and kids. It convinced women that: 1. Just wanting to have kids and be a stay at home mom meant she was a failure as a woman 2. That getting social status and acceptance by doing so was "oppression" 3. That working in corporate america would make them happy and fullfilled - they were sold that it was going to be glamorous, exciting, and empowering, whereas as I said - the majority of it is like an episode of The Office instead.

    On a purely selfish level, I would prefer to have more women in my workplace (programming). I think having a mix of genders is a nicer environment, and frankly, have single girls around is something I would definitely like as a single guy. :-)

    I just cannot believe, looking at it, how women were convinced that be able to avoid the corporate grind was "oppressing" them and how effective it was at getting them to repeat it and internalize it. It's really crazy.

    [–]1BaltoSquadGuy 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I kind of postulated on this subject in another thread where we discussed feminist rejection of women in the American fire service who thought physical standards should remain the same for both men and women.

    I think the same thing applies to feminist rejection of stay at home mothers. Namely, it all boils down to "rejection of the sisterhood" (movement, ideology, whatever you want to call it)

    Historically, no movement of any type is satisfied with a 'token achievement'. One woman in a position of political power isn't enough, a couple female CEOs is drastically too few. So they keep pushing for more and more. I see it in my line of work all the time - a few women were there who could keep up and hold their own. That number wasn't good enough. We need more and more. "The composition of the organization should represent the racial and gender makeup of the society we serve". How do we make it so we can get more? We lower the standards. But I digress.

    The point is that feminism wants more and more indoctrinated members in the workforce. Generating tax dollars, which in turn go towards pro-women....wait, let me fix that - pro-FEMINISM government policies. More voters voting for pro-feminism candidates. The snowball of power continues to roll down the mountain.

    Now, women who are stay at home moms and succeed at doing it? They're traitors. God FORBID they be happy about It or choose it voluntarily. That is the biggest betrayal of all. The ones who were 'forced' to stay home with the kids by their husbands? They're a slightly less serious traitor. The equivalent of a Nazi collaborator maybe. The women who really want it and think it's an ideal child rearing situation? They're goose stepping right to the TRP rally with us.

    And in the end, it's only natural for a people to be incensed at, revolted by, and try to attack one perceived as a traitor to the cause. There's a reason why it's almost universally a capital crime.

    [–]1PaulRivers10 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    That's true about movements, but I don't want to comment to much because it kind of gets away from my point. I just think it's kinda crazy how women have become convinced that they were "oppressed" in a time when they apparently seemed to be happier, felt more rewarded, generally seemed to have a better life.

    I get the feeling that while feminism paints history as "women weren't allowed to work!" I'm just not sure it's true. In WWII women easily went off to work in factories because the men were off at war - how did that happen if women were so supposedly ill equiped for the working environment?

    At the end of WWII women were encouraged to give up their jobs so men could have them, but that was because soldiers were returning from a massive war. I suspect that before that, women might have had the power to choose to work or to choose to get married and have kids, but weren't prohibited from working like the feminist rhetoric would have you believe.

    It's really something that they convinced women as a group that working in a boring corporate job was "freedom" while staying at home was "oppression" - is slaving away at your corporate job not oppression? It's just curious how it seems backwards - seems like women feel less oppressed if they have the option to get a job if they want, but are completely respected wanting to be a stay at home mom as well.

    [–]neveragoodtime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Not every guy makes it to the top. That doesn't mean he was oppressed by some conspiracy. All lot of guys try and few guys succeed. There weren't enough women at the top because not enough women were trying. Most of them were probably happy with the life taking care of the family. Feminism understood that to get 10 female doctors, you need to send 1,000 women into med school, because not every one succeeds. Are those women better off? Feminism only benefits the top, most women are in the same position as 50 years ago, with more student debt and fewer prospects for marriage.

    [–]macsenscam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    It's not that the division of labor by the sexes is such a totally bad thing throughout all history; but in the modern world money is paramount and women need it too. Back in the day women were able to get the things they wanted by harvesting the natural materials and making them by hand. This is not possible for most households now, so obviously the division of labor has to change.

    Ironically, the beginning of modern style of jobs in America was textile mills that only employed women, yet we think this is some new innovation. Wage slavery was a shameful thing back then and so it was easier to get the public to accept the concept of young women working those jobs temporarily than to get men to hand over their freedom for a permanent gig as a cog in a machine. So, while I think it's quite complex and hard to generalize accurately, I do believe that women should be able to choose to work if they want to and raise a family if they want that.

    [–]TheSKSpecial 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    The cities with the highest costs of living (in the States, anyway) are all liberal (read: feminist) cities on the coasts.

    [–]Gstreetshit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    In all seriousness, they fucked themselves over.

    [–]6Invalidity 1 point2 points  (7 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    And you know what? The stockmarkets have never flourished more than they have now. DOW Jones just hit its all-time high a few days ago

    [–]Endorsed Contributoraaron_the_just 8 points9 points  (4 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    ... until you denominate the stock market in something besides dollars, like how much food or gold you can buy.

    [–]Mr_Andry -4 points-3 points  (3 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Not true. Using the Consumer Price Index to adjust for inflation, it's still at a record high. (link)

    Using gold as the measure, however, you'd technically be correct. But gold's relationship with the Dow is a bit more complicated.

    [–]Endorsed Contributoraaron_the_just 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    The CPI is a useless bullshit metric, especially since the introduced the concept of the "chained" CPI.

    [–]Mr_Andry 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    So what would you use instead?

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

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    U.S. exchange rates to other major currencies; price of gold, silver, oil, and natural gas.

    [–]1PaulRivers10 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    And you know what? The stockmarkets have never flourished more than they have now. DOW Jones just hit its all-time high a few days ago

    Right, which is tied to -

    young white women in this generation were experiencing more illnesses, more stress, and dying earlier than women in the previous generation

    [–]Mintaka7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    capitalism, baby!

    [–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    A little flattery sure fooled the women. After all cigarettes weren't popular until they sold it as empowering to women. Now the many lung cancers of modern women are the legacy of this foolhardiness.

    [–]LadyLumen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Now the new thing is hard liquor. Before, it was considered unfeminine for women to binge drink. Now it's pretty much the thing that most young men and women do for fun - except this behavior is much more harmful to women than men: i.e. resulting in date rape, women get drunk easier (this is a fact), health issues, etc.

    Yet it's very hard to have an open discussion about this topic.

    [–]17 Endorsed ContributorArchwinger[S] 32 points33 points  (16 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Feminism is a blight in that it tells women what they should want, instead of actually realizing the strengths of women.

    Modern feminism (I make a distinction between modern and old-school feminism for obvious reasons) is very fond of projecting.

    You know how women who are cheating on you accuse you of cheating, and women who are falling out of love with you accuse you of being distant and emotionless, and so on?

    Feminism accuses The Red Pill and other man-centered sites of preying on poor souls that are lost in this chaotic and unfair world and filling their head with lies, hatred, and failing strategies that will ultimately make everyone involved unhappy.

    Does that sound like projecting to you?

    [–]6Invalidity 17 points18 points  (3 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Absolutely. But I believe the bigger issue is, modern feminists are driven by the goals of old-school feminism, but because they already have all those goals down (the right to vote, more opportunities to work, etc.), they need more "fuel" so to speak for the validity of their movement.

    They want more sexual freedom so they attack things like the usage of the word "slut", which is ironic, because women give more meaning to that word than men do.

    So yes, it is all definitely a matter of projection.

    [–]fr1ction 12 points13 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    I believe the most recent movement is to try to get people to stop using the word 'bossy' towards females. They are truly doing the lord's work. Where would civilization be without them?

    [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    There are career driven aspie and low digit ratio women out there, the outliers, who don't feel like conforming to feminine norms, who will fight all day long to be treated like men, and these women never seem to realize that they aren't typical women.

    [–]xaphody 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Why is a woman shamed by the word slut for sleeping with a high number of men but a man is congratulated when he sleeps with a high number of women? lets be honest, women have the power to sleep with any man at their discretion. A man has to work towards improving his life in so many aspects to attain the same level of attraction. On my phone so to hell with grammar.

    [–]1PaulRivers10 5 points6 points  (6 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Feminism accuses The Red Pill and other man-centered sites of preying on poor souls that are lost in this chaotic and unfair world and filling their head with lies, hatred, and failing strategies that will ultimately make everyone involved unhappy.

    Does that sound like projecting to you?

    Lol, yeah, exactly.

    The concepts of privilege is true - but who's more privileged than the middle class white women who are part of feminism? Entitlement? Who is possibly more entitled than the middle class white women who want to push all romantic and sexual risk onto the guy? These are middle class white women who have the audacity to call themselves "oppressed" with a straight face! They're the Prince, whining that he's not the King.

    I've NEVER seen a woman pick up feminism, and become more happy with her lovelife. Never. I've seen feminist who already were fine with their lovelife, but no one who's adopted it. Whereas, I have seen guys pick up Game and turn their entire love life around, whether it's sex or a long term relationship.

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

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    They're the Prince, whining that he's not the King.

    And believing that every pauper they spit on gets treated like a king by everyone else. In fact, any ol' serf could be royalty if he wasn't so bitter.

    [–]Cyhawk[🍰] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Better pull yourself up by your bootstraps peon and become a Prince like I did!

    Borrow 500k gold from the treasury and start a blacksmithing company!

    [–]1PaulRivers10 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    You know, that's not actually what I usually see them saying. That's - frankly - the saying of the rich white men.

    The rich white women sits in her air conditioned home that's payed for by the rich white man, while the poor men and women can't afford air conditioning. She has plenty of spare time to read the internet and write, something neither the poor man or woman has. And she comes up with articles about how "oppressed" she is while both the rich white man and poor white man are at work, not having the time to write long articles on the internet, because they're to busy doing their work. (Ironically, it seems like both the really poor and the really rich spend a ton of time at their jobs.)

    [–]Cyhawk[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Mitt Romneys wife is a perfect example of this. I'm on Mobile so I can't provide a link, but she was speaking to some group (women oriented iirc) about how hard it was in college for them with only their monthly dividends from investments. Look it up, it's very illuminating about the lives of the rich.

    On that note, wealthy people never speak of money, they are way different than the rich.

    [–]1PaulRivers10 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    And believing that every pauper they spit on gets treated like a king by everyone else. In fact, any ol' serf could be royalty if he wasn't so bitter.

    I actually don't read a side of feminism that says that. What I see is the prince believing and acting like the people in ghetto are living the same lifestyle he is, and claiming they're all commonly "oppressed" by the king. They describe it themselves - about privilege and entitlement being an invisible and something handed you to without you earning it. That's exactly where they are - no concept of how much better of they are than other people, no concept of how much they take for granted that other people don't get to take for granted.

    [–]2emptyform 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Agreed, much better nuance.

    [–]isthatyourdaughter 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Modern feminism (I make a distinction between modern and old-school feminism for obvious reasons)

    I don't see why. It's all man-hating extremism, it's just that in the more modern versions, the male-bashing is more visibly passionate, and its effects more directly felt.

    [–]Cyhawk[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Not quite. Feminism started a long time ago, the woman's suffrage movement was the start of modern feminism. It did address some very unequal parts of society, like voting and being allowed to have a job and earn their own money. Those goals were achieved a long time ago but the movement continues... That's why people make the distinction. Today's feminism is not the same as it was 100 years ago when it became popular, not even close.

    [–]bobbyontario 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    We're currently in third-wave feminism, with first-wave being stuff that gives women/non-whites legal equality and the next waves being what many would consider the bra-burning, ball-busting feminism that we know and love.

    [–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Even old feminism aint all that great. You ever heard of the white feather campaign by suffragettes to shame men into ww1?

    Watch this video series for the history of feminism: http://m.youtube.com/results?q=manwomanmyth%20history%20of%20feminism&sm=3

    [–]macsenscam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    If they are telling women not to have kids (or not to raise them) they aren't feminists, rather they are idiots.

    [–]Cyhawk[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Feminism started off with good intentions, being able to vote, equal pay, actually getting a job, able to make legal decisions, etc. But like all good movements was corrupted by people with other intentions and continued far beyond their intended goals, long after the people who began it archived the original goals. MADD, occupy wall street, etc. There are many examples of this throughout history.

    If it becomes popular, it becomes corrupt.

    [–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 81 points82 points  (33 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    And this is where you start going deeper in the real red pill territory.

    Nobody cares. When they care, they do it just do get something from you.

    On a lower level of society (individual to individual) this is perhaps a bit ominous or even pessimistic. Probably true in some cases, false in a lote more. But on a higher level of society, it is absolutely necessary. The democratic system looks of people not as humans, but as living votes. As a non-American who was quite unfamiliar with American history and their political system, the current situation quite baffled me. Republican "War on African Americans"? Weren't these the same people who fought a war to free them? Wasn't the evil paranoid gun extremist ticking time bomb NRA the one who actually armed the slaves? Weren't Democrats who founded the KKK? Weren't Democrates those who were in disfavour of women suffrage? What changed? The first black members of the US House and Senate were Republicans. The first civil rights legislation came from Republicans. Democrats gave us the KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and failed policies like the “Great Society.”

    Then I found a quote by LBJ where he says that "He'll get those damned niggers voting Democrat". You see, they still hate them. They just need them to remain in power. And it's not just Democrats, but every party that tastes the aphrodisiac of power - politicians who lie and have a short term candidacy that gives them no incentive to actually improve things, but which gives them immense economical and social privileges. They need the targeted group - democracy is essentially a low intensity civil war - to be utmost loyal to the war effort.

    Feminism, being a political movement, is quite the same as well. More power to the women, even if this power makes them miserable, as long as cunts like Gloria Steinem get cemented in the history as brave and noble women or cunts like Anita Sarkesiaan who profits from calling videogames sexist get their share of political power and economical benefits. Feminism stopped being about equality 30 years ago, and it stopped being for women about 10 years ago. Now it's just another tool in the hands of demotist leaders from which they get their power and profit.

    And they, ultimately, do not care as long as you vote for them.

    [–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad 26 points27 points  (3 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Nobody cares. When they care, they do it just do get something from you.

    Deliciously perceptive. I'm cynical and look for hidden intent. Most people are incredibly selfish, shallow and easy to read... Not that I'm a fucking saint.

    Edit: I do agree with Archwinger's reverse logic that TRP is pro-women. After all, a man with the most accurate sight has the best chance of navigating rocky shoals.

    [–]peppepcheerio 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Does helping others in the pursuit of good "karma" or to be seen as a good person fall into that category of thinking?

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    [deleted]

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

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      you should start reading at kinship theory and continue reading ethical positions based on dawkins selfish gene theory because basing the idea of 'selfishness' on the individual (i.e. 1 human) or concepts like 'enlightenment' won't lead to real awareness of the drivers of our biology ('motivation'). I like to think of the human body as an ant hill or beehive only with genes (and the latest research does suggest the brain works somewhat like an ant colony anyways).

      [–]Beer_Me_A_Beer 17 points18 points  (8 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I... You... uh... sigh my head hurts from you crediting the character of today's Republicans and NRA members due to actions taken by the ones 150 years ago.

      I understand what you are going for in saying that the Democratic party has thrived on changing its concerns rapidly over time to get votes from groups interested in certain things (or prevent votes from those who would vote the other way). But please don't abuse history like that.

      [–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 9 points10 points  (6 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      We'll have to agree on this. I found Democrats much more appealing in the early USA days. This is just an example on how people who want power easily change their views and things they say because they want power.

      But please don't abuse history like that.

      Okay, I'm guilty of this. Both parties got corrupted, just the Democrat party got corruption with radical recant of their beliefs.

      This is a discussion best left for another time and another place.

      [–]ImBloodyAnnoyed 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Yup. I was about to accuse you of historical revisionism (card-carrying democrat here) but yeah it's a story for another day and essentially off topic. And both parties are far from perfect. And your original analysis about caring is spot on.

      [–]Beer_Me_A_Beer 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Amen. No worries, I was not going to get into left vs right. :-)

      I just had to call that one out for obvious reasons.

      [–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Now in retrospect, I find it quite disgusting to compare Lincoln to McCain.

      [–]stupid_fucking_name 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      MacCain is barely a republican anyway.

      [–]ametalshard 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      You found Democrats much more appealing... when their biggest concern was fighting against abolition? Wait what?

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

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      In the early USA days

      Perhaps the early part is a bit vague. I valued men like Thomas Jefferson (you know, who actually tried to abolish slavery once) and Andrew Jackson (who despite being a fucking barbarian fought hard against banker's control of USA). I valued men like James K. Polk who actually did what he said he'll do (how rare is that).

      [–]1PaulRivers10 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I believe the truth is actually that the parties today are the reverse of the parties over a hundred years ago. I believe the Republicans of then were ivory tower head-in-the-clouds intellectuals, and the Democrats were more conservative ones.

      [–]LadyLumen 22 points23 points  (9 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Then I found a quote by LBJ where he says that "He'll get those damned niggers voting Democrat". You see, they still hate them.

      Very true. As much as Liberals claim to love diversity and have "so many black friends" the most Liberal states in the country are also the most white states. Vermont - a very Liberal state - is like 97% white. They claim to want humane treatment for Illegal Immigrants. Okay, why don't these liberals have more illegal immigrants moving to places like Vermont then?

      Most of the rich white, super politically correct, liberal white yuppies I know have grown up in all white neighborhoods and went to private schools where there was maybe one black kid. They spout about their love of diversity and women's empowerment to have surface appeal - but then go back to their mostly white, gated communities and nuclear families.

      Liberals want diversity and feminism for everyone else, just not themselves.

      [–]stupid_fucking_name 10 points11 points  (3 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      They want all that shit because it sounds good on paper, but they've never actually experienced it.

      [–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 17 points18 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      It's actually much more deviant than that. My inner psychopath is amazed at the brilliance behind it.

      They absorb the truths that everyone wishes to think, out from either social conformity or the peaceful part of human nature, as treat them as if they were the constituent parts of their being. Then they frame the narrative in a way that would make questioning those truths be equivalent of a thought crime - but a thought crime not regulated by the law (people may have this funny resistance towards authority) but by your social group.

      Any attack on them is then by default attack on those truths.

      You take the example of Bioware of Dragon Age 2 fame. Whether you like it or not, you can't deny the fact that videogames are an industry. Industry which makes money, but also consumes it - programming, story writing, etc, it all takes considerable amount of effort. Bioware found that by making the game deal with homosexuals and breaking the barrier that was broken a decade ago, while reducing the effort done to create this game, the amount of profit would be same, and in some cases, even more. If they do homosexuality in a truly in-your-face-way that would bother you ("Hey man, would you like to have anal sex with me" "Uh..no?" "-1000 karma, you're now Hitler) they could dispel any critics with accuses of homophobia. In this way, it would seem that Bioware is championing gay rights. But they're just forging a rainbow shield against all criticism.

      [–]I_am_Norwegian 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Nothing like a bit of Thomas Sowell to help clarify any issues relating to the interrelationships of government, welfare states and race.

      [–]skimdit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Oh I have definitely seen a good number of true believers actually move to the ghetto to be with "Their People" and then get mugged, robbed, car-jacked and assaulted in every which way by those poor oppressed folks and I just sit back and laugh and ask if they still "Hella Heart Oakland"! lol

      Shirt I'm referring to: http://smokedthemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/HE_19-HE01C_HIRES.jpg

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

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      And all of that liberal bullshit just makes the welfare state larger, it just gives more reasons for the government to tax us. "Hey everyone has to buy birth control for these girls who can't control themselves! Nooo we won't use this money for war or give it to our cronies on wall street"

      [–]LadyLumen 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I'm actually okay with the government providing people with birth control, because I think there are way too many damn people in the world. Teenagers having children they can't even take care of is even worse.

      But yeah, I do think the government does not know how to spend the money it has.

      [–]LadyLumen -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Many self righteous liberals remind me of this scene in American Psycho:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCicqORi8Mc

      (see minute 2:15), Patrick Bateman waxes on about human rights and progressive values. Later in the movie he is running around naked killing prostitutes and beating hobos. There is a strain of Liberalism that is somewhat psychotic.

      [–]1sailorJery 2 points3 points  (6 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      The republicans of Lincoln are not the republicans of today. The NRA armed the slaves? no. There was a shift in the parties political paradigm over the past 150 years that you don't seem to be aware of.

      [–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      The NRA armed the slaves

      I was under the impression that NRA (despite being founded after civil war) was effectively considered enemy to the KKK?

      Interesting reversal. But the problem goes much further than of Dems vs Reps and in the very issue of democracy itself. When the cause for power trumps the desire to use that power to better things, (as it did in both Dems and Reps), there is corruption.

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

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I agree that the the cause for power has effectively corrupted the major parties, I just wanted to point out some of the misconceptions. I'm a pro-gun liberal so I don't hold any animosity towards the NRA, I'd just never heard that they armed former slaves. Where did you first hear this?

      [–]Endorsed ContributorDenswend 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      pro-gun liberal

      I like you already. I take it that when you say liberal you actually mean classical liberals who "I may no like what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it".

      I heard/read it somewhere (okay, my sources may be a bit muddy) that after the war ended, a lot of racial tensions still existed, so NRA (being a Northern political organization) subtly gave some guns to former slaves to level the field a bit.

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

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      yes, very much a more classical liberal, than a modern day feminist vegan or whatever the hell else.

      There certainly was/is a lot of racial tensions after the civil war in the former slave states in the south, hence the KKK and Jim Crow laws.

      I just hadn't ever heard that the NRA armed former slaves. In the US they are one of if not the strongest lobbyist organization in our government. So I hedge my opinions about them and my accepting of facts I hear about them because it is so very political.

      [–]1PaulRivers10 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      The republicans of Lincoln are not the republicans of today. The NRA armed the slaves? no. There was a shift in the parties political paradigm over the past 150 years that you don't seem to be aware of.

      Exactly -

      After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

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

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      That might have been true immediately after the war, but that shifted over the 150 years since.

      [–]apackofwankers 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      There is a great quote in the recent film "The Counsellor".

      "You don't really know someone until you know what they want"

      [–]through_a_ways 20 points21 points  (3 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      TRP believes women should be socially treated like children

      Feminism believes women should be legally treated like children

      [–]SillyAmerican 11 points12 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      not necessarily. There are instances where you would take the same approach with a woman that you would a child, but not as whole treat women like kids. Women are fully capable adults. Treating them like children all the time would defeat the purpose of this whole post.

      [–]through_a_ways 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      There are instances where you would take the same approach with a woman that you would a child, but not as whole treat women like kids. Women are fully capable adults.

      Yes, of course, I didn't mean it totally.

      In the same vein, feminism dictates that women be treated like adults in many aspects as well.

      [–]Yoda7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Or if women truly wished to be seen as equals they would behave as equals all the time. Not just when it benefits them. I dont see anyone denying reality with a high value female. Living in denial is blue pill.

      [–]theinfamous1124 10 points11 points  (5 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I agree with everything you've said here. Feminists seem to resort to a lack of agency on the woman's behalf in many of their arguments. This much is common knowledge at this point.

      Having said that, I do think the manipulation of some women is possible. Whether the woman in question has self-esteem issues, legitimate mental issues, or whatever else, some men have the succinct ability to be able to at least influence a woman's behavior based on these noted shortcomings.

      It is important to note that this type of manipulation is no different than the manipulation that women employ on their beta providers. They sense weakness in a man and they act upon it for selfish gains.

      I am neither defending manipulation nor condoning it, but at the end of the day, neither party is holding a gun to the other's head. The ball can always be in their court; it's just that the ball is harder to handle for some people than others. I see TRP as a playbook to help men handle that ball when the time comes.

      [–]LadyLumen 8 points9 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I feel bad for women who repeatedly get into abusive relationships. Yet at the same time, I think if this is a pattern for this woman, she should still be held somewhat accountable for her actions and her taste in men.

      She should be encouraged to go to therapy so she can find out why she continues getting into these kinds of relationship. Instead, we hear the whole "it's NEVER the victim's fault....you evil victim blamer you!"

      [–]theinfamous1124 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      It's the same logic that follows the underprivileged that grow up into crime and drugs. Yes, the predisposition was there. Yes, perhaps even the influence was there. It may even demand some sympathy--but if you rob, steal, sell drugs, or shoot people, you should end up paying the consequences.

      [–]1PaulRivers10 6 points7 points  (2 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Manipulation is possible, the problem is that manipulation has become a word that means "bad" when the person doesn't like the outcome, but if they do like the outcome they don't use the word manipulated - no matter how much the actions are the same.

      Of the two genders, women engage in and are far more practiced at manipulation than men. Men are more likely to be an upfront ass, women are more likely to manipulate to be a complete jerk without appearing responsible for it.

      The guy in the above story is probably an ass, but (the kind of women who would date that kind of guy) women are so skilled at manipulation it's hard to say.

      My own mother convinced our entire neighborhood that I moved out because my dad "brainwashed" me into hating my mother. The truth, of course, was the exact and total opposite - I didn't hate my mother I just couldn't stand to live with her any more (we probably would have gotten into physical fights if I had had to stay), and my dad wasn't capable of that level of manipulation if he needed it to save his life. It was almost unbelievable (almost...) how, when my brother got old enough that there was no longer a legal way to get my dad to pay child support out of it, my mother instantly snapped out of her "oh, I've been so victimized" role because it wasn't useful to her any more, like someone flipped a light switch.

      The idea that men == manipulative is bad, whereas women == manipulative == well maybe there's a good reason, is the result of women manipulating the social system as a whole.

      The fact is that there definitely asshole men, but growing up with manipulative women, I can tell you that it is unlikely (though not impossible) that this woman in the above story is the innocent victim she claims. It might be true that he had to resort to insecure and controlling behavior, or their may have been good reason for what he did - if her friends and family were maliciously manipulative he may not have wanted them around, she might be turned on by his demanding sex every time they meet and want it, but want to feel like she's "only" doing it because he insists, and something like driving off and leaving her in another state strongly implies to me that there's a reason for that - either she forced him to do it, or she pointedly only dates guys who are so narcissistically self involved that they would do that kind of thing for no good reason.

      What you see with "have sex with me or we're through" is the exact kind of behavior that women engage in so often you don't even blink when it happens. Have you ever actually turned down a girl for sex after you're dating and she really wants to sleep with you? She is PISSED. Isn't far worse manipulation when she does the "I'm not going to say anything, but I'm going to stomp around, make you feel bad, and you better figure it out or I'm dumping you" stuff?

      You mentioned -

      I see TRP as a playbook to help men handle that ball when the time comes.

      All TRP does is try to even the field, because women are already far, far more manipulatively skilled than men.

      I wouldn't go as far as saying that TRP is pro women - I would say that it's no more manipulative about women than feminism is. If you want to see how feminism treats women poorly, and tries to manipulative other women into agreeing with their views, just take a look at a woman who wants to be a stay at home mom, a woman who wants to publicly say she likes men being dominant, or likes anything sexually or romantically that feminism doesn't agree with, and watch feminism manipulatively shame her for expressing that.

      [–]theinfamous1124 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Right, 'manipulated' suddenly becomes 'encouraged' in a positive light. Great point about women manipulating the system as a whole--as a result, women's actions aren't scrutinized a fraction of a degree as men's actions.

      Reminds me of a Bill Burr piece where he points out the women/white knights who claim "There is never a good reason to hit a woman," to which he responds something along the lines of, "Really?! I can think of a thousand good fucking reasons. Nagging, divorce rape, cheating, etc. Not saying I am going to hit them but I can at least think of the reasons."

      I can totally relate on the whole mother convincing the neighborhood story by the way.

      [–]1PaulRivers10 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Right, 'manipulated' suddenly becomes 'encouraged' in a positive light.

      Awesome to hear back, exactly. :-)

      I can totally relate on the whole mother convincing the neighborhood story by the way.

      Lol, I'm sorry to hear that...

      I'm not the one who got damaged the most by that though, I'm fairly independent and moved out with my dad when my parents got divorced. It's my younger brother who got it - he's 30, has never moved out from my mothers place, and acts like he's 10-12 (it's not a mental disorder, he just conforms to how she's essentially manipulated him into acting).

      It's the height of an example of social manipulation how the guy in the above story can get an avalanche of criticism and social shaming (if the story was actually true and not conveniently leaving things out, he's an ass but she still has plenty of choices to leave etc), and heavily critisize as undateable and a loser my brother who's been turned into the negative stereotype of a "lives at home with his mother" gamma, and yet not criticize her for the awful crappy self centered stuff that she did to create the situation.

      The difference in tools between men as a group vs women as a group is that men tend to be direct "We can have sex, or you can leave and we won't be going out any more" whereas women tend to be more manipulative "Ok, no, it doesn't bother me. (Expects you to realize it bothers her and act differently next time or your relationship is over).".

      Those are both examples where people are probably being an ass (depending on contextual details), but the guy is not being more of an ass than the women is.

      [–]theinfamous1124 5 points6 points  (2 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      One issue I have with this post that is causing some dissonance within me is your assumption that women are logical and can think with reason. Though often written with snark, many posts here assume exactly the opposite. Therefore it is often suggested that men treat women as they would children (amused mastery) and take the lead in making final decisions. How do you reconcile these two differences, /u/Archwinger?

      [–]17 Endorsed ContributorArchwinger[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Check out /u/through_a_ways 's post above.

      TRP believes women should be socially treated like children

      Feminism believes women should be legally treated like children

      Socially, when a woman acts in an illogical, irrational, disrespectful, or otherwise undesired manner, TRP advises that the appropriate response is to avoid validating that behavior. Don't sink to that level, don't engage it, don't argue with her. Treat her like you would a child.

      You expect better from her. You want better from her. When you see better from her, you validate that behavior. She's your first mate. When you're not home, she takes care of shit. When you can't do everything yourself, you delegate important things to her, and she needs to get those things done.

      Women aren't stupid or incapable of reason. We just happen to live in a society where narcissistic bitches are lavished with attention and praised, and women never have to grow up, so the odds are that one or more women you date during your lifetime will behave in a manner that's frankly kind of childish, and that you don't want to validate. (insert obligatory "not all women" and "men too sometimes" language here so that nobody bothers replying with that idiocy)

      Contrast that with feminism, which is advocating for a complete removal of all agency and responsibility from women, just not using those words because then it sounds stupid.

      If a woman and a man have consensual sex, and the woman later regrets it, it's rape -- she was drunk, manipulated, intimidated, whatever. It's not her fault. She never had a choice.

      If a woman stays in a relationship with an asshole man, she's being abused, controlled, manipulated -- it's not her fault. She's not making that choice based on what she's getting out of the relationship and what she's sacrificing to be in it. It's the man's fault she's staying.

      If a woman chooses to marry young, with limited sexual experience, have children, and raise her children and keep house while playing a support role in her husband's life, she's been brainwashed by the evil conservative patriarchy and oppressed by her husband. This wasn't her choice. It's her man's fault for preventing her from having a career in her 20s and for censoring her sexuality. Women who have a choice and aren't abused all choose to be sexually adventurous sluts.

      And so on. Feminism seeks laws that remove agency from women. Did she have any alcohol in her system, then later regret sex? Rape. Man's fault. Did she say yes, but not clearly and enthusiastically? Rape. Man's fault. In a few years, you'll probably see them push for expanding the definition of statutory rape to include an age difference of more than a certain amount (because a 35 year old man with a steady job dating a 21-year-old in college is clearly all about power and manipulation, because young women definitely aren't attracted to good looks and social status and financial stability.)

      [–]1PaulRivers10 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      is your assumption that women are logical and can think with reason

      I'm not Archwinger, but I wanted to point something out - the original post never used the word "logical", it used the word "intelligent".

      Logic is not the only way of thinking, emotional thinking is more pattern based, and whether logical thinking is best depends on your situation. Logic is best in situations where you know all the facts, where you can be confident there's no flaws in your logical thinking (because logic is brittle, where one mistake can give you the opposite of the correct conclusion), and where your facts are reliable.

      For example, logic is used to design circuit boards, computers, etc. But even there, in theory, one simply logically designs it, then immediately begins producing it. In reality, you test that it works before doing that.

      People can act intelligently without their decision coming from the logical part of the brain. When I forced myself into uncomfortable situations to get finally get laid in college, I did not think to myself "As a male, I need to have sex in order to one day have children and be successful as a member of the human species". I thought "I'm horny and I'm sick of not getting laid, and obviously doing what I want and what's comfortable isn't working". It doesn't change that it was a more "intelligent" decision because it was emotional rather than logical.

      [–]1Zackcid 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      “The choice I would have made is the only correct choice. I’m so right that anybody who does differently is mentally incompetent by definition,

      This is why I get the feeling TBP hates /r/RedPillWomen more than they hate us. It goes so deep that many of them are even convinced that the women in that sub are actually guys in disguise. LOL are you fucking serious?!?

      Just because they can't imagine themselves being red pill women, "clearly" those women must be mentally ill to be part of that subreddit. Or "no woman would ever consider TRP, therefore there is no woman in that sub". Pathetic faggot reasoning.

      [–]Samantha_Simpson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Some of the vitriol surrounding the RPW sub is truly astounding. I've only ventured into TBP a handful of times, but I saw enough to know that the extent of the unfounded assumptions they make about us is really incredible. It's not just the "men pretending to be women" thing; they also assume that every RPW who's actually a woman is a subservient drone with no personality and no interests of her own, and only serves as a yes-woman to her husband. In all my time reading the sub, I've never come across anything that was even remotely close to that, and I'm sure that if something like that was posted, the regular posters on there would be calling it out.

      [–]889889771 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      We assume that women are reasonably intelligent people, capable of making reasonable decisions that are best suited to them.

      I wish.

      [–]Hoodwink 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      To be fair, I think that applies across the board.

      [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      It is a telling sign in determining those who love liberty and those who abhor it by the way each treats power. Those who find power within themselves and hold themselves accountable tend to assign this capacity of agency to others. And those who find power by belittling others or deriving their status on the backs of people who do the hard work also tend to assign this same capacity of parasitism to others.

      RP is for following the hard path of choosing to face challenges and overcoming them, believing all people to be capable of choices and subject to their consequences. And in this, women and men both have potential and capacity. Not identical, but respective of their differences.

      [–]1Zanford 8 points9 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      That’s the standard. Essentially, if a woman makes a choice our detractors agree with, she’s responsible and made a great choice. If a woman makes a choice they disagree with, then she was clearly manipulated, controlled, abused, and not responsible for her bad decision – blame the man.

      This is an example of a common Leftist tactic: psychiatrize and pathologize disagreement. Anyone who disagrees with you must have some sort of mental impairment. Ex: baseball pitcher John Rocker being called to go to therapy after making racist comments. Counseling, anger management, ADD diagnoses and ritalin, sensitivity training, school indoctrination, the list goes on.

      It's also an example of another fundamental Leftist principle: private property is not respected. The fact that it's his house and he has the right to kick her out is dismissed.

      [–]1PaulRivers10 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Yawn, please keep your political rambling in another forum. I could debate exactly how the right does the same thing and worse, just using different mechanisms, but the TRP isn't the place for a political echo chamber (anyone repeating rhetoric blaming the other sides for all of societies problems, etc etc). The left and the right do the same thing, they just use the different terms - the left calls it a physchological problem, the right defines it as immoral. It's the same thing, claiming that behaving in a way they do not approve of is bad.

      [–]87GNX 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Sidebar material, Jerry.

      [–]Endless_Summer 5 points6 points  (2 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      If you take that story at face value, then you're the shit head loser. That was all about presenting herself as a victim that was taken advantage of, when she simply couldn't control this guy. Beta bux swallow it all hook, line and sinker.

      [–]17 Endorsed ContributorArchwinger[S] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Anything anybody writes is intended to evoke a response in the readers.

      It's definitely important to remain conscious of the fact that when reading a story on Reddit, you're reading something one person typed on the internet.

      There's no other side of the story. The author could have taken liberties or fudged some things. The entire thing might even be false.

      But that's not important. I don't want to, nor should any of us want to, make light of the fact that real abuse actually exists. We often see stories on The Red Pill that smell like troll-bait lies, but we discuss them anyway, because true or not, they present issues worth talking about.

      Whether or not that particular story about this one woman's experiences is wholly true, partially true, or not true at all doesn't matter. Abuse is a real thing, and if her story is completely true, she encountered it. If her story is partly or completely fabricated, the issues at hand are still worth discussing.

      [–]Endless_Summer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      You and I have absolutely zero reason to believe a word of that story. If anything there's evidence that it was fake, based on the obvious TRP plug. If it's real, she's likely lying and this is how you will be talked about. Guys that cheat or won't placate a woman are always "assholes" or "abusive".

      The only thing to take from this is how not to fall for bullshit stories like this, because you know this is the sob story the next guy she wants to fuck is gonna get.

      [–]2asd1100 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I don't see the problem.

      2 people engaged in a abusive relationship. What is the news?

      SJW can either acuse us of black magic, and therefor agnoleging that we're on to something and all their equality crap is bullshit. Or keep calling us misoginists neckbearded virgins and therefor all our rethoric is just mere frustration and therefor this guy was just another random dipshit and maybe the girl was actually unstable to begin with.

      But what are we talking about, reason is pointless, gender is what gives the verdict. Men are bad and evil, therefor the red pill is both delusional rethoric and black magic at the same time, because penis.

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

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      This is the point I have put to my many educated, intelligent, and successful female friends. In too many cases I'm met with the opposition to TRP because of the perception that it is about "douchey guys trying to get laid". Rather, TRP is about being responsible for yourself, making the most of yourself, and operating without concern of what others think of you. Ultimately, if TRP individuals--so that I may include women in this statement--act with these sets along with humanist ideals (e.g., the true "golden rule"), then we would have a near utopia. Unfortunately, the opposition to the basic principles of TRP from baseless areas undermines this effort.

      [–]magical_artist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Essentially, if a woman makes a choice our detractors agree with, she’s responsible and made a great choice. If a woman makes a choice they disagree with, then she was clearly manipulated, controlled, abused, and not responsible for her bad decision – blame the man.

      I've never seen it put quite like that. That's clear and compelling.

      [–]kidd-gloves 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      That was nicely put together and quite an enjoyable read.

      I also took away from this the idea of 'Males are Superior'. Based off the notion 'you took advantage/manipulated and it's your responsibility to not do that' - feminist thinking. Through their convoluted thought process they are just saying to me ' your gender is better so it's your responsibility'. HA I need to just stop there. Comprehensive thought will not allow logical outcome.

      Sometimes I forget why I try not to reason with this thought process. This has been a great reminder.

      [–]17 Endorsed ContributorArchwinger[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      I also took away from this the idea of 'Males are Superior'. Based off the notion 'you took advantage/manipulated and it's your responsibility to not do that' - feminist thinking. Through their convoluted thought process they are just saying to me ' your gender is better so it's your responsibility'

      Of course they think men are superior. Feminists hate women.

      If you had a small number of sexual partners, limited sexual intercourse to serious monogamous relationships, got married in your 20s when you were your prettiest and most fertile, had a few kids quickly and easily and free of birth defects, and raised your family and kept house and supported your bread-winning husband, you're an idiot! You're not happy! You were brainwashed by the patriarchy!

      Smart women have sex with a lot of people, starting at a very young age. Just casual sex, nothing serious. At first, it's difficult, because your instincts are screaming at you not to do this to yourself, but that's really just societal conditioning you have to overcome. Once you push past that hump, you're kind of numb to everything and don't feel much of anything for anyone any more. That really helps you to focus on how all of those dicks feel.

      You do that for about 10-15 years, telling yourself how happy you are, how free you are, how much fun this is, and ignore the nagging feeling that you might actually hate yourself inside, and you make absolutely certain to tell the next generation of women how great your life is, because you want to be sure they follow in your footsteps, because if they met a good guy, married young, and had a loving family when you never did, it would be like a dagger in your heart.

      [–]TheSKSpecial 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Once you push past that hump, you're kind of numb to everything and don't feel much of anything for anyone any more. That really helps you to focus on how all of those dicks feel.

      You do that for about 10-15 years, telling yourself how happy you are, how free you are, how much fun this is, and ignore the nagging feeling that you might actually hate yourself inside,

      One wonders if this is a reason why women are 2 1/2 times more likely to take antidepressants than men.

      Yay...feminism?

      [–]drcarp2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      The thing is when you're in an abusive or manipulative relationship, you won't realize it until it's over and you're dating someone else. Both men and women can experience it. Comparing it to a drunken sex encounter is far-fetched and stupid

      [–]charlie_bodango 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Basically it's anti women because it threatens their beta safety net.

      [–]oh_jonas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      As one of the first commenters on that particular post, thank you for bringing everything back around. That thread was just a circlejerk meant to bait us.

      "Hey, was this somewhat grey-area situation (without context) abuse? DOES TRP SUPPORT ABUSE?"

      "Sounds like a volatile relationship, but it's not explicitly abuse, unless the dude raped her repeatedly. The post to TRP that you're highlighting is about retroactively crying 'rape' when they regret having sex with a guy"

      "BUT HE BEAT HER AND THREATENED HER AND SO MUCH OTHER ABUSIVE THINGS. OMG. ALSO I DON'T GET WHY UR GOIN ON ABOUT THE RAPE THING . . . THJIS IS ABOUT ABUSE!"

      [–]justatwinkle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      A co-worker recently made me aware that there are several types of feminists. For example, there are liberal feminists, which is the bulk of most people who identify as feminists, who believe gender is a social construct. They choose to ignore the inherent differences between the sexes and somehow think this is helping the cause. Then there are cultural feminists, who often don't think of themselves as feminists because they think feminism refers to those radical types who think women should have the world served to them on a fucking platter. Cultural feminists recognize the differences between men and women and embrace them because women have equal, though different, value in society. I expected to hate the red pill when I first began reading, but instead found a subreddit full of cultural feminists who don't view women as needing some sort of hand out to do well. Not shockingly, a lot of TRP ideology goes hand in hand with conservative ideology which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

      [–]js27195 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I'm really new to this site. I think it would be best when discussing the Red Pill to remember that at its root TRP is about empowering men. That's it. It's about defining how a true man behaves and the advantages and disadvantages to those actions. It has nothing to do with women other than women are interacted with along with everyone else. It also realizes and describes how people in general will react to you if you act like a true man and how people will react to you if you don't. In keeping with this theme its isn't about looking down, building up, or anything else on females... frankly the only way they enter the equation is by how they react which should not be of any concern to a strong male.

      [–]tongue_kiss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      The problem is that there aren't a lot of 'normal' people with a good understanding of healthy relationships..

      So people with a faulty understanding of how to treat their SO find themselves in places like TRP or the feminist equivalent and then you see situations like the one you described.

      It's exactly like putting the decimal point in the wrong place in the middle of solving an equation. Only the decimal point is TRP and the equation is that dude and his gf's fucked up life. It meant well, but it was the wrong place/wrong time, and so it makes everything worse in the end.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      [deleted]

        [–]macsenscam -1 points0 points  (8 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I agree with this, except I would have said "feminists" with the quotation marks. Real feminism (or what it should be) is just the idea that the sexes should be treated roughly equally, given the biological differences. It is no more pro-woman than it is pro-man, it just happens to be prefixed with "fem" for essentially arbitrary historical reasons.

        [–]2 Mredpillschool 1 point2 points  (7 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Feminism is truly not what it pretends to be. If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, I don't care what it pretends to be.

        [–]theecharon 0 points1 point  (6 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I know a lot of actually highly educated ivy league professors who disagree with you, but you know what do they know...

        [–]theoctopuss -1 points0 points  (5 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        You say that as if it has any merit on someone's actual intelligence, biases, or personal vices.

        There's idiots from the bottom of the food chain all the way to the top. Some of them just happen to be able to make up for it in other ways, such as connections, attractiveness, or mental manipulation.

        [–]theecharon 1 point2 points  (4 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        I'm not sure I follow. I'm saying that what OP is referring to is egalitarian view vs the skewed anti men view. The former being "real feminism" and in fact being what people who know what they're talking about view it as. TLDR: WTF are you saying

        [–]theoctopuss -1 points0 points  (3 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        If you had any sense, you would understand what I wrote.

        [–]theecharon 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        No.. your comment has nothing to do with anything. Unless you offer something substantive i'm going to tag you as ignore and do just that. Just to rehash what I said, I said a lot of highly educated people say that feminism is egalitarian and is not pretending like the mod said.

        [–]theoctopuss 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        In response to redpillschool's comment, you put forth the notion that he might be wrong because "several Ivy League professors" disagree with him. You presented it with a sarcastic edge ("but you know what do they know").

        This gives the impression that you believe that someone has merit just because they are an Ivy League professor. The reality of it is that regardless of someone's stature in society, they can still be a complete idiot with misguided views and irrational biases. This is the case with every variant of population no matter ethnicity, societal structure, or any other differentiating factor in the human race.

        Feminism certainly does attempt to devalue men, while at the same time hiding behind false dichotomies and the veil of "equality for both sexes!" All that they end up doing is alienate themselves from the normal population (which is much, much larger than you think) as well as give people in actual struggle a bad name.

        [–]theecharon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        Well thought out, Thanks.