all 147 comments

[–][deleted] 108 points109 points  (31 children)

This guy is obviously getting it right. The one caveat I will add is this:

In college I was taught men were responsible for 90% of the worlds problems.

Now, a lot of this hinges on what you define as a "problem". However, you could make an argument that men are indeed problems in the majority of cases (wars etc.). However, you also would be forced to admit that they are also the vast majority of success (hunting, inventions, modern medicine). This is the part that is usually always left out when blaming men for the ills of society.

[–]lift_more_cake 108 points109 points  (5 children)

Men, like beer, are the cause of, and solution to, the worlds problems.

It's because men do all the things. And women mostly watch and eat bon bons.

[–]sunwukong15 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Dude, back when I was plugged in I totally tried to get this chick to like me by buying her bon bons.

[–]bluedrygrass 71 points72 points  (13 children)

You're totally wrong if you think there wouldn't be wars in a female ruled world.

The opposite is true, there would be endless wars, for trivial shits.

In fact, a male dominated world is a more peaceful one.

[–]2 Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 43 points44 points  (0 children)

You are totally right about this.

Why do wars exist anyway? It's not because men like war. War is hell. Men are the primary victims of war. War is about population A vs population B for resources. It almost always boils down to resources. Land, water, oil, trade routes, control over populations. Ideologies and religions provides frameworks for populations to synchronize, and men provide the convenient muscle (which is expendable) to exert the force for the whole entity. Just like an ant colony, there are carpenters, breeders, and soldiers. Just because all of our soldiers are male doesn't mean the whole colony isn't involved in this conflict.

[–]MyRedAccount 16 points17 points  (1 child)

The Tain Bo Cuailnge, one of the oldest documents from Ireland, is a story in which a woman starts a war because she's jealous of another woman's bull. The Illiad is about a woman starting a war by making men fight over her. Gilgamesh is the only canonical ancient story I'm aware of in which the women are largely insignificant to the wars.

Do you think men would fight each other to the extent they do if it didn't impress women? I'd still like a good tussle when I was younger, but It'd have been sporting, not fighting rivals on the streets.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

To that extent, The Epic of Gilgamesh opens with Gilgamesh and Enkidu realizing they kick ass so they just decide to go do kick ass things. It's very much a "sporting" vibe. Then Ishtar steps in and tries to throw everything for a loop because women will always be the best plot to screw-up a good bro thing.

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

No, there would be no wars when women ruled the world, just a couple of countries refusing to talk to one another

(for the sarcasm-resistant downvote brigade: that was a joke.)

[–]1Watermelon_Salesman 10 points11 points  (2 children)

No wars when females in charge? Margaret Thatcher and Condoleezza Rice beg to differ.

[–]Lakey91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Maggie's case it was a war of defence and she had a lot of popular support.

Not that the premise that women not causing war isn't bs, just that it's a bad example as any honest man would call it a just war.

[–]marrio91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But at least Condie was hot, hell Osama had a thing for her.

[–]Definately_not_a_cat 1 point2 points  (3 children)

The wars would probably be more of a psychological game because thats generally how women fight and argue with each other in normal life.

[–]trenescese 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You can't mentally seize territory.

[–]Definately_not_a_cat 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Didnt say none of it would be physical.

[–]suloco 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Make no mistake! In matriarchal wars men would still do the fighting.

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

But wars would be fought on social media in a female ruled world.

[–]simplegreen1990 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have ANY source for this cause it sounds like your asshole learned to talk recently

[–]Clbull 17 points18 points  (4 children)

I remember a teacher back at my school made a jibe that the word History was sexist because it favours men and that they should have called it Herstory.

[–]BippityBopMyDick 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The fuck...we're they joking? Seems like any trivial word or occurrence they seem to deconstruct it to the point to where they can call it sexist. Normal people look at their actions and find them delusional, almost like an extreme schizophrenia.

[–]skoobled 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha! And I suppose we're responsible for inventing MENstruation and the MENopause as well...

[–]SlamMyHam 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Not buying it for a second...

[–]Clbull 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am almost certain that's an orbiter.

[–]curiousthis 12 points13 points  (0 children)

men are indeed problems in the majority of cases (wars etc.)

Kinda interesting that in order to start a war, you have to demonize your opponent by spreading the news that they want to rape/kill your women and children, no?

[–]I_Wear_Jorts5 2 points3 points  (2 children)

How dare you make a logical point you sexist piece of shit!

[–]harkrank 19 points20 points  (1 child)

You contribute nothing with these kind of comments.

[–]sway_usa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's been an uptick of those recently, especially ones that contain "shitlord"

[–]liljenz0 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The world has problems. Men are in charge of most of the world. As a result men are responsible for FIXING 90%of the worlds problems not the cause of it. I'm not gonna argue whether the world would be better with women in charge but if they were they would also be responsible for 90% of the worlds problems.

[–]Flaye2 35 points36 points  (1 child)

We've always been like this, men had always sacrificed for women simply because in order for our species to survive we needed to protect the limiting factor: the wombs.

But back in the day the dark side of women had always been concealed. In grand irony feminism had allowed to act in their true colours, and we now get to see women for what they really are.

[–]vaker 18 points19 points  (0 children)

But back in the day the dark side of women had always been concealed.

Not just concealed, traditional societies actively suppressed it.

[–]KSmittens 152 points153 points  (10 children)

And so the red pill was created, to give men a third option; to be in control; to live free of slavery; to say NO. He has the ability to raise himself up, he transcends the common rabble, he becomes a man. He is praised for his strength and revered for his courage. Now, there is a way to win. That is OUR privilege.

[–]macthefire 41 points42 points  (1 child)

The only way to win the game is to not play at all. Agreed.

[–]Evesest 26 points27 points  (3 children)

Red Pill does not undo most of the injustices we face as men. All it does is give us a little more control over our lives, but the yellow tape surrounding our gender is getting tighter and tighter every day. Something more drastic needs to happen, and that could be sparked by RP tbh

[–]ZJC0 5 points6 points  (2 children)

That is how I feel about a lot of scenarios. We know the truth. Now we to take action. To do something to fix this mess. We need to start somewhere.

[–]1wiseclockcounter 15 points16 points  (1 child)

ehhh, I think I prefer the quiet*, inevitable freeze over as opposed to a fiery TRP opposition that would be easily crushed with feminist shaming tactics. This sub is growing. Plenty of men are coming to terms with the reality of the situation even without TRP. I think it's better to stick with the waiting game and continue to make the information here as accessible as possible.

[–]j0rbles 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree. Let them self-destruct while we just do what makes us happy.

[–]RedPillProphet 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Yes... a strategy composed of dedicating your entire life and competing ruthlessly to become the man the average woman can sexually enjoy. That will solve everything.

I don't mean to knock TRP (as you can probably guess from my username) but it is important to accept that we have been dealt a shittier hand by nature. This game is heavily rigged and we are the worthless plebs that die by the thousands.

[–]bautron 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We dont die by the thousands anymore. In the more developed world the problem is that there are more men available, therefore the male supply is really high, lowering our value.

And another disagreement. Its much better being a man. I love it. Im strong, emotionally stable and able to enjoy some very good things in life.

[–]I_HaveAHat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The red pill was not created recently, it was always there, we just forgot about it until now

[–]watersign 19 points20 points  (1 child)

Fucking amazing. Most of the people who post on Yahoo answers are fucking morons but this is PURE gold.

[–]franzois_ 34 points35 points  (8 children)

Feminists dont know how good they had it under the "oppression" of the patriarchy; they were in essence mostly protected from the horrors of "Real Life".

[–]OFF_THE_DEEP_END 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Protected from "real life", or protected from being poached from other strong males?

[–]Scrawlerism 5 points6 points  (1 child)

ahahah. Great point.

I think this is all much more grey than people think.

[–]Involution88 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Some people say the great wall of China was built to keep Mongols out.

Some people say the great wall of China was built to keep Chinese in.

[–]franzois_ 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Protected from real life, as in, protected from having to hunt down food, ressources, the horrors of the laws of physics when the jar of jam wont open and shit like that.

[–]OFF_THE_DEEP_END 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When's the last time you hunted down food? And I've got a gorilla grip, but there have been some jars I couldn't open. Don't see how any of your examples support OP's assertion that thousands of years of evolution caused inflation to female value in society.

I agree there is inflation, I disagree with OP's explanation of it.

[–]bazola01 14 points15 points  (5 children)

The mental gymnastics one has to perform to believe something like that...

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."

  • Hillary Clinton.

[–]philipTraum 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Could just be an epicurean point. But even so it disregards the sons, fathers, and wounded servicemen.

[–]juicy_squirrel 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It disregards the poor schmuck who took a bullet to the guts and died.

[–]philipTraum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, on the first point. It does disregard the period of suffering before death. But not so much on the second point "and died" if it is, as I was saying, an epicurean point.

"Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us."

Otherwise stated death cannot be a harm to he who has died, because to the dead, by virtue of being, cannot be harmed by their state, i.e. deadness.

I'm not saying this is necessarily correct. I'm just pointing out that the original statement, when seen in this context, may require less mental gymnastics than you'd expect. It's a way of thinking that's been around for well over two thousand years.

[–]nrjk 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Because being sad about a dead husband is equal to the husband being, shot, maimed, tortured, bombed, beheaded, or just straight murdered. Feels--->More important than life itself. Thanks, Hillary!

[–]bazola01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't figure out for the life of me whether she's insane, stupid, or a world-class troll.

[–]1favours_of_the_moon 16 points17 points  (0 children)

"Women are a very hateful group in modern society, and we are all paying taxes to support this hate movement being taught in our schools. It is sickening. But as always, men do not matter. If you complain about injustice you are considered weak. If you get angry about injustice you are considered hateful. Those are men's two options: Be derided and degraded for weakness, or be hated and feared because of your anger. There is no way to win, and that's what I call male privilege."

Oh, there's a way to win. That's what we're all about, son.

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

"Those are men's two options: Be derided and degraded for weakness, or be hated and feared because of your anger. There is no way to win, and that's what I call male privilege."

That hit hard. This is why MGTOW and TRP exist. Just walk away.

[–]sLyyyisfactioN 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Thanks for posting this here.

It's is indeed sickening how society ignores this issue and still take women seriously with their demands. This is probably the best explanation for so many things.. best example is the recent gaming-journalism scandal "the quinnspiracy". This exact scheme is at work there.

When the world will wake up?

[–]theredpill101 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Societies and nations move cyclically, but human nature hardly changes.

I don't know if the world suddenly "wakes up" to this, as much as something catastrophic happens and we revert back to old ways of living.

Some of the shit people pull today, men an women, is done from a very privileged position. Political correctness, frivolous lawsuits, inane "rights" groups. Frequently, those who we consider "oppressed," are only able to campaign for "rights" because our rule of law protects them.

Homosexuals, for example. Even today in some US locations, homosexuals are treated poorly for their orientation. Governments, state and federal, still haven't come to terms with granting them equal rights.

But can you imagine campaigning for these things back in the 1950s? There would've been no hope.

My point in saying this is that, if and when society collapses (as societies tend to do from time to time), all of these groups will again be subject to natures laws. Specifically: the strong will rule.

I'm sure you've read about the Mongol invasion of Eastern Europe, and the Hunnish invasion of Byzantium. Can you imagine a collapse in the rule of law, where your only safety was that which you could provide?

That is when you will see the world "wake up." But it won't last. No part of a cycle does.

[–]sLyyyisfactioN 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right, indeed. A lot of things changed, very rapidly even, in the last century, for good or a bad.. who knows.

And maybe that's the problem, like you stated

My point in saying this is that, if and when society collapses (as societies tend to do from time to time), all of these groups will again be subject to natures laws. Specifically: the strong will rule.

That has always been the case, yes, it's in the nature of every living creature here on earth, but maybe it is time for change this system.

USE our strength and knowledge we gathered with analysing human nature and change the deep rooted thinking of humans.

Teach the people to follow the only truth, the logical end of every discussion and ignoring peoples voices who are proven dubious, forcing these people to gather facts about things they opposing, instead of non-thought trough talking, so they just can't contribute to changing a subject.

Summon the next social collapse and raise it to the non-ignorance.

Maybe it's just dream thinking, but that's the way i'd like to see in the future..

[–]PM_Me_For_Advices 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How I wish that the world would at least try to see through the lies and the female-biased media. At least we've began a small revolution which for now helps ourselves. A female could shit-test us, complain that we're horrible people and/or wish for a Beta-husband to support her. It disgusts me, but at the same time brings me joy knowing that I can just spin some other plates. If she can't behave, we can simply deny her and move on because we learn how to hold frame. Some of them even come back on the knees begging to take them back. And pow, we've got the power of relationship - Because we're different from all of the beta males.

For the moment at least, we'll have to accept that the society favours women, though tolerating it is a choice. We can for the most part avoid the shit they put many betas through - I can live happy knowing that I will stay redipill and that anyone can learn to become redpill if they so try.

[–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (5 children)

I don't agree with this "hopeless" aspect.

Globalization has seriously solved most of these problems. Women were valued at the expense of men because of the threat of death. They were protected because of the threat of death. This was the forcing function for literally millions of years. Protect the woman, even if 10 men die. We need her to have the children.

This forcing function is GONE. It is completely wiped out. There is no fear of death for women anymore. Even if, theoretically, every single girl in America somehow was gone, there would still be LITERALLY billions of women on the planet.

The "hopeless" factor in the post is just wrong lmao. This entire subreddit is proof of that. This female-mega-valued concept is just flat out dying. Really, really quickly.

10 years ago, marriage was a must. Rap music and its misogyny was bad.

Now, in 2014, in this year, I don't know a SINGLE man that doesn't intensely doubt and debate going into marriage. The more net worth they have, the more they laugh at marriage. In every single dude worth more than 50M, he laughs at marriage, and if they even consider it, they get their legal team to make an ironclad pre-nup.

Rap music and its misogyny ENTIRELY is being accepted SO INTENSELY. Look at the song "Loyal". Lmao the fucking hook is "These hoes ain't loyal".

It's spreading, man. People go on here and see an extremist version, because TRP is an extreme version, yes. A lot of people here seem to hate women, instead of just not valuing them too highly. That's okay too, do and feel whatever the fuck you want.

But this "hopeless" horseshit is just horseshit. Yes, millions of men have died while women stayed home. This was also integral to the species. Yes, men for the past ~100 years or so have been pretty much forced to work for women.

But my fucking god is this changing, and is it changing fast.

At the end of the day, 10 years ago, if you had a group of friends and you weren't married, it was a bad thing.

Now, if you have a group of friends, you have a girl you're close to, and you're not married, you're a fucking pimp.

That's all that needs to be said.

[–]RockTurgidson 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Look at the song "Loyal". Lmao the fucking hook is "These hoes ain't loyal".

Not commenting on anything else in your post, but I just wanted to say that I heard this song blaring from the group fitness room at the gym just an hour or so ago. It was an all-female class. I was doing some core work and got a solid chuckle out of it.

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

They act like it's 'just a song' when really it's calling them out on their bullshit

[–]KSmittens 30 points31 points  (0 children)

In terms of marriage and individual western men you're spot on. But as a species, even after our rapid development, we're still subject to the biological processes that have kept us alive for millenia. Men are still disposable and that isn't likely to change until our reproductive processes do (so no time soon).

Consider the world's reaction to the Boko Haram terrorist group for a moment. (for those unaware, theyre an Islamic terrorist group in Africa opposing western education) At the start of the year this group was killing thousands of schoolboys and young men, letting all the girls go with only a warning to not go and receive an education. Did the media report this? Did anyone know about it? Of course not, why would they care? Then they captured a few hundred schoolgirls and held them for ransom (remember now?) and instantly there was global outrage and the media were going wild. It even got to the point where Michelle Obama was part of that "save our girls" business. Mainstream media still didn't report the slaughter of thousands of young men, but were up in arms over these girls being ransomed. If that doesn't illustrate our disposability then i don't know what does.

[–]OFF_THE_DEEP_END 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree. It's not even globalization though. Just living in medium sized city would undermine the inflated value.

[–]vaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem with all this is that if men don't marry and have a family, they have much less incentive to work hard and improve things for their children. If men stop working hard, far in excess to what they need, then you can kiss advanced civilization goodbye.

[–]EmbeddedAssets 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Be glad men are disposable. That way, we can have what truly makes us happier: freedom.

[–]DEVi4TION 1 point2 points  (1 child)

how does disposed = freedom?

[–]PrimaxAUS 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Because when you are considered surplus to society, which is most of the time, you can do whatever you want.

You don't have to marry. You don't have to slave away to support kids you that might not even be yours. You don't have to do what everyone else is doing, you can go do whatever you want. The game is rigged but you don't have to play the game. You can go invent your own game, and as long as you're mindful of shit that will get you thrown in jail you're good.

[–]sokolske 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So far the only class that was shown women are at horrible is Greek mythology.

The Trojan war, a ten year old war that destroyed a civilization, was caused because some girl wasn't invited to a party, and had to make all the girls jealous with some stupid fucking apple, only to have a blue pill bitch decide whose pretty.

Each of these girls bribe this guy (paris), and Paris of all things chooses aphrodite cuz she promises hb10, aka girl already taken. Steals girl willingly or not (depends on translation and opinion) and starts a 10 year war.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

It isn't quite this hopeless. Men are already opting out of marriage and maybe before too long they'll start to opt out of LTRs too. If MGTOW starts to become a socially acceptable thing (it isn't yet IMO) then the balance of power will shift back toward men. If a woman wants an LTR or a marriage she's going to have to figure out how to bring something valuable to the table.

Most men are still, as far as I can tell, conditioned to think that eventually they'll need to get married. So women play on that pretty hard because all they really need to do is wait and eventually some guy will volunteer. If that pipeline stops then women are going to lose that safety net and will be looking at an entire life "alone". I think that is more scary for women than for men.

[–]Helmut_Newton 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The other possibility is that women could try to force legislators to enact a new form of a "bachelor tax". Hopefully, this would again be declared unconstitutional.

[–]drkstrs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The entire female power game dies as soon as MGTOW reaches critical mass. I personally am riding the wave of excess generated by all these men and women who haven't yet figured this out yet.

[–]MrMagwitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)


[–]1johnnight 13 points14 points  (8 children)

Men are not disposable, men are capable. Capable of taking risks. Women are deliberately prohibited from taking risks.

A society can survive the loss of most of it's men and still go on. It could not withstand the loss of most of it's women.

Wrong. A tribe composed of 20 females and 1 male is dead. It lost too many men and can not feed or defend itself.

What is true is that a tribe composed of 20 females and 20 males can afford to put the males at a low risk of injury or death if that feeds and secures the tribe. We can still go on at 20 + 19, but we will be 5% more hungry. I am pulling this number out of nowhere, but I would say that for this group losing one man per 10 years is allowable.

What happens at 20 + 1? The women go looking for another tribe, where the men have not been killed. Because men are indisposable.

[–]kanaduhisfruityeh 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Not sure why you got thumbed down. I agree with you 100%. Only a small number of men are needed for reproduction (although one man is probably too few for the sake of genetic diversity), but other men are needed to do other stuff.

[–]MrMagwitch 2 points3 points  (0 children)


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

I'm concerned with the word 'disposable' being so defeatist. This is not how we should think about ourselves and we should not repeat this like a mantra.

On average, women have the musculature to just move themselves and to project strength on small objects (children). Men have the upper body to project strength on large objects (other men, animals, etc.). The specialization should be obvious. Women are not a separate species. We have the same genes, only that men have been switched on to be the 'doing' type, while women are switched on to be the reproductive and protected type. Nature hates excess body mass in food scarce environments, hence the lower body mass of women. There is no other evolutionary reason for women being smaller and weaker then keeping them away from danger.

[–]Involution88 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This post is overgeneralised.

Wrong. A tribe composed of 20 females and 1 male is dead. It lost too many men and can not feed or defend itself.

Look at highly polygynous societies. Men do jack shit other than eating, sleeping, fucking and keeping the peace. Women perform almost all labour. Maternity leave? What maternity leave. Married men are protected while unmarried men are persecuted. Roles are reversed in polyandrous societies.

Look at Hoe vs. Plow cultures(There is a schism between those who argue reasons are economical and social, or sexual and social). In Hoe cultures the bride's family is paid compensation by the grooms family to compensate the bride's family for lost labour. In Plow culture, grooms receive a dowry from the brides family to compensate for the costs incurred by having to support a wife.

It is a mechanism by which property is transferred to female heirs. Equal inheritance rights were achieved before paternity became a matter of fact rather than opinion thanks to paternity testing. Society will probably start treating women as similarly disposable and exploitable as men before artificial wombs become available. Barring extreme demographic or population pressure.

While a tribe with only 1 man for every 20 females would have a tough time defending itself against other tribes, it would still be capable of feeding itself. A tribe that has already lost a significant portion of its male population is unlikely to be able to secure any benefit from engaging in high risk high reward activities and would probably turtle like crazy.

Women are capable of putting food on the table. Women are capable of hunting, but in general are not as good at it as males. (Dimorphism, Distributionof dichromy and tetrachromy amongst other factors)Women are not as good at fighting as males. Training and technology are greater factors than gender differences IMO.

[–]Nicolay77 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have names of relevant literature?

I want to read about these polygynous societies.

[–]iopq 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Women are just as capable at foraging for berries as men are. This is the highest percentage of food/calories in a primitive society. According to Wikipedia hunting/foraging societies were very egalitarian because of this fact.

[–]smokingmonkey420 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is good to know. As much as TRP likes to point out the differences between men and women (they are real). At the end of the day, we are both human and are more similar than we are different.

[–]therapeofafrica 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I already won when I was born a man.

[–]kanaduhisfruityeh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Women may get more perks, but they're also more dependent. So while men may run to protect women instead of protecting me, I don't need their protection cause I serve and protect myself. Women need society and men don't.

[–]TheRentIsTooDamnHi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I love how the "Best Answer" received only 5 upvotes and 60 downvotes, while the linked answer has 13 upvotes and 0 downvotes. What a way to hide the truth. Seems the questioner was looking for validation for their own opinion rather than a legitimate answer/discussion to the question.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–]Isaiah4verse1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    We build civilizations.

    don't delete me reddit bot

    [–]Traz_Onmale 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Aren't men necessary for hunting or defending the village?

    And even if men are expendable, why would men care more about other men than women do? Seems to me that a man is more valuable to a woman than to another man.

    [–]iopq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    If you lost all of your men in a war, chances are other men are defending your village now.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)


      [–]scottlapier 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      This is what I live by. I would rather be hated for being right and standing for my beliefs than complaining that people don't like my beliefs.

      And there are a lot of people that hate me.

      [–]raceAround126 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I've blabbed this here before, but it's relevant.

      My cousin got divorce raped hard. The outcome of the divorce means that he has to pay his ex wife spousal support, child support for three kids and the entire mortgage on the house that she lives in. He cannot get an order for sale from the court, she will not move somewhere cheaper, she will not get a job (there is no reason for her to) and on top of that, she's even moved her new boyfriend in whom the kids now know very well. He gets exactly zero say in all of this.

      He self-petitioned to the court again about the order for sale simply as it's a four bed house and it's killing him in terms of outgoings. Despite working in the city, after travel expenses, paying her, basic food and clothing, he simply doesn't even have enough to move out of his parents' place where he "temporarily" held up during the divorce. Of course, he couldn't afford a solicitor or anyone to represent him, the judge hammered him a new one and he was lucky to escape with his balls.

      The earliest he can apply for an order for sale on the house is when the youngest child turns 16. By then he'll be in his 50s. So this guy will be almost retired before he can even TRY to restart his life from somewhere. He can't go bankrupt without making his kids homeless, the ex does not relent on the bills. Anything that goes wrong in the house, she hires the first tradesman she happens to find and sends the bills to him (she won't even accept him going up to do repairs) and even the child access she fucks around with.

      Last year, he'd scrimped enough to take the kids to a theme park for one of their birthdays. This was all he talked about for weeks, it was planned with the ex, where they would meet, etc. He bought the tickets for one particular date as is the norm, everyone knew. The ex fucked it up, ended up the kids came the following day instead. Of course the tickets were no good then. She made him look like a fucking chump.

      Everything, even the court system, are completely unsympathetic to his predicament. There is nothing for him whatsoever. No system to relieve him so he can enjoy at least some of his income meanwhile she's riding around in a brand new BMW on lease. And when the day comes where he can enforce a sale, she'll still take half of what the house is worth too!

      Marriage: Fuck fucking no way Jose!

      [–]redpill-lurker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      We are hardwired to think that way. But, at this point in human civilization, women's ability to reproduce does not have the same value as before.

      It used to be that many infants and children would die before growing up to become adolescents. Also, more women would die during childbirth. There are 7 billion people on the planet now. We're also not far off from creating and using artificial wombs.

      Women's ability to reproduce is not as crucial as it was before. In fact, it's reasonable to say that this has resulted in a loss of privilege for women. Women now have the same rights as men, but that also means that they've been given some of the responsibilities of men as well. They must now compete with men more and don't receive the same level of care and protection from men that they used to. So they have have been pushing a very aggressive, self-serving ideology for decades now in an attempt to get some of that female privilege back.

      It is in the nature of women to manipulate the men around them to act in a way that is beneficial to those women. Feminism is just the modern manifestation of women's instinct to communicate to men: "You have to help me, protect me, and take care of me! My well-being is most important!" It is a natural way of compensating for their physical and emotional weakness, and it has helped them to survive. Men's programmed desire is, of course, to protect women. These instincts have helped women, the womb carriers, to survive in primitive times and thus have helped the human race to survive.

      Men's humanity and well-being is the last priority. We are not seen as people to be helped, but rather as a means to an end to provide for women. To reflect what MRA leader Warren Farrell once said, women are seen as human beings while men are treated as human doings.

      I personally do not accept that as a place for myself, and I chose to train myself out of those gynocentric behaviors a long time ago and make the best out of my life that I possibly can.

      I read a lot of what I wrote here in a comment by someone in r/MensRights, but I can't find it when I do a search for it.

      [–]ZJC0 1 point2 points  (6 children)

      Well, this makes me feel really hopeless on finding a lady whom I can bond with.

      [–]Andress1[S] 6 points7 points  (5 children)

      Thats the ultimate red pill truth.Women will never love you the same way you love them.They never did,it was just social conditioning and they were affraid to be socially rejected if they left their hypergamy run.

      [–]ZJC0 -1 points0 points  (4 children)

      Wouldn't there at least be some women who themselves took the red pill. There must be some.

      [–]throvvvvavvvvay 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      You're not listening.

      Red pill = accept reality

      It's not a pill that changes women into something else.

      [–]ZJC0 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      ARGH! Absolutely correct...I'm trying to fight the truth cause the damn pill is bitter & difficult to swallow. Forgive me

      [–]throvvvvavvvvay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      It's tough but it sounds like you're getting it now.

      If you start to feel lousy about it just remind yourself that you're just seeing a challenge for what it is. It's disheartening to look at such a tough and unsure challenge because it makes you think about how hard it will be and that you might fail. Pretending it's something else or easier might not be as scary, but it also won't help you face the actual challenge and do what you need to do.

      [–]MrMagwitch 1 point2 points  (0 children)


      [–]Radox_Redux 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Loved the quote, but then I clicked on the thread and both the askers question (and her reply to the answer) made by blood boil. Why the fuck do I live in this time?

      [–][deleted]  (6 children)


        [–]-Tyler_Durden- 2 points3 points  (5 children)

        Ray Rice lost his frame and millions of dollars because of it. Equality is a great ideal, but the fact is that we are held to a higher standard.

        He should have walked away and dumped that train wreck of a woman. A millionaire dumping a woman is far worse than any left cross. Now he his out of a job and she has all the power in their marriage.

        [–][deleted]  (4 children)


          [–]-Tyler_Durden- 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Women are permanent teenagers; would you knock out a child? Even if you are morally right in returning a punch to a woman you will never win. He's lucky he is not in jail right now.

          A long time ago a drill instructor asked me if I would rather be happy or right. I would much rather be happy; and the older you get the more this makes sense.

          [–]iopq 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          The only right answer is to act hurt and lord it over her for the rest of her life. Having the moral and legal high ground is the correct answer. Getting paid millions in the NFL doesn't hurt either.

          [–]redpillrising 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Gotta love that the "best" answer is "Asker's Choice". Confirmation bias, anyone?

          [–]Urasquirrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          eh I would say that men are a limiting factor just as much as women. That is a very slanted thing to think. But as the world sees it yea and great following point about the "unimportant" deaths of men vs women.

          [–]General_Fear 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Jesus, Mary, Joseph . . .

          Women are the victims of war? How about the guy who takes a bullet in the chest!

          [–]scubar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          This is going on /r/feminism!

          [–]2asd1100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Men really need to learn and stop slaving for women.

          Yeah, that is hard, we are made to do this: like the spider is made to just pump away while the female eats him starting from his head.

          In college I was taught men were responsible for 90% of the worlds problems.

          I would say 100%, think about a world filled with MGTOWs that honestly did not give a fuck about women. No priviledge, no anger, no competition, a utopia where women would actually have to work just as hard as men to get something. A world where your opinion would matter only if it is actually worth a damn not because you took the time to redigest someone else's arguments.

          If you complain about injustice you are considered weak. If you get angry about injustice you are considered hateful.

          You are, no, just still weak and with a hero complex. The world is filled with injustice, get over yourself.

          Those are men's two options: Be derided and degraded for weakness, or be hated and feared because of your anger. There is no way to win, and that's what I call male privilege."

          3 options, be used, be feared or be fucked. I would think the latter is a pretty good deal, but I would rather fuck while rome burns than crying buckets of tears to at least pretent I can do something to save it.

          [–]Christiantrucker -1 points0 points  (2 children)

          If you are Christian the wife is supposed to be submissive to her Husband.

          [–]MrMagwitch 1 point2 points  (0 children)


          [–]OFF_THE_DEEP_END 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          True, ideologies have a lot to do with how we value things. If the red pill was the dominant ideology then we'd not have such an inflated value of women.

          [–]DaphneDK -4 points-3 points  (12 children)

          Human beings are hardwired to favor women over men.

          It's rather silly to try to explain this by way of biology when only the most cursory knowledge of human culture and history would have told you that this is far from universal behaviour.

          The Women and Children is mainly a Western concept, a product of a Germanic warrior culture coupled with Christianity which in the Middle Ages compelled the warriors to fight for something other than merely glory and spoils of war. That something being Christianity and the powerless and helpless, i.e. women. It got another twist in the Victorian age, but mostly here on account that women were further infantilized and consequentially needed more protection. Ironically a thing I see repeated on this forum, with the idea that women are the home's most responsible teenager. But you can't have it both ways.

          Therefore male suffering is devalued by both men and women ..

          In Scandinavia for instance, girls until only around 75-100 years ago were taught not to cry, because it's useless since there were bound to be a great deal of sorrow in their lives so they might just as well get used to it and get on with the program.

          Think of alimony.

          Do you still have that in the USA? In Denmark we kinda did away with that silly institution a number of years ago except in very special circumstances.

          [–]HAMMURABl 12 points13 points  (0 children)

          Do you still have that in the USA? In Denmark we kinda did away with that silly institution a number of years ago except in very special circumstances.

          right. here no matter what, you pay with your taxes for the single mother/sluts healthcare, which they use much more than the average young man.

          you also pay for their lib arts degree, as well sponsor them 6 years through college for doing nothing, while you slave yourself away to get that engineering degree only to pay 50+% in taxes.

          oh right, and since you make so much more you will have to pay triple housing price compared with your single mom neighbour, since the state provides poor single moms with top locations in the city centre at basically no cost - to promote a "diverse neighbourhood".

          but hey, since all of this is financed indirectly through taxation instead of direct alimony, we can just put all of this under the carpet and keep pretending that scandinavian women are strong independent women who dont need no man.

          [–]MartialWay 6 points7 points  (0 children)

          In Scandinavia for instance, girls until only around 75-100 years ago were taught not to cry...

          Not quite sure where you're going with this, men are STILL taught not to cry.

          [–]Endless_Summer 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          Alimony will be ending in the US soon. Career women are starting to get stuck paying their ex husbands in divorces. All while screeching about how evil it is, now that it's happened to them. Won't last long.

          [–]cali_gunner 3 points4 points  (8 children)

          Lolz xD denmark le atheist socualist paradice

          [–]DaphneDK -3 points-2 points  (7 children)

          Lolz xD for a quality and thoughtful response.

          [–]cali_gunner -3 points-2 points  (6 children)

          Most people here don't want to trade alimony for socialism.

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

          You need to study Socialism and quit watching Fox News if you want to say something intelligent on the subject.

          However there is another modern trend - for another thread - which is deeply disturbing. Whereby the state, or the welfare state if you will, take responsibility, financial and parental, for the children born in the society. Which of course is just replacing the men for the state in the support of women and children. But since men already pays the vast majority of the taxes it's the same old game of men paying women, except through a middle man. It needs to be undermined and done away with - and we're slowly moving in that direction.

          [–]cali_gunner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Like I said, there is nothing the left has to offer strong, independent men. The conservative way reduces our undue burdens to the state and allows the market to provide.

          [–]contrarianism -1 points0 points  (2 children)

          get your head out of your ass... fox news has nothing to do with the evils of socialism

          [–]bazola01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          get your head out of your ass...

          he's an European, they are for the most part born that way.

          [–]DaphneDK 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          You've probably OD'ed on Fox News if you think Denmark is a socialist country. Like I said, if you want to talk about socialism - which indeed has many evil things to be said of it - you should study it so you know what it is.

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

          This is a good explanation as to why getting laid "matters," for those who say game is insignificant- you're manipulating a woman to WANT to do something for you.

          With regard to the above explanation, getting laid seems like a fucking magic trick.

          [–]TheToeSnail -5 points-4 points  (2 children)

          Ok, people, for the record, this right here is the exact reason why I hate Reddit.

          This whole post will be available to the entire internet for the rest of forever. It is a solid three paragraphs and it looks like a completely legitimate post. It even has a source linked at the end and everything.

          But it's not. It's just the ramblings of one idiot who thinks he's got life all figured out. But he clearly hasn't got a clue as to the ming bogglingly huge number of factors that have contributed to human evolution. The method of reproduction is just one of the countless evolutionary traits which brought us to where we are now.

          Forget the subreddit this is on, there are posts just like this across all subreddits. Some idiot who thinks he has the answer to everything, posted out like he is some legitimate authority on the subject. People believe these things, and that is why Reddit is bad.

          [–]smokingmonkey420 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          You can't deny that there is a lot of truth in what he said.