The Red Pill: How radical feminism is demeaning to men

[BlueEyedLady]

The real reason you never see this stuff in real life is because the guys who successfully implemented it are too busy living life on their terms to give a damn about what other people think. The point of the red pill is to realize the games that society plays and them change both yourself and your mindset to better your results.

Please explain how a guy who hated on PUA’s for being successful with women when he was not and then goes out and shoots twice as many men as women is somehow redpilled.

The manosohere was also united behind Donald Trump.

Manosphere “activism” had 0 to do with Trump’s election.

And as far as"life on their own terms", most people who do that don’t spend day in and day out complaining about women online. Try this:. Since you’re a Dalrock fan, doxx a few regulars. Google screen names and match them to real identities (this was easier when WP linked to FB, but if you pay attention to location, it can still be done). Watch the Redpill movie. Go back and look at the posting history of some of the long standing commenters. You’ll walk away with two very clear ideas:

1. These are not men who feel they have a choice. Even FeministHater over on Dalrock (and other blogs) was lamenting his lack of social and romantic success just a few years ago. But over time, he went from holding out hope to constant bitterness and anger. Look at the scenes in the movie where they show the foot soldiers behind the screen names. These aren’t men other men aspire to be, or who women by and large are looking for. No one is raising their sons to follow in these guys’ footsteps.
2. Their activities do not extend beyond their own small corners of the internet. They’re very open about feeling like they can’t advocate for themselves in real life, and being “secretly” Redpill is a common theme. This feeling of total helplessness and disenfranchisement is again, not an indication that these are men who are successful, happy, or confident in any area of their lives.

They are convinced if women are somehow put back in their place, they will be able to rise up and finally get the respect they feel entitled to. But even if women were all suddenly barefoot and pregnant tomorrow, it wouldn’t happen. Every generation knew men like this; technology just gave them a megaphone.

Think about it - what respected man wouldn’t find this whole community embarrassing and cringe-worthy both in purpose and in language?

 

[SuperLuigi]

You’re generalizing. For one thing, Tommy Sotomayor is very successful, as are a lot of people that are considered red pilled.

This just tells me you don’t have a clue what is going on, especially lately.

“Red-pill types” are not just men or even straight men.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

They are convinced if women are somehow put back in their place, they will be able to rise up and finally get the respect they feel entitled to. But even if women were all suddenly barefoot and pregnant tomorrow, it wouldn’t happen. Every generation knew men like this; technology just gave them a megaphone.

Think about it - what respected man wouldn’t find this whole community embarrassing and cringe-worthy both in purpose and in language?

You could also replace “women” with “non white people”, too; granted, not all Red Pillers cross over with the Alt-Right but many do, and I suspect for the same underlying reasons. If they can’t feel pride in themselves, they can at least feel pride for being White Men who are supposedly superior in general over every other demographic.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=BlueEyedLady;14702269]Manosphere “activism” had 0 to do with Trump’s election.

Please keep thinking that.

And as far as"life on their own terms", most people who do that don’t spend day in and day out complaining about women online. Try this:. Since you’re a Dalrock fan, doxx a few regulars. Google screen names and match them to real identities (this was easier when WP linked to FB, but if you pay attention to location, it can still be done). Watch the Redpill movie. Go back and look at the posting history of some of the long standing commenters. You’ll walk away with two very clear ideas:

1. These are not men who feel they have a choice. Even FeministHater over on Dalrock (and other blogs) was lamenting his lack of social and romantic success just a few years ago. But over time, he went from holding out hope to constant bitterness and anger. Look at the scenes in the movie where they show the foot soldiers behind the screen names. These aren’t men other men aspire to be, or who women by and large are looking for. No one is raising their sons to follow in these guys’ footsteps.

1. Their activities do not extend beyond their own small corners of the internet. They’re very open about feeling like they can’t advocate for themselves in real life, and being “secretly” Redpill is a common theme. This feeling of total helplessness and disenfranchisement is again, not an indication that these are men who are successful, happy, or confident in any area of their lives.

Are you kidding?! Redpilled people are coming out all over social media. Where do you get your information? Don’t tell me all you’ve done is skim a few anti-feminist blogs!

 

[SuperLuigi]

In the last 6 or 7 years Obama sent out the Dear Colleague Letter and both CA and NY passed affirmative consent laws. Throw in a hefty dose of feminist hysteria involving a mythical “rape culture” and yes, you do have a recipe for drastic changes.

50 bucks those would eventually come with exemptions for Islam.

Also, fully expect the left and its excuse-making allies on the right to defend affirmative consent laws because their main goal is not to be called a bigot.

That kind of thinking is what is destroying the West, not atheists, not Muslims, not terrorists.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Are you kidding?! Redpilled people are coming out all over social media. Where do you get your information? Don’t tell me all you’ve done is skim a few anti-feminist blogs!

Self-proclaimed transgendered people are coming out all over social media, too, way more than those who feel comfortable proclaiming who they are in real life.

Of course, maybe I’m being reactionary by actually drawing a distinction between social media “life” and real life, I wouldn’t be surprised if 10 years from now the idea of anyone having a life without social media would be considered ridiculous.

ETA: And what’s wrong with the idea of affirmative consent, anyway? And how would codifying it in law destroy the West?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Mugging is always bad but the guy dressed like a member of the 1% is the more likely target.

You would think, but street crimes like that are far more common in areas where people have less money; walking down Wall Street is actually pretty safe. Just like rape is more common in areas where women are strictly controlled and covered, think Saudi Arabia.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=edwest2;14701893]Thank you, but the radical feminism I know began in the mid-1960s and really gained momentum in the 1970s. The structure was based on classic Marxist thinking: divide men and women by making men the eternal enemies class and women the eternal victims class. Yes, destroying the family had to begin with creating antagonism between all men and all women. Men were the enemy, and guilty unless they allowed women, any women, to control their personal relationships with women and to remove barriers to women taking over the institutions and businesses in the US and gaining power. That meant convincing women that being a housewife was slavery. To get a career and powerful positions in business and government.

That’s exactly what I said. Post-modernism is just that. It began actually in France in the 1960s once the Marxist intellectual elite realized that the working-class rebellion wasn’t going to happen (the only place it did happen at that point was czarist Russia) and not surprising since Marx has been nearly wrong about everything.

Traditional families were portrayed as just wrong. Child-bearing was only the woman’s choice. And that resulted in more and more single mothers as time passed. One road to poverty in the US and a detriment to the child, and furthering reducing the man to sperm donor status. Love and caring meant nothing (a man is not needed for that). In fact, the woman could go to a sperm bank and not deal with a man at all.

Fatherhood was conditional, not a natural function. Marriage was no longer portrayed as a mutual partnership but as a financial arrangement. Pre-nuptial agreements represent an example and commitment turned into “conditional commitment with an exit clause” because men cannot be trusted. They are the enemy.

The patriarchy is clearly defined. Men run everything. Women must start to run as much as possible, eventually overthrowing the perceived power of men by taking high-paying, high-powered positions in business and government.

I would only disagree with the bold. There are parties keeping it vague, I would guess, to fool the low-information voters the same way left-wing politicians do.

Once that number exceeds 50%, whoever is in charge of the feminist radicals declares victory, and men have less power at the negotiating table. “All of you abused us or meant to abuse us, therefore, you will take orders from us and negotiate at a disadvantage because politics and power is god and we are in control now.”

It won’t even necessarily be at 50% given how a lot of people are clueless as to what the culture war is. Everyone keeps asking “how did so-called gay marriage happen so quickly—is it really because it’s maybe not that bad?” NO. It’s because people look the other way, make lame excuses they clearly don’t have a clear conscience on, and when they called out on not doing their parental or pastoral duty, the masses screech and scream and say ARE YOU JUDGING MY PARENTING skills or YOU ARE ATTACKING the POPE!!! GAAAA!!!

See, we can’t even have a conversation about this even in our own circles because we live in a society where taking offense to everything and feeling owed is a virtue. And it’s not just spoiled Millennial college students who are like this.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

And how would codifying it in law destroy the West?

I don’t like the idea of implementing it as criminal law because it goes against the foundation of Western justice and I don’t think the courts would uphold it. Not that it would destroy civilization; that’s hyperbolic. But, the burden of proof is always with the prosecution to prove a crime happened, not on the defendant to prove it didn’t. Unless it was written and enforced with an extreme level of nuance that kept the burden of proof on the state (and realistically, that’s unlikely), I don’t think it’s moral or just to call something rape in the absence of yes instead of in the presence of no.

As an institutional policy for a school or workplace, it becomes debatable, but shouldn’t (IMO) be implemented except in extreme cases where a specific institution has a history of ignoring or covering up assault. And again, with a high level of care and nuance. Keep in mind though, you don’t, and shouldn’t have to, prove wrongdoing “beyond a reasonable doubt” to kick someone out of school the way you do to get a criminal conviction.

 

[SuperLuigi]

ToeInTheWater;14702301]Self-proclaimed transgendered people are coming out all over social media, too, way more than those who feel comfortable proclaiming who they are in real life.

Of course, maybe I’m being reactionary by actually drawing a distinction between social media “life” and real life, I wouldn’t be surprised if 10 years from now the idea of anyone having a life without social media would be considered ridiculous.

For some of us, social media isn’t a hobby, it’s a key part of our business.

I wish more Catholics were on social media because that’s where this stuff is going on. You’re not going to get it from the dinosaur media or even cable news which covers this in short segments at best.

The biggest names on social media----Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Tommy Sotomayor, James Rolfe (aka Nintendnerd aka Video Game nerd), TJ Kirk (amazingatheist) how many times have you seen them interviewed by Don Lemon, Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow?

Peterson and Rubin make over 30K A MONTH doing youtube videos, and Pewdiepie rakes in over 15 million dollars a year.

ETA: And what’s wrong with the idea of affirmative consent, anyway? And how would codifying it in law destroy the West?

Some people want contracts to be signed before having sex. They can’t even get people to use contraception properly.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t like the idea of implementing it as criminal law because it goes against the foundation of Western justice and I don’t think the courts would uphold it. Not that it would destroy civilization; that’s hyperbolic. But, the burden of proof is always with the prosecution to prove a crime happened, not on the defendant to prove it didn’t. Unless it was written and enforced with an extreme level of nuance (and realistically, that’s unlikely), I don’t think it’s moral or just to call something rape in the absence of yes instead of in the presence of no.

The psychology is not hyberbolic. It’s historical. And you are correct–making a law out of this is a really, really bad idea.

As an institutional policy for a school or workplace, it becomes debatable, but shouldn’t (IMO) be implemented except in extreme cases where a specific institution has a history of ignoring or covering up assault. And again, with a high level of care and nuance. Keep in mind though, you don’t, and shouldn’t have to, prove wrongdoing “beyond a reasonable doubt” to kick someone out of school the way you do to get a criminal conviction.

That’s still dicey. It leads to injustice. And more and more men are turning away from college because of it. Less tuition dollars for said school. The free market at work.

The difference between schools and workplaces is that many schools have ties to the government and are protected by things like unions, tenure and relationship networking in the field which has led to extreme biases even to the point of undermining the scholarship and integrity of their research.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’m curious how SL can have such a love affair with Tommy Sotomayor and still consider himself a Catholic. The things this man says about women, and black women in particular, should hurt anyone’s heart.

“Black women are the world’s retarded children” is one of his more mild statements.

A quick Google search shows much worse.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=BlueEyedLady;14701965]I love your posts. The mixture of historical inaccuracies, misunderstandings of social theory, including Marxism and feminism, and paranoia is always interesting.

But, what I find interesting is that you admit that keeping women voiceless and powerless in society leads to their abuse, but you advocate returning to that so strongly.

No he doesn’t.

It will never happen. Not because of these evil, conniving women you point to, but because there are so many good men in the world who want their wives, daughters, mothers, friends, and even women they don’t know to be free. The people who have encouraged and helped me the most in life are brilliant, successful men (my mentor was even a VERY conservative Catholic, RIP), and I know a lot of professional women with the same experience. Fathers want their daughters to leave men who harm them, not be subjected to marital rape and violence with no legal recourse. Husbands want their wives treated fairly at work (and they want them working in the first place), men want to see their female friends educated and free from harassment. Men are willing to work for women and even vote for them when their political values align.

Not if the chief sin in society is islamophobia or bucking multi-culturalism.

The small subset of people who want women out of public life is just that, very small. We can look at our own history and at other countries around the world to see what the subjugation of women leads to, and most people just don’t want to hurt other people, even women, like that.

And yet the same people who say that think we should import people from the those societies en masse without proper vetting, say that assimilating them is racist and xenophobic, and literally providing separate segregation for them so they don’t integrate.

I do not know your stance on this, but it is happening.

That’s why I really think everyone gets too bent out of shape about the red pill types. There will always be men determined to be victims, and if it wasn’t by women, it would be by “the system” or their communities or whatever. These are usually men at the very bottom, and they’ve always existed. The internet has just brought them together and made them look bigger and louder than they are. There’s a reason you never see this stuff in real life, and the lack of organization or action on their part, outside of maybe Elliot Rodgers, shows these guys wouldn’t be successful with women “out of the way” anyway.

To be clear, my definition of red pill is very broad. Laci Green considers herself to have taken the red pill, but she’s not even close to being a MGTOW. Also, the term was used before all of this started happening by conservatives about people who just think for themselves and don’t drink ideological kool-aid.

As far as the internet making people look louder and bigger than they are, that’s the case for atheists. Not meant as an insult, but a fact. They get a lot of attention (including from me) because they make interesting content.

But you need to stop correlating mens-rights activists with women haters or people who can’t get women.

Tommy Sotomayor dates women all of the time, for instance. Don’t make the same mistake the gay-marriage activists did. They used to run around and say everyone who was opposed to their worldview was secretly repressed as a homosexual. All I knew was I was out on a Friday night with interesting people and kissing women while they were at home screaming comments and probably pining the “nice guys finish last” hogwash on the internet about how like me were a closet homosexual.

Those are the people who are not getting women----the same old sorry, self-loathing folks who just expect it to happen for ridiculous reasons----like the idea pity is the way to a woman’s heart.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

Do redpill men genuinely believe that there is a feminist conspiracy?

 

[SuperLuigi]

=BlueEyedLady;14702372]I’m curious how SL can have such a love affair with Tommy Sotomayor and still consider himself a Catholic.

Questioning my Catholicity? I guess I’m due for that. It’s a nice break from the racial slurs I’ve been getting on the internet lately.

Also, citing sources is an interesting term for love affair.

The things this man says about women, and black women in particular, should hurt anyone’s heart.
“Black women are the world’s retarded children” is one of his more mild statements.

See, this is the problem right here folks. If someone who is culturally right of Bernie or Antifa, they say one thing that shows up on google and OHHHHHH MYYYYY…can’t consider their POV.

If you’d actually bother to watch his videos or call his show, you would know:

1. He’s an equal opportunity offender. He’s also said things about Mexicans, Black men, and Whites.
2. He doesn’t think that about all Black women considering the guy sleeps with them and has said so on air several times. Oh, he’s also said he doesn’t mean all Black women in derogatory comments

A quick Google search shows much worse.

So what you should do is actually look at his content for yourself, not some snippet from Google.

Or are you so afraid you’ll be proven wrong?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Do redpill men genuinely believe that there is a feminist conspiracy?

First of all, it’s just men who consider themselves red-pilled.

Secondly, people used to think so-called gay “marriage” could never happen. Now they run around with the same stupid gaped surprise look on their face saying “how could this have happened?”

Third, there is an active attempt by post-modernists who use 3rd-wave feminism among other things as a means to destroy the Catholic Church and the nuclear family.

Ignore that or brush it off as a conspiracy at your own risk. A lot of Catholic parents and Christian leaders have done so.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Questioning my Catholicity? I guess I’m due for that. It’s a nice break from the racial slurs I’ve been getting on the internet lately.

Also, citing sources is an interesting term for love affair.



See, this is the problem right here folks. If someone who is culturally right of Bernie or Antifa, they say one thing that shows up on google and OHHHHHH MYYYYY…can’t consider their POV.

If you’d actually bother to watch his videos or call his show, you would know:

1. He’s an equal opportunity offender. He’s also said things about Mexicans, Black men, and Whites.
2. He doesn’t think that about all Black women considering the guy sleeps with them and has said so on air several times. Oh, he’s also said he doesn’t mean all Black women in derogatory comments

So what you should do is actually look at his content for yourself, not some snippet from Google.

Or are you so afraid you’ll be proven wrong?

. This is supposed to be a defense of him?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Then we are more or less in agreement here. You can get mugged dressed like Mister Monopoly or wearing cargo pants and a t-shirt. Mugging is always bad but the guy dressed like a member of the 1% is the more likely target.

I think there’s a lot of talking over each other on here.

People just need to do their homework and actually watch a movie before talking about it and be open to expanding their horizons.

The conversations I have on Youtube lately have been higher quality than what’s on here, just because people are familiar with the material and just using kinda/sorta feelings and reverting back to the expected talking points in line with their worldviews.

Really, I think those places seem like more fertile ground. The Laci Green/Ray Maldonado situation proves that.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

First of all, it’s just men who consider themselves red-pilled.

Secondly, people used to think so-called gay “marriage” could never happen. Now they run around with the same stupid gaped surprise look on their face saying “how could this have happened?”

Third, there is an active attempt by post-modernists who use 3rd-wave feminism among other things as a means to destroy the Catholic Church and the nuclear family.

Ignore that or brush it off as a conspiracy at your own risk. A lot of Catholic parents and Christian leaders have done so.

Is there any compelling evidence of feminists wanting to harm men or destroy things such as the traditional family? I don’t doubt that men face some serious struggles but could it not just be an unintended consequence of societal changes such as the decline of manual well paid jobs and changes to the education system?

 

[SuperLuigi]

. This is supposed to be a defense of him?

Your argument against Sotomayor is extremely weak, BlueEyedLady. This is now a waste of time for me as you evidently as you are not willing to even investigate beyond Google search.

I have to say I am really disappointed. This is not what I expected from a respectable atheist on CAF.

And yes, it is a defense (and a good one given your response) because he makes a lot of good points and says things that pretty much everyone thinks but is too afraid to say. Just because I listen to him doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says.