The Red Pill: How radical feminism is demeaning to men

[Norseman82]

You’re rather conveniently ignoring the second half of my post. Would you say that a petite (male) computer scientist is the physical equal of a professional boxer? Would it be appropriate if the first slapped the second for the boxer to knock the first out? Does this imply they aren’t really to be regarded as “equals”?

One of the reasons behind the “retaliatory strike” is to act as a deterrent so that the offender is “taught a lesson” and never does it again.

 

[starshiptrooper]

You’re rather conveniently ignoring the second half of my post. Would you say that a petite (male) computer scientist is the physical equal of a professional boxer?

Of course not.

Would it be appropriate if the first slapped the second for the boxer to knock the first out?

The scientist hit first. He should be smart enough to know the consequences of his actions. You hit someone, they are justified in hitting you back hard.

Does this imply they aren’t really to be regarded as “equals”?

Yes. On a related note, anyone who says, “I am as good as you,” never believes it.

 

[DarkLight]

You hit someone, they are justified in hitting you back hard.Yes. On a related note, anyone who says, “I am as good as you,” never believes it.

And that’s where we disagree. No matter if it’s 2 men or 2 women, or a man and a woman, it’s not right to hit back just because you can. Nothing to do with sex at all.

Also, would you say that because there’s a physical difference between the two men, the stronger one should have more rights than the other, or should be regarded as morally superior than the other?

 

[starshiptrooper]

And that’s where we disagree. No matter if it’s 2 men or 2 women, or a man and a woman, it’s not right to hit back just because you can. Nothing to do with sex at all.

That would never be a problem if people did not hit first. As it is, examples need to be made.

Also, would you say that because there’s a physical difference between the two men, the stronger one should have more rights than the other, or should be regarded as morally superior than the other?

No.

 

[DarkLight]

That would never be a problem if people did not hit first. As it is, examples need to be made.

I would suggest you go read up on Matthew chapter 5.

No.

And that is exactly what we are saying. Most women are not the physical equal of most men. That doesn’t really mean anything when it comes to moral, legal, or social rights.

 

[Xantippe]

However, there are also men who are very serious about being a good father in this documentary. They have one man in there who was able to provide proof that the mother was abusive to the child and was desperately trying to win custody but after 15 years of court battles still lost. And there are other stories like that as well. Those men, are not TRP community and they deserve to have their voices heard too.

But there are injustices in both directions.

As I’ve mentioned, I’ve been reading a lot lately at Chump Lady (again, warning for bad language), and she has vast archives on the subjective. It’s a co-ed infidelity support site with no man-bashing or woman-bashing allowed. Here are her archives on children and infidelity:

chumplady.com/category/children-and-infidelity/

I was skimming through there and this came up pretty fast: “How do I co-parent with an addict?”

chumplady.com/2016/12/dear-chump-lady-co-parent-addict/

Some quotes:

"Hi Chump Lady,

“I was wondering if you have any advice for women who’ve endured the triple whammy of their marriages being blown apart by an affair partner, addiction (a second affair partner), and then having to suffer through 50/50 custody with said addict [BLEEP] because the court system seems to take a “wait and see” approach when it comes to your kids lives?”

“Any words of advice for those like me, for whom addiction was an even worse mistress? And who were failed by the court system? I know, document everything. I do. And I know he will be caught eventually. It’s just the waiting. I hate it.”

It sounds like from the archives that it’s typical for the courts to want to wait until something bad happens to the kid before taking some sort of action, because they are so hell-bent on preserving the parent-child relationship, that being the current paradigm.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I would suggest you go read up on Matthew chapter 5.

The right cheek is mentioned in that passage. Most people are right handed and the most practical way to strike someone on the right cheek when face to face is a backhanded slap. This was a gesture reserved for social inferiors whereas a slap or punch acknowledged that the other person was your equal. By offering the other cheek, unless our assailant is a trained boxer, the only way he can continue to strike his victim’s face with the right hand is a punch or slap, both of which escalate the situation. This was a canny piece of advice for an oppressed people, not a command to be a doormat.

Remember Jesus is the God of the Psalms who smites the foes of his people on the cheek and breaks the teeth of the wicked.

And that is exactly what we are saying. Most women are not the physical equal of most men. That doesn’t really mean anything when it comes to moral, legal, or social rights.

Strike a man while claiming equality to a man, then you have to take the consequences like a man. Do not hit anybody and there will be no problem.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

And that’s where we disagree. No matter if it’s 2 men or 2 women, or a man and a woman, it’s not right to hit back just because you can. Nothing to do with sex at all.

The way I see it, the judge can determine if the retaliatory force was legal or appropriate. Arguing over how people “should” respond isn’t going to change how they do or don’t.

But, a large man who hits someone back (woman or small, weak man) harder than he has to just because he can is not going to be widely admired for his strength or defensive ability. In fact, like you can see on this thread, a lot of people would deride him and lose respect for him.

On the other hand, a man who resolves a physical dispute with restraint and without causing any more physical harm than necessary is respected and admired. And often, it takes more physical strength to do that than it does to punch someone out - not to mention strength of character.

Sometimes, that sort of social consequence/reward is the best you can hope for. In this case, it’s enough.

 

[Norseman82]

But there are injustices in both directions.

But isn’t that the point that is trying to be made in the first place?

 

[DarkLight]

The way I see it, the judge can determine if the retaliatory force was legal or appropriate. Arguing over how people “should” respond isn’t going to change how they do or don’t.

But, a large man who hits someone back (woman or small, weak man) harder than he has to just because he can is not going to be widely admired for his strength or defensive ability. In fact, like you can see on this thread, a lot of people would deride him and lose respect for him.

On the other hand, a man who resolves a physical dispute with restraint and without causing any more physical harm than necessary is respected and admired. And often, it takes more physical strength to do that than it does to punch someone out - not to mention strength of character.

Sometimes, that sort of social consequence/reward is the best you can hope for. In this case, it’s enough.

The point I’m making is that none of us believe, categorically, that a man is always forbidden from defending himself from a woman, or that it’s ok for a woman to strike a man with no consequences. Starshiptrooper seems to be the only one making this about men’s and women’s rights. The rest of us are saying that generally you shouldn’t strike back just to “pay back” a person who struck you, and that it’s not ok to use all your strength on a physically weaker person when you don’t need to.

That’s not a “men’s right” or “women’s rights” issue except insofar as men are generally physically stronger than women. But the principle holds exactly the same if it’s a stronger and a weaker man, or a stronger woman and a weaker man, or whatever combination you want. It might be an issue you disagree with, but it’s not an issue that’s being applied in any sort of gendered way.

 

[Xantippe]

I also have to say that a stand-alone sob story is not proof of anything, if the person does not have documentation and witnesses to demonstrate that what they are saying is true and complete.

I’ve never heard a manosphere guy say, “I have a drinking/prescription drug problem,” “I have an untreated mental illness,” "I have a history of violence, " “I refused marriage counseling repeatedly,” “I’ve quit jobs repeatedly,” “I make major financial decisions without consulting my spouse and my businesses have failed repeatedly,” “I didn’t pick my kid up for visitation,” or “I’ve been repeatedly unfaithful with prostitutes.” They’re 100% stand up guys, divorce always comes out of the blue and it’s always somebody else’s fault when they lose custody.

I have to say that after a number of years of hearing bad marriage stories on CAF, I’m a bit jaundiced about divorce-out-of-the-blue stories. No doubt it does happen from time to time with flaky people, but if one spends enough time on CAF listening to people’s marriage problems, it’s clear that there are a lot of cases where one spouse is communicating the problems via text, email, semaphore, smoke signal, and whatever, while the other continues destructive behaviors.

 

[Xantippe]

But isn’t that the point that is trying to be made in the first place?

No.

The MRA idea is that family court injustices are all against fathers.

 

[smichhertz]

No.

The MRA idea is that family court injustices are all against fathers.

No the MRA position is that men need a space to talk about their issues just like women do.

From that space, a variety of issues have been raised, and you’re free to disagree with any of them. I disagree with some of the common feminist views but I don’t disagree that feminism as a concept should exist.

I think that’s the basic point of the documentary.

 

[smichhertz]

I also have to say that a stand-alone sob story is not proof of anything, if the person does not have documentation and witnesses to demonstrate that what they are saying is true and complete.

I’ve never heard a manosphere guy say, “I have a drinking/prescription drug problem,” “I have an untreated mental illness,” "I have a history of violence, " “I refused marriage counseling repeatedly,” “I’ve quit jobs repeatedly,” “I make major financial decisions without consulting my spouse and my businesses have failed repeatedly,” “I didn’t pick my kid up for visitation,” or “I’ve been repeatedly unfaithful with prostitutes.” They’re 100% stand up guys, divorce always comes out of the blue and it’s always somebody else’s fault when they lose custody.

I have to say that after a number of years of hearing bad marriage stories on CAF, I’m a bit jaundiced about divorce-out-of-the-blue stories. No doubt it does happen from time to time with flaky people, but if one spends enough time on CAF listening to people’s marriage problems, it’s clear that there are a lot of cases where one spouse is communicating the problems via text, email, semaphore, smoke signal, and whatever, while the other continues destructive behaviors.

But that’s kind of the whole point right? A man struggles with an issue and can’t talk about it publicly with other men. So he’s forced to internalized and bury it. Which isn’t healthy.

So the idea is, with MRA, there’s now a public place where men can talk about their issues and try to resolve them to make for better and healthier husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, etc.

I think you’re dead right that with any divorce each partner will only tell their half of the story. But when one half is silenced, that’s probably not a wise approach.

 

[DarkLight]

But that’s kind of the whole point right? A man struggles with an issue and can’t talk about it publicly with other men. So he’s forced to internalized and bury it. Which isn’t healthy.

So the idea is, with MRA, there’s now a public place where men can talk about their issues and try to resolve them to make for better and healthier husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, etc.

I think you’re dead right that with any divorce each partner will only tell their half of the story. But when one half is silenced, that’s probably not a wise approach.

The question we’re having is whether the struggles with the issue have anything to do with feminism. Most feminists would say they have to do with patriarchy and toxic masculinity. We have an idea of masculinity where men always have to be strong, and where acting “weak” or “womanly” is a bad thing. The concern is that a lot of MRA and RedPill type environments actually reinforce that idea of masculinity, rather than challenging it.

 

[smichhertz]

The question we’re having is whether the struggles with the issue have anything to do with feminism. Most feminists would say they have to do with patriarchy and toxic masculinity. We have an idea of masculinity where men always have to be strong, and where acting “weak” or “womanly” is a bad thing. The concern is that a lot of MRA and RedPill type environments actually reinforce that idea of masculinity, rather than challenging it.

No, it doesn’t have anything to do with feminism. Every MRA in the documentary was quick to say that. I recall one saying “These issues pre-date feminism, feminism didn’t cause these issues”.

So the MRA position is not that men’s issues are caused by feminism, that would be preposterous. The MRA criticism is that radical feminism is 1) preventing them to meet to talk about these issues and 2) preventing them from trying to enact various solutions to help men (like domestic violence shelters).

Like I said every MRA interviewed was quick to note that, their criticisms were reserved for radical feminism.

 

[Xantippe]

The question we’re having is whether the struggles with the issue have anything to do with feminism. Most feminists would say they have to do with patriarchy and toxic masculinity. We have an idea of masculinity where men always have to be strong, and where acting “weak” or “womanly” is a bad thing. The concern is that a lot of MRA and RedPill type environments actually reinforce that idea of masculinity, rather than challenging it.

Right.

And, in fact, the alpha/beta stuff and the names that Red Pill guys call other men make it pretty clear that vulnerability is not going to be a safe move.

It’s not in any way shape or form women’s fault or feminists’ fault if men do not feel safe talking to other men.

I come at this from a somewhat unusual direction, as I’m a woman, but I was raised in a WASP/Clint Eastwood/John Wayne/stiff upper lip/suck-it-up-buttercup family culture where anger was the only acceptable negative emotion to show. No fear, no sadness–just anger.

My husband is from an ethnic background and is much more emotionally expressive than me, and I’ve been belatedly starting to realize that my family culture creates some issues for us. One huge problem with it was that my husband just could not read me.

This sounds really sappy and liberal, but I really do understand what a handicap “conventional masculinity” is because I come out of that culture myself.

 

[Xantippe]

No, it doesn’t have anything to do with feminism. Every MRA in the documentary was quick to say that. I recall one saying “These issues pre-date feminism, feminism didn’t cause these issues”.

So the MRA position is not that men’s issues are caused by feminism, that would be preposterous. The MRA criticism is that radical feminism is 1) preventing them to meet to talk about these issues and 2) preventing them from trying to enact various solutions to help men (like domestic violence shelters).

Like I said every MRA interviewed was quick to note that, their criticisms were reserved for radical feminism.

Radical feminists also hid my jogging shoes and filled my shopping cart with Ho Hos.

 

[smichhertz]

Right.

And, in fact, the alpha/beta stuff and the names that Red Pill guys call other men make it pretty clear that vulnerability is not going to be a safe move.

It’s not in any way shape or form women’s fault or feminists’ fault if men do not feel safe talking to other men.

I come at this from a somewhat unusual direction, as I’m a woman, but I was raised in a WASP/Clint Eastwood/John Wayne/stiff upper lip/suck-it-up-buttercup family culture where anger was the only acceptable negative emotion to show. No fear, no sadness–just anger.

My husband is from an ethnic background and is much more emotionally expressive than me, and I’ve been belatedly starting to realize that my family culture creates some issues for us. One huge problem with it was that my husband just could not read me.

This sounds really sappy and liberal, but I really do understand what a handicap “conventional masculinity” is because I come out of that culture myself.

But - again - that’s kind of the whole point, right? To solve the alpha male problem, we need to have a public space where men can talk about their issues, right? So if we want to solve that alpha male problem (which I definitely agree, it’s a problem), the solution should be to allow for men’s rights conferences, etc.

Also, no, MRAs do not claim that feminism causes their issues. Every MRA was quick to say that.

 

[smichhertz]

Radical feminists also hid my jogging shoes and filled my shopping cart with Ho Hos.

See? This is part of the problem there’s a callousness to domestic violence committed against men. The documentary also exposed this. There was a feminist who was interviewed (a man mind you) who sharply stated “I don’t like thinking about sympathy for any of this” and stormed out of the interview.

And there’s this article. This is Jezbel which is a major feminist website. The whole article is making fun of domestic violence against men. The women admitted to beating their boyfriends and interpreted it as funny even saying “he deserved it”. Just reading the comments section of that article is heartbreaking. Men talking about their experience with domestic violence and how they can’t get help.

And what’s so shocking is the article IS STILL UP. Even after seeing the comments a moderator didn’t take it down. It seems pretty hypocritical to me.