The Red Pill: How radical feminism is demeaning to men

[DarkLight]

Times have changed then. I doubt anyone asked Mattress Girl what she was wearing.

I’m only 29, I doubt things have changed that much since I was in college/grad school.

 

[starshiptrooper]

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.

 

[DarkLight]

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.

My point is “rape culture” within the last decade was a very real experience for me, not just an academic myth.

 

[starshiptrooper]

My point is “rape culture” within the last decade was a very real experience for me, not just an academic myth.

So because a score of Muslims crashed planes into the WTC we have a terrorist culture right?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

So because a score of Muslims crashed planes into the WTC we have a terrorist culture right?

If the behavior had been widely excused or swept under the rug, you’d have a point.

Rape culture doesn’t refer to the fact that rape and sexual assault happen, but to the response it receives institutionally and socially. College is an example, so are prisons. The military is also known for disregarding allegations and trying to hide the problem for PR reasons. The DOJ investigation into the Baltimore PD found similar problems with their handling of reported sex crimes.

 

[DarkLight]

So because a score of Muslims crashed planes into the WTC we have a terrorist culture right?

We don’t, but some places do have a terrorist culture.

The idea of rape culture isn’t just that rape happens. It’s that a lot of people hold beliefs that justify rape. An example of that belief might be the one I just talked about - “Well it’s unfortunate, but you can’t expect to spend time like that with a guy without something happening.” (A very common one, in my personal experience.) Or a common one I found within Christian circles, which was that if a woman acted modestly and appropriately she would not be targeted.

 

[edwest2]

In short, third-wave feminism is feminism that has been co-opted by post-modern parameters.

In other words it wants to destroy the patriarchy, which since it doesn’t exist in exact terms is just a code word for eliminating the value of the nuclear family which is the fundamental idea of post-modernism. That and the idea of what we now call the First World is a giant blunder.

It’s also a movement that relies on censorship, especially on college campuses and on social media which some of the larger monopolies are happy to go along with as much as they can get away with. Anyone with a significant to moderate platform who is to the right of Bernie Sanders has been affected. I know one guy whose Youtube revenue has dropped over 60% because of it.

This is a very poisonous philosophy. I don’t think the VAST majority of people over 35 really have any clue as to what is going on or the culture war that is being fought by their kids (really as young as 12-13) on-line and at school. They’re still too worried about their kids and grand-kids hearing a swear word from a mainstream conservative while the far left is indoctrinating them with the idea that the only way forward is to bust the nuclear family and that straight white men must admit their privilege or I guess be punished (or worse) by the state.

Make no mistake, this is extraordinarily dangerous territory and the same psychology that gave us Communist Russia, China & Pol Pot and killed more people that the Axis Powers did.

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.

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. 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.”

Ed

 

[starshiptrooper]

We don’t, but some places do have a terrorist culture.

The idea of rape culture isn’t just that rape happens. It’s that a lot of people hold beliefs that justify rape. An example of that belief might be the one I just talked about - “Well it’s unfortunate, but you can’t expect to spend time like that with a guy without something happening.” (A very common one, in my personal experience.)

“Well it’s unfortunate that 9/11 happened but it is retaliation for years of Western meddling. Also if we talk about the dangerous attitudes inherent in Islam we will radicalize more Muslims.” The left has been saying stuff like that for years now.

Or a common one I found within Christian circles, which was that if a woman acted modestly and appropriately she would not be targeted.

To suggest that a person’s choices do not affect their chances of victimization is to be woefully ignorant of criminology.

 

[DarkLight]

“Well it’s unfortunate that 9/11 happened but it is retaliation for years of Western meddling. Also if we talk about the dangerous attitudes inherent in Islam we will radicalize more Muslims.” The left has been saying stuff like that for years now.

“We should take a different approach to addressing this” is not the same as “we think it’s ok or inevitable.”

To suggest that a person’s choices do not affect their chances of victimization is to be woefully ignorant of criminology.

I suspect a lot of women could tell you from experience that, for example, how you’re dressed doesn’t have a whole lot to do with men’s behavior. And even then, one has to be careful not to make the leap from “some men might see this as an invitation” to “if you do this it’s your fault” or even “if you were victimized you must have done this.” My personal experience was with the last one - not saying that some men might not target immodestly dressed women, but that if a woman was targeted she must have been immodestly dressed.

Interestingly, the biggest determiner of when I got harassed in my personal experience was not how much skin I was showing but how nicely I was dressed. I’d get a lot more harassment when I did my hair, put on makeup, and put on a nice blouse and a skirt or dress pants, than when I threw on a pair of skinny jeans and a tank top to go to the store - even though the latter would be a far more revealing outfit. But it would be ridiculous to say I should have to avoid dressing nicely because I might be victimized.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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.

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. 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.”

Ed

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

“We should take a different approach to addressing this” is not the same as “we think it’s ok or inevitable.”

I suspect a lot of women could tell you from experience that, for example, how you’re dressed doesn’t have a whole lot to do with men’s behavior. And even then, one has to be careful not to make the leap from “some men might see this as an invitation” to “if you do this it’s your fault” or even “if you were victimized you must have done this.” My personal experience was with the last one - not saying that some men might not target immodestly dressed women, but that if a woman was targeted she must have been immodestly dressed.

Interestingly, the biggest determiner of when I got harassed in my personal experience was not how much skin I was showing but how nicely I was dressed. I’d get a lot more harassment when I did my hair, put on makeup, and put on a nice blouse and a skirt or dress pants, than when I threw on a pair of skinny jeans and a tank top to go to the store - even though the latter would be a far more revealing outfit. But it would be ridiculous to say I should have to avoid dressing nicely because I might be victimized.

I hear burquas do a heck of a job at preventing rape.

Seriously though, earlier this week I was walking into work and the guys cutting down trees half a block away started shouting vile sexual things at me…and I’m 7 months pregnant! I walked quickly to get in planning on ignoring them but reporting them to the city forestry department. But, my male boss was walking in at the same time, and he confronted them, and made the call himself. He was at least as upset by it as I was.

Like I said, good men are often our biggest advocates.

 

[edwest2]

I stand by everything I wrote. It is all documented, aside from my also living through it. As a media analyst where I work and on my own time, what I wrote is the truth. According to a local newspaper section, page one article, women must get into the “male dominated” meat cutting industry, and watch out, women are getting into “male dominated” gyms/exercise centers. The list goes on and on. The creation of segregated “Women’s Studies” in colleges were/are nothing more than Communist reeducation camps. The Proletariat - women, in this case - must overthrow men in power and take that power for themselves. Global women’s organizations represent a power bloc.

The recent cry of “War on Women” is automatically understood by the pro-abortion, pro-contraception movement. Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, said “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” And she did appear at a recent march by women.

All I heard from the Hippies and radicals and anarchists were “We’re oppressed, man. The man is holding us down.” They wanted freedom but what kind of freedom? I lived through and am living through a number of social engineering experiments. And like all good psychological warfare campaigns, there is a grain of truth about a subset of a subset of women enduring hardships. But, at the end of the day, there is more fiction than fact, in other words, lies, in the mix. That is a fact. The only way to get what you want is “by any means necessary” talk and action.

The radicals in the women’s movement are willing to do that. Because, in the end, power and control is all that matters, even if innocent “enemies” fall on their way to getting that.

Ed

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by edwest2 View Post
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.

---

 

[DarkLight]

Like I said, good men are often our biggest advocates.

I actually learned a lot from my father. He recounted, with indignation, stories of being told how nice it was that he was “babysitting.” He made it clear that he valued the fact that my mother was well-educated and didn’t think much of educated men who scorned educated women because they were too independent. He cooked and sewed and shared amused stories of people asking me if I or my mother had made something. He was involved with childcare at church - and again slightly indignant that people would always ask my mother first even when he had been doing children’s ministry for years (and she had not). He did my hair for me and teased other men for not being able to do a ponytail.

 

[starshiptrooper]

“We should take a different approach to addressing this” is not the same as “we think it’s ok or inevitable.”

My point exactly.

I suspect a lot of women could tell you from experience that, for example, how you’re dressed doesn’t have a whole lot to do with men’s behavior. And even then, one has to be careful not to make the leap from “some men might see this as an invitation” to “if you do this it’s your fault” or even “if you were victimized you must have done this.” My personal experience was with the last one - not saying that some men might not target immodestly dressed women, but that if a woman was targeted she must have been immodestly dressed.

I doubt even women are going to treat a nun and a woman wearing only lingerie the same.

Interestingly, the biggest determiner of when I got harassed in my personal experience was not how much skin I was showing but how nicely I was dressed. I’d get a lot more harassment when I did my hair, put on makeup, and put on a nice blouse and a skirt or dress pants, than when I threw on a pair of skinny jeans and a tank top to go to the store - even though the latter would be a far more revealing outfit. But it would be ridiculous to say I should have to avoid dressing nicely because I might be victimized.

There is a slight difference between a wolf whistle and dragging a woman into the bushes, no?

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.

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.

 

[DarkLight]

I doubt even women are going to treat a nun and a woman wearing only lingerie the same.

Care to respond to the point I actually made rather than your straw man version of it?

My point wasn’t that people might not treat others differently. My point was that a lot of people take it all the way to “if a man behaved badly towards you, you must have been immodest or somehow led him on.” Or even “If this increases bad behavior from men, then if you do it it’s your fault if the guy does something.”

Also, if you think it’s just a “wolf whistle”, you might be surprised what women actually experience. And while it’s not the same, I suspect there’s some continuum. A culture of treating women as objects is going to be a culture where sexual assault is more ok, and a man who is ok with objectifying women and with ignoring no is much more likely to assault a woman.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

My point wasn’t that people might not treat others differently. My point was that a lot of people take it all the way to “if a man behaved badly towards you, you must have been immodest or somehow led him on.” Or even “If this increases bad behavior from men, then if you do it it’s your fault if the guy does something.”

AFAIK there is evidence that while even the serial stranger rapist types do NOT choose victims as random, but they also do NOT choose them based on how they dress or if they “deserve” to be raped. They tend to choose women who are easy targets based on other reasons, such as are they distracted by their smartphone, are mentally or physically disabled, or in the case of rapists who invade the home, if they have anyone there to protect them, or perhaps have young children there they can use as hostages to ensure the woman won’t try to fight back.

I would concede that I’m sure some rapists do target drunk victims and that is a risk factor that can be mitigated – but it is one thing to suggest “here are some common sense tips to reduce the risk of victimization” and to state that a victim is ever actually morally responsible for being a victim of crime.

There are also many tips circulating the Net about preventing crime in general, but I’ve never heard anyone claim that “if you leave your car unlocked on the street and someone steals it, then you are morally culpable for tempting them into the sin of theft”. I actually brought up on Moral Theology whether “Bait Car” operations by police were morally defensible or not and I got a rare forum consensus that such operations were reasonable and did NOT represent entrapment.

I also find the idea that men cannot control their own desires to be very insulting to men. Also it seems Red Pillers get conflicted over the whole rape issue, on one hand they seem to think there is some feminist conspiracy to destroy men with false rape accusations, yet if they take this gendered view of rape, that means they can’t claim men are victims of rape too.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Care to respond to the point I actually made rather than your straw man version of it?

My point wasn’t that people might not treat others differently. My point was that a lot of people take it all the way to “if a man behaved badly towards you, you must have been immodest or somehow led him on.” Or even “If this increases bad behavior from men, then if you do it it’s your fault if the guy does something.”

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.

Also, if you think it’s just a “wolf whistle”, you might be surprised what women actually experience. And while it’s not the same, I suspect there’s some continuum. A culture of treating women as objects is going to be a culture where sexual assault is more ok, and a man who is ok with objectifying women and with ignoring no is much more likely to assault a woman.

You suspect a continuum and I suspect a slippery slope fallacy. Would you please give a clear definition of “objectification” and explain why it is so bad?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m only 29, I doubt things have changed that much since I was in college/grad school.

They have big time. You’re going off of these sorta-kinda feely things in your arguments. That mentality is destroying the culture.

Men are falsely accused of sexual assault a lot. It’s to the point where it is stunting their natural development and they aren’t interested in dating women in college because they aren’t going to go in debt 100K and get kicked out mid-way through because an ex wants revenge, files a false report and gets the boot by a “committee” consisting of clueless deans, the head of diversity affairs and the head librarian in a kangaroo court.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I actually learned a lot from my father. He recounted, with indignation, stories of being told how nice it was that he was “babysitting.” He made it clear that he valued the fact that my mother was well-educated and didn’t think much of educated men who scorned educated women because they were too independent. He cooked and sewed and shared amused stories of people asking me if I or my mother had made something. He was involved with childcare at church - and again slightly indignant that people would always ask my mother first even when he had been doing children’s ministry for years (and she had not). He did my hair for me and teased other men for not being able to do a ponytail.

That’s nice, but that does not negate what is going on in the culture today.