The Red Pill: How radical feminism is demeaning to men

[DarkLight]

I don’t understand your last sentence, but I wholeheartedly agree with the first one, and that is precisely my objection to contemporary feminism and misandry in US culture.

It is simply saying, for example, that one cannot simultaneously hold that women are in large part gold-diggers out to take advantage of men, or are naturally inclined to cheat with the “alpha” male while settling for a “beta”, without in effect saying that women are more wicked or corrupt than men.

Similarly, one could not paint men as all animals who can barely be restrained from raping women if left alone with them, without saying in essence that men are more wicked than women.

Anything that paints one sex as naturally or biologically more inclined to wickedness, or as more in need of social control to restrain themselves, is fundamentally denying that they are of equal dignity.

 

[PeopleB4Things]

All,

I would like to ask that you all please watch this documentary. It’s a really good documentary that focuses on the negative effect radical feminism has on men.** WARNING:** They interview radical feminist protesters at times which use a PLETHORA of profanity so this is definitely not family friendly. Other than the profanity, it’s okay.

Click here to watch the trailer.

Click here to watch a sneak peak.

Thanks!

“Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to such opportunities for men.”

I can get radical over that.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

“Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to such opportunities for men.”

I can get radical over that.

And of course a definition on the internet always perfectly characterizes any social phenomenon.

 

[SuperLuigi]

“Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to such opportunities for men.”

I can get radical over that.

Don’t be so naive.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You have documented proof of all this or only rely on anger?

The anonymous internet is just that, anonymous.

Ed

Obviously, it’s just a misguided rant. Notice how Puerto Rican Chris Moldanado is now being called a white supremacist because he’s dating a feminist (Laci Green) whose only crime is wanting to have open dialogue or how “Nazi” included Dave Rubin, a ‘married’ gay liberal atheist. She’s even had her personal information revealed over this probably by someone who was struggling with something serious whom she helped.

Really though, those of us who fight this on the front lines of culture war are used to this. It’s the only viable tactic they have.

Case in point: Evergreen State College.

I’ll bet no know on here knows about that either.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Them’s fighting words - we Australians would sooner discuss religion, sex or politics than beer preferences!

Even Islam or the problems associated with Lebanese or Sudanese refugees?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Case in point: Evergreen State College.

I’ll bet no know on here knows about that either.

I do! BUT…I admit that I didn’t prior to the effort to pull funding.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Realistically - I don’t have any problem with men who actually want to improve the lives of men, so long as they don’t go about it by putting down women or by treating women as objects or as lesser beings.

I have some factual disagreements with some things in this thread - for example, I think statistics show that generally, men who seek custody generally get fairly equal custody, and that a lot of the statistics on custody are a result of the fact that, in our society, men are much more likely to choose to walk away. Which I believe is also a problem with the models of masculinity in our society.

What I really object to is guys who talk like most or all women are liars, gold diggers, or cheats out to milk men for all they are worth. Or talk like women should exist primarily in relation to their sexual gratification (whether married or not).

Edit: I do also have a problem when people use “but what about men” to derail women’s conversations, especially when it doesn’t do anything for men at all.

The issue is that a lot of people speaking out on this don’t have hard-core Catholic values. That’s the price for the Church and for Catholic parents checking out for the last 50 years at least. People are going to look for Truth, and if Christians are going to be more interested in towing the pop culture line, people will NOT look to us. That’s one reason why Protestants have so many problems with people becoming outright atheists or going non-denominational. People want logic, which is why the Catholic Church needs to stand on principle even when people say things “Oh, well, I’d be Catholic if the Church would just XYZ…” Think about that…these people have no qualms asking for 1.2 billion people to change their ways to accommodate their :bighanky: feelings. :crying:

So when people cite sources or personalities leading the discussion (although they may not be right or agreed with) they are on some level imperfect. Some will get their shots in at Christianity (although that’s getting very rare with the rise of SJW leftism, radical Islam and 3rd wave feminism and the threat to freedom of speech), but they make points and do so in a marketable, often humorous way. Either Catholics can get back to the basics of this, or they can stand aside and let Protestants and atheists and others be their voice.

BTW, here’s one testimony: youtube.com/watch?v=CZPU2ImiY9w

 

[starshiptrooper]

It is simply saying, for example, that one cannot simultaneously hold that women are in large part gold-diggers out to take advantage of men, or are naturally inclined to cheat with the “alpha” male while settling for a “beta”, without in effect saying that women are more wicked or corrupt than men.

Similarly, one could not paint men as all animals who can barely be restrained from raping women if left alone with them, without saying in essence that men are more wicked than women.

Anything that paints one sex as naturally or biologically more inclined to wickedness, or as more in need of social control to restrain themselves, is fundamentally denying that they are of equal dignity.

I will take a 3rd option. Men and women are different and therefore have different flaws and strengths, sexual dimorphism and all that.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by DarkLight View Post
It is simply saying, for example, that one cannot simultaneously hold that women are in large part gold-diggers out to take advantage of men, or are naturally inclined to cheat with the “alpha” male while settling for a “beta”, without in effect saying that women are more wicked or corrupt than men.

---

So men’s flaws and strengths qualifies some men to be part of the “ruling elite” – while women’s flaws and strengths – well women would not qualify at all.

 

[Xantippe]

I will take a 3rd option. Men and women are different and therefore have different flaws and strengths, sexual dimorphism and all that.

Now we’re talking.

I’d probably throw in “on average,” though, especially if we’re talking about intellectual, moral or emotional qualities as opposed to physical features.

Somebody like Temple Grandin probably has better spatial skills (and worse social skills) than 98% of the male public.

Here she is talking about cattle chute design issues–I suspect that virtually none of the Red Pill wisdom about women applies to somebody like her:

youtube.com/watch?v=KA_DlRg9jhc

 

[DarkLight]

I will take a 3rd option. Men and women are different and therefore have different flaws and strengths, sexual dimorphism and all that.

Care to elaborate on what those are?

 

[Lea101]

I will take a 3rd option. Men and women are different and therefore have different flaws and strengths, sexual dimorphism and all that.

You are not wrong (by saying that men and women are different). The problem with radical feminism is that people act like they are not different at all. The problem with the red pill/similar movements is that they act like there are huge differences between the two sexes and whatever those differences are, they are biological. Both are false.

 

[edwest2]

The Church does, in fact, teach that men and women have equal dignity and that one sex is not to be preferred over the other. I don’t think any of those statements can be reconciled in any way that doesn’t teach that women are inherently inferior to men.

Good facts all should know.

Ed

 

[reader124]

I have a strong suspicion that these pill popper types are mostly virgins who are irrate that they aren’t married. I could almost guaruntee that deep down what they really want, if they somehow could, is to take away womens’ rights in society to the point that they would be economically forced to marry (presumably to these men.)

And for the record I am male.

 

[edwest2]

The issue is that a lot of people speaking out on this don’t have hard-core Catholic values. That’s the price for the Church and for Catholic parents checking out for the last 50 years at least. People are going to look for Truth, and if Christians are going to be more interested in towing the pop culture line, people will NOT look to us. That’s one reason why Protestants have so many problems with people becoming outright atheists or going non-denominational. People want logic, which is why the Catholic Church needs to stand on principle even when people say things “Oh, well, I’d be Catholic if the Church would just XYZ…” Think about that…these people have no qualms asking for 1.2 billion people to change their ways to accommodate their :bighanky: feelings. :crying:

So when people cite sources or personalities leading the discussion (although they may not be right or agreed with) they are on some level imperfect. Some will get their shots in at Christianity (although that’s getting very rare with the rise of SJW leftism, radical Islam and 3rd wave feminism and the threat to freedom of speech), but they make points and do so in a marketable, often humorous way. Either Catholics can get back to the basics of this, or they can stand aside and let Protestants and atheists and others be their voice.

BTW, here’s one testimony: youtube.com/watch?v=CZPU2ImiY9w

We didn’t get from there to here by people we know but by total strangers getting media attention and promo. The “they’re all like that” thinking is not a good way to start.

And Catholics can’t have “my Church my way.” The Church hasn’t changed its teachings in the last 50 years. I lived through the craziness when total strangers appeared in our neighborhoods and began preaching their gospel: sex outside of marriage and illegal drug use were goods. Meanwhile, dissidents inside the Church were doing their best to wreck it during the 1960s into the 1970s, and continuing till today. They were formed in the mid-1960s and mounted a coordinated attack on our way of life. We were far more trusting of authority back then, civil and religious. We didn’t recognize the wolves until it was too late. Until they began to cry “oppression” as they lived in sin or got arrested for using illegal drugs. They were very evangelical. Fornication was, according to a Hippie friend at the time, performing natural acts. Marriage meant nothing. Church teaching meant nothing.

They worked very hard to deform minds and hearts by engaging us in person and through portrayals in the media starting in 1970. I was there. Then, out of thin air, No-Fault Divorce (I’m not talking about abuse) in the 1980s. The kids were traumatized but destroying the family was more important.

Ed

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I have a strong suspicion that these pill popper types are mostly virgins who are irrate that they aren’t married. I could almost guaruntee that deep down what they really want, if they somehow could, is to take away womens’ rights in society to the point that they would be economically forced to marry (presumably to these men.)

And for the record I am male.

That’s actually on of their biggest complaints. The phrase they use is that “women can be there own betas”, meaning that landing a wife now requires more than the bare minimum of being able to hold a (any) job.

They aren’t wrong.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I have a strong suspicion that these pill popper types are mostly virgins who are irrate that they aren’t married. I could almost guaruntee that deep down what they really want, if they somehow could, is to take away womens’ rights in society to the point that they would be economically forced to marry (presumably to these men.)

And for the record I am male.

You are absolutely right. I am just dying to sign a biased contract and surrender plenty of freedom while gaining nothing from it.

 

[DarkLight]

You are absolutely right. I am just dying to sign a biased contract and surrender plenty of freedom while gaining nothing from it.

Would you rather marry a woman who felt she had to marry you (and stay with you) because you had an ok job and she wasn’t capable of supporting herself?

 

[Xantippe]

I have a strong suspicion that these pill popper types are mostly virgins who are irrate that they aren’t married. I could almost guaruntee that deep down what they really want, if they somehow could, is to take away womens’ rights in society to the point that they would be economically forced to marry (presumably to these men.)

And for the record I am male.

That does happen to be a popular view in those quarters.

As an online friend of mine from a traditional non-Western culture points out, one problem with that view is that in very traditional cultures, it isn’t the case that everybody gets to get married. In traditional societies, marriage is something you qualify for and are vetted for, rather than something that automatically gets handed to you.