The Red Pill: How radical feminism is demeaning to men

[ToeInTheWater]

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.

Also, many such traditional cultures practice polygamy, or should I say polygyny, with 1 husband having many wives, meaning that many who DO qualify actually get more than one wife. So unless there is a severe shortage of men, many men don’t get to marry at all. Some poor women in such societies are even encouraged to become the “junior wife” or even “concubine” of a rich man, that is considered to put them in a higher social class, than being legally married to a a poor man who can only support one wife.

This doesn’t seem much different from the “women go for the alpha males and the beta males get used and abused” rhetoric regarding the supposed plight of the “nice guys” in “modern society”.

 

[Xantippe]

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?

Right.

There’s never been less risk than today of being viewed as a meal ticket (and nothing else) by a woman, because the average woman just does not need a man to support her.

Shouldn’t that be a happy thought for single men that women today are more economically disinterested than ever before?

(I would say for myself that since my mid-teens, I’ve pretty much always been capable of supporting myself. However, supporting a middle class family is a very different kettle of fish–I’ve never made that kind of money.)

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Right.

There’s never been less risk than today of being viewed as a meal ticket (and nothing else) by a woman, because the average woman just does not need a man to support her.

I think the assumption is “Women STILL see men as meal tickets, but the difference is, at least before Feminism, they still had to pay for their keep by providing their husbands with sex, child care, and housekeeping. Women these days don’t want to do anything to help men, but they want that Bridezilla wedding experience. Afterward, they’re happy to file for divorce and take their husbands to the cleaners.”

Essentially a “women are all selfish and evil, but men unfortunately still need them to provide sex and to provide heirs, God (or random evolution) designed things this way, so men need to stand up for their rights to fight against this inherently unfair state of nature” attitude.

ETA: Ironically, this kind of “women are evil but men still need them, ugh” attitude isn’t that different from many feminists who have the “men are evil but women still need them, ugh” attitude, since not all feminists, even “radical” ones are lesbians who find they have no use for men even to provide casual sex.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Right.

There’s never been less risk than today of being viewed as a meal ticket (and nothing else) by a woman, because the average woman just does not need a man to support her.

Shouldn’t that be a happy thought for single men that women today are more economically disinterested than ever before?

(I would say for myself that since my mid-teens, I’ve pretty much always been capable of supporting myself. However, supporting a middle class family is a very different kettle of fish–I’ve never made that kind of money.)

Oh Xan, you know the canned response to this:

“Female hypergamy drives women to only be attracted to men above them. If women would stop getting an education/having careers, the average man would be much more attractive to women”.

Red Pill: Making Mediocrity Sexy

 

[Expatreprocedit]

---

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.

How cartoonish and simplistic. And, unfortunately, typical in contemporary discourse.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Oh Xan, you know the canned response to this:

“Female hypergamy drives women to only be attracted to men above them. If women would stop getting an education/having careers, the average man would be much more attractive to women”.

Red Pill: Making Mediocrity Sexy

Thank you for reaffirming how unapologetically regressive contemporary feminists are in their attitude towards men. Men remain “success objects”: they must show their superior money-making skills in order to qualify for marriage.

 

[DarkLight]

How cartoonish and simplistic. And, unfortunately, typical in contemporary discourse.

Unfortunately, it seems to be a fairly accurate representation of the poster in question. Not that I think many others out there share his unique views.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

ETA: Ironically, this kind of “women are evil but men still need them, ugh” attitude isn’t that different from many feminists who have the “men are evil but women still need them, ugh” attitude, since not all feminists, even “radical” ones are lesbians who find they have no use for men even to provide casual sex.

I think it’s actually the male version of “fat acceptance” or “body positivity”. It’s a desire to realign society and control to opposite sex so that you (not you personally) feel more attractive or desirable in comparison but without having to do the work of actually improving yourself.

 

[DarkLight]

Thank you for reaffirming how unapologetically regressive contemporary feminists are in their attitude towards men. Men remain “success objects”: they must show their superior money-making skills in order to qualify for marriage.

Pretty sure the lady was talking about before feminism - as in, if women can’t work, they must find a man who makes enough to rely on.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think it’s actually the male version of “fat acceptance” or “body positivity”. It’s a desire to realign society and control to opposite sex so that you (not you personally) feel more attractive or desirable in comparison but without having to do the work of actually improving yourself.

I also predict that eventually SST will lament that sexbots haven’t been invented yet, for a well designed one would solve his dilemma of being sexually attracted to women while simultaneously hating and fearing them.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Pretty sure the lady was talking about before feminism - as in, if women can’t work, they must find a man who makes enough to rely on.

No, I don’t think so, reread her post, especially the last line comedic line: “Red pill: making mediocrity sexy.” It goes right along with the line taken by several posters including some self-identifying as male, that men who are critical of feminism are all “losers” with subpar careers and romantic skills.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Thank you for reaffirming how unapologetically regressive contemporary feminists are in their attitude towards men. Men remain “success objects”: they must show their superior money-making skills in order to qualify for marriage.

Obviously, I was stating the common red pill line.

But, I grant them this: women do tend to find impressive men impressive. It’s hard to be impressed by something you yourself do. Not that there aren’t exceptions; for instance, there are tons of men in academia and research with female partners who out earn them in the private sector. But, the man in that case may not be making a ton of money, but he’s doing something relatively rare and, well, impressive. For what it’s worth, almost 40% of wives out earn their husbands, so it obviously can and does work. Interesting link below on that.

I met my husband very young. I was still doing my undergrad and he was finishing his Masters (at 22!). I was very impressed by his brain and work ethic, but as a young college kid, things like earning potential and job security weren’t really on my radar. Now, as I’m closer to 30, pregnant with our first, and looking at a time of unpaid and until we found out we were pregnant, totally unexpected maternity leave from the nonprofit firm I work for, I see that it totally makes sense for the person who doesn’t carry the babies to be the higher earner. If we had to rely on my income, a complicated pregnancy, delivery, or any sort of health problems with the baby could be financially devastating for our young family.

Without question I will advise my children to marry someone they have a real connection and deep friendship with, who makes them laugh and whose company they enjoy - that’s most important. But I’ll also tell my sons that they and their families will be more secure if they can be the sole providers, even if their wives work, and they should take that into consideration when deciding a major or vocational program. I’ll also tell my daughters that their lives will be much safer if they don’t go for a starving artist. Nothing wrong with that.

npr.org/2015/02/08/384695833/what-happens-when-wives-earn-more-than-husbands

 

[BlueEyedLady]

No, I don’t think so, reread her post, especially the last line comedic line: “Red pill: making mediocrity sexy.” It goes right along with the line taken by several posters including some self-identifying as male, that men who are critical of feminism are all “losers” with subpar careers and romantic skills.

Because a recurring theme in the community is that by holding women back, there will be more men for them to “look up” to and they’ll be more attracted to average. (Hence the fat acceptance comparison).

Of course, red pillers find this route more appealing than actually being a man worthy of looking up to, but I have serious doubts that it would work, even if it would or could ever be implemented.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

But, I grant them this: women do tend to find impressive men impressive. It’s hard to be impressed by something you yourself do. Not that there aren’t exceptions; for instance, there are tons of men in academia and research with female partners who out earn them in the private sector. But, the man in that case may not be making a ton of money, but he’s doing something relatively rare and, well, impressive. For what it’s worth, almost 40% of wives out earn their husbands, so it obviously can and does work. Interesting link below on that.

I think one problem with the Red Pill mentality is that they assume ALL women are essentially the same when it comes to what they find attractive in a man, or what they value in general. Yes, many women are attracted to Alpha Male types, but not all. Jamie Fraser from Outlander is very popular among women, although he certainly does NOT fit the Alpha Male archetype at all. (Nor would I quite call him a Beta, and at least in the books he does some things that certainly aren’t PC when it comes to women though they make sense in the historical-cultural context.)

And when it comes to YA lit, while Edward certainly was an Alpha Male in Twilight, the very popular Peeta Mellark of the Hunger Games is NOT and has to be physically rescued by the heroine many times, though his rival Gale does fit the Alpha Male stereotype more including his many romantic conquests before he realized he is in love with the heroine.

Though unfortunately both books do wind up sending the message to young girls that “even if a man poses a danger to a woman, a woman who Truly Loves her man would accept that danger as long as he has a legitimate excuse for it”. And while it can be argued this is the case in both stories, as Edward is a vampire with urges to feed on humans, and Peeta at one point is brainwashed to hate Katniss, that really doesn’t apply to most RL relationships.

Anyway, the assumption seems to be, “The interests of men and women are too divergent for there to ever be equal relationships or common goals between them. It’s a question of whether men dominate, or women dominate. Since I’m a man, nothing wrong with me advocating for men, I’m just doing what women are doing for their own sex”. The whole assumption of a neverending battle between men and women is the problem here.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Of course, red pillers find this route more appealing than actually being a man worthy of looking up to, but I have serious doubts that it would work, even if it would or could ever be implemented.

Just curious, how often do you use the phrase “a woman worthy of looking up to”?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Just curious, how often do you use the phrase “a woman worthy of looking up to”?

Depends on who I’m talking to.

In this case, we’re discussing red pill “philosophy”, and one of the cornerstones of that is the supposed notion of “hypergamy”. If you believe that what they say about it is true, then the only way for a woman to be happy is by having a man she views as her superior. There are two ways to accomplish this; the first is by holding women back, the second is by improving men.

I’m very skeptical that men who feel that women should be held back in public life have much to offer in private. After all, if you believe men are inherently superior but you don’t feel like you can impress women who have the same opportunities as you…what does that say about you and your place in society?

On the other hand, if you’re comfortable that you can still attract someone even if she’s been allowed to go to school, work, vote, whatever, chances are you’re confident that you have something worth offering.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh Xan, you know the canned response to this:

“Female hypergamy drives women to only be attracted to men above them. If women would stop getting an education/having careers, the average man would be much more attractive to women”.

Red Pill: Making Mediocrity Sexy

See also Roosh V’s various escapades in poorer Eastern European countries.

 

[Xantippe]

Because a recurring theme in the community is that by holding women back, there will be more men for them to “look up” to and they’ll be more attracted to average. (Hence the fat acceptance comparison).

Of course, red pillers find this route more appealing than actually being a man worthy of looking up to, but I have serious doubts that it would work, even if it would or could ever be implemented.

Yes, it doesn’t seem to be the case that low-income couples have particularly solid marriages.

See the “Annual Household Income” chart here:

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-divorce-proof-marriage/381401/

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Depends on who I’m talking to.
.

If you used that phrase ever, you would be a very rare exception. Similarly, no one says the phrase “a real woman” or a “real lady” anymore; if they did, they would immediately set upon as misogynist. Whereas we all know “a real man” is a quite common and respectable phrase.

The point being, the intrinsic worth of girls/women is widely recognized (at least in the US), but not so men.

A facebook friend of mine recently shared one of the many “self-esteem” memes for women, ending with the phrase “If you are a woman, you are already remarkable”. I really can’t remember anything equivalent for men, maybe you know of one.

 

[Xantippe]

Depends on who I’m talking to.

In this case, we’re discussing red pill “philosophy”, and one of the cornerstones of that is the supposed notion of “hypergamy”. If you believe that what they say about it is true, then the only way for a woman to be happy is by having a man she views as her superior. There are two ways to accomplish this; the first is by holding women back, the second is by improving men.

I’m very skeptical that men who feel that women should be held back in public life have much to offer in private. After all, if you believe men are inherently superior but you don’t feel like you can impress women who have the same opportunities as you…what does that say about you and your place in society?

On the other hand, if you’re comfortable that you can still attract someone even if she’s been allowed to go to school, work, vote, whatever, chances are you’re confident that you have something worth offering.

Yes.