1205
1206

MetaI am Karen Straughan [girlwriteswhat]; Ask Me Anything. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by girlwriteswhat

Hey there, everyone. At /u/bsutansalt's request, I'm here to hang out for a few hours and answer your questions.

Have at you!

EDIT: Holy shit, this conversation has kind of exploded. I've been trying to keep up as I can between my normal daily stuff and getting the rub on the back ribs and into the oven, etc etc, and I just want you guys to know if I don't get to your questions/comments this afternoon, I'll come back to them tonight or tomorrow. I WILL answer each and ever comment, dammit!


[–]Endorsed Contributorbalalasaurus 79 points80 points  (22 children)

Hello Karen. Good to have you here.

I'd like to know what your opinions are re: Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham and Emma Sulkowicz

Schumer has admitted to what can be construed as rape, Dunham has owned up to doing things I'd rather not speak of to her little sister, while Sulkowicz has been proven to have lied about sexual assault and destroyed the reputation of Nungesser in the process.

Despite the information however, most feminists still support these individuals and blindly look past their faults, instead treating them as champions for the cause. My question is why, despite the evidence, do you think this is so? I can understand wanting to push forward their cause, but surely they could do it with people who's reputations aren't so publicly questionable?

[–]girlwriteswhat[S] 125 points126 points  (7 children)

http://skepdic.com/sunkcost.html

Also this: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/10/12/0956797610385953.abstract

All three women became feminist celebrities before the iffy shit was made public. Sulkowicz in particular was rocketed to fame based solely on the narrative rather than talent or achievement. (Say what you will about "Girls" or Schumer's comedy, at least they put out a product.)

By the time all the icky details came out, in all three cases, feminists had invested a huge amount in terms of emotional attachment and PR effort. They're not just going to turn around and say, "woops! We were wrong..." They're going to double down and wait for the entire thing to blow over.

They're banking on the understanding that people will forget Nungesser before they forget "mattress girl". That people will forget one guy whose reputation was ruined before they forget that iconic image of a rape victim lugging her mattress all over campus.

They don't realize that the public is becoming increasingly jaded about this stuff, and that every time they defend it, they're taking a tire iron to their own credibility.

I hope they keep it up.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 33 points34 points  (0 children)

The ironic thing is that it is usually yourself, not your enemies, that lead to your downfall. Enemies make you sharper, stronger ... weakness comes from within.

This applies to social groups and civilizations just as much as individuals. Feminism increasingly taking up indefensible positions that blatantly violate their core principles around feminism is about equality is a perfect example.

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar 14 points15 points  (5 children)

I forget the name of this effect, but it happened with the whole Mike Brown/Eric Garner situation. Why wasn't Garner the icon of police abuse of blacks, instead of the obviously-assaulted-a-cop Brown?

The idea is, people will be much more fervent in the support of "questionable" victims, because it shows their commitment to the cause. In other words, anyone can support a victim who's obviously a victim (Garner), but you have to be a True Believer to support a sketchy victim (Brown.)

So, True Believers support unsupportable victims to signal group membership.

[–]girlwriteswhat[S] 34 points35 points  (4 children)

I actually wonder if the race baiters (like Sharpton) intentionally choose these ambiguous cases (Trayvon Martin, Brown, etc) because you can't have a race war when only one side is pissed off.

I doubt there would be much white indignation if the black community was screaming racism about Eric Garner, Walter Scott or that poor kid with the airsoft rifle who was shot before the cops were even all the way out of the car.

But look at the rhetoric around racism: it's collective. It's not just "this white cop", it's all of white society that's collectively to blame. When you try to cast blame over all whites for perpetuating a racist culture in a Martin or Brown case, whites don't like that. They get pissed. It gets the animosity stirred up on both sides of the racial divide much more effectively than if the shooting was 100% unjustifiable. And it stirs up white resentment of blacks.

It's like these particular people (activist leaders) are invested in racism, and they (maybe subconsciously) go out of their way to perpetuate the conditions that keep them in paychecks and justify their existence.

If racism ended, they'd be out of a job. The last three generations are the least racist, sexist, homophobic in history. Where's the money and status in that, for your average Sharpton?

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar 6 points7 points  (1 child)

It's funny you mention that. I put Sharpton in the same category of people as feminists like Jessica Valenti. They're peddlers of outrage, parasites of a sort. Your point, about it can't be a war if only one side is upset, is a fantastic one. If they rallied behind Eric Garner, there would be no conflict -- most of us would be in agreement. Al Sharpton would become irrelevant.

On another note, there are a ridiculous number of parallels between Feminism and Multiculturalism. One group (whites/men) has historically oppressed another group (women/minorities), to the point where we need preferences, quotas, and legal favoritism to compensate. Like women, minorities are more than happy to opportunistically play into the rhetoric if it means they get free giveaways.

I see this happen a lot: guys "redpill up" on sex, and get in the habit of questioning the mainstream narrative. They apply those reasoning skills in other areas, and realize that "racism" is a similar bullshit victim narrative to Feminism, also peddled for profit.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (11 children)

Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham are smart women that know how to bait the MRA/Feminist cunts into creating a shitstorm. They want to create controversy ahead of any major releases by means of baiting the mindless sheep. Some MRA idiots on TRP have once again gone on a whinging spree and made Amy Schumer the top post. Needless to say, on looking her up I found that she has a major release lined up. Well done, we all know about her now.

[–]1RBuddDwyer 30 points31 points  (9 children)

Sulkowicz just reeks of BPD or some other Cluster B personality disorder.

[–]girlwriteswhat[S] 51 points52 points  (0 children)

Most feminists do, I would hazard to guess.

[–]RPthrowaway123 17 points18 points  (0 children)

If she got diagnosed she would just blame it on her "traumatic rape experience"...the one where she literally texted the guy to "fuck her up the butt"

[–]jimmybrite 11 points12 points  (6 children)

Which is hilarious since her dad is a big shot NYC shrink.

I think they just know how to play people.

[–]ModAerobus 149 points150 points  (134 children)

Common complaints against TRP include but are not limited to the following:

  • It's sexist
  • It's misogynistic
  • It's full of virgin neckbeards
  • It's full of rapists

What are your thoughts on this? Are any or all of these complaints valid? Why or why not?

[–]girlwriteswhat[S] 461 points462 points  (90 children)

  • Of course TRP is sexist. Pretty much everything and everyone is sexist. You know, if sexism means acknowledging that men and women are different.

  • No, it's not misogynistic. Some of the rhetoric here is very angry, and very generalized. A lot of that is from a sense of betrayal--I was taught women are wonderful and believed it, and then the shit hit the fan. There's a point, though, if the journey isn't suppressed through punishment and shaming, where these men tend to realize it's the false paradigm they're angry with, not women. That they hate being lied to, not the people they were lied to about. The degree of the anger seems to be correlated with the degree of hurt, and the degree of hurt to the impact of the betrayal once it's realized, and the impact of the betrayal to how deeply they'd bought into the myth that women are more than human (or at least more human than men). If these men didn't love women in the first place, they wouldn't be able to be hurt by their failure to live up to the unrealistic expectations society has encouraged them to have. At some point, I think, RP men arrive at an understanding that women piss and shit and fart and do shitty things and aren't perfect, just like men, and that's okay. It's the ubiquity, immensity and the extremity of the lie that women ARE wonderful that makes the pill hard to swallow and generates all this angry, bitter rhetoric. Men need to be allowed the space to vent and work through that, and for some, spaces like TRP are going to be more useful than a men's rights space.

  • If it's full of virgin neckbeards, it's full of virgin neckbeards being encouraged to hit the gym, groom their beards, get presentable and maybe get laid.

  • This one always makes me wonder. Though I suppose it's part and parcel of Dworkin's "there's a difference between a seducer and a rapist. The seducer typically buys a bottle of wine." But when you look at male on female violence, a lot of it is rooted in a sense of male powerlessness. Men who have confidence and mastery over themselves and their situations don't need to resort to violence to get what they want from women (whether it's sex or cooperation or respect or whatever), and they're less wanting of these things in general because they're more fulfilled in themselves, more self-sufficient. A rapist is a very damaged man (usually damaged by women) or a man who really really really wants sex but can't convince a woman to willingly lie down with him. TRP isn't any of those things. It's about teaching men how to convince women they want to lie down with them, and about convincing men that sex with women isn't some lofty, pristine goal that must be achieved at any cost. A lot of feminists seem to think that teaching a man what makes women's panties wet is some crime against all womankind. They want it to remain a mystery, so only men with "natural game" can crack the enigma. A man who has to learn how to attract women is a fraud pulling one over on those women, etc. And I suppose if you consider that rape, then yes, TRP is full of rapists. But I personally don't.

[–]ExpendableOne 81 points82 points  (18 children)

If it's full of virgin neckbeards, it's full of virgin neckbeards being encouraged to hit the gym, groom their beards, get presentable and maybe get laid.

What I've always hated about this notion, often used to shame or silence redpills and MRA's alike, is that it's not only untrue, completely hypocritical(the women would basically dismiss MRA's as "neckbeards" would be the first to protest against the notion that all feminists are just fat ugly dykes), circular reasoning("neckbeards are unattractive to women, therefore they are of lower value; Neckbeards are of lower value, therefore unattractive to women; because they are of lower value and unattractive to women, treating them like shit is justified) and because it's often used to justify a lot of the hatred, disdain and misandry thrown at men(as well as dismiss their experiences, views and arguments), but also because the name is often used in absolute disregard for many of the very social issues that still plague western culture.

Fact is, a guy that hits the gym his entire life, who grooms himself daily and presents himself in a decent manner could most certainly be subject to the same circumstances, and subject to the unrealistic expectations, gender roles, vilification and misandry. Hitting the gym, grooming and manners don't make the difference. If it was that easy of a solution, there wouldn't even be a problem in the first place. If those virgins could just magically make women appear, ready to treat them fairly and honestly, simply by lifting weights, then every man would be hitting the gym every day.

And, honestly, even if the movement was full of "neckbeards" and virgins, that really doesn't justify or validate any of the inequalities that exist in western culture, or that those men might be subjected to either. Could you ever imagine anyone else telling fat women that their rights don't matter because they are fat women? Or disregarding anything a woman says because she was a virgin?

When women disregard men, or any kind of men's rights arguments, because they are just "virgin losers complaining", they are not just showing how little regard they actually have for men in general but they are also blatantly flaunting their own power and privilege to their faces, bullying men on factors that are only relevant because women say so and shaming men on qualities and expectations that they themselves would never have to be subjected to because they are women. The women who call men neckbeards, or shame them for not having any luck with women, do so from a position of absolute privilege. They can hold whatever views they want, and don't really need to be all that fit or well groomed, and they will always have suitors available to them. They are judging men for social expectations they are exempt from themselves.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 65 points66 points  (3 children)

    Another interesting aspect of the hypocrisy re the neckbeard guy who can't get laid...

    Have you guys seen David Futrelle? Or "Angry Aussie"? Or any number of other hipster douchebag male feminists who are fat, have neckbeards, wear fedoras, have difficulty getting laid, etc?

    A lot of the men I've met in my travels through the MRM are awkward or otherwise don't remind women of Matthew McConaughey. But a lot of them are quite presentable. Confident, attractive, fit, and definitely not virgins. When my bf reintroduced me to the movement, when we were first dating, he was also dating two other women--a burlesque performer and a nursing student slash model. A lot of these guys have lots of options re sex with women. They just don't see a lot of options regarding stable relationships with solid, reasonable women.

    As far as fat women, or unattractive women, I can certainly imagine people dismissing what they say based on that. Not dismissing their rights, but dismissing their complaints. Wasn't it Rush Limbaugh who said feminism was a way for ugly women to gain access to the mainstream? Last I checked, he still had a job.

    Truth be told, there probably is some truth to the idea that low SMV leads to a desire for the politicization of one's personal issues. I'm sure there are some MRAs who are in this mainly because they can't get laid and are simply not willing or able to do what it takes to get laid. I'm sure the same is true for some feminists. But they aren't the majority in either case, in my opinion.

    [–]1iluminatiNYC 21 points22 points  (0 children)

    Personally, I think that within feminism, there are women who are out to settle some score with men. (It isn't that I don't think there are men who are around with the same mindset as much as they aren't openly political about it.) It isn't a matter of attractiveness as much as they have some axe to grind, and feminism had the most convenient sharpener.

    [–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (7 children)

    TheRedPill/comments/365ii4/no_one_cares_about_low_value_males/

    But for these guys it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If men who think that being a nice passive provider is going to get the girl, and we mock him because he's wrong, but we ALSO mock him for going to the manosphere to try to figure out how the game works, then what exactly do we expect him to do? What do we prescribe the answer to be for this poor guy?

    The answer is for him to fuck right off. The reason society is so offended at this frustrated chump is that he's low value. He doesn't have high enough SMV for his opinions to matter. He's just a low value beta and therefore we don't care if his sexual strategy succeeds - we just want him to shut the fuck up about it. Low value men are invisible to women, and when they make themselves visible it's considered threatening, or "creepy" and disgusting, and white knight behavior has become so standard that most men will jump on the bandwagon of shaming and silencing this frustrated beta.


    Basically if you are currently a low value male, you should kill yourself. Seriously, society wants you to shut the fuck up about relationships and sex entirely and just kill yourself.

    Also all of the criticism against TRP can be viewed as a massive shit test. That's why I no longer engage anyone (especially the children on Reddit) in a debate about whether or not TRP is "wrong", which doesn't even make sense.

    In a shit test of this sort, you lose by engaging, you win by ignoring it and continuing to have an awesome life with your awesome self.

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [removed]

      [–]turbovolvozzz 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      There is one I can think of, it's called "She's out of my league" starring Jay Baruchel

      [–]antariusz 14 points15 points  (0 children)

      She's out of my league

      I thought to myself, hey cool, maybe that might be a good movie to watch, when you wrote that.

      Just read the plot synopsis on wikipedia ...

      Threw up in my mouth a little. Why? I'll explain at the end.

      It's just glorifying a cock carousel riding woman with a past of dating "macho bad boys" (air force pilot, aka AF) settling with a beta bucks provider "nice guy" afterward when she's ready to "settle down".

      This is a movie that came out 5 years ago targeting to ME... Men in my generation... in an attempt to get us to settle down and marry CC riding sluts, in an effort to convince US that we were "winning in the end".

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [removed]

        [–]Endorsed Contributorbalalasaurus 126 points127 points  (16 children)

        A man who has to learn how to attract women is a fraud pulling one over on those women

        Funny considering a woman who dons make up, has had plastic surgery etc. isn't considered a fraud, pulling one over men, but a woman empowered. I guess it all goes back to society's unrealistic portrayal of women, but the cognitive dissonance is significant to say the least.

        [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 149 points150 points  (4 children)

        I recall an article by someone trying to make "rape by deception" a thing, and he took great pains to explain how make-up and breast implants and the like were "just different". Heh.

        [–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 108 points109 points  (1 child)

        Indeed, the entire dating culture is based on at least some level of deception. As the famous Chris Rock once said, when you meet somebody for the first time, you're only meeting their "representative". Nobody is completely honest about who they truly are up front. I could say "I'm in the medical field", and woman fucks me because she assumes I'm a doctor, when really I'm only an ass-wiping orderly for incontinent senior citizens.

        This happened all the time when I was in the Air Force. I'd tell girls I was in the AF, and literally every single one of them asks "so what plane do you fly?" In reality, I "flew" a workstation looking at satellite imagery all day.

        The problem with "rape by deception" is that two people in a dispute are rarely, if ever, going to come to an agreement on what "deception" is. One person's "trickle truth" is another person's "full disclosure". For example, a woman says "I have a kid (trickle truth)....with downs and cerebral palsy" (full disclosure).

        Which is why these dream field utopian laws that these feminists whip up in their heads is complete lunacy.

        [–]ModAerobus 9 points10 points  (0 children)

        This happened all the time when I was in the Air Force. I'd tell girls I was in the AF, and literally every single one of them asks "so what plane do you fly?" In reality, I "flew" a workstation looking at satellite imagery all day.

        Women are indeed curious. I've met an Air Force mechanic. His job was just as important as those flying the planes, and just as important as yours analyzing satellite imagery. It's weird how they can't see that your job was still important because they are so fixated on you being a pilot, which they find attractive. It's like for a woman attractiveness overrides logical thinking.

        [–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (9 children)

        The whole concept is really interesting to me - that it's considered shameful for a guy to artificially inflate his value as a mate, but completely acceptable for a woman to do the same. You say it has to do with society's unrealistic portrayel of women, and maybe you're right, but my gut feeling is that there also has to be some evo psych reason for this.

        The most obvious explanation I can think of is that women are predisposed to hate it because they think they're getting bona fide alpha sperm but they're really getting a beta in disguise. Because bearing a man's child represents a truly massive resource investment on the part of a woman, she can't afford to get tricked like this.

        However, for a guy (in the state of nature, before financial divorce rape), dumping his cum into a random chick and impregnating her is no great resource investment. So if she pretties herself up, it doesn't really matter if he's getting fooled or not - he's still spreading his genes around. Any thoughts on this?

        [–]apackofwankers 32 points33 points  (8 children)

        Women want men to be without artifice - so that the power of women to chose is not diluted.

        Women are invested in keeping the process of attraction mysterious. They will keep the process hidden from themselves and others, in order to maximise the power of their whimsy.

        Men, and in particular TRP and PUA men, want the power to chose themselves.

        Women who are not self aware enough to understand their own process of attraction can have their whimsy manipulated.

        Fundamentally, the conflict is over who has the power to chose their sexual partners, and its a zero-sum game.

        For example, there is a technique I use called the "Loudest Monkey" technique. Basically, when you are with women, you do something that makes you the loudest person in the room. Women are irresistibly drawn to this on an animal level. 80% of the time, it works every time. And yet, when I tell women about this technique, not a single one will admit that it might work.

        [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (2 children)

        For example, there is a technique I use called the "Loudest Monkey" technique. Basically, when you are with women, you do something that makes you the loudest person in the room. Women are irresistibly drawn to this on an animal level. 80% of the time, it works every time. And yet, when I tell women about this technique, not a single one will admit that it might work.

        Absolutely amazing. Lolllll

        [–]1KyfhoMyoba 22 points23 points  (1 child)

        the "Loudest Monkey" technique. Basically, when you are with women, you do something that makes you the loudest person in the room. Women are irresistibly drawn to this on an animal level. 80% of the time, it works every time. And yet, when I tell women about this technique, not a single one will admit that it might work.

        This is a variation of the "podium effect". Put 50 clones in a room, and the one speaking to the group at the podium will be considered the most attractive. It comes down to who holds the attention of the group (for whatever reason).

        Women are attention whores.

        [–][deleted] 62 points63 points  (28 children)

        Of course TRP is sexist. Pretty much everything and everyone is sexist. You know, if sexism means acknowledging that men and women are different.

        I've conversed with a few people on the left that view the human mind as a blank slate at birth. They straight up denied sexual dimorphism. From this, it follows that all gender roles are arbitrary and oppressive because it forces people to adopt lifestyles and behaviors that are determined by irrelevant physical characteristics instead of their own free will.

        These few people I've talked to laughed at the suggestion that men and women are different.

        By the way, these were moderates, not even your SJW tumblr stereotype.

        [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 37 points38 points  (5 children)

        Even if we were blank slates with only physical characteristics different, we'd see sex differences in outcomes. Men are stronger and have differences in stamina, women have babies and lactate, etc.

        [–]KermitTheeFrog777 14 points15 points  (2 children)

        Taking that further, how to you separate physical differences from other types, when you consider differences in hormones? There's a physical characteristic with direct psychological link.

        [–]a_nus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Taking that further, how to you separate physical differences from other types

        Nothing really, unless you take into account the "mind" or "soul" and separate it from science, in which case you'd be arguing out of your ass basically.

        The brain, which controls all our thoughts and actions, is also a physical organ confined to the rules of physics. Why isolate one organ specifically and exempt it from being subject to biological (specifically gender) driven differences?

        [–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 6 points7 points  (1 child)

        You'd see a lot more bros majoring in sociology if you could become physically stronger simply by hearing a lecture on "elective gender roles".

        [–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 14 points15 points  (0 children)

        I've been seeing that as well. It's crazy that people actually believe that nonsense.

        [–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

        Willfull ignorance, not the sort of people I would bother talking to. There are loads of papers about differences between the sexes - real physiological, neurological and behavioural differences. But the people you are talking about don't want to know.

        [–]gary_brambleton 14 points15 points  (3 children)

        I went to a liberal arts college, and every sociology or "social justice" class (which are required for all students) teaches this shit as being a fact. I always found it strange that none of the professors championing this blank slate theory were scientists.

        [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

        Yep. It's the default point of view. In the modern western world, it's akin to religious canon. You simply do not question it.

        If you do?

        Enjoy that hellfire coming your way.

        [–][deleted]  (7 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]NeoreactionSafe 20 points21 points  (0 children)

          I've always loved that inconsistency:

          "Gender is a social contract except when someone is gay."

          ...well someone has to be more equal than others.

          [–]datredpilldoe 25 points26 points  (0 children)

          In Psychology, we have a word for those who believe in "Tabula Rasa," the blank slate:

          childless.

          [–]thefisherman1961 63 points64 points  (12 children)

          You pretty much summed up why all of the main arguments against TRP are just straw mans. The accusation that TRP is full of rapists always baffled me the most because the consensus seems to be that rape is a beta mating strategy, because your SMV is so low that you have to resort to physical force to reproduce. I've never once seen any Red Piller advocating initiating force against women.

          [–]1xwm 86 points87 points  (4 children)

          I've never once seen any Red Piller advocating initiating force against women.

          Quite the opposite actually. I mean, we pretty much go by the mantra "If she isn't throwing herself at you then forget it. Don't pursue women."

          [–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (3 children)

          the RP response to a LMR is to disengage completely until she re-initiates

          [–][deleted] 72 points73 points  (5 children)

          I've never once seen any Red Piller advocating initiating force against women.

          I've seen it a few times in the comments, quickly followed by a dozen downvotes and calling that individual a dumbass that should leave TRP. Also there was a mod sticky one time that warned any individual advocating violence against women would be banned immediately.

          Resorting to physical force shows an extreme loss of frame and social naivety. This is an authoritarian tyrant that rules with fear.

          The alpha male is the exact opposite. Strong frame (strong emotional control), and socially intelligent. He inspires those around him to give him what he wants, and they are happy to do so. This is a benevolent king that rules with love.

          BPers don't understand this distinction. They believe that all forms of manipulation are inherently evil. They lump together the benevolent king with the authoritarian tyrant because of their arbitrary, narrow-minded moralizing.

          [–]Hitman359 11 points12 points  (2 children)

          Indeed. To renounce all forms of manipulation you'd have to renounce all forms of social contact period.

          The harsh truth is, every single interaction you have with another human has a manipulative side to it without exception. The game never sleeps, never stops. It even continues on after you're dead, and there isn't a damn thing you can or should do about it.

          And this is coming from someone with a black and white sense of morality. The trick is to see where it all ends up without becoming a hardcore utilitarian or moral relativist because of it. To understand the evil so that we may avoid dealing with it and its negative consequences as much as possible rather than just doing things that'll ultimately screw us over down the road like try to politicize our problems.

          Thing is everyone should have been told about all of this in the beginning, it would have saved most people and society a whole lot of trouble. Sadly, keeping the masses and the AFC's ignorant of game is how rulers rule. Feminism and all forms of tyranny would never fly if the AFC's knew and accepted the truth about human interaction instead of buying into those nice pretty lies the tyrants and feminists cram down their throats with their propaganda (which they also know nothing about, otherwise commercials and the like wouldn't get them to stupidly buy things on credit or have a huge impact on their behavior in general).

          [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

          The harsh truth is, every single interaction you have with another human has a manipulative side to it without exception.

          Right. Social interaction is itself, manipulation. If you think manipulation is wrong, then you believe social interaction is wrong. If you currently interact with human beings, including arguing with me about this, you are a hypocrite or don't really believe what you're saying.

          I guarantee you every one of these people who says manipulation is wrong has googled things like, "how do I write a good resume", "interview tips", "how do I deal with difficult people", "how do car salesmen trick you" etc. All that stuff is game/manipulation.

          To understand the evil so that we may avoid dealing with it and its negative consequences as much as possible rather than just doing things that'll ultimately screw us over down the road like try to politicize our problems.

          It's also irresponsible to ignore the game. People who believe playing the game is shallow and wrong have relationships in their life that they care about, family and friends, unless they are completely alone. By ignoring the game, you are purposefully lessening your power to protect and lift up these people. You are bringing down your friends and family with you. You are purposely ignoring knowledge that will help make your friends and family happier, or even ensure their survival in extreme situations.

          Sadly, keeping the masses and the AFC's ignorant of game is how rulers rule.

          "Just be yourself!"

          [–][deleted]  (2 children)

          [removed]

            [–]ModAerobus 8 points9 points  (0 children)

            Thank you for your well thought out response. I'm glad to see you agree with the premise of TRP.

            [–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 253 points254 points  (30 children)

            I'm interested in Karen's response, but something I posted the other day that you may be interested is this quote:

            “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” -Thomas Sowell

            IMO that sums up perfectly the #1 reason TRP is seen as anti-women. It's largely the same reason MRAs and anti-feminists are seen as being a bunch of "misogynists". People are just so accustomed to women's preferential treatment that anything that threatens that status quo is viewed in a negative light.

            [–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 104 points105 points  (5 children)

            I did a write-up in PPD about the "Halo Effect" and it's relationship to AWALT and pedestalization. For those reading who are unaware, Halo Effect is a cognitive bias in which people, in general, will automatically assign good, noble, wholesome traits to things we find physically/visually appealing. In other words, a beautiful woman could be Satan's wife, but knowing nothing about her but her looks, we will assume she is a good, wholesome person.

            As this applies to women, they grow up from when they were little girls with literally everybody being nice to her, giving her preferential treatment, dismissing her shortcomings, and excusing her failures. She's been going through her whole life donning this Halo, no matter if she's cheating on her BF, scheming on other girls behind her back, or failing Algebra class.

            TRP rips the Halo off, and women hate that. They feel naked without their Halo.

            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 89 points90 points  (1 child)

            Neoteny. It's important. The cuter someone is, the nicer we assume they are. For women, that cuteness is also associated with attractiveness to the opposite sex. So everyone thinks cute women are automatically nice, and men also find them sexually appealing.

            [–]through_a_ways 9 points10 points  (0 children)

            Women are definitely more physically neotenous. Shorter heights, flatter foreheads, more soft childlike features, no facial hair, less hair loss, etc.

            However, it's always seemed to me that men are more mentally neotenous. If you consider being innately interested in things a neotenous trait (and even feminists recognize how women tend to have this trait in childhood, but lose it in adolescence), men definitely have women beat there.

            I also think there's a very big difference between "cuteness" and "sexually appealing". I definitely like both, but certain traits tend to be one or the other, and a surprising number of men tend to concur with me on this. It actually wasn't until sometime late in puberty (late teens) that I started to see "cuteness" as something that was separate from "sexy".

            [–]coffee_and_lumber 23 points24 points  (1 child)

            Akin to the assertion you hear around here that women will make rules for the men they find unattractive and excuses for the men they do.

            [–]foldpak111 6 points7 points  (0 children)

            That last paragraph was fuckin money

            [–]thefisherman1961 30 points31 points  (0 children)

            Thomas Sowell is the man; nice quote.

            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 53 points54 points  (4 children)

            [–]TRP VanguardCyralea 19 points20 points  (2 children)

            Interestingly, Amy Yeung, the author of that article, has a Woman's Studies minor. That she published a paper like this is rather uncharacteristic.

            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 26 points27 points  (1 child)

            She also recently hosted a feminist event on how to deal with those dastardly MRAs. I was quite disappointed, given her conclusions in this paper.

            [–]SouthernPetite 43 points44 points  (6 children)

            I agree with this. Women have been and pumped up with so much false compliments, entitlement, and specialsnowflakery for so long (even before the self-esteem movement, which has undoubtedly made it worse) that even civil disagreement and/or constructive criticism results in a toddleresque tantrum of epic proportions.

            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 66 points67 points  (5 children)

            I think even if the environment was completely neutral, women would generally trend toward seeing disagreement and criticism as an attack. At least more than men do.

            That is, you don't need to train women into special snowflakery--you have to train them out of it.

            [–]SouthernPetite 15 points16 points  (0 children)

            you don't need to train women into special snowflakery--you have to train them out of it.

            You're probably correct. It seems that the heart of the issue is that humans, as their baser nature, tend to be controlling and selfish- the only difference being the nuances in how the resulting behavior manifests itself between the sexes if said nature isn't controlled.

            What has happened is males, generally, are taught not to indulge these instincts, whereas females' potential to behave poorly either go unacknowledged or actually encouraged.

            Basically it's the same as how people view/treat large dogs as compared to small ones. Rottweilers are automatically perceived as dangerous merely for being larger, and held, often, to an unreasonable expectation of discipline regardless of circumstances, while pomeranians typically aren't disciplined at all, yet they can bark incessantly, bite everyone for no reason at all, maybe even maim or kill a baby, and every says it's ok, that they're not a problem, and don't need discipline...essentially because they're small, fluffy, and cute.

            [–]Sir_Shitlord_focker 5 points6 points  (1 child)

            Just look at the default position over at r/askfeminism if your premise disagrees with their ideals, it's not considered a genuine question at all and won't be answered.

            [–][deleted]  (9 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 54 points55 points  (8 children)

              Women absolutely LOVE the Patriarchy; they either just don't know it or don't want to admit it to anyone. Every stable and successful civilization throughout history has been patriarchal.

              In terms of raw strength,

              Patriarchy>Anarchy>Matriarchy

              In other words, the only thing that keeps savage, anarchal hoards at the city gates is a strong patriarchy defending it's women, children, and territory. Remove the patriarchy tomorrow, and all of the strong, masculine defense that goes with it, return society to "survival of the fittest", and women will quickly become reacquainted with what "rape" and "abuse" really is.

              Attilla the Hun nor Alexander the Great, in their expeditions in conquering Europe and the Far East, didn't come across a Matriarchal society and say "whoops, nothing to see here, boys, let's just move along."

              [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 40 points41 points  (4 children)

              The few "matriarchies" out there (which are not matriarchies in the sense of a reversal of gender roles, but which grant women superior status and do not reward men for their disposability) are generally poor, have no technology that they weren't gifted by their neighbors, have nothing anyone thinks is worth stealing (including their land), and still compel men into disposable roles.

              [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

              Can you or anyone else give me some current or historical examples? I'd like to read about this myself.

              [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 25 points26 points  (1 child)

              The Mosuo is the big one. On the border between China and Tibet, I believe.

              [–]WillWorkForLTC 4 points5 points  (0 children)

              You just know you have a quote gem there. All the more power to ya. Keep posting it. Honestly you deserve 100 times the karma you got from that quote. That thing is fucking genius and exposes so much in so little time!

              Genius explains complex ideas in simple terms, thereby granting those previously unempowered the insight to propagate genius themselves.

              [–]saraburzy 61 points62 points  (2 children)

              When I want to become a better woman I don’t read articles about how I should stop wearing deodorant and become intoxicated by my own potential filth because it’s ‘empowering’. I read as much as I can, refine my own individual interests, or I research the healthiest foods within my budget or the most effective ways to utilize machines at the gym if I am crunched for time. Before going on a message board to tell the world how much gender inequality is a sociopolitical vice that ought to immediately be changed, I try to evaluate the origin of these disparities before assuming it’s a product of moral malpractice or a miscarriage of justice. In other words, if women are underrepresented in an area not because of oppression, but because it is a field that they statistically do not autonomously seek (e.g., heavy machinery, construction, politics), to presume that inequality is immoral or ought to be changed is false.

              TRP encourages growth for both men and women; it doesn't say that a woman who is morbidly obese, tirelessly promiscuous, or habitually aggressive in behavior is inherently bad and unalterably so. Instead, it provides a means to become the best possible version of yourself. It encourages growth and discipline rather than stagnation and settling. Rather than accepting mediocrity, it aspires to achieve greatness. Rather than blaming someone's lack of attraction towards you on them, on society, or on any other institution, it casts a reflective gaze on the subject to more introspectively craft the best possible individual out of the materials you have.

              “You can’t change the cards you are dealt, just how you play the hand.” ― Randy Pausch

              It reminds you that what you have can always be bettered, and that what other people think of you is always, in the end, is always something tangential. How people perceive you means nothing when you are achieving excellence and exude confidence; how people perceive you means everything when you're unsure of who you are when you're confused about what you want or who you are. It teaches that you can use your appearance, skills, and interests in ways that can appeal to more people, but by no means enforces it. It provides a community to make the most out of yourself upon acknowledging that value is cultivated, not given.

              “If a man hasn't what's necessary to make a woman love him, it's his fault, not hers.” ― W. Somerset Maugham

              High social value for a male is almost in every case earned; emotional fortitude, physical strength, and powerful characteristics are a result of discipline, not fortune. As such, if the discipline is missing, there likely aren’t women around to fawn over the lack of results that came from what wasn’t done. This does not insinuate that women are entitled to successful men, nor that they are better in any particular way, but that what is admired about a man is his discipline. As such, if a woman lacks attraction, it’s not her fault in the sense that he is control of his own wellbeing and if it is neglected that is more of a consequence of his action than of hers.

              It’s a community that encourages development for both parties. Of course, if you are not used to working for what makes you valuable, it might at first glance seem to be derogatory.

              [–]1Watermelon_Salesman 26 points27 points  (7 children)

              These complaints are way too common coming from MRAs, including people who regularly post and comment at r/mensrights. There's a clear effort from MRAs to distance themselves from TRP, as if they were the good guys, and TRP was nothing but poison.

              [–]PedroIsWatching 40 points41 points  (2 children)

              There's a clear effort from MRAs to distance themselves from TRP, as if they were the good guys, and TRP was nothing but poison.

              Which is ironically the ultimate white knight tactic.

              I'm not like any of those assholes, I'm a nice guy. please have sex with me

              [–]Hitman359 9 points10 points  (0 children)

              That's so utterly true it hurts, that last bit is always assumed to be said even if you never say it or even mean to say it. That's why the "nice guy" is "creepy" to pretty girls and feminists, and Beta AFC's to the people here. Men who say that to single women really are begging for sex, they just don't realize it. If ya want that sexy girl, the last thing you do is beg for it. Nothing dries up a pussy quite like the smell of desperation.

              [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

              as if they were the good guys

              The smarter ones among them will attempt to use TRP as a foil to show that they are the moderates. They're uniters, not dividers.

              [–]1 TRP SupporterFred_Flintstone 17 points18 points  (0 children)

              This is a problem with The Right in general. The problem is sometimes labelled as: No Enemies on The Left and No Friends On The Right.

              Because the Left somehow (ridiculously) gained a monopoly on morality, people wish to appease them (and the majority), and seek to distance themselves from further to the right than themselves.

              Every so often I see someone reeling in shock and horror that we cannot possibly tolerate any connection with Person P, because they have some connection with person Q, who went to an event that was also attended by person Y, who has some connection with person Z, and, gasp, shock, horror, person Z has some connection with the “extreme” right.

              Meanwhile posters, badges, and tee shirts of notorious communist mass murderers continue to sell well, and checking academic syllabi, one regularly reads questions of the form “explain why this noted communist mass murderer was amazingly wonderful, and why those whom he had eradicated were vile scum of the earth”, which questions usually contain very clear hints as to exactly what the answer is supposed to be.

              http://blog.jim.com/politics/no-enemies-to-the-left-no-friends-to-the-right-4/

              [–][deleted] 66 points67 points  (11 children)

              Hey Karen, thanks for your work.

              With your knowledge of the manosphere and men's lives, how are you raising your sons?

              [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 205 points206 points  (10 children)

              My sons are red pill in the sense that they see what's going on. My oldest came by it naturally (natural MGTOW). He managed to go through his entire school career without being bullied or hassled by anyone, I think because he gave off a vibe that he just didn't care about anyone else's opinion of him.

              My youngest is a little more interested in a robust social life, fitting in and the rest, but he's still quite aware of how things actually work. Sometimes I have to explain it, sometimes I don't. Because he values being liked, he's more likely than his brother to end up on the wrong side of a bully. I remember when he came home late one day in grade 3, and announced, all excited, that he had detention. "I got into a brawl!" A friend was being bullied by a group of older boys, and he jumped in and started swinging. We had to fill out an incident report together, "what did you do wrong, why was it wrong, what will you differently in the future, etc?" I told him the answers he needed to give, then told him I was proud of him for defending his friend and that if he ever got detention over something like that again, he wouldn't be in trouble with me.

              Mostly, I'm about "figure out what's important to you, and then figure out a way to do it on your own." Helicopter parenting is not my thing.

              I also managed to raise kids who are not materialistic at all. None of them have ever wanted designer clothes or anything like that. On the other hand, they do like some high ticket items--my son spent his first earned $1000 on a Cintiq drawing tablet, and the next several hundred on a video card he wanted. The older two (son and daughter) work and live with us but pay rent, and are saving for post-secondary.

              I suppose I've tried to instil in them the idea of valuing what's actually important, rather than flashy consumerism or getting a boyfriend/girlfriend, and being willing to do what's necessary to have a stable life.

              [–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar 74 points75 points  (0 children)

              You sound like an awesome mom! Thanks for contributing what sounds like two well-adjusted males into the world.

              [–]1Sergnb 22 points23 points  (2 children)

              On the other hand, they do like some high ticket items--my son spent his first earned $1000 on a Cintiq drawing tablet, and the next several hundred on a video card he wanted.

              Assuming he wants those for digital art, I'd say they are very good purchases. They are definitely worth the price, and digital art (don't know if he paints or maybe is into 3D, maybe graphic design?) in general is a very good creative outlet.

              [–]the_number_2 20 points21 points  (0 children)

              my son spent his first earned $1000 on a Cintiq drawing tablet, and the next several hundred on a video card he wanted.

              I did exactly the same thing, because I was starting a career in design. Step two is teach him how to write it off as a business expense.

              [–]Wambo45 9 points10 points  (0 children)

              You sound like a hell of a mom.

              [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

              I'm turned on by this. I'm nineteen and you make me want to get married -- uh oh.

              Jokes aside, could you describe your SO to us, and your relationship dynamic with him?

              [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

              He's large, hairy, barrel-chested. His head is gigantic, so you don't necessarily realize how big he is until he's standing next to you. His neckbeard is wild and woolly and glorious.

              His eyes are like Jesus when he's happy, and like Damien from The Omen when he's annoyed. Very soft spoken, even when he's mad (which scares people sometimes). Almost never raises his voice. "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

              He's sexually very dominant, so we get along very well in that regard. Very affectionate, too, which is nice. He goes over the top with teasing and ribbing in a way that makes me laugh all the time. We'll smack talk each other in front of the cashier at the store, which usually ends in me saying, "no jury in the world would convict me, you know," and him looking at the cashier and saying, "you see how abusive she is? It ain't right..." and the cashier'll just stand there kind of bemused watching it.

              We both contribute what we can to the household finances. When we first moved in together, I was covering 100% because he was finishing his degree. For a while, it was about 50/50, and now he's in a really good job and it's probably the first time in my life I haven't had to squeeze every single dime out of a paycheck. I'm working less outside the house than before, but I have income from multiple sources so I'm still contributing, but less of a share.

              I take care of the budget, the bills, etc, pretty much all the housework, most of the yardwork, all the renovations and maintenance, and all the cooking. He works. A lot. When he's not working, he's usually teaching himself to code, or doing other things that will help him advance at work. On the surface, it might look like a traditional relationship, and in some ways it is.

              When we have a problem with each other, we're very direct. He'll come right out and criticize me, or I will him, and it doesn't tend to lead to arguments--just productive discussions. Sometimes the result of the productive discussion is that things are just going to stay as they are, and we'll have to get used to it. I'm never going to keep a spotless house. He's never going to take out the trash unless asked, probably repeatedly. That kind of thing. What makes it work so well is that neither of us takes an accusatory tone, so you don't get the defensiveness that tends to go along with these kinds of conflicts.

              He used to get an urge to white knight me when, say, he'd notice people talking shit about me in SRS or something, but I managed to convince him that it would be counterproductive.

              It's just generally a very easy partnership. We enjoy each other's company to the point where sometimes we have to force ourselves to maintain connections with other people. It has it's not great moments, for sure, but we're so well suited for each other in certain ways that the annoyances aren't very annoying.

              [–]Modredpillschool 95 points96 points  (27 children)

              Welcome, Karen. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I suspect you're going to have a lot of typing ahead of you!

              Since getting involved in the Men's Rights Movement, have you felt as though men's interests are gaining ground, or that men's rights is going to be a fruitful cause?

              I ask, not because I believe men shouldn't have rights (I'm certainly a supporter), but because sometimes it seems like the equality and egalitarianism that men wish for (such as destroying gender roles) aren't exactly realistic- that is men need to act like men to attract women.

              What are your thoughts on this?

              [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 154 points155 points  (26 children)

              I do think that men's interests are gaining ground. There are plenty of mainstream articles that point to a growing awareness of the problem, and when I talk to random people about what I do (whether I say I'm an anti-feminist or a men's issues advocate) I tend to get a lot of, "yeah, you're right! I always thought that was messed up."

              The main obstacle to going fully mainstream (particularly with the issues of boys, since male children still command some small degree of compassion from the wider culture), is feminism (political feminism, and casual gynocentrism).

              We often get accused of derailing, but I've never been involved in a conversation about the harms of infant male circumcision without multiple people barging in and saying that it's not comparable to FGM and that making a fuss about it is minimalizing or trivializing ACTUAL genital mutilation blah blah blah.

              You talk about male victims of DV, and you'll get lots of people jumping in to inform everyone that while men are a tiny minority of victims, it's women who are the majority of victims, and blah blah blah.

              When Obama unveiled "My Brother's Keeper" (I think that's what it was called), an initiative to assist minority boys achieve in school and stay out of gangs, there were women's groups demanding to know why the initiative excluded minority girls, despite a multitude of initiatives already in existence prioritizing all girls' achievement and success.

              Destroying gender roles is, IMO, unrealistic. Particularly because feminism has managed to convince most of society that they're trying to destroy gender roles by exploiting gender roles. We're just not rational about this, and I don't expect we can convince society to become rational about it. It would require a constant, conscious effort on the part of all members of society to make it work, and that isn't feasible.

              This is why, as much as I'd love to talk about how excluding fathers from families hurts men (men are human), it's more effective to emphasize how it hurts children (men are useful).

              It's not all about men needing to act like men to attract women. It's the sad reality that the very concept of equal compassion for men is teflon-coated. You can literally convince someone that men deserve compassion as human beings every bit as much as women do, and fifteen seconds later, the idea just kind of slid off of their brains and you're starting from scratch.

              Which is why women are very important in the MRM. It's women who can get sympathy--as mothers or daughters or sisters who are themselves hurt by the harm done to the men in their lives. No one's going to give two shits if my oldest never finds a woman worth his time and effort. But they'll care if my daughter finds herself at age 30, unmarried and wanting a child, and simply unable to find a man who can help provide a stable home.

              If men's interests are gaining ground, it's because ignoring their interests is having a negative impact on women and children. Well, there's also that anger thing. Paul Elam has repeatedly said, "if society won't hear men's pain, it will hear their anger." So there's that, too.

              All in all, though, I can't even realistically hope for actual equality before the law. There will always be informal biases that play into things like the sentencing gap. But statutory equality before the law--that might be achievable. There's some hope that "men" or "male" (and "straight", and "cis" and maybe even "white") might one day become a legally recognized category under human rights legislation.

              TL;DR: IMO, there's room for improvement and it will happen, but we're never going to have real equality.

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [deleted]

                [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

                One of the most interesting things about that particular stat is that it's, as far as I can tell, a woozle. You can go from paper to paper to paper and find it cited, but linking to papers that have no raw data--just citations to other articles that cite still other articles that also don't have raw data but are citing other articles without raw data.

                The closest thing to raw data I've been able to find is a survey of people reporting suicidal thoughts, attempts and self-harm behaviors combined. In those surveys, women outnumber men about 5 to 4.

                But included in these surveys are people who've thought about killing themselves but never attempted it, and people who engage in cutting and other self-harm. And the discrepancy isn't that big. And it's only asking people who aren't dead (that is, it doesn't include successful suicide attempts--only failed ones).

                [–][deleted]  (17 children)

                [deleted]

                  [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 61 points62 points  (2 children)

                  Definitely innate. It exists across such a broad spread of species that it can't be anything but innate.

                  The only species that treat females as AS disposable as males are traditional monogamous social species--wolves, marmosets, etc. In those species, only the dominant female is allowed to mate/reproduce, and all other females are reproductively useless in and of themselves--their value is the same as the value of subordinate males, as helpers.

                  So when you have two packs of wolves going at each other, you'll see the females of the losing pack sometimes get slaughtered along with the males. Why not? Those females aren't wombs--they're just potential problems. And they'll risk their subordinate females in the hunt or in skirmishes, for the same reason.

                  But in species where all females generally reproduce, the females are protected. Both males and females will team up to protect females, but no one protects males (dominant or subordinate).

                  [–]redpillshadow 40 points41 points  (11 children)

                  Innate. 50 men 2000 women. Next generation is safe. 50 women 2000 men. Next generation is not happening.

                  So if one starts out with 2000 men and 2000 women one could stand to lose 1950 men and wouldn't care all that much.

                  A strategy game with that theme might be a good idea, would hammer the point about "equality between sexes" home pretty hard when it becomes abundantly clear that the best strategy is protecting your own women and slaughtering your opponents women.

                  [–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (2 children)

                  You're actually missing the true optimal strategy... One that's been used throughout history: it's to leave them alive but rape/capture them.

                  Brutal stuff... But in pure game theory you won't beat it

                  [–][deleted]  (6 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 30 points31 points  (5 children)

                    Definitely, there was a "crisis of obstetrics" that occurred when we became bipedal and our pelvises changed. Mothers are more at risk, and babies ended up being born prematurely compared to other mammals simply in order to fit through the different pelvises.

                    I would speculate that father-investment (a more cooperative mating strategy/egalitarian monogamy) was already a trend when that happened.

                    There are dead branches of bipedalism on the hominid tree. Though I don't think this was a cause of our sexual dimorphism--baboons, gorillas and other harem species are more dimorphic than we are.

                    And in fact, we're less dimorphic than them in a lot of interesting ways. Human males are more cooperative with each other than males of almost any other species, really. The phenomenon of guys trying to get other guys laid just isn't a thing in chimpanzee society.

                    In other words, we're very unusual, in a lot of different ways. But yes, we do put women first.

                    [–]Bortasz[🍰] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                    I think this playlists:
                    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL45A5E21ECA5FA850
                    Explain a lot about how strangely bizarre we human are in comparison witch other animals.
                    We are neither Tournament nor Pair Bonding specie. We are in the middle.

                    [–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 10 points11 points  (0 children)

                    I do think that men's interests are gaining ground. There are plenty of mainstream articles that point to a growing awareness of the problem, and when I talk to random people about what I do (whether I say I'm an anti-feminist or a men's issues advocate) I tend to get a lot of, "yeah, you're right! I always thought that was messed up."

                    That's pretty much the same reaction Milo's Sexodus articles saw. I also have experienced similar when I talk to people in real life about men's issues and game/self-improvement. Most people who aren't radicalized tend to have a misconception about what we're really for here, and once they have a human explain it to them face to face they finally get it.

                    It's almost comical seeing the change in their face as they realize it's not about a bunch of faceless neckbeards out to rail about feminism and hate on women or bang on drums because they can never get laid. It's all about rounding out the rough edges and making men aware of the fact they can say no to women who are toxic. Stuff like that.

                    [–]1TVTestPattern 43 points44 points  (14 children)

                    Thanks for the work you do, it is much appreciated. Any plans for future topics or activities you care to share?

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 75 points76 points  (13 children)

                    I'll almost certainly be in Houston for the next International Conference on Men's Issues at the end of October, where I'll be participating in a panel discussion on why women should give a shit about this stuff. Also in the works is a conference in Bermuda of all places, where there's been a men's rights/issues group for the last 15 or 20 years, though I can't provide more details as yet.

                    As far as topics go, I'm working with a friend/colleague on a response to the firing of the guy who dared to claim, on camera, that he thought FHRITP is funny. I mean, he didn't yell FHRITP into the reporter's mic--he just explained to her why he thought it was funny. And then lost his very lucrative job after his name was revealed to the public.

                    [–]colucci 11 points12 points  (8 children)

                    Would you say that the FHRITP fiasco touches upon gender rights? I don't think he should have been fired, but I feel like it points to a societal problem that transcends gender rights.

                    I think it's just the reaction of a poorly managed company.

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 36 points37 points  (3 children)

                    Well, a recent clip surfaced where a woman ran up to a male reporter's mic and yelled "Fuck me right in the pussy!" and the women anchors in studio laughed their butts off.

                    Honestly, I don't think anyone should lose their job over finding that kind of thing funny.

                    [–]porkmaster 13 points14 points  (3 children)

                    The SJW media shame machine. "Anything that annoys anyone is a terrible thing and you should be fired for doing it".

                    [–]PedroIsWatching 13 points14 points  (1 child)

                    Like that woman that started that "donglegate" BS on Twitter and got some guys fired ended up getting fired herself for all the drama she caused.

                    [–]porkmaster 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                    I only wish the people causing all the trouble actually faced consequences like that more often.

                    [–]jdgalt 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                    It's really "Anything that annoys anyone in a protected class is a terrible thing and you should be fired for doing it." SJW-ism is the most rigid prejudice I've ever seen: if you are white or male, you are an oppressor from the day you're born, and your feelings can never count. I call that fake tolerance.

                    [–]OneWipeMan 45 points46 points  (3 children)

                    Hi

                    What do you think needs to change (law / contract wise) so that marriage makes sense for RP men?

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 95 points96 points  (2 children)

                    Right now, marriage isn't a contract between two parties. It's a legally binding blank piece of paper, the terms of which will be decided by a third party (the court/state) upon dissolution.

                    I would marry my current bf if that was not the case. I mean, I know I won't fuck him over, but when I dissolved my marriage with my ex the court wouldn't let me treat him as fairly as I would have liked. I wanted to formally waive child support, but no judge would sign off on that. All I can do is refuse to take measures to collect it, and try my damnedest to stay off welfare or anything similar, since they'll collect it for me whether I want it or not.

                    Marriage needs to be an agreement between two people, yes, enforceable by an authority, but the terms of which are spelled out and agreed on by both parties to the contract. Prenups kind of do that--stipulate the rights and entitlements and responsibilities of both parties, and who's entitled to what if things go Pete Tong, depending on who's at fault, etc.

                    But right now, all marriages are 'boilerplate', and all boilerplate marriage contracts are subject to executive fiat. Prenups can be thrown out on the whim of judges, and essentially most marriages are to the state.

                    And like a judge ruled here in Canada 100 years ago when denying a man a settlement over a broken engagement--you're not entitled to anything, because men aren't expected to advance or gain economically through marriage. Women are.

                    [–][deleted] 42 points43 points  (1 child)

                    when I dissolved my marriage with my ex the court wouldn't let me treat him as fairly as I would have liked

                    If more women were like you the world would be a much better place.

                    [–]LeGrandDiableBlanc 157 points158 points  (11 children)

                    Karen,

                    One of the first videos about male issues I ever watched was ‘Feminism and the Disposable Male’, so it’s really cool to see you doing an AMA for those of us on the dark side of the manosphere. :-)

                    I have a few questions for you:

                    1. Do you think that intersexual/intergender relations will improve, or get worse in the next 10, 20 years? Why is that?
                    2. What do you think the effects poorer intersexual/intergender relations have on society and civilization as a whole?
                    3. What do you think the best unintuitive piece of dating advice for men is?
                    4. In what ways do you think The Red Pill could be improved?

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 105 points106 points  (9 children)

                    I plan on answering this question, but it might take a while, so please be patient.

                    [–]RPthrowaway123 21 points22 points  (0 children)

                    Thanks for taking the time to do this, I really enjoy reading your well-thought out answers! Take your time :)

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

                    1) Hard to say. If they get worse, they'll get much worse. If they get better, they'll get marginally better. I know that sounds pessimistic, but it's just how I see things.

                    Every time conditions have gotten better for women, we have a small contingent of women declaring that things are worse for women than ever. I watched an interview with Gloria Steinem from 2010 or something, and she was asked if women in the west were still oppressed. She said, no joke, "they're more oppressed than ever". And her reasons? "They feel like they have to have it all, they struggle to manage career and family, etc." In other words, women are more oppressed than they were before feminism BY the outcomes of feminism, and in order to deal with this oppression, we need more feminism. And the interviewer just nodded.

                    We humans are programmed for certain baseline behaviors. "If it bleeds it leads" is part of that. We've never had a less violent society--even including all the wars of the 20th century, we were less likely to die by violence than in the previous centuries. Rape is down, domestic violence is down, all these things are down.

                    And what are we doing? Maintaining a baseline level of threat awareness by redefining rape and domestic violence to include huge swaths of behaviors that weren't included before. When we run out of actual things that threaten women, we think up other dangers women are subject to, or upgrade things no one in previous generations would have considered to be dangerous (like yelling or using sexist language).

                    And for the most part, society goes along with it.

                    If we're going to see a massive correction, the correction will be due to a huge collapse that forces us to put things in perspective, and to respect the roles of men to protect and provide.

                    2) decoupling childrearing from the voluntary investment of fathers is a huge mistake, IMO. You look at other primates, you don't see much fatherhood, and you also don't see a whole lot of male/male cooperation. Where m/m cooperation does exist (like in chimpanzees), it's less stable, and almost always involves related males (that is, the females leave at maturity and attach to other groups, while the males in the group are all brothers and cousins and uncles and stuff).

                    It's been suggested by some researchers that these two phenomena played a major role in us becoming what we are--big brained, neotenous, sentient, intensely social animals capable of building civilizations, etc. And we've taken a meat hammer to one (voluntary invested fatherhood), and are assaulting the other by discouraging men and boys from operating within male-only environments that they may well need to reinforce cooperative behaviors. Boys seem to need this form of socialization so deeply, that when they can't get that from adult men at home or at school, they will seek it from their same-age peers and even turn to gangs.

                    We have no idea what the long term effects are going to be.

                    3) respect yourself, and enforce your boundaries. Also, don't spend a lot of money on her.

                    4) if you mean this subreddit, I don't know it well enough to say.

                    [–]1xwm 39 points40 points  (5 children)

                    Going off of stories such as the Amy Schumer story where feminists are trying to convince each other that she was raped even though by facts she raped him, and off of the increasing number of emotional logic-less responses we are seeing everywhere, how long do you think it will be before someone (read: a significant number of people in positions of power) stands up and says no more? Do you think it will be a slow subtle movement, or a large scale push back?

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 69 points70 points  (4 children)

                    If it's going to happen, it will happen like a crescendo. Like that transition in Beethoven's 9th, where it goes from quiet and the tension builds over a few bars, and then BAM! It will accelerate slowly, but exponentially.

                    Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to ever go back to base line.

                    I'm sure you recall the Satanic daycare scandals of the 80s? I watched these stories play out on the news as a teenager, and I was flabbergasted, much the same way I'm currently flabbergasted regarding the rape culture narrative. Eventually, the world kind of woke up and realized it had been in the throes of a mass hysteria, but at the same time, society never went back to that state it was in before the scandals. Prior to the scandals (and others, like the Catholic alter boy thing), no one would bat an eyelash at a middle aged man ruffling a young kid's hair and saying hello on the sidewalk. But now, we have men taking pictures of their own kids at the mall being approached by security because someone thought they were predators.

                    There will be a large scale correction, IMO, but it won't put us back where we were. Because I believe female nature or gynocentrism (or whatever you want to call it) is not a pendulum but an engine, we'll be revisiting this moment over and over. There will be a correction, then things will start to creep back, then another correction and then again things will creep back.

                    [–]TRP VanguardWhisper 67 points68 points  (27 children)

                    Hi, Karen. Nice to see ya here.

                    From your comments, I get the impression you've received a fair amount of static from the R/MR crowd over doing this at all.

                    How much of that was there? Did it make you hesitate at all? Has there been support as well?

                    How much of the recent wave of attention that the MRM has directing towards TRP do you think is a reaction to the /r/TheRedPill surpassing /r/MensRights in readership?

                    Where do you see the interaction between the two going in the future?

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 82 points83 points  (26 children)

                    As much as some members of /r/MR dislike you guys, I've never been shy about my opinion of TRP when the topic comes up. I usually get a little bit of flak--"I am disappoint"--but it doesn't bother me much. I've had the odd person kind of hint that they'd unsubscribe or whatever, which I'm willing to accept.

                    On the other hand, there is some overlap between /r/MR and TRP, and there are people involved in MR that have no opinion one way or the other.

                    I uploaded a video of my comments that got stickied here, along with some commentary, and the "like bar" looks healthy, even though a lot of the comments were very negative. One commenter expressed a wish that I'd learn to speak more wisely and circumspectly on topics like RooshV's suggestion to make rape legal on private property (all I said was that however stupid or unfeasible or offensive his idea was, his stated intention was to prevent rape, so I wasn't going to call him a bad person for it).

                    I can't really guess how much of the attention the MRM is directing at TRP is due to your growth. There seems to be a certain admiration for the competence of some red pillers here and on YouTube as far as message delivery, and I think most terpers (is that the right term?) would be surprised at how a lot of the animosity is generated by readers rather than leaders, if you will. I know AVFM is interested in a cautious approach toward including PUA perspectives on the website. That doesn't surprise me, given Paul is a libertarian and he's been willing to publish articles by communists.

                    I don't think they're going for an assimilation or co-opting of other groups (the way feminists have done with LGBT and other interest groups). It's more about providing a wider range of masculine perspectives. They're in a difficult position in trying to do so--they took a lot of heat over the MGTOW marriage thing. They have right wingers like Bernard Chapin calling them a bunch of lefties, and they have progressives accusing them of promoting traditionalism, and they have MGTOW accusing them of advocating a return to the yoke for men and allowing women too big a role, and they have other MRAs advising them that they'll never attract young men into the fold if there are no women under the umbrella.

                    Seems like no matter what they do, they're going to get a bunch of people telling them they're fucking it all up.

                    As far as what the interaction will be, I can't say. Personally, I'd be happy with a ceasefire. Criticism of ideas is all well and good, but there is that tribalistic component that comes into play, and I'd like to see more of a "live and let live, and let's promote this or that article if it's worthwhile without getting worried about accusations that we're panderers or collaborators because we agreed with Heartiste on this one issue," kind of thing.

                    I don't think the "manosphere" can all be united under one umbrella, but there's enough overlap that if they set aside some of that tribalism they could achieve more on an issue-by-issue basis. That's what I hope will happen.

                    [–]TRP VanguardWhisper 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                    would be surprised at how a lot of the animosity is generated by readers rather than leaders, if you will.

                    I had begun to sense that.

                    Still, those readers, not what other people think of them, are my primary responsibility here. Everywhere else, and throughout the rest of their lives, people have been vastly more concerned about these men than for them. My self-chosen task is to be more concerned for them than about them. They wouldn't accept me as any sort of leader if they didn't see me doing that.

                    So, yes, they're angry young men. But I will only act to rein in that anger when it is hurting them, not just other people's delicate feelings. I don't expect them to be able to perfectly fathom the nuances of how our culture feels about men and how to respond. If they were superhuman enough to already know how to run between the raindrops like that, they wouldn't be here in the first place.

                    It's symptomatic, I think, of a much deeper malaise in our culture, when even the "men's rights activists" have a problem with men being angry in a cordoned-off space that they created for being angry in. If we cannot get self-identified MRAs to sympathetic to young men's frustration, how can we possibly hope to persuade society as a whole to have sympathy for men?

                    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                    [removed]

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 44 points45 points  (3 children)

                    There's a difference, but it's in terms of degree, not criteria.

                    That is, I'm not that feminine, but that means I need a very masculine foil to bounce my identity off of in order to feel female. And I like feeling female. The guy I'm with is gigantic and hairy and demanding and when he flirts with me he's much more hard core than when he's flirting with other women. My biggest problem in relationships with men as been this kind of process by osmosis of me becoming the dominant partner, which I'm not interested in if I'm with a guy. I'm not happy if I can order a guy around, or make him dance to my tune.

                    When I'm with women, it's the exact opposite--I want to be the nominal head of the relationship, even if she's topping from the bottom. Of course, being topped from the bottom requires more mind-reading, so it's a lot of work and I've always preferred something more straightforward.

                    [–]TRP VanguardWhisper 16 points17 points  (2 children)

                    Just about every bisexual woman I know is submissive with men, but less so with other women. It's almost as if there were two distinct psychosocial "endpoints" built into human mating, and bisexuals get both sets of behavioural code.

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 19 points20 points  (1 child)

                    In BDSM they're called "switches". (I only really know anything about the terminology from my time in the erotica community)

                    But yeah, I seem to have some strong masculine impulses and instincts, particularly in my responses to crises or threats. But at the same time, I do like feeling like the man I'm with wears bigger pants than I do.

                    [–]The_BeardedGentleman 21 points22 points  (12 children)

                    Hey Karen,

                    Given your pretty deep understanding for the way things work, and more importantly the distinction between the way boys work/learn and the way girls work/learn, do you think any of us should bother using the current education system (atleast pre-highschool) for our sons? Or do you think homeschooling is the ultimate way to go, via either ourselves or perhaps a RPW that we know or are married to.

                    What about daughters, the school system seems to favor them a bit, but does it really do them any good either?

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 51 points52 points  (11 children)

                    I'd never have chosen to homeschool myself, though I can concede it might be the best solution for some. I chose to put my kids in public school because... well, I guess in some ways because school sucks, but suffering builds character.

                    On the other hand, once they were home, they had a LOT of unstructured time. It's a travesty how micromanaged kids are these days. They also had a lot of unsupervised time once they were school age, and I declined to intervene in their arguments with each other unless absolutely necessary, because I knew how regimented conflict resolution was at school. Any difficulty one child had with another, there was an adult mediator there telling them what to say and do, rather than letting them figure it out for themselves.

                    And I spent a lot of time letting them know what was propaganda and what wasn't--and they started coming home with a lot of it, even as early as grade 2.

                    As much as the school system sucks, it's a primer for the rest of society--you have to learn when to keep your mouth shut, how to recognize when someone is bullshitting you, when to go along with the bullshit versus calling it out, etc. School is boring and soulkilling, but so is half the shit I do every day, and most of the rest of us. The majority of kids aren't going to graduate from high school and enter their exciting fulfilling dream jobs--they'll be doing a lot of crappy, repetitive shit and having to smile and agree while they do it.

                    I suppose it's a matter of compensating at home for what the school system is doing--providing some balance. I remember as a kid loving my freedom to ride my bike, catch frogs, roam, climb trees, play neighborhood-wide games of hide and seek until the streetlights came on. I appreciated the freedom because I was cooped up in school a lot of the time. And my parents were very good about not regimenting my time, other than a few key responsibilities, outside of school. Kids need to learn how to manage on their own sometimes, without supervision or a schedule, they need to explore how to negotiate their relationship with the world, need to fall down, need to fuck up sometimes.

                    If you want to homeschool so you can embrace this idea that kids learn best (barring anything life-threatening or catastrophic) from natural consequences, that they need room to explore and space to fuck up and learn to solve their own problems... well, that's cool. But I get the idea sometimes that a lot of homeschoolers want to insulate their kids from the world, rather than immersing them in it while providing an accepting space and explaining why some of that world is bullshit.

                    [–]NiceTryDisaster 9 points10 points  (2 children)

                    you have to learn when to keep your mouth shut, how to recognize when someone is bullshitting you, when to go along with the bullshit versus calling it out, etc

                    This. I need to work on this. I've always get into unnecessary headache-inducing arguements explaining my red pill perspective on things.

                    [–]Bortasz[🍰] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

                    So on principal you do not have anything against homeschooling?
                    It have pros and cons, and you must remember and adjust for them. Yes?

                    [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

                    I don't have anything against homeschooling in principle, as long as it's not coming from a place of protecting or insulating a kid from the wider world. You still have to prepare your kids for the adult world and encourage them to be independent.

                    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]Ojisan1 18 points19 points  (5 children)

                      Karen,

                      Lately your channel has mostly been short plugs for HBB. I sincerely miss the videos of just you addressing issues, with your own unique and valuable perspective, and personally I find HBB to be too many voices all at once, not all of which are as insightful as you.

                      Understanding that you have a lot on your plate, do you plan to get back to a regular series of solo videos at some point, and do you have an idea of when that might be?

                      Thanks for all you do!

                      [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 15 points16 points  (3 children)

                      I'm hoping to be back on a schedule soon. A video every two weeks is what I'm aiming for.

                      I've done three fairly lengthy videos in the last 6 weeks, so hopefully "when" is essentially now (that is, hopefully I'm back on track). I totally get that it might seem like less than it is, given how many promos I upload for HBR (at least 3 a week), but I look at that as useful in the long run. I have the largest channel of all the HBs, and it's about bums on seats at the end of the day.

                      The other HBs do a lot of good work (the operative word being "work"). I'm what my mom always called "brilliant but lazy". So lazy, my bf says my totem animal is the sloth. I'm not actually lazy, but I've always had a hard time forcing things. Kind of an "I'm very busy on a cellular level" thing--what I do isn't just about doing, but about working things out in my head, yada yada. And part of that talent means I can't organize a trip to the toilet if there's more than one person involved. It's hard to explain.

                      But yes, I think I'm back in my groove and will be uploading new content every other week or so.

                      [–]TheRedArcher 17 points18 points  (1 child)

                      Hello Karen!

                      First of all, thanks for dropping by. I want to ask you, do you believe society itself would change for the better (for a sustainable period of time) if the majority of men took on a redpill perspective? Or do you view this movements philosophy as just a (temporary) reaction to the current state of gender relations?

                      [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

                      I don't think it's temporary, nor do I think it's permanent.

                      That is, I think there will always be a red pill perspective. It will gorw and swell and effect things a bit, and then things will become livable to most people and it will wane (but not disappear), and then things will creep back and we'll see a resurgence.

                      Either that or society goes into the shitter, everything collapses, women start appreciating men again, and it all starts from the very beginning.

                      [–]slimcoat 14 points15 points  (3 children)

                      Thank you for all your hard work uncovering the facts and presenting them so clearly. I think I can speak for everybody here when I say we all appreciate it very much, as well as your taking the time to drop in.

                      What do you think men can do on a local level to turn the tide of militant feminism on the rise in the West? The Red Pill view is to "enjoy the decline" and take full advantage of it; do you see that as a help or a hindrance?

                      [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 18 points19 points  (2 children)

                      I see the "enjoy the decline" thing as helpful as long as it's visible. That is, as long as people become aware of it, and the reasons for it.

                      If you guys were just some ragtag group of hillbillies in the mountains, away from everyone, you wouldn't have any impact at all. If you rebelled without disseminating a message, you'd be a hindrance. But doing what you're doing, you're helping, even if you're just presenting a Malcolm X for MRAs to juxtapose against MLK.

                      [–]HalfysReddit 14 points15 points  (7 children)

                      Hey Karen,

                      I was wondering what your biggest criticism of TRP is? I doubt I'm alone in thinking that this community has flaws, and you seem to have a knack for making observations with an open mind and little bias.

                      Also as a side note, I really appreciate the work that you do. I have to imagine it's challenging for you. Just know that future generations of boys will likely have benefited from your contributions.

                      [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 17 points18 points  (6 children)

                      My biggest criticism is the vulgarity of the angry rhetoric that pops up here. And honestly, I don't have a problem with it--it's more a "what will other people think?" kind of thing. And I know it's something that is sort of a necessary venting process for a lot of guys, so I don't know that there's anything to be done about it.

                      But that's probably the one thing that turns other people off.

                      [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                      Controlling language will be the death of the red pill. The only faster death is giving a fuck what others think of this place.

                      [–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 19 points20 points  (1 child)

                      While I understand your point, my response to this is always: why should women or feminists be able to define how we as men talk about male issues? Have you ever been in a male locker room? The way men talk amongst themselves is usually very raw and vulgar. It's how we communicate, how we connect. TRP is basically male locker room talk, and that's as it should be. We shouldn't have to tone it down for women. They can choose to go (e.g. RedPillWomen).

                      I really don't think men should be telling women how to be women, and neither should women be defining how men should be men.

                      [–]ModAerobus 32 points33 points  (30 children)

                      Given that Hilary Clinton is running in 2016, would you vote for a woman president?

                      [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 76 points77 points  (2 children)

                      I would vote for a woman president (or prime minister, rather) if I agreed with her policies and thought she had the mettle needed to do the job. Given my interest in gender issues, and women's higher tendency toward own-group preference, I might subject a female candidate to more scrutiny than a male one on issues of sex/feminism, but all in all, I wouldn't NOT vote for a woman because of her sex, any more than I'd vote for a woman because of her sex.

                      [–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (20 children)

                      Rand Paul. Watch some of his recent videos. One of most impressive politicians I've seen in years. He speaks even better than obama did 9 years ago.

                      [–]thefisherman1961 42 points43 points  (11 children)

                      I think Rand has a very good shot at winning - much better than his old man did. The problem with his old man was that he bluntly told the truth 100% of the time with no filter, and if there's anything this sub proves, it's that most people despise hearing the truth and will do whatever they can to suppress it. Rand is more of a politician - he plays the game, he disguises the libertarian beliefs to appeal to the neo-conservative Fox News type Republicans, who were his dad's enemies.

                      Fortunately, unlike his Dad, Rand would have the luxury of Fox News backing him. Despite that, the left-wing media is really going to kick into full force putting the spin on his positions. For example, they will focus on the fact that he claims to be against gay marriage while ignoring the fact that he doesn't think the federal government should be involved in marriage period, and should be left up to the states. So his opinion on gay marriage is effectively irrelevant if he's running for President. So watch out for that nonsense.

                      Hillary Clinton is a joke and a woman, and Bernie Sanders won't win because he's not a Democrat. At best he will be a spoiler for whoever the Democratic nominee is. People are sick of Obama, and are sick of having a Democratic president. Americans are sick of neo-conservative Republicans, and I can't see any Democratic nominee being strong enough to beat Rand. They'll be much more willing to elect a libertarian Republican like him who sincerely wants to undo a lot of the damage that has been done to this country over the last century. He's a chip off the old block, afterall.

                      [–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 29 points30 points  (1 child)

                      The problem with his old man was that he bluntly told the truth 100% of the time with no filter, and if there's anything this sub proves, it's that most people despise hearing the truth and will do whatever they can to suppress it.

                      It's a classic example of:

                      "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." --Oscar Wilde

                      [–]1Jaereth 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                      he plays the game, he disguises the libertarian beliefs to appeal to the neo-conservative Fox News type Republicans, who were his dad's enemies.

                      I read a spiel in politics today that was showing how Fox News is refusing to even acknowledge Paul is running. He's kept off the "leaderboard" tallies even though he has a higher percentage than the others in the primary. (who were shown)

                      [–]porkmaster 12 points13 points  (2 children)

                      I really want a Rand/Bernie presidential race. I'm more toward the Bernie side of things, but if I have to have one of the republicans in the White House, I'd pick Rand.

                      [–]RPthrowaway123 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                      Me too. Those two would actually make it an election, rather than a aristocratic mud-slinging match.

                      [–]anothercarguy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                      Did you see the article about Fox News completely ignoring him?

                      [–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 22 points23 points  (26 children)

                      What are your thoughts on the infighting amongst the different factions within the manosphere? (i.e. MR, TRP, MGTOW, etc)

                      edit: she already answered this in her recent video and basically thinks the divisiveness is dumb


                      My take on it is that being a member of the PUA, MRM, and MGTOW communities inherently makes one "red pill" to begin with, so MRAs being butthurt over your defense of us is ironic as IMO they're already one of us, whether they agree with us or not. Case in point, Paul Elam of AVFM has been using the red pill terminology for years now, same as the more notable MGTOWs such as Sandman and Barbarrrossaaa.

                      In essence, anyone who rejects the status quo and/or sees the flaws in the system in how it treats men has taken the red pill in one form or another. This can result in those who want to fix the system (eg MRAs) and those who want to wash their hands of it (eg MGTOWs), and then there are those who wish to operate within said system and use it to their benefit (eg. PUAs capitalizing on hookup culture).

                      The community of /r/theredpill is effectively an amalgam of all the different facets of those who've taken the red pill, so to speak.

                      [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 49 points50 points  (4 children)

                      The problem with the MRM largely lies in wanting mainstream attention. In order to gain that, at least in a politically useful way, one has to make one's message palatable to a large and diverse audience. You need to water it down.

                      Used to be, on r/mr, that 99% of the concern trolls were actually feminists. Now, they're mostly supporters, who want to be palatable to the mainstream.

                      They want to be able to convince the populace to take the red pill in small, painless doses, because they know most won't swallow that massive football of a tablet in one go. It's almost like they've forgotten that when they took the red pill, it was more often than not in suppository form, administered with a sledgehammer. They didn't have the option of swallowing or not swallowing--they had that fucker rammed home against their protests.

                      But yeah, the message will be watered down the more the manosphere wants mainstream traction. Because it will have to be.

                      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                      [deleted]

                        [–]CptDefB 8 points9 points  (0 children)

                        TRP isn't a democracy. Nor is there much of a general interest in earning mainstream attention. We haven't done anything for the MSM attention we've received so far. We've simply done our own thing, while lurkers snipe material for their click bait articles or rage porn among their social circles.

                        Come to think of it, that's probably the best way to gain MSM attention anyway. Just as you do your own thing, and women will either get with it or get the fuck out, TRP will continue to do its own thing. Lurkers, media, concern trolls, anyone... get with it, or get the fuck out. Don't wanna leave? Our mods are good, the ban hammer is always soaked with the brain fragments of fools.

                        [–]redpillshadow 25 points26 points  (10 children)

                        There are different red pills.

                        i) seeing society for what it is (gynocentric) ii) seeing women for what they are

                        Quite a chunk of the MRM sees i) but refuses to see ii) and base their solution on "men and women are equal/ the same" which is utterly blue.

                        Quite a chunk of the PUA community knows neither i) nor ii) and are just using a strategy guide pressing buttons hoping for a correct response

                        The result can be seen both in r/mensrights and r/seduction. Both are deeply political correct and pro feminism. To modify a saying. A community not explicitly red will inevitably become blue.

                        [–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 29 points30 points  (3 children)

                        The result can be seen both in r/mensrights and r/seduction. Both are deeply political correct and pro feminism.

                        Neither community used to be. They changed because of the vitriol lobbed their way and wanted to be accepted by the mainstream. TRP rejects that and has stayed the raw "locker room" much the same way #gamergate has rejected the infiltration of SJWs and feminism.

                        "TRP is the hero the manosphere deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So SJW's will attack us with all the shaming language they can muster. Because we can take it. Because we're not their hero. We're a silent guardian, a watchful protector. The black knight." --Me, just now. Because why not.

                        [–]Endorsed ContributorGarl_Vinland 18 points19 points  (4 children)

                        I think the MRA upset over the redpill is mostly just a defense strategy. One of the most effective attacks against them is to group them in with us. How many times have they been listed right along side TRP as a hate group? MRA's have to distance themselves from TRP in order for their emotional appeals to be taken somewhat seriously.

                        [–]RPthrowaway123 11 points12 points  (0 children)

                        You're right. The sad thing is that nobody take mens' emotional appeals seriously anyways.

                        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                        [deleted]

                          [–]TRP VanguardCyralea 30 points31 points  (13 children)

                          Hi Karen, thanks for joining us.

                          I'm sure you're all too familiar with the problems plaguing MRA's and their ineffectual strategy. While TRP isn't an advocacy sub, what do you feel men could do to right things out in society? Do you believe there is anything men can do, or does it first necessitate shaping female (and BluePill male) sentiment?

                          [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 77 points78 points  (11 children)

                          Definitely women need to be convinced that it's in their interest to stop shitting on men. It's no shock that often the first women to wake up and say "WTF?" are women with sons who've been hurt by the status quo--sometimes a status quo that these women fought to bring about.

                          For a while, I really railed against framing things that way. You know, framing it such that "depriving fathers of access to their kids harms the kids" or "depriving men of an education means women can't find partners they want". Basically, the strategies that seem to work best are the ones that come right out and say, "society, you're treating your appliances poorly, and they're going to stop functioning the way you want."

                          But that's kind of the only way to really get and keep people's attention.

                          As such, PUA and MGTOW apply a lot of pressure on the status quo. Neither is really giving women what they want/need when they want/need it. They're either refusing to play, or "cheating" (read, playing fair rather than giving women a headstart).

                          Blue pill males will either wake up or they won't. It's like a devoutly religious person who believes in prayer over medicine. If his kid dies, he'll either completely reject god, or he'll be even more invested in god. So essentially, when a blue pill male gets burned, he will either wake up (and wake up hard), or more likely, he'll force himself into an even more profound coma.

                          Good thing for us is we only really need about 10% of the population to be behind us in order to start shifting the Overton window.

                          [–]TRP VanguardCyralea 16 points17 points  (6 children)

                          Do you foresee a shift even further entrenching the status quo? Something akin to the Japanese herbivore culture, where men become even more effeminized and are willing to simply exist without female interaction. Possibly with the addition of ending up heavily subsidizing single motherhood.

                          [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 27 points28 points  (2 children)

                          If that occurs, it will be a self-regulating thing.

                          When it comes to natural selection, it's not about survival of the fittest, but survival of copies of genes.

                          Nikola Tesla was brilliant and gave so much to humanity, but he didn't pass on his genes. Neither will the herbivores. Or the hardcore MGTOWs.

                          The future belongs to the children of the people who had children.

                          [–]redpillshadow 5 points6 points  (2 children)

                          Not the way MGTOW will go. More likely a strong push for surrogates, single fatherhood and high investment in artificial wombs.

                          The philosophy behind MGTOW is different to the herbivore just give up on yourself mentality. The whole save money for yourself part of MGTOW - at some point they will spend that money on themselves.

                          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                          [deleted]

                            [–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                            Good thing for us is we only really need about 10% of the population to be behind us in order to start shifting the Overton window.

                            THAT'S the 10% rule I was looking for. Thank you! I couldn't remember what it's called.

                            For those who aren't familiar, the short short version is that you only need about 10% of society to embrace a new/radical idea for it to become mainstream and adopted by the majority.

                            http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/580/what-is-the-overton-window

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

                            [–]QQ_L2P 10 points11 points  (4 children)

                            Yo, Karen. Welcome.

                            With your recent post I've seen comments in this sub about how guys had a light bulb appear above your head after reading your work.

                            My questions are:

                            1) Why do you do what you do? What makes you want to write articles and make videos about this topic? 2) Why do you think you have a seemingly rare stance on the matter?

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 14 points15 points  (3 children)

                            I want to write and talk about the topic because I find it very interesting, and because it affects everyone close to me in one way or another.

                            If you look at evolution and natural selection, everything we are is the product of who had sex and who didn't. Feeling thirsty when we need water is only a thing because individuals who felt that drank water and were able to reproduce and pass on the trait.

                            We're a sexually reproductive species, so nearly everything we're programmed to do is down to sex. And men and women are different. They have different levels of caloric investment in offspring, and different strategies that will depend on a variety of surrounding cultural and environmental stimuli.

                            In other words, life is sex, and sex is men and women, and that's interesting.

                            As for your second question, I'm not sure. I know I have a slightly masculinized brain (finger lengths and so on), and I'm bisexual, and hyperlexic and sort of kind of aspie in some ways. I was never a typical girl, even when very young. I played with legos as a kid, and my parents got me a $120 lego set for Christmas in 1977 (that's a billion in adjusted dollars). I never belonged to a clique. I just kind of did my own thing. I have very few close relationships I value, and the rest of the world is just kind of there.

                            So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not normal?

                            [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                            [deleted]

                            [–]-wabi-sabi- 12 points13 points  (2 children)

                            Her bf here. She's not a unicorn. She's like most women except more talkative and lazier at picking up around the house. But good company. She's more self aware so she can filter a lot of stuff but all the same drives are still there, if that makes sense.

                            [–]redpillshadow 16 points17 points  (10 children)

                            In a recent thread on theredpill a poster listed some ideas what MRAs could learn from GamerGate and why MRAs are continuing to use the wrong tactics

                            r/TheRedPill/comments/37avbg/what_mras_could_and_should_learn_from_gamergate/

                            MRA's are under the false assumption that society gives a fuck about men in general and their suffering. Due to In group bias, human beings are emotionally numb to the suffering of males, and hypersensitive to the suffering to that of females.

                            ...

                            So with this in mind, MRA's make the mistake of trying to make emotional (ego) driven arguments to try and get society to help deal with their problems and issues. This is like trying to emotionally appeal to a sociopath, who is physically unable to care.

                            MRAs are using emotional arguments with the idea in mind that the sexes should be equal "MRAs are saying to politicians, feminists, etc: "What you're doing is hurting us, and we want you to stop," and to the public at large they're saying "We do care what you think of men, it's wrong and it's hurting us."" As a MRA put it in the thread.

                            To which OP replied

                            THEY! DO! NOT! CARE!

                            THEY! ARE! BIOLOGICALLY! UNABLE! TO! CARE!

                            THEY! WILL! NEVER! CARE!

                            THIS! TACTIC! WILL! NEVER! EVER! WORK!


                            Do you agree? Are MRAs using the wrong tactics and are the refusing to learn from their mistakes/ losses?

                            [–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 21 points22 points  (9 children)

                            IMO the only way MRAs will achieve their goals is when enough women join their ranks. When men complain about the status quo disadvantaging other men they're seen as whiners, but when women complain about the same things they're listened to because of the group bias mentioned above and because of their political might.

                            It may also help to couch the arguments as women's concern for their boys rather than adult men because then they can corner politicians with "think of the children". Yes we're stealing political tactics from the traditional left, but if the tactics work then who cares. Besides, as I've stated before, we are the new liberals.

                            [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (2 children)

                            Have you had anyone actually tried to follow through with a threat at you? Physically that is. I know they have harassed you electronically.

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

                            No, and in reality, none of the threats I've received have been remotely credible. I don't bother to conceal my contact info, so anyone could call me and say all kinds of fucked up shit. But no, the only stuff people have done that have actually upset me was the fake DMCA claims that almost toasted my channel, and all it took was the threat of a lawsuit and a reminder that filing a false DMCA is actually perjury to get them to back off.

                            I'm not worried at all.

                            [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                            I appreciate the reply and the work that you do. it is important.

                            [–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 6 points7 points  (2 children)

                            Welcome Karen, and thank you for the AMA.

                            I understand that you've had many speaking engagements at educational institutions and the like. What kinds of biases (if any) have you encountered/detected when receiving an invitation to speak?

                            For examples, have you ever been pressured to modify the content of your talk to make it more palatable to the anticipated audience?

                            Lastly, when you do give speaking engagements, is there typically a clear majority in the sex of your audience?

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                            I've never been asked to tone things down. In fact, when I spoke at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, I suggested about 5 different titles for my talk, and they picked the most controversial one.

                            When I do speak for an audience, whether it's a men's issues audience or a more broad political audience, it's mostly men in the audience. One thing I've noticed too is that in cases where the audience isn't red pill or interested in gender issues, it's the men who kind of perk up and get all curious and enthusiastic and ask lots of good questions, and the women who get all annoyed.

                            [–]Code_Bordeauxx 7 points8 points  (2 children)

                            Hi Karen! Tnx for doing this AMA! My question to you:

                            You appear to support the MRA in their efforts while also recognising that the ball is now mainly in the women's court for changing the current problems in society. Unfortunately the men aren't very succesful in their pursuits; people are not willing to listen to us. Undoubtedly this is also partly where your succes stems from. In your view, how can we, the men facing these injustices- better make our voices heard? What can we do to really stand a fighting chance in all of this?

                            Thanks in advance!

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

                            As horrible as it is, I think the negative effects on women and children of neglecting and marginalizing men are what will get people's attention.

                            In that sense, MGTOW and PUA form a vise, squeezing from both sides. People don't like PUAs because they "take advantage of women without giving women what they want". People don't like MGTOW because they "ignore women without giving women what they want." Best thing you can do there is make sure people know why these groups of men are doing what they're doing--the system is rigged, so some opt not to play, and others have decided to play the system and "cheat" women out of sex without giving them what sex has historically gotten for them.

                            You essentially let people know these guys aren't going away--they're only going to increase in number until the system is repaired.

                            Children are also coming out of the woodwork now as teens and adults, speaking out against family courts that unjustly deprived them of fathers. The internet has no gatekeepers, so it's very easy now for a 16 year old to do that. Best thing you can do is share those testimonials far and wide.

                            If I had my druthers, there would be men filing sexual misconduct complaints against women willy nilly in universities, too, but I doubt that's going to happen. 43% of college aged men have been sexually assaulted according to the criteria that are applied to women victims.

                            Things won't change until the impact on women and children is felt, and properly attributed.

                            [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                            Hi Karen.

                            Since most people live inside political/search bubbles and do not seek to challenge their own views what do you feel are things that "TRP" (I'll leave you to interpret what exactly that is) often overlooks or fails to notice?

                            [–]BrenzoG 7 points8 points  (1 child)

                            Hey Karen.

                            I thought I would just say, I think you're an intellectual power house, who hits people herder than a freight train, with logic and rational opinions.

                            So thanks I guess. For fighting the good fight.

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                            :)

                            [–]DarthSunshine 13 points14 points  (7 children)

                            Hello!

                            I know this question may have been asked dozens of times, but whatever.

                            As someone who doesn't live in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia or any other country where men's rights is a big issue, how can I help? I'm from Hong Kong, and it seems like there's not much that I can do.

                            Thanks!

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 22 points23 points  (3 children)

                            I'm not familiar with the situation in Hong Kong, though I'd guess there are going to be issues there. Wherever you are in the world, there are going to be problems particular to men.

                            That's a tough one, for me, as networking and organizing are probably my biggest weaknesses. You might put out a call on /r/MensRights or here on TRP to see if there are any other likeminded people in your area, then arrange a meet-up.

                            Men's Rights Edmonton started as one guy with a website. Might have been a year after starting his site, he happened to hear that I lived in Edmonton, so messaged me asking if we could meet for lunch, and from there we just kind of grew. Poster campaigns helped, and one of them even got us on national news media, which resulted in more exposure and more people contacting us, some of them who are actively involved in other, single-issue groups, such as child support and custody reform, or parental alienation, or libertarian (small government) politics, etc. Publicity stunts such as our founder running for city council on the "Patriarchy Party" ticket also got us some exposure.

                            We're still a small group, but we have a fairly large number of contacts in other groups now, and we sometimes coordinate our efforts. But the first step to getting things off the ground seems to be connecting with a few other people who are willing to put in some time and energy.

                            [–]RPthrowaway123 11 points12 points  (1 child)

                            Unfortunately, meetups are strongly discouraged here because of the risk of doxxing :(

                            [–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 15 points16 points  (0 children)

                            Under no circumstances in your journey should you admit knowledge or association to this sub.

                            [–]my_redpill_account 5 points6 points  (2 children)

                            I'm not sure on your past (or current status) but what do you look for in a guy?

                            Has being involved with everything you do affected your outlook on potential partners?

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

                            Sexual dominance is big. Outside the bedroom, I like a partnership with shifting leadership, even if it's more often him than me. That is, if I'm the one with competence in something, I'm not going to accept someone with less competence calling all the shots. In areas where we're equal or he has more competence, I'm happy to hand the reins to him, and I want him to be willing to pick them up.

                            I like to feel necessary, and to feel my partner is necessary, in the sense that we make each other's lives better. A sense of humor is important--and not a gentle one.

                            My current guy says things to me that, if removed from context (facial expression and tone) people would call abuse. But it just makes me laugh. I say things back that would probably also be considered abuse (I threaten to stab him in his sleep quite regularly), but it's all playful.

                            And he has to have a sense of humor about himself, too. I recall one time when he was sick, he was really playing it up and milking it. He says to me, "Karen, if I don't make it, if I don't live through the night... promise me you'll erect a monument in my honor..."

                            I said, "oh, yeah, of course. And I'll give SUCH a eulogy. 'I don't know where he is today, what realm he's entered, or whether he's really in a better place than this earthly plane of suffering and strife, but there is one thing I do know. At least he's not whining...'"

                            He laughed so hard.

                            Real partnership (a shared vision), playfulness, affection, lust, solidness, being able to depend on each other, supporting each other's goals, acceptance of each other's flaws, all of that. And being able to talk honestly and frankly when there's a conflict--that's a big one.

                            [–]Endorsed ContributorTDCRedPill 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                            Karen, you're adored for all you do. We need you.

                            Would you mind talking about the Penny Arcade PAX 'no boothbabe' policy for a bit? I feel that it has been misconstrued, that it's a recent development caused by and in line with sex negative SJW pushes. I think that would make perfect sense to assume based on our current culture, but it is inaccurate because the culture and reasons for the ban made, what, 6 years ago?

                            Gamers have had to always fight against the same stereotypes we're urrently fighting against, the loser neckbeard virgin slobbering-over-exposed-skin man children. We've been fighting against it because it has been inaccurate for at least a full generation. Nonetheless, two facts are unavoidable: Sex sells, and sexual arousal increases anxiety in crowds. Marketing folks still considered many of us to fit the stereotype, so the level of shameless pandering overshadowed the actual products. Gamers wanted conventions where people came together for the games, not for tits under the pretense of games. We felt insulted that every company that did this thought we'll give money because tits, making everyone who thought us that stereotype right. As for kids, yeah, some will parent properly and go or not based on what's best for the kid, by their own standards. But I dont recall ever hearing a 'think of the children!' cry in regards to the PAX ban.

                            Penny Arcade's booth babe ban didn't have anything to do with a sex negative agenda. It was a market decision saying that there was a need for a convention where it's the games and gamers that matter, for the adults who found themselves offended at the pandering, or find the environment less welcoming. The market wanted a con that felt a gathering of friends in a favorite basement, not a business meeting at a strip club.

                            I worry that the views I've heard expressed about the booth babe ban don't accurate represent the ban, it's purpose, or it's history. You may want to give it a deeper look and I'd be happy to try and help.

                            [–]trpentine_ 10 points11 points  (6 children)

                            First of all, I'd like to say thank you for being a voice for those of us who cannot speak up.

                            My question is a personal one- I'm 21 and at a crossroads in life. I won't ask you for the answer of what to do, but what I'd like to know is for someone who has done and achieved so much, where were you in life at 21? And is there any advice you would offer yourself, or that you could offer me about- well, growing up I guess.

                            [–]Endorsed ContributorGarl_Vinland 9 points10 points  (1 child)

                            Do you honestly believe that society's view of male disposability can be changed?

                            Men's right's groups recognized this problem; a lack of empathy toward men and the problems they face. Their solution to this problem seems to try to elicit empathy from society. As /u/redpillschool said in a post a while ago, they've simply doubled down on their faulty world view. I don't think emotional appeals will solve anything for men, but that seems to be the path the MRM is taking.

                            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

                            [deleted]

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 30 points31 points  (2 children)

                            I got interested in this stuff when I stumbled across the Spearhead years ago. I spent a lot of time discussing and learning initially, but then had to drop it all when I moved provinces and ended up working over 50 hours a week.

                            When I met the man I'm with now (we've been together for about 5 years), he introduced me to the MR subreddit. A lot of what attracted me to him was how he talked about his daughter, whom he has no rights or access to (she's not biologically his). That was probably what got me very involved--involved enough to dive right in, start a blog, etc. It struck me as a travesty that the only two people who gave a shit in the entire situation was my bf and his daughter, and they were the only two people who had no legal say in anything.

                            I started my channel mainly because I was sick of being accused of being a man. For whatever reason, the channel took off in a way the blog didn't, and it all just snowballed. And frankly, all you really need is to get a message every week from someone saying, "it was you that made me change my mind about suicide," or "it was you that made me stop hating women," or "it was you that made me cry for the first time in 20 years," to make you feel a responsibility to continue.

                            If you're interested, I did write about my bf's situation on AVFM: http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/fathers/at-christmas/

                            [–]Endorsed ContributorScholarInRed 13 points14 points  (18 children)

                            Welcome to the sub. Please take a seat and administer the provided refreshments at your leisure.

                            What say you of the scientific assertions of this sub, such as women's hypergamous and solipsistic nature? If you aren't convinced, how does this affect your view of us as a community? Is there any particular assertion with which you take issue?

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 38 points39 points  (17 children)

                            Well, it's just past 1 PM and I'm already halfway through a bottle of wine..

                            As far as assertions of the scientific nature, re female hypergamy and solipsism, I don't take issue with them. Even if I didn't believe them, I wouldn't necessarily find them offensive. I tend to find such things more interesting than offensive, and I'll try to figure out why people believe them, rather than condemn people for believing them. The only time I'll really take someone to task for believing such things is if they're in a position of influence and they believe them despite ample evidence right in front of them to the contrary (such as Mary Koss's contention that sexual aggression is a male on female thing).

                            As such, I don't take issue with any assertion made about women in TRP. I just examine the assertion, try to figure out if there's anything to it, and go from there.

                            Hypergamy is a cross-cultural phenomenon, and there's plenty of evidence for it, and plenty of evidence that it's not some "dire flaw" in female nature, but a result of the higher biological risk/caloric investment in offspring on the part of women. There's no moral judgment that can be applied to the reality that women risk and invest more, physically, in producing offspring and keeping them fed for the first bit, so there's no moral judgment that should be applied to the idea that women might have evolved to prefer mates who can compensate for, or maximize, that investment--either practically or genetically. Hypergamy makes sense, and there's plenty of evidence for it.

                            Solipsism is a little more complicated, but it's again just a product of the conditions women evolved in. I've witnessed myself the whole "women are like monkeys--they don't let go of one branch until the other branch is in their hand". Women evolved to seek stability, and a lot of that stability was provided by men. It's likely why girls reach menarche earlier if they have no father in their home--if you have no man in your home, the best strategy is to sexually mature as quickly as possible and attach yourself to a man as a stabilizing influence. Likewise, the tendency for some women to end relationships and want to cut all ties, even if there are children involved. Much of the female experience during our past might have involved an invading tribe killing or enslaving all the men, and the women being taken as wives or concubines. The woman who could not transition to her new situation was not as likely to survive and keep her offspring alive.

                            It's just how things were. And what we are is a product of how things were.

                            If there were some evidence that refuted these assertions, I'd take a deeper look at them, but for now, with the evidence I have, they make sense. And they don't make me feel offended or anything. I don't think any of these assertions, even if they're 100% correct, mean that women are flawed, or bad people. How they are (like how men are) might not be the best fit for modernity and the completely different reality of what our lives are like now, but there's a reason why.

                            [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                            Hi, Karen!

                            I don't have a question. I just want to thank you with every fiber of my being for all that you have done -- and continue to do for us.

                            It is sad that only women's voices will be listened to, but I've accepted that that is the reality of the matter. I'm just grateful that there are strong female voices willing to speak up.

                            [–]cra1 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                            What is your information diet like? What subreddits (or elsewhere on the internet) do you read for new insights in how to explain men's nature to women and women's nature to men? (could include hate-reading)

                            [–]cxj 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                            Thank you very much for all the videos you have made. When I was arrested and jailed after being falsely accused of a domestic by my ex, who I called the cops on after she attacked me in my own house, it was fairly cataclysmic in my social circle. I lost tons of friends who refused to believe me, I was receiving death threats from genuinely intimidating dudes regularly, and I never wanted to go outside or do anything outside of work. Your videos kept me company. You made me feel less alone. You reminded me that there are people who care, powerless as they may be. Your message and the "manosphere" in general gave me an understanding of the bigger picture of intergender social dynamics to help me be at peace with what happened, and to move on with my life with new found awareness. Thank you very much, from the bottom of my heart.

                            [–]meet_me_at_high_noon 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                            Hi Karen,

                            I love your videos-they really offer a pick me up for men who are constantly bombarded as assholes or sperm donors.

                            My question for you is this- what do you think the best thing I can do as a father to my beautiful son to shield him from so much of the hate and unfairness men face in today's society? How do I explain to him the way gender roles are set up today so unfairly against men?

                            [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

                            A lot of the arguments MRS/TRP folk make about men's rights and against feminism (as we know it today) tend to be based on veracity of evolutionary psychology - which, to me is pure science and can't be argued against. However, the liberal section of the intelligentsia argue that while all that may be true, we need to override our biological impulses and collectively strive for true equality between genders. After all, overriding our biological impulses has what gotten our species so far, they say. What do you think about this argument?

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

                            Our species hasn't come this far by transcending or overriding biological impulses, but by channeling them in a pro-social direction through a system of social and legal incentives and disincentives.

                            If we removed every artificial prop for women that is forcibly extracted from men and taxpayers (child care subsidies, welfare, WIC, after school programs, food stamps, medicaid, maternity leave, women-only scholarships, child support and alimony), most women would default to a traditional role because it's her best option if she wants children. Most men would still be willing to fill in the empty spots on women's spreadsheets. Social dynamics would change dramatically--women would begin to enforce a system that socially condemns promiscuity again, to protect their rights over the man they're codependent on, etc. They'd see women in the workplace as cutting into their bottom line as wives the way many of them did in the 60s and 70s. We'd see job ads again that announce "single men need not apply", because married men are simply more productive and stable because they have to be.

                            The idea that we've somehow "changed" our nature is silly. What's changed is the environment and the incentives and disincentives in it.

                            [–]BowlOfCandy 4 points5 points  (2 children)

                            Hi Karen,

                            So I shared your response to the question "Why do Men hate Women" from purplepilldebate on my Facebook. I honestly thought that piece was very well written and a display of mature self awareness on the plight of men from a woman's perspective. I also considered it to be politically correct enough to have an open debate, but I was only met with angry attacks, rebuttals founded on an array of logical fallacies, and accused of "pushing a rhetoric that undermines and distracts from more important and valid issues".

                            My main question is, what is an effective way to communicate to women/feminists/bluepillers about the egregious disenfranchisement of men and the corresponding relegation of masculinity?

                            edit: Here is Karen's response to the question "Why do Men hate Women?" question for those who may have missed it - https://archive.is/RRo4O

                            [–]girlwriteswhat[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

                            You just have to realize that most of those responses are from a small percentage of the population (anywhere from 15-30%) who WILL NOT be convinced. There will be more moderate people watching that discussion who don't want to court the ire of those people, and are just filing everything away quietly.

                            The more vitriolic and hostile the opposition is, the more they expose themselves as bigots. If you point out the fallacies calmly but firmly, they end up looking like lunatics. You can lose the battle and still, maybe, win the war.

                            That is, when you argue with feminists, you're not arguing with feminists--you're presenting a different perspective to the silent majority.

                            load more comments (190 replies)