61
62

DISCUSSIONBeyond Red & Blue (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor

Here is my rant of the day: Blue Pill men are not the enemy.

Red Pill as a term is intended to mean that your eyes have been opened up to the truth of the world around you. It is used here to describe understanding male/female dynamics, it’s used in other groups to describe understanding politics. Using this metaphor, blue pilled people are suffering under a false understanding of the world. This is all fine as a way of understanding people’s worldview. What it is not ok to do, is to assume that a red pill person is always good and blue pill person is always bad.

We’ve discussed on occasion that many men who would not consider themselves to be red pilled still see what is going on in the world. I saw a comment today that indicated that women who are past the wall might have to settle for blue pilled men. I believe this is a wildly incorrect way of looking at non-red pill men and an incredibly dismissive way to view men in general.

My blue pilled boss:

I work for a man who was primarily raised by a single mother after his father took off. He’s economically conservative and socially liberal. He is a natural Alpha and this is obvious watching him interact with the men involved in his primary hobby. He is the leader in his family even though his wife supported them while he built his business and it’s unlikely they would be where they are if they weren’t a team. He is training me to ‘inherit’ his business when he retires but he also watches me walk to my car when we work past dark. He has never advised a male client not to marry, and I’ve seen him advise a female client to protect her assets with a prenup when the time comes.

He would be appalled at some of the things that are said on TRP. This isn’t an insult to TRP. This is the result of his values from being raised by a single mother, having a strong wife and raising a strong daughter. I think of him when I see the idea that blue pilled men are somehow lesser men and I know it’s not entirely accurate.

Unsurprisingly, there’s a reason why women here are often cautioned to stay off the male RP subs as well. The goals here are generally different from the most popular goals on TRP and askTRP. Even though MRP focuses exclusively on marriage, the community there deals with very different issues. The male subs are not moral or immoral, good or bad, but to non-RP folks (like my boss), it’s easy to see why from their perspective, many behaviors and ideas are judged through a morality lens.

So today I ask RPW to stop thinking of men in black and white (or Red and Blue) terms. There are good men out there. What we say around here about relationship dynamics and red pill beliefs does not mean that we are tied to finding only red pill aware men. There are good men and bad men. There are men who will be able to lead and men who will never want to lead.

Look for a man who you are compatible with and attracted to. If we hold too firmly to the red/blue divide it stops being a praxeology and starts being yet another way to categorize and sort people. We have enough of that these days.


[–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Moderation Note:

  • Everyone should keep this thread from the sidebar in mind.

  • Please follow the rules in mind. This thread does not violate any of the community rules. It does describe outsider mentalities, and it expands on the concept of "finding a good man."

  • Be polite and be thorough

  • Any rule violations will result in a 7 day ban. If you are unsure about your response, you may message me directly or the modmail.

Thank you.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars 31 points32 points  (5 children)

I think it's also worth noting "red pill" or "traditionalist" relationships-- however you want to call them-- are not the only successful relationships that exist.

There are men in this world that are simply unwilling or unfit to lead and there are women who are wholly incapable or resistant to following, and so they find each other and are perfectly happy, even if those of us here wouldn't wish such dynamics for ourselves.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 18 points19 points  (1 child)

There are men in this world that are simply unwilling or unfit to lead and there are women who are wholly incapable or resistant to following, and so they find each other and are perfectly happy, even if those of us here wouldn't wish such dynamics for ourselves.

YES! I have a group of friends that divides out into a variety of dynamics. One couple, I'd hold up as an example of a good female lead relationship. I think they are going to make it for the long haul and I can't imagine them being better off with a RP relationship. Just because it doesn't work for me doesn't mean that it's impossible for it to work for them.

One of the reasons I prefer "The Alpha Girls Guide to Men..." (I'm messing up the title a bit) is that it assumes a woman who is pretty "strong and independent"TM on her own and helps her figure out how to still have a happy marriage. It's similar in content to "Surrendered Wife" but the tone is a little more you go girl. It's why I believe that RP has something for everyone even if it's just a few tools from the box and not the whole box. If we drive away the curious lurkers by being too insular then we're doing them and their men a disservice!!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel SO relieved to hear that in these forums. I'm a feminist and I expected to hate this when I read it, but I actually related so much to the women here. It fits me COMPLETELY except for the main tenant... the C/FM. My fiance and I take turns being the leader. I'm a natural-born leader and he isn't. I am surprisingly submissive with him (for the first time since I was BORN), but he doesn't want me like that all of the time, nor do I. I'm not the leader... and neither is he... it just depends on the situation. I thought long and hard about it... and I think we would honestly stop loving and start resenting each other in an RP relationship, no matter how much I love these forums.

But this is the first time I've seen somebody say I can take some tools from the box but not all! Because I've learned so much from here in just a day!!!

And thank you for the book recommendation! Since we split the "alpha" title, I don't know how much it will apply to me, but I'm buying it immediately!

[–]ragnarockette4 Stars 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So true. My friend is a successful film producer who has short hair, swears like a sailor, and mostly wears jeans and Converse. She just married a guy who does community theatre and teaches opera and comes across as totally gay.

They are madly in love and can't keep their hands off each other and are excitedly talking about moving to Brooklyn and having tons of babies. They complement each other perfectly!

I think the problem comes when the woman simultaneously wants to lead and be the decision maker, while also being taken care of financially, dominated in the bedroom, and doted on like a princess. Power struggles like that do not lead to relationship harmony.

[–]est-la-lune 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yup! I think it's better (and easier) to find someone who complements with your personal dynamic than someone who is "alpha" or "beta". And though I don't encourage people (especially women) to make romantic choices based on feelings alone, "clicking" with someone and following your intuition can actually help tremendously with the more subjective aspects of dating.

[–]RubyWooToo3 Stars 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The key to following your intuition though is making sure that your "people picker" is well-calibrated, and isn't damaged from family baggage or other problems.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (7 children)

This is a really good post. :)

I agree with you. My husband and I were both raised in 'traditional' families. I know a lot of strong and healthy men who want to lead their own families someday (or are already doing so) but they aren't involved in RP (and would be totally unfamiliar if someone brought it up).

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 8 points9 points  (6 children)

Thank you!

I know a lot of strong and healthy men who want to lead their own families someday

This is why I hate seeing the "us" v "them" mentality. I think there are plenty of men out there who will be fine men and leaders and I hate to think that anyone misses out on a great guy because they think that understanding RP is a primary vetting criteria!

[–]durtykneesEndorsed Contributor 7 points8 points  (1 child)

This is why I hate seeing the "us" v "them" mentality.

I think that mentality is part of (the ugly side of) human nature. We instinctively feel upset when we can't "fit in", yet when everyone is included, that means nobody is "special".

This sub could easily devolve into a unicorn petting/gawking zoo for relationship-frustrated guys, or a virtue-signaling club for women, if not for our hardworking mods.

Since I'm no unicorn and have an extreme shortage of virtues, I'd just not bother to participate/read here if this sub stops being a useful resource for good tips for self-improvement.

Some (former?) male posters here seem to think "good tips for self-improvement" mean telling women what to do, according to their personal preferences of what they think women "should" do. I'm so thankful for the new rules about male participants because of this.

IMO, if the advice isn't beneficial for most women, or not beneficial in the context of the OP, then it's useless advice, no matter who is giving it.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think that mentality is part of (the ugly side of) human nature. We instinctively feel upset when we can't "fit in", yet when everyone is included, that means nobody is "special".

I agree that there is a natural tendency to have in and out groups. I have been particularly sensitive to how we treat the divisions lately because of how terrible the political sphere has become.

or a virtue-signaling club for women

This is what bothers me about the RP/BP divide. The best version of ourselves only comes with work; not just by accepting that RP theory is true. I'm sure there are women out there better than I am who fall into the BP side of things. In the end it's what we do with the knowledge, not how purely RP we tell each other we are. And the same is going to hold true for the men we love. I prefer the RP as a toolbox metaphor because I think that leaves more room open for people to implement in a way that works for them individually.

I'm so thankful for the new rules about male participants because of this.

Me too! There are men here who add insight that would be difficult to get if it were just women BUT having men around is always going to change the tenor of the conversation and the advice. I'm so happy that the mods are helping to clear the way so we are getting the best of what the men have to offer.

IMO, if the advice isn't beneficial for most women, or not beneficial in the context of the OP, then it's useless advice, no matter who is giving it.

Agreed :-)

[–]BewareTheOldMan 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Look for a man who you are compatible with and attracted to.

That’s outstanding bottom-line advice for both men and women. It’s one of the reasons that male-female dynamics is such a mess and couples experience problems in relationships.

In every relationship I’ve ever experienced (prior to my current LTR) the bottom-line issue was always compatibility, however, attraction was never a problem. I like what I like. I don’t blame the people I selected – after all, they were my pick. One can blame youth and inexperience only so much before you have to conduct self-introspection. It took a few bad turns for me to self-actualize the problem.

My current SO and I have the highest level of compatibility I’ve ever known and experienced, hence…the best relationship for both of us – ever.

The man described in OP’s Summary/Posting seems to be a nice combination of Alpha-Beta without overdoing either trait to a negative extreme. He’s a pretty good mix…basically this guy (as described from the Vetting Part 3 Sidebar Reading):

…a guy who has a relatively balanced mix of alpha and beta.

I never liked the TRP definitions to describe Alpha/Beta Males. The wording seems overtly negative as being one extreme or the other – an attractive, naturally confident, and capable leader can also be used to describe a Beta Male as well...saying that description only applies to Alpha Men is a bit myopic. Beta Males are not just lowly providers and pathetic, slovenly, and unattractive losers. There are varying degrees to both archetypes.

Over the years in my career field I worked with hardcore, hard-charging, and very masculine men, but I would never describe any of these men as complete Alphas or Betas. They were mostly an acceptable and practical combination of both traits, which benefitted not only their families but society as well.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I never liked the TRP definitions to describe Alpha/Beta Males. The wording seems overtly negative as being one extreme or the other – an attractive, naturally confident, and capable leader can also be used to describe a Beta Male as well...saying that description only applies to Alpha Men is a bit myopic. Beta Males are not just lowly providers and pathetic, slovenly, and unattractive losers. There are varying degrees to both archetypes.

I agree with you on this. The idea of Alpha/Beta as it is typically used around here, is too simplistic IMO. I consider it in the same boat as the Myers Briggs - it can be a fun concept to play with and gives you an idea of some general characteristics of the person but it's not science and we're not wolves. The way the sidebar discusses having a mix of traits seems much more accurate but I don't feel like it's discussed in that way a good deal of the time.

The reason I called my boss a natural Alpha is because I can see where he is in the dominance hierarchy. Men around him listen to him and he tends to be a leader. But you are correct that he's more accurately a mix of dispositions. Only once in my life have I met a man who is the pathetic, slovenly Beta that is assumed when people talk about BP men. And with him, the blue pill was the least of his issues.

Essentializing everyone down to Alpha or Beta is probably just as harmful as dividing everyone up in to RP or BP. People are just too diverse for that.

[–]sonder_one -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

That's not the TRP view. TRP describes behavior as alpha or beta, and certainly some men do more or less of one or the other, but the entire point of the sub is to teach betas to change and to warn alphas not to slip into beta-dom.

That there are no "complete alphas or betas" is exactly what TRP teaches.

[–]BewareTheOldMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I completely understand the TRP perspective on Alpha/Beta, but TRP Men are mostly outliers and not the norm. I submit most men who are not TRP-aware would think to himself: "Hey, I'm Alpha." Most men would be wrong. The overwhelming majority of men are Beta Males, with some possessing Alpha Traits. It just is...

I have really only seen a few actual Pretty Boys as described by TRP whereby women are tripping and falling over themselves to get sex from this type of "Alpha." Bad Boys, however, are everywhere - that's a bit more general prototype.

I try to be general versus thinking and applying the exception as Rule of Law.

Notably, however, when properly implemented TRP offers practical and actionable theory/advice that makes men better in relationships with women.

[–]party_dragon 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Good post. I feel like mirror advice, that there are OK, healthy, normal, non-vindictive, great women out there, should be posted in TRP sub every so often, but I think the mods out there would be much less appreciative of such posts...

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you!

I tend to agree that it's not a service to all men to convince them that all women are evil harpies. I think it's particularly unfortunate because I believe that a woman can come a long way with the guidance of a good man. And I believe that in this feminist world some men need help from other men on how to be that good guiding force in their relationships...

But TRP has their reasons even if I personally don't understand them. I'm sure u/Laceandsilks or the other mods could explain it, if they feel inclined to do so.

[–]sonder_one 0 points1 point  (1 child)

That feels like apples to oranges to me.

A non red-pill-aware man can still be very red pill in his behavior; indeed, he could be the greatest catch in the world without ever having used reddit and read the theory.

Moreover, if a woman finds herself "stuck" with a blue pill man, what are the consequences? A deferential, supplicating partner who doesn't lead or arouse her. But is he dangerous? Is he going to ruin her life? Cheat on her and leave her devastated? Divorce her and take all her money?

He's probably LESS likely to do all of these things than a red pill man is.

By contrast, according to the TRP view, when a man finds a woman who he sees as a "healthy, normal, non-vindictive, great woman" and lets his guard down with her, he is about to get burned. TRP orthodoxy says that a woman will instinctively, subconsciously ruin him if he's too beta. It's not about "good women" and "bad women." TRP says AWALT - all women will respond to a man's worthiness or unworthiness accordingly.

TRP polices itself the way it does because it believes that its readers need to not let their guard down, because doing so doesn't invite bad female behavior so much as it causes it.

Women have the advantage of being able to see what they're getting into if they choose to form a relationship with a blue pill man. It makes perfect sense that the attitude towards doing so in this subreddit would be different from the TRP attitude towards "going blue." It is actually the Red Pill men who are more dangerous (though more enjoyable, in most women's opinions) because they have 1. options and 2. less trust for women.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Moreover, if a woman finds herself "stuck" with a blue pill man, what are the consequences? A deferential, supplicating partner who doesn't lead or arouse her. But is he dangerous? Is he going to ruin her life? Cheat on her and leave her devastated? Divorce her and take all her money? He's probably LESS likely to do all of these things than a red pill man is.

Actually, I think that what is going on in the Democratic party & the media in the last couple weeks shows that BP men can be a problem for women as well. I'm of course making the assumption that feminst beliefs and talking points are an indication that a man is BP and by that definition, the Senators and media elites who are being accused of groping sleeping women or having buttons that lock women in thier office are BP men. So it's a nice theory that BP men are safer for women, but I think that lately we are seeing that bad men are bad men regardless of their beliefs in equality of the sexes.

By contrast, according to the TRP view, when a man finds a woman who he sees as a "healthy, normal, non-vindictive, great woman" and lets his guard down with her, he is about to get burned. TRP orthodoxy says that a woman will instinctively, subconsciously ruin him if he's too beta. It's not about "good women" and "bad women." TRP says AWALT - all women will respond to a man's worthiness or unworthiness accordingly.

Your use of the word "orthodoxy" is something I find concerning. Orthodoxy has a connotation of dogma which implies a belief that one is not willing to rationally discuss. All women may be like that but as a 'praxeology' red pill gives us the ability to engage in puposeful behavior. By understanding ourselves and our AWALT behaviors, we can rise above them.

[–]markdumte 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Beta is not evil or a complete loser. A lot of Beta's make good money and have a comfortable life. Comfortable being the key word here. These men tend to be comfortable, safe, dependable, a bit boring, .... You get the idea. A lot of them have enough spine to deal with the responsibility of the job because that is socially acceptable, but they don't have enough character to deal with the shit society throws to men and socially he conforms and plays it safe.

The typical loser, living in his parents basement, might abuse pot, without a job or with a minimum wage job,... that guy is usually called an omega.

Betas have their shit together. They are just safe, boring and obedient to what society expect of them.

One thing to keep in mind is these definitions should not be taken too literally. They are just generalizations of what we see in society. Men can have parts of it, can change throughout their life, etc... But if not taken literally they are useful generalization.

All that said, the point I wanted to make is that betas are not losers. They can have decent jobs and comfortable lifestyles.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Betas have their shit together. They are just safe, boring and obedient to what society expect of them.

I agree completely and it's a good point to hammer home. For some women safe, boring and socially skilled (another way of saying obedient to society's expectations) may be their highest ideal of a man. Everyone is going to have slightly different values. As long as a woman respects her man, he doesn't have to be some pure alpha stud. And a man who can provide a safe home and a stable income is worthy of respect. A healthy mix of alpha and beta traits are going to go much further in producing a healthy marriage and a man who sticks around to raise his children.

[–]markdumte -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

For some women safe, boring and socially skilled (another way of saying obedient to society's expectations)

Not really. Its more about not understanding double meanings and hidden social cues and have a tendency to take everything at face value. For exemple, you know the typical guy that sometimes say things out of context but everybody accepts it and rolls with it because they know he has no malice.

But you are right that for a LTR a man needs to mix alpha and beta qualities. This is often said in TRP.

[–]Fantat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is no way my relationship is 100% red pill at all and it would be almost impossible in my experience to put most men into one of two categories.

[–]GayLubeOilTRP Senior Endorsed 2 points3 points  (25 children)

Blue Pill Men are your enemy because if they become the father of your children they will raise your children to be weak limp wristed maladapted losers. Any man who brings suffering upon your children should rightfully be deemed an enemy.

Furthermore Blue Pill man can infect you with their ideas which you could then pass onto your children.

My argument is that if you look at your broad biological interest and not just your immediate interest Blue Pill men are bad for you.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (23 children)

Perhaps it's the name but this sounds like the over the top nonsense my gay bff likes to throw into the room just to troll us all. And if you are my friend... then shut up Brian and don't make me regret telling you about reddit!

The point of my post is that there are decent men out there who would never consider themselves red pill. I'll put the man I described up against anyone on this board and I have no doubt he holds up as a high value man. Blue pill doesn't necessariily mean weak beta man (though as I said elsewhere, that is an overly simplistic way of viewing people anyway and we recommend that the best men are a healthy mix of traits). Given that most people at dating age today have been raised blue pill it is wiping out a lot of people if you stop looking at the individual and start looking only at the label. I personally believe that that is more in line with the intersectional victim labeling that is rampant today rather than anything I've learned from the red pill.

Additionally, there are women on this sub who consider themselves feminists and I'm sure they will be looking for good men who fall into the blue pill label.

Your post indicates that rather than considering men as people, we should consider you only as breeding stock.

[–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace[M] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Remove the 'duly...' part at the very end and I will re-approve your comment.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yes ma'am. I removed the snark and will not post pre-coffee anymore :-)

[–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your comment is now visible.

[–]HumanSockPuppetEndorsed Contributor 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Your post indicates that rather than considering men as people, we should consider you only as breeding stock. Duly noted.

Not quite.

What /u/GayLubeOil is saying is that, being female, you are more inclined to see this issue in terms of inclusion, because inclusion is an important value to females. You are less inclined to entertain notions of competition and exclusion.

You mustn't let your nature blind you to truths revealed by observation. That is the essential essence of The Red Pill.

[–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First of all, nothing GayLubeOil says in that post even touches on women's tendency to value inclusion.

Second, in my experience, girlwithabike is about as disagreeable (in the clinical psychology sense) as a woman can get, so I wouldn't worry about her placing inclusion ahead of all other considerations.

Third, if anyone is going to turn around the shitshow that is feminism, it's the ~10% of women that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test would classify in with "The Rationals".

To that end, their viewpoints should be considered, which requires that you acknowledge their existence in the first place. The world is awash in the type of women that TRP rails against, but they're certainly not congregating on RedPillWomen.

[–]GayLubeOilTRP Senior Endorsed 0 points1 point  (16 children)

You should consider men as breeding stock because if you don't you open up your children to the potential of a lifetime of suffering. Give your children the gift of good genes and a household free of degenerate values.

Or raise your son to be a ladyboy. But if you do that hell have a much higher chance of committing suicide. Your choice.

I'm not here to tell anyone what to do I'm here to discuss potential outcomes. This is after all your life.

[–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 2 points3 points  (14 children)

You should consider men as breeding stock

Doesn't this just perpetuate the AF/BB problem?

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace[M] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    There are updated male participation rules that every male user needs to know about and follow. From now on, men will be issued an automatic 2 day ban if they fail to follow the rules. It is cumbersome for moderators to repeat the same instruction throughout the day.

    [–]GayLubeOilTRP Senior Endorsed -1 points0 points  (11 children)

    The purpose of sex is for women to select winners. If women were attracted to depressed losers that would lead to the creation of more depressed losers. By having sex with happy confident men women create more happy confident people.

    [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (8 children)

    Why does not being RP aware = loser?

    [–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    you don't have to be a regular at TRP to be aware, i'ts just shorthand for a cluster of behaviours and qualities

    [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

    What I'm having trouble with here is the fact that I know plenty of decent men (paired off and single) who are not red pill or red pill aware. This doesn't necessarily make them the far leftist feminist allies but plenty of men today were raised and educated under feminism and have varying degrees of buy in (the same with women tbh). To accuse all of them of being weak and undateable, bad fathers or even "beta" doesn't stand to reason.

    What you all seem to be saying is that these men can't be worthy partners unless they understand RP in some way. I'm actually quite surprised that RP men would suggest that women have a blanket ban on any group of men without considering them as individuals.

    Doesn't TRP exist because BP men are waking up to the world around them? I realize that not every man at TRP was once BP but I thought quite a few had left that life behind but are therefore formerly BP men. So I'm confused why these same men would be considered unacceptable to a RPW without any additional vetting or nuance into their characters. I'm against disparaging any men without the basis of learning about them first. That was the point of my post. Vetting still applies, but there are good men who may not have woken up yet.

    [–]Rian_StoneEndorsed Contributer -1 points0 points  (4 children)

    Rp isn't an identity. It's just a grouping of behaviours and qualities.

    Tons of men don't rp, but have the same behaviours. They are called naturals.

    Some don't want dominant men. Some want co dependant, some want beta bux.

    RP at its core is a male focused strategy. You dont need one to be happy. Plenty of women sleep with chad and marry beta bux.

    Best to define what you mean by redpill aware...

    [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    Rp isn't an identity. It's just a grouping of behaviours and qualities.

    I've seen it treated on this sub by men and women as though it's an identity or an in group/out group thing. ie: If you aren't RP you are somehow lesser or other - since any person is going to have variation within their behaviors and character traits, I think it is unhelpful to act as though RP is the 'in group' when considering a possible suitor.

    Some don't want dominant men.

    I think it is more accurate to say that women want and can handle varying degrees of dominance. I have a friend who would be a wreck if her husband became even the slightest bit more dominant. He's just sufficiently dominant for their relationship to work. They have sex constantly (this has been verified several times over) so her level of attraction to him is not in question. On the other hand, I couldn't imagine being with him or following his lead. If he and I were together, it would be a constant battle for dominance and who is more clever.

    RP at its core is a male focused strategy.

    Well this is RPW so we're talking about male / female dynamics that work for women. If RP is a male focused strategy what is wrong with my advice to women to not limit their prospects to only men implementing a male sexual strategy? Ultimately the end goal here is a happy marriage with a person you are suited to.

    Best to define what you mean by redpill aware..

    You are right that this gets to the crux of it. And I probably should have been clearer in my original post. But I think that from the users on these subs the idea of what RP means varies a great deal. I didn't intend to conflate RP with Alpha which I think some commenters have done. I personally have always viewed it as as an understanding of the world. You can be aware of the dynamics between men and women (RP) or an assume that feminism's decree that we are all entirely equal is correct / more correct (BP).

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [removed]

      [–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Remove everything after the dash (-).

      Reply to me after you have edited your comment and I will re-approve it.

      [–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Remove the middle paragraph that starts "or raise..." and end "choice".

      You may rephrase the idea you are driving at in that paragraph.

      Reply to me once you have edited your content and I will review.

      This is now the second comment in the same thread I have asked you to edit. Please be more mindful of what you say and how you say it.

      Thank you.

      [–]LaceandsilksModerator | Lace[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      To say that this community or the users here 'have enemies' is to treat RPW as a collective group with a collective goal. Yes the women here have similar goals in that they all want a good man, marriage, and family, but that is not what you are describing.

      All RP subs are just individuals using a set of principles and tools to achieve goals. A man that spins plates is not an enemy, a man that is beta is not an enemy, a woman that sleeps around is not an enemy.

      Women here are looking for a good man, and how they define that will be very personal and subjective. The women here want to marry men they love and respect, which involves extensive and deliberate vetting.

      If a woman marries a BP or more passive man, she has deemed that man to be desirable and good for her and if they have a family together, that will be something she sees as good.

      There are no enemies, and that kind of thinking is destructive and counter productive.

      I am not sure if you didn't read the whole post, but the type of BP being described here is exactly the opposite of 'limp wristed'.

      No woman here is ever going to focus on the larger biological makeup of humanity or value that picture over her immediate concerns and needs. To that point, no man will either. RP is concerned the personal achievement of goals.

      As that is the basis for your argument, and that basis makes no sense for this community, please remove that portion and try making your argument again. Keep in mind this is RPW and base your case on why it might be disadvantages for a woman to trust a BP man to be her husband and father.

      Reply to this comment after you have edited your own and I will review and re-approve if appropriate.

      Thank you.

      [–]SouthernAthenaEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Very worth saying. "Red pilled" is just a level of understanding, and many people operate in the world for their entire lives completely oblivious to this knowledge. Whether that's good or bad is another question. In many cases, it's better for a woman to find a non-RP-aware man in that there's a good chance he would shy away from marriage. TRP flies in the face of the morality codes of many, many groups of people. That doesn't make it less true (why do you think those morality codes came about in the first place?), but it is certainly a barrier for entry.