TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

31
32

[–]Modredpillschool[S,M] [score hidden] stickied comment (3 children) | Copy Link

I didn’t respect her autonomy, her legal standing and personhood. As pathetic as this may sound, I saw her as my property, to be defined by my name and according to my legal standing. (She kept her name.) While this was not sexual assault, my insistence was a violation of her independence. I had inherited a subtle, yet still violent, form of toxic masculinity.

Take special notice of the fact that feminism has been on the warpath to redefine words to serve themselves. Notice the use of "violent" here, in a case that is distinctly not violent.

This is one of the most common examples of newspeak that they employ.

Want a fun game? Look for newspeak in the world around you. See how they change language to enslave you.

[–]JJ3314 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes this is one of the most vile characteristics of the left in general, but feminists in particular. The tendency to redefine the terms of discussion with newspeak that contains all sorts of faulty assumptions about how men and women relate to each other. By getting you to buy into their terms of discussion it puts you on the defensive if you express disagreement with them. You suddenly are breaking with the silent moral majority and are officially a “misogynist.”

[–]quansau1 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just sprinkle in some doublethink and you'll be fine

[–]antariusz 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Be careful, that’s a violent idea you have.

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women like being owned. I whisper into my feminist girlfriend's ear that she is my property while I'm fucking her. She goes crazy and tells me she belongs to me and I can do anything I want to her. I tell her not to worry because I'll take good care of her and she thanks me profusely.

Sometimes she gets lippy and says something like, "only in the bedroom though when we're having rough sex." Then I pull my dick out and tease her with just the tip until she apologizes and admits that I own her all the time. There's no reason shit tests can't be fun. I've noticed that if a girl really likes you she sometimes telegraphs her shit tests - like in the case I just mentioned. She's almost grinning when she says it - like she knows it's a shit test, I know it's shit test, and she knows I know it's a shit test. They want you to pass.

Also I know this sounds like a made up TRP fantasy jack off session, but what can I say, it's 100% true. I wouldn't have believed it myself two years ago.

Edit: Ok I have to relay this little anecdote. I sent this article to my gf and apologized for my toxic masculinity. Then I said "this guy's wife definitely imagines other men when they have sex." And she responded "If they have sex."

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Edit: Ok I have to relay this little anecdote. I sent this article to my gf and apologized for my toxic masculinity. Then I said "this guy's wife definitely imagines other men when they have sex." And she responded "If they have sex."

this guy's wife definitely imagines has sex with other men

[–]Bigpimpin42 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can confirm 100%. I dated a feminist with a Daddy kink and every time we fucked she would lose her shit whenever I called her my little slut or a dirty whore. She would never initiate, but she would start acting like a brat and challeng me until I'd pin her down

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 14 points15 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

At 100 IQ people don't gather their own information. Consequently if their loaded up with faulty definitions like "toxic masculinity" they will never question the terms on their own.

The language program is constructed at the 120+ range and then run unironicaly bellow 100. If you point out contradictions in the program you will be met with thought terminating cliches.

So basically life in the modern west is a poorly programmed text adventure game

[–]surely_not_a_robot_ 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Consequently if their loaded up with

*Talks about IQ

*Uses wrong 'they're'

[–]SoulRebel99 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So what if you do your own research and have an IQ around 120 or higher?

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Pretty much this. Although I don't really understand what you are saying with the mothering instinct and neoteny thing.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]donquixoteesq 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This. To be a gentleman it is implied that you have power to be an asshole but you decide to behave as a protector because of your noble morals.

[–]awakenedspirit1 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I used to think the same thing. "Progressive" ideas. Women have worked so hard to be heard. They've been "oppressed" for so long, it's time we (men) listened. Even had a "this is what a feminist looks like t-shirt" I would wear. On purpose.

My last LTR said "You're the most open to feedback of any guy I've dated". I was so proud! Right up until the cheat & ghost. Next guy? Dive bar bouncer.

Red Pill; it's delicious.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This form of exaggeration is commonplace and interesting. The intention is to manufacture special victimhood status for all women in the face of ever expanding privilege and special treatment.

In this case by redefining a negotiation strategy is "violent", the intended response is to invite retribution on the offender as if they were actually violent. "As a condition of marriage I want you to take my name" is a negotiation position. To frame this as violent is to make the negotiator into a criminal.

The same insidiousness is seen in so-called sexual assault, which has an ever-expanding definition now including "verbal assault".

See what they do there? Words are now to be grouped together with physical assault with the intention that they get the same response. Real victims of violent rape are disappointed that their experiences are grouped together with someone who got called a slut at a party.

But the victimocracy must continue: with insufficient numbers of actual victims they have to swell their aggreived membership with ever lower standards of "assault" and "violence".

Women always see themselves as victims (because it gets them special treatment), so there is an instinct to always look for sources of victimhood.

There are plenty of betas (eg the linked article) to make this approach very profitable (resources, attention, special treatment) for women. Too many (gullible) men who believe themselves to be responsible for and supporting "toxic masculinity" and "rape culture". They feel responsible for crimes they never committed - exactly as intended.

[–]MisplacedSanityP5 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

All third wave male feminists are cucks. There's nothing else to it. They've bought into the idea that any person who succeeds must have oppressed someone else, rather than the reality that the world is built up by hierarchies of competence. Does anyone doubt this thinking that it's all about whoever has the power is always at the top? If so, I implore you to question how those people got the power in the first place.

[–]TheTrenTrannyTrain 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol, it's funny AF because one of the retarded mods over at steroids was on a warpath to eliminate "toxic masculinity" from the sub. Seriously ironic given everyone on that sub takes test, aka essence of masculinity.

[–]MakoShark93 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

He was probably having an estrogen uptick.

[–]DropDeadTyrant7 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

If she won't take the last name, then I'm sure she won't let the children have it either. What's the point of having kids if they don't take your last name? In that case, they might as well not even be yours.

[–]Terdmuffin 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You hyphenate, duh. But you have to alternate the order between kids.

[–]self-medicate 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm a bit confused about the lesson here. Was the newspeak think your point?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

No, Dalrock has his own point. I was just making an observation about the usage of "violent"

[–]self-medicate 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Would you mind rephrasing his point?

It sounds like he's saying chivalry is not the answer to feminism but I feel like I'm missing something.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

He's saying that Chivalry and Feminism are one in the same: being subservient to women.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Chivalry was just an effort by the Catholic Church to get Medieval knights to moderate their behavior towards women and civilians during warfare, basically like a proto-geneva convention. I don't think any of these dudes were in danger of falling into subservience to women.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow. Yet another dude who decided to chop his balls off.

[–]Giant-__-Otter 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice post, but even then it downplays what chivalry was really about: first and foremost being a (Christian) believer. Vassalage, generosity and honour were also important. Courty love had little to do with chivalry, except in literature. Thinking of it as a European counterpart to Confucianism probably forms a more honest image of reality.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter