501
502
503

Meta[Mod] May 2015 TRP Address 110,000: Surpassing mensrights - the men who saw the problem, then doubled down on their worldview. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Modredpillschool

I've been a subscriber on /r/mensrights since before the inception of theredpill, and for a lot of guys who are plugged in, it's a real breath of fresh air. Going from a society and culture that universally demonizes men and legally and culturally places women above all- it's hard for men not to start feeling a little nuts wondering if anybody else notices the injustices. Men are given harsher sentences for the same crimes women commit (if women get sentenced at all), men have their bodies mutilated at birth by routine procedure, men risk financial slavery to women just for being on her radar, and men face prison for not paying women their dues. Life can really suck for a guy. And men's rights is an oasis where they pull back the curtain and really shed some light on these issues.

Men's rights don't always get a fair shake on TRP, and I want to be on record as defending them. There are some very important issues that must be addressed legally for men, and I will always support the fight for equality for men. Always. Interestingly, I feel that our risk to be victimized by these disparities is almost entirely proportional to our interaction with women. If you can manage to avoid women altogether, you can basically whittle that risk down to near-zero. But that's not an option for me, I really like sex. Every encounter I have with a woman exposes me to financial, emotional, physical and criminal risks- even if I commit no crimes, have only the best intentions, and do not do anything wrong. Women can lie- lie about birth control, lie about diseases, lie about rape, and lie about paternity- and as a man, I'm on the hook- not for what I've done, but for what she says. Women are wholesale liabilities.

Yet, for all the positive goals mensrights seems to have, they have one distinct flaw- one major drawback- that I believe is the reason we're about to pass their subscriber-ship number... Their approach to reality, to life, and to personal happiness... is to double down on the feminine primary viewpoint our culture has adopted.

In other words, they've glimpsed into the abyss, and didn't just reject the red pill, they took two blue pills and chased it with windshield washer fluid.

Avoiding Misogyny

One of the primary concerns of /r/mensrights is avoiding the appearance of misogyny. Although they tend to take a stand when they're publicly shamed as misogynists, because that shaming tactic is rarely used to identify real misogyny, they are scared shitless of a time when the shaming tactic sticks because there's legitimate misogyny taking place. Often members will take comfort in the fact that they're not the red pill. "Thank god," they think, "thank god we're not the red pill- that den of misogyny that femeninsts, women, and our culture at large disapprove of."

What could possibly be the advantage of wanting the approval of those within the system you are purporting to fight against? The feminine-primary conditioning is so well ingrained into these men that they see no irony in fighting against a feminine-primary establishment while doing everything in their power to appease it.

The misogyny they worry so much about is the very tool of shame and censorship that feminists have had mastered for decades. You can control what men talk about by invading their space and controlling the tone.

And when men are worried about offending women, no progress can be made. You know what the progress is for men's rights? Inherently fucking offensive to women who have abused the pussy pass their entire lives. If I threaten to steal your silver spoon, for sure that idea will be found offensive and that speech will be curtailed.

Believing in Egalitarianism

Rollo writes in great length regarding love and war. An excerpt from one of our required reading pages from the rationalmale:

We want to relax. We want to be open and honest. We want to have a safe haven in which struggle has no place, where we gain strength and rest instead of having it pulled from us. We want to stop being on guard all the time, and have a chance to simply be with someone who can understand our basic humanity without begrudging it. To stop fighting, to stop playing the game, just for a while.

We want to, so badly.

If we do, we soon are no longer able to.

For men, accepting that egalitarianism is a pipe dream means throwing away the idea of an equal partnership with women. One in which he can finally relax and be accepted for who he is.

If feminism is the idea that women not only have the right, but responsibility to shed traditional gender roles, then the juicy, enticing corollary to that is that men should also have the right to shed their roles as well. Who wouldn't want to find comfort in the unconditional love of a woman. Not for your ability to provide or protect, but for being special little you(tm).

It's a fantastically seductive idea that throws aside the nagging reality that all men are taught from birth: you are not a man, you were not born a man, your only value to become a man is in what you can build, provide, or do. And past benefit does not provide future value. You must always be useful, or you are otherwise not.

It doesn't matter if you were president. You keep on going.

But we don't expect that from women. In fact, we don't even think of that for women.

So this egalitarian pipe dream lures men into thinking that maybe a forward-thinking woman would be just like a man: in love with who he is, not what he can do. And he'll quickly find himself sad and alone with such a blue pill dream.

Defining Equality and Dismissing Sexist Inequalities

One of the most devious ways feminists have controlled the men's rights narrative is the call for equality and against sexism. Similar to the accusation of misogyny, the call against sexism paints a very narrow path one must walk to remain righteous in the eyes of those who value equal rights. The very idea behind the argument itself is framed entirely on feminists' terms. In order not to be evil and against equal rights, you must avoid any and all sexism as defined by feminism!

Men, wanting to prove that you can indeed push for men's rights without being evil, adopted this frame and took the torch from there. Their hope: to remain blameless and righteous in the battle for equal rights.

But they didn't start on equal footing, because to accept the feminists' version of equality, you must deny biological realities and accept that men and women are exactly the same. There's no way to make a point that doesn't come to the feminist conclusion when you're using their premises to begin with.

Believing that men and women are the same is the only way to stay on the narrow path of equality, but ignores inherent truths: women can give birth, men cannot. Men are as a group stronger and larger than women. Women have different learning methods than men, and women and men tend to have differing preferences in almost every part of life.

When we deny that any of these ideas can even have a place in the conversation, it's no wonder that nothing of value can be discussed or reached. When feminists frame the entire debate, we find the conclusions can only support the feminist view point.

Why does any of this matter?

Ultimately, the reason it matters is because feminism is a sexual strategy. And although most people don't want to see it this way, there's no denying this reality. Feminism seeks to maximize the collective bargaining power of women, maximize their options and opportunities, and ultimately this comes at the cost of the freedom of men.

Women can unilaterally make the decision to have kids, they can get government assistance, they can force men to pay, they have the force of law behind them, they can imprison men they do not find sexually appealing with false accusations, they can trick men into fatherhood, they can abort if they see fit, and they can commit crimes and violence against men with little to no consequence. These are the outcomes of feminism. There is no way to view it that does not render this a sexual strategy, and a damn good one at that.

So when men mistakenly believe they are stepping outside of this culture and fighting it by joining the cause of men's rights, it might surprise them to find that men's rights is just another branch of feminism, the narrative, speech, and conclusions all controlled by the feminine-primary culture we live in.

And if this is another branch of feminism, a sexual strategy at the cost of men, then there will be no peace or happiness found within its borders.

And there isn't.

So men come here.


A Quick Note on The Direction of the Sub

Some of you may have noticed over the past few weeks we re-enabled posting links. I want to take just a minute to discuss the direction of the content on the sub and the reasoning behind this decision.

I have enjoyed a lot of the content here lately, there's some very good stuff to read, and always new insights daily.

That said, I would like to see more focus on theory, concepts, and ideas, and less on short uninformative anecdotes. While anecdotes are the core of our system of sharing ideas, I would encourage members to save up your stories and anecdotes, and make a post when you've arrived at a cogent conclusion, perhaps including the data of multiple experiences at once as a basis for the conclusions you've drawn.

While it's nice to see confirmation that yes, a woman was friendlier after you insulted her, that's basically seddit 101 stuff, and you're going to need some higher quality analysis than that.

Additionally, I've seen a lot of platitude advice recently and we're going to be removing it on sight. I don't care if we don't have a single new post for 24 hours, I don't want to see any more content that says "Do it for you..."

If you want to post advice, consider if it's already in the side bar, and then consider instead of posting advice, posting your theory and data backing up the theory that made you arrive to the behavior you're using. I don't like imperatives, and it starts looking like a fucking self-help section at the book store when there are posts called "Do XYZ every day."

Direct links have been re-enabled, please make sure to pay attention to our list of blocked domains (including reddit itself). If you see something on a mansophere blog, please do link to it, but include a quote or point the article makes to give us an introduction. Your own analysis is always welcome.

Here's to 110,000 just around the corner! Cheers!


[–]TheRationalMale.comRollo-Tomassi 44 points45 points  (5 children)

I wrote this for Game Works:

Doing Something

What is the manosphere actually ‘doing’?

This is the first critique I expect from from a poor debate opponent – disqualifying the strength or validity of a premise by the ‘success’ or lack thereof of a proponent’s efforts to enact or convince others of that premise.

By this logic, one could make the case that the MRM is an utter failure, but it still doesn’t mean they aren’t correct in their efforts.

As I mentioned on the Christian McQueen Show, I’m of a bottom up, or an inside – out mind when it comes to enacting red pill ‘change. The manosphere is raising awareness and this needs time (maybe even a generation) to mature into personal consciousness and then popular consciousness.

It’s difficult to quantify the ‘results’ of the manosphere, red pill awareness and Game because its effects are individually subjective at this stage. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t receive an email, a forum/blog comment or a tweet about how my book or what I’ve written on the blog has changed (or literally saved) a man’s life.

That’s not meant to gloss myself, but rather to illustrate a point – the red pill (and Game) is doing something, it’s changing minds and lives. It’s not rallying men in the streets and waving banners, nor is it effecting legal or social policy (yet), but it’s making men aware of their condition and changing their beliefs.

No hate for what the MRM is doing, I recognize the intent and applaud it, but thus far it’s been impotent in effecting “real change in policy”, while red pill awareness has done more for men individually. For all of the MRM’s efforts to enact public change, all it takes is one White Knight in a position of authority to say “GTFO you misogynist creeps!” Now imagine in the future a man who’s red pill aware in a position to effect that policy.

Real change isn’t going to happen directly it’s going to happen indirectly, on a man by man basis. And not just publicly but personally.

That change will happen in men’s relationships with their wives, daughters and sons. That change may simply be a form of ‘civil disobedience’ in not marrying at all, or holding women accountable for their open embrace of hypergamy and their AFBB sexual strategy and only marrying / supporting women who make an effort to control their hypergamy.

That change will happen in the workplace and hiring practices. That change will filter into men’s better understanding as the red pill spreads and men reassume some of the social frame control the Feminine Imperative unilaterally legislates and provide to women now.

The red pill is ‘doing’ something, it’s planting the seeds for a greater shift in gender power with every man who becomes aware of how women ‘are’ and what they will predictably do.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Real change isn’t going to happen directly it’s going to happen indirectly, on a man by man basis. And not just publicly but personally.

TRP isn't a social movement but I can't help but feel like it is political. The past few generations of men have royally fucked up and given away their rights. TRP has realized that men are too weak to fight for their rights. Rather than go MRA-like and fight directly, TRP is a training ground where men are born that can take back the world. That's not to say we're only political but it's an element.

Looking at it from that perspective, I feel like TRP has done something a bit incredible in that it found a way for men to sell sex to heterosexual men. Feminism's full of propaganda that being a feminist will get you laid and of course, it doesn't work. TRP's figured out that the game is sexual strategy and that nailing skanks is how you change the world. So we engineer the best way possible to do it and let the world get unplugged.

[–]2IVIaskerade 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Men always strive for power. Is it any surprise, then, that as more red pill men strive, TRP as a whole gets more powerful?

The key is that we're the subversives - quiet, but when the time comes we don't hesitate. We don't make a fuss about things, we adapt and survive. We always have.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Social movements are most effective when they can impart a change in thinking, not just a change in law. That's why those "seeds" you mention are so critical.

[–]1User-31f64a4e 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rollo, it actually turns out that Women's Liberation - aka second wave feminism, back in the 60's and 70's - had a name for this.

They called it consciousness raising.

Basically, it's waking people up to the idea that their problems are not personal issues between them and their significant other(s), or between them and their place of work. So in our case it's getting men to see that female nature is behind the slings and arrows of our misfortune, and that it comes to us in systematic ways through institutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_raising is actually not a bad article, and if you switch sexes in your mind when you read it, there are some good bits in there.

I think this initial stage is as far as MRM can echo feminism.

Once men are savvy the tactics of feminism will not suffice. Men's natural outgroup preference for women has no correspondence in women. Making noise about injustice (real and imagined) and telling women know we are unhappy would fail, because women don't care about men the way men care about women. It will take something other than just burning our bras and holding marches; what that something is I do not know.

[–]TheRationalMale.comRollo-Tomassi 115 points116 points  (25 children)

MRAs are making a concerted push to get all of the manosphere under one tent. The problem with that is their tent poles are based on the misguided notion that egalitarian equalism is an ideal state between the sexes. They seem more than happy to invite the FI regulating influence of women into that Male Space because they believe the same lie that feminists have spewed for a long time – that an equal state of gender parity is in any way achievable or preferable.

They’re happy to co-opt the elements of Red Pill awareness (the elements that rate the least offensive to their female support) they previously despised if it means they can pull in new (donating) members.

Once the next Eliot Rodger incident happens you’ll see how quick the story will be “MRAs are NOT PUAs” and they wipe that association off on anything conveniently Red Pill.

I will never fully endorse the MRM because their core ideology is one that’s still based on the idealistic hope that an egalitarian equalism can ever be possible between men and women. In my estimation the majority, the leadership and certainly the female MRAs (really anti-feminists) fundamentally want to be more ‘perfected’ feminists in that they want the balanced equalism feminists initially promoted as a goal, which is at odds with the complementary, evolved nature of the sexes.

Every time there is a social gender crisis in the MSM that reflects on the manosphere the MRM exposes it’s true attitude towards the red pill by either distancing itself, throwing certain elements under the bus (PUA caricatures) or they make it an effort in a recruitment drive. Many are white knights, and many reject the core truths of evo-psych.

So you’ll forgive me for finding that disingenuous.

Also, are these really the people you want to jump over the trenches with and follow into “battle”?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKVB8s7Q3uc

[–]ToshiroOzuwara 17 points18 points  (3 children)

Any movement that gets very large and popular ends up being a parody of its founding ideas. The best thing that can happen to TRP imo is for it to stay reviled and underground as long as possible. Popularity is the death of sincerity.

[–]kidjs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The quickest to silence us is to make TRP as an default sub.

[–]TRP Vanguardss_camaro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

MR > TRP > MGTOW

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

Thank god for redpillschool. He's the best mod we could ever hope for. He rules as Plato's philosopher king by making the decisions on this sub's direction nondemocratically but also wisely. As long as he's mod, I think TRP can stay true to what it is.

[–]Kill_Your_Ego 41 points42 points  (8 children)

My time spent as an active MRA was completely useless. They refuse to reject the blank slate and accept evo psych and their answer to feminism is more and better feminism. It reminds me at times of Dalrock's weak men are screwing feminism up.

They are effectively paralyzed from taking any action and rather will engage in a debate when you break the FI and state that a woman should be held responsible for her decisions. White knights are everywhere with hurt egos and eager to fantasize about a world where a woman gets wet from sir White Knight.

I'll still occasionally post at men's rights but in general I don't waste much time interacting with the MRM anymore. I don't want to waste any more time trying to explain to them that men and women are actually different.

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points  (6 children)

I find MR to be a useful collection of links when it comes to politics, current law, and keeping up on who the latest girl is to cry "wolf". Beyond that though, the comments section is often a landmine.

I'll still occasionally post at men's rights but in general I don't waste much time interacting with the MRM anymore.

I get the sense that TRP has siphoned off most of the non-whiners, leaving MR with nothing but.

[–]Endorsed Contributorgekkozorz 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I checked out of MR when a thread about yet another woman callously ditching her BB husband resulted in a member saying "Women want a wedding, not a marriage," and then a barrage of comments saying "Don't say that!! That's why they think we're misogynists!!"

Yeah, they'll call you a woman-hater if you say that sort of thing. But it's still true. Women want a wedding. Not a marriage.

MR is like the first level of TRP. Shows you just a few of the ways you've been lied to about gender politics in the Western world.

TRP goes aaaalll the way down the rabbit hole.

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

I came here from mensrights rather than from pua like a lot of others. I feel like it gives a better perspective on things to come from MR because you really get the rational and critical side of what's against you rather than just a desire to get laid. It amazes me though that MR never critically asked why feminism can exist. They just argue against it without checking for anything deeper.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is a really on point appraisal of the situation.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You either become a winner or you become a whiner.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 12 points13 points  (0 children)

They refuse to reject the blank slate and accept evo psych and their answer to feminism is more and better feminism.

Which is why it still amuses me to no end that on their sidebar, under books to read, they have:

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature - Steven Pinker

[–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet 30 points31 points  (1 child)

Once the next Eliot Rodger incident happens you’ll see how quick the story will be “MRAs are NOT PUAs” and they wipe that association off on anything conveniently Red Pill.

I believe that this is one of the greatest strengths of the Red Pill.

Any large movement (such as the MRM) attempting to create change laws and policies is required to play the public relations game. They must put on the face of benevolence long enough to make persuasive arguments, because other people must be their allies in the fight for legal redress. And that's why "extremists" like the Red Pill are useful to the MRM.

The MRM uses The Red Pill to defend themselves the same way Christian denominations point at the Westboro Baptist church and say: "Never mind that we worship a Jewish zombie, just look at these guys. They protest at funerals!"

But The Red Pill doesn't care about its public image. We can (and do) say the things that others will not. And not only do we have the advantage of being right, but also the ruthless pragmatism of natural logistics. Nature is OUR ally. Because no amount of wishful thinking will stop your civilization from collapsing when feminism runs rampant and men check-out from society altogether. And collapse it will.

They can cast aspersions on us all they like. It won't change the arena of the final battle.

[–]save_the_rocks 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm really not sweating the division. Different groups are great for a movement when they come together as working groups or coalitions. Remember back in 2010 when the Human Rights Campaign was still throwing transgenders under the bus to push gay/lesbian marriage?

It worked. Other groups took up the more 'radical' torch, helped make it mainstream and now both gay/lesbian and transgender rights are in the bag.

Not every group in the MRM movement has to agree, have similar tactics or goals. We're better off not being monolithic.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Once the next Eliot Rodger incident happens you’ll see how quick the story will be “MRAs are NOT PUAs” and they wipe that association off on anything conveniently Red Pill.

Exactly what they did with the Eliot Rodger incident.

Every time there is a social gender crisis in the MSM that reflects on the manosphere the MRM exposes it’s true attitude towards the red pill by either distancing itself, throwing certain elements under the bus (PUA caricatures) or they make it an effort in a recruitment drive. Many are white knights, and many reject the core truths of evo-psych.

Right now they're on the upswing of dismissing PUA, the dark side of the manosphere. We'll see how that goes.

As always, thanks for your input Rollo!

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 9 points10 points  (2 children)

If they brush PUA and TRP under the rug, they'd basically be the "Good Men Project" lite.

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

I just went to the website and the first article I saw was "7 Reason You Need To Fall In Love With A Gamer".

Yeah.. there are definitely some potential parallels.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face 11 points12 points  (0 children)

And the biggest thing is, he will genuinely strive to make you happy. Isn’t that what matters most?

The answer to that question is no, no it isn't.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Is Dean Esmay pregnant in that video? Because that would be the ultimate display of equalism

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Motherfucker looks like he's in his third trimester.

[–]MagicGainbow 2 points3 points  (0 children)

throwing certain elements under the bus (PUA caricatures)

This is my problem, when it comes to the crunch I have no real sympathy for many mra's as they show no hesitation about fucking over their fellow men to score points.

[–]1User-31f64a4e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

MRAs are making a concerted push to get all of the manosphere under one tent.

That's how I see it, and its an enormous mistake.

MRM is the good cop; we also need a bad cop.

Wasn't it a conversation between Martin Luther King and Lyndon Baines Johnson, where LBJ told MLK "now go out there and force me to pass this" civil rights legislation?

There is a place for a fair, reasonable voice in all of this, and AVFM and MRM can be that voice. This is who can be inside the tent, who can be coopted into the establishment, who can help write legislation.

As such, MRM will be unable to bring outrage and pressure. For that, we need other more aggressive avenues and organizations.

[–]68461674897051454980 1 point2 points  (0 children)

MRM exposes it’s true attitude towards the red pill by either distancing itself, throwing certain elements under the bus (PUA caricatures) or they make it an effort in a recruitment drive

of course they would. Take today's bitter, fat, useless feminists, give them a gender swap, and you've got MRA. No room for logic, just MUH OPPRESSION!!, usually over the dumbest and most trivial things. And like you said, going after pipe dreams of a perfect equality world, meaning that if they are nice to a girl the girl should act the same way back to them.

So (feminists + MRA) vs (10 million years of history and psychological hardwiring). Good luck lol

[–]newls 61 points62 points  (6 children)

I just love watching the feminists and SJW crowd have a collective fit as this sub grows and more men take the red pill and wake up.

[–]RPthrowaway123 14 points15 points  (5 children)

It does bring joy to the heart!

[–]newls 29 points30 points  (4 children)

After TRP hit 100k I remember reading some rather typical comments about TRP somewhere and one of them commented that the sub had grown to that number. They were all pretty incredulous and one of them was like "WHAT? That makes me so angry my eyes are going to explode!" I laughed out loud.

[–]ButterMyBiscuit 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's hard to believe for me as well. I joined back under 20k, I never thought it'd reach over 50.

[–]Ihadenoughfuckthis 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Has been redpill for over a year, recently something clicked now my grades are good lost 20kg still going down and have actual gf, feels good man when people are still sad over their life

[–]RPthrowaway123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This pleases me. Hate away, assholes, your impotent anger can't stop anyone here from reaching their goals.

[–]RPthrowaway123 20 points21 points  (2 children)

It may be a platitude, but "do it for you" is good advice. A lot of guys come here asking how to get one specific girl or another, and they don't understand that their motivations are all wrong.

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 20 points21 points  (1 child)

But the point /u/redpillschool is making is that "do it for you" is the overriding theme in damn near every post on the sidebar. If you haven't read the sidebar, then you have no business making post number one in the first place. So thread after thread of "do it for you" is masturbatory.

[–]RPthrowaway123 5 points6 points  (0 children)

True, very true. I'm just saying that the focus on self is helpful, I know it was for me. You guys probably know and understand it all a lot better than I do though.

[–]Senior ContributorRedPope 31 points32 points  (5 children)

your only value to become a man is in what you can build, provide, or do. And past benefit does not provide future value. You must always be useful, or you are otherwise not.

It doesn't matter if you were president. You keep on going.

But we don't expect that from women. In fact, we don't even think of that for women.

Womanhood is a state of being. Manhood is a state of action.

You will occasionally hear a woman who has been diagnosed infertile claim she "no longer feels like a woman." The same worry may also be heard at the onset of menopause. They had previously defined themselves entirely by their ability to give birth. When that is lost, they suddenly find themselves without a purpose in life.

Men are born without a predefined purpose. We must seek and construct our own meaning. We must create value. You may not have a written manifesto, but I'll wager that any man here could offer some answer when asked: "What is the purpose of your life?"

I have no objection to women who seek a higher meaning for themselves. To define themselves (or their gender) as something more than a birth machine. But they are arriving very late to the party. Those 40 year-old women are struggling to comprehend philosophical and spiritual issues most boys began examining during their teens. Who am I? What is my purpose? Why am I here?

It is no wonder their conclusions are so flawed and juvenile. We'd have just as many problems if we let teen boys define social policy. Both lack the experience.

[–]notevenatthestart 10 points11 points  (4 children)

You will occasionally hear a woman who has been diagnosed infertile claim she "no longer feels like a woman." The same worry may also be heard at the onset of menopause.

That's interesting, thanks for that.

Let's compare that to men who say they "no longer feel like a man". What sort of things induce a man to say that? The things that I think of immediately are:

  • Sexual dysfunction

  • Some sort of crippling injury

  • Loss of mental faculties

  • A lack of control over life

So for women, it's the ability to do one thing. For men, it's the ability to do anything; as long as you have a brain and a body and reasonable freedom to use them, you are a man and you make your own way. If something damages those, you might feel like you are no longer a man, but the goal is to pick yourself up and carry on in whatever way you can.

[–]redmanwalkingg 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Hence the difference between positive and negative liberty - men only need not be interfered with, or at least not beyond an extent necessary to achieve a much larger social goal. Women need to be given freedoms - whether political, social or economic - by someone else.

To be fair, men who do not do anything to help themselves fall under the second category as well.

[–]1User-31f64a4e 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Oh, if only it was freedoms that women wanted.

That would be equalism, equality of opportunity, which I endorse.

No, they want the goodies, the rewards, the outcomes - regardless of their ability or contribution. Discrimination is apparently when outcomes are unequal, not when opportunity is unequal.

==

You are right about men falling into a category where we will need to be granted our rights, after hypergamy has taken them all. The irony, of course, is that it is male policemen, male sherrifs and male national guardsmen who enforce this shit.

[–]redmanwalkingg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, although in that sense positive "liberty" is not liberty in the same sense as equality of opportunity and the like. Isaiah Berlin defines it as the liberty or right for a man to do and become, both qualities of which are necessary conditions for his version of positive liberty, but this version below might explain why positive liberty can be so problematic:

" Political liberalism tends to presuppose a negative definition of liberty: liberals generally claim that if one favors individual liberty one should place strong limitations on the activities of the state. Critics of liberalism often contest this implication by contesting the negative definition of liberty: they argue that the pursuit of liberty understood as self-realization or as self-determination (whether of the individual or of the collectivity) can require state intervention of a kind not normally allowed by liberals."

From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/. Again, I'm not contesting your point, just highlighting how positive state action in favour of one person's "liberties" comes at the cost of another's as a result.

[–]InsomniacPsychonaut 27 points28 points  (0 children)

In other words, they've glimpsed into the abyss, and didn't just reject the red pill, they took two blue pills and chased it with windshield washer fluid.

I hate to admit it but I did that at first. I read an article on Return of Kings and laughed it, seeing it as sexist. But the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. I stumbled upon this subreddit and haven't left since. I've learned more from TRP than I have from all the other subreddits I visit, and what I learn here is really practically advice that works. Great post! I also agree that we should discuss theory and concepts, rather than FR's. They're entertaining but not very pragmatic.

[–]prodigyx 27 points28 points  (51 children)

I have nothing against /r/mensrights, but the sub just seems like a big circlejerk to me. They post articles and headlines that are about men's rights issues, but the discussion is non-existent. Every comment just boils down to "This is unfair. This makes me angry." Even the most insightful comments still have the same message. It isn't productive. I just don't see the point.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 22 points23 points  (49 children)

Every comment just boils down to "This is unfair. This makes me angry." Even the most insightful comments still have the same message. It isn't productive.

The MRM has destroyed itself by inclusiveness.

There are two paths to take to "solve" the MRM's issues within the framework the MRM has allowed: Liberal and Conservative.

Liberals want to expand all the government services for women to also include men. They somehow think that growing government won't go mostly to women and that somehow men will get a fair shake. They are dead wrong, but it is their belief.

Conservatives want to end the Bureaugamy that government has become and remove governments incentives to destroy the family and siphon money from men to women via taxes and government services. Conservatives are also wrong, as I don't see any way to get this past the 55% female voting majority.

The MR reddit is attempting to "not be decisive" and as such refuses a path between those two to be picked. So there are no solutions, just a common complaint that "this sucks and something needs to be done about it".

[–]elevul 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Liberals want to expand all the government services for women to also include men. They somehow think that growing government won't go mostly to women and that somehow men will get a fair shake. They are dead wrong, but it is their belief.

I think these will be the ones winning. With the current fast automatization of jobs we'll end up with most of th epopulation being useless, men and women. As such, providing full or partial support to most of the population via /r/BasicIncome will be necessary, and it IS gonna be provided to both sexes because men are still 50% of the voters.

I fully understand that women and men are (currently, cybernetics will blur that) different, but I think we can and we SHOULD make sure both sexes are equal in the face of the law.

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I think we can and we SHOULD make sure both sexes are equal in the face of the law.

As long as women have a strong group preference for women's concerns (men have a weak preference) and women make up 55% of the vote while only making up 1/4-1/3 of the tax base, we will never have equality under the law.

[–]elevul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The tax base will equalize as many males start losing their jobs in the face of automation.

[–]BossSuperb 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Automatization just changes the skills (and jobs) needed. Robots instead of people as one example; You'll need to employ designers for the hardware, programmers for the software, health and safety officers for the testing, mechanics for the maintanence, miners for the metals, logistics for transporting, factories for the chips and the list goes on. Although many people will lose their jobs, many will gain jobs if not more than originally employed. The implications for us aren't as bad as you might think...

[–]elevul -1 points0 points  (1 child)

No.

Watch the video, I liked it on purpose, because it covers the whole issue completely.

[–]BossSuperb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My original point stands. I spent 6 minutes cringing at that video and its lack of economic validity. The commentator takes snippets of the larger picture and jumps to the next point before you have time to consider the further consequences([or complete idiocy of his point). Technology isn't rushed because it makes no economic sense. If ford introduced self driving cars tomorrow they would >lose money< on all of their manual driving cars (which make them >a lot of money<). Slowly over many years the >market leaders< introduce new technology at >affordable< prices [mass produce] because that's the only >profitable< way to do it. That's economics... He uses the analogy of horses as if our societal structure is similar and you take that video seriously? As an engineer the future is very much in my favour.. All of the young kids studying coding and design from age 5 will be prepared. Keep up or get left behind..

[–]Pornography_saves_li 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its cute how people still think this isnt being done, by government, on purpose, and thus there is a political solution. Im not sure what government, particularly the American one, has done to give people the impression they give fuck one what the commoners think, or want. In my view, theres a ridiculous amount of faith in 'the authorities' on all sides but TRP.

Government will not help men, because men are exactly where government wants them, or almost are. No lobbying solution will succeed. Only mass social refusal to obey will do anything now.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (40 children)

Women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Boom.

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 12 points13 points  (24 children)

I rather we just revoke voting rights for those on the dole, which as we all know would result in a disproportionate number of women barred from voting. I see nothing wrong with this since it'd neuter leftists voting more and more benefits for themselves. See also: increases in govt spending after women got the vote.

[–]2Overkillengine 2 points3 points  (15 children)

My preferred solution is to (temporarily) revoke your voting rights for any year you (voluntarily) accepted any form of publicly funded welfare as well.

If one does not support themselves as an adult should, then one should not have the full rights of an adult.

Doesn't punish the few responsible women and makes sure the men that refuse to become actualized adults don't get to vote themselves more benefits either.

Plus avoids the felony issue where once your rights are gone and you can't get them back, you no longer have a reason to be a productive member of society.

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt -1 points0 points  (5 children)

My preferred solution is to (temporarily) revoke your voting rights for any year you (voluntarily) accepted any form of publicly funded welfare as well.

That's what I had in mind when I posted earlier, but I was on my phone so I didn't flesh the idea out fully.

If one does not support themselves as an adult should, then one should not have the full rights of an adult.

Exactly. I think unemployment shouldn't count as a reason to have your voting rights suspended as we do pay into the system towards that while we work.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedBigMan 2 points3 points  (2 children)

It used to be only land owners were permitted to vote... However, with the number of women who get the house in the divorce and the man is still forced to pay the mortgage it'd suck as a means to determine voting eligibility.

I do like the idea that taking welfare removes your voting privileges. Though you'd see people gaming the system where they go on the dole for 3 years then come a federal election or important thing like that they abstain until after the voting is done.

[–]drunkandstoned 2 points3 points  (0 children)

pay the mortgage

The bank sounds like the land owner to me

[–]2Overkillengine -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sounds like it would need a 3/4ths compromise then.

[–]RedHeimdall 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Meanwhile the left says it's too burdensome a requirement to even require someone to possess a valid photo ID to vote.

Adam Carolla's idea is that if you do not pay any taxes you don't get to vote. I'd go even further and institute some kind of written or computerized test. Show you have a basic understanding of American history and government, or you can't vote.

[–]rpscrote 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All I want is a voting test with one question:

Who is the current president of the united states? If you can't answer that, you can't vote. And a surprising number of people would get disqualified.

[–]BossSuperb 0 points1 point  (8 children)

What if somebody loses their job, or owns a business and becomes ill and then relies on the dole until they sort things out? They're not worthy of a vote? Why not reform the welfare rules rather than labeling people like an ignorant grandiose person would?

[–]2Overkillengine 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Too bad. If I don't get a say in whether my taxes support them, then they don't get a say via voting.

My dollar, my rules. Don't like it? Great! Get off my dollar.

[–]BossSuperb 1 point2 points  (6 children)

By your system if a guy gets cancer and can't work for a bit you think it's acceptable to bar him from voting. This thread is such a circle jerk. Democracy means everyone votes to limit extremist ideologies. Don't like it? Move to North Korea.

[–]2Overkillengine 2 points3 points  (5 children)

We're a Republic, not a Democracy. Don't like it? Get the fuck out yourself.

It's not my fault someone else fell on hard times. It is not my obligation morally to support them, yet I am being taxed to do so via implied threat of government applied force if I do not comply. So if someone wants to be supported like a dependant (child), then it is more than fair that they shall be treated as such.

[–]BossSuperb -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

You're obviously a privileged dick who doesn't care about others, i'm not going to argue with someone as bitter as you.

[–]an0n4btc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree. While they don't have skin in the game on the tax side of things; they are still affected by government policies.

My view hasn't changed in the 2 months since I posted a response, which I can not link due to the auto mod in this sub.

[–]BossSuperb -1 points0 points  (5 children)

What an idiotic and elitist statement. As a young person just starting off I am on the dole currently. I am more politically engaged and educated than a lot of people who are working. Why should I not be allowed to vote? Not every woman votes for reckless policies either. If you want a fair democracy you can't exclude certain types of people. As you have clearly and briskly demonstrated the excluded from a vote criteria would widen to exclude more and more groups. What if a liberal government were to get into power and exclude you from voting because you're too conservative or are seen to hold misogynistic views? Debate and use your voice to vote against laws if you disagree with them. Maybe you should move to China or Russia if silencing your opponents is your preferred method to defeat them.

[–]2Overkillengine 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Why should I not be allowed to vote?

Because people on the dole tend to vote to extend the dole at the expense of those whose work pays for the dole. Want independence? Recognition as a full adult with full rights and privileges? Then become one by supporting yourself instead of acting entitled to having someone else support you with no say in how they support you.

[–]BossSuperb 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Want independence? Recognition as a full adult with full rights and privileges?

A. Have money from a well paid job.

[–]2Overkillengine 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Then stop fucking whining and go get one.

[–]BossSuperb 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I will like most people on the dole. What i'm saying is there are very few people who live off the dole for a sustained amount of time and those that do aren't the sort of people engaged in politics anyway. Barring someone from voting for being on the dole is one of the stupidest things i've ever read. It spews ignorance.

[–]2Overkillengine 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Cute, no counterpoint or rational rebuttal, just calling it ignorant because you don't like it.

YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO LIKE IT!

Humans are selfish little monkeys and if you hand them an easy way to be lazy, a lot of them will take it!

Granted, I'd prefer just to take away welfare entirely, but that would be a bit cruel to do to people whom have not been raised to be self sufficient since they'll die faster than they'll learn, so the best compromise is to treat them as dependent children until they learn to support themselves. (the other option is to let the system get parasitised into collapse, they still die after that.)

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (12 children)

[–]Senior ContributorDemonspawn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Men, via revolution, when they figure out just how much women's suffrage it taking from them.

Want a 30% pay raise? Repeal the 19th! Want intact families? Repeal the 19th! Want less gun control? Repeal the 19th! Want to end the police state? Repeal the 19th!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (10 children)

Feminists do. When society collapses and men invariably have to rebuild everything we just point and say look what happened last time .

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (9 children)

You miss the point of the analogy. The mice voted to bell the cat and then someone had to go and do it. No volunteers. Likewise with ending woman suffrage or whatever. Are you going to campaign for such using your real name and real face in real life?

No, because it's a fool's errand and career suicide to boot. Me neither.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (8 children)

I understood the analogy. I am saying when western society collapses we simply don't get a cat again.

[–]elevul 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Western society won't collapse, don't be naive.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (6 children)

You mean America and every other western country has something magic that every other civilization before has not?

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

Please don't be so naive.

[–]elevul 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Yes: exponential technological growth.

[–]theozoph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Revoke representative democracy altogether. Voting for representatives you haven't chosen, on a program they won't apply, with no possibility of sanctioning them for lying is no power I wish to yield.

Representative Democracy is a system that empowers the rich at the expense of everybody else. Get rid of it, and install either democracy by ballot (representatives are chosen at random), or some kind of absolute monarchy.

[–]1beerthroway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

With that statement you still get many men (even ones that realize how dumb women are) defaulting to cries of "misogyny!"

I agree with you. But I see no practical way of making it happen.

[–]2Overkillengine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

as I don't see any way to get this past the 55% female voting majority.

Simple. The voting majority is not the "producing" majority. Teach the producers to withhold resources until the system collapses- you can't vote away a collapse.

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It didn't use to be that bad. IMO the more insightful posters migrated here so it's lost its steam.

[–]68461674897051454980 12 points13 points  (9 children)

i wonder if we'll get a post on another sub or news article about how this is proof of growing misogyny... and patriarchy, or something(?)

[–]TRP VanguardJP_Whoregan 40 points41 points  (8 children)

Even mentioning /r/theredpill has been banned on most of Reddit's most popular subs, like /r/askmen, /r/askreddit, etc. Last June, somebody made a post about "what's the worst sub on Reddit". RedPill floated to the top of the comments. We got 1,400 new subscribers in one day.

They forgot the age-old rule that "there is no such thing as bad publicity". So now they won't even allow mention of us, lest another clueless plugged in beta comes here and figures out how to actually be a man.

[–]whats_the_deal22 19 points20 points  (3 children)

I honestly think I came here due to someone bashing /r/theredpill. Jokes on them.

[–]ButterMyBiscuit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure that's how the majority of subscribers first show up.

[–]sedatedinsomniac 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's how I found the place. It's been enlightening reading.

[–]Subcommandante_Khan 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Next up, the Streisand Effect?

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]NeoreactionSafe 12 points13 points  (1 child)

The Divide and Conquer strategy of the left actually has two elements:

  • Individuality (Divide)

  • Equality (Conquer)

.

/r/DarkEnlightenment is willing to go "all the way" and reject both of these frameworks in order to get back to Natural Hierarchy or more simply "the tribe". It's more about a post-Misandry Bubble future than the present. There is no revolutionary action plan for the here and now.

/r/TheRedPill promotes a kind of "agree and ampify" with respect to Individuality. In order to crash the Misandry Bubble you set people out on a mission of complete anarchy using every Machiavellian strategy you can to create chaos in the Feminine Imperative. When I first really realized this I thought it was going the wrong way, but now I see this is necessary. Red Pill is the "Tip of the Spear" so you have to be able to handle the Truth to be here.

/r/MensRights seems unable to grapple with either Individuality or Equality as being bad frameworks, so they seem least effective. But if some get their first taste of enlightenment there and then go Red Pill it will have had a purpose.

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

How would you describe natural hierarchy?

[–]2popthatpill 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The main use case of "egalitarianism" is in black-knighting, eg. using "equality" type arguments to stick women with the consequences of their actions. It's a countermeasure to female rentseeking.

Egalitarianism is just a tactic: you're not actually supposed to believe it. Some MRAs get this, some don't.

[–]Doctor_Mayhem 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A guy named Hateful Heretic on The Right Stuff (therightstuff.biz) had pointed out what is a major problem with Republicans and conservatives in general: They cede moral authority to their enemies. Roosh pointed out that Gamergate is having the same issue.

r/Mensrights is doing the exact same thing with their attempts at avoiding the appearance of misogyny.

When you fight these people, you're not supposed to care what they think of you, and you damn sure do not want them 'liking' you. These people try so hard to seem legitimate in the eyes of their enemies, when they fail to realize that their enemies want them dead and cremated.

As conservatives need to quit being afraid of being labeled as "racist" so do MRAs need to quit being afraid of being labeled as "misogynist."

The Left and SJWs will always hate us, no matter what we do. By giving them moral authority to judge us, we are allowing them to define us. They will only cease in their hatred of us when we kowtow, scrape, and beg, then recant all our heretical beliefs and preach exactly as they do.

[–]2IVIaskerade 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I believe in egalitarianism as defined as equality before the law, and equality of opportunity. No more, no less.

I don't believe in "true love" as something that happens, but I believe we can approximate it with enough effort (though whether it is actually worth it is still up for debate).

I still think TRP has the right of it. Here's to 200,000.

[–]General_Fear 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I have read many post at /r/mensrights. They seem like a bunch of Democrats who complain how bad men have it. Then turn around and defend and vote for the Democratic Party. Only to complain again just how bad men have it again.

Gee, maybe if men stop voting for the party that stabs men in the back. Maybe things will get better. That get me wrong. I don't like Republicans all that much. But given that American is a two party government our best choice is to vote for the party that will do the least amount of damage to men.

[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I used to be a big supporter of the MRA movement. I subbed over there and got worked up over all of the posts. I found the red pill because someone from here came over there and started talking about it. It opened up a brand new perspective and everyone over there shit on him so I felt it was worth looking into. It completely opened my eyed.

One thing that I feel that is worth noting about MRA is they will fail because of how they go about trying to find change. The reason they call it bitching is because it's what women do. Bitching is a woman's primary mechanism to accomplish something. They nag, bitch, moan, etc in order to get men to do the task for them.

The thing that MRAs don't realize is that it doesn't work in reverse. If a woman complains about a billboard that makes them feel objectified some man is going to come in and rescue them. If men bitch about something all we see is a bunch of spineless cry babies and no one is going to come in and save them. It's the pussy pass in a nutshell and MRAs act like pussies but they don't have the actual vagina to protect them.

To me this is where a large difference comes in from trp and mra. We talk about making micro changes and they talk about the macro. We say change ourselves and take as many friends with you as you can and they demand the world fix the wrongs and bitch and moan about it.

[–][deleted] 9 points9 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]rpkarma 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Welcome. Read everything in the sidebar and you'll be well on your way to become a real man.

[–]JayViceroy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The have no problem with MRAs in general. However, the overarching agenda they have annoys the shit out of me. They have a victims mentality. And as a man, getting rid of that bs is the first thing I suggest any man once he attempts to swallow the pill. Be self, aware, self sustainable and self motivated. Conquer the world, nobody is going to hand it to you on a silver platter.

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

I hold TRP as being superior to MRA, because while MRA has it's virtues, TRP surpasses them by saying, fuck equality, there is no such thing.

MRA is rooted in nonsensical ideas of fairness and equality which does not and will never exist and frankly, sometimes I feel like MRA is a little bit blue pill leaning, almost as if they are stuck in between a purgatory of sorts between being red pill and blue pill.

TRP says, don't worry about stupid crap like equality and fairness, focus on you and how to better elevate yourself.

Do you. Don't let the noise others create distract you from your goals of continuous self improvement.

[–]csehszlovakze 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Couldn't agree more about MRAs. I sometimes check a local MR site (kinda inspired by aVfM, even the name) which makes an excellent job at showing the evil side of feminism. However, recently some guys started posting PUA and TRP stuff and while some members welcomed the new themes some outright rejected it as bullshit. Sometimes it's good to read, at others it's a cringe fest.

[–]RiseAboveRuin 9 points10 points  (0 children)

We aren't at 110k yet prick!

For real though, your posts are some of the best I've ever read on reddit as a whole. They make me think on a deep cognitive level otherwise inexperienced since first discovering reddit. You're a fantastic writer that makes his reader think. I think that's a special trait and I look forward to your future posts.

[–]the_red_scimitar 3 points4 points  (2 children)

In fact, feminists have hijacked the very word, misogyny. It's actual definition: "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women."

While there are definitely people here who post misogynistic things, particularly when in the anger phase of unplugging, the RP man who's gotten through the gauntlet doesn't seem very misogynistic at all.

Understanding the female, and feminist (not the same thing) sexual agenda and strategy is not misogynistic in the least, any more than knowing that koala bear's eat eucalyptus leaves is a value judgement against koalas.

Instead, the perverted definition seems closer to "anything that exposes what we really think, feel, or do, which isn't complimentary to us entirely." Of course, as applied to the social and sexual strategies of feminism.

And the corollary, most pertinent to the excellent post, is "anything related to men's rights" is now "misogyny". Because we're the patriarchy, and we are all bad because of it.

The man-hating feminist (a trope, I know, but that's because there is real man-hatred at its core), is one of the least inclusive, least fairness-oriented, least rational types I've seen. Willful ignorance is the fundamental quality, much as it is for climate science deniers.

They are a tiny minority, and many self-professed feminists will drop the pretense immediately around an attractive, alpha man (and one of my plates, who plays baby girl to my dom daddy, is a "feminist", and still believes it). This is because the majority don't hate men, but they like the idea of getting more for doing less. It's laziness, peer pressure, etc.

[–]2popthatpill 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Instead, the perverted definition seems closer to "anything that exposes what we really think, feel, or do, which isn't complimentary to us entirely." Of course, as applied to the social and sexual strategies of feminism.

Women don't want men to understand them (specifically, female sociosexual strategy), because the more a man understands about the female strategy, the more he can evade female strategy and further his own. Naturally, women don't like that.

So, not surprisingly, women define attempts to understand them as immoral ("misogyny").

This is also why women are big supporters of "women are unknowable", "women can't be understood" type cultural cliches: they don't want you looking behind the curtain.

[–]sedatedinsomniac 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is also why women are big supporters of "women are unknowable", "women can't be understood" type cultural cliches: they don't want you looking behind the curtain.

I, personally, suspect a key part of the problem is that most women don't even know themselves or female nature. Feminism begins with an active rejection of nature as a first premise. It would be very surprising if it actually embraced other aspects of female nature.

[–]Goldfulgore 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I am a sexist and that's the way I am. I only get boners for good looking females.

What distinguishes TRP from MRA is that we are not ashamed of our boners. We are not ashamed to be men.

[–]UlyssesElias 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not sexist to be aroused by an attractive woman any more than it would be misandry for a woman to be aroused only by good looking men.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

The MRM is a victim of too many women infiltrating it. And one hand, I get the reason for that but this was bound to happen.

[–]2IVIaskerade 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Eh, some of the women in the MRM know what they're about (Karen Straughan, the Honey Badgers etc). Also plenty of male feminists slaying pussy hahahahaha who am I kidding? But seriously, some feminists are just fine (Christina Sommers, for example, identifies as a feminist whilst also using facts).

Their problem is that they're too concerned with what other people think about them. They should be concerned with doing the right thing, not the opinions of those who have a vested interest in ensuring they don't.

[–]1james-watson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they identify as "feminists" they aren't MRAs or in any way an ally of the men's movement. They are just shills trying to neuter the movement, just like the Republican party did with the tea partiers.

Politics is a real sport, and just as hard to master as any other. Know thy enemy.

[–]cheesepythons 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Wow, such a good post. I am been having the same arguement with some fellow MRA. I am an MRA in the sense that I want what is best for Men. Seeking the absolute best outcome is the only way to be truely equal because Feminism doesn't want to meet half way so you need to push for things like FULL custody rights, FULL burdens of proof of rape, FULL unionized pushes for increased pay for the most dangerous of jobs. I keep RP sexual strategy separate because this has really nothing to do with MRA.

[–]frys180 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Men and women are like apples and oranges. Both are fruit but they're intrinsically different. Equality is impossible because telling an orange to be an apple is impossible. Vice versa.

However, each of the fruits have their own unique qualities. Apples have pectin and oranges have lots of vitamin C. 100% more vitamin C than apples can produce. What the world needs to do is understand that, although equality is impossible, we can still work together by combining our strengths. And hopefully supplicating each other's weaknesses.

[–]qwertyleftme 3 points4 points  (0 children)

MRA are brothers of ours, we shall welcome them.

[–]Endorsed ContributorMentORPHEUS 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Good article. I have a slightly more proactive and optimistic viewpoint from my life of experience with social movements and change. I consider myself a child of the Womens Lib era of the early 70s; it shaped my worldview in the direction of accepting as fact a nominal equality of opportunity between men and women, but rejecting the bra-burning and "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" excesses of the most radical figures of that movement.

Lest we forget, the most radical Feminists of that era later in life recanted their youthful extreme positions and expressed regrets about not living the family life. This seems to be something that every generation of women has to re-learn. Hardcore Feminism and extreme left-wing ideologies perennially thrive on college campuses due to the life circumstances of that population, but these attitudes and behaviors tend to soften and move toward more mainstream norms and values very quickly after college.

It makes me cringe to see people here suggesting that the only solution is to revert back to the time before the womens' suffrage movement over 100 years ago and relegate them to chattels of men with no rights or legal standing. My own ideal is this: Feminism should stand for an equality of opportunity, not an equality of outcomes or standing by fiat. Most "feminists" are willing to acknowledge differences between the genders, and accepting of a vision of feminism as meritocracy, not declared supremacy that is merely flipping the Patriarchy script.

As men in charge of our own destiny, we shouldn't leave mens' rights or reforming feminists one by one, and Feminism as a whole, on the table untouched. Mainstream Feminism is barreling in a direction harmful to men and women alike, but we are not powerless to influence its course. Engaging this meta battle isn't for everyone, but people unwilling to engage yet denigrating those who do is something I have a hard time understanding on this sub.

[–]2Overkillengine 3 points4 points  (2 children)

but these attitudes and behaviors tend to soften and move toward more mainstream norms and values very quickly after college.

Amazingly right around the time they are being forced to stand on their own and start to have to actually deal with consequences.

[–]Endorsed ContributorMentORPHEUS 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yes, that and facing seasoned colleagues who won't put up with BS.

I'm always saying, people have been warning of a "leftist" takeover coming out of our Universities, any time now... for 60 years running. It never materializes because the "radical" students always grow out of it... always.

[–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is a paper on patriarchy: http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

Its not what you think.

[–]johngalt1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The equality of opportunity may be workable in patriarchal system if it is not inherently subversive. Who wants to waste talent anyway?

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

We are challenging Feminism, the movement, and it is 'one at at time'. Feminism stops getting the support it needs when women realize how much it harms them, and not before. Logical arguments won't do it; invoking 'fairness' or 'justice' won't do it. Women finding that if they mention the 'F' word men want nothing to do with them other than pump and dump, when they themselves want a family - that is what does it. And that is what gets politicians to give up the game, when they can't rely on that steady 55% support from women (supplemented by White Knights).

Every man that refuses to commit himself legally to a woman 'because of feminism' is putting a nail in Feminism's coffin.

[–]PookIsLovePookIsLife 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Keep up the great work. The mod team here is fantastic.

[–]usku 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Both trp and the m/rs has its extremists.

Men's rights are important because they are our rights.

Do you like the thought of forced paternity? Divorce rape?

Inequality is there, and it's us doing it to ourselves.

Women get away with the things they do because men let them. It's why feminism is a joke. Without the so called patriarchy protecting and fostering it, it would cease.

The pendulum needs to swing back to center.

[–]1RPB1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

TRP sees the plight of men and seeks to achieve some equilibrium by returning to what works and nurturing the Alpha in all of us.

MRA sees the plight of men and seeks to achieve equilibrium by asking women to forgo their legal advantage so they can be even bigger Betas.

One sees women for what they are, the other idealizes them. One knows that if others will not give, you must earn and take. The other is still asking permission, and then bitching when the answer is no.

We look at what we can do now to improve our lives while they beg government to take it easy on us.

I'll have another shot of crimson please.

[–]EchelonHD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wholeheartedly agree with many of the OP's criticisms regarding the MRM.

With that said, I don't see how TRP is a solution to the problem. Let's be honest with ourselves. Most of the content in this sub relates to dating and other means to get ahead in dating.

Now there's nothing wrong with a sub about dating strategies or self improvement (despite the liberal media asserting otherwise); but, I don't see how that will improve gender inequities like the incarceration rate.

[–]DrMungMung 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's become:

treating women equally = misogyny

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Question for mods: why is it necessary to have such a high bar for posts? Why delete the poorer ones rather than let them be addressed?

[–]cosi_fan_tutte 2 points2 points [recovered]

Signal-to-noise. Isn't your time valuable?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My time is extremely valuable. Fortunately, however, there's a thing called upvoting. Nomsaiyin?

[–]my_redpill_account 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with the last paragraphs. I think a lot of users are ignoring the side bar, or asking questions which are answered by the side bar.

I've seen a lot of "yeah bro" comments. I understand if you agree but upvote and continue on. Don't post the same shit over and over.

Another thing we should consider is topic threads. "Field report Friday" or something similar so that we don't get a flood of posts about stuff. Promotes more conversation with it all in one thread.

These are just ideas to throw out there.

With more subscribers it can get chaotic. Remember RP values. Read the side bar. Keep improving.

[–]2Overkillengine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The MRM is an example of how you can have all the good intentions in the world, but if your methods are not sound it's all for naught.

[–]DXGypsy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was over on the MRA sub because I had causes in mind. Mostly the legal inequalities that men face in the legal system and family courts. But the main problems with the sub was that they are too caught up in shit I find absolutely unimportant to men's rights, (such as circumcision and gays.) As far as I'm concerned, part of men's rights is the right to be gay or circumcised his kid if he wants. And I'll be honest, too many of them are WAY too gung ho about eliminating age of consent laws. It was pretty creepy. (And considering how SJWshave laid claim to the word "creepy", I don't use it lightly.)

The other thing is that they are so afraid of looking like they're on the high road that they sit like a bunch of pussies while /r/againstmensrights, SRS, Two X, SRD, and BP shit all over them constantly and circle and cackle like a flock of hens over it. OP is right. They're so concerned with not making visible waves that they really are like a bunch of henpecked husbands huddled in the basement from their wives, bitching about life yet "Yes Dear"ing whenever the girls show up.

I prefer to smack a mosquito over waiting for it to get bored of biting me and leaving on its own.

[–]LUClEN -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

If you can manage to avoid women altogether, you can basically whittle that risk down to near-zero.

How does this work? A lot of the bigger issues affecting men (suicide rates, homelessness, mental health, college education, etc) are not really due to women. Are you talking specifically about divorce issues?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Actually women are a big cause of those issues. More specifically feminism. Getting the BP shoved down your throat then constant rejection takes it's toll. Higher education is ever trying to price itself out of the market, but with the fact men have zero due process in regards to even the most bizarre sexual assault allegations disincentives men from attending. Divorce rape and false rape/assault charges are kind of the worse case scenarios. Even in non worse case scenarios the emotional manipulation entitled women do to beta men is pretty brutal, and so effective that the beta men go away thinking it's their fault.

[–]LUClEN -1 points0 points  (2 children)

You're going to have to elaborate. I go to a great university (top 20 worldwide) and don't really see rape issues as something that would make me not want to attend. How exactly does that create a climate where men do not want to attend?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Is your school one of the one's that have adopted any of the "Yes Means Yes" initiatives? If so you're in danger. If you and a girl get black out drunk and have sex, that's rape for you. Actually it's been that way for a long time now. What's new is if a girl regrets having sex you basically don't have the rights you would expect to have, no due process. Doesn't matter how long ago the event was. Very little burden of proof (preponderance of evidence, basically the same as a civil trail, but without impartial judges, unbiased juries of one’s peers, representation by counsel, and mandatory “discovery” processes). California wants to pass a law that if found guilty (at state colleges) there is a minimum 2 year suspension. You won't be able to transfer schools either from what I understand. If you get a girlfriend that had sex with you because she felt you would break up with her, you just committed sexual coercion. I don't know if that warrants a suspension, but it's concerning. At Brandeis University there was a student in 2014 that made a claim that his partner (gay couple) initiated non-consensual interactions because he used to wake him up with a kiss when they were dating in 2011. The accused was put on emergency suspension.

So if you had a choice between 2 colleges and the only major different is one didn't have ridiculous policies like that you might choose to go to the doesn't have them. If all schools were like that (which may happen if Hilary Clinton is elected and pressures schools to) one would have to consider not going to college, especially if you consider cost efficiency and alternatives..

My genuine advice to you is don't have sexual relations with any student at the same university. You are essentially giving her a loaded gun which she can decide to pull (or get talked into) at anytime, even years later. You can read more here http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

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

On the upside, college girls become so toxic that everyone ends up avoiding them, the risks are just too great. What would they do without the cock carousel?

[–]Luckyluke23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

great post man... I am subbed to /r/mensright but i don't really see the point.

/r/theredpill does enough " omg look at this women doing XYZ again men" and stuff like that.

I don't need to see a women going on the hamster trail either.. once you see like 5.. you know all women are the same and you move on.

what I would like to see however is more posts like this. more in depth views of what The red pill is about and HOW i can apply it to my life.

I don't need to be told the red pill is great and that women are " evil" ( for lack of a better bitter poster) I just want to spread the love and get into the THEORY

[–]Luckyluke23 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I clicked on /r/mensrights to have a look ( and maily to unsubscibe i haven't liked what they have been posting for awhile now feels like they are just bitter men who don't want to change)

then I saw this...

kind of relates back to what you was saying.. i just find it instresting

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/34k0nj/red_pill_about_to_surpass_mens_rights_in/

[–]4_YRT -4 points-4 points [recovered]

One of the most devious ways feminists have controlled the men's rights narrative is the call for equality and against sexism. Similar to the accusation of misogyny, the call against sexism paints a very narrow path one must walk to remain righteous in the eyes of those who value equal rights. The very idea behind the argument itself is framed entirely on feminists' terms.

this is an important point. the difference between MRA and TRP is that the former exists within, and relies upon the feminist reality construct while the latter does not.

MRA is a corollary to Feminism and Progressivism; it can exist only insofar as we accept the reality of the feminist world view. the purpose of MRA is to counter or react to feminism. But, it inherently and necessarily accepts what feminism is saying.

TRP is independent of Feminism. TRP is not a reaction or counter to feminism. They are simply two competing systems of thought that overlap in the sphere of gender and sexual dynamics.

The distinction between MRA and TRP is important because the former largely relies on the ideas, vocabulary and institutional knowledge of Feminism and progressivism. For example, MRAs define themselves as "victims" of an "unfair" system. TRPers would never define themselves as victims; they would never define the system as "unfair." MRAs accept the Feminist doctrine that women are intelligent, powerful and rational actors. MRAs then argue that women use their guile, power, and privilege to destroy the lives of men. Analyze that sentence from the perspective of TRP. If you're getting victimized by powerful, rational, wily women, you're BP, and you deserve what you get.

[–]2popthatpill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TRP is not a reaction or counter to feminism. They are simply two competing systems of thought that overlap in the sphere of gender and sexual dynamics.

Yup. "Feminism" is just that set of beliefs, views and actions that further the female sociosexual strategy. Analogously TRP is the set of beliefs, views and actions that further the male strategy.

[–]therock6658 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

So what do you guys suggest? Should we try to destroy the MRM since they're "fucking up"?

Cause that's what MGTOW is trying to do.