Men's RightsWhy we are anti-feminist (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]

TL;DR Feminism is a hate group that seeks to maintain female privilege, it has nothing whatever to do with 'equality'.

Ok, my response to someone saying that feminists just believe in equality. As Voltaire said: if you wish to converse with me, first define your terms.

[1]. Equal rights under the law. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Therefore I am anti-feminist because feminism fights against equal rights for men, they only support equal rights for women. See this post for examples

[2]. Equal opportunities in education and employment. I agree when it means equal opportunities according to merit. Therefore I am anti-feminist, because feminism demands things like women-only selections lists (British Labour Party) and quotas for jobs and STEM places in university. Affirmative action is just a weasel term for discrimination, and I am opposed to discrimination on the basis of race or sex. When there isn’t direct affirmative action, there is indirect, by having lower standards for female entry into a field than male entry (Police, Fire Service, and Military).

Then we come to what feminism really means by ‘equality’

[3]. Equal outcomes. I disagree with outcome equality, and therefore I am anti-feminist. I think originally feminists thought that if women got equal opportunities fairly judged, then they would end up with 50% of the top jobs, university places in all subjects, etc. Whenever they don’t get this, they call foul, and demand quotas, such as the EU demand that there be quotas for company board positions, regardless of whether the women appointed are objectively the best qualified. In Sweden they introduced quotas for university places in I think 2002. But recently, with men disengaging from society, there are more women than men so these same laws mean that women are discriminated against, and suddenly it is foul play. They brought cases against the government and won, and now I gather the law is to be repealed. This comes back to discrimination. There is no a priori reason why men and women should be represented according to population ratio in any given field, unless there was no actual difference between men and women. Which brings us to:

[4]. Equalism. The idea that men and women are fundamentally equal, which amounts to saying they are the same, which is objectively false [refs 1-7]. Gender Feminists and many sociologists would have us believe that there is a basic human type, and men and women are just different social constructs built on that type. Any sex differences are due to upbringing and society, hence all the fuss about children’s toys. In an attempt to shift attention from the real biological differences feminists have adopted the idea of 'gender', but as I said in a comment recently, we are mammals, not nouns. We have a sex, we do not have a gender. They adopted this because they could then define it any way they wished and have as many 'genders' as they wanted, to thoroughly muddy the waters. Pay no attention, there are precisely two sexes, no more, no less.


[1] Masculinity/Femininity predicts brain volumes in normal healthy children A. M. Belfi and A. L. Conrad and J. Dawson and P. Nopoulos Developmental neuropsychology 39 25--36 (2014) http://tinyurl.com/hnqoe7e Previous research has shown sex differences in brain morphology (). However, these studies have not taken gender into account. Gender is a phenotype that describes behavior. In this study, we examined the relationship between gender, sex, and brain volumes in children. One hundred and eight children ages 7 to 17 were administered the Children's Sex Role Inventory () and obtained volumetric brain data via MRI. We found that in the frontal lobe, higher masculinity predicted greater volumes of white matter. Also, in the temporal lobe, higher femininity predicted greater volumes of gray matter.

[2] Equal ≠The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain L. Cahill Cerebrum: the Dana Forum on Brain Science 2014 5 (2014) http://tinyurl.com/hqmbgbm While advances in brain imaging confirm that men and women think in their own way and that their brains are different, the biomedical community mainly uses male animals as testing subjects with the assumption that sex differences in the brain hardly matter. This month's Cerebrum highlights some of the thinking and research that invalidates that assumption.

[3] The effect of testosterone on the formation of brain structures. B. Filova and D. Ostatnikova and P. Celec and J. Hodosy Cells Tissues Organs 197 169--177 (2013) http://tinyurl.com/z2o6nmu It has been confirmed in several studies that testosterone can significantly affect brain development. Following metabolism of this hormone by 5alpha-reductase to dihydrotestosterone, testosterone may act via androgen receptors, or after conversion by aromatase to estradiol, it may act via estrogen receptors. The parts of the brain which are changed under the influence of sex hormones are known as sexually dimorphic nuclei, especially in the preoptic area of the hypothalamus. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that testosterone also influences the structure of the hippocampus, specifically CA1 and CA3 areas of the hippocampus, as well as the amygdala. These brain areas are designed to convert information from short-term into long-term memory. In this review, we summarize the effects of testosterone on the organization of brain structures with respect to spatial cognitive abilities in small rodents.

[4] Sex-related variation in human behaviour and the brain M. Hines Trends in Cognitive Science 14 448-456 (2010) Male and female fetuses differ in testosterone concentrations beginning as early as week 8 of gestation. This early hormone difference exerts permanent influences on brain development and behavior. Contemporary research shows that hormones are particularly important for the development of sex-typical childhood behavior, including toy choices, which until recently were thought to result solely from sociocultural influences. Prenatal testosterone exposure also appears to influence sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as some, but not all, sex-related cognitive, motor and personality characteristics. Neural mechanisms responsible for these hormone-induced behavioral outcomes are beginning to be identified, and current evidence suggests involvement of the hypothalamus and amygdala, as well as interhemispheric connectivity, and cortical areas involved in visual processing.

[5] Why Size Matters: Differences in Brain Volume Account for Apparent Sex Differences in Callosal Anatomy E. Luders and A. W. Toga and P. M. Thompson NeuroImage 84 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.040 (2014) http://tinyurl.com/zq7dmfo Numerous studies have demonstrated a sexual dimorphism of the human corpus callosum. However, the question remains if sex differences in brain size, which typically is larger in men than in women, or biological sex per se account for the apparent sex differences in callosal morphology. Comparing callosal dimensions between men and women matched for overall brain size may clarify the true contribution of biological sex, as any observed group difference should indicate pure sex effects. We thus examined callosal morphology in 24 male and 24 female brains carefully matched for overall size. In addition, we selected 24 extremely large male brains and 24 extremely small female brains to explore if observed sex effects might vary depending on the degree to which male and female groups differed in brain size. Using the individual T1-weighted brain images (n=96), we delineated the corpus callosum at midline and applied a well-validated surface-based mesh-modeling approach to compare callosal thickness at 100 equidistant points between groups determined by brain size and sex. The corpus callosum was always thicker in men than in women. However, this callosal sex difference was strongly determined by the cerebral sex difference overall. That is, the larger the discrepancy in brain size between men and women, the more pronounced the sex difference in callosal thickness, with hardly any callosal differences remaining between brain-size matched men and women. Altogether, these findings suggest that individual differences in brain size account for apparent sex differences in the anatomy of the corpus callosum.

[6] Correlations among Brain Gray Matter Volumes, Age, Gender, and Hemisphere in Healthy Individuals Y. Taki and B. Thyreau and S. Kinomura and K. Sato and R. Goto and R. Kawashima and H. Fukuda PLoS ONE 6 e22734 (2011) http://tinyurl.com/hbylap8 To determine the relationship between age and gray matter structure and how interactions between gender and hemisphere impact this relationship, we examined correlations between global or regional gray matter volume and age, including interactions of gender and hemisphere, using a general linear model with voxel-based and region-of-interest analyses. Brain magnetic resonance images were collected from 1460 healthy individuals aged 20--69 years; the images were linearly normalized and segmented and restored to native space for analysis of global gray matter volume. Linearly normalized images were then non-linearly normalized and smoothed for analysis of regional gray matter volume. Analysis of global gray matter volume revealed a significant negative correlation between gray matter ratio (gray matter volume divided by intracranial volume) and age in both genders, and a significant interaction effect of age ×gender on the gray matter ratio. In analyzing regional gray matter volume, the gray matter volume of all regions showed significant main effects of age, and most regions, with the exception of several including the inferior parietal lobule, showed a significant age ×gender interaction. Additionally, the inferior temporal gyrus showed a significant age ×gender ×hemisphere interaction. No regional volumes showed significant age ×hemisphere interactions. Our study may contribute to clarifying the mechanism(s) of normal brain aging in each brain region.

[7] Hemisphere- and gender-related differences in small-world brain networks: A resting-state functional {MRI} study L. Tian and J. Wang and C. Yan and Y. He NeuroImage 54 191 - 202 (2011) http://tinyurl.com/z4jstz9 We employed resting-state functional {MRI} (R-fMRI) to investigate hemisphere- and gender-related differences in the topological organization of human brain functional networks. Brain networks were first constructed by measuring inter-regional temporal correlations of R-fMRI data within each hemisphere in 86 young, healthy, right-handed adults (38 males and 48 females) followed by a graph-theory analysis. The hemispheric networks exhibit small-world attributes (high clustering and short paths) that are compatible with previous results in the whole-brain functional networks. Furthermore, we found that compared with females, males have a higher normalized clustering coefficient in the right hemispheric network but a lower clustering coefficient in the left hemispheric network, suggesting a genderâ€``hemisphere interaction. Moreover, we observed significant hemisphere-related differences in the regional nodal characteristics in various brain regions, such as the frontal and occipital regions (leftward asymmetry) and the temporal regions (rightward asymmetry), findings that are consistent with previous studies of brain structural and functional asymmetries. Together, our results suggest that the topological organization of human brain functional networks is associated with gender and hemispheres, and they provide insights into the understanding of functional substrates underlying individual differences in behaviors and cognition.

[–]AspiringMathsGuy 54 points55 points  (5 children)

Go watch Christina Hoff Summers YouTube videos, or Milo's debate against Julie Bindle https://twitter.com/durhamsu/status/728303926416703492 is this what equality looks like?

[–]79johnsmith 7 points8 points  (0 children)

In response to Julie's concentration camp idea, Milo countered with repeal women's right to vote. He raised the points that women vote tend to against their own interests and for larger governments.

Past men failed the biggest shit-test and now we're paying the price for it.

[–]night-addict 4 points5 points  (3 children)

To her credit, Bindle defended her points well and was surprisingly respectful to Milo. I disagree with her ideas, but credit should be given where it is due.

[–]Nothing_Gazes_Back 21 points22 points  (2 children)

I disagree. She was unprofessional, exaggerated her points, and far too emotional to really convey a concise point- Anytime Milo called her on it she just dropped the "hur dur ima big mean bulldyke" line as if it were justification for being wrong.

Lots of fun to watch though. Milo is the man.

[–]night-addict 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well, I'm saying that relative to your average campus feminist, perhaps I should've been more clear. Sure she's emotional, but she's no campus feminist. That much is clear.

[–]AspiringMathsGuy 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Her arguments were purely anecdotal which essentially does the same as campus feminists, scaremongering. The only respect she gains is for taking the debate where other feminists wouldn't have.

[–]zeus450 79 points80 points  (9 children)

Feminism is just a shit test. We talk about this literally everyday.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (5 children)

On a society level, yes that is correct. However, the point of my post is what response do you have if you meet a feminist who then gives you a dictionary definition, attempts to take the moral high ground, and tries to shame you into saying that you, also, are a feminist? And this all revolves around the definition of 'equality', which plays a central role in the (totally misleading) dictionary definition they love so much.

I was asked below to 'define' feminism, but that is totally beside the point, because feminists can't define it themselves. I am perfectly aware that there are 57 varieties of feminism: 2nd wave, 3rd wave, gender feminists, liberal feminists, radical feminists, marxist feminists, etc. I don't care, because most women you meet who call themselves one haven't actually read much source material on feminism either. Whenever you point out some bad thing that feminists do, they will try the 'no true scotsman' defense. "Oh, but that's not my kind of feminist, my kind is all fluffy and nice and really believes in equality". That is why I always take it right back to the word 'equality'.

I'm aware that several members here have reported plating girls who proclaim themselves feminists, and turn out to the ones most desperate to be completely dominated by a man (which fits with the shit test idea). I recall one, I think it may even have been an endorsed member (was it you, Vasily) who plated someone who actually taught feminism at a university, and was completely aware that she was talking horseshit. For myself, I regard feminists as the enemy of all men, determined to destroy masculinity (at least if present in men), and the biggest hypocrits on the planet. They are not to my taste, and I refuse to give them any kind of succour whatsoever. However, bearing in mind other member's reports, people are free to make up their own mind about this.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (2 children)

Walk away, trigglypuff isn't worth the words

[–]jdgalt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Trigglypuff's video will live forever on the net. I just hope anyone who might ever hire or house her sees it first.

[–]beachbbqlover 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also isn't a good idea to breed crazy.

[–]Shubrook 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Talk about specific policies. How many men's shelters are there in your state?

If you want to actually convert one, you need emotional arguments, though. My favorite:

Do you have a son/nephew? Tell me what would happen if one of his exes knocked on the door one day with a 2 year old.

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

I cover specific policies in the link provided from definition #1. Feminists claim that they want equal rights, but in fact actively oppose equal rights, including all the Duluth model bullshit.

[–]Synlarity 1 points1 points [recovered]

This is the best comment I've seen on reddit so far.

[–]zeus450 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What better way to test frame than to act hostile and delirious under the guise of "equality"? It's genius honestly.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 57 points58 points  (13 children)

I think the real reason why TRP hates feminism is that we had feminism pushed on us during our primary education. Then when we got to college we watched feminism be exploited for personal benefit by our generation of blameless magic princeses.

People hold strong beliefs as a result of emotional experiences they then rationalize their beliefs ex post facto with logic and reason.

[–]1PrinceofSpades 39 points40 points  (7 children)

It expands beyond our primary education; there was no escape from it for most of us. My home life consisted of my divorced, overweight mother who re-married a black guy telling me how great women are every day, and raised me to be the best damn cheesy Hollywood romantic that ever lived.

Hell, I stood outside of a girlfriend's window with a boombox playing 80s music back in high school after an argument and I'm only 24. We had a truly romantic re-kindling after that... And then two weeks later we broke up and she was banging some older dude with no future but muscles and tattoos and a car. "She wasn't right for you; just be yourself and the right girl will come along!" My mother's words still ring so deep within my brain as a reminder of just how wrong she was.

There was no red pill father at home to teach me school was lying to me and that my mother was lying to me and to show me what to do. My stepdad certainly tried; he played D1 football after all, but as I got to know him better I learned he was a beta his whole life, always wondering how his black teammates were fucking so many white girls when he could barely keep a single girlfriend around. He had no spine, and so anytime he encouraged me to lift, or stand up for myself and punch back, my mother would tell me that I could be whoever I wanted and let me continue to try and grow into a passive flower.

The emotional responses to my upbringing will always be engrained forever into me. They serve as a nice reminder nowadays of exactly what not to do. We can preach all we want about living for ourselves and not caring about anything else, but the future generations will only be raised far worse than we were (on averages, statistically speaking), and that truly frightens me. To the point that I want to have a child not for the sake of continuing my bloodline, but for the sake of giving the world another carrier of the torch of reason and truth amongst the ensuing chaos.

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon 10 points11 points  (3 children)

My mom went one better. She basically said that I should be nice and maybe some nice girl will take pity on me. Looking back, she never wanted me to have another woman be more important than her.

I knew one woman who went so far as to tell everyone she was going to teach her baby son to be gay so that no woman would ever be more important than her.

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

That second example though... Holy fuck that is disturbing on a whole other level

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have nexted so many women in my life, I usually have some relevant example.

[–]jdgalt -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't worry about it. If mom is that blatantly selfish toward her son, he'll figure it out before he's old enough to have sex.

[–]Battle-Scars 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Hell, I stood outside of a girlfriend's window with a boombox playing 80s music

Fucking gold Brother.

You owe me a new keyboard, this one's full of coffee...

[–]LukesLikeIt 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I bet it was Peter Gabriel.

[–]nolanite 3 points3 points [recovered]

Everything you write -- absolutely everything you've written that I've read -- is fucking spot on. You speak like a prophet.

[–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 6 points7 points  (2 children)

My Ego boner is thick and vieny after your comment.

[–]LukesLikeIt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Time to ejaculate on his metaphorical face.

[–]Redpill_Hannibal 96 points97 points  (45 children)

it's funny because I see TRP as a male equivalent of feminism, although I would focus more on ideological aspects, than biological

  • don't get married - we heard it many times before, if you are going to get married you will have a bad time, BUT feminists preach the same thing, telling young woman that they're going to be belonging of a man

  • eating cake and having it too - if you wanna get married you'd better fuck as many women as possible to see which ones are the best in bed, then marry a virgin, women do the same: fuck whoever goodlooking you want, Beta Bob will wait no matter what, when you hit 30

  • chasing hedonism - Fuck bar sluts / fuck fuckboys - with no strings attached, it damage both parties in diffrent ways, woman won't pairbond properly with the next man, man won't see the reason to pair bond with next woman

  • don't have kids - it will destroy your career, and if the chick is pregnant you can always use abortion as a last contraception method, btw I come from Poland, recently some bishop wanted to sharpen an abortion law, feminists outrage was enormous

  • victimhood - rape culture and 1 to 4 statistic is made up, I wonder if the case is similar with divorce rape

in my opinion (27 old guy from Poland) TRP and feminism have a lot in common, ofc there are some difference but unfotrunatley I have read too little feminist literature to point them out

[–]1ToSeeAndToHear 30 points31 points  (14 children)

TRP advances male sexual strategy interests... so why would we not resemble, at least superficially, the opposite ideology that advances female sexual strategy interests?

[–]Redasshole 43 points44 points  (12 children)

Because we don't want to harm women. Even when we say wives should stay at home and be submissive, it's for their pleasure. We don't have a #killallwomen hashtag.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (11 children)

When women adapt to a parasite-like lifestyle, we indirectly harm them by removing ourselves from their resource pool.

Food for thought.

[–]SubbaHubba 69 points70 points  (2 children)

When I remove myself from a poor neighborhood at night, I indirectly harm the muggers by removing my wallet from their reach.

[–]skoobled 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I like this response tactic

[–]yarow12 4 points5 points  (0 children)

And the youth by removing a positive example from their sight.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 25 points26 points  (1 child)

They remove themselves from our access, and the state ensures they get to keep access to our resources. In essence we pay her for years or decades to fuck some other guy.

Fuck your idea that we do the divorcing and they're the victims. Fuck it because the vast majority of divorce is due to her fucking it up by cheating or leaving. You want to reward her for shitty behavior? Fine, find some fat ugly bitch you can't stand and give her half your gross every month.

[–]1Entropy-7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it was Rod Stewart who said something like "I don't intend on getting married again. I will just find a woman I don't like and give her my house."

[–]Redasshole 4 points5 points  (1 child)

It's fair to harm parasites.

[–]hores 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is really just the r side argument of the r/K selection process. K selection would argue for stable nuclear families.

[–]Hydris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not allowing or condoning harmful behavior ( to you or other) is not an attack on the ones acting it out. It's correction and good for the deviant and society as a whole.

[–]nuesuh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We also harm them by allowing them to transform into a helpless parasite. Women and men are different, but most women are fully capable of taking care of themselves without welfare.

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

It is not on men for their choice to be a parasite, unless he consented to it. A lot of us do or will someone consent to it, but with terms - i.e. "don't fuck other men" and "take care of the kids" etc.

Basic contract here.

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

Exactly, feminism is the Feminine Imperative writ large, it is entirely about making everything go to women's advantage. Since we are consciously adopting a male sexual strategy (after acknowledging that there are two sexual strategies), one of the main characteristics of feminism is that it tries to do it from a male perspective. Because feminists want to be men, and are intensely jealous of the achievements of men. So traditionally, feminine sexual strategy involved working subtly behind the scenes, using her femininity to influence the men around her (using the inherent bias men have towards women) in order to favour her. She basically exploited men to share their resources, but then again she gave something in exchange. Feminists, in attempting to become men, encourage the ire of men because they are not acting like women.

However, the point of the post was a response to a recent question in a comment about how you answer a feminist saying that they just want equality, so you should be a feminist too. So to answer that, you need to unpack what 'equality' means, and in doing so you can dislodge them from the moral high ground that they attempt to occupy.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Fundamentally wrong, because feminism is by design and practice a movement that advances women's interest in society: no-cause divorce, abortion, economic equality - this is fundamental to feminism, to implement into law such policies. This is not true about the red_pill.

I doubt there would be much of a fuss about feminism if they were in fact just RP's equivalent - educating their own ranks on how best to approach life (and of course, the sex market).

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

Correct. MRA is the male equivalent of feminism, in that it wants to change the way society is run. TRP is a praxeology that guides men in getting the most out of life and relationships, given whatever circumstances you are in, based on observations of human behaviour. However, MRA isn't the same as feminism in that the MRA's (from what I have read, I am not one) actually want equality, they are not trying to gain superior privileges, unlike feminism.

Anyway, whether we like it or not, we will encounter feminism. How you deal with that is up to you. For myself, I don't argue with feminists, but I do argue with men who say they feel they should support feminism, and men are much more open to argument. Remember, without the support of men feminism could have done nothing. The above arguments, I think, divert accusations of being simply 'woman-hating' and puts the objection firmly in the realm of actual equality and fairness. Men tend to have a strong sense of that. I wouldn't bother giving those arguments to feminists, they will just call you a misogynist shitlord anyway (and use one of the shaming tactics we all know and love -https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

[–]Eyes_Of_The_Dragon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No fault divorce actually made it easier for me to leave, because when other people were watching, she would be on her best behavior, and thus it would have been difficult to prove fault. But I made the decision to leave, not her.

[–]i_got_the_clearance 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, TRP is apolitical. Even MRA isn't so political as far as I can tell. Will there ever be a MRA superpac for example?

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Huh, you're actually pretty right. One difference I'd note is that when it comes to marriage a woman can always just bail if marriage is really as bad as feminism says it is ("I'm so oppressed!") but men can potentially get fucked by the long dick of the government for life if their marriage goes sour. So I'd say the "bad time" is a much badder bad time for men.

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (10 children)

It's not. It's not an ideology or philosophy.

It's a praxeology. Guys swap notes on things that worked for them, and apply them in life.

Theres no philosophy, and you don't get the manosphere if you think otherwise

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

I know we like to think of ourselves as a "toolbox" but the same ideas/stances get repeated over and over, thereby forming an ideology. The ideology isn't overt or intentional, but it exists.

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

Doesn't help that humans have natural tendency towards rote dogma instead of a more nuanced ongoing critical evaluation.

[–]dazed111 8 points9 points  (6 children)

There definitely is a philosophy underlining it. And if you cant spot then that's so much worse for you

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Rollo, and many of the vanguards would disagree with you.

It's just guys swapping notes, a toolbox for you to use as you see fit, in persuing your life.

It's not worse. If you want a complimentary philosophy, look into nietzsche, the stoics etc.

It's pragmatism. What works, what benefits, less naval gazing

[–]Redpill_Hannibal 2 points3 points  (4 children)

after searching "stoic" in this sub, and i am pretty sure that stoicism IS philosophy

"How to become Outcome Independent using a Stoic trick"
"The end goal is to be fun, not stoic."
"Why TRP Tells You To Meditate - Memes, explanations and instructions on how to find your inner stoic"
"Stay stoic in the worst of situations always pays off."

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

yeah, it's a tool

rp isn't stoicism

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

Whether or not you think it's a philosophy or not, man... It has become one. Swapping notes or whatever, there are common themes and common reasons behind then. That's philosophical.

[–]Redpill_Hannibal 2 points3 points  (1 child)

then there are so many philosophical tools that it looks like philosophy

[–]jdgalt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the disagreement below this message is because the meaning of "it" is unclear -- was "stonepimpletilists" referring to TRP or "the manosphere" (MRAs) by "it"?

[–]mara5a 0 points1 point  (4 children)

that is an excelent point. I would argue that the main difference is TRP is counter-reaction to feminism, defence standpoint versus offensive feminism. That results in partial or almost full justification for me.

But I agree that if both feminism and TRP would have gone "mainstream" the downwards social spiral would be very steep and self-destructive.
I see TRP as guidebook for the "anger" phase, still plenty of options for "traditional" life after some time.

[–]Endorsed Contributorsqerl 9 points10 points  (3 children)

I would argue that the main difference is TRP is counter-reaction to feminism.

Reading this made me cringe. TRP is not a counter-reaction.

if both feminism and TRP would have gone "mainstream" the downwards social spiral....

You haven't been here long. Society has already been going down hill, quickly.

I see TRP as guidebook for the "anger" phase, still plenty of options for "traditional" life after some time.

This confirms that you're new here. Traditional is more akin to TRP. Unless you're BP. Then traditional means blind to reality.

[–]mara5a 2 points3 points  (2 children)

TRP is not a counter-reaction.

I would argue it is. Men are getting frustrated from the shit feminism puts them through and are looking for ways, many of them find it here. Had there been no third-wave feminism (or whatever it is called) there would not be TRP, at least not this much widespread.

Society has already been going down hill, quickly.

I should have mentioned I'm from central europe, society here is in majority traditional. The "singles" trend and many other things is here as well but to much lesser extent.
My point was theoretical "nobody gets married all the sudden"

I see TRP as guidebook for the "anger" phase, still plenty of options for "traditional" life after some time.

Traditional is more akin to TRP.

You are right here. What I meant was the "don't marry, don't have children" part of TRP which I don't consider to be right, which is of course only the matter of opinion.
What I meant by TRP only being guidebook for anger phase is:
1. You, completely new to RP, come here and you read the rules.
2. You will live by them and make them your own principles.
3. Following the saying "Apprentice knows all the rules, master knows when he can break them." you can lead normal happy family life a little later if you wish to (many men find raising their own children a part of their legacy), no reason to live by the "don't marry, don't have children" forever (Of course, if you want to then you can, no question in that.).

[–]elevul 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Wait, Poland has been overrun by feminism too?

[–]Redpill_Hannibal 0 points1 point  (1 child)

not really, currently conservatives are in charge, feminists are staying aside, they don't lobby for anything, they only react when status quo is endangered

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

don't get married - we heard it many times before, if you are going to get married you will have a bad time, BUT feminists preach the same thing, telling young woman that they're going to be belonging of a man

This one's my favorite - it's like liberals screeching against government electronic surveillance. Foot? Meet bullet!

[–]the_KingofSpain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like to refer to male feminism as masculism

[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TRP is more about slamming pie until you find cake (a virgin).

Divorce rape is not as common as some think, but splitting your wealth and income in half is generally a shit deal for guys since they tend to earn more and contributed more to the finances of the marriage.

Additionally, feminism destroyed marriage and brought about all the changes to divorce laws that drives guys away from it.

[–]1Entropy-7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TRP is more about slamming pie until you find cake (a virgin).

Divorce rape is not as common as some think, but splitting your wealth and income in half is generally a shit deal for guys since they tend to earn more and contributed more to the finances of the marriage.

Additionally, feminism destroyed marriage and brought about all the changes to divorce laws that drives guys away from it.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 15 points16 points  (3 children)

Feminism is a misguided slave rebellion.

[–]vagbutters 11 points12 points  (2 children)

One where women were never slaves and the only masters are the corporate elite who they never target; instead they target the hoi polloi males who never had much say to begin with

[–]Unholy_VI 5 points6 points  (1 child)

There are places in the developed world where women are property. They can't drive, can't vote, can't go out without their face covered, husbands are allowed to beat them, whatever.

I have twin daughters. I wouldn't want that for them.

Seems to me it's a case of some really extreme anti-man women starting a movement that was never about equality and always about punishing men, smearing natural male traits and tendencies as immoral while promoting feminine traits as the ideal for both genders and the like.

With Trump we're finally seeing a backlash emerging against this insanity. This is the apocalyptic showdown between fed up men who just want fairness for everybody and the feminists who are used to getting their way about everything.

[–]vagbutters 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree, neither extreme is a good thing for women. However, women as "property" is a notion that stems from traditional (good) patriarchal values which were implemented to stump female hypergamy. It's hard for a woman to go out and fuck 20 men when no one will marry her, hard for her to do that when her family will disown her, and hard for her to do that when her father and brother(s) can make sure that she stays faithful to someone.

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

Feminism is the political embodiment of the feminine imperative.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 23 points24 points  (2 children)


Beware of binary logic.


The Red Pill is not "anti-Feminist" in that we are it's reflection.

The Blue Pill is a mythology... there are an infinite number of mythologies.

The Red Pill is truth... there is just one truth, but it is complex and subtle so it's difficult to grasp and it mutates in it's presentation like a Rubik's Cube.

The Red Pill always complies with the Rubik's Cube or what is called Natural Law.

The battle is of Truth vs Myth. (one-to-infinite)

Feminism exists within the Matrix which is a virtual reality not based in truth.


[–]RedPillHorse 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You're close, but semantically I'd call it faith vs understanding.

Religious individuals believe what they think reality is, rationalist individuals understand based on observation.

Belief in absence of understanding is faith.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Matthew 7:13

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

Which is actually very ironic.

The original writings of the hebrew Torah clearly differentiated between Truth and Myth.

It was only upon the creation of Christianity that they invented the concept of faith.

In the Torah there is no faith... no belief, simply what I call the "Rubik's Cube" which is the complex description of reality we know as Natural Law.

The Red Pill is Natural Law.

This is why the Red Pill is more like ancient hebrew than modern Christianity.

So no... faith came much later... Truth and Myth are better words and more accurately describe the situation.


[–]michael_wilkins 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My life got a lot simpler when I realised that Feminists were just lobbyists. Every group has lobbyists that agitates for increased power for their own group.

[–]choomguy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All great points. If feminists ever read anything but propaganda, it still probably wouldn't sink in.

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

GREAT post! Stats and Facts are anathema to liberals/feminists/marxists. Any time you pull out known facts and knowledge is when they, quite literally, set out to destroy you.

This is why knowledge of common sense is unspoken of and outright BANNED in EU countries as well as the states.

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

Stats and Facts are anathema to liberals/feminists/marxists.

'Course they are. Those ideologies judge on intent, rather than results. Focus on results requires deliberate study and reason, which is a cisnormative white man's oppression, don't you know.

[–]nuesuh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"wow that's really sexist and offensive. I bet you're a racist too! >:("

-feminist response

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

I love that you made a short post with concise points but backed it up aggressively with sources. Well done.

[–]ASAP_Bickle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I agree that this is the basis of an objectively great argument to use against feminism, you will struggle to find success using it because it is dialectic.

Dialectic means straight talk. Rhetoric is power talk, and that's what really moves people to change their minds on something. Donald Trump only ever speaks in rhetoric. The feminists that shout "S3X1ST!!" at you are using rhetoric to influence people's thoughts about you.

Great post, but if you use it in an argument with a feminist you will lose. Rhetoric > dialectic.

[–]EmCeeMultiple 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Feminism used to be about equal rights for women, you know? Them showing how strong they were. That they could work too, go to school too, them being denied that possibility is injustice - however, in the first world, none of that is present in this day and age. What does a 17-years old spoiled white brat know about gender inequality when meanwhile, in Saudi-Arabia, husbands order the clitorises of their wives to be amputated so they don't feel sex anymore, and therefore don't have a reason to cheat. THAT'S inequality, THAT'S unfair, and you're just as bad as the new wave of feminists if you're a hypocrite about that because that's the same as your wive forcing you to... I don't know about what ways there are, but to do /something/ so your dick goes numb. That's just unfair, that is REAL injustice, and if they were talking about that, how women are treated in some crazy South-American or African tribes, or in the Middle-East, I'd fucking call myself a feminist.

Unfortunately, I ACTUALLY heard feminists say shit like "testosterone doesn't exist" - Shit, you're denying that I'm a male, now? /bitch/ PLEASE.

Or shit like: "I'M A FREE INHABITANT, A FREE INHABITANT HAS THE RIGHTS OF A U.S. CITIZEN, BUT DOESN'T HAVE TO ABIDE THE LAWS." - That's just hypocritical, irrational, and... fucking dumb...

I also think it's funny how they always victimize themselves instead of, like, work on their shitty and sad personality. You make mistakes, learn from them, apply the knowledge that you have acquired and MOVE ON TO GROW. But instead they're just waiting for someone to call them a "bitch" to go ape shit about it, or for someone to call them a "dude" and get angry about how they're a lady, like, /dude/, if I didn't know you were a lady I would have probably smacked you in your face already. Don't worry, I'm not denying in any way that you're a girl by saying "dude".

Sorry, my opinion is all over the place in this comment, I just have so fucking much on my mind as far as this /BULLSHIT/ goes.

Stupidity is contagious they say, I always thought "Ehh, well, maybe." but the first time I sat and tried to REASON with a feminist, pushing myself down the entire conversation so she'd feel more at ease so she'd fucking communicate with me like a human instead of an animal and she didn't co-operate - and then I saw how these people were just influencing other young and innocent girls who haven't found themselves yet so that's why they're on the internet all the time, yeah, that's when as far as the quote "Stupidity is contagious." goes, I went from "I don't know."/"Agree to disagree." to "You're damn right it is lol."

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 4 points5 points  (0 children)

meanwhile, in Saudi-Arabia, husbands order the clitorises of their wives to be amputated so they don't feel sex anymore,


This isn't practiced on the Arabian peninsula. (Source : the clitorii of the women in my very large extended family.). In fact it's unheard of as a concept in many parts let alone practiced.

However it is an ancient African custom pre-dating Islam & Christianity and is culturally passed down by some of African groups (Christian, muslim or animist).

That said I get your sentiment and the point you were trying to make.

Just pointing things out so you don't sound as ignorant next time.

Carry on.

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

That's just unfair, that is REAL injustice, and if they were talking about that, how women are treated in some crazy South-American or African tribes, or in the Middle-East, I'd fucking call myself a feminist.

I'll just reply to this part. From what I have read, this is NOT something forced by husbands, but carried out and enforced by older women. It is about reducing female sexual response, thus raising the price of pussy (if women gave it away for free, as Western women often do, the price goes down and no commitment is required in exchange - hence TRP). Feminists may like to blame it on men, but then they blame everything on men. I recall reading a survey of middle eastern men about it, and they were generally not in favour of it, or wished that women would do something less 'drastic'.

Also, women not going out to work was not oppression, it was part of women's privilege. Men went out and did the hard and often dangerous work, women got to stay at home and look after the children and feed the chickens. Women didn't want to have men's jobs until after industrialization made many jobs less strenuous (and they still don't want the hard jobs). Another canard.

[–]TheeEmperor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We know the truth, which gives us social power over others. However, it is a shame that such beliefs are allowed to fester into real political power over us.

[–]Frontfart 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Many people confuse equal outcomes with equal opportunity. Feminists are the most rabid of these.

[–]fakenate1 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The problem with your post is that you did not define what feminism is. You dreamt up a feminist in your head and attacked that.

For example, are you opposed to feminism as defined as to what Susan B. Anthony wanted? Isn't equal suffrage a feminist idea?

I'm not making a comment to the content of your post, I'm just saying that you did not hold yourself to the same conversational standard that you held your feminist to.

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

I have no intention of trying to 'define' feminism, because even feminists can't do that. This is how they get away with the no true scotsman fallacy so much (the second-favourite response of feminists, after the usual shaming tactics). We can, I think, isolate a few core principles that you probably have to accept to be reasonably called a feminist, eg Patriarchy Theory, Rape Culture, the Wage Gap Myth are pretty core. After that it is all up in the air. But it doesn't matter, because when push comes to shove, there is a central core idea which is what makes many people, men and women, say they are feminists (remembering that they are in the minority), and that is the 'equality' meme. I have often seen feminists, when challenged about all the injustice that feminism pushes, come back with, 'but you don't understand feminism, just look in the dictionary'.

So, this is taking it back to that very basic meme, which is central to the dictionary definition, and showing that even at that basic level feminism is unjust in action and incoherent in theory.

[–]TheRedStoic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You haven't said anything wrong, you just said things. You don't explain to a woman or an sjw, anyone really who relies on blind faithful belief over fact.

You're beating your head against the wall and your preaching will only be feared by the antagonist and heard by the choir.

[–]AssChair 0 points1 point  (7 children)

To be completely honest, Feminism has done a lot of good. Even if you don't give a shit about women being able to vote, or wear pants, or all that equality stuff, you have to appreciate the fact that feminism helped cause the sexual revolution. If there was no feminism there would be no "hookup culture", guys would still be getting married at 25, and be expected to pay for their women for the next 50 years.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children)

It has done one bit of good, (good for men that is, it has done almost no good for women). Remember, much of what feminism claims as 'victories' were not due to feminism at all.

The 'sex positive' section of feminism (there is also an anti-sex section, or more specifically, anti-sex-with-men) and the breaking of marriage has meant that those men who like to sleep with lots of women have a much freer rein than they used to have. I certainly acknowledge that. You can openly fuck lots of girls and not have society ostracise you for being a 'cad'. Of course, this is not to women's advantage at all, but that is what you get when society mores are determined by the sex that is driven by feelz with little ability for forethought.

In the abstract, I am neutral about women voting, but I update my opinion based on results. Right now, I would say it was an absolutely disastrous idea, the beginning of the end for Western civilization, and the cause of all the shitty anti-male laws that have been passed since to pander to the woman vote, which in turn has destroyed marriage and hence taken our birth rate below replacement (making us ripe for replacement).

Equality, as explained, was never more than a cover story for feminism. That goes for 1st wave too. Don't know about other countries, but I have read about the Pankhursts and the Suffragettes, and they were never concerned with equality even amongst women (and definitely man-haters).

There is an argument that could be made that with modern industrialization and the sheer amount of wealth in modern societies we can now go past the monogamous model that originally built that society back to a more ancestral model of looser relationships (polygamous/hypergamous) with shared resources to raise children. However, at a society level it doesn't work in practice (viz single mothers).

So in the end, Feminism harms women. /u/TheeRyanGrey once said in a comment that men are starting to hate women in the West, and it is certainly true that there is an upswelling of disgust at the excesses of feminists which is bourne by all women. I think women's standing in the mind's of men hasn't been as low as this for a very long time indeed. Deprived of the committment that they seek (https://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-bitter-harvest-of-feminism.html ), women are more and more unhappy (see http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969). Women are on anti-depressants at rates three times higher than men (http://www.thumotic.com/feminism-depression-epidemic/ )

It would all be great for men, except for the misandrist and unjust laws that feminists have been able to push through. In particular, the destruction of marriage means that those men who would like to have children either are dissuaded from doing so, or take a very large risk. Further, the 'equality' meme means that LTR/marriages are probably less happy than they were. First, because having no-fault divorce option in itself makes people less happy (see experiments with people having a choice to change their gadget being less happy with it than those who thought they could not change it), and as we know, women's nature means that they need to be in a subdominant role in general, but society encourages them to feel bad about that, so they fight against it, causing unnecessary strife in relationships. Further, the attacks on masculinity itself, the feminization of education and the effect of that on boy's development, the rise of single-motherhood funded by the State (ie you and me) and thats effect on boy's development, makes it far from a great state for men too.

[–]Endorsed ContributorTheeRyanGrey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Literally could not say it better myself

And I mean that literally, not figuratively. Very well articulated

[–]Endorsed ContributorTheeRyanGrey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Literally could not say it better myself

And I mean that literally, not figuratively. Very well articulated

[–]Endorsed ContributorTheeRyanGrey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Literally could not say it better myself

And I mean that literally, not figuratively. Very well articulated

[–]Endorsed ContributorTheeRyanGrey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Literally could not say it better myself

And I mean that literally, not figuratively. Very well articulated

[–]Endorsed ContributorTheeRyanGrey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Literally could not say it better myself

And I mean that literally, not figuratively. Very well articulated

[–]Endorsed ContributorTheeRyanGrey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seriously this is a perfect response

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (5 children)

This is still using femenist language, just go be a man, be aware of the world, and treat the obsticle as the way

[–]ObservantOmega 9 points10 points  (3 children)

How do we define a man? Not by his cock, then transsexuals would be men too. Saying "be a man" is just spouting a platitude, meaningless in the end.

We should always aim to be more eloquent and intellectual than our enemies. Google "triglypuff", this is what we are up against, responding to it with "hurr durr moar alpha!!1!" will not do.

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

My arch nemesis isn't a fat, pathetic sheltered woman.

[–]1PrinceofSpades 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Exactly. My arch nemesis is the better looking man than me, who lifts more than me, makes more than me, and bangs a woman hotter than my own.

I'm competing with him every day, in every way. So are you.

Because women have gone to shit, and there are so many more fat, pathetic, sheltered women who scream 'fuck you!' in the face of logic, I now have to compete way harder to have a woman still worth having in this day and age.

Thing is, I'm a man. Competition is fun for me. It stopped being about the woman, that prize at the end of the journey, a long time ago. Now it's for me, and my pride... because I want to be better than him. The woman I'm with? Just another measure of that success; nothing more, nothing less.

That's what a rival is.

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

Measuring yourself against another man is a far better test of self anyways. One of the things I'd argue that TRP is about is not measuring your worth by what women in your life tell you it is.

[–]SYL3NZR -1 points0 points  (0 children)

replace URL shorteners with archive links pl0x

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

Who gives shit about feminism? People in here swallowed pill and don't play by rules of society. People who just somehow ended up here peeking, won't listen to this, as they can't be unplugged until they get cheated on by their unicorn

[–]Cobra32233 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

[1]. Equal rights under the law. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

I don't, women are not our equals. We've killed ourselves trying to prove that black is white since this equal BS started that's where all the cognitive dissonance and social engineering comes from.

If we are equals, women making less money MUST be due to discrimination right ? THEREFORE we need laws to help the poor things.

And so it goes.

Women (and everyone else) deserve equal protection under the law, nothing more.

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

Well that's what I said. That I agree with definitions 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4. Saying that 'they are our equals' in that very simplistic way is definition 4, which is what is really meant, but the bait and switch is to substitute definitions 1 and 2 if you ever challange it.

Social engineering comes primarily from definition 3.