“The feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy….Self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.” – Phyllis Schlafly
Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Gender Equality is a Myth
2a.) Women’s Advice Damages Men
2b.) Women’s Need for Male Superiority
2c.) Infantile Narcissism as the Basis for Feminism
2d.) Equality, Superiority, Feminism – A Summary
2e.) The Masculine Burden of Performance
3.) Feminism is a Siege on Masculinity
4.) Women Are the Second Sex Because They’re Needier
5.) In Closing
6.) Relevant Reading
1.) Introduction:
Recently I received a message from a feminist asking me some basic questions about the red pill. I figured the amount of explaining required to articulate a quality response would necessitate the writing of an essay. Here’s the thing though, I don’t write individualised essays; it’s a poor allocation of a finite and unearnable resource: one’s time.
Not only that, but I believe it would be a shame if only one fellow got to enjoy such a rich and detailed response. As such, if I find myself penning a lengthy response to someone, there’s a good chance I’ll just make it into an article. After all, if one person is asking these questions, others probably share similar curiosities.
Anybody curious about the red pill, or struggling to grasp it due to an inability to reconcile it with feminist or egalitarian beliefs should start here; this one’s for you. I should warn you, this is one of my more lengthier posts, so you may want to go and grab a cup of coffee before you get right into the thick of things.
2.) Gender Equality is a Myth:
Question: “To you, what is the central tenet of the red pill position?”
The core of the philosophy is built on the idea that gender equality is a myth. Men are required by women to be superior in order to be attractive, women don’t find equality sexy, even if they claim the contrary.
Women don’t make it easy for men, most are not fully cognisant of what they want and will not tell lost boys how to be men, even if they themselves have some sort of idea of what “being a man” entails. Let’s assume a magical woman exists who knows everything about being a man and is fit to educate men in the ways of manhood (humour me); the act of this woman teaching the clueless man how to be masculine would be the very thing that makes him undesirable, assuming there was some kind of physical attraction to begin with.
A man can be attracted to a woman whose femininity he is cultivating, but the reverse is not so. A woman doesn’t want to cultivate a man’s masculinity, she wants to find a man who’s already generously endowed with it. Sure, women will try to rehabilitate bad boys due to their primal attraction to psychopathy, but a “bad boy” has masculinity even if it’s of the negative type; domesticating the desirable and building up the undesirable are entirely disparate phenomena. Women will more than gladly engage in the former, but scarcely if ever the latter.
2a.) Women’s Advice Damages Men:
Women’s advice to men is not fit for purpose, even when they mean well, their inextricable solipsism leaves them unable to give actionable advice that will yield lasting and tangible benefit. A woman’s solipsism dictates her inability to understand how she becomes attracted, to her, attraction is “mysteriously magical”, and as such, a form of incomprehensible magnetism that a man either has or hasn’t.
One of the reasons many women have a simultaneous disgust and intrigue for the red pill, is because among other reasons, it teaches unattractive men how to be attractive. And the mere idea that attraction is teachable implies it is mundane and mechanical, rather than mysterious and magical as a woman’s fantasy prone emotions would drive her to believe.
Rather than tell clueless men they need to be dominant, put her in place and act like more of a jerk, women will oft opt for the non-confrontational bullshit approach: “be kind and understanding, listen to her problems, and she’ll realise what a great guy you are!” In fact rather than help a man, a woman will often use misinformation as a filtering mechanism to benefit her own sexual strategy.
Women will tell men to be kind, sweet, supplicating and deferential, and if he’s idiotic enough to take the advice, she’ll reject him precisely because he did what she said. Many men have had their hearts crushed in youth because they were clueless, listened to the thoroughly unhelpful girl interpretation of what constitutes an attractive male, and ended up with nothing but rejection dressed in the clothing of compliments.
For example:
“You’re so nice, you’re like a brother to me – I don’t want to ruin that!”
As well as condescending platitudes such as
“You’re a real catch, I know there’s a really great woman out there for you, you’ll find her some day I just know it!”
Completely disregarding the fact that, this man doesn’t want “the great women out there”, but in fact desires the woman telling him to fuckoff romantically in the kindest yet least helpful way possible.
Whoever thought such flattering words could harbour such condemning frustration? Who among man knew rejection could sound so god damn complimenting? These are the very phrases a man never wishes to hear from a woman, rejection is something men can process and learn from, but rejection disguised as encouragement simply fucks up a young and impressionable man’s mind.
A lot of red pill men were raised by feminist women, followed feminist advice, and found nothing but misery. As soon as they discarded the notion of gender equality as an operative social model, focused on themselves and became more behaviourally dominant, their relationships with women both sexually and platonically begun improving dramatically.
2b.) Women’s Need for Male Superiority:
The feminine need for men to be better than them is the reason nice guys finish last and “those jerks” get all the women, nice guys behave in a manner which communicates submission and inferiority, whilst jerks behave in a manner that communicates dominance and superiority. Social dominance is important to women, in fact it is probably the most significant attraction cue in a woman’s determination of whether a man is desirable or not, although thanks to feminism, you’ll scarcely hear a woman (or even man) tell you that in this day and age.
Women are attracted to men they perceive to be superior, equals and inferiors are invisible to women. The equals and inferiors are “the creeps” if they’re ugly, and brother zoned as a marriage backup for when she hits 29 if they’re attractive. The red pill refers to the female desire for male superiority as hypergamy, hypergamy is the fulcrum on which female attraction operates: is the man more dominant than her? If yes, he’s attractive, if not, he isn’t.
This handy flow chart pretty much summarises female attraction in a nutshell:
2c.) Infantile Narcissism as the Basis for Feminism:
The reason women oft say “I believe men and women should be equal” and actually believe their own nonsense is because of the fragile feminine ego. Many women are uncomfortable with the idea that they are the second sex. The childish insecurity quintessential of the feminine is exploited by feminism, encouraging women to compete with rather than complement the masculine.
The fruits of this very successful, yet deleterious propaganda has created successive generations of women who are not entirely cognisant of, and undervalue the importance inherent to their “inferior position” – the species dependence on their nurturing of the young. This is a woman’s calling as much as a man’s is to protect and provide, and yet feminists, like spoiled children who think they deserve better, reject their biological destiny in a quest to feel like they’re the primary sex.
Men are the primary sex because they build civilization, women are the second sex because they have added and continue to add very little to civilization. But still, even in the secondary position, there is a great deal of importance in women’s role. Nurturing the species is no small feat, and women being taught to disdain rather than embrace this role are doing not just themselves, but the species an indomitable disservice.
Only the most lesbianic feminist could see motherhood, domestic life and complementary subservience to a benevolent patriarch as “oppressive”. Quite the contrary, permitting women to deploy their sexual strategies so that they may reproduce in security is anything but oppressive.
2d.) Equality, Superiority, Feminism – A Summary:
When a woman says “men and women are equal” it’s only ever in regard to something in which men are objectively superior, never in an aspect in which women are regarded superior. Wherever a woman is regarded as inferior, culture will be blamed rather than biology. For example, women are inferior to men at mathematics – feminism will blame “lad culture” and the prevalence of “old white men in the sciences” rather than admit women have less logical and systematising brains than men.
Women have inferior musculature to men (less muscle mass) and again, the feminist approach will always idiotically take a 100% nurture position, attributing blame entirely to socialisation. Feminists ignore the differences in the male and female brain in matters of mathematical and scientific ability, and likewise do the same in athletic matters, ignoring the anabolic nature of testosterone, a hormone men have ten times more of than women.
Now if you asked a woman who believes in gender equality which sex is better with children, almost all will say “women are better”. So when women are actually inferior, you get this equality nonsense (because feminine infantile narcissism feels unimportant when admitting inferiority), but where women excel, you get female superiority (feminine infantile narcissism likes feeling important). Essentially, feminists reframe male supremacy as equality, whilst allowing and even encouraging female supremacy to flourish under the same guise.
This is why anybody worth their salt quite rightly identifies contemporary third wave feminism as a misguided female supremacy movement, rather than one of egalitarianism. But, just for the record and to clarify the point here, even if third wave feminism were egalitarianism like first wave feminism was, red pill philosophy would still disagree with it. The red pill believes in traditional gender roles, of which egalitarianism infringes upon.
Women need men to be superior to them to be attracted to them, but out of ego do not wish to admit inferiority. This is why you have this strange compartmentalisation where women only pursue men of superior genes, wealth and status to them, but then claim equality in all aspects in which they are inferior. If women truly believed in gender equality as an absolute, they would be attracted to men who are objectively inferior to them. As they don’t, we can deduce that women (even feminists) don’t really believe in gender equality, but merely use it as a tool of no real defined shape, which in all its fluidity, is utilised for no purpose other than to provide women with short-term benefit.
2e.) The Masculine Burden of Performance:
Of course the necessitation of male superiority in order to elicit female attraction has far wider implications than simply displeasing the feminine ego. It means men have a far greater burden of performance, that men are innately insufficient, and that it is their contemporary capacity to perform which determines their sufficiency. This is why you will hear “he’s not a real man” but never “she’s not a real woman”; manhood is precarious, earned each day, womanhood is a certainty, conferred by menstruation.
Women do not have the burden of performance that men do, women are valuable by merit of their existence, whereas men are valuable only when they can perform or produce, eg: amass wealth or behave dominantly. As soon as a man can no longer do these things (particularly the latter), he is no longer considered a man.
This is why many men who lost their jobs in the 2008 economic depression found their wives divorcing them, some killing themselves after the fact as a gentle nod to Darwin; whilst their unremarkable middle of the bell curve ex-wives survived by simply remarrying. Because men must invest more, men find it harder to move on, because women are provided for and invested into, they don’t. A woman will almost always take the one thing she invests most into with her, the children; a man loses everything he invested into.
This is the masculine burden of performance, and it is this constant unending need for men to perform which makes masculinity precarious. Just because a man is considered a man today, it does not mean he will be tomorrow. A man who stops behaving dominantly is not considered a “real man” by either his fellow men or women; manhood is contingent on ability, whereas womanhood is contingent on fertility and motherhood.
A woman can behave however she likes, earn as much or as little as she likes, and she will not lose her gender identity to her inability to perform, women have freedom that men do not, the freedom to fail. So yes, women may be the second sex, but that position of diminished responsibility confers a privilege men will never know. Of course, a childish narcissist could never know that.
3.) Feminism is a Siege on Masculinity:
Question: “Are men, contrary to popular opinion, worse off in today’s society than women?”
I think feminism made the entire institution of family (and thus boys as well as girls) worse off than they were pre-feminism. However, I think boys are affected far more markedly than girls are by father absence, because boys need their fathers around in order to emulate them and actualise their masculinity. Deprive a boy his paternal connection, and you do catastrophic damage to his psyche.
Boys and men need sufficient exposure to the masculine existential viewpoint, but the contemporary feminist dominated society we have in the west does its best to prevent men from accessing their own genders viewpoint; how it accomplishes this is by constantly injecting the feminine viewpoint into everything as to silence the male voice. And this “feminine viewpoint” feminism espouses isn’t even a healthy form of femininity, it’s a toxic, lesbianic man hating one. It teaches girls combativeness, and boys self-flagellation (the very thing they eschew for women).
This is harmful to both sexes, for it encourages androgyny and confusion, it induces femininity wherever masculinity is needed, and masculinity wherever femininity is needed. Feminism is about the destruction of gender identities. Rather than accepting the biological elements of binary masculinity and femininity, it reduces them to mere social constructs, and then does irreparable psychological harm by confusing men and women alike.
Although feminism misleads both sexes, it only attacks and vilifies one of them, men. Although feminism misleads both sexes, it only deprives one of them their same-sex parent, boys. So while I wouldn’t perhaps characterise the plight of the modern man as “being worse off in relation to women”, I would say the modern man has far less support than the modern woman does. I’d then use this argument to further contend that the reason the red pill is as popular as it is, is precisely because there are no alternatives.
Feminism declares war upon the hairy, sweating and arched back which holds up humanity, declares it evil, and self-righteously prods it until it falls, leaving nothing but chaos in its wake. Feminism is toxic gynocentrism which reframes the male existential viewpoint as the point of all evil, so it cares not for men, nor masculinity, feminism has very little interest in the masculine outside of exploiting and undermining it, for masculinity is the feminist enemy on which war has been declared.
4.) Women Are the Second Sex Because They’re Needier:
Question: “Do you consider yourself sexist or think of yourself as hating women?”
Yes to sexist (because I recognise the differences between men and women) but no to hating them as a result of that. I don’t respect women simply for being women, they have to earn my respect with good character. Cultivating a pleasing appearance earns lust, not respect. Most women don’t realise this, because beauty is power and feminism encourages narcissism, modern women believe they’re entitled to respect merely by merit of being female, doubly so if they’re attractive – this is not so.
Feminism teaches that women are entitled to respect regardless of character, this leads to a lot of reprehensible women believing they are intrinsically entitled to something they haven’t earned. Again, this can be explained by childish narcissism.
Imagine a movement which defined parents as oppressive of their children, and that children deserve the right to make their own decisions without their parents denying them “independence” and “autonomy”. Sounds crazy, right? Well this is how I see feminism.
Women need men a lot more than vice versa, it is in women’s interest to have a man take care of them. If women could take care of themselves, they wouldn’t rely on the federal threat of force to redistribute the tax dollars of productive working age men to unemployed single mothers, furthermore they wouldn’t need an ideology to legally enforce such a process.
If women were equal or even superior to men, they wouldn’t need an ideology to state the obvious, everybody would intuit that women were superior and would therefore not need institutional inculcation to ingrain the notion. The reason we keep hearing men and women are equal is precisely because they’re not; it is customary of infantile narcissism to cope with a reality it doesn’t like by profusely denying it, denying it to the point that the lie becomes the new reality – that women are in fact equal to men.
In fact, much of modern women’s strides in the economy come from the death of femininity, supplanted by women’s adoption of masculine behaviours. Truth be told, even when women emulate male dominance as commanded by their feminist overlords, they’re still unable to compete with men economically without a political lobby artificially holding them up. And they’re not meant to compete with men, they’re meant to complement them – that’s the entire point, feminism is unnecessarily segregational.
Free markets are meritocratic, there is no affirmative action or benevolent sexism. Even if we disregard economic concerns and focus purely on the psychological, few women are truly happy if single. The vast majority of women need to be in a relationship with a man they respect to feel satisfied and successful. Likewise, most women do not want a relationship with a man that makes significantly less than them, so they’re not going to have a lot of desire for a man who does.
However you cut it, whichever angle you wish to poke and prod, however you wish to analyse the relationship between men and women by desperately trying to force the feminist puzzle piece to fit, women are the indisputable second sex. And when they’re artificially put into a position of power, dominance and leadership, rarely is such a woman content.
A resounding difference between men and women is that, although humans in general are power-hungry, only men fully enjoy the fruits of power. Men cope with power better, and are happier for having it. Give a woman the highest position available, and you create a miserable woman, a woman who has shrunk her dating pool of eligible bachelors to almost zero, who grows disdain daily for the burdens that encumber her. Women are happier when they’re following because it’s less stressful and there’s less accountability involved. Feminism makes them think they need to beat men at everything to be successful women, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.
Men have never, and will never need women to take care of them, the reverse is untrue. Men took care of women for tens of thousands of years, this is the unwritten social contract, men provide and protect, women nurture – this is a natural balance that works just fine.
Then a political movement comes along and says “hey, you know those guys paying the bills, putting the food on the table and going to war to protect you from men who would rape you? Yeah those men are evil, they’re oppressing you.” – it is diabolical to me that given the opportunity to free themselves of any responsibility, even the pitiful responsibility of running a house, women threw the baby out with the bathwater. They exchanged service to men personally invested in them for service to men with no personal investment in them (corporations and big government).
Why the hell would you want to go and work the arduous jobs men work when you can stay at home, raise your children you adore, and not have to worry about deadlines and work politics? Feminism lies, it acts as if women were strictly prohibited from working before its inception with dramatic imagery of women locked up in kitchens. Women had jobs before feminism, it just wasn’t common because most had the luxury of not needing to work. Modern women don’t have that luxury, all thanks to feminism.
Work is not a privilege, it’s a responsibility, and so it humours me that women were duped into perceiving additional responsibility as additional privilege, simply because it was wrapped up in a banner of independence which played into their narcissistic status anxiety.
5.) In Closing:
As an addendum and before I forget, if you’re a young man looking for some mentoring, /u/tizenkotoko (the gentleman who made that pretty flow chart for me) is a father looking to take a young red piller under his wing. Get in touch with him if this sounds like something you’d be interested in, and before you ask, no, sorry, I’m not open to mentoring at this time.
Any questions or insights? Leave a comment.
UPDATE: Tizen is no longer available for mentoring.
6.) Relevant Reading:
The Empress Is Naked
The Manipulated Man
The Rational Male
The Rational Male: Preventive Medicine
The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men
The Way of Men
