A viral and popular TrueOffMyChest post is talking about the feminist meme that "men lack empathy for women" combined with OP's fear and distress of the dehumanisation campaign on men in mass media.

I've tried conceptualising this several times over the years because, of course, our initial instinct is to cry "hypocrisy". Most red pill men resolve the contradiction by essentialising the traditionalist worldview-but we're defined by being critical of tradcons and the right. I think I can put one take into words, as I did in a comment which will have been buried under hundreds of others by now. I admit this rests upon a hypothesis.

• Women are attracted to power (agency)

  • Therefore men compete to demonstrate and display agency (male hyper-agency)

• There are two basic forms of agency and power; tyranny (violent imposition of will onto others) and prestige (engaging with others, developing their respect and essentially becoming a valuable commodity in the social market place though demonstrating productivity in skills)

Wouldn't mind your thoughts. It's a super difficult pill to swallow, and there is no way to put it without sounding incel-y-because to some extent all critiques of hypergamy tie to incel discourse.

As much as I've tried to spit out the redpill and return to my original feminist consciousness, and as critical as I am of the patriarchal traditionalist paradigm, I cannot explain this outside of Hypergamy.

Women are attracted primarily to power. There's two basic types of power, prestigious and tyrannical-and there are more mature and immature, impulsive and calculating forms of tyranny. The high-IQ sociopathic Machiavellian businessman or politician making their life legally and economically more difficult, the indifferent, aggressive and loutish player, 'the fuckboy' playing with their hearts and minds, and the emotionally unstable rapist or stalker threatening their physical safety, are all seen as tyrants, but all three are quite different from one another.

Women will choose an emotionally intelligent and respected leader IF they have the option over a tyrant. Of course, who wouldn't? What they will not do, unless forced, is choose a man without some form of power or value to add to her life.

They say the problem is reaching men, particularly men who buy into toxic masculinity, and how other men need to be part of it. Well toxic masculinity is hegemonic masculinity and it's called a hegemony because some performances of masculinity are culturally valued more than others. By and large these messages are not reaching the powerful men and being powerful, they only will be challenged if those men are given an incentive they care about. I shall give you a clue; it's not the opinion of men beneath them. It's the opinion of their peers, men ABOVE them, and some (mostly attractive, if we're honest) women.

To develop power in male hierarchies-any competition-you need to be willing to compartmentalise your own insecurity a little, and when you shut yourself off from your own emotional world you indirectly end up shutting yourself off from others. So adding to this incentive, they've been socialised against empathising.

Women are saying that men lack empathy, men treat women terribly-and who is listening? Primarily the opposite end; men with an excess of empathy but no power for that to be respected and acted upon at present. Men who either wilfully chose, or were paradoxically socialised into a more feminine, nurturing and co-operative role. Are these sometimes sexist themselves? Yes of course. An insecure man who is effectively a 'loser' can still be an abusive partner or a rapist. Most low-status men objectify women and dehumanise them between the pedestal and the gutter, as it gives them solace in their alienation. But it is mostly shouting into the wind.

So am I and these other men really in a position to effect change? No, I'm low down the male dominance hierarchy, characterised by competition, dominance games, aggression and self-reliance for the most part presently. Were I a male feminist I could have a small degree of outreach, mainly supporting women in consciousness raising. I try to help subordinated masculinities, to honour and welcome the powerless and oppressed. I have limited capacity to reach the men who society-which includes women-primarily values and respects, because fundamentally society (majority) does not respect my inability to imitate hegemonic masculinity. Same with the many men effected by this. I can call it out when I see it, and do, but it won't make much difference and you are asking me to be subject to violence and exclusion in my own way, which will restrict me further from accessing corridors of power that lead to opportunities for social influence. This is speaking from experience.

Is this blaming women? No, because ultimately their attraction may be based in the messages they receive and not innate. But it's not something which can begin and end with men, least of all the men. Social status, social hierarchies, are not created in a vacuum.

In Redpill speak, the men that society values are the 'alphas'. The men it does not are the betas, deltas and omegas. A lot of this is because the alphas are agents, putting themselves out there and therefore developing capacity to share their environment. The flipside however is these are the men with most potential to hurt her-and it's this which causes many generalised statements against men to appear.

I guess I want to ask what can be done about this? I'm going to make a douchey assumption here and surmise that the majority of this sub are 'low status', subordinated men, not necessarily incels or virgins but not men who have neatly fitted into traditional concepts and evaluations of manhood. Not men high up the various hierarchies we have. I wrestle with the question of whether it's good for guys like us to attempt the aggressive approach or even negotiating with women and a feminine-primary order for empathy, despite our gynosympathetic in-group bias. Is accepting ourselves as making a futile effort because we aren't 'alpha males' just a self fulfilling prophecy that naturalises our own disposability? What other strategies are there, besides violent and tyrannical masculinity e.g. repeal the 19th?

That's one approach. The other is to expect more of ourselves so we that we meet sufficient standards within gynocentric patriarchy/male dominance hierarchies to be able to influence them and perhaps alter them. The problem with this being, we risk internalising the very mentalities that create the problem for ourselves and others.

Is there anything else that could be done? All I can thin of after that is Zeta MGTOW, but that's running away from the dangers posed by the paradox, not solving it.