One thing that has always struck me as strange is that a lot of Red Pill people insist men are now the oppressed class.

Then I look at the people doing the most damage in America. The list is overwhelmingly men. The politicians attacking democratic institutions, the billionaires creating predatory platforms, the tech bros trying to build libertarian tax-haven islands in the ocean, the grifters selling misogyny for profit—overwhelmingly men. And when women do show up in those spaces, like Karoline Leavitt or Erika Kirk, they're generally advocating for movements led by and benefiting men.

Meanwhile, women aren't the ones trying to overturn elections. They aren't the driving force behind most extremist movements. They aren't the ones building the systems causing the most widespread social harm.

Using Red Pill logic, shouldn't we conclude that men are simply less suited to power? After all, that's how Red Pill arguments usually work: observe a pattern, declare it innate, and ignore history, institutions, incentives, and socialization.

Of course, that's a ridiculous conclusion. Men are not inherently worse leaders, just as women are not inherently better people. Society is more complicated than that.

The point is that if you reject this reasoning when it's applied to men, you should probably stop using it when it's applied to women.