698,118 posts

Could a Man have written this? RationalMale "..but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men"

Reddit View
March 14, 2014
37 upvotes
http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/08/could-a-man-have-written-this/


Post Information
Title Could a Man have written this? RationalMale "..but it’s important for Men to understand that anything positive a ‘pro-man’ female author has to offer is still rooted in her female reality. In girl-world, what directly benefits women necessarily is presumed to benefit men"
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 37
Comments 20
Date 14 March 2014 01:39 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/175000
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/20efzr/could_a_man_have_written_this_rationalmale_but/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pill
Comments

[–]TheRationalMale.comRollo-Tomassi22 points23 points  (3 children) | Copy

It isn't a question of whether either sex's strategies are complimentary or adversarial, it's that women presume that what benefits the feminine strategy (hypergamy, the feminine imperative) necessarily benefits or in fact IS what the male strategy should be.

This was my follow up post on this: http://therationalmale.com/2012/12/28/sanitizing-the-imperative/

[–]Redpillc0re1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

And that's rooted in their solipsism

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheRationalMale.comRollo-Tomassi4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

it's on my About page

[–]Clauderoughly2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

The orginal article RM is referring to

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/308654/

Basically the article is "How Feminism fucked up my life, and ensured I will die alone with my cats"

[–]VirgoRooster 7 points7 points [recovered] | Copy

This is why I don't understand RedPillWomen. A woman, by her nature, cannot live a redpill lifestyle. There's some wayward notion that the female and male sexual strategies are complementary. In fact, they are in direct competition with each other.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

There's some wayward notion that the female and male sexual strategies are complementary.

No, you're right, they're at odds with eachother. Read my introduction to RPW.

http://www.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/1giney/welcome_to_red_pill_women/

[–]Patrick55552 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That shortlink...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

Direct competition means a limited resource and two parties who desire the resource. Unless you're talking about gay men, women do not compete with men. They are somewhat in opposition because men and women want different things. A red pill life means living in recognition of one's nature and being the best possible within that nature, including having the power and will to choose to use the nature to accomplish one's goals. Men and women can do that to different ends based on their sexual strategies; women to the end of obtaining commitment/security/father to kids, and men to the end of obtaining sex/mother to kids/companionship.

[–]suscitare2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

Women are engaged in a vicious struggle to gain access to the fruits of male productive capacity. Feminists have aggressively lobbied governments to attain generous welfare entitlements such as socialized medicine and single mother pensions. We as men are confronted with an intolerable situation of having to pay for the health and education (through taxes) of children that do not belong to us. There is the competition. That leaves us with two options: either get by generating a minimal income just to survive or be a chump slave raising other peoples children.

[–]ltCameFromBehind0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

We as men are confronted with an intolerable situation of having to pay for the health and education (through taxes) of children that do not belong to us.

Wait, how is paying for children benefiting women more than men? Are you ignoring the fact that children have fathers for some strange reason? Every single child has exactly one mother and exactly one father who are equally responsible for raising the kid. Fathers provide financial assistance and mothers provide primary care. If you want women to provide financial assistance then you're going to have to find a way to change the fact that men are never the primary caregivers. If children need to be taken care of financially it's because a father has failed in his responsibilities. If children need more primary care it's because women have failed. With this metric it's actually men who fail in their responsibilities more often than women. Any other analysis is feminism bullshit where men and women are equally responsible for every aspect of society.

We're not feminists. You can't believe that men and women have different strengths and different roles and also want them to share equally in the aspects of society that benefit you. That's solipsistic.

[–]suscitare0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Wait, how is paying for children benefiting women more than men?

Because of this: or in other words hypergamy. Women are quite happy to share the sperm of a man with other women. This is why the welfare state is so objectionable to men.

Every single child has exactly one mother and exactly one father who are equally responsible for raising the kid.

From the article:

we no longer need husbands to have children,

The welfare state has shifted this responsibility on to other men. The welfare state has created a moral hazard for men to the benefit of women. If women are going to have children they must take full responsibility for raising the child and stop shifting that responsibility on to other men unrelated men.

Fathers provide financial assistance and mothers provide primary care.

Fine, but there should be no financial assistance provided by the state.

If children need to be taken care of financially it's because a father has failed in his responsibilities.

No it's because the woman made a bad choice in choosing the father.

men and women have different strengths and different roles

That part I agree with.

[–]ltCameFromBehind0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Because of this: or in other words hypergamy. Women are quite happy to share the sperm of a man with other women. This is why the welfare state is so objectionable to men.

So do you support laws that put limits on the ability of women to participate in hypergamy? There are very easy ways to fix this.

This is simply untrue; the welfare state has shifted this responsibility on to other men. The welfare state has created a moral hazard for men to the benefit of women. If women are going to have children they must take full responsibility for raising the child and stop shifting that responsibility on to other men unrelated men.

You said full responsibility. Where is the father in this scenario and why isn't he being hunted down and expected to pay for his own kids? Society hasn't shifted the responsibility for raising children from women to men, it's shifted it from some men to other men. As I said, women provide primary care. Men provide financially, if there is a financial problem, it's the man's responsibility. Now if you were talking about adoptions I would have agreed with you. Adoptions occur when women abandon responsibility for their children and shift that to society. Welfare happens when men abandon responsibility.

Fine, but there should be no financial assistance provided by the state.

Including education and assistance for children? I'm with you that having children you can't afford to raise should cause you to be penalized by the state, but I'm not with you that children should be the ones who pay for their parent's mistakes. You risk creating a perpetual cycle of terrible people.

This is simply untrue; the welfare state has shifted this responsibility on to other men.

For the benefit of the father who is not providing financial assistance. Remember that the mother is already providing primary child care. It shifts the responsibility from one piece of shit man onto many men who actually are capable of being providers. It does not change the gender balance. You perceive it as being the responsibility of the woman for some reason that I think it's worth exploring but the finances are not her responsibility.

No it's because the woman made a bad choice in choosing the father.

So if a guy has children with a woman and she kills her children the man should be jailed for "choosing the wrong mother"? That doesn't even make sense.

[–]suscitare0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

So do you support laws that put limits on the ability of women to participate in hypergamy? There are very easy ways to fix this.

No I do not; like many men here I have libertarian sympathies. Rather than pass additional laws the best way to eliminate the harmful effects of hypergamy would be to eliminate all welfare and socialised medicine; this would have the effect of encouraging men back into the workforce and would also promote long term pair bonding/marriage.

Where is the father in this scenario and why isn't he being hunted down and expected to pay for his own kids? Society hasn't shifted the responsibility for raising children from women to men, it's shifted it from some men to other men.

It ought to be the responsibility of the woman to choose a father who is responsible and is not going to abandon her. She should choose a man with a job and held in high regard in their community. Yes, men who abandon their children should still have to pay for child support.

men who actually are capable of being providers.

You mean men who would be capable of being providers if they didn't have to pay for the mistakes and reckless actions of other people.

So if a guy has children with a woman and she kills her children the man should be jailed for "choosing the wrong mother"? That doesn't even make sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense because that's a false strawman you have concocted there. The man shouldn't be jailed but it would be just for him to suffer for making a bad mate choice. The legal responsibility for the infanticide should still rest with the woman obviously.

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

I see; I didn't understand the larger point made. Because you're right... in law, benefits of efforts and male risk-taking, male creativity and productivity, there is exactly the phenomena you explain. Though, there are more options than just those two.

[–]southernmost-3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy

We are not slaves to our instincts. Women are less naturally inclined to logic and rational thinking (and socially exempted from it), but they're not incapable of it. Part of a successful LTR is taming the hampster.

[–]ScannerSloppy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The original article on National Review is much better than the Rational Male critique of it.

[–]jkonine-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

Unless they are a mother of a son(s).

Mothers generally do put their kid's best interests first.

[–]suscitare0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

That's a questionable assumption. I'm sure many women have children solely for the purposes of ego gratification.

[–]Lightning140 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Of course there are some, but they are more the outliers than the norm. There is a reason we call it a maternal instinct. /u/jkonine's statement was about mothers in general. Of course, mothers may often think they know what is in their son's best interest when in fact it is not, but the intention is clear.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter