696,979 posts

RationalMale: Equalism and Masculinity - "[...] the idea of anything positively masculine is either ridiculed [or] cast as misogynistic[...] Since the start of the sexual revolution, any definition of what masculinity truly should mean has been subject to the approval of the Feminine Imperative."

Reddit View
August 20, 2014

Post Information
Title RationalMale: Equalism and Masculinity - "[...] the idea of anything positively masculine is either ridiculed [or] cast as misogynistic[...] Since the start of the sexual revolution, any definition of what masculinity truly should mean has been subject to the approval of the Feminine Imperative."
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 55
Comments 12
Date 20 August 2014 01:58 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/175011
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2e2xqc/rationalmale_equalism_and_masculinity_the_idea_of/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pillfeminine imperative

[–]BetterToBeFeared16 points17 points  (4 children) | Copy

For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

This is something you learn in Animal Behavior/Ethology 101. Darwin proposed that there is a constant struggle for fitness, an individual's ability to survive and reproduce. This is a central tenant of biology: your genes express themselves in physical and behavioral characteristics and those characteristics determine your chances of mating.

Now here's where it gets even more interesting. The struggle for resources and mates does not only go on between individuals (e.g. early bird behavior gets the worm and lives on to reproduce,) species (e.g. moths with brown wings are invisible to birds when on brown trees, live on the reproduce,) but it also goes on between the sexes in a given species.

Males and females are in a constant evolutionary struggle in their physical characteristics and behaviors (we can call this strategy) to get the upper hand on their own fitness and the fitness of their progeny. It is literally a battle of the sexes out there. Both sexes cannot win due to differences their optimal strategy. In most mammals this means males will evolve to maximize their strength and aggressiveness for mate guarding and/or take on characteristics and behaviors that allows them to spread their seed as much as possible. In mammalian females it means finding the males that will pass on the best genes to their male children (having an alpha male as a kid is like hitting the evolutionary jackpot) which means warding off undesirable males. In some cases, females will also extract the maximum amount of resources from the males in order to help the fitness of herself and the kids.

Let me give you an example of this battle of the sexes. A female lion will not mate with a male if she is still raising cubs. It is to her advantage to focus her care on one litter of cubs at a time. Therefore, her behavior is to ward off the horny male while she has cubs. She does this through aggressive behaviors to push him away or by simply sitting down when he tries to mount her - even at 400 pounds, no way he can get in there when 300 pound mom decides it ain't happening. So what does the male lion do when he takes over a pride and the females have cubs that are not his own? After all, raising another man's cubs is not a good sexual strategy, especially when mom isn't giving it up in the meantime. So the conquering male simply kills all of the previous males cubs so the females go back into mating mode. Meanwhile, the females will attempt to defend their cubs as dead cubs is a waste of time and resources for them. No wonder why Simba ran into the jungle when his father met an untimely end from his rival.

In lions its pretty obvious that both genders' sexual strategy cannot coexist through equality. Maybe someday feminist lions will trick males into thinking caring for another man's cubs is truly manly and he should forgo his biological instincts that have been designed over hundreds of thousand of years to increase his biological fitness. But, that doesn't represent equality, that merely represents evolution in female behavior to trick men into caring for children that are not their own.

Now, I know feminists will say that humans can rise above their biology for "equality" but I do not buy that what they are aiming for is equality here. Trying to get men to act more Beta simultaneously gives the female more power in the relationship while it also reduces them male's attractiveness to (other) females. This isn't a step towards a just world, this is a step to eliminate male sexual strategy under the guise of higher concepts like "equality". We've already by and large given up the staple of male reproductive strategy, polygamy, in this world, because while getting those alpha genes are a good female strategy, having to split a man's resources with 5 other women and their children isn't ideal. Nowadays if a guy goes around spreading his seed his resources are split as the law sees fit and those 5 baby's mommas also get to extract resources from the state if they don' make enough themselves.

Anyways, I am dipping into the political realm here, my point is there is no equality in sexual strategy. There is a constant evolutionary war going on between the males and the females of a species where the genetic behaviors of one sex evolves at the cost of the other's this is because the sexes are not equal, there is no set of rules where men can follow their optimal strategy of being alpha as fuck and spreading their seed while females can extract maximum resources for their kids we're too different in this realm. I make enough money to support at least two or three families. Do you think the feminists who want equality would be cool with me having 2 wives? I mean, why not? I can give them all the resources they need to raise the children, and we can all live under the same roof so I can easily take care of any other manly duties. Why is my view a warped picture of equality? It seems pretty fair to me. Granted, I don't believe there is a position that is "equal" but I think my view is more fair than the feminist view of abandoning everything that gives me a shot at any future mates I want to pursue while also giving all my resources to her and the kids. She doesn't need all those resources to raise a couple kids. I think once you start to think and reason about what feminists are getting at in the name of "equality" you see it isn't equal - it's a romanticized picture of reality where every woman is a little princess that deserves all the money and the power.

I guess we can be thankful that we're not black widows who get eaten by their female mates. - there's some real extreme sexual strategy for you.

[–]Senior Contributorexit_sandman5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Trying to get men to act more Beta simultaneously gives the female more power in the relationship while it also reduces them male's attractiveness to (other) females.

Here I had to think of this comic.

(hint: Say "fuck you" to that kind of woman)

[–]BetterToBeFeared2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah I mean women know that men who have a high SMV are less likely to be monogamous. If a man is out there getting attention from multiple females his biology is going to tell him to sleep around. This is bad for the female in that there is a threat that he isn't going to give all of his resources to her if he's going around with other women. A level up from that, there are also social implications that cause psychological stress on women - a woman doesn't get as much social status from being with her man if everyone knows he's cheating on her. So she attempts to keep his SMV low. This is classic RP stuff.

People don't stop and think about why male cheating is "bad". Male cheating is "bad" because our society has decided that monogamy is paramount when it comes to male/female relations. It's as sacred as the Disney princess stories all little girls love. A single bond of love between two people conquers all, etc. The rich handsome prince falls in absolute monogamous love with Cinderella, sweeps her off her feet, and all of her problems go away. To go against it is an affront to the beauty that is love between two people. Keep his SMV low and he will be all yours forever.

The only reason I believe male cheating is bad is because it is dishonorable. "Honor" is also defined by society, so what I really mean is that a man should be a rational being, rather than an emotional one, who keeps his word. If you sign up for monogamy you should stick to it. Otherwise, your word is useless and therefore you are worth less in a rational society.

Incidentally, female cheating is bad because of biological reason as well as societal and political ones. Males in the mammalian world can never know if a child is there's or not so they often have strong mate guarding behaviors. The only way to know if the kid is yours is to watch your females at all times and make sure you're the only guy knocking them up. If another guy gets too close to your girls your adrenaline kicks up the aggression and biology puts you into fight mode. Prior to feminism, a woman who cheated was treated harshly and affairs often ended with angry husbands fighting/dueling their rivals. Society also looks down upon men who are cheated on. You're not a man if you can't keep your woman away from other men. Finally, politics in the west have made it so rule of law protects women who cheat so that there is no punishment in doing so. In many societies, the punishment for cheating was a harsh deterrent; cheat, and you will be kicked out into the streets to fend for yourself, or worse stoned/killed. You will no longer have the benefit of my resources, and you will be shunned by society so your only hope is to marry down with less access to resources. Nowadays, a woman who cheats is either given a pass or walks out the door with half of the resources and all of her dignity.

Anyways, I believe cheating is bad no matter what sex you are, but not equally bad, because it does not have equal implications. I would rather have my illusions of true love shattered and then walk away with half the money than be faced with someone potentially sneaking another male's babies under my care without consequence (only to then take half my stuff.) Although, that's just me, some people like living in a dream world.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

A female lion will not mate with a male if she is still raising cubs.

I agree with most of your post, but I don't understand why human females will still have sex with alpha males even if she has kids. There are so many moms who cheat on their husbands with an alpha fucks. There are so any single mothers DTF a hot alpha guy.

[–]BetterToBeFeared1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Human females have different genes and thus a different sexual strategy than female lions. Female lions who are taking care of cubs won't produce the hormones required to have sex. Human females can go back in heat immediately after birth to a few weeks after birth if they are breastfeeding. Female lions also care for their cubs for much much shorter time - two or three years vs. humans who are pretty much worthless on their own until ~13. Therefore, a female lion's biology is sacrificing the potential to have ~3 more litters in return for focusing 3x resources on one litter. This makes sense as starvation is the #1 cause of death in cubs.

Some prides are have multiple males (sometimes brothers will band together to take over a pride as brothers have roughly the same genes to pass on) and in this case females will mate with multiple males while in heat. So, while a lioness will have access to 1-3 males and will fuck around with all of them, a female human has access to every male her geography and society gives her access too which is a lot. Couple that with different biology (female humans are in heat once a month with ~10 months off for gestation vs. 2-3 years off for raising cubs) and you get promiscuous behaviors.

[–]Endorsed Contributorgekkozorz6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

Makes me think of that "The Mask You Live In" movie.


A movie, directed by a woman, about how men should be behaving. Flip the genders and I think it should be pretty clear how fucked up that is.

This is how mainstream feminism and society at large views masculinity: as a "mask." As if masculinity is all a facade, and our real self is a feminized beta.

Men becoming feminized isn't the solution, it's the goddamn problem.

[–]pbj_sammichez2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm so glad to see someone else with this idea! I have been thinking for a few weeks now that I really don't need a bunch of women (that is, feminists) telling me how to be a man. Be sensitive, be thoughtful, be in touch with your feminine side, and be open about your feelings! Guess what? Sitting around talking about my feelings doesn't make me feel better. In fact, it makes me feel worse because I'm sitting there dwelling on what makes me unhappy. I need to DO something, create something, build something. If I want to be happy, I need to process my emotions in a way that comes from my masculinity, not the femininity that was drilled into me. Men behave differently from women because we are fundamentally different. The notion of being equal doesn't necessitate being identical. We have different behaviors and different needs. Sorry if that got off-topic, I'm not used to commenting on RP threads. I have just been lurking for about 6-7 months now. This shit gets frustrating sometimes.

And that kid in the video who says "If you don't cry then you have all these feelings inside you and you can't get them out." Have you tried something other than crying? Like, have you tried an artistic pursuit? Have you tried thinking about your problems while you work out? You might be surprised how releasing some pent-up anger can propel you up a rock-wall, or how it can make you push yourself to get your bike up that gnarly hill. You aren't a girl, and you don't have to act like one to have value in this world.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Pretty good article, has a lot of really good redpill ideas. I think being conditioned to hate your masculinity and male sexuality actually causes more self-hatred, confusion, and maybe even contributes to high suicide rates in young males between 18-25. Men are so conditioned to be pussies that they're not even attractive to most women. Thus leading to a downward spiral of, you're unattractive, so you swallow more bluepill non-sense, so you're still unattractive. Repeat.

I hope in some future time people will look back at this era for what is really is, psychological abuse of males. But for now, I'm glad we have theredpill to enlighten men, one of the only avenues so far. I can only imagine the intense suffering that millions of Western men must feel because they're masculinity is viewed as threatening, evil, and scary. And any act of masculinity is then contributing to such evil.

Conditioned to hate yourself is a terrible thing I have experienced in this culture/society. It takes many years to break out of it, to realize that you're completely normal, sane, and healthy. And that all these people around you have a twisted anti-male agenda. It's not a conspiracy, it's a reality. I like to think my redpill training started when I found blogs like these and theredpill on reddit, but really is started years ago with my observational skills. It doesn't mean I didn't struggle with suicidal thoughts or depression, it just means I knew what was going on around me was bullshit.

[–]Hoodwink1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think being conditioned to hate your masculinity and male sexuality actually causes more self-hatred, confusion, and maybe even contributes to high suicide rates in young males between 18-25.

I really do think high suicide rates of young males is due to a completely false education about the nature of women and attraction. I had to go through a rough process of realizing that my college classes in feminism were analogous to soviet propaganda education.

The 'pedestal' is very much upheld and created by feminism. It's weird to say, but feminism looks more and more like religion/propaganda whenever I read something feminist. There are often striking similarities to the way events and facts are just warped. It's really a 20th/21st century religion at this point, but with no God and pedestalizing women at the forefront. Most of the time it just wants to give ammo to narcissists and users to mind-fuck men with. It's this social cover that really fucks with anybody who actually believes in equality.

[–]cooltrip1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

"men struggle to come to terms with what that masculinity should mean to them"

Sure masculinity should mean several things to men.

And I'm sure one of those things should be hypogamy (please, someone, insert this term within the article).

If gender equality defenders need to be hypergamous regarding men because those gender equality defenders are inferior (which, in turn and by the way, indirectly implies male superiority as well), then MEN should have their deserved rightTM to go hypogamous regarding women, thanks to their male superiority.

Feminists can be hypergamous (due to their biological inferiority) but it must be considered okay by the society. However, if men go hypogamous and they only choose women according to their carnal qualities and utilities, dismissing any other thing about brains, inner beauty, blah blah blah (because thanks to their male superiority men don't need these other latter things from women), then this is not okay and those men are considered sexist.

Well, I think it's not fair. If it is sexist for a man to prefer and choose women only according to their bodies, then it must be considered sexist as well for gender equality defending women to be hypergamous and to only accept alpha.

If feminists want men to not be hypogamous and want them to love women for something more than pussy, butt, tits, holes, children and sandwiches, then feminists themselves, in exchange, should pay an effort as well and they should stop being hypergamous, and they should start acting like true gender equality defenders, and they should start accepting to have sex with inferior men (betas, bluepillers, nice guys, etc).

The day we start to see gender equality defenders dropping hypergamy and choosing inferior men for sex, then, that day, we men should start to drop male hypogamy (based on our male superiority) and we should start to choose women for something more than sex; but not before that day.

[–]topspeedj2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well, I think it's not fair.

Drop that from your vocabulary. Life isn't fair. The universe is amoral. You don't get what you deserve in life, you get what you go after and take for yourself. 100% balls and hard work.

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

This modern system is totally castrating. I feel like a little bitch when I study confined in the classroom. Thank god I started lifting before I found trp, and thank god I found TRP. I got my balls back.

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

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter