This is a post I made from my old account on r/poscels (a subreddit I created for positively minded involuntary celibates). It is Part 3 from an extended series of critique about The Red Pill here because everyone keeps saying that the Red Pill is fine and dandy, that it is effective for men like me (outsiders) and that it is overall a useful tool or whatever. So I go through the Sidebar and try to separate the wheat from the chaff. My argument with all of this is that we should all be "taking the purple pill". I made some minor edits to the original post only. Part 2 is here.

The Misandry Bubble

socialism ... unsustainable health care

I just want to point out a few things. That what Americans think is socialism is in fact just social democracy. Even free market economist, Friedrich Hayek once said that society cannot function without some form of social redistribution (nor would it be ethical) and Milton Friedman too, supported the superior idea of negative income tax that would support the unemployed on benefits until they could get a job, so that they would not be worse of for working. This, and the failure of the western world to incorporate means tested benefits, is the reason they can't get their welfare system to work. As for unsustainable health care, Americans should look more closely at functioning European models before they shit on the idea and compare Obama's half-way solution to the issue of universal healthcare in a government where he was being outvoted by the Republicans. I get the feeling this article is about to blame men's issues on progressive politics and the mixed economy.

stagnant wages and rising crime

Can all be attributed to a range of causes. Inadequate public education, disillusion with a system of 9-5 blue collar wage slavery, fathers abandoning their children, ostracisation of ghetto communities, legality of virtually any regular Joe fucker to pick up a firearm with a bit of paperwork. But yeah, blame the left, ok.

The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated.

I get the feeling the article is going to equate feminism with progressive politics. So I'll state my views early on. I support the idea of a left-leaning centrist state and believe that a big issue with progressives now is they've gotten into bed with the feminists so to speak. I can understand the temptation - after all, women are the oppressed minority ... right? Well no, it turns out men and women can't really compared in that way. Women can be described to have issues pertaining to gender (physical inferiority, more of them victims of sexual harassment, lower incomes, sexualised by the media) as do men (have to work blue collar type 9-5 menial jobs, historically been conscripted and in US they still are, more of them victims of violent assault). The truth is that feminism is in my view antagonistic to a truly progressive outcome now.

Progressives need to be able to represent a broad array of issues pertaining to race, gender, mental health, disability and other areas. They are limited to do this as long as they have to do the politically correct thing (notice I don't use this style of speaking very often) which is to be a feminist. Representation of the aforementioned issues is simply handicapped by a feminist's etymological bias in gender issues because any focus outside of femininity or feminine represented people will simply be seen as bigotry, especially inside self-restricted feminist circles incorporating theories of intersectionality or other so-called "diverse" systems of representation. Simply put, non-feminine identifying individuals are not as likely to want to be represented by feminists and it's not as likely that they will benefit from that even if they do. The same can be said for feminine identifying individuals, if their chief concerns are not related to marginalisation on the basis of some sort of representation in regards to gender (which is perfectly possible).

That's why intersectionality is important for progressivism but it needs to adopt either an egalitarian or humanist bias, and this is what intersectional-feminists miss: simply put, some people don't want to be and don't benefit from being represented by feminists. Sure reasonably minded intersectional-feminists and other off-branches might deem it as acceptable that people can form their own systems of representation. They forget however, how the paradigm of political language affects people's ability to identify with new movements and form ideologies pertaining to idiosyncratic forms of representation if it doesn't fit the accepted western narratives about political correctness. A new integrated theory of intersectional egalitarianism or humanism would escape the way egalitarianism has been hijacked by the right wing, wealthy cis-white middle class males and give a new impetus for genuinely progressive leanings - and the way feminism has become a radicalised commercialised cult for hipster posers could finally be negated.

So already, I think this article is starting on a false premise as a self-identified, purple pilled, progressive-leaning centrist ideologue.

The average man was forced to risk death on the battlefield, at sea, or in mines, while most women stayed indoors tending to children and household duties. Male life expectancy was always significantly lower than that of females, and still is.

I can agree that things are not better or worse for men versus women and have even stated that. I think this is the premise for humanist representations of intersectional theory with progressive leanings.

Now, becoming a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes?

I can't help but think that this neglects to account for an array of circumstances surrounding the circumstances of women and men during this era. It's why I keep saying things were not better or worse for men versus women in general, not accounting for a multitude of different cultures, historical eras or contrasting those to the present day. To be honest anti-feminists that make these kinds of erroneous, often fallacious judgements are making exactly the same mistakes as feminists who assume the reverse principles. Historical and socioeconomic factors are just way too broad to make these kinds of sweeping statements. And if we are talking about the evolution of suffragism, it was based on the principle that women's concerns were being ignored, that women did not have the same kinds of political power or voice of representation as men, hence they needed a kind of ideology that permits for this.

Its original intention was not to marginalise men's suffering, especially working class men - and men could be dying on battlefields but still higher in social status as they were regarded especially from an elite perspective, which happened to be a class of rich white male landlords at the time. Feminist theories that evolved from this might have taken the theory to various different directions and often extremes, such that you could even argue the ideology is now incoherent (I mean, what even is feminism now?). This is the whole reason why I keep arguing for a system of representation that can't be misconstrued, so we can get rid of these unhelpful -isms and Machiavellian sophistry.

Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man.

Nooooo. More so from suffragists, the feminist narrative originally existed to elucidating the male nature in the hierarchical system of powers/hegemony. The point was to demystify the way society was organised from the top down, predominantly by rich white, upper-class male aristocrats and land owners. The whole point was that at the very top echelons of society there are not female representatives, not to marginalise the plight of men at the bottom of the ladder. This idea has always been historically introduced as a red herring by anti-feminists to derail the whole point of the theory that society can be explained as a top-down organisation of patriarchal power structures. Of course there are men at the bottom of the ladder.

This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality

The apex fallacy of the author is to misrepresent the reality of the structural male-dominated systems of power suffragists were attacking at the time of the movement. Even today, we see a shortage of female representatives at high position of power and this domain should be taken over by those (like myself) with a genuine interest in humanist, progressive theories of representation across an array of issues. The exclusive focus on gender in the first place is idiotic. A well integrated progressive system looks at everything in order to understand the bigger picture. And that's my critique of gender based ideologies to begin with. The author's critique of the same ideologies is just ... unsophisticated.