Introduction

I am writing this post as a first attempt at formalizing a number of ideas, thoughts, and conversations I have had regarding red pill philosophy. The overall attempt of this piece of writing is to a) show the necessity of building a functional masculine identity, b) to argue that certain pieces of red pill philosophy are doing this, and c) to begin to poke holes in the idea that red pill philosophy is the most rigorous or a necessary way to reconstruct masculinity. It is also written specifically to confront masculinity for heterosexual men. Some of these ideas cross over, but since I am heterosexual, I don't claim to understand all the ways these things change when you are dating other men.

I am a mathematician, so some of this argument structure is going to be written in proof format. If this isn't your usual way of conceiving of arguments, the following guidelines should help.

  • An axiom is something that we are going to take as a given truth in the system. We do not have to prove axioms, we accept them.
  • A theorem is something we prove using axioms.
  • A lemma is a smaller, sometimes tangential seeming argument that we must address before using axioms to prove theorems.
  • The goal of building theorems is to construct a consistent and useful system of analysis.

Axioms

  • Humans are individual and unique, but their perception of the world and their behavior are colored and in some cases determined by cultural norms.
  • The postmodern argument that all cultural norms are entirely relative lacks historical understanding. Thus we must consider cultural norms as they exist and have existed.
  • There are a strong set of cultural norms pertaining to masculinity that significantly effect the perception and behavior of all men in the Western world.
  • These cultural norms were challenged by feminism and in the places where they have been broken down, they have left an identity vacuum that needs to be filled.
  • Some of these norms (not an exhaustive list) include emotional regulation, sexual strategy, self care, and boundaries for the use of power.

Theorem 1 – While biology does have a significant role in determining differences between men and women, cultural norms do this as well The Red Pill would have you believe that men and women are more different than they are and that biology determines more difference than it does. Their argument is a reaction to the equally unrigorous theories stating that all gender is a social construct. We need look no further back than the 1950s to understand the ways in which the personality traits of the average American man and woman have actually shifted over time. It is also interesting to consider Jordan Peterson's point about how in the Northern European countries where there is more prosperity and people are more free to pursue their interests, gender differences actually tend to become more pronounced. While the thrust of his argument is an attempt to prove that men and women are actually very different (I think he overextends on this point), he is also implicitly implying that personality traits can change as a function of the organization of society. This gives us a data driven proof for our point.

Lemma 1 – The vacuum in masculinity that was created by feminisms breakdown of patriarchy has led to the rise of altright/incel culture in addition to Red Pill culture. Furthermore, the battleground for this vacuum IS the future of masculine identity. This is close to being an axiom, but I think it required some explanation. These various new communities that are comprised of almost entirely men trying to define themselves are simply replacements for the communities that existed before they were challenged by feminism. Humans like to organize themselves into communities and it is one of the ways that we define ourselves – Benedict Anderson argued as much as he gives the history of nationalism in 'Imagined Communities'. So, this is only to say that incels and Red Pillers and Mens Rights are all operating in the same territory – the vacuum. This vacuum must be filled in order for masculine identity to have a coherent structure, for if we concede that gender identity is both biological and dictated by cultural norms, aka Theorem 1, then we are also saying that it would be incomplete without intelligible cultural norms to adhere to.

Theorem 2 – The Red Pill has contributed pieces and theories that must eventually become part of a coherent positive masculinity. The classic Red Pill story proceeds in the following way. A young man who feels lacking for identity stumbles across the Red Pill community online. He may be struggling with sexual strategy, with getting and keeping a good job, with confidence, and in particular with trying to square his understanding of feminism with how little love and respect he seems to get from women in his life.

Here, the Red Pill has answers and ultimately makes his life much better. They tell him to practice sexual strategy like he would practice anything else. To go to the gym, dress better, work on his posture, and generally take better care of his body and appearance. They encourage him to de-prioritize sex for the time being and instead focus on himself. Lift, work, eat well, dress better, and work on confidence. At first pass, these seem like things any good therapist or wise adult might suggest as well. These are the kinds of things that MUST be included in a coherent positive masculinity.

However, they then move on to their theory about sex, gender, and generally the interactions between women and men. It is not the purpose of this post to fully address these arguments (that will come in a later post), but I will make the claim that these theories are not rigorous. 'Spinning plates', 'chad fucks vs. beta bucks', 'Hypergamy', 'AWALT', and the like sound more like catch phrases from a self help book than a coherent world philosophy. It's far too simple and puerile to be a reasonable explanation for something as complicated as the entirety of the differences/interactions between heterosexual men and women.

So, the Red Pill suggests all of the right things for a young man struggling with identity, but rather than following these up with coherent notions of positive masculinity, they teach oversimplified almost-entirely-sexually-based principles that these young men are supposed to use to understand the world.

Lemma 2 – These oversimplified sexually based principles are an irrational and emotional reaction to the blows dealt to masculine identity by feminism. For a group of men who pride themselves on their ability to think rationally, they sure seem reactive and scared. Much like the unrigorous Trumpian claims about how bad America has become, these men perceive a much greater crisis than exists. Men are still doing just fine. We make money and suffer no systematic economic oppression. We are going to jail at much higher rates than women, but that has always been the case. There is certainly more awareness of consent these days, and while this does mean that cases pop up where men are wrongly accused of sexual assault and have a difficult time defending themselves, existing FBI data shows that the vast minority (between 4-7 percent) of sexual assaults are falsely reported. So, again, not a crisis. If this isn't actually a crisis, we can only understand the ways in which they treat it as one as a fearful reaction to the vacuum left in masculinity.

Lemma 3 – There is a crisis in the sense that men don't know how to fully form themselves without servile adherence or turning to misogyny. What the Red Pill rightly understands as a crisis is the identity crisis. For as we showed above, intelligible cultural norms need to exist in order for coherent identity to exist. Right now, there is a vacuum and inside the vacuum there is a battle. The extreme ends of the battle are characterized by the male-hating power-wielding brand of feminism and the misogynistic power-wielding brand of meninism. It is worth noting, here, that the male-hating branch of feminism is small and insignificant as compared to the greater movement whereas the misogynistic arm of meninism (including most Red Pillers, incels, many Mens Rights groups, et. al.) seems to be growing at an alarming pace.

Theorem 3/Summation – In order to help men establish coherent masculine identity, emotional regulation, sexual strategy, self care, and boundaries for the use of power must all be addressed. Furthermore, the Red Pill is not addressing these concerns fully or rigorously and there are other ways out. The deconstruction of patriarchy was a stripping of unequal power held and wielded by men in the 20th century. This could be a very controversial statement, but we are going to take it as a given and it can be argued in the comments if necessary. Suffice to say here that men held most of the economic resources (they still do) and left women little recourse to remedy that situation, giving them power over most things in America.

What came with the stripping of this power, though, were a number of other factors. If male sexuality can't operate like it did in the 1950s (women were basically expected to provide their husband with sex) and the sexual revolution in the 1960s made casual sex an accepted part of American culture, what were the new governing rules for how it all should work? Unfortunately, these rules never seemed to become fully established. This essay is too short and perhaps I will write another to address this problem, but I posit that one of the projects of building a positive masculinity must be to establish reasonable, positive, and consent based rules for sexual engagement. Furthermore, I argue that these rules should not be based on dominance or capitalistic economic models of hoarding as much of any given resource as possible, but rather a mutual understanding that sex is a significant part of human life and we should find a way to engage with each other in productive and positive ways.

By stripping men of certain types of power, feminism also left an open ended question for how and when men should wield power. Strength is a positive and desirable trait, and sometimes it is important for men to exhibit various kinds of strength through power. I also posit that an important task of establishing a positive masculine identity is to understand that men can and should wield power in appropriate ways, but they should do so without engaging in the dominant ladder climbing that the Red Pill argues for. It is not necessary or productive.

Finally, emotional expression and general self care are also huge open ended questions left in this vacuum. Previous to feminist intervention, men were expected to show very little emotional, and doing so was considered a feminine trait. The Red Pill would have us go back to that standard except they explain it, like they do with everything else, in terms of sexual strategy. Emotional = weakness, weakness = she isn't wet/doesn't have the tingles, cue her looking for another alpha/Chad to replace you. I think that while some women may operate in this way, most don't. In general, being emotionally steadfast, reasonable, and strong are traits that a positive masculinity should strive for. It should not, however, strive for the kind of emotional regulation and self care that lead to a complete paralysis and inability to recognize and process emotion. This doesn't sound very strong to me.

Conclusion This essay only scratches the tip of the iceberg. I have been thinking about this for years now and this is my first attempt at writing something coherent. Every area I wrote about needs to be expanded upon, more evidence needs to be provided, and stronger refutations of Red Pill arguments need to be given. My hope is that this represents a jumping off point from which the vacuum of masculinity, currently being filled by what I think are unrigorous and ultimately doomed theories, can be filled.