I posted this on another account, but it got deleted, so I'm reposting again. These are just some objections to the Red Pill which have irked me for a while. If there are any rejoinders/criticisms, or further discussion to add to my points, I would love to hear them.

  • The evolutionary science it is based on is often neither up to date, nor conclusive. This is kind of inevitable, because evolutionary science and especially evolutionary psychology is an emergent field. Yet its status as an emergent field is rarely or never acknowledged by the Red Pill. In fact, many evolutionary science findings are directly contradicted by findings in other sciences, such as psychology. These contradictions/discrepancies are ignored by Red Pillers, or else they choose to dismiss entire fields (such as psychology) as bogus. But many of the findings in psychology (obviously) use the same scientific method as that employed by evolutionary psychology. Do they not realise that rigorous scientific standards exist for publishing in all academic fields?

Moreover, they don’t consider how the particular history and needs of the field might dictate its field of enquiry. Evolutionary psychology often concerns itself with the human behaviours which are most selfish and irrational, or are simply unexpected particularly from the standpoint of conventional morality or behaviour. That is because the theory of evolution itself only became widely accepted very recently, and it is these kind of behaviours which most support the evolutionary hypothesis.

  • They concern themselves with the incidence of a behaviour over its frequency. Indeed, the mere fact that a certain kind of behaviour or motive exists in humans means that no alternative behaviours or motives can possibly exist.

  • It makes no distinction between natural selection and sexual selection. In the case of natural selection, it involves environmental factors over which the organism has no control.* In the case of sexual selection, the organism ‘chooses’ particular traits in its mate. Yet the Red Pill is often angry at women for evolutionary preferences that may have been developed as a result of natural selection (which the human females in question would have had no control over). Alternatively, such preferences may exist as a result of sexual selection, but in that case the women making the decisions existed thousands of years ago. In either case, the anger and blaming of women for having these preferences, which they did not decide on themselves, is absurd.

  • It may be the case that they believe that women have free will and control over whether they choose to ignore or act on these preferences, or to choose between them. But if that is the case, why would it not also apply to men? Yet they disproportionately expect women to have control over their sexual impulses, and not men.

  • In general, the Red Pill seems to deny the existence of free will and is a deterministic philosophy (but again, determinism is not even supported by the existing scientific evidence).

  • Ironically, they believe that men can have almost total control over their sexual desirability.

  • It gives men unrealistically high standards for what they expect out of a woman. It encourages all men to go for a ‘HB10.’ It would thus be impossible for all men to follow their philosophy.

  • If sexual dating choices are to be made, they must be the ones that most support male interests as a group. This obvious bias often goes ignored and uncommented on by Red Pillers. In reality, the Red Pill’s dictates would most likely advantage a select group of men. There is no system of checks and balances that would prevent a group or individual from selfishly monopolizing the sexual marketplace. In fact, why would they not when the Red Pill actively promotes selfishness and egotism?

  • The Red Pill denigrates men it considers as ‘Beta.’

  • In order to believe the Red Pill to be true, almost all of the arts, culture and philosophy would have to be disregarded.

  • The pragmatic realities of dating/dealing with evolutionary preferences in the modern world are almost completely ignored/dismissed.

  • They promote the ‘evolutionary fit’ over the ‘evolutionary unfit.’ They turn evolutionary description into prescription.

  • They don’t think of solutions that could make the sexual market place beneficial to the preferences of all, only concentrating on the ‘needs’ of the few (i.e. their needs). For example, if they were concerned about ‘beta’ males’ 'right' to reproduce, they could encourage the opening of charitable sperm banks which don’t discriminate on arbitrary bases like university education, height etc. (A 'right' whose existence is a worthy topic of debate in and of itself).

  • There is only one way to solve the moral problems posed by evolution, and the moral problems considered are those that affect a limited few - i.e. straight men. Even though they have little interest in the moral and ethical problems in their own right, or at least propose only a set number of solutions. Generally, social problems caused by evolution are resolved at the expense of women.

  • Essentially, they elevate their ‘need’ to reproduce to the status of a right, then deny that right to others. This ‘need’ is usually nothing more than a felt preference.

  • Some adherents are not interested in their ability to reproduce. They are simply interested in maximising their sexual pleasure. If that is the case, then all the normal problems applied to hedonistic philosophies are applicable to them.

*Admittedly, I'm not really familiar with the science, so I could be wrong about the distinction