Blue pillers: do you assume all red pillers are the same?

TRP_ · 2013-08-29T10:50:36+00:00

Do you think some red pillers are less red than others and can come to a mutual agreement to disagree on somethings?...

[–]mrsamsa17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

At the risk of a red piller screaming "NARPALT" at me, I accept that there are varying degrees of red. As Spermie has mentioned though, the problem remains that a large number of sidebar readings, core principles of the philosophy, upvoted comments, thread topics, etc, are hugely problematic.

Even if we accept NARPALT as a valid excuse, we're still left with the fact that remaining silent on the topic (and worse still, endorsing the philosophy) is in essence implicit support for those notions.

With that said, I understand that part of the reason for the silence could be the rather stringent banning policy of TRP, where any kind of dissent or disagreement results in a ban for being a "troll", so my perception of red pillers being mostly in agreement may simply be a perception bias as a result of that.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]mrsamsa4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]slashnovels5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tubefox0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wolfwoodd6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wolfwoodd4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (96 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (95 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (94 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]luthiessong22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago (87 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (86 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]luthiessong14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

Something I don't understand about your position is this: why do you think women have different values? I, as an individual, have not experienced men and women behaving as though they have different values. Liars, male or female, are judged to be liars. Slackers, male or female, are judged to be slackers. Considering that you and I have personal experiences that are very different, and we are each drawing our conclusions from our personal experiences, what can you present objectively to convince me that women have less honor?

How are women inferior, morally and intellectually, when judged by the standards of men?

Likewise, if men ran around demanding to be treated like women, but couldn't even give birth.. eventually you'd say hey this doesn't freaking work!

What is the female equivalent of a man demanding to give birth?

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]unf-unff-unfff9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

But I do know that a majority of women I meet share most of those qualities.

The problem is you can't prove it objectively, and espousing anecdotal 'knowledge' like this as facts that could help others gain an advantage in their personal/sex lives is going to be perceived by a large number of people (especially those belonging to the gender you're speaking disparagingly about) as sexist in addition to being entirely baseless.

In a perfect world, I shouldn't be expected to pay for a date. In the world of equality. In the world of reality, most dates will expect chivalry when it benefits them despite feminism. You learn to be sexist because women demand it. Believe it or not, I used to agree with feminism.

There's a difference between expectation and appreciation. If you're claiming that women feel entitled to men paying their way on dates I strongly disagree (and again, you have no basis for your claims other than anecdotal evidence -- maybe women expect YOU to pay to be around them, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be more egalitarian or outright generous towards a 'higher value' male as RPers might put it) especially when you're talking about people of the millennial generation. Personally I'm made uncomfortable when I feel that a partner is being too generous towards me, and I think we've kept things split 50/50 really nicely without becoming anal about it. You provide an anecdote that supports your views, I provide an anecdote that supports mine, and we're left back at zero.

My point is, let's say you have a tribe of 5 men and 5 women on an island. The tribe will only survive if they have babies. If the women are having babies, somebody needs to protect them from wilderness/hunger. The women will work as best they can but will have limited hunting capabilities.

My point is, this is so far removed from the reality most people experience today (in the first world/who are likely to be browsing reddit, at least) that it's inapplicable to discussion of the application of evolutionary psychology in the modern world in general, let alone in regards to sexuality or 'sexual strategy'. In first world countries there are no 'tribes', let alone warring tribes. People live in state-supported communities and it is much less common for citizens to struggle to meet their basic needs. Men no longer provide a literal 'protector/shelterer/hunter' role for women or even themselves, they're part of a social system that essentially ensures those needs will be met excluding experiences with outlying causes (acts of violence, natural disasters, etc.) It's amazing that you acknowledge this (however briefly) and still believe it's applicable to modern society, if you're genuinely a rational person please admit to yourself that your knowledge on this topic is too incomplete to draw conclusions that are strong enough they should be shared with the world at large. You're not a professional evolutionary psychologist, and you speak to a large number of very impressionable people on a regular basis from a position of power (however meaningless,) therefore it's irresponsible of you to speak in such absolutes.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]unf-unff-unfff12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]luthiessong13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

Okay, you've put forward some interesting hypotheses, but they're supported by only your experiences, and I have no reason to credit your experiences over mine.

So men's strategy would be to fight, but women often learned to adapt other strategies to survive the long haul.

That's mere speculation. The truth is our evolutionary history was a lot more complicated than that. Can you demonstrate that taking women captive, and killing the men, happened so often as to change the psychology of the entire species, especially over other evolutionary pressures? It's a non-falsifiable position.

My experience: I've never had a single woman offer to help defend me in a fight. I've seen women bad mouth each other behind each other backs on a scale much larger than I've ever seen men do it. I've never had a woman volunteer to help me with hard tasks in my life, but I've had many ask for help. I've seen women complain about inequality while expecting my gender to do the heavy lifting, the fighting in wars, the majority of workplace deaths, and paying on dates.

I think those issues need to be evened out. I want men to have better labor protections so as to improve workplace safety. I think women expecting men to pay for their dates in the United States in the year 2013 is absurd, and such women should be treated with the ridicule they deserve. I don't see what either of those things has to do with feminism. If the labor movement isn't doing its job to protect workers, blame the labor movement. Men paying for dates has nothing to do with any social movement; it's a holdover from the past that is increasingly dying out.

Women don't help you in fights? Okay. I've never been in a situation where either I or a man I was with was expected to fight someone. It's an experience I can't speak to.

My point is, let's say you have a tribe of 5 men and 5 women on an island. The tribe will only survive if they have babies. If the women are having babies, somebody needs to protect them from wilderness/hunger. The women will work as best they can but will have limited hunting capabilities.

Several hunter-gatherer societies function with women hunting the same game as men, and most were egalitarian, not patriarchal.

Your model of human evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but it's not supported by the facts.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]luthiessong20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Only 27% of captives experience Stolkholm Syndrome.
Your article doesn't provide evidence of a sex difference in cases of the syndrome.
The other great apes are not humans. Studying them can be instructive, but it does not provide conclusive information about human behavior.

Men work more dangerous jobs. Somebody has to do them. A half-hearted "we should improve workplace conditions" hardly fixes the problem that there are inherently dangerous jobs out there, and society relies on them. You can't will this away. You can lift weights and do your part. Put yourself in the line of fire for us. Embrace equal responsibility. That's equality.

What do you do for a living, redpillschool? Taking credit for the actions of other men who do dangerous work is collectivist nonsense. Are you superior to women who actually do dangerous work, because most people who put themselves in the line of fire have genitals that look like yours? Unless you are putting yourself in danger, there is no "we" in this.

Unless men are being forced into dangerous jobs, society is not responsible for the consequences except to provide the safest environment possible for the work. The law should provide quality of opportunity, not outcome. I feel the same way about the wage gap: if women earn less in the same careers because they spend more time caring for their families, that is their choice, and the law should have nothing to say about the matter.

When resources are plentiful, gender roles are less necessary. As I mentioned in my last reply, in today's society it's even less relevant. Women can earn the bread, men can stay home. It's no big deal. Except that our psychology was programmed otherwise. You can be a woman and bring home the bacon, but women evolved to be attracted to men who can bring home the bacon.. so she will want a man who can provide more than she already has. Otherwise he's a burden. And in evolutionary terms, a burden was disadvantageous to her.

You didn't respond to my point. Hunter-gatherer societies can and do exist on an egalitarian model in which women hunt the same game as men.

Women can't help me in fights. They'd get destroyed. They are physically incapable. That's my point- I don't expect them to. Feminism is the one pushing for equality.

Feminism is pushing for legal equality, though I'm not a feminist so I won't presume to speak for them any further than that. Why does women being physically weaker mean they shouldn't have legal equality?

Yes, it really is.

No, it's not. A wikipedia article about Stockholm Syndrome does not prove anything. The research presented in the article is speculative. There is zero proof that kidnappings in our evolutionary past cause Stockholm Syndrome. It's an interesting hypothesis, but you cannot prove it.

[–]IRScientistSober14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not trying to be rude, but what is your formal training in science? BS, MS, PhD, sit in on an IRB, pal around with some PIs? I'm asking because you're citing a pop psychology book like it's a paper from Nature, and even Nature publishes bullshit sometimes.

If I had to pick what I dislike about TRP the most, it's not how you treat women, but it's how you treat science--like a ~~whore~~ ragdoll that you can do whatever you want with. People cite statistics from their ass and no one questions it. Cherry picking and confirmation bias are rampant. And still, when questioned, you hide behind science, like science has your back, like science is loyal to you because you're so alpha.

I'll admit, I get hot under the collar about science. She broke my heart, but I still love her, I still believe in her. I have a BS in biochem and spent 10 years working in academic labs. I've made things that sound like food out of mouse colons, run HPLCs and mass specs, fucked around with a lot of cells, did a lot of expensive shit with DNA.

[–]unf-unff-unfff10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Men work more dangerous jobs. Somebody has to do them. A half-hearted "we should improve workplace conditions" hardly fixes the problem that there are inherently dangerous jobs out there, and society relies on them. You can't will this away. You can lift weights and do your part. Put yourself in the line of fire for us. Embrace equal responsibility. That's equality.

I do lift weights. It's fun. But I have no interest in working in a dangerous job, and because of my own intelligence and my family's comparative wealth, I don't have to. I can go to college and study what I like, then go into the workforce and do something I enjoy. Though there is a gender divide, I'd say what you're talking about is more of a class issue than anything. The wealthy, whether they have a penis or a vagina, don't have to do dangerous labor.

Women can't help me in fights. They'd get destroyed. They are physically incapable. That's my point- I don't expect them to. Feminism is the one pushing for equality.

As much as I disagree with you on this (barring a fight with a +6' man who lifts frequently, I'm strong enough to do some damage), I don't understand here how you can say that you don't expect women to help you in fights when earlier you cited it as an example of how women aren't honorable. If it's not expected of them--even impossible for them--then why should it have any impact on their honor?

[–]SpermJackalope7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women can't help me in fights. They'd get destroyed. They are physically incapable. That's my point- I don't expect them to. Feminism is the one pushing for equality.

This is really starting to make me doubt you're even being honest about your experiences.

The determining factor in most physical fights isn't strength, or even skill, but who is more willing to seriously injure another person. It takes only 20 pounds of pressure to remove someone's ear. Even the smallest woman is physically capable of collapsing someone's trachea with a punch. Most people unconciously hold themselves back when they "fight" someone, because they don't want to do serious or permanent damage. And the person who holds back more is generally the person who loses.

I would expect someone who's been in any real fights that actually involved threat of injury to have picked up on this.

[–]SpermJackalope19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Men are instinctively programmed to maximize her survival as well.

No, I'm 100% sure men also have an instinctive aversion to their own death, you're gonna have to provide evidence for that.

Of course women are less likely to join the war, we evolved as a species that minimized that requirement for one gender.

Gonna need a citation for that. I think it's much more reasonable to say "Of course women are less likely to join the war, we have a society where they're expected to take care of the children."

One mistake blue pillers make is assuming that since we comment on a lack of male traits in women, that it's inherently bad or that women should take offense. That only happens if a woman were to assume her measuring stick is a man.

I think one mistake you make is assuming you know what women think and feel when you aren't one. Again, provide actual evidence for this psychology you think I have, as it's utterly foreign to me.

We see it quite a bit, and it is frustrating. Feminists like to ignore the differences and demand to be treated equally.

Yes, we want equal rights. How is this hypocritical? I thought you just said men and women are equally important, and neither is superior to the other.

If you want to be judged by the standards we judge men.. then you are inferior.

No, I'm not.

Also, good to know trans women and infertile women are both inferior in your world view. That's pleasant.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Most of the women holding those double-standards aren't feminists, though. They're unthinking women benefitting from the work feminists have done.

And I agree, not much has been done on expanding men's gender roles, but that is seriously on the feminist to-do list. After all, expanding men's gender roles is intrinsically connected to removing the societal disparagement of tasks and traits considered "feminine", which is why men are supposed to stick to "masculine" things or they lose status.

If there were more male feminists, more work could certainly be done on these areas. Feminists have a limited number of resources, and I'm not going to apologize for the fact that many of us prioritize opening rape crisis centers or advocating to open combat positions to women or other goals over expanding men's gender roles.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Most of the women holding those double-standards aren't feminists, though. They're unthinking women benefitting from the work feminists have done.

I agree, and I don't mean to imply that holding that double standard is an inherently feminist view point.

But, even if it is misguided, it's easy for me to see why a lot of men adopt that world view. Casual observation would indicate that certain women can passively reap the benefits of feminism, while still selectively reaping the benefits of traditional gender roles.

A lot of guys notice this, and their gut reaction is to basically say "Fuck that." and check out. React by becoming a PUA. Or deciding it's more worth his time to play video games until he's old and grey. Or, in some instances, to embrace his traditional gender role and push back for women to do the same.

I think things like TRP, or even the Men's Rights subreddit, are reactions to people noticing the disparity and trying to resolve it in such a way as to at least achieve some measure of personal happiness. It's so, so easy to read this stuff when you're in a bad place and buy in. You see a ton of people who have shared experiences, and there's a certain amount of good, actionable advice. And a lot of other stuff with a thin veneer of truthiness that seems to explain a lot of the things you've experienced.

In reality, it's a bit more complicated than that. I think you, and honestly most feminists, want genuine equality. I also think some women (and men, if we're being honest) whether consciously or not, take advantage of the fact that genuine equality has not been achieved for personal benefit.

In a perfect world, the Mens Rights Movement and Feminism should probably be natural allies.

[–]SpermJackalope12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]unf-unff-unfff13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What expectations you believe men have of other men?

There are no special allowances that men give to other men, either you can get shit done or you can't. This lends itself to more solidarity.

I think it's much more reasonable to say "Of course women are less likely to join the war, we have a society where they're expected to take care of the children."

It's not only society. If you go find a tribe of people in a jungle somewhere the men are going to be defending with arrows and spears and the women are going to be hiding somwhere. That's the most successful strategy for the species.

If a man and a woman go hiking in the woods and they anger a mother bear with her cubs, the best outcome for the species is to either kill the bear (unlikely) or have the man sacrifice himself for the woman.

If it's two men they live together or die together.

Women that get shit done aren't a problem, it's the ones complaining that life isn't fair.

[–]unf-unff-unfff11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

special allowances

What special allowances do men give to women? Assuming men are in a position to 'give special allowances' to women also assumes an imbalance of power, if men and women were equal there wouldn't be any special allowances to make. Please look into benevolent sexism.

It's not only society. If you go find a tribe of people in a jungle somewhere the men are going to be defending with arrows and spears and the women are going to be hiding somwhere. That's the most successful strategy for the species.

This scenario doesn't pertain to the vast majority of people on earth, especially people having discussions about gender dynamics on reddit as that requires a high level privilege. You're reducing humanity to a pre-civilized state when you make comparisons like this, which is far removed from the reality most people live in.

If a man and a woman go hiking in the woods and they anger a mother bear with her cubs, the best outcome for the species is to either kill the bear (unlikely) or have the man sacrifice himself for the woman. If it's two men they live together or die together.

This example is completely ridiculous. It assumes that the majority of people behave in a way that results in the best outcome for the species, we're not part of a hive mind. Secondly it sexistly assumes that all men are legion and blindly loyal to one another based on their maleness, to the point that they'll literally live and die together. The reality is this scenario would vary wildly depending upon the personalities of the individuals involved, you're basically expressing what you believe the best outcome would be personally and it has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

[–]SpermJackalope10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can you think of an example where men die in order to save women? How about the Titanic?

In most maritime disasters, men survived at higher rates than women and children. Can you think of an example where women die in order to save men? Oh, here's one.

It sounds like you don't understand what men expect from other men.

Sacrifice and death? I'm pretty sure that's not a normal expectation.

Women have equal rights, you want equal outcomes.

I don't have the right to full control of my own body. I don't think equal outcomes should be provided, but I think equal opportunities should be.

You may be physically stronger than most men, but most women are weaker than most men.

So, you judge men by how physically strong they are? Seriously?

The universe doesn't care about pleasant.

The universe isn't fucking alive. People care about equality.

[–]TRP_[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Did you know many police departments work to recruit more female candidates because women are generally found less threatening which aides in deescalating situations? Did you know that crime rates have been dropping steadily since police forces started accepting women? (No, I don't believe this is due to women in the police force. But it certainly indicates they aren't causing a crimepocalypse with their lower pull-up scores.)

Have you ever seen an actual news article or study about women in these jobs being unable to perform? Have you ever heard a police commissioner or general or fire chief talking about how low-quality female members of their force prevent the group from working as effectively? Because I never have.

Maybe you're just making up problems that don't exist? Maybe you're doing this in a desperate attempt to justify your prejudices?

[–][deleted] -3 points-3 points-3 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]luthiessong16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet you come to a debate sub to try to prove your perspective without any evidence.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with how to conduct a proper debate before commenting on a thread. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to prove anything aside from your own life experience. It cannot be used to draw massive generalizations about half the population. Similarly, unsupported blog posts by internet users are not sufficient evidence for claims - anyone can say anything online. And even bloggers with a significant following do not speak from a place of legitimate authority (aside from their own mind or bubble). They are, again, providing anecdotal evidence (that can't even be substantiated because a third party cannot verify whether the poster experienced what he did or not).

I would suggest providing journal articles or psychological studies to help substantiate your claims instead of throwing those claims out into a debate sub expecting them to not be challenged.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]unf-unff-unfff6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]luthiessong2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely, I would never claim RPS advocates an anti-suffrage movement because he's been clear on that point repeatedly.

But there's no contradiction here. It is possible to think both that women should not vote (which he says explicitly is a red pill belief) and that we should not have a movement to take away women's suffrage (perhaps for pragmatic reasons?).

He never seems willing to explain what his words do mean, except as above by saying what they do not mean: "we're just joking, we don't honestly believe those things."

Well, it's confusing to have "women are immature" both in your sidebar and in your comment history, and in both cases to go to great lengths to carefully explain why that is true through a careful construction of evolutionary biology, and go to great lengths to explain why that position is OK ("it's not inferiority, just difference"), but then claim you do not believe that position.

He can claim I'm misrepresenting all he wants, but I'm really trying to understand. His unwillingness to explain this suggests, to me (so long as the topic is our perception) that he is not being sincere.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobotPartsCorp5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RobotPartsCorp3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, but a basic level of critical thinking would be nice.

Let's look at what you've said:

The goal for them is to be successful as a man with women.

How many articles on their frontpage right now are about seducing women? Like, that's the focus of the article, getting women. I counted one a second ago (Almost lost my marriage being a beta), yet you're arguing that this is their focus, when clearly it's more than that. How does mocking betas/feminists help get women? What does MRA have to do with getting laid? I guess you could say, "The alpha and beta examples are about the types of behavior that do/don't get you laid." I think TRP is more than just about cock in vagina action. It's about how to be an alpha male, irrespective of what your dick is up to. I would argue that these articles are about behavior in general, and not behavior related to women.

And they do cite peer reviewed studies! They get their panties in a knot every time someone cites that study that women scored 10 IQ points lower when it comes to STEM. They base a lot of their theories on evo. psyche. Someone listed a study showing a graph that plotted previous partners vs. divorce rates, and it was all "correlation equals causation!" I mean, do you go there, don't you?

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]m9lc95 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IRScientistSober4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

I know y'all aren't all the same, but I agree that the choice to subscribe to the Red Pill is a red flag for me. The tone of your subreddit is one I've often found offensive, and I don't like a lot of the things I hear you guys say about women. Actually, I don't like a lot of the things I hear you guys say about humans. We're more than our biological impulses, and the amount of focus you all put on evo-psych (especially since none/very, very few of you are actually experts on the subject) is dehumanizing. I am a fully rational, intelligent human being, and when Red Pillers laugh at the idea that NAWALT (when in reality, no two women are the same), I am turned away from the idea of talking to you all.

That all said, the fact that some of you are here to debate means that some probably are less "red" than others, since they're open to discussing their ideas and philosophies in a subreddit where they're expected to treat Blue Pillers (many of whom are women) as intellectual equals.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Well... Let's talk about NAWALT then. Actually, we ought to be tackling NAFALT, but let's stick with NAWALT for now.

What is important here, I think, is not that theredpill proclaims AWALT, but WHY theredpill has this tendency to scoff at the notion of NAWALT. Theredpill exists in response to social conditions, and those conditions are increasingly hostile to men and masculinity. As a society, we tend towards apologetics when it comes to bad female behaviour. In fact, we've gone to the point of committing a fundamental miscarriage of justice out of gender bias, and we've done so at the highest possible level. It happened where it is absolutely not supposed to happen, and as a consequence has called into disrepute the judiciary as a whole. We've abandoned the things that made us fair the moment that a woman said the right things. It didn't matter that what she said didn't have a shred of truth, the courts quite literally abandoned the pursuit of truth, and rushed to defend a woman because of her gender in a way that they would NEVER think of doing for a man.

I believe that the reason that theredpill scoffs at NAWALT is to remind men that it can happen to you too. Men need to be aware in the brave new feminist world that society almost always takes her side, even if he's done nothing wrong. To proclaim NAWALT can be, and is, used by some men as a defense mechanism. The thinking is, "she wouldn't do X! NAWALT!" Theredpill exists to say, "Don't be so sure! It CAN happen to you!"

Theredpill scoffs at NAWALT because NAWALT is often conflated into an impulse which posits that women can do no wrong. I understand that this is not what is meant by the use of NAWALT, but this is what theredpill understands when NAWALT is used. When we hear NAWALT, we hear, "put the rose coloured glasses back on when you look at women."

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

No, we ought to be tackling NAWALT. If the Red Pill addresses you as a man, then it had better address me as a woman, since I'm a person and not an animal. NAFALT goes right back to the dehumanization I mentioned in my last comment.

I understand why you use NAWALT, but I think your cautionary tales go too far. They seem, to me, to advocate eliminating all trust from relationships. It seems that it doesn't matter how long you've known a woman, or how well you know her, or how healthy your relationship is, there will always be a large section of the Red Pill saying never give commitment, never get married, because "it can happen to you!" I think that it's an unhealthy way to approach relations with the opposite sex. I've been in shitty relationships with men, but I haven't let that stop me from being in a healthy relationship with my current boyfriend, because I know that NAMALT. If I couldn't trust him not to be like that, we wouldn't be together.

To my knowledge, the majority of rapes are man on woman (if that isn't true, feel free to correct me. Even if that's not true, it's "commonly held knowledge," so I'm going to proceed as if it's a fact for this example.). If another woman came up to me and said I should be constantly wary of my boyfriend of a year and a half because men are more likely to rape me, I would tell her a) that she's a presumptuous bitch who doesn't know me or my personal life, and b) that he's not like that. NAMALT. If I turned out to be wrong, it would be awful and terrible, but it wouldn't be cause for me to remind every woman everywhere that they're making mistakes by being around men because men are shitty--it would mean that my (by that time, ex-)boyfriend would have been a shitty person. Just him.

I understand being guarded, but I think NAWALT goes too far and even hurts people. I think it keeps men away from healthy, trusting relationships.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Psychobiology2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Of course anyone getting off for crimes they've committed is terrible. Although things like this are telling. And parts of his statement here:

In fact, we've gone to the point of committing a fundamental miscarriage of justice out of gender bias, and we've done so at the highest possible level. It happened where it is absolutely not supposed to happen, and as a consequence has called into disrepute the judiciary as a whole. We've abandoned the things that made us fair the moment that a woman said the right things. It didn't matter that what she said didn't have a shred of truth, the courts quite literally abandoned the pursuit of truth, and rushed to defend a woman because of her gender in a way that they would NEVER think of doing for a man.

can be applied to the legal system as a whole.

[–]SpermJackalope8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

One of the most interesting tidbits about the lighter prison sentences women typically receive is that the greater the proportion of female judges in a district, the lower the gender disparity for that district. Light sentences for women are the benevolent sexism of male judges not thinking of women as "really" dangerous, violent, competent in their criminality ect. They are not created by feminism or women, but by men working off of anti-feminist gender norms.

And seriously, y'all are actually claiming men are never unjustly defended and let off in the legal system? Ben Rothlesberger. OJ Simpson. Stuebenville. The Glen Ridge rape of a mentally challenged girl. The Cleveland, Texas rape of an 11yo. Dominique Strauss-Kahn. This is an in-depth series a Cleveland, Ohio newspaper did on the systematic failure to investigate rape charges in their city for years.

If that one case somehow proves the legal system supports women because of their gender and rushes to punish men . . . How do all these things happen?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Federal district court studies have not found consistent differences between male and female judges (see George, 2001, for a literature survey; see, e.g., Ashenfelter et al., 1995).4 Two courts of appeals studies, however, found that female circuit judges were more sympathetic to sex discrimination cases, but found little evidence of other differences (Crowe, 1999; Songer et al. 1994). 5 Steffensmeier and Herbert (1999), in a study of Pennsylvania criminal cases, found that female judges tend to sentence offenders more severely, were more likely to incarcerate minorities, and were less likely to incarcerate women.

There's no way I have time to read all of that, but so far this is on the first page. If you could maybe guide me to a page # or point out exactly what drew you to this conclusion:

One of the most interesting tidbits about the lighter prison sentences women typically receive is that the greater the proportion of female judges in a district, the lower the gender disparity for that district. Light sentences for women are the benevolent sexism of male judges not thinking of women as "really" dangerous, violent, competent in their criminality ect. They are not created by feminism or women, but by men working off of anti-feminist gender norms.

id really appreciate it.

And seriously, y'all are actually claiming men are never unjustly defended and let off in the legal system? Ben Rothlesberger. OJ Simpson. Stuebenville. The Glen Ridge rape of a mentally challenged girl.

I never claimed anything like that. Maybe the person you were replying to did? I don't see where.

If that one case somehow proves the legal system supports women because of their gender and rushes to punish men . . . How do all these things happen?

Again, I'm not suggesting that men don't get off, I don't know why that's a point of contention here.

EDIT: I seem to have found what you're referencing?

Second, the greater the percentage of female judges on the district’s bench, the longer the sentences received by female offenders. The size of the coefficient on Female*%Female in Column 2 is .064. If we boldly make an out-of-sample prediction, this suggests that a completely female district bench would result in an average sentence of 6.4 months longer for female offenders than in an all-male district. This would basically eliminate the estimated gender disparity of 7.6 months. This finding is replicated in Columns 3, 4, and 5. Such an interpretation may not be valid simply because it is out-of-sample and because a more female bench may affect male judges’ attitudes toward women in a legal setting.

[–]SpermJackalope5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

How is this description different from any other affirmative defense? I'm not very familiar with the case.

A lot of killing is legal. Killing in self defense, killing in war. Insanity pleas, statute of limitations.

Defendants can admit to the facts that constitute the crime and still be acquitted, for lots of reasons. This case may have used a bad reason ("duress"... like, self defense? don't know what the judge thought). Or it may have incorrect reached an affirmative defense (so "duress" is acceptable but this wasn't a case of it).

That doesn't mean the trial is no longer about truth.

Your original statement makes it sound like this created a new legal principle where a woman merely claiming abuse is sufficient for affirmative defense of murder charges. That's clearly not the case so I don't know what you meant.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How is this description different from any other affirmative defense? I'm not very familiar with the case.

The issue here is that it's an affirmative defense without a shred of evidence. A defense essentially based on "feels." And the biggest problem here is that the Supreme Court effectively upheld this defense.

Defendants can admit to the facts that constitute the crime and still be acquitted, for lots of reasons.

I understand that.

Your original statement makes it sound like this created a new legal principle where a woman merely claiming abuse is sufficient for affirmative defense of murder charges. That's clearly not the case so I don't know what you meant.

It pretty much did. The evidence shows that the so-called "Battered woman" defense was allowed to be used successfully without a shred of evidence. In fact, the evidence shows something else, the evidence shows that there was essentially no way that the husband could possibly be a threat. Yet, the battered woman defense was accepted, and the Supreme Court granted a stay. All on her say-so. And instead of point the finger where it belongs, at the person conspiring to commit murder, we pointed the finger at... the police?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/15/jonathan-kay-decision-to-clear-woman-who-hired-hit-man-sets-dangerous-precedent/

The justices also castigated the local RCMP for failing to respond adequately to Mr. Ryan’s supposed “reign of terror,”

That would be something! Except that there was no "reign of terror" at all, as we shall see.

But let's stick with the SCC decision for now.

For example, Mr. Ryan’s violent and threatening behaviour included outbursts at least once a week, where he would throw things at the respondent’s head, physically assault her and threaten to kill her (trial judgment, at para. 17).

Really? Not that it could be applied but umm... Everybody needs to realize that this same guy has full custody of his daughter. Not joint. Not partial. He has full custody of his daughter.

The respondent testified that Mr. Ryan often told her that he would kill her and their daughter if she ever tried to leave him (at para. 33), and that he would “burn the fucking house down” while she and her daughter were inside (para. 45).

About that last bit? Yeah, he lived two hours away at the time.

From the National Post:

Nicole Doucet and Michael Ryan lived 180 km away from one another.

*

on November 23, 2007, Ms. Ryan phoned police to say Mr. Ryan was threatening to burn down her house (police located her estranged husband at his home, a two-hour drive away).

The very first sentence of the Supreme Court's decision is wrong.

R was the victim of a violent, abusive and controlling husband. * She believed that he would cause her and their daughter serious bodily harm or death and that she had no safe avenue of escape other than having him killed.

She actually had no reasonable cause to believe this. She lied, and it was accepted by the SCC.

In addition.

The circumstances of this case are exceptional and warrant a stay of proceedings.

Excuse me? This statement is completely unrelated to reality. There are zero exceptional circumstances here.

Although the appeal should be allowed, it would not be fair to subject R to another trial. The abuse she suffered and the protracted nature of these proceeding have taken an enormous toll on her.

There was no abuse. The SCC is accepting her word alone.

It strains credulity that this man was both abusive, threatening, etc, AND somehow retains full custody of his daughter, who lives with him now in Pembroke Ontario.

National Post again:

Yet, rather than praise RCMP officers for preventing a murder, the courts, the government of Nova Scotia and the media all pointed blame at the Mounties, suggesting police ignored distress calls from Ms. Doucet prior to her crime.

They did what now?

In fact, Ms. Doucet repeatedly told police, and then a psychologist, that she hadn’t been brutalized by Mr. Ryan at all, and refused the offer of a protection order when the RCMP offered it.

Okay, so really, this whole sad incident should be laid at the fault of the RCMP? um... No.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/10/report-says-nova-scotia-rcmp-didnt-fail-to-protect-woman-who-claimed-spousal-abuse-in-hit-men-case/

But the findings of the complaints commission — a body independent of the RCMP itself — directly contradict Ms. Doucet’s claims that she had repeatedly sought, and was denied, police help.

I conclude that the RCMP acted reasonably in each of its dealings with Ms. Doucet and her family, and did not fail to protect her.”

"when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Here's what I'm getting at. National Post again.

Thus did our country’s highest court create a precedent whereby a woman caught trying to arrange the murder of her estranged and geographically distant husband can be set free on the basis of unproven, and apparently dubious, claims of past domestic abuse.

This isn't the only awful decision that the SCC has handed down recently, but it stands out as the worst I can ever recall. It's a colossal clusterfuck of error upon error, and now that the facts are known, they're irrelevant. It's not that I have a burning need to see Nicole Ryan in jail. It's that the reasons cited show that our justice is no longer justice at all.

[–]SpermJackalope2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (35 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe you.

That's OK, you're free to believe whatever you like.

This post has 33 upvotes.

What?

The implications demand oppression.

How so? Do you think women were oppressed in the last two thousand years?

If you mean 'some percentage of the men who subscribe to TRP ideology have slept with more women subsequent to subscribing to the ideology' I accept that.

That's all it's for.

If you mean 'they have become more moral, intellectually and emotionally healthier, better realized people' then they've done it by accident.

That's subjective, and who the fuck do you think you are to tell other people how they should be? Because of what you want them to be?

Women that get shit done have never had a problem. It's the ones that want everything to be "fair" that are making all the noise. Life isn't fair, deal with it.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobotPartsCorp9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, society has progressed to the point where life is really easy. No need to kill or grow your own food, or fight for the most part. This is vastly different than most of human existance. It used to be the case that men were needed as provider-protectors. The human limbic system hasn't changed in the last hundred years or even in the last hundred thousand. That's still what's attractive.

We used to have a system where men had all the control, and men had all the responsibility. We're not needed for our primary purpose anymore.

Now women want to be "equal", well what does that mean? It means they want to have all the privileges that gave men control back when it was necessary. That's all fine and dandy. But there hasn't been any balancing of the responsiblities. Men are still the ones responsible for going to war. Men still do most of the dangerous jobs, we're still majority of the people willing to do it. And what do we get for it? Men aren't respected in our society.

This is clearly out of balance in some way, as shown by the current divorce rate. What is it 50%?

These people are fantasising about how it was 150 years ago when men were needed and respected.

Well what is the solution? Is there one? We might have to wait until society colapses, just like Rome did.

[–]RobotPartsCorp7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists have fought for the right to join all branches of the military and they are opening up to women, because it is hard to fight wars alongside men when you are not allowed to.

As far as dangerous jobs go, those who are qualified and want to should have all the protections in place for them to do their job as safe as possible. No woman is fighting against that. What dangerous job do you do for a living? And those men are not respected? Could you explain further?

The divorce rate is high, yes. But I am not sure why a high divorce rate shows an imbalance of equality. I do not think anyone should be forced to stay in a bad marriage.

And you, as a human, are needed, but your purpose doesn't have to be built only on strength anymore, unless you want it to, that's a good thing, especially if you are not strong. How do you not have purpose? Do you feel that women having a purpose takes away a mans purpose?

Our technology has changed so we don't need men killing food all day just as we don't need women picking berries all day. We can instead focus on our skills and talents and have jobs based on those, and intellect. Isn't that a good thing? I wouldn't want to live on a society that I would have to rely on protection from my husband, I would rather us spend our time on fun things, on leisure time that we earned with our hard work. He has a purpose, we both do, the purposes have changed and do not rely on our physical abilities but rather rely on our intellect and skills we developed. I just don't see that as a bad thing at all. Do you?

[–]SpermJackalope7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpermJackalope9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]historyhillBlue Pill Wife5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Blue pillers: do you assume all red pillers are the same?
Author	TRP_
Upvotes	1
Comments	128
Date	August 29, 2013 10:50 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1lbmws/blue_pillers_do_you_assume_all_red_pillers_are/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/blue-pillers-do-you-assume-all-red-pillers-are-the.286835 https://theredarchive.com/post/286835

Comments