Re: the "Askwomen on being a creep" post. Women resort to calling men creeps could deal with the situation better.

[–]absolutebeginners 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

It isn't a woman's responsibility to be your therapist. Realize that your actions have consequences and you can't control how other people are going to react to certain behaviors. Maybe she had a stalker in the past...the behaviors exhibited in the referenced post are incredibly stalker-like, and would be terrifying for someone who has dealt with it in the past.

Women often let down men with subtle hints, because there are many men who will react to rejection with anger and sometimes violence. That, or they won't listen anyway and continue pursuit. Ask any adult women and I'm guessing the majority of them have experienced this to some degree. Its much easier to slowly fade away/give subtle hints so as not to provoke anger. Women are most often physically weaker than men and do not have the same luxuries in pissing off a member of the opposite sex like a man might.

Its simple really: don't do things that are going to creep a girl out. If she rejects you or cancels plans twice, then get over it. If she wants to contact you she will. If you want to give it a third go, tell her how you feel, explain that you won't be angry, but want to know if the feelings are mutual. If not, don't be angry. Just say ok and walk away.

[–]UrbanSledge[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]UrbanSledge[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Women often let down men with subtle hints, because there are many men who will react to rejection with anger and sometimes violence.

Only a minority. If theres anything that would make a man such inclined to react violently and angrily though, its demonizing him as a creep. This seems like a rationalization to avoid empathizing with men with poor social skills. Sure there are real and dangerous creeps, but they actually aren't that common. Your perspective is just so woman-centric that it totally lacks empathy for men.

Women are most often physically weaker than men and do not have the same luxuries in pissing off a member of the opposite sex like a man might.

Yeah well, we are more likely to be assaulted, and people of the same sex are more likely to hurt us. Try to get out of your victim complex about women.

Its simple really: don't do things that are going to creep a girl out.

Creepiness is subjective, and often what's harmless may be percieved as creepy by a woman who would react positively to the same behaviour if she actually found the guy attractive. Its more a shaming tactic than anything.

[–]absolutebeginners 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Spoken like a true fucking creep.

You have no empathy for such men. You are exactly the one of the vicious women I was talking about, who demonize men who make them subjectively feel uncomfortable, instead of trying to understand them. You don't know anything about me.

Men will often react angry when rejected and when they feel their delicate ego has been bruised.

Its pretty clear you are just spouting modern/radical feminist ideology. Thats why you have such contempt for men, and such an us and them mentality.

Like I said, ask some adult women if they've experienced something similar.

Oh I see, because personal experience is all that matters and the world revolves around women.

I empathize plenty with men and men who want to be better with women.

Given everything else you've said, thats a lie. Even if you believe it about yourself.

I don't empathize with people that treat women like they owe them something.

I never said women owed men anything.

[–]absolutebeginners 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]absolutebeginners 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]absolutebeginners 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]amnes1ac 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crosstitution 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crosstitution 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not over reacting. If it seems to you like I'm venting emotionally, you are getting the wrong impression. I'm saying this calmly.

You dont understand how women are afraid of telling men to back off because of the potential back lash.

Don't conflate all women with your personal paranoia.

Also women are taught to be polite and quiet

Oh really?! Tell me about those classes at school where women were brainwashed to be quiet and polite and men were brainwashed to be brash and aggressive. This was never taught! Women do not act all quiet and polite in our society anyway, so if women are taught that, it doesn't work. We don't live in 1700's Europe you know.

Also women are taught to be polite and quiet and which is why so many of then dont want to be blunt.

A lot of women are just naturally averse to being frank, and its a pity, because being frank is in a way, more polite and kind than insincere politeness or subtle avoidant hints.

What about men who genuinely don't realize that their approach comes across as unpleasant or creepy for the woman on the receiving end, but if they knew, would be mortified? Like for example, a nerdy socially awkward gug who likes a guy but doesn't know what to say so kind of edges towards her on the couch, or touches a woman on the arm in a club or something. They don't you are supposed to start with talking, and are not sure where the boundaries are. Maybe they are slightly aspergic, or they just can't read body language very well, and doesn't know how to talk ro women, but the effect is, they don't know how they come across, and the correct response isn't to demonize them or to shame them socially behind his back 'omageerrd sister, he is sooo crrreeepy'. Such a guy might learn later, a few years later, how better to talk women and realize that his past actions undermined him and made some women view him as a creep. But if a woman or women get caught up in the is ideaological perspective where men, even shy nerdy awkward guys, are a threat to be shamed if they make them feel uncomfortable, the guy might become bitter and drawn to negative ideologies like MGTOW...Ideologies that offer a victim complex about men being victims, parallel to the poison of modern feminism.

Its much better to just be clear about not being interested without being unnecessarily harsh or passive aggressive. And while women are of course not obliged to do it, it would be kind to give constructive advice to such a man about how talk to women, instead of saying 'ohmageerd back off you creep, get the fuck out of my personal space' or saying nasty things about him behind his back.

[–]Crosstitution 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Maybe they are slightly aspergic

nope u lost credibility (not like u had much to begin with). STOP using autistic people as a straw man argument. Autism is a huge spectrum and each autistic person acts different.....they are not all the same and don't have the same issues.

the guy might become bitter and drawn to negative ideologies like MGTOW...Ideologies that offer a victim complex about men being victims, parallel to the poison of modern feminism.

like i said, it is not women's responsibility to prevent men and teach them to not act like this. Like how dumb do u think men are??? that they are just gonna go MGTOW after one bad encounter? Men are smarter than you think...and a decent man who wants to better himself is not going to get bitter after one stupid incident at a bar. If he does then that's his own damn problem and he should get some therapy for low self-esteem. Women should not be stepping on eggshells thinking "if i am not upfront with this guy then hes going to go MGTOW or red pill!". That is idiotic. Their behaviour and thoughts is their own and they need to own up to.

Not everything women do is with done with malicious intent

Women don't need to teach men how to talk, if they want to that is their own choice but don't expect every woman to feel like it is their responsibility to do so.

(Here are some things about the portrayal of female passivity in literature. Literature effects culture and beahviour http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/5/82.05.06.x.html

http://www.dauntseys.org/resource.aspx?id=62146

Here is something on gender stereotypes: http://www.ablongman.com/partners_in_psych/PDFs/Brannon/Brannon_ch07.pdf )

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

nope u lost credibility

Oh come on thats an overreaction! People like that do exist, and may have such a problem, theres nothing wrong with alluding to this and its not reasonable it dismiss an argument for alluding to it.

like i said, it is not women's responsibility to prevent men and teach them to not act like this.

And like I've said, it never claimed that it was.

Like how dumb do u think men are??? that they are just gonna go MGTOW after one bad encounter?

No obviously not. I also think things that might push men in that kind of direction might be frustration after having acted as a spineless orbiter giving loads of gifts and attention to women not even well suited to them, and getting bitter about it and blaming women instead of taking individual responsibility. And pointing the blame externally is always a bad idea relative to individual responsibility. Why women are probably better off not getting too much into feminism.

Men are smarter than you think

I know. But I'm saying that some can be pushed in that direction. Ultimately it is of course up to them as individuals. You are kind of blowing the significance of my argument out of proportion, and overreacting to it.

Women should not be stepping on eggshells thinking "if i am not upfront with this guy then hes going to go MGTOW or red pill!".

Obviously, I agree with you. I believe you might have misunderstood what I was conveying.

Not everything women do is with done with malicious intent

Obviously, I agree. I never indicated I thought otherwise.

Women don't need to teach men how to talk

I never said women did have to, I just said its a kind thing to do.

if they want to that is their own choice but don't expect every woman to feel like it is their responsibility to do so.

I never said I thought that or that men as a whole think that.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/5/82.05.06.x.html

There is no pay gap, its a myth. The flawed statistics that apparently indicate that its real do not account for women making different life choices, like having kids, and prioritizing careers more, and being less likely to be ambitious, and if they did they pay gap would disappear in the data.

Year after year the students are presented with material that inculcates the male-superior/female-inferior tenet.

There is no such material! We are not taught that men and women are inferior. This is just inferred by feminist ideologues reading sexism into things where there is none. Also some of the textx are historical texts, and people are taught such literature not in the sense of 'this is how things are', but more like, 'this is how people viewed the world at the time'. Even plays like 'The Taming of the Shrew' are thus harmless.

Also people generally recognise sterotypes as just sterotypes, and often find humour in mocking stereotypes.

Those links are just radfem indoctrination. And you cite them like they are somehow evidence, its absurd. You might as well be citing the bible like a creationist. This is just typical of how feminist theory reads sexism between the lines into things where there is none. No wonder your perspective is so skewed if you have been indoctrinated into such a women centric victim narrative of an ideology.

[–]Crosstitution 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are a fool if you do not think literature effects behaviour and culture. Literature is directly influenced by the culture and values of the time period.

I took a class on folktales and the main premise of folk tales was to teach lessons. If we look at Charles Perrault's version of Cinderella (The most famous version of Cinderella) it is starkly different than that of The Grim Brother's tales. Charles Perrault was bourgeoisie and was teaching upper class women how to act, all women wanted to be upper class so these ideals were seen as important.

I have the book Folk & Fairy Tales with me right now (Edited by Martin Hallet and Barbara Karasek) 4th ED.

Lets look at the Charles Perrault version. At the end of each of his fairy tales he states a Moral and I quote " Beauty is a fine thing in a woman; it will always be admired. But charm is beyond price and worth more in the long run[...]Lovely ladies, this gift is worth more than a fancy hairdo; to win a heart, to reach a happy ending, charm is the true gift[...]" (Page 107)

In Little Red Riding hood (again the Perrault version is most famous) Moral: "Children, especially pretty, nicelt brought up young ladies, ought never to talk to strangers; if they are foolish enough to do so, they should not be surprised if some greedy wolf consumes them" (page 35)

Those links are just radfem indoctrination

There we are again, using the scary 'radfem' label. You label anything feminist if it does not agree with you, what a sheltered life you must live in. Keeping thinking that stereotypes don't effect behaviour because they really do. Racist people base their racist acts off of stereotypes of the people they oppress...stereotypes shape many things.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are a fool if you do not think literature effects behaviour and culture.

Sure it does, although its more a reflection of the societies and cultures they were written in, than a determining factor of them. And generally, when taught they are taught not prescriptively or normatively how things are or should be, but as the author saw it, or the characters see it.

You can;t just do feminist analysis of texts, reading sexism into things where there is none, from inferring sexist motivations and meanings from nothing, and from that accurately say that we are taught sexist beliefs. It simply does not make sense.

I took a class on folktales and the main premise of folk tales was to teach lessons. If we look at Charles Perrault's version of Cinderella (The most famous version of Cinderella) it is starkly different than that of The Grim Brother's tales. Charles Perrault was bourgeoisie and was teaching upper class women how to act, all women wanted to be upper class so these ideals were seen as important.

It was more just a reflection of the time and the author. Modern women do not read Cinderella and think that they have to be quiet and chaste as a result. Its absurd.

In Little Red Riding hood (again the Perrault version is most famous) Moral: "Children, especially pretty, nicelt brought up young ladies, ought never to talk to strangers; if they are foolish enough to do so, they should not be surprised if some greedy wolf consumes them"

Well that is just about making sensible precautions so as to not get hurt or killed or abused.

There we are again, using the scary 'radfem' label.

Its clearly identifiable in the references to what is basically the feminist notion of the patriarchy in the links you showed me. The rhetoric is pretty much the same too. I can recognize radfem arguments, I've encountered them before.

You label anything feminist if it does not agree with you

You have no basis for that. Do I label the red pill feminist? No. I label things feminist or radfem when they meet the definition and patterns of what those things are and are like.

Keeping thinking that stereotypes don't effect behaviour because they really do.

Keep thinking they make a huge difference and subconsciously mind control us when they really don't.

Racist people base their racist acts off of stereotypes of the people they oppress

No, racists believe it because of the us and them mentality, and hatred and dehumanization of the enemy group, and scapegoating, and pointing the blame away from themselves.

[–]RedPillDetox 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

But its ridiculous, and now I look at it has a slight social justicey bias. It should be neutral, but it not with all that about being a 'safe space' 'realizing you thought processes were problematic' I mean really? And why be so trigger happy with deleting posts? It should be about free discussion shouldn't it, and fairly loose parameters as long as its about exredpill topics. I like to make helpful suggestions here for red pillers considering abandoning the red pill, but I'm not fond of the kind or /r/BluePill kind of smug feminist vibe I'm getting from this, like, 'us enlightened feminist are teaching you how not to be such a problematic scumbag'.

I aprove of the basic aim of the subreddit, but the way you seem to be going about it is seems to be not entirely pure, but rather tinged with an ideological mission.

And your complaining about so called 'derailing' reminds me of the cringey and infamous article 'derailing for dummies'. 'The conversation' is not sinnful exrepillers being preached at, and any change from the official line being 'derailing'. Can't you reconsider your approach? And can't you stop accusing me of saying something I've explicitly said the opposite of. You say 'women aren't obliged to do x', i say 'I never said they are', you say 'women aren't obliged to do x', again, and again I repudiate that claim and clarify that I actually agree with you on that issue. But you continue to insist, despite that, that I do think women are obliged to do x. But if female feminists say what they think men should do, and what would be nice for them to do, in their opinion, thats fine with you, but if a man says what he would prefer women do in a certain situation, they all of a sudden you think he thinks hes superior to her and she should be obliged to do what he wants. Its a double standard.

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This sub is on an ideological mission to expunge RP and misogyny from those who have been brainwashed. Yes, I am a feminist and the subreddit assumes feminism is a positive force for women and for society at large.

Oh god. You're a puritan. I was opposed to modern feminism (which has been co-opted by radical feminism) before I dipped one foot into the 'red pill' and backed the fuck out when I realized its true nature, but now, I'm still opposed to radical/modern feminism. I agree with equality before the law, but beyond that, I'm agianst feminism. Its like an ideology based on the idea that women in the west are inherently oppressed by a patriarchy that everyone subconciously by effective mind control perpetuate. Its like the neo-marxist theory of Critical Theory, and Post Structuralism (many radical feminist theorists are explicitly posts structuralists), and other poisonous ideologies in that it postulates an unflasfiable invisible system of oppression embedded into language and the mind. Its just compelte nonsense. Why can't you believe in equality before the law and leave it at that?

Why do you have to try to infect and co-opt every movement and group and past time you come across in society? Why should we have puritans trying to expunge sexual representation of women from games and tv etc? Why should we have them very loosely interpreting and reading bigotry into everything, including the most tirvial and benign things, while telling everyone to 'check their privilege', and shaming those who don't toe the line? Why do you think the red oill and mgtow even exist? Radical feminism! You created it, they are the inevitable reaction to your ideology that demonized men and encourages male feminists to be self flagellating. Its no coincidence that feminist women often find male feminists discussing and prefer non-feminist men. I am not going to be ashamed for my sexuality as a man! I am not going to be ashamed for checking out women and admiring their bodies! I am not going to back down to those puritans who vilify all those who don;t toe the line and tare trying to reshape society in accordance with their ideological crusade.

This subreddit could be something great, but you are spoiling it with ideological puritianism.

You're epic hatred and misrepresentation of feminism

Its not hatred, and not misrepresentation. Its rational fear to a real threat to society. My leasure is under threat of being sanitized and expunged of anything that offends radical feminists. I don't want games and show and media to have no sexual representation of women because apparently it 'objectifies' when it actually merely focuses on desirable features, I don't want it without political incorrect jokes, or references, or characters. I want them filled to the brim with such things. Crude, politically incorrect, fully of nudity and violence and gore etc. I don;t want my free time ruined by feminists, and I don't want feminists to shame me for saying things they don't like, with their ridiculously broad way of reading sexism and racism into things where its not there due to their ideological lens that tells them its everywhere.

you haven't overcome those lessons you learned from RP

I have. My views are actually the same as they were before my month-long interest in the red pill a year or two ago.

As far as this post, it has literally nothing to do with red pill.

It does, because this subreddit is about this, but comes at it from a distorted angle. Thats how this discussion is relevant. You need to fundamentally change the way you go about moderating this subreddit. Its not really about the red pill, its about your ideological puritan crusading.

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why can't you believe in equality before the law and leave it at that?

Because de jure "equality before the law" is not de facto equality because of human nature and bias. How is patriarchy not falsifiable? Go ahead and do a study showing me where the vast majority of elected leaders are women--there, patriarchy doesn't exist.

I'm not a puritan...I don't agree or associate with radfem ideology (which you should stop conflating with mainstream feminism--they're not the same). I don't want to ban porn, i don't get offended at political incorrectness, i support legalization of prostitution, i don't see sexism everywhere i look. I simply believe that society is patriarchal and women have had the short end of the stick for centuries, and still do today, and believe men have a hard time understanding women's unique struggles.

This sub is whatever I want it to be. You don't have to post here and i'd prefer you didn't. And yes, as i said this sub is for ideological crusading against redpill and what it stands for (including anti-feminism), but it has nothing to do with puritanism, i don't know where you got that idea.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because de jure "equality before the law" is not de facto equality because of human nature and bias.

We don't need defacto equality. I don't know why so many people assume we need it. As long as we have equality before the law, which is more a matter of liberty, its ok. As long as the rising tide brings up all boats, its ok, even if some boats rise faster than others. Reality is chaotic, and inevitably some people will succeed more than others. Theres nothing wrong with that. Freedom is what matters, freedom from - the negative conception of liberty - not equality.

But you are right about something. It is in part due to human nature - or rather, due to differences in human nature and psychology and mental wiring between men and women, generally speaking. Of course there are exceptions and it variety in degree, but men and women tend to be different. Men and women tend to be better at different kind sof things. For example men tend to be better systemizers, on average, but women are better at other things. Neither sex is better overall, but men and women have strengths and weaknesses. This means that men and women make different life choices, including women being less likely to be asambitious, and more likely to have time off for kids and prioritize family more and careers less, while rpefering careers that tend to pay less. The net result of this is, that due to differences between men and women, and that women have kids, they are less successful and are found less in positions of power and leadership. All without any patriarchy, and without any discrimination. And also, correlation is not causation, you are just assuming the causation you have been indoctrinated to believe.

I'm not a puritan...I don't agree or associate with radfem ideology

But you do because you believe in the patriarchy. if you believe in the patriarchy, you are a radical feminist. Whereas if you just believe in equality under the law, you are a liberal or classical feminist. Although, the movement, theory and ideology has moved away from that and discarded that, so its arguably not feminism at all. Anyway we don't need that, since classical liberalism has it covered, and is all about equality under the law, and individual freedom. Only, it doesn't directly cater to women exclusively, which is good.

which you should stop conflating with mainstream feminism--they're not the same

They weren't the same, but radical feminists took over the movement, which is why most feminists believe in the patriarchy. And believing in the patriarchy makes one a radical feminist. Femnism became synonymous with radical feminism the moment the majority of the feminist theorists and key activists believed in the patriarchy. Maybe around the mid-second wave.

i don't get offended at political incorrectness

So I take it you are ok with rape jokes then? I'd be surprised if you are. I certainly am.

I don't want to ban porn

But let me guess, you think its 'objectifying'?

I simply believe that society is patriarchal and women have had the short end of the stick for centuries

Yes they did, but even then its not quite true. Women were rulers, just less often, and often had soft power, and could ruin reputations in the court, and they had a lot of indirect control in the houldhold, especially when they got together. They had a lot more power than you think, its just that there was division of labour by the sexes. As youtuber and historian Lindy Beige explains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgovSZ32Yg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSX7iT0n65Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPmbDPsyt6I

Yes women were treated badly in the past, but so were most men. And its men who were sent off to war to die in droves, since they were expendable, whereas women were valuable and needed to rear children. The feminist narrative about how women in the past were treated is terribly simplistic, and in many ways, false.

This sub is whatever I want it to be. You don't have to post here and i'd prefer you didn't. And yes, as i said this sub is for ideological crusading against redpill and what it stands for (including anti-feminism)

The red pill doesn't stand for anti-feminism, its an ideology that happens to be anti-feminist. But just as being antifascist doesn't make you a communist just because communists are anti-fascists, being anti-feminist doesn't make someone a red piller, or have anything to do with them. I despise their ideology and what it stands for. Its the male equivalent of radical feminism.

My antifeminism, anf the antifeminism of many reasonable people, is simply opposition to radical feminism (as i see it), and what modern feminism has become. I don't want the feminist crusade to happen. I want it to end. I view it as toxic and destructive. Its not even about equality anymore. Its about an invisible patriarchy that has to be overthrown, apparently.

but it has nothing to do with puritanism, i don't know where you got that idea.

Its a metaphor. You yourself admitted to being on a feminist crusade. The term puritan is inspired by the tendency of modern feminism to try to 'cleanse' anything it comes across of anything it doesn't like, and change it to become in line with feminist ideology, if it can, while shaming those who don't toe the line. 'No you can't say that, its sexist', 'no you can't look at her like that, thats objectification', 'you saying that makes you a bigot, because', 'theres invisible sexism everywhere, you have to believe me', 'that game is sexist, it shouldn't portray women that way, it need to change', 'men need to stop doing x', etc. Are you maybe getting an impression of why it worries me. I don;t want the games of tv or whatever I like to be stripped of the things that make it fun to satisfy feminists, or to be filled with pc bullshit. They are interfering with creative license, and ruin everything they touch. This is what gamergate is really all about, gamers reacting to feminists and SJWs trying to do this. And no, its not a harrassment campaign, thats just what the media and gamerghazi nutcases repeat enough to get people to believe it.

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You said: women should be kind and understanding when letting guys down.

Yeah you do, because you're saying that it constitutes me saying women are obliged to do it, and men thinking women are inferior to me, which it does not.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that you can't expect a woman who's been frightened by someone's behavior to give a shit about their mental state.

But what if she's irrationally and unreasonably afraid in that instance. 90% of creepyness is surely in their minds. Sure there are real stalkers or guys who touch up girls in clubs, but they are not that common. And plus, its not like women don't even do creepy things.

The post you reference, the dude fucking showed up at her work--that is creepy as hell.

Yeah, that is, I don't disagree on that.

You're essentially saying that in spite of the situation, she should have gone out of her way to let him down gently. This is bullshit.

Not in that case. But still, even then, it would probably better not to be too harsh, although in such an extreme case its understandable that she didn't.

You refuse to see the other side of the coin

No, thats what you do. Your perspective is entirely gynocentric and supplicationary to women.

deal with angry and aggressive men all the time and it colors their future responses to other people.

No women don't. Angry and aggressive men aren't that common. Some women might deal with it a lot, but you can;t speak for all women, especially as a man. You would be try to speak on behalf of anti-feminist women, claiming they are oppressed, as a white knight man.

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

More women than not deal with aggressive men in my experience.

Your claims of experience are not exactly a reliable source for me.

You sure you're ex red pill?

Its a word with a specific meaning. I don't mean it the way they do, I mean it in the sense of the definition. By the way, I think their belief that 'all women are golddigging sluts incapable of love because hypergamy' is a fucking despicable idea, among other fucked up ideas they believe in. They take small nuggets of truth from science, and twist them and shoehorn them into a fucked up ideology. I am not red pill. I never really took the plunge anyway, I just put a foot in, and naively interpreted all the bad shit in the least bad way I could, then backed off.

I feel like you spit out the good parts and kept the hateful parts.

But I don't hate anyone, and despise their idea of hypergamy and AWALT. I don't have any red pill beliefs yet oddly you view me as red pill. I'm just a classical liberal/libertarian anti-feminist. I'm not even in the 'manosphere', I'm not mra, MGTOW or red pill. But I recognize the threat of feminism.

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillDetox 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Deleting posts people made in a trigger happy way for bullshit reasons like 'derailing the conversations', just because they weren't going the way he wanted and not fitting into the range of views he find acceptable. Keep in mind he even admitted that the purpose of subreddit is as a feminist crusade to purge ex-redpillers of bigotry in a zealous SJWey way.

Also, the fucking sidebar. Read it. Its ridiculous. I mean I get that the red pill version of the concept of hypergamy is fucked up, but from the sidebar its apparent he would ban anyone for saying its true. Thats going to far, its the kind overzealous moderating that ruins subreddits.

Also he said:

Attempts to derail a conversation into a defense tirade of redpill will result in deleted comments. Continued attempts will result in a ban.

Get that 'derail the conversation'? Its like its straight from an SJW manual. Its not a 'conversation', its him having an ideological crusade and being intolerant of dissent.

He said this too:

A safe space for those who think subscribing to The Red Pill (or RedPillWomen) has caused more pain than gain in their lives

A safe space? A safe space! Again, straight from an SJW handbook.

And this:

Here you can find resources on how to change the way you think about yourself, men, women and relationships. You can also share and discuss stories about how you realized your thought processes were problematic.

Do you realize how patronizing that is, how steeped in a smug /r/blue pill attitude it is? And "how your thought processes were problematic"? Problematic? Again, straight from an SJW manual.

Then theres a link to /r/creepsupport, as if all people who were once red pill, even to a slight degree, are the sort of shitheads on that /r/creepsupport who stalk women. Its really damn patronizing. And in addition to that theres a link to

Askwomen on being a creep

which is also presumptive that all exredpillers are all creeps, and very patronizing, and assuming ask women is a reliable source, and not the SJW joke that it is.

This should be a neutral subreddit for helping convince redpillers who are reconsidering their views that the red pill is a flawed damaging ideology, and generally for discussion among exredpillers about the red pill and its problems etc. Not a subreddit for feminist preaching from zealous ideological puritans.

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]UrbanSledge[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]absolutebeginners 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]UrbanSledge[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]UrbanSledge[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments